|
pigdog posted:Those fight sequence were badass and more realistic looking than practically anything. Plus loved how Ragnar went into the fight with no armor and got predictably hosed up despite killing off piles of warriors.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Are we doing dumb theories in this thread? Does anyone think the Jarl might have killed his own kids, in some ritual like at the buried treasure? Some blood sacrifice to Odin to become the most powerful Jarl or whatever, only now he's just bitter and crippled with guilt. - He specifically tells that kid he's about the same age his kids were when they died, just before killing him - He asks the priest whether the gods are real, which could be him plagued with doubts about having killed his kids for nothing - Would explain why he's so obsessive about maintaining power and freaking out about any perceived threat, because again if he's not the biggest baddest dude around he's killed his kids for nothing. Would also explain why he's so paranoid, since he betrayed his own kids so he sees betrayal in everyone. Would also explain why he's such a douchenozzle. - The story he gives doesn't make all that much sense - he claims someone mutilated the bodies specifically to disrespect him (face to rear end... heh), but then he doesn't know who did it. So... someone dealt him this massive diss and in the years since hasn't taken credit or followed up on it in any way? Also, I don't really see anyone in the show who could be revealed to have done it? There's no reason to think Ragnar or any of his crew did it, and that conflict's already set up so the whole thing would be superfluous. It would be a bit weird and pointless to have some new character show up and reveal they killed his kids. I don't see anyone really being set up as an interesting other enemy for him - maybe that bald henchman killed them to get ahead, but it seems a bit tenuous, he doesn't really have any reason to expect he'd be next in line to be Jarl. Also is this episode the third time in five episodes someone's invited a random dude to come bone his girlfriend? My other theory is that this is someone's Thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Magnus Manfist posted:Also is this episode the third time in five episodes someone's invited a random dude to come bone his girlfriend? My other theory is that this is someone's Thing. At least we finally got to see Floki's love shack in the woods, I thought before he just lived in a tree given his crazy nature.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Magnus Manfist posted:Are we doing dumb theories in this thread? That makes no sense because having sons was very important to a ruler because no sons = no heirs = no power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Anyone else see Hawkeye when Ragnar was running through the woods and stalking the deer?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Awesome episode. Some really fantastic shots like the sun coming out from behind the clouds right as Thorsten? approached Beorn at the cabin, and the intensity of Lagertha looking at Ragnar right before he told Loki to challenge the Jarl. Incredible.canuckanese posted:Yeah I don't mind the Jarl. He's not the best character but I understand why they have him in the show. I think this episode did a lot for his character by explaining what made him such an evil, broken man: having your two sons murdered and the bodies defiled like that. That scene with him and his wife arguing was the first good acting they've done. I think the evil Jarl character is also necessary for Ragnar to realize his purpose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
Cpt.Wacky posted:Awesome episode. Some really fantastic shots like the sun coming out from behind the clouds right as Thorsten? approached Beorn at the cabin, and the intensity of Lagertha looking at Ragnar right before he told Loki to challenge the Jarl. Incredible. I think we should've had that Jarl backstory from the beginning. For 4 episodes I've been going "great, here's generic rear end in a top hat leader guy." I mean he's still kind of poorly written as some of his actions are comedic levels of evil. Still, finding your dead sons with their heads up their asses has got to mess with you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Probably my second favorite episode, since I loved the last one so much! Like someone said, I'm actually more annoyed with people complaining about the Earl/Jarl, than the Jarl himself. Finding your kids with their cut off heads up their butts would probably make a sane man a little nutty. (plus TWO sons, or both, not just one). I wonder who killed them? I was kinda hoping that when Ragnar was riding the horse, that his whole troup was going to jump out and save the day. I know, it's dumb, but one can hope. I also like that he's not invincible. He did kill a buncha dudes and escape, which is awesome. I have an unhealthy amount of respect for a culture at "this time period" where at least free women had some say in things (even three-ways). That wasn't very common. I mean, I respect the entire samurai code and greek women had sort of freedom, but these guys were ahead of their time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
The suspense is killing me guys please make Sunday get here faster
