|
lt_kennedy posted:Sacrifice Athelstan! We can't lose Æthelstan. He's us! We learn about the Vikings through his eyes and ears. He's there to ask our dumb questions for us. He's also important because he forms a contrast between what a "good" Christian was supposed to be, and the way Ælla and his advisers use Christianity. Also: Don't be afraid to break out your character map and put back into use all those awesome old English letters that have shamefully disappeared, Ash Æ, Eth Ð, Thorn Þ, Wynn Ƿ, etc. Even better, we should do this thread in futhorc, the Anglo-Saxon script that was just starting to be replaced with Latin characters during the show's timeframe. Double Also: Here's an older interview with Clive Standen that everyone's probably already seen, with a lot of potential spoilers and speculation as to future plotlines. We may possibly have some serious time compression at some point, with Alfred the Great making a possible later appearance, and Rollo might really be that Rollo.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
DS at Night posted:That and the plate smashing cracked me up so much. I loved last episode a whole lot. I loved the whole feast scene too with the Floki craziness and Ragnar begging his men to stop making him laugh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
etalian posted:I loved the whole feast scene too with the Floki craziness and Ragnar begging his men to stop making him laugh. My favorite part was just Floki looking under the table and thinking, "hey this is a well-made table". I guess I'm easily amused.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:My favorite part was just Floki looking under the table and thinking, "hey this is a well-made table". I guess I'm easily amused. Floki is a long lost ancestor of Dwight Schrute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:My favorite part was just Floki looking under the table and thinking, "hey this is a well-made table". I guess I'm easily amused. There's one thing Floki is serious about, woodworking. And fire. Fire and woodworking are the two things Floki is serious about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
Conquistador posted:I prefer the smirk The smirk just means you're getting an axe to the face. Floki eyes could be anything from getting set on fire to having a tent dropped on you to getting called a pussy. No one wants to be called a pussy. It's un-viking like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
I sort of feel sorry for the King's brother, he tried the same yuppie negotiation attempt from Die Hard with predictable results. Hopefully Odin can provide some gifs from the show such as the Floki dance or Floki plate testing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Pioneer42 posted:I know I'm going against the grain here; but, hey, this is a discussion forum. This might have been my least favorite episode yet. The portrayal of every single Saxon fighter so far as nothing more than a stormtrooper with a butter knife is making the battles lose their weight, My only real problem with the show as well. I would like to see the Viking fight someone who is a measure above completely worthless. Vivoviparous posted:I don't understand why the Vikings are viewed as villains by some of you - the Saxons were pricks too, gently caress 'em. The show doesn't have the willingness or time to get into it, but the fun-loving, ale-drinking, hard-loving rear end-kicking Vikings were badass bros with a relatively progressive culture and the early Christian Saxons were dour and cruel and lovely to their women comparatively. I know which side I'd like to be on. When the Saxons sail to Viking territory and rape/murder/plunder/enslave there, then yes I will have a lot more sympathy for them. Then again I am not really a big fan of aggressors. I like the show and find the Vikings interesting, but I do not sympathize with them much at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Floki is great, but I also enjoy that special brand of Ragnar "someone's gonna die" smirk that occurs just after he hears something dire, like Rollo's torture. It's almost like this involuntary facial twitch that comes out looking like a smirk, but way more creepy for the subtle difference. Impressive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
unlawfulsoup posted:When the Saxons sail to Viking territory and rape/murder/plunder/enslave there, then yes I will have a lot more sympathy for them. Then again I am not really a big fan of aggressors. It's not a work of fiction that exists in a vacuum entirely devoid of context, the show relies on you having a basic grasp of history or else nothing that happens would make any sense. Not really talking to you directly, just addressing the whole notion of trying to discern heroes and villains from something as complicated as the Viking invasion of the British Isles. The rapists and murderers are raping and murdering complacent, settled-down rapists and murderers who go on to become the rapiest, murderiest, most importuning assholes on planet Earth for the better part of a millennium. The Saxons were not chill dudes who just wanted to stroke the foreskins of dead saints and plow some fields, they burned witches and raped and murdered each other and helped establish the existential horrors of feudalism and Catholicism. I don't know, my enjoyment is enhanced by this knowledge and it helps fill in the gaps of what is otherwise a strong but deeply flawed television program. Oh and spoiler: if you don't like watching the Saxons getting the poo poo kicked out of them you're going to be sorely disappointed by the next couple hundred years. Dudes just couldn't figure out basic stuff like fortresses and professional armies until Alfred The Great's waning years. Vivoviparous fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Apr 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
