S05.E09: A Simple Story

[nodorothyparker]

14 hours ago, raven said:

She just came off as awful to me - belittling Aethelred with backhanded compliments and praising Alfred as being essentially so much more smarter than him.  Always a great idea to do that with siblings!  Aethelred was holding back tears when he stood down, which just made me dislike her more.   It doesn't help that I think the actress playing Judith is not very good - she came off as borderline unhinged, rather than someone taking advantage of an opportunity (though how?  why not Aethelred? oh never mind, I still don't care much for the Saxons).  

I don't dislike Judith as much as many seem to, but I also don't think the whole Judith plays the long game thing was very well executed.  Because, as you say, she was mostly just coming off as awful for the sake of being awful and playing favorites.  I don't even know if a better actress could have made what was written any better.  It was only at the end that it even occurred to me that that was what Hirst was probably going for in the length of her storyline from the time everyone decided to make it a big deal that whoops, the princess who was supposed to be a brood mare for the next generation of royals is passing off the sainted seed of Athelstan as a rightful spare prince when everybody saw them right there.

It felt like they were trying to let Judith have her own big Magnificent Bastard moment like the reveal that Ecbert ordered the double cross massacre of the Viking settlement seasons ago, but it didn't deliver because of how murky it was written and played.  Instead, we're left mostly concurring that Judith looks like an awful mother to Aethelred for ... reasons that aren't remotely tied to the actual history.

[Haleth]

Yeah...no.  Not good.

Heahmund pledging lifelong allegiance to Lagertha?  Absolutely no development of that relationship.  Preposterous unless he is faking.

Rollo sending troops to fight with Ivar?  No way would a now French nobleman get involved in a Viking war, family or no family.  These are the people who raid his land.

Special Snowflake Alfred crowned king after this brother passes on the crown?  Not at all how it happened.  (I looked on Wiki to see if there was a known cause of death for Aethelwulf.  There is not.)  Did I miss something?  One minute Aethelred was saying he wouldn't pass and Judith was bribing the bishop to make the Wittan vote Alfred, then at the meeting the bishop says "vote for Aethelred" and Aethelred says "nope."  What made everyone change their minds?

Floki's Edge problem?  Don't care.

The only thing I did find interesting was the juxtaposing of the various kneelers-- Heahmund at Lagertha's feet, Alfred before the bishop, and Floki in distress as he watched the structure burn.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Haleth

[benteen]

I used to call Judith "The Void" because whenever she would show up, any entertainment value this show provided (which has always been considerable) would disappear right into a void.  It's not that I don't feel sorry for what's happened to her in this shitty society, it's that her character is so boring and such a show-killer that I could care less about her. 

Hirst has definitely struggled with female characters not named Lagertha.  And he's not exactly doing a great job with male characters named Alfred either.  Like I said, the show and the characters have ignored Aethelred but he's more sympathetic than either Judith or Alfred.  The Alfred stuff is just awful.  Show Alfred should be king because Ecbert felt that anything Athelstan squirted out of his body was gold.

Well, I like what Hirst has done with Torvi but the actress is his daughter so of course he'd write her better than most of the female characters.

Edited January 19, 2018 by benteen

[Captanne]

Having had a chance to think -- there were three main threads in this episode that have been continuing narratives.  One (the request for and sending of troops from Normandy) didn't bother me at all.  Rollo's actor is off making a film somewhere, probably for better money, and couldn't be there for the shooting schedule.  Or whatever.  

The other two -- Alfred's coronation and Heamund throwing over Ivar for Lagertha -- were also fine for me in the narrative sense but not so much in the acting.  Unfortunately, Judith's performance couldn't live up to the writing.  She didn't convince me about preferring Alfred so I didn't buy that she convinced Athelred.  And, wow, neither Lagertha's actor nor Heamund's are powerhouses in the acting department so their mutual seduction scene was a bit pale.  But, that's okay.  I hearken back to the old Captain James Tiberius Kirk days, when he could sleep with a princess of an entire planet just once and she would be willing to alter their cultural ways of life developed over alien generations.  Just because she'd never been laid so good in her life.  That was just about weekly.  So, Heamund's desire to sleep with a Queen* who gives him a "get out of jail free" card for that whole "sin" thing -- yeah, I buy that. 