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Probably my second favorite episode, since I loved the last one so much! Like someone said, I'm actually more annoyed with people complaining about the Earl/Jarl, than the Jarl himself. Finding your kids with their cut off heads up their butts would probably make a sane man a little nutty. (plus TWO sons, or both, not just one). I wonder who killed them? Yeah but up until that point we didn't know much about it so it was a shallow rear end (  ) character
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Probably my second favorite episode, since I loved the last one so much! Like someone said, I'm actually more annoyed with people complaining about the Earl/Jarl, than the Jarl himself. Finding your kids with their cut off heads up their butts would probably make a sane man a little nutty. (plus TWO sons, or both, not just one). I wonder who killed them? If the Jarl was just a side character I wouldn't care, but the show has set him up as a central antagonist without any real motivation, beyond he's just kind of crazy paranoid rear end in a top hat. The last two episodes of the show have been focused on the Jarl vs. Ragnar conflict, and it looks like the next episode will be as well. Last episode, the Jarl tried to frame Ragnar for murder, since even the Jarl has to obey political reality. Only to turn around and have the Jarl just go, "gently caress it, let's just straight up kill them." That's some horribly inconsistent writing. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
Well, why people followed Hitler, because, you know, he was also pretty evil and killed millions of people? One of the things that also come to mind is that to become ruler, especially in those days, most likely ment that you had to be a sociopathic monster of some kind. Maybe Jarl had more charisma and was more empathic ruler when he was just a wee younger Jarl but perhaps now his job has finally gotten into him and turned him into someone that is not gonna last alive long in his position of power.
Maksamakkara fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:If the Jarl was just a side character I wouldn't care, but the show has set him up as a central antagonist without any real motivation, beyond he's just kind of crazy paranoid rear end in a top hat. The last two episodes of the show have been focused on the Jarl vs. Ragnar conflict, and it looks like the next episode will be as well. Last episode, the Jarl tried to frame Ragnar for murder, since even the Jarl has to obey political reality. Only to turn around and have the Jarl just go, "gently caress it, let's just straight up kill them." That's some horribly inconsistent writing. First he tried to establish Ragnar as a criminal, and even if that did not work out perfectly, it layed the base for the raid. His official position is that he went after a criminal and put him to justice (which is part of his job as earl). He is the earl, the man with the power and the swords. If he keeps repeating the "he is a criminal" line often enough, it will become reality - especially if he had succeded in killing ragnar. After all, dead men don't talk, and who will dare to go against him for a dead guy? We are all just spoiled by our modern legal systems - its hard for us to imagine how much power a feudal lord really had over his subjects, and the attrocities he could get away with. Nektu fucked around with this message at 09:32 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 09:28
|
|
|
Nah, the writing for the Jarl just sucks. His daughter's Swedish suitor seems like a jolly nice man (as well as rich/powerful), I don't know what Jarl's wife's problem is. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 09:29
|
|
|
Maksamakkara posted:Well, why people followed Hitler, because, you know, he was also pretty evil and killed millions of people? One of the things that also come to mind is that to become ruler, especially in those days, most likely ment that you had to be a sociopathic monster of some kind. Maybe Jarl had more charisma and was more empathic ruler when he was just a wee younger Jarl but perhaps now his job has finally gotten into him and turned him into someone that is not gonna last alive long in his position of power. That's all well and good that you can completely make up these things to fill in massive plot gaps in a central character. Regardless, you should've have to, to such a degree, because that means a character is poorly written. pigdog posted:Nah, the writing for the Jarl just sucks. Was nice to see someone who is pretty gross but seems like he could be a nice guy and not the stereotypical rear end in a top hat borderline-rapist fat slob. doctor 7 fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 09:48
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:That's all well and good that you can completely make up these things to fill in massive plot gaps in a central character. Regardless, you should've have to, to such a degree, because that means a character is poorly written. Well, yeah. I don't think you have to "really understand" the deep motivation behind every act of main character to like the character or consider the character deep but I DO agree with the haters that Jarl comes of little too villainy. I guess it just doesn't bother me that much. If you think about some other character, say, Paulie from Sopranos. What was his motivation to be such an rear end in a top hat? Perhaps I misremember, but I don't remember his behavior was explained at all. edit: I saw someone mentioning a graphic novel series Northlanders in this thread earlier. I luckily found volumes three, four and six today at library. Do I understand correctly from cursory reading of the backsides that it is not necessary to read this series in chronological order? Maksamakkara fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