The saxons were god's chosen people who live a peaceful violence free existence, riding around on unicorns.  Saxons... natures quitters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 13:15
|
|
|
Vivoviparous posted:It's not a work of fiction that exists in a vacuum entirely devoid of context, the show relies on you having a basic grasp of history or else nothing that happens would make any sense. Not really talking to you directly, just addressing the whole notion of trying to discern heroes and villains from something as complicated as the Viking invasion of the British Isles. No one here has advocated that Saxons are flocks of innocents, but for some reason people get really defensive about the idea that the Vikings might be labelled as the aggressors in this show. There are way, way more people watching this show who are using a traditional "heroes vs. villains" compass to advocate for the Vikings' position over the Saxon's, than vice versa. So if you are going to argue for moral ambiguity, it needs to go both ways. And while this forum is better about it than others, there are a lot of scary places on the internet where people watch this show to figuratively get off on their revenge fantasies of killing Englishmen and Christians, and--moral ambiguity, or not--that is disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
Pioneer42 posted:And while this forum is better about it than others, there are a lot of scary places on the internet where people watch this show to figuratively get off on their revenge fantasies of killing Englishmen and Christians, and--moral ambiguity, or not--that is disturbing. Wow. I had no idea there are people doing that. I'd kind of hoped the show's popularity was based on a team of talented people doing a good job of making a story based on an interesting but underexposed part of history entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Well Ragnar and Lagertha have been directly set up as the traditional heroes in the show - they're strong, smart, attractive, and just, at least when handling affairs at home. Everyone who crosses them is more or less portrayed as a buffoon. In terms of a normal narrative there's really no question that Ragnar is the good guy, regardless of whether you agree with his right to attack the Saxons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:Wow. I had no idea there are people doing that. I'd kind of hoped the show's popularity was based on a team of talented people doing a good job of making a story based on an interesting but underexposed part of history entertaining. It's popular because it's a good show mixing history/fiction while tackling a setting never really tread before with likeable characters--like you said. The people who enjoy it for that weird reason are a small minority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
It's usually rather pointless to ascribe heroism or villainy to entire civilizations, anyway, but it is an interesting question with regards to this show. In fact, I'd say that the main thing it is relying on to generate interest is the inherent tension between the fact that the protagonists (ie "good guys") are fundamentally other from the modern conceptions of what heroism should be. I mean, let's face it - the characters aren't super developed (look at all the complaining about the Jarl), and the plot isn't complex. The draw is the milieu. In this regard the show's most defining moment was the casual massacre of the Christian monks in Episode 2 and I don't really get the point of arguing that the Vikings were either less or more bad than the others. It's such a nonsensical argument, especially because the show doesn't want you to take either the Vikings' or the Saxons' side, the show wants you to think the whole thing is weird, violent, and unsettling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Pioneer42 posted:No one here has advocated that Saxons are flocks of innocents, but for some reason people get really defensive about the idea that the Vikings might be labelled as the aggressors in this show. There are way, way more people watching this show who are using a traditional "heroes vs. villains" compass to advocate for the Vikings' position over the Saxon's, than vice versa. So if you are going to argue for moral ambiguity, it needs to go both ways. I don't know who got defensive about the Vikings labelled aggressors, that's the show: the beginning of the Viking conquest of the British Isles. I'm responding to the people saying they're unsympathetic savages who need to get what's coming to them, because that to me is disturbing and creepy. Personally I can't help but feel that the world would