Vikings on The History Channel

[madaboutharry]

I have watched 4 seasons of Vikings and was looking forward to season 5. Am I alone in feeling that Michael Hirst, who writes the show, has lost the plot? Season 5 is awful. No Ragnar, no Rollo, no King Ecbert. Ragnar's sons can't carry the show. I can't stand the actor who plays Iver and the story line just seems like a lot of gratuitous violence. Lagertha's role seems diminished. The whole season seems off.

[Kaleva]

1. The History Channel will bring in Hitler & aliens to revive the show.

[NanceGreggs]

2. I was an avid fan ...

... but even the teasers for the new season didn't look all that engaging.

So I haven't watched any of the new season yet - figured I'd binge-watch after a few episodes. But your review has confirmed that I'll be disappointed.

No Rollo? Count me out - he was the most intriguing character (and also not hard to look at).

I think too many of these series outlive their expiration date. A lot of them are written to last two or three seasons - with a beginning, middle and end. But if they become popular, the writers just keep grinding out scripts long after they've run out of story line.

[tirebiter]

3. But Ragnar did die. As did Ecbert. Athelstan is who I miss.

We're talking history not fiction as best it can be interpreted Ivar the boneless was as he is portrayed. The stories were that he was carried into battle on a shield. The chariot is better cinematically. Rollo did go on to become a great king of France, the first ruler of Normandy. And there is a lot of violence when the fighting includes hand to hand axes and swords not to mention the Viking attitude that one only gets into Valhalla if killed in battle. Bjorn shows greater ambition and if he touches North Africa will be interesting to see, imo. How Lagertha deals with leadership and the Floki factor will also be interesting.

Addendum: For the first 4 seasons this was the Athelstan story as far as I was concerned. His capture as a monk and then going native with the Vikings and then fathering a future king was killer.

[Silver Gaia]

4. Yes, I agree with you.

This is based on actual history. It isn't fiction. They can embellish and add things, but they really do have to try to portray the historical characters as authentically as possible, so they are working within those constraints. I appreciate that they are doing a good job of sticking to historical accuracy while making it interesting.

I agree about Athelstan, too. That was pretty cool.

There's still a lot of story left to tell, but they have to build a generational bridge, so maybe we should be patient and let the storytellers set this up for us, and be mindful that these stories reflect the lives of real people.

[madaboutharry]

5. They should have slowed it down.

I would so much have liked to see more of Rollo's life in France. I think there could have been several more story lines involving Ragnar before he died. One of the characters I deeply miss is Siggy. The actress, a Canadian, left the show because she didn't like living in Ireland away from her family. I agree that Athelstan was a big contributor to the show and his absence is really felt.

For me, the jury is out on where they are going with Floki.

[Silver Gaia]

10. Floki is a historical/legendary character, too, who was

one of the first to settle Iceland, so that's where they are going with him I'm guessing this is probably the main reason for the existence of his character in the show.

Iceland is important to Viking history. It's where the Eddas (the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda) were composed, which are the main source of the Norse myths, the stories of the gods so beloved by the Floki we know.

[madaboutharry]

11. I have always loved Floki.

It is clear the story is going to be about Iceland. It is the way they get him back there that first concerned me, but it seems that Floki doesn't care much about Lagertha's opinion. That is a good thing.

[Silver Gaia]

12. Yeah, he will go back, and with a group of settlers.

So that IS going to happen, with or without Lagertha's blessings (looks like without!). His character cracks me up. That giggle... props to Gustaf Skarsgard for bringing him to life!

[hlthe2b]

16. wonder why they lost his eyeliner look from previous seasons?

symbolic?

[democratisphere]

6. Agree completely with you!

The Vikings have shown us that throughout all of history, humans are motivated by absolute power and insatiable greed and will do damn near anything to obtain it. It ain't pretty............

[marble falls]

7. No Ragnar has been too tough to take.

[hlthe2b]

8. I'm really tired of looking at the "whites" of Iver's eyes-- geebus--painful

Ragnar carried the show by himself. Lagertha is a great character and engaging as well.

I guess the gist of Vikings as far flung around the world is conveyed, but I agree it is VERY jumbled. But, I'll be patient a while

[mitch96]

13. the "whites" of Iver's eyes-

Apparently the disease that Ivar the boneless had also colored the whites of his eyes in a funky way.. I guess they are trying to address that. I find it fun to see how close to history the program gets... What was myth and what was true history ........ hummmm
m

[hlthe2b]

14. I did not know that... interesting...

[wyldwolf]

9. Agreed. Hoping they'll bring the show up a few hundred years

And let us meet Eric the Red.

[Historic NY]

15. Its slipping.....

[Drahthaardogs]

17. I found the whole concept stupid.

Vikings were not colonizers. They loved to explore, invade, take what they could and go home.

The weren't Romans.

[mitch96]

18. Au Contraire mon amis

From what I've read the Viking were trying to settle in England and Ireland.. Some sort of a land shortage in Vikingville.. Same with Iceland. They needed more room! I guess after all the rape and pillage they wanted to settle down a bit...

m

[Drahthaardogs]

19. They were also NOT awesome warriors...

They were okay, but they were not Spartans or Roman soldiers. The Frank's and the Saxons defeated them routinely

They were amazing sailors and explorers.