Guys, I'm confused. When is Ahmad ibn Fadlan ibn al-Abbas ibn Rasid ibn Hammad going to show up and was that Norwegian dude with the bad teeth supposed to be one of the mist-monsters?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 12:34
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:Was nice to see someone who is pretty gross but seems like he could be a nice guy and not the stereotypical rear end in a top hat borderline-rapist fat slob. Hahah I quite agree! I was thinking this during the episode too. If you're gonna get married off to an old guy, this guy is far from the worst that could happen. They could have made him super-gross and horny, but he seemed like a rather nice old fella!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Hahah I quite agree! I was thinking this during the episode too. If you're gonna get married off to an old guy, this guy is far from the worst that could happen. They could have made him super-gross and horny, but he seemed like a rather nice old fella! And he has large tracts of land.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:Me too. Every time I look at him all I can think is "Viking Zach Galiafinakis" He looks like Trick from Lost girl... with a beard. AvesPKS posted:Anyone else see Hawkeye when Ragnar was running through the woods and stalking the deer? I like his Viking confidence, hunting deer with one arrow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:If the Jarl was just a side character I wouldn't care, but the show has set him up as a central antagonist without any real motivation, beyond he's just kind of crazy paranoid rear end in a top hat. The last two episodes of the show have been focused on the Jarl vs. Ragnar conflict, and it looks like the next episode will be as well. Last episode, the Jarl tried to frame Ragnar for murder, since even the Jarl has to obey political reality. Only to turn around and have the Jarl just go, "gently caress it, let's just straight up kill them." That's some horribly inconsistent writing. See I don't get this view point. It's very clearly established from the beginning that he owns all the ships and sanctions all the raids. Ragnar builds his own raiding ship and wants to go off and do his own thing instead of what his boss is telling him to do. He is directly rebelling against the man he has sworn oaths to serve. Sure, he ends up being successful, but that doesn't change the fact that he continues to defy his lord and is therefore a threat to the Jarl's control. You can't have a super successful raider running around and defying all your orders and building up a group of guys who think he's the greatest, unless you want him to kill you and take over as Jarl or something (and why the hell would you want him to do that to you?). Honestly I'm surprised the Jarl attempted to do things the legal way by having a trial and painting Ragnar as a criminal instead of just killing him immediately. Keep in mind this is the 8th century, some of you don't realize how much power the Jarl actually has and how the rights of the average Joe are entirely contingent on not pissing off the Jarl and doing what he tells you to do. Basically, he's not a crazy paranoid rear end in a top hat. He's got a guy who's clearly rebelling against him at every turn and he actually tried to put a stop to it the legal way before resorting to violence, which considering the time period is completely within his rights as the Jarl. All that said I'm obviously still cheering for Ragnar, I just thought the Jarl needed some love too since apparently his motivations are so mysterious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:
Are you thinking of the same Vikings we know from history? None of them were borderline-rapists....they were all serial rapists. Sure we like Ragnar and Floki and Rollo...not so much Rollo. Yet, stop and think about the fact that they are the murdering, thieving scourge of history. The only one that's been portrayed as a rapist so far is Rollo...but that's because they don't want us to like him as much as we're supposed to like Ragnar. If you want to see Ragnar portrayed differently, watch the following movie...as a plus you get to see Spartacus in the same movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052365/
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
The jarl is still a really poorly developed character in my opinion, his motivations aren't really clear and it's kinda nuts that the plot went from Ragnar being vindicated at trial->bunch of thugs attacking Ragnar's crew out of the blue->Ragnar's settlement getting sacked without really anything tying it together. Also they have tried to make Sigi the jarl's wife into a kind of scheming real power behind the throne archetype like Lucretia from Spartacus and that has failed miserably because of the actress and the writing. All that being said, still enjoying the show. Wouldn't mind Ragnar killing the jarl and his wife next episode.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