have been a better place if they'd succeeded in conquering England and supplanted the Saxon's cruel and ugly culture with the fierce egalitarianism of the Scandinavian societies. It wouldn't have been all bunnies and sunshine but at least the horrible poo poo inherent in "early" Christianity like legal wife beating and witch burning wouldn't have remained codified into law for centuries and a slightly more meritocratic system of leadership would've been established. I guess what irritates me about this whole topic is that the time period where the Vikings were being rapey murdery plundery dicks is a relatively tiny blip in human history while the English being rapey murdery plundery dicks kind of defines the last thousand years of Western history, and yes it is gratifying to see history's bullies get their asses kicked. Plus I can credit my height and bone structure to the Norse invasion of Ireland, so it all worked out pretty good for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
I really liked how they formed up in a Svinfylking formation with Ragnar at the helm when the Saxons attacked the encampment, it was a shame that they didn't keep the formation and just charged out. The reason that the Saxons fight so badly is probably because they are made up mostly of inexperienced militia since I can't imagine King snakepit being one who campaign often and it's likely that he keeps the actual good warriors to guard him, however they do have really nice equipment for being a militia but I figure that's an aesthetic choice.
Pump it up! Do it! fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Apr 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Vivoviparous posted:I guess what irritates me about this whole topic is that the time period where the Vikings were being rapey murdery plundery dicks is a relatively tiny blip in human history while the English being rapey murdery plundery dicks kind of defines the last thousand years of Western history, and yes it is gratifying to see history's bullies get their asses kicked. Why blame the Saxons for that and not say the Normans
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
SpRahl posted:Why blame the Saxons for that and not say the Normans But that would require a more nuanced view of history  Seriously it was the Norman and Plantagenet aristocracy that really kicked off England's tradition of loving with foreign countries. The Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain was no different from the earlier Celtic invasion of Britain. Genetically the population is the same (I'm pretty sure the idea that the Anglo-Saxons completely wiped out the Romano-Britons has been debunked). The language and dominant culture changed, but the actual people were mostly identical as before. Also, if you're going to condemn people for poo poo their ancestors did, then pretty much every human on Earth deserves death, even the Irish. It's even more hosed up to condemn people for poo poo they haven't done yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
SpRahl posted:Why blame the Saxons for that and not say the Normans Quality_Guaranteed posted:But that would require a more nuanced view of history I think we're getting our topics confused. The point I've been trying to make (probably poorly) is that it's silly to make a moral judgement of the Vikings because every society has massive amounts of blood on its hands and if you want to make a judgement based on a modern view of morality then the Vikings win hands down by not being as arbitrarily cruel to their own people, women especially. The second more abstract notion is that of watching a dead alien culture full of weird pagan badasses attacking the institutions that even today enjoy a cultural hegemony over a third of the world. That's gratifying to people who justifiably hate those institutions and produces hilarious consternation from people who sternly wonder why the mighty civilized Christians don't just stomp the heathen hordes into submission like they did every other nonChristian society in the Western hemisphere. Offtopic, but you're my favorite poster QG. Big fan. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Vivoviparous posted:Personally I can't help but feel that the world would have been a better place if they'd succeeded in conquering England and supplanted the Saxon's cruel and ugly culture with the fierce egalitarianism of the Scandinavian societies. It wouldn't have been all bunnies and sunshine but at least the horrible poo poo inherent in "early" Christianity like legal wife beating and witch burning wouldn't have remained codified into law for centuries and a slightly more meritocratic system of leadership would've been established. I think things would've gone much better for Europe in general if the indigenous paganism (and the cultural values that stemmed from it) had stayed dominant instead of being virtually wiped out by Christianity. You don't even have to literally believe in the gods to find value in Germanic/Norse paganism, as they represent different archetypes, and the mythology is chock full of fun stories that consistently feature values like honor, loyalty, honesty and being true to one's word, etc. Contrast that with all of the hatred and guilt that fills Christianity. European culture would've been much better off without Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