 

*A Queen, who by the way, just defeated the shit out of the side he was originally fighting with.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Captanne

[Silverglitter]

1 hour ago, benteen said:

I used to call Judith "The Void" because whenever she would show up, any entertainment value this show provided (which has always been considerable) would disappear right into a void.  It's not that I don't feel sorry for what's happened to her in this shitty society, it's that her character is so boring and such a show-killer that I could care less about her. 

I agree. The actress (and I say that loosely) sucks the air out of the scenes. The actors on the Wessex side (plus Athelstan) were some of the better ones in the whole show and she still managed to drag things down as soon she appeared. I can't figure out why Hirst is so fascinated with her that she's continually outlasting better characters/actors.

[Babalooie]

12 hours ago, Son of the Norse said:

We are all bummed that Rollo didn't show up

No one got my joke that maybe he'll return next week with a "very particular set of skills"  He's on the TV version of TAKEN playing Liam Neeson's role.

[Haleth]

1 hour ago, Babalooie said:

No one got my joke that maybe he'll return next week with a "very particular set of skills"  He's on the TV version of TAKEN playing Liam Neeson's role.

I guess none of us are watching that. Nice one, though!

[Paradigm14]

On 1/17/2018 at 8:22 PM, magdalene said:

I will miss Moe Dunford - many times his acting was far better than the material written for his character.  He deserved a better exit.

This might have been his best speech ever as King, too..

[benteen]

I always liked what Moe Dunford did with his character.  He could have been one-dimensional but he always seemed to add nuance and layers to him.

[green]

3 hours ago, Babalooie said:

No one got my joke that maybe he'll return next week with a "very particular set of skills"  He's on the TV version of TAKEN playing Liam Neeson's role.

Sorry but I don't know "Taken' but Rollo is back next episode (see the next episode's thread already posted) so he wasn't that busy doing whatever "Taken" is suppose to be about.

The whole Rollo thing was totally insane writing.  Up is down, black is white and Hvitserk is now "the beloved nephew" and a diplomatic genius???  Really rotten writing.  "When Uncle Rollo and me were sailing back from the Med he confessed his love and respect for me and pledged me all and everything if ever I ask because he saw I was that great and wonderful."  Hell Rollo never said a word to the idiot during that trip that we saw.  Retro re-writing of the worst sort.

nodorothyparker, I always like your posts but I have to disagree that this was Judith playing the long game because Hirst's writing has just fallen to pieces and he is throwing mud at the wall in this episode so I don't think he had Judith playing the long game story boarded from the beginning.  I just can't give Hirst credit for thinking this long term anymore.  I mean she always wanted Alfred to be king but no indication she would stab Aethelred in the back to get it.  She was never shown to have despised Aethelred.

But she was right that Eckbert wanted Alfred to be the king because ... Athelstan.  I just wish they didn't turn Judith into some sort of evil back stabber all of a sudden.  Let Aethelred's old school warrior leader ways fail for an episode or two then show Alfred step up and earn the kingdom.  He is, after all, the only king in all of English history that got "the Great" added to his name so we all know he will be all that.  But a show is about "showing" why he will be all that.

And I agree with others this whole thing was total confusion.  Aethelred refused to go along with Judith and vassal guy did then vassal guy didn't and Aethelred did.  Then Aethelred cried.  Then he stared daggers at the coronation.  Wh...aaaat?

Edited January 19, 2018 by green

[benteen]

1 hour ago, green said:

Sorry but I don't know "Taken' but Rollo is back next episode (see the next episode's thread already posted) so he wasn't that busy doing whatever "Taken" is suppose to be about.

The whole Rollo thing was totally insane writing.  Up is down, black is white and Hvitserk is now "the beloved nephew" and a diplomatic genius???  Really rotten writing.  "When Uncle Rollo and me were sailing back from the Med he confessed his love and respect for me and pledged me all and everything if ever I ask because he saw I was that great and wonderful."  Hell Rollo never said a word to the idiot during that trip that we saw.  Retro re-writing of the worst sort.

nodorothyparker, I always like your posts but I have to disagree that this was Judith playing the long game because Hirst's writing has just fallen to pieces and he is throwing mud at the wall in this episode so I don't think he had Judith playing the long game story boarded from the beginning.  I just can't give Hirst credit for thinking this long term anymore.  I mean she always wanted Alfred to be king but no indication she would stab Aethelred in the back to get it.  She was never shown to have despised Aethelred.

