green

The ranger guy is probably one of the most famous historically speaking. Robert Rogers of the famed Rogers' Rangers from the French and Indian War (the Brits called it The Seven Years War). He is an American colonial who headed up the colonies' first special ops unit with his Rangers corps. He became an explorer between the wars seeking the elusive "northwest passage" to the far east. Check out the old classical historical novel by Kenneth Roberts, "Northwest Passage" where he is the hero of the story. (Played by Spencer Tracey in the pretty bad film adaptation). Had he sided with his fellow colonists he might have well superseded Washington as America's most famous soldier of the Revolution era. Of course the same goes for Benedict Arnold who was a far better leader and tactician then Washington early in the Revolution and joined the British when his personal ambition and colonial politics made him the outsider at the colonial table. I mean this guy almost single handily won the battle of Saratoga which prevented the British from dividing the colonies in half. He was wildly loved by the men who fought under him. Had he not been wounded at Saratoga and ended up in New York recovering from his wounds and licking his bruised ego when Gage was it took credit for Saratoga instead -- though Gage almost destroyed the American army that day and Arnold saved it -- in said NY, he would never have been recruited by his pro-British lover he met there. How much of history turns on a few personal events here and there. Another one or two of Kenneth Robert's books, "Arundel" and "Rabble in Arms" deals with Arnold in a highly sympathetic way. I don't know how some of Robert's facts check out after more then a half a century of research since his books but that are classics and worth it just for the feel of the times. I salute the guy for just not making the Americans (and the books are written by an American with a pro American agenda throughout) all the good guys and people like Rogers and Arnold the totally evil guys. He was ahead of his time that way. In other news if Turn wasn't on right after The Amazing Race so I could lazily prolong my leisure another hour I don't know if I could keep watching this though history nut I be. Since it is I keep watching but there aren't too many legs of The Amazing Race left to have the TV on for. They really need to tweak this series asap. Because if they can't hold the interest of a history nut like me who are they going to pull in to watch? And annoying gripe I keep forgetting to post. Can they have the actors playing Abe and his father share the same damn accent? It is just plain stupid to lack even that basic continuity. Decide on the modern day American accent of senior of the whatever the hell it is suppose to be accent of junior. But get on the same page. I mean could you imagine the actor who played Apollo in Battlestar Galactica using his natural English accent next to Edward James Olmos' (Adama) American one. Or Freddy Highmore using his natural English accent on Bates Motel next to Vera? I mean there is no way Abe and father should have such divergent accents especially since it is senior that has the more modern American one. Are we to believe Abe was kidnapped in early childhood and raised by a band of wandering cabbages that indoctrinated him with that weird whatever it is he is going for accent? Every time senior and junior have a scene together I never hear what they are saying cause I'm so distracted by how they are saying it.

I stand corrected. I didn't even remember an interstate in the film. Guess it had such a 1950's feel to it when the interstate system was just starting out I assumed there was none there yet. Sorry for the mistake.

No there is no bypass in the movie. Nor any weed industry blissfully! And no brother Dylan or any of the other characters other then Norman and well sort of kind of his "Mother" though she had no first name in the film. (Brilliant for this modern day re-imagined prequel to use "Norma" for all the obvious reasons). But it does feature the exact same house/motel set and the taxidermy shall we say. It is a Hitchcock classic and worth seeing and adds to appreciating the series way more. And what a job Freddy Highmore has done with being his own "Norman" while respecting and even incorporating a lot of Anthony's Perkins "Norman" into the role.

That's why we all come here. To mourn the end of the season and heal by keeping it alive by talking about it here. Pull up a bench and move close to the fire and we will pass you a hollow horn full of wine as we re-live seasons past together. Too bad the spin-off "The Horiks" (trademark Master Cole here on his Gardies page) had to be shelved, hah. (That screenshot makes them look like the Viking Waltons).