hypersleep posted:I think things would've gone much better for Europe in general if the indigenous paganism (and the cultural values that stemmed from it) had stayed dominant instead of being virtually wiped out by Christianity. You don't even have to literally believe in the gods to find value in Germanic/Norse paganism, as they represent different archetypes, and the mythology is chock full of fun stories that consistently feature values like honor, loyalty, honesty and being true to one's word, etc. Contrast that with all of the hatred and guilt that fills Christianity. Vikings sacrificing people to their gods is so superior to that evil christianity. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
Shade2142 posted:Vikings sacrificing people to their gods is so superior to that evil christianity. Good job misrepresenting what I said. At no point did I claim Germanic paganism didn't have any negative aspects. If you really want to go down that road, how many have been murdered in the name of the Christian God? Actually, let's not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
This is a really shady line of discussion, it should suffice to say that Vikings are the protagonists of this series (it is called Vikings) but that doesn't imply that they're the good guys by any standard. This show is basically just trying to depict a historical way of life, one different and violent enough from our own to seem very alien, with modest accuracy and from an insider's perspective. The only character we're really meant to identify with is that nice priest fellow who abhors wanton violence as we would; whenever these Scandinavians start doing wicked things that we wouldn't understand we default to the priest's or Bjorn's outsider perspective for insight. However, as the Vikings are the protagonists, they'll probably be given traits conductive to ample screen-time, attractiveness, cleverness, some palatable set of morals and laudable life goals that we can relate to, to help us along. The protagonists are also good vikings in the sense that they're good at being Vikings to help with their culture's depiction. Their antagonists will be given traits conductive to antagonizing them. That's it. The rest is just a historical portrayal of what things might have been like a thousand years ago. I don't think you need to worry about whether or not the Saxons deserved it or if Vikings were scoundrels. What happened, happened. This is just an entertaining recap told from an interesting perspective. Don't be weird and let this be your strange-rear end revenge fantasy outlet though. Since we're getting a season two, I do hope they work out the kinks in writing the antagonists. I imagine it must be challenging to write a proper opponent to a violent culture with what they have to work with but surely they can do better than the Snidely Whiplash impersonators we've had so far.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
Shade2142 posted:Vikings sacrificing people to their gods is so superior to that evil christianity. Trolling is not allowed on these forums. Your gimmick is dumb and unfunny. Stop it. HenessyHero posted:Since we're getting a season two, I do hope they work out the kinks in writing the antagonists. I imagine it must be challenging to write a proper opponent to a violent culture with what they have to work with but surely they can do better than the Snidely Whiplash impersonators we've had so far. I don't know about all this "revenge" talk but watching Christians stomp pagans is, if nothing else, boring as poo poo. Isn't it refreshing to see something new and interesting in popular western media? It just strikes me as gross and creepy to want to see pagans get slaughtered by Christians, go watch a Western you sore winner motherfuckers. Regarding good antagonists, I think they're prepping Rollo for that role. He's pretty complicated and almost sympathetic for a rapist wannabe wifefucker. King Ælle on the other hand kind of has to be a Bond villian. He was supposedly a tyrant usurper who ends up killing Ragnar in his snake pit. Blame history and the sagas. It can't be that hard to come up with compelling characters whose interests happen to be opposed to Ragnar's, we're already going to root for him because he's a sexy inscrutable ambitious badass who is kind to his wife and children. The dissonance and tension of forcing your audience to root for a morally ambiguous or compromised powerful white male authority figure head of a household to prevail over adversaries his moral equivalent or better is basically every single critically acclaimed television drama since The Sopranos. It's bizarre how badly they hosed up the Earl, it's kind of comforting to me that they couldn't possibly create a worse character.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 10:15
|
|
|