But she was right that Eckbert wanted Alfred to be the king because ... Athelstan.  I just wish they didn't turn Judith into some sort of evil back stabber all of a sudden.  Let Aethelred's old school warrior leader ways fail for an episode or two then show Alfred step up and earn the kingdom.  He is, after all, the only king in all of English history that got "the Great" added to his name so we all know he will be all that.  But a show is about "showing" why he will be all that.

And I agree with others this whole thing was total confusion.  Aethelred refused to go along with Judith and vassal guy did then vassal guy didn't and Aethelred did.  Then Aethelred cried.  Then he stared daggers at the coronation.  Wh...aaaat?

I agree.  It was totally incoherent and bad writing on Hirst's part.  He was so eager to get to the Alfred the Great part that he undercut that part of the story and chose a far more boring way to tell it.  Like you said, you could have had Aethelred bomb out as a king an episode or two later instead of this truly bizarre scenario that Hirst conquered up.

[Ravenya003]

I wonder if perhaps Rollo's soldiers have secret orders to turn on Ivar's crew in the middle of battle, because it seems really bizarre to me that he'd back Ivar over Bjorn. And Lagertha isn't included in his "please spare my loved ones" caveat is also odd. 

I actually really loved the moment when Judith stood with her hair pulled back, exposing her lack of ear, and yet it made me mourn for what could have been when it comes to the way her story was told. Hirst had at least three seasons to sow the seeds for this big moment: the culmination of her long-con, her success in finally pulling off what must have been in her heart and mind for years and years: to put Alfred instead of Althelred on the throne ... and yet the first we've ever seen or heard of it comes in a short scene in which she tells Athelred that his brother has to be king instead of him. Seriously? Despite the fact he's the legitimate first-born? That he's been groomed since birth for the job? When did she come up with this? Why would anyone go along with it??

Which is to say, I never really figured out Judith. At times it felt like she was meant to come across as an intelligent schemer, or at least someone who slowly grew into her political acumen like Sansa Stark, but most of the time she felt completely in over her head (which would have been fine characterization - a girl desperately trying to carve out some autonomy for herself, but being beaten back by the sheer force and power of the men around her every time). Even after so long on the show, she feels like such an empty character. (I know that Aslaug was unpopular, but at least I had a very clear idea of her motivations, priorities and opinions). 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Ravenya003

[Haleth]

I found my copy of a biography about Alfred and checked in that to see if the author knew how Aethelwulf died.  He did not.  The "old king" apparently died unremarkably.  I had forgotten this interesting tidbit about Judith, which I will spoiler tag even though it is not relevant at all to the show:

Spoiler

Aethelwulf had 4 sons, Alfred being the youngest.  Judith was not his mother and was actually only a handful of years older than Alfred.  After Aethelwulf died Judith married the oldest son (Aethelbald) and remained queen.  The bishops were horrified and said the marriage was cursed.  Aethelbald died 2 years later.  Judith was only 16.

I'm going to have to read the book again.  I see references to all the Ragnarson boys in the index.

[Babalooie]

20 hours ago, green said:

(see the next episode's thread already posted)

That's why I said "maybe" upthread, since they didn't actually name him.  It may be like the other season/half finales where we get a glimpse  for about two seconds just to leave us longing for the return of the second half.  Do you think that maybe Hirst has been told to make this series more like Game of Thrones? 

[green]

3 hours ago, Babalooie said:

That's why I said "maybe" upthread, since they didn't actually name him.  It may be like the other season/half finales where we get a glimpse  for about two seconds just to leave us longing for the return of the second half.  Do you think that maybe Hirst has been told to make this series more like Game of Thrones? 

Just a guess on my part but yeah I think it could well be in the last few seconds of the episode to give the first half of the season a special "ending."   I can't afford premium channels so never have seen a single episode of Game of Throne so can't answer that one.

[Babalooie]

1 hour ago, green said:

never have seen a single episode of Game of Throne so can't answer that one.

I don't watch it, either, but I read every review of VIKINGS that I can find.  I see a lot of comparisons, as well as complaints (on this site, too) about the show not following history.  That's true, but what an interest in this part of history this show has fostered in many viewers!  In school we may have heard of Leif Erickson and the Vinland settlement, but other than that, not much else.  I've decided to just enjoy it and not worry about if it follows history to a tee.  