Yeah that was Ragnar (Travis Fimmel who is brilliant in the role) right before he has his vision in the first few minutes of the series. The violence really isn't gratuitous to me. Yeah Vikings are going to be violent, that is what they do. It's a real thing but I don't see it glorified on the TV show. Among the Vikings dying in battle is the way to enter Valhalla. It makes them very gray characters who come from that background which is all they know at the start of the series. Makes you consider how you would be if you were raised in a culture like this and it was all you knew. Series makes me think a lot actually. But the first scene was more a "hook" scene and the rest of the battle scenes are more in historical context. Well actually this is in historical context too but it was an over the top scene used to introduce Ragnar and his brother Rollo as great warriors all alone fighting among the dead from the get go. A totally atypical surreal scene as opposed to other more realistic battle scenes later. But the rest of the first episode has no more battle scenes so I guess they wanted to get something in early to establish how hard and cruel the world of the Vikings was and try to hook those who want some action immediately. And they don't give them a free pass on the violence either. They may be the main characters but they can do really bad things. They don't sugercoat these people. You get the good, the bad and the ugly as you enter a whole different world and mindset in a brilliantly written show that tries to present these people in their terms and times and not in a 21st century pov of modern dress-up costume "history". It is also a show that covers the clash of cultures as 793 AD produces the first raid recorded on English soil where a strange destiny awaits one young monk. This exposure to another culture can cause new, visionary ideas to arise and also negative reactions to something not in keeping with the old ways. Add in the family life aspect, the role of women in society (hint: free Viking women had far more freedom and rights then their English counterparts though it is not good to be a slave in any culture) along with the political ploys and plots and there is a lot to take in. Not for everyone and I resisted watching it at first for quite awhile until I finally caught a Season 1 mid-season marathon and got hooked totally. I had resisted too because I didn't want to see rape and pillage and war glorified. But once I got into it I discovered it had some of the most brilliant writing I've experience on TV, some of the most astounding scenery, a great title credits, brilliant actors and an excellent blend of history an drama fused together. You run out to Wikipedia to look up the characters to find out their reality or not then get excited to see this guy's descents do this and that guy is the grandfather of this king etc. Yeah fictionalized history but with great emphasis on the history too. It just makes it more real that these people actually walked our earth too and not lived in a fictional far off galaxy or something. (I love Star Wars but I mean the visceral feel to what actually happened gets to me more I guess). And again, it made me think a lot which most TV doesn't. Sorry for the long post. Glad off topic stuff is allowed in this off topic thread, heh.

Don't think they gave any hints or they were so generic bland I forgot them already. It was more about the Romero actor not using eyeliner. At one point he used a make-up remover pad the host shoved at him to "prove" it wasn't make-up when the pad turned out clean. At which point the host commented that he had beautiful eyelashes making the actor look even more uncomfortable. And look the Dylan actor grew this big full beard (I assume he has some other part lined-up for the off season downtime). Also confirming, like the first time, that Freddy was up and about in Cambridge at 3 AM to appear on this interview live even though he is into finals there right now. Also question as to what was the favorite scene some of them shot. Which I can't remember much of either except Freddy who liked jumping in the pond, locked up in the box with cockroaches running all over him and turning into "Norma" with Norman's uncle at the other motel. He may be as loopy as his character, hah. Oh yeah, the Emma actor liked best a scene where she kissed Norman but apparently they edited that out but it may be available on the Blue Ray / DVD copy as an "extra" scene. I remember the showrunner guy said he thought it was too early to have Emma and Norman become so close as to kiss which I guess does imply it might happen later on in the series. Poor Emma. That was the only "hint" I remember on the show. But I assume they would get close anyway because why have her character on the show to start with. Then there was a so called blooper reel which wasn't too exciting and very very brief. Though one nice outtake was Vera at the gate to Nick's ship/dock area talking to the voice coming out of the box asking her who she was and she blanked and couldn't remember to say "Norma Bates" and then laughed and said she almost gave her real life name instead. Also weird odds and ends like Vera liked to cook her ethnic Ukranian foods for cast and crew during holidays. The guy that played Norma's evil brother is apparently the third highest ranked arm wrestler in the country and tricked the actor that played Dylan (who knew not this factoid) into trying arm wrestling with him in front of the whole crew promising him 10K if he won. A millisecond later Dylan actor dude was defeated. In short you didn't miss much.

Thanks for replies and reactions. I did know that Baltar and Six were suppose to be angels or devas (the Hindu equivalent) and have no problem with the idea for Starbuck if they made it clearer why she had a "special destiny." But Baltar and Six make no sense to me since Six was created by the more primitive cylons or the original 12 (I forget at this point) and Baltar was Baltar. The poster child of the flawed human with all the weaknesses rolled up into my person. That's why I can buy his "redemption" as symbolic for the redemption of the Colonies survivors but not that he was some official deva all along. I have no problem with the mystical elements. In fact I wish they had gone there more but in a way that made sense to me. I admit I don't get the Catholic stuff being so negative cause Christianity (like most religions) is about redemption and second chances and spiritual growth. It is the fundamentalist sects in these religions that seem to be all hell fire and damnation. Not something like the modern Catholic church. Maybe Moore had some twisted experiences with some religious authority figures early in his life. Also thanks for info on Moore's reason to get rid of the technology. Shows he has absolutely no idea how things work if he was worried people would question why no one discovered the Colonial ships on modern earth. There are Roman ruins that are buried several stories underground after 2000 years. After 150,000 years anything still man-made would be buried so deep no one would ever uncover it. 70% of the world is under water too. Plus only 1% or less of the earth has ever had archeologists digging there. So who would ever discover it. And that is if metal objects stayed intact for 150,000 years which they don't. Metal decomposes into it's raw material sooner then that. Especially if he had the ships come down close to an ocean with the salt in the air that can destroy cars bodies in just a few years. But even if it were true that you could find artifacts that remain intact that long and are close enough to the surface to ever be found, I think it would have been a far cooler ending having some small thing unearthed by somebody who wonders what the thing was but not making head nor tail of it. They lose interest and toss it away as they continue digging their new well or whatever. That should be dark enough for Moore. Cool to be able to discuss all this. Especially since Vikings is over for the year. At least it hasn't disappointed yet though it is only through it's second season.