This episode really nicely sets up Ragnar as a terrifying opponent. He killed five people in open combat (plus two more with surprise), all of whom had superior armour and (except for one) swords. That is a bad-rear end display of skill right there, even if he got messed up in the process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Loomer posted:This episode really nicely sets up Ragnar as a terrifying opponent. He killed five people in open combat (plus two more with surprise), all of whom had superior armour and (except for one) swords. That is a bad-rear end display of skill right there, even if he got messed up in the process. Yes. You could say that Ragnar rocks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:See I don't get this view point. It's very clearly established from the beginning that he owns all the ships and sanctions all the raids. Ragnar builds his own raiding ship and wants to go off and do his own thing instead of what his boss is telling him to do. He is directly rebelling against the man he has sworn oaths to serve. Sure, he ends up being successful, but that doesn't change the fact that he continues to defy his lord and is therefore a threat to the Jarl's control. You can't have a super successful raider running around and defying all your orders and building up a group of guys who think he's the greatest, unless you want him to kill you and take over as Jarl or something (and why the hell would you want him to do that to you?). Honestly I'm surprised the Jarl attempted to do things the legal way by having a trial and painting Ragnar as a criminal instead of just killing him immediately. Keep in mind this is the 8th century, some of you don't realize how much power the Jarl actually has and how the rights of the average Joe are entirely contingent on not pissing off the Jarl and doing what he tells you to do. If I'm interpreting things correctly, Ragnar is a Thegn and that 'farm' is his freehold, and all those people on it are his peasants. He is within his rights to raid where he pleases. However he forms a félag (raiding partnership) with men who are probably the Jarl's Housecarls, and thus he's subverting the Jarl's authority over his vassals. If he could crew his ship with just guys like Floki I think he'd be in the clear with Jarl Haraldsson. Floki lives out in the boonies where he is apparently not beholden to anyone. I'm not sure if he occupies some formal strata within Germanic society, but the fact that Ragnar can send him with a message to the Jarl implies to me that he doesn't owe allegiance to him. The skald that wrote the epic poem about Ragnar Lodbrok was Bragi Boddason, so if Floki takes on an apprentice named Bragi at some point in the show then I think we can interpret Floki as a sort of proto-skald. Family Values fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
For all its faults Vikings is doing well at telling a layered story. I wonder if people are not giving this show enough credit for its complexity and half-paying attention accordingly? I feel like a lot of the questions in here were already answered by the show itself, often the first episode. None of them are being posed by people who seem like idiots, so is this a show people watch attentively or only really focus on when the axes start to fly? In other words please rewatch at least episode 1 while not full of mead because this show is amazing and deserves a better thread than The Walking Dead. Or I should start watching while drinking mead and lighten the gently caress up about how people just don't get this show I love  
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Honestly, the bizarre character issues with the Jarl are perfectly fitting with a saga written by the guy who is the hero in the saga (or his friends).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
TemetNosceXVIcubus posted:Are you thinking of the same Vikings we know from history? None of them were borderline-rapists....they were all serial rapists. I was referring to the "stock character" used in tons of movies/TV where there's an arranged marriage. You've usually got a beautiful women who's very nice only to be forced to marry someone who's a fat greasy slob, who's also an rear end in a top hat, a sadist, a rapist but has flipping great wads of cash and nobility. BarbarousBertha posted:For all its faults Vikings is doing well at telling a layered story. I wonder if people are not giving this show enough credit for its complexity and half-paying attention accordingly? I feel like a lot of the questions in here were already answered by the show itself, often the first episode. None of them are being posed by people who seem like idiots, so is this a show people watch attentively or only really focus on when the axes start to fly? What's this "for all it's faults" talk? The only thing that's universally disliked is the weak character of the Jarl. Everything else is either very good or just minor so easily to overlook. silly posted:The jarl is still a really poorly developed character in my opinion, his motivations aren't really clear and it's kinda nuts that the plot went from Ragnar being vindicated at trial->bunch of thugs attacking Ragnar's crew out of the blue->Ragnar's settlement getting sacked without really anything tying it together. Also they have tried to make Sigi the jarl's wife into a kind of scheming real power behind the throne archetype like Lucretia from Spartacus and that has failed miserably because of the actress and the writing. Ragnar will probably kill the Jarl, despite still recovering from injuries and the Jarl's wife will be in a really lovely position but Rollo will probably step in to save her. She'll probably chide at Rollow for all of next season so him and Ragnar get into serious poo poo. Christ I hope it doesn't go down that lovely cliche path doctor 7 fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:Honestly I'm surprised the Jarl attempted