At least they haven't brought in dragons yet.  ...And, indeed, who will rise?  I can think of a couple of characters that probably won't.

[nodorothyparker]

On 1/19/2018 at 2:27 PM, green said:

nodorothyparker, I always like your posts but I have to disagree that this was Judith playing the long game because Hirst's writing has just fallen to pieces and he is throwing mud at the wall in this episode so I don't think he had Judith playing the long game story boarded from the beginning.  I just can't give Hirst credit for thinking this long term anymore.  I mean she always wanted Alfred to be king but no indication she would stab Aethelred in the back to get it.  She was never shown to have despised Aethelred.

That's every bit as probable as my own tortured theory.  It's the only way I can give Hirst any benefit of the doubt and make any sense of a lot of the seemingly questionable decisions Judith has made over the seasons, like taking up with the king who let her stand tied to that stake and lose an ear over oh, wait for it, adultery.  I need to believe there's at least some long range plotting in what they're doing so the story's going somewhere if I intend to stick with it.  The fact that we're speculating that it was all made up on the fly is a pretty thorough indictment for how terrible the writing has been, particularly if this was all planned out for a big Judith triumphs moment.

Aethelred has always been a comically sad afterthought.  Like Ecbert last season basically telling him "Oh, you're special too I guess.  What did you say your name was again?" moment.  In nearly every scene she's had with the kids, Judith has been so firmly glommed onto Alfred or fretting about Alfred that I can't remember any specific interaction we've ever seen her have with Aethelred to know how she actually felt about him comparatively.  No, there's been no real indication she actively hated him, but that doesn't make her on his side either.

[tennisgurl]

*Sigh* So of course poor Aethelwulf dies in the lamest, most anti climactic way humanly possible so perfect saint Alfred can take over ASAP. I admit, I've put off watching this episode after being accidentally spoiled on what went down, because I didn't want to see it, but I suppose it was my destiny to watch this episode. A bee string. Truly, no one cared about Aethelwulf, not even the freaking writers. 

I can only hope that Rollo is playing some kind of long game with siding with Ivar, because I have no clue why he would send his people off to fight for him instead of Bjorn, or just stay out of the conflict altogether. It truly is nonsense, even in the frequently melodramatic nature of the show. 

This has to be my least favorite episode in quite awhile. I still love the show (and for being in its 5th season, its still doing a good job staying interesting) but I feel like we are running low on steam. Which sucks, because historically there is still so much material to mine from, even if the show has always played fast and loose with history. Its always been more of a modern retelling of an epic poem than a historical document. And thats fine, if you give us something good, and at least use the good stuff from history. Please use the good stuff! 

[Ohwell]

I thought it was fitting and kind of hilarious that Aethelwulf would simply die of a bee/wasp/hornet sting because I always viewed him as the Rodney Dangerfield of this show.  The actor did a good job with the role and gave a great final performance, but I can understand that it was his time to go and I'm fine with it. 

[Captanne]

nodorothyparker, was it adultery as much as a temper tantrum that she wouldn't tell him who WITH?  Obviously, adultery would have been hypocrisy of the highest order.  But to deny a King information he demands would be treasonous and/or insubordination.

[nodorothyparker]

Well, Judith and Athelstan were happening at the same time in the same community tub o' murky water where Ecbert was putting the moves on Lagertha, so while it's probably fair to say he might have been somewhat distracted it seems highly unlikely that he completely missed who Judith was committing adultery with.  IIRC, Ecbert was treating the whole thing and Judith with a lot of wink wink nudge nudge until Athelstan again picked Ragnar over him and went home.

It's been awhile since I've seen it, but I remember at the time that Judith's trial felt pretty out of left field, as did Ecbert publicly demanding that she name her baby's father when we all knew that he'd been right there.  I also doubt it was any big secret to most of the court as Aethelwulf had been away fighting in the Mercia campaign throughout, she'd not been exactly subtle at making eyes at everybody's favorite priest, and Aethelwulf understandably was not taking the whole mess particularly well.  But of course it soon became apparent that Ecbert was using this big production to make some kind of public pronouncement that having sex with a priest meant everything was ordained by God and that Alfred would thus be the most specialest to ever special.  Too bad he didn't seem to clue Judith in to any of it beforehand and she did lose an ear over it.