[mitch96]

20. The Frank's and the Saxons defeated them routinely

I wonder if the Franks ate beans??
m

[Drahthaardogs]

21. Huh?

You have never heard of the Frankish empire?

[mitch96]

22. My sick sense of humor took over..

Franks and beans?????
Yes the Frankish empire.. Charlemagne, Defeat of the "Muslim hordes" at the battle of Tours by Martel etc. Great history, sick joke...
m

[UTUSN]

23. This sounds like a suitable sub-thread in which to insert my own original joke:

A couple or three years ago there was a news item about a Viking trove having been found, one of the largest and best ever.

My first thought was, "Hmmm, I wonder who the things belonged to?!1"


***************I *keed* I *keed*!1 My history foci have never been the Vikings, don't have a particular animus, just the popular footnotes of their cleaning out monasteries and extortion for safety's sake, plus recent historical corrections have filtered down to my level about their, indeed, having made pivotal contributions and spread cultural knowledge across isolated pockets.

[VOX]

24. Travis Fimmels Ragnar was a charismatic seeker; his sons lack those qualities and have no depth.

Ragnar’s interactions with Lagertha, Athelstan and Floki had layering and depth. Ragnar was not only a warrior, but a seeker who saw beyond the bloodletting. His relationship with Ecbert was a complex mix of genuine friendship and impossible differences.

The current season is lacking the kind of personal connection as those in previous seasons. None of Ragnar’s sons possess the complexity of their father, and they do not pull us into their individual stories.

Ivar, in particular, has the shortest of emotional ranges: cruelty and rage, which get old quickly. (If I see him throw the “Kubrick look” one more time, I’ll scream: face down, forehead thrust out at 45 degrees, eyes looking upward over a sinister smile) The other sons barely register on any temperament scale.

The show’s bigger budget, for all it gives (more ships, lavish sets and costumes, lengthier, more intense action sequences), cannot generate stronger, more charismatic characters. The show’s writers appear to be saying that, for all of Ragnar’s forward-looking exploits, his sons (except Bjorn) are throwbacks: more violent, less tolerant, less imaginative, and less interested in the world around them.

I’ll nevertheless stick with the series, even though it’s lost a couple of steps. There’s still the possibility of some strange and intriguing moments between Ivar and Bishop Heamund. (But I don’t have illusions about their relationship bearing any similarities to that of Ragnar and Athelstan.)

[NewJeffCT]

29. I tend to agree

Travis Fimmel as Ragnar was the heart of the show, and I loved Ecbert and Athelstan as well and how they all interacted. They were all complex characters who made mistakes. Though, i wish we had more interaction between Ragnar and Lagertha as well.

Bjorn has his heart in the right place, but he lacks Fimmel's charisma/screen presence. Ivar is basically an asshole and I can't even remember the other's names at this time?

[VOX]

30. I actually have to look up the names of two sons...

whose presence barely registers in my consciousness.
-Ubbe, the oldest, has shown some hints of the better side of his dad— a willingness to negotiate, settle down and, while an able fighter, he’s had enough of killing.
-Hvitserk (had to look up) is the one who’s thrown in with Ivar.
-Sigurd “Snake in the Eye” was mercifully dispatched by Ivar.
-Ivar, of course, whose character desperately needs some additional dimensions.

I agree about the excellent chemistry between Ragnar and Lagartha. They were each other’s best match. You’re right, it’s a shame there wasn’t more screen time showing us the give-and-take of these two.

[NewJeffCT]

31. I'm hoping

that Katheryn Winnick can get some bigger roles in either TV or movies in the near future (she was reportedly very interested in Captain Marvel, which ended up going to Brie Larson.)

[VOX]

32. Same. With her range and martial-arts background...

She shouldn’t have a problem, unless it’s some ridiculous resistance based on her “age,” which is 40, in an industry that is always looking for the next Jennifer Lawrence.

[lindysalsagal]

25. Jonathan Ryhs Meyers doesn't fit with the other actors: too pretty

The rampant ugliness of the Vikings, and even the Brits makes them endearing: Jonathan's too pretty to be believed. He plays royalty or other high-society roles. Also, he's a little too old for it. I also don't buy that a minister is a warrior.

[shanny]

28. Minister? He's a bishop...

and there were plenty of warrior bishops, abbots and lesser clergy back in the day.

http://www.medievalists.net/2011/10/the-military-activities-of-bishops-abbots-and-other-clergy-in-england-c-900-1200/

As for the inherently un-bloodthirstyness of priests, don't forget just who ran the Inquisition.

eta: just found this:
https://www.tvinsider.com/650682/vikings-season-5-premiere-jonathan-rhys-meyers-character-bishop-heahmund/

[Brainstormy]

26. You may be alone in

even WATCHING the History Channel. What a joke!

[shanny]

27. Um, "History Channel."

History can be dramatized but shouldn't be rewritten...

[UTUSN]

33. "Expedition Unknown" is about Vikings - *RIGHT NOW* - plus, my favorite Viking, Hagar the Horrible!1

(Can't post images on Windows 10: )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hägar_the_Horrible