to do things the legal way by having a trial and painting Ragnar as a criminal instead of just killing him immediately. Keep in mind this is the 8th century, some of you don't realize how much power the Jarl actually has and how the rights of the average Joe are entirely contingent on not pissing off the Jarl and doing what he tells you to do. I'm not confused as to why the Jarl has it out for Ragnar, but I was confused by the inclusion of the trial. Rather, the trial itself made sense but what followed didn't -- precisely because they included the trial. If the Jarl has the power to just declare Ragnar a criminal, send his buddies to attack Ragnar's crew while they're drinking and burn down Ragnar's farm/slaughter his livestock and surrounding peasants, why did he bother with the trial? I was genuinely confused when the Jarl kept stating "Ragnar is a criminal," not because I wonder why he's mad at Ragnar but because I wonder what crime, exactly, the Jarl is accusing him of. It seems like he would need a fresh angle to argue since by his own drat trial Ragnar is not guilty of murdering Knute. Given that he was more than happy to manufacture evidence (false Rollo testimony) to convict Ragnar, I'm not sure why he didn't manufacture something new. The fact that he had the trial suggests that he'd prefer to at least create the appearance of following some rules, turning around and attacking Ragnar without any pretense beyond "he's a criminal" seemed to skip a step.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
In case you didn't know it already, this is the official soundtrack now and forever for the show... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDpc-831GPs
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
solovyov posted:I'm not confused as to why the Jarl has it out for Ragnar, but I was confused by the inclusion of the trial. Rather, the trial itself made sense but what followed didn't -- precisely because they included the trial. If the Jarl has the power to just declare Ragnar a criminal, send his buddies to attack Ragnar's crew while they're drinking and burn down Ragnar's farm/slaughter his livestock and surrounding peasants, why did he bother with the trial? I was genuinely confused when the Jarl kept stating "Ragnar is a criminal," not because I wonder why he's mad at Ragnar but because I wonder what crime, exactly, the Jarl is accusing him of. It seems like he would need a fresh angle to argue since by his own drat trial Ragnar is not guilty of murdering Knute. Given that he was more than happy to manufacture evidence (false Rollo testimony) to convict Ragnar, I'm not sure why he didn't manufacture something new. The fact that he had the trial suggests that he'd prefer to at least create the appearance of following some rules, turning around and attacking Ragnar without any pretense beyond "he's a criminal" seemed to skip a step. The point of the trial was that he wanted to take out Ragnar "legitimately" if it was possible. He's all about appearances and maintaining power and if he can crush the rebel with the law and not by brute force, it looks better for him. So yeah, the trial was for show, but if it worked in his favor then that's ideal. If the trial succeeds he doesn't have to go burn down Ragnar's house and look like an rear end in a top hat, he doesn't have to kill a crew of useful raiders, risk losing some of his own men, etc. When that doesn't work out though and Rollo's testimony (what he thought was a sure thing) ruins his plan, he just goes to the slash and burn tactic instead. I suppose he could have come up with some more bogus evidence, and that's probably what anyone would do in a real situation in his place, but that would also make for boring television.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
That still doesn't explain why the Jarl keeps calling him a criminal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
He's a criminal in the eyes of the Jarl because he doesn't do anything the Jarl tells him to do, and the Jarl's word is the law. He openly questions the Jarl's authority, builds his own boat illegally, he goes to England instead of following the Jarl's orders, and the Jarl believes he murdered Knute. I think it's pretty easy to understand why the Jarl might consider him a criminal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Anti-Hero posted:That still doesn't explain why the Jarl keeps calling him a criminal. If you are the leader of a bunch of drunk super soldiers just itching for a chance to get to Valhalla, and of them is a guy who wants to buck tradition and is charismatic to potentially replace you, then you say and do whatever you have to to eliminate him. He tries in ways that save him the most face. First he speaks to Ragnar alone, this doesn't work. Next he attempts to kidnap one of his children to bring him inline, shehulk doesn't let him, that doesn't work. Ragnar comes back full of victory and fame, he attempts to shame him into line publically this time by taking his poo poo, that doesn't work. He sends a guy to watch Ragnar find out how he's doing it and potentially discredit him, the guy tries to rape Ragnars wife and gets killed, that doesn't work. He attempts to try Ragnar for the mans murder, but fails to convict him, that doesn't work. He sends an assassin squad to hit Ragnars crew while they're drunk off their rear end, that doesn't work. Then he burns down Ragnars house, but still fails to take out Ragnar, losing more face, that doesn't work. Now we're at the last thing he has left, single combat to the death, which, we know won't work. The Jarl's an rear end in a top hat, but Ragnar has pushed this from the beginning, though you could argue if the Jarl would've just agreed to let Ragnar lead raids to the west, then this probably could've been avoided.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