Nice end to the season. Romero and Dylan end up best friends ever blowing away drug lords and rescuing crazy people from boxes. Norma decides Dylan deserves a ticket to ride too because she loves ... ah ... because he saved Norman. And "head Norma" helps Norman cheat on his lie detector test. That will hold me to next season. And in the post-show interview segment we find out the actor that plays Romero uses no eye make-up at all, the actor who plays Emma is also English, the actor who plays Dylan has grown a Viking level beard Vera can't keep her fingers out of now and Freddy Highmore can't dance unlike Vera who apparently used to be a professional Ukrainian folk dancer.

Well it just ended it's second season too but I'd recommend Vikings which you probably could get via Netflix. Excellent writing, directing, filming, editing, scoring and especially brilliant acting. Astounding scenery. Keeps to the real history enough without lessening the drama. And drama based on real people done well (and this is a "10") ratchets up things to a whole new level for me. Strong, complex characters with enough dark humor amid the drama. One of the strongest females to grace TV drama ever in Lagertha. Ragnar is totally mesmerizing. Athelstan is caught between two worlds, two cultures, two religions, two views of his self ... deep that. And Floki is ... ah ... Floki. You have to experience him, hard to explain in writing.

The History Channel ran Vikings Season 1 marathons before Season 2 I believe. I'm sure they will do the same next year. Probably will even run both seasons even if it cuts into their "real" history show time where we learn that ancient aliens invented the wheel because we puny humans could never figure out that something round can roll.

Thanks for the info. I think, heh. There goes my non-Hollywood version of Floki down the drain. Time to embrace Secret Agent Man Floki I guess if it is canon ... except in my alternate universe where he is still more batshit crazy then super spy. Also though I gave thumbs up to the "Gardies" I also wanted to add a written thanks to Master Cole here. I can't get On Top of Old Smokie out of my head now though. "On top of Norse Mountain / All covered in mist / Floki picks mushrooms / Now that he's pissed." Dude you got me humming that to myself now. You are so totally evil!!! (Hah). Thanks for all the "Gardies." If you have time, you should retro some of the missing episodes to help us during the downtime maybe. Even do Season 1? Finally I was thinking about the last scene and how it was so totally different because they chose to stage it like a theatre piece. It would be interesting to find out who came up with that. It seemed I had been transported to the impressive stage of The Grand Viking Theatre Company's production of "King Horik's Doom." Complete with traditional entries and exits and stage lighting and everyone moving in a choreographed pattern and the very stylized killing (well until Ragnar went all beserker at the end that is) and so forth. I liked it cause it was different and I like the theatre choice because even though it doesn't mesh with the naturalistic style of the rest of the series; it still worked somehow by not meshing if that makes any sense. Like it was a grand payoff -- along with the awesome last shot -- to us fans to give us a wonderfully satisfying exit out of Season 2 to help hold us over until next year. Far better then those endless stupid cliffhanger series that seem like they are kicking dust in the face of their fans instead. Those types of endings just annoy. This ending has me all pumped up for Season 3. Bring it on!

