Season Three: Character investment - more than usual?

[gltss1234]

WARNING: Season 3 spoilers! 

 

I'll admit I'm late to the Vikings bandwagon. Can't believe I hadn't got on it sooner!

 

Anyway, I've never really been one to be fully invested in a TV show. Don't get me wrong, I love GoT and Breaking Bad etc but when characters die or show emotion, it never really affects me.

 

But in E6S3, when Ragnar buries Athelstan, that scene in the forest has tortured me for days. The raw emotion and love shown by this ferocious warrior to his departed friend has absolutely ripped me apart. It's moreso Ragnar's pain than Athelstan's death that got to me, and it's been on my mind for DAYS. I feel real sadness, not faux sadness, if that makes sense. 

 

So my question is -- why has this show been the first time I've actually really felt emotion and shared the pain of the characters? Has anyone else felt the same thing?

 

Dunno, could just be me being a big sook...

Edited May 5, 2015 by gltss1234

[Captanne]

Ianto Jones, Torchwood.

 

On the other hand, I agree with you about the death of Athelstan and the performances -- except Mr. One-Note who annoys me to no end.  That actually ruined a potentially amazing scene for me.  When Snidely Whiplash Cartoon Characters are up against fully-formed 3 dimensional  and complicated "people", then I'm drawn out of the moment and it's frustrating for me.

 

But I do feel for you.  Other than Floki's cartoonish bullshit, it was an amazing bit of work.

 

(Btw, this is a controversial viewpoint but I find Floki flat, predictable and boring.)

[Captanne]

ETA:  Now that I think about it -- in the actual death scene, I found it to be flat as well.  Athelstan was too perfectly pure; Floki too perfectly evil.  It's as if the scene was written for children; keep it simple; make the character roles crystal clear for those easily confused.  

 

However, that is counterbalanced by Helga's blunt, "You're a narcissistic asshole" comment to Floki's face and for us to witness.  It's All About Floki in Floki's mind and I'm sick of that portion of this show.  Floki's "Tribute to Floki" at Ragnar's coffin was the best example.  (I can't find a transcript or I'd quote it.)

[Babalooie]

Excellent interview with Michael Hirst explaining his thought process in writing for these characters.

 

http://www.hitfix.com/the-fien-print/vikings-creator-michael-hirst-on-flokis-darkness-ragnars-faith-and-a-season-4-time-jump

[gltss1234]

Excellent interview with Michael Hirst explaining his thought process in writing for these characters.

 

http://www.hitfix.com/the-fien-print/vikings-creator-michael-hirst-on-flokis-darkness-ragnars-faith-and-a-season-4-time-jump

 

Thank-you, great read!

On the other hand, I agree with you about the death of Athelstan and the performances -- except Mr. One-Note who annoys me to no end.  That actually ruined a potentially amazing scene for me.  When Snidely Whiplash Cartoon Characters are up against fully-formed 3 dimensional  and complicated "people", then I'm drawn out of the moment and it's frustrating for me.

 

But I do feel for you.  Other than Floki's cartoonish bullshit, it was an amazing bit of work.

 

Personally I love Floki as a character... i've found his gradual rift with Ragnar fascinating. I confess, however, I don't look too deep into all that stuff but completely see where you're coming from.

 

Very keen to see how Floki fares in season 4 and what becomes of him. Ragnar too for that matter. It seems like Ragnar has lost a lot of meaning in his life now that Athelstan is gone. 

[green]

Excellent interview with Michael Hirst explaining his thought process in writing for these characters.

 

http://www.hitfix.com/the-fien-print/vikings-creator-michael-hirst-on-flokis-darkness-ragnars-faith-and-a-season-4-time-jump

 

Thanks for the link.  This link should also be in several other threads I think.  Like the Hirst vision thing and history versus thing (why are they separate threads btw) and speculation/spoilers/media one where people might find the link easier.

 

BTW, why of why does this thread have a spoiler tag on the header.  Season 3 is over with.

[Bongo Fury]

I'm a big fan of Vikings, I like the show a LOT. But I can't say that I am any more invested in these characters than I was with Al Swearingen, Trixie the whore and Ellsworth, or Sparticus, or Arya Stark and Tyriel Lannister. Vikings is a good show, but so was Deadwood, Sparticus and Game of Thrones. A good show needs compelling characters and an interesting plot. Vikings has that, but many other series have had that for me as well. Vikings may be a current love, but I'm not going to disparage those I have loved in the past in comparison.

[Captanne]

My television loves (I'm lookin' at YOU, Cornelius) are like past boyfriends.  Out of my life but (maybe) not by choice.  I lurve them all.  HR Puffinstuff (Jack), Mr. Spock, Cornelius, the original Apollo, Luke Skywalker (not television, admittedly), Vincent, Michael Samuelle, Ianto Jones.

 

No character in Vikings comes close for me.

 

But I do understand OP's love of Athelstan as a character and I do understand being hit hard by a death of a fictional person who has come to mean something in your life.  I think that is perfectly real and perfectly legitimate.

 

Btw, of the shows you mention, I recently watched Deadwood for the first time.  Powerful stuff.  I have now OCD-ed as much Ian McShane as I could take.  He's quite interesting.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Captanne

[Advance35]

Definitely understand where the OP is coming from.   I try to give myself a surgeon general warning that any period piece is going to  have a parade of unhappy endings. But a part of me did expect to see this show close on one final adventure with Ragnar and his gullible sidekick myself.

