To quote the reviewer from Spinal Tap. (*)(*)(*)(*) Sandwich. I watched the first season. Poorly acted, improbable, the folks look nothing like what one would think the Vikings actually did. Strange mix of accents ranging from Irish to British to some fake sort of, well, whatever.
I agree. The first season wasn't logical. However, the second season makes much more sense, and it's obvious they've invested more money into the show. Even though the first season's stories weren't logical, I was still into it for the Norse Paganism.
I'm sorry you think so. Personally, I love it! I'll admit that it's not an accurate representation of the Vikings. I'm a total history geek, particularly concerning the Vikings (which is why I started watching the show to begin with). However, I kind of expected from the beginning that it wouldn't be historically accurate. If it were, Ragnar would have more sons (and would be expected to die quite soon), Athelstan's character wouldn't exist, Lagertha probably wouldn't have gotten away with half of the stuff she has, Rollo would be laying siege to Paris and wouldn't even be related to Ragnar, their hair wouldn't be done up in those overly complicated braids all the time, there would be more than just one little plague like in Season 1...the list goes on. Also, Ragnar Lothbrok's existence as an actual historical figure isn't entirely clear- he is mentioned in sagas, and some of children he allegedly had were real. The show seems to draw more heavily on the sagas and fables, though. Still, it's a TV show. I didn't think it was poorly acted, really, but it's not like I would really know the difference- the characters were likeable, and frankly, I'm a sucker for battle scenes. Also, quite a few actors are of Scandinavian descent...if you're referring to some of the more lavish clothing and funky hairstyles, then yes, I agree that they don't look like actual Vikings. Nonetheless, it's one of the only shows I actually keep up with- my poor roommate has to put up with me shushing her whenever there's a new episode on, haha. The second season actually got better. However, I won't deny that it has become even less historical, and more TV-drama-like. But then again, the only way a show can stay on the air is ratings. They have to appeal to an audience, and let's face it, sometimes that means exaggerating events and downplaying others. It's unfortunate- I wouldn't mind seeing something that was formatted more like a documentary, but then again, I really enjoy history. Most viewers might not, and would probably prefer more drama, more of a storyline than a slice of medieval life.
I have been a fan of the Vikings since Junior High School in the early sixties. This series is well researched. Similar to HBO's "Deadwood", the characters are real. One can reference them. The oldest known written observations of the Vikings comes from an Arab, Ibn Fahd I believe. His authenticated manuscript has been found in multiple places. As real as you can get. It is the source for Michael Crichton's "Eaters of the Dead", made into a movie as "The 13th Warrior". If ever a people were effected by Climate Change, it was the Vikings who began to break out of Scandinavia with the "Little Warm Up" circa 850 AD. When settling Greenland, they got 80% of their dietary protein from Land Animals according to Nitrogen isotope studies of remains. As the Little Warm up ended, the last of the starving Vikings got only 20% of their dietary protein from land animals. They could no longer pasture sheep and cattle in Greenland. Nor can we today, conveniently. Hear that global warming alarmist ! Your disappointment with History Channel's Vikings may be because, it is real, the people are real and you would prefer a different story. BTW Vikings did not believe in edge of the world theory. They believed the ocean was surrounded by land and if you just went far enough, you would come to land in any direction. Moi Pass the mead No
Do not let the fact that Vikings airs on the History channel fool anyone. While some of it may be based on history, the show is not meant to be an historical account. It is simply a period-drama, like you'd find on any standard cable channel. That said, I love this show. Not quite up to par with Game of Thrones, but it is highly entertaining and interesting, and so far season 2 has only gotten better.
Why would being on the History channel fool people? Even the documentaries on the History channel are made up.
I've heard that Game of Thrones comparison before, and I'm also a Game of Thrones fan, and Vikings may not be factual, but it's based on a culture that actually existed. Whereas Game of Thrones is entirely based on fantasy. Don't get me wrong, both are great shows, but the norse mythology is what the Norse actually believed back then. That's what made and makes the show interesting to me. There's no doubt the story the first season had some problems with logic. Some of it did not make sense. But season 2 is much better in terms of logic and making sense.
Hey, Check This Out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar_Lodbrok Similar to the HBO production of Deadwood, real people from history come into play. There was an Al Swerengen, And a Sol Starr too. And a Bulluck. There was a wife who was shieldmaiden Lagertha, etc. I recognize scenes from Eaters of the Dead/The 13th Warrior, adapted from an ancient verified by multiple copies manuscript that describes Viking life. This series was well researched. Moi No
I don't know why anyone bothers with cable or satellite TV anymore, due to the massive subscription bills as well as the absurdly frequent and annoying ad content. I have found that it's far easier to get good video content on the computer and avoid all manner of ads in the process.