I loved the first two seasons. Kept hope alive through the final five reveal in season 3 thinking it might actually go somewhere that made sense which it never did. Tried to believe this was still a great series in season 4. But I just think the more Ronald Moore caught flak for all the "dark" the more he stubbornly dug his heels in and decided to show even more "dark" as a somewhat childish reaction and not part of any rational story arc. He seemed determine to kill off as many characters in dark ways that made no sense and leave others living in deep despair. Why? The darkness hit first. The world(s) ended. This should be a story about rediscovering hope. Not in a simplistic way. But a hard fought grayish way instead of a pitch black lack thereof. Dude must have a few personal demons going on. My list of totally gratuitous deaths and/or destructions of character arcs: 1. Gaeta and Tom Zarek (two silly deaths for the price of one): No logic to their rebellion or them suddenly becoming allies. The character of Tom had so many possibilities since he seemed half idealist / half demagogue but even when looking after number one he was still speaking many times for all the unseen thousands who had no control over their lives the whole time stuck in dark, dank space-hopping tin cans with no voice at the table. There was an oligarchy in charge and the non-Colonial military and Roslin's group had the say in everything. Zarek was the only character in the whole show who spoke up for the concerns of the majority who had to wait in a passive state hoping the next attack didn't get their ship blown up. Hated they just put in a filler rebellion to off these two. 2. Dualla - yeah commit suicide for no real reason because you are too tired to go on and the actor didn't even have contractual obligations elsewhere like Cylon Xena 2.0. No plausible story arc leading up to this stupid act. 3. D'Anna - see above. If you didn't have access to the services of Lucy Lawless post-writers' strike then at least give her a good write out. She is at the height of her powers as cylon leader and she is just too tired to go on? And she just kind of added that in passing to Tigh was it? Couldn't have a dramatic scene with Adama/Roslin at least? 4. Chief and Calley - long story arc of Calley going from our favorite knuckle dragger to being a drag on Chief cause he can't deal with being a dad maybe? I don't even know why she was seen as negative. Chief goes from "let's kick some Cylon ass" to I'm going off totally alone on this here non earth new earth and not having anything to do with you guys forever. I will go off to future Scotland and teach the local cavemen engineering and getting drunk a lot and die all alone of depression. 5. Apollo - added him cause his character never made any sense the whole series. They never seemed to know what to do with him. Honestly they should have gone with original series Apollo as the loyal, worshipful son of Adama who then maybe starts to question things and evolves into his own man as the series goes on. My main complaint here at the end of the show about him was for the ludicrous idea to fly the Galactica into the sun and get rid of all the other ships and technology over night. Dude, you crossed half a galaxy to survive as a species. So now you want to set things up so that you all die off in the first year? You don't know it the locals will turn on you. You don't know how to hunt and fish and gather especially on an alien planet that might have some nasty critters and germs on it. You don't know the weather patterns and the ability to grow crops from the get go. It is a BIG learning curve. You need to naturally "devolve" from the technology over a couple of generations as you "evolve" into suvivorlists. At least save the ships to fashion some metal weapons and tools from. Cause metals make the age. Without the ability to work metals you don't move from copper to iron etc that creates the societies that can support the growing population that gives rise to laws and art and philosophy and religion and civilization. Having metal to start with allows you to mine metal more easily from the get go. Helps you farm. Helps you hunt. You need all the tools you can get to survive and slowly learn the ways of the new world and how to operate without that technology. Let nature take it's course, dude. Also getting rid of the entire past means that you disrespect all your loved ones from the 12 Colonies and all the history of their struggles and the whole painful journey you made. Pissing on their nuked graves and the suffering and deaths of your comrades that died along the way. Destroying the memory of a great civilization and culture that once lived and grew and hoped and dreamed somewhere far away. I love and respect history far too much to swallow Apollo's insane path. I think Moore just gave up on Apollo at the end and said screw it lets make him into a total joke and have him destroy everything we ever saw or experienced in some childish hissy fit then send him off to "explore" all alone and get eaten by saber tooth tigers within a week or two. Semi on the plus side. I did like that Baltar lived. Usually the guy that makes the "big mistake" has to die to find redemption so glad he and Six lived. Don't like it that they seem to be able to live forever though. That last scene was totally dumb. Don't even know what to say about Starbuck. If she came back from the dead you could get into a cool storyline maybe about multi-universes and/or mystical stuff that made some sense. But did she or was she replaced by someone else? I don't know. But after all the "special destiny" what was so special that she did that others didn't other then be one great kickass warrior. I wanted a better payoff for Starbuck. She deserved it. Hell I wanted a better payoff for the whole series. There really wasn't any. At least any that made sense. I too have a hard time re-watching anything other then the mini-series. The mini-series left me with hope that we were going to begin a painful but amazing journey. The end of the worlds and yet it left me with more hope then the rest of the series combined, heh. But thought of viewing anything after it makes me feel "tired" too. Interesting that it is this feeling of "tiredness" that seems to be the main one to crop up with others as well. I thought I was the only one. Well since I get a feeling of tiredness from it now I guess I'll go sit with D'Anna on the scrapheap of real earth but not our earth earth and think of where we could have gone instead. PS: Wow, sorry. I didn't know this would turn into such a negative rant. I guess it is because I invested into this series heavily at the time. I don't watch that much TV and those things I do watch I watch cause I think they are worth watching. I was loving this show early on and kept trying to rationalize the irrational as it moved on. I guess I just hate how something I loved so much at first just played out into nothing great at the end. The potential was awesome. They dropped the ball half way through because, unlike the cylons, they had no plan. Of course it turns out the cylons had none either. Oh well.