 

The character had been through a lot and remained sympathetic throughout his run (to me anyway), and what made me hurt for the character was Athelstan's childlike belief that The Vikings considered him family as well.   The only one that did was Ragnar and maybe on some level he knew that to which was why he told Ragnar about being born again.   Maybe he hoped the others would eventually be able to see past relgious differences.   It's clear Ragnar wanted him to stay no matter what religious inclination.   But M. Hirst made a point of saying that by that point Ragnar was the only one that didn't consider Athelstan an enemy.

 

It's interesting to note that MH did an interview where he said that Floki was inexplicably attracted to Athelstan (in a platonic sense. lol.)  He was drawn to him, but hated him at the same time.  So if Ragnar was in love, Floki was in hate.    I try to content myself with the fact that though it was too short an awesome story about faith, resilience, friendship, understanding and genuine love was told.   Ragnar changed his life when he kidnapped him from the Monestary but Athelstan forever changed Ragnar's as well.

 

The heartbreaking cherry on top was the fact that Athelstan was (grading on show universe curve) such a good person and the only one on that cared that he was murdered was Ragnar.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Advance35

[Fishslap]

Well it`s not Ragnar`s final adventure though is it? According to Viking tradition he dies when Ælla throws him in a snake pit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar_Lodbrokso that is what I assume will happen to him on this show as well. In other news, Rollo was not his brother, if Ragnar was even a real historical figure, and lived several decades later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo, Lindisfarne was plundered by Vikings in 793AD while the sack of Paris took place in 845AD. If Ragnar was 20 years old at Lindisfarne he should have been 70 at Paris, which he clearly wasn`t.

My favorite though is Floki, who was a Norwegian boat builder who colonized Iceland to escape the Christening of Norway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrafna-Fl%C3%B3ki_Vilger%C3%B0arson. As far as I know he never set foor in either France or England. He might not even have gone to Kattegat, which is in Denmark and not Norway.

 

It has some good points, but Vikings is basically an exciting story about the brave Washington, Lincoln and JFK conquering western Europe. Never mind that they never met and couldn`t have met or that they respectively did completely different things. We have us a TV show to make here!

[green]

Of course we have a TV show to make here.  It is not a documentary.  It's historical fiction and they did a very very clever thing making Rollo Ragnar's brother.  Gets viewers invested in Rollo early on instead of suddenly having to introduce a new character a bit later.  In historically based dramas you meld elements of the two together to produce something with the right feel the creators are after.  They have done that in aces.  Kudos to them.

 

Also online sites list the Kattegat coast as also being western coast of Sweden up to the border of modern Norway.  So even history people can argue over minor details like this.  Why bother.  Sit back and enjoy the ride I say cause it is one awesome ride.

 

And yes we know they have moved Ragnar up to the Paris years.  People here are aware of it.  Who cares.  People know about the real Floki.  Again, who cares.    The real Floki is great inspiration for the one in this drama.  Boat building, anti-Christian is pretty right on here.  Put him in the drama to serve the drama as opposed to making up the anti-Christian Viking out of whole cloth.  Works for me. 

 

(Besides Ragnar and Floki are from oral traditions so who knows anything about them in real history in the end anyway.  Could be a Viking telephone game version of these guys in reality especially Ragnar who is thought to already be a meld of several Vikings.  See, Viking historical drama, aka sagas, were doing it -- serving the drama as much as the history -- way before TV shows were invented.).

 

And you have a totally mesmerizing Ragnar actor under contract, you use him.  Why not?  This is the real world of real money, real contracts. real actors in a real entertainment business.

 

Besides I don't want to go through like 10 Saxon kings. Eckbert (who never met Ragnar in reality) and his son will do well for them all.  I don't want to go through 100 different Viking warriors and Frank nobles.  First rule of historical drama is to merge numerous characters into a handful because that is how good drama works.  Then scrunch timelines so drama happens and not water dripping and birds chiriping for 30 years.  And good drama = good ratings = the show stays on the air.  Without acknowledging the laws of good drama there are no Vikings, Saxons, Franks or others to grace our TV screen period.

 

Pure history is for documentaries and books.  Drama must be served as well here.  So historical drama is another genre totally from pure history.  Oranges and apples.

Edited July 3, 2015 by green

[Babalooie]

OK, which characters do you think will bite the dust, judging from this trailer?

 

[Captanne]

Two comments:

 

1.  I love that Athelstan is the narrator and that we catch a fleeting glimpse of him giving the sign of the cross.

 

2.  Ragnar when he rolls his eyes in disgust -- it says so much and makes me laugh.  Frustration, hilarity, patience, incredulity....just a gamut of emotions.  All credit goes to Travis Fimmel and whoever taught him to act sometime between "Tarzan" and this.  Well done!  FLOVE.

[SingleMaltBlonde]

Rollo doesn't look happy.

[Ohwell]

Probably because he married Princess Mushmouth.

[Babalooie]

Can't say that I'm happy about this death, but it had to happen eventually.

 

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/88709/20151021/spoilers-new-vikings-season-to-seal-lothbroks-fate.htm

[Captanne]

Oh rats.