I think this might be the first time I'm more interested in what's going on with Rollo than Ragnar. Clearly all Ragnar's wounds are just a proper handicap so his trial by combat with the Earl is believably dramatic. Rollo on the other hand is displaying some almost uncharacteristically loyal badassness. Sure it's probably just so Lagertha is kept safe which just happens to help Ragnar. Still though, dude seems likely to come out of this with a Glasgow smile, and that can't help with the ladies. Hopefully this all ends with Rollo being happy with his reward from Earl Ragnar and his own ship with which to raid France. Maksamakkara posted:edit: I saw someone mentioning a graphic novel series Northlanders in this thread earlier. I luckily found volumes three, four and six today at library. Do I understand correctly from cursory reading of the backsides that it is not necessary to read this series in chronological order? I'm pretty sure it's basically just an anthology series about Vikings doing Viking poo poo. solovyov posted:I'm not confused as to why the Jarl has it out for Ragnar, but I was confused by the inclusion of the trial. Rather, the trial itself made sense but what followed didn't -- precisely because they included the trial. If the Jarl has the power to just declare Ragnar a criminal, send his buddies to attack Ragnar's crew while they're drinking and burn down Ragnar's farm/slaughter his livestock and surrounding peasants, why did he bother with the trial? I was genuinely confused when the Jarl kept stating "Ragnar is a criminal," not because I wonder why he's mad at Ragnar but because I wonder what crime, exactly, the Jarl is accusing him of. It seems like he would need a fresh angle to argue since by his own drat trial Ragnar is not guilty of murdering Knute. Given that he was more than happy to manufacture evidence (false Rollo testimony) to convict Ragnar, I'm not sure why he didn't manufacture something new. The fact that he had the trial suggests that he'd prefer to at least create the appearance of following some rules, turning around and attacking Ragnar without any pretense beyond "he's a criminal" seemed to skip a step. The Earl only went with the trial because the opportunity presented itself. If Cnute had come back with knowledge of how to navigate to England the Earl would have jumped straight to the assassination/raiding attempts. However since Cnute turned up dead in a way that was clearly pretty convenient to Ragnar he was given the chance to take Ragnar out all legal and above board. As for what his basis is for calling Ragnar a criminal and justifying the whole raid and stuff, it's really not that important. He could claim Ragnar kept extra shares of loot, or that he'd stolen something directly from the Earl, or that he was planning to overthrow the Earl. Hell, he could be blaming any number of murders he had carried out on Ragnar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
I can't see the Earl getting killed before the subplot involving his sons is solved. That vow he made to his wife about killing the men who killed his sons sounded pretty serious to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Anti-Hero posted:That still doesn't explain why the Jarl keeps calling him a criminal. Gyges posted:Still though, dude seems likely to come out of this with a Glasgow smile, and that can't help with the ladies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The Earl only went with the trial because the opportunity presented itself. If Cnute had come back with knowledge of how to navigate to England the Earl would have jumped straight to the assassination/raiding attempts. However since Cnute turned up dead in a way that was clearly pretty convenient to Ragnar he was given the chance to take Ragnar out all legal and above board. First of all, I love that you're spelling it Earl and Cnute, because it summons the image of the thread getting all Derry/Londonderry angry about names. I only went with Jarl because that's what the people who seemed familiar with the era used and I went with Knute because ~ I don't remember enough linguistics to explain why it would be "K" not "C" but darnit it would be ~ and now I've checked imdb and apparently it's Earl and Knut. Not that any of that matters beyond recording my amusement. More substantively, the portion that I bolded is the crux of my point. Obviously, the writers agree with you. And I agree with you to the extent that it doesn't really matter to the Earl what the formal excuse is. I just think the way the writers handled the trial (and earlier instances of Viking due process) implicitly made it important so I was thrown off when they went from "appearances matter somewhat" to "gently caress it, kill Ragnar and everyone in the surrounding houses" and still did it under the auspices of "he's a criminal!" I'm not angry at the show about it, but it does seem like some sloppy misdirection in terms of the realpolitik of the Earl's situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
I feel dumb for just realizing this episode that Floki lives in an upside-down boat. Also apparently Vikings were really into threesomes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 02:07
|
|