AzureOwl, I assume the time jump will make it be after Charlemagne's death. But since Rollo was already teleported back to the year 793 AD when the series began and was magically made Ragnar's brother, I assume that the time jumping and French history line will get played a little loose too. I'm not sure which year we are suppose to be at now but did they time-skip 5 or 7 years early this past season? Then it seemed a few more years went by as Snake-Eye and Boneless were born and several raids and such took place. So maybe it is at least 804 or as late as say 809 now? Wikipedia says Charlemagne died in January 2014. So it shouldn't be too much of a jump historically speaking to get him out of the picture. It also says that: "Louis the Pious (778 – 20 June 840), also called the Fair, and the Debonaire, (Me: pious and debonaire? hah) was the King of Aquitaine from 781. He was also King of the Franks and co-Emperor (as Louis I) with his father, Charlemagne, from 813." So even though it says things don't start falling apart big time for the Franks until the 830's when Louis was deposed for a few years and totally went wonky after Louis' death and the big Viking raid didn't take place until 845 ... well who votes to make it all happen earlier so Ragnar can come along for it? I bet Michael Hirst did much to the glee of the History Channel and all the fans of the show. And they can do it by simply having the Franks fall to pieces upon the death of Charlemagne using news of that death as the triggering for the great raid on Paris. You just have to skip over the reign of Louis the Debonaire ... err, Pious or Fair or whatever and go straight to the Franks losing it a few decades earlier. (Sorry, Louis ... we hardly knew ye).

I agree with you both. From the first time I saw him I have thought Gollum and still do. Every single scene. And he is indeed slither-like and slightly feline. So Gollum as a slithering, feline-like, half-crazed Viking. Yep, that's Floki.

I think everyone views this from, well, their own pov. I don't think he was giving any kind of performance at all when he protested he was a trustworthy person. I think this is the point where Ragnar gets through to Floki that it is now a choice between the him and Horik for real. That and probably the stupid way Horik fought the big battle got through to Floki finally. When Floki told Helga that Horik knew the darker gods better then Ragnar and that they seem to have a pull over Floki I think that was his flirting with darker possibilities within his rather unstable self. And he truly is unstable and sometimes doesn't know what he will do from one moment to another. But he finally had to make a choice and, as he declared to Horik, he chose to remain loyal "to the gods" (not the darker gods as Floki views it) and only second mentioned his loyalty to Ragnar. To me Floki isn't some sophisticated Cold War 20th century spy living a couple of years in deep cover. He is a man trying to find out what his gods are and what they want of him. It seemed a real struggle but he finds them (and him) on the side of Ragnar in the end. The episode before this was called The Choice and I think it referred to most characters making their choice in that episode. Athelstan to return with Ragnar. Ecbert choosing to make an offer to a weaken Viking army. Ragnar, Lagertha and even a reluctant Horik choosing to accept Ecbert's offer. And Floki choosing finally the side of the gods minus the dark part and Ragnar and then beginning to work with him on a plan at that point. But not earlier.. I could be entirely wrong but the writing hasn't been jumping the shark in the least on this show and Floki playing some elaborate ruse for a couple of years and even making weird comments to his wife when entirely alone with her would just be a too lazy, modern day contrivance for a man at the dawn of the 9th century. I respect the writing more then that. Again it could be written this way. But if it is it would be the first major criticism I would have of this series who tries to create a different world then ours and not fall into standard Hollywood tropes. A world undergoing a major change as the Vikings we see are exposed and and react to new cultures and a new god. A world that forces men like Ragnar and Floki to look deep within themselves to see how they will react to this massive upheaval to their core beliefs, to their souls if you will. I guess I prefer a Floki coming through a real struggle and making a choice more then just playing a game for a couple of years. If Michael Hirst has said or written otherwise then yeah that is canon for the show. But until I read that from him I'll keep my pov of Floki. I like him as a warrior who battled his demons and won better.