[green]

2 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Well, Judith and Athelstan were happening at the same time in the same community tub o' murky water where Ecbert was putting the moves on Lagertha, so while it's probably fair to say he might have been somewhat distracted it seems highly unlikely that he completely missed who Judith was committing adultery with.  IIRC, Ecbert was treating the whole thing and Judith with a lot of wink wink nudge nudge until Athelstan again picked Ragnar over him and went home.

It's been awhile since I've seen it, but I remember at the time that Judith's trial felt pretty out of left field, as did Ecbert publicly demanding that she name her baby's father when we all knew that he'd been right there.  I also doubt it was any big secret to most of the court as Aethelwulf had been away fighting in the Mercia campaign throughout, she'd not been exactly subtle at making eyes at everybody's favorite priest, and Aethelwulf understandably was not taking the whole mess particularly well.  But of course it soon became apparent that Ecbert was using this big production to make some kind of public pronouncement that having sex with a priest meant everything was ordained by God and that Alfred would thus be the most specialest to ever special.  Too bad he didn't seem to clue Judith in to any of it beforehand and she did lose an ear over it.

OT:  My memory of the episode was that Aethelwulf found out and demanded the official "justice" of the day and Ecbert was kind of stuck cause he couldn't go against official procedures without disclosing he knew more than he knew and having his son and the crowd turn against him. 

So he worked a more subtle game allowing the one ear off moment then using it and pseudo-religious gobbledy-gook speak to somehow turn Aethelwulf and the crowd around to Alfred being a special child and that therefore Judith shouldn't lose her other ear etc.  In other words Ecbert was as pro-Judith at the trial/punishment as he could be without ruining himself and he managed to talk Aethelwulf down from the full punishment ledge as a result.

Now Ecbert wasn't being saintly, I agree.  It served his best interests to save Judith (sans an ear) and especially Alfred but he wasn't going to risk his own hide in the process.  And he needed to convince a vengeful-minded Aethelwulf who really REALLY wanted blood at that point to back off and make Aethelwulf think that he and he alone, as the "victim" of this adultery, was the one who decided to show mercy.  Thus the religious-speak speech Ecbert gave to convince a religious Aethelwulf that Alfred being fathered by a priest made him "special" somehow.

Yeah Judith didn't know in advance but a ruler like Ecbert isn't going to tell anyone what they don't need to know in advance.  He needed options if Aethelwulf refused to back down and the crowd was on his son's side and he didn't need Judith therefore to be in a position to shout out some "plan" to the mob as she was about to lose her other ear.  That's why Ecbert managed to rule so long.  He was the master manipulator.  He knew he could smooth it over with Judith who would be grateful enough to him later for saving Alfred (plus a one ear left bonus, heh) and he needed to keep 100% of Aethelwulf's trust and manipulate him like he did so many many times in this show.  (Wow, I really miss Ecbert.  Ivar is a kindergarten-level  manipulator compared to Ecbert).

[Captanne]

We just watched the YouTube (because we are at work and ..... yeah, I got nuthin'....we're at work watching Vikings on YouTube.  Shit, a year ago we were watching Sons of Anarchy so......)  Looks like Judith was being staked by the Bishop for adultery.  Meanwhile, Ecbert convinces Aethelwulf to chill out if they find out who the father is.

Once she acknowledges Athelstan as the father, Ecbert is able to make the argument that the child is brought about by a saintly man of God and, therefore, was ordained by God to exist (rather than kill her and the child.)  (Try not to think that through too hard.  It hurts.)

[jnymph]

On 1/18/2018 at 3:33 PM, green said:

But that is modern day women with make-up and good nutrition and central heating and cars to travel in and no battle ax scars etc.  Lagertha looks to be in her 30's this season.  So does Judith.  Women have not been aged well on this show.  Ragner looked more like Lagertha's father than her former husband by his end and they were around the same age. 

Does a disservice to women making them constant "objects" for the male viewers and not celebrating the wrinkles earned and the aging process in women as in women aren't allowed to look 40 or older ever because men demand they remain objects of desire.

Amen.  

It's completely ridiculous and taking me out of the story.   It's glaringly obvious.   