Vivoviparous posted:I guess what irritates me about this whole topic is that the time period where the Vikings were being rapey murdery plundery dicks is a relatively tiny blip in human history while the English being rapey murdery plundery dicks kind of defines the last thousand years of Western history, and yes it is gratifying to see history's bullies get their asses kicked. Plus I can credit my height and bone structure to the Norse invasion of Ireland, so it all worked out pretty good for me. This makes more sense if the people getting 'punished' were the actual bullies. I do not really consider the Vikings to be inhuman or inherently worse than anyone else, humanity has a pretty storied history full of abhorrent violence and terrible people. My point was that you see a lot of Viking cheer-leading (not as much here to be totally fair) when their actions were often reprehensible. When I say actions I am referring to the raiding and such, the civilization in general is interesting to watch, and the show does a better job than anything I can remember depicting it. I can respect the egalitarian nature of their society, and a lot of their advances. At the same time these people held slaves, sacrificed others, and murdered/raped on such a scale that we can easily find their DNA in most of Europe. I think holding them up as a superior paragon of civilization would be as daft as saying the Saxons/Romans/Ottomans/whoever are better because you like certain positive aspects. That is why my line is basically- these guys are interesting, but I do not really cheer for them or anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
unlawfulsoup posted:This makes more sense if the people getting 'punished' were the actual bullies. I do not really consider the Vikings to be inhuman or inherently worse than anyone else, humanity has a pretty storied history full of abhorrent violence and terrible people. My point was that you see a lot of Viking cheer-leading (not as much here to be totally fair) when their actions were often reprehensible. When I say actions I am referring to the raiding and such, the civilization in general is interesting to watch, and the show does a better job than anything I can remember depicting it. The "certain positive aspects" are pretty significant - having laws against and a society that condemns beating and torturing women makes them, in my opinion, a whole hell of a lot more worthy of regard than the entirety of Christendom who didn't get the loving memo until the last few hundred years. I get what you're saying though, I don't hold them up as a paragon of civilization. I'll leave that to the white nationalists. I just found your "I'm not a big fan of aggressors" comment kind of bewildering for a whole lot of different reasons. Pretty sure I misunderstood what you meant, though. I guess all the blood and guts is kind of abstract to me since nobody actually fights real battles with swords and shields anymore, but the cruelty and sexism inherent in most interpretations of Christianity lingers to this day. Lord Tywin posted:I really liked how they formed up in a Svinfylking formation with Ragnar at the helm when the Saxons attacked the encampment, it was a shame that they didn't keep the formation and just charged out. The reason that the Saxons fight so badly is probably because they are made up mostly of inexperienced militia since I can't imagine King snakepit being one who campaign often and it's likely that he keeps the actual good warriors to guard him, however they do have really nice equipment for being a militia but I figure that's an aesthetic choice. Oh man this irritated me too, they probably wouldn't have lost a man if they had stayed in the shield wall. Maybe it wouldn't have made as good of television but it would've given me a massive history nerd boner to see them slowly grind them to death cutting femoral arteries with seaxes and whatnot only breaking formation to  the fleeing survivors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 11:56
|
|
|
Vivoviparous posted:Oh man this irritated me too, they probably wouldn't have lost a man if they had stayed in the shield wall. Maybe it wouldn't have made as good of television but it would've given me a massive history nerd boner to see them slowly grind them to death cutting femoral arteries with seaxes and whatnot only breaking formation to They basically did this in the small battle on the beach... and it was one of the best battle/fight scenes I've seen on a TV show. Call it history nerd boner or whatever, but I agree with you 100%, and I'd rather see that type of grinding conflict any day compared to say something like Spartacus' over the top jumping around, swings and yada yada fight scenes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
hypersleep posted:
European culture wouldn't exist without Christianity. You otherkins should really take a hard look at yourselves. You are not neo-pagans, trying to bring back lost cultures. You are Christians that are allowed to fantasize about being part of a culture that was documented by Christians, and romanticized by Christians. If it wasn't for Christians everything you know would have been lost and never found. Please, stop bashing yourselves for crimes that happened so long ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