About the dead children. They were definitely Horik's. Lagertha was making a move to them after she killed Horik's wife like she was about to off them. Then generic Viking dude arrives to say it was Ragnar's orders not to kill them so she turns and exits. Then generic Viking dude gives the offspring a rather chilling look and looks like he squares around about to enter the room. Cut to next scene. So my guess is generic Viking dude killed them but the "orders from Ragnar" is confusing. Was that Ragnar's way to save Lagertha from killing children? Or was the orders thing made up by generic Viking dude? Or what? Confusing for sure. Especially since the most dangerous offspring is the eldest son who looks like he was spared. So why would Ragnar spare him and have the young children killed? Also interesting that Bjorn saves one of the daughters. Wonder if down the years she will be a earl or perhaps a future wife of someone, maybe even Bjorn? This is the second time we have seen Bjorn show mercy to someone. The first time was giving some food to Jarl Borg in the hut/cell. Interesting it ended with more questions then answers regards Floki and Siggy. Guess it leaves it to the audience to come to their own conclusions. Mine remains that Floki is estranged towards Ragnar's more visionary path and that he for real still hates Athelstan but he could only go along with Horik so far. The scene before they sailed off to their last raid where he was lying in the grass with Helga was interesting. When I re-saw it during the Vikings marathon a few days ago I caught more of what he said. He was telling her he chose to sail with Horik but didn't know why. Also that Horik knew the dark gods better then Ragnar did. And seemed to suggest the dark gods always interested him (Floki). (This episode he names his daughter after a giantess that Helga views as evil but that Floki admires). It seems like Floki is Athelstan's counterpart where he has divided loyalties between various gods pulling at him. With Floki's it is Team Norse all the way but some of the gods are "dark" whatever that means. Evil like Helga alluded too? Don't know. But both men seem to go through real and not some fake angst about these things. Thus he was divided between Horik and Ragnar but his friendship and loyalty kicked in finally. Both to Ragnar and the less dark gods maybe? When is the question that is debatable. Maybe Ragnar accusing him about "trustworthiness" when they rode to see Ecbert pushed him firmly back onto Ragnar's side. I always assumed there was a very good chance he would stay loyal to Ragnar vs Horik but I still don't buy they had this whole thing planned for a couple of years. Floki is just too unpredictable even to himself. He had to come to believe the gods wanted him to remain loyal. Which means it is a very good thing he didn't hear Ragnar learning the Lord's Prayer from Athelstan. Siggy's agenda is even more mysterious. I wish we could have seen more of it. Was killing the children too far for her to go? Or did she decide to stick with Ragnar earlier? Was she working to entrap Horik or did she see his path of mass destruction too dangerous for her to buy into at the last minute. She tells Rollo she is staying with him because he still might prove useful to her. More useful then Horik's danger filled gamble maybe? Again, like Floki, it seems it is left to us to decide. And I like that. I like a show to leave a mystery or two that we can all project our opinions onto. I would like to thank all with the show from creator/writer/director to filming and editing to the brilliant actors to the music composer for two awesome seasons so far. It will be way too long a wait until 2015. And also thank you for NOT leaving us with some annoying and contrived cliffhanger.

Well the first two phrases could be used to describe almost every other episode. The episodes in between just switch the names of Norma and Norman around. Romero and Dylan find a way to end the drug war? Cool. My guess is they form a committee to get pot legalized in Oregon on the ballot for the next election. ;-)

Then in all due respect I think the majority of these other boards are wrong. Floki has been drifting further and further away from Ragner even in Season 1. Tons of foreshadowing. Deeply upset over Rollo even getting "fake" baptized. Extremely upset at and hating Athelstan (and hoping aloud he was dead when Horik arrived back right after Borg was captured) for both his personal friendship with Ragnar that pretty much pushed aside Floki's place as closest confident and friend in Ragnar's affection. And especially of course in Athelstan's Christianity which threatens Floki's entire ground of being. He may well not be able to go through with a final betrayal but not because he and Ragnar are working together. I mean he even jumped ship and came ashore separate from the rest when Ragnar came back to take care of Jarl Borg. He was met by Helga on the coastline and told her flat out the gods were deeply displeased with them mentioning the ships that had sunk in the storm. Then he tells Helga he doesn't want Ragnar at this wedding. None of this was done in front of Horik to put on some deceptive show. Most was done before Horik even came into the picture. Now in the latest episode (Ep 9) Ragnar even called out his trustworthiness while the inner group of the Viking party were riding to Ecbert's to begin negotiations. Floki got visibly upset and emotionally proclaimed he was the most trustworthy of men. Ragnar shot Horik and glance then back to Floki. His look at Floki was like a dagger plunging in. I honestly don't see how some unbalanced person who flat-out told Siggy he couldn't keep a secret in that delightful reading of the line "No" could possibly be keeping super deep secrets and working with Ragnar on some master plan. It does not compute for me. I can see that Horik has lead the Floki horse to water but whether that Floki horse drinks or shies away ... well I guess we will see Thursday. Floki may well flip over to Ragnar at the last moment, that is entirely possible I grant you. But I don't see it as some super secret plot that was planned all along. More out of past loyalty, history and friendship if it happens. But even then moving forward he is still estranged from the path Ragnar has chosen to walk. His world he lives in is not Ragnar's envisioned world and it never will be again.

Well I guess you need "bad guys" or you don't have a show. They already got rid of Jarl Borg so without Horik and Aelle and now Floki and Siggy you don't have any tale to tell. I assume they are going to end this on a cliff hanger (don't know, just speculating) which will drive me crazy. And I never believed Floki and Ragnar had some con going. Floki's devout feelings to the Norse gods and his outright hatred of Athelstan are not playing acting on his part. And the look that Ragnar gave him when they were riding in to the conference discussing "trust" said it all. Floki's voice almost rose an octave as he protested he was a trustworthy man. And after glancing quickly back to Horik then back to Floki, Ragnar just gave him the eye at full Ragnar intensity level a zillion. I believe that Floki is deeply jealous at a subconscious level of Athelstan's friendship with Ragnar though at a conscious level he would not believe he was. And outwardly Floki obviously views Ragnar as a heretic to the Norse gods at this point. He sees Ragnar as an agent that will change the old ways forever and that is where he centers himself. In that traditional viewpoint of the world where he has his ground of being. And enter Horik who knows how to milk all this big time while flattering Floki at the same time. At this point had Floki overheard Ragnar's line to Athelstan about hoping his God and Athelstan's God would become friends some day, Floki would have gone bats**t crazy on the spot. Oh wait, he already is. It looks like next episode both Floki and Siggy have to decide at last where their true loyalties lie. I wouldn't write either off until they make what for them will be their final choice regards Ragnar. But right now it doesn't look too good for Floki. Even if he doesn't go through with a final betrayal his days around Ragnar seem numbered. He can't abide the change that has come into his old school Norse world. A change Ragnar brought about. OTOH Siggy seems to like Ragnar's children a lot and even helped midwife some. She will have had to turned completely to the dark side to be willing to kill the children like Horik wants. The weird thing about the Siggy storyline is that the writers have never dealt with the fact that Rollo would NOT be pleased with what she is doing seemingly to push him into Ragnar's place. Of course it is all about her but she must know that Rollo would go ballistic if he found out just how much she would do to get rid of his brother. I really hate that the season ends next week.

I was surprised that the old 1950's movie was about Ragnar and Ivar. From Wikipedia: "In The Vikings, a film of 1958, Ragnar, played by Ernest Borgnine, is captured by King Ælla of Northumbria and cast into a pit of wolves. His son Einar (presumably a variation of the historical Ivar), played by Kirk Douglas, vows revenge and conquers Northumbria." After seeing Travis Fimmel in the role it is hard to imagine Ragnar portrayed by Ernest Borgnine. And who knew Kirk Douglas was boneless, hah. Also that snakes morphed into wolves. Wikipedia also mentioned that: " Ragnar Lothbrok's shipwreck, capture, and execution, as well as his sons' revenge, are portrayed in Harry Harrison's alternative history novel The Hammer and the Cross, the first of a trilogy." Anyone here ever see/read this? And what is "alternative" history? History set to grunge music (cough)? Also Ragnar seems to have made it into many a computer (video) game as well as a couple of music albums. I feel I am so late to the party. Oh yeah, Ragnar is the official name of the mascot of the Minnesota Vikings. LOL. One thing Wikipedia missed referencing Ragnar in popular culture was that the arsenal the Battlestar Galactica accessed in the miniseries pilot was Ragnar Anchorage. I remember at the time thinking that Ragnar sounded like a cool place name and sort of Viking-ish but little did I know.

He is known to history as Bjorn Ironside. His Wikipedia link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rn_Ironside

The whole pacing of this second season seems a bit off to me. Things are getting so "major" with weed wars and a kidnapping coming up and oh yeah a few deaths of various types already that I don't see how they don't go way overboard to top this in season three. I mean Norman still has his senior year to go through and some time after that until Psycho time, right? I'd rather have seen a more subtle escalation then Norman already out of control. Still love the main actors though. And Romero is an interesting character. A sheriff from the old school where back in the 1800's you kept the peace between the cattlemen and the ranchers by not exactly following the letter of the law but knowing when to bend it rather then have it end up totally broken. "Peacekeeper" first, last and foremost and not some modern day boring legalities type.

Who knew Simcoe would be the major breakout star of the series so far. And thanks to this board for giving me a name to put to him. The series has been poorly written and the pace is horrid so far but it is history and to have Robert Rogers of the old Rogers' Rangers and Major Andre pop up already keeps me sloughing along with this show. Sad to see the Pennsylvania militia brothers all killed. Especially the youngest. Fear can take hold of people and to be the furthermost they ever have been from their home and to see the defeated survivors from Fort Lee in full retreat and hear the rumor that Washington had been killed is enough to unnerve most people. There were a lot of desertions from the Continental Army as well as the countless irregular militia groups like theirs that fought with it. It was a rough war. No tour of duty rotations alongside highly trained troops with superior weapons. Just the possibility of an endless war against one of the world's greatest armies of the day with either starvation or imprisonment or a musket ball tearing you to pieces to look forward to. They should have just taken off rather then try to shoot the two officers since that made no sense. You don't have to turn in a British officer for a Get Out of Jail Free card. You just have to run for the hills and make your way back home. But still their reaction to abandoning the cause wasn't totally that rare for the day. And it was a nice touch to make you feel how hard and scary the risks and hardships these men and boys faced back then. So the newly formed spy ring has made it's first big score by finding out the Hessians are going to Trenton so that Washington will cross the Delaware eventually and win his most famous battle. And all of this is because of sauerkraut. History is fun.