Vivoviparous posted:I get what you're saying though, I don't hold them up as a paragon of civilization. I'll leave that to the white nationalists. I just found your "I'm not a big fan of aggressors" comment kind of bewildering for a whole lot of different reasons. Pretty sure I misunderstood what you meant, though. I guess all the blood and guts is kind of abstract to me since nobody actually fights real battles with swords and shields anymore, but the cruelty and sexism inherent in most interpretations of Christianity lingers to this day. I may have painted a pretty broad stroke; it was more of a reaction to people who just cheer on murdering helpless people, which like I said is not really the people here. I really find the Romans interesting, both culturally and militarily, but I have no illusions on just how evil they could be. It is all cool though, the Vikings deserve a better TV/Film treatment than they have gotten, so they have me watching right now as long as they keep it up. TemetNosceXVIcubus posted:European culture wouldn't exist without Christianity. You otherkins should really take a hard look at yourselves. You are not neo-pagans, trying to bring back lost cultures. You are Christians that are allowed to fantasize about being part of a culture that was documented by Christians, and romanticized by Christians. If it wasn't for Christians everything you know would have been lost and never found. Please, stop bashing yourselves for crimes that happened so long ago. Well a large amount of where we are in the West is definitely intertwined with Christianity, although that maybe fading at some rate now. Either way, objectively Christianity has a hell of a lot to answer for both today and in the past. You can probably say the same for a lot of other religions too, but most people here probably do not encounter them as strongly in their day to day lives. unlawfulsoup fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Apr 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
Oh my god shut up with the historical blame game. These people have been dead for 1200 years. I would rather talk more about the beach fight. That was pretty cool how they yanked people through the shield wall to get chopped up by the second rank. Is that a real thing that happened?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Vivoviparous posted:Oh man this irritated me too, they probably wouldn't have lost a man if they had stayed in the shield wall. Maybe it wouldn't have made as good of television but it would've given me a massive history nerd boner to see them slowly grind them to death cutting femoral arteries with seaxes and whatnot only breaking formation to I assumed they had to break formation so that old guy could go to Valhalla (or am I confusing the sequence of events?).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Vivoviparous posted:Oh man this irritated me too, they probably wouldn't have lost a man if they had stayed in the shield wall. Maybe it wouldn't have made as good of television but it would've given me a massive history nerd boner to see them slowly grind them to death cutting femoral arteries with seaxes and whatnot only breaking formation to But then the old dude wouldn't have made it to Valhalla. Don't be selfish, man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Oh my god shut up with the historical blame game. These people have been dead for 1200 years. Arguing about silly things to score e-points is what goons do. I thought the arrow bit was fairly clever myself. unlawfulsoup fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Apr 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
TemetNosceXVIcubus posted:European culture wouldn't exist without Christianity. You otherkins should really take a hard look at yourselves. You are not neo-pagans, trying to bring back lost cultures. You are Christians that are allowed to fantasize about being part of a culture that was documented by Christians, and romanticized by Christians. If it wasn't for Christians everything you know would have been lost and never found. Please, stop bashing yourselves for crimes that happened so long ago. Did this guy really just call me an "otherkin"?  Some of you guys are apparently really invested in Christianity. I'm sorry you feel so angry. On the bright side, a new episode tonight!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
This thread is turning into a
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Oh my god shut up with the historical blame game. These people have been dead for 1200 years. Arglebargle III posted:I would rather talk more about the beach fight. That was pretty cool how they yanked people through the shield wall to get chopped up by the second rank. Is that a real thing that happened?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Vikings: My Pict Rages On
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
So, thanks to you wonderful goons I was made aware of this show. Thanks, man, it's a pretty great show. The editing and pacing is a bit wonky at times and some of the characterizations are a bit flat but there is so much good stuff to outweigh the bad. They picked a great lead and a wonderful supporting cast. I just wish they'd keep some of them around longer, like that old guy who wished to die or that long haired guy who was in " The 13th Warrior" etc Apart from some growing pains the show is wonderful and I'm really glad it got another 10 episodes after this season. Oh and that title sequence is awesome too, such atmospheric music and visuals
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 18:44
|
|