Was especially interesting to see Robert Rogers of Roger's Rangers in this series. The famous old historical novel, Northwest Passage, was based on his exploits during the French and Indian War and after between the wars. If he had stayed on the American side of the Revolution he would have gone down as one of the greatest American military heroes. He basically formed and lead the first American special ops unit during the French and Indian War (called the Seven Years War in Europe). Of course the same could be said of Benedict Arnold who was America's best and most effective general in the Revolution until Major Andre cited above recruits him into the British spy ring. People seem to forgot though that the traditional historic rule of thumb concerning loyalties among the American colonists during the American Revolution was one third were pro-independence, one third were Tories (Loyalists to the crown) and one third were like Abraham at the beginning of this story. They just wanted to ignore the whole thing and get on with their personal lives. Interesting to see that last third represented here and how things are not all black and white but more complex given the situation different people found themselves in. Even as Abraham joins the cause his father remains a Tory. Meanwhile he has friends that support the American cause. Couldn't be easy for these people. That's a hard thing when families and friends divide. I'll watch cause I'm all about the history stuff but this is no A+++ Vikings series. You want to make historical drama based on real people for TV these days you check out Vikings and take notes. Turn has a long way to go to reach that level of production but it is at least passable.

I know it is the thing these days to beat up on organized religion just as it was the thing to give it a total pass a half century ago. I think the truth lies more in the middle. As far as I can tell the "Church" (the only one in western Europe at the time, aka the now Catholic church) never endorsed the stoning of women. Adultery was and is viewed as a sin but a forgivable one. One of the most famous stories regards Jesus was of him stopping a mob of would-be stoners (no, not that type) from killing a "woman taken in adultery" with the famous line of only those without sin should cast the first stone. That put a rather damper of the crowd but fast. And was a major break with that ancient Hebrew stoning law which didn't make it into Christianity though it did in certain fundamentalist interpretations of Muslim Shiria law as we are only too aware of these days. Though not the majority even here. A woman might get ostracized some depending on the local community but not put to death. Not by "the Church" that is. What a band of emotional locals in the sticks might do is another thing. But the whole "scarlet letter" thing came from the more conservative puritanical sects that arose after the Reformation as in the Puritans by their very name. And they were that strict as a reaction against what they felt was a too liberal attitude towards these things by both the Catholic church and the more mainstream Protestant sects. Especially the Anglican church which had replaced the Catholic church as the official state church of England. Before say 1600 things tended to be a bit more forgiving for "sinners" other then witches/warlocks and heretics. Both of these types got burned at the stake and later with the famous "float a witch" test. It was always a bad deal to be a witch in a Christian country. But non-witchy heretics could always "repent" pretty much up to the last minute before the fire was lit and get let off with no punishment other then march is a yearly procession with lots of other penitents where you simply carried a small tree branch and circled a church with your fellow mob of sinners and bingo, immediate re-set. No harm, no foul. (This was the English custom, don't know about the continent but we are talking about England here). The "prissy" was the puritanical movement and is pretty recent in other words. The norms of the people in England a couple of generations removed from their own pagan roots were far less puritanical. Even 500 years later Geoffrey Chaucer makes it pretty clear people were happily sinning much of the time without much guilt about same. Shakespeare confirms that the English remained a bawdy lot through his era. It is only with the rise of the puritanical sects that things change some. And this movement had more influence in America then England since they (Pilgrims aka Puritans) left England due to persecution of their rather unpopular beliefs. Only the Victorian age ushered in somewhat similar standards regards the conduct of women to England which means the English had about a hundred year period from the mid1800's through the mid1900's where there was what you would term a prissy attitude held as the majority viewpoint. Or paid lip service at least. And besides the princess here is part of the movers and shakers of her day. And the vast, huge, overwhelming majority of this class throughout history thinks and acts as if it is above what might be termed man's law (which they write and enforce for others but ignore for themselves), God's law (which they only pay lip service to) and nature's law (which they don't seem to know even exists). It is a very rare ruler or noble that didn't bed anyone they wanted no matter the local religious or moral codes of their society. One percenters have always acted like one percenters throughout history up through the present in other words.