Also, in the same realm, I HATE the makeup on the women.  I don't think Lagertha, Judith nor Astrid had access to a local Sephora.   Seasons 1 - 3 were much better in this respect.  (except for Siggy)

[Ohwell]

So I guess the women should be 50 lbs. heavier, wear eye patches, and have peg legs.  Guess that would make some people feel better.  Lagertha and Torvi definitely have battle scars but they were somewhere on the torso as I recall, so their clothes would hide them.  I think the makeup artists are doing the best they can trying to age Lagertha, for instance.  They can't have a bunch of wrinkles spackled on her because it would be obvious, especially with high def tv.  I don't think having the women remain in shape degrades them at all. 

Also, some of the men wear eye makeup.  Floki wore a lot before he decided to wash his face for whatever reason.    

[nodorothyparker]

17 minutes ago, Captanne said:

We just watched the YouTube (because we are at work and ..... yeah, I got nuthin'....we're at work watching Vikings on YouTube.  Shit, a year ago we were watching Sons of Anarchy so......)  Looks like Judith was being staked by the Bishop for adultery.  Meanwhile, Ecbert convinces Aethelwulf to chill out if they find out who the father is.

I'm relying on YouTube too because I don't have those early seasons available at the moment and unless there's another scene I'm not finding, we don't really get the specifics of how the Judith is guilty of adultery thing came about to put her on that stake.  She's dragged from her bed and the Bishop says she's already been found guilty.  Rewatching it, I think greene is right that Ecbert knew he had to let things play out to a certain extent but as soon as she gave up Athelstan's name, he saw his opening to spin that well of course God must have ordained it and ran with it.  And of course he couldn't volunteer that he already knew all about it and Athelstan too.  He had to wait for her to say it, which didn't happen until she'd already lost the first ear.

So yeah, my memory of that scene doesn't quite match what's there, but in watching it I'm struck all over again how desolate Aethelwulf looks throughout the whole thing.  You can see that he's resolved that she's guilty and needs to be punished for it, but as soon as Ecbert gives him the God did it excuse, he latches onto that like a drowning man being thrown a lifeline.  Again, it's a moment when you can appreciate how good the actor is because he conveys all of that with only a line or two of dialogue.

[Silverglitter]

47 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

I'm not finding, we don't really get the specifics of how the Judith is guilty of adultery thing came about to put her on that stake.

There's a scene with her and Aethelwulf where she tells him she's pregnant. He's all like, "but...we haven't since...". So clearly, they haven't been having sex and Aethelwulf knows that the kid couldn't possibly be his.

[PityFree]

 You know what woman did have battle scars?  The blond girl who was Bjorn’s first love.  I’ve been waiting since that season for them to bring her back — scars and all — to reunite with Bjorn.  She was a strong character and she wanted to be a Shield maiden just like Lagertha. I think her name was something like Porum or sounded like that word.  Why would the writers write such an interesting character and then abandon her and never bring her back? 

[Silverglitter]

To each their own. I thought she was a weak actor and not even close to as pretty as the show tried to make her out to be.

[Babalooie]

3 hours ago, PityFree said:

 You know what woman did have battle scars?  The blond girl who was Bjorn’s first love.

Here she is:  http://vikings.wikia.com/wiki/Þorunn

[slf]

Occasionally I check in with this show to see if it's gotten better and boy was this was the wrong episode to watch. Terrible.

I can buy Heahmund switching sides to Lagertha. I spent years having to watch everyone fawn over Athelstan who wasn't sophisticated, attractive, charismatic, funny, or particularly accomplished. That was one of the more ludicrous aspects of the earlier seasons. Lagertha is gorgeous, an amazing fighter, accomplished, charismatic, etc. I mean, I fully expect Heahmund to switch sides but if he doesn't I don't think it's so odd.

No way is Rollo being legit unless Hirst has just completely disregarded the previous seasons. He taught Bjorn how to fight. He always loved Lagertha.

[whoknowswho]

On 2018-01-20 at 5:27 PM, Babalooie said:

I don't watch it, either, but I read every review of VIKINGS that I can find.  I see a lot of comparisons, as well as complaints (on this site, too) about the show not following history.  That's true, but what an interest in this part of history this show has fostered in many viewers!  In school we may have heard of Leif Erickson and the Vinland settlement, but other than that, not much else.  I've decided to just enjoy it and not worry about if it follows history to a tee.  

At least they haven't brought in dragons yet.  ...And, indeed, who will rise?  I can think of a couple of characters that probably won't.

I noticed the change to a more Game of Thrones type show instead of the wonderful Vikings show we were all enjoying a few years ago. Bigger, badder, prettier sets, less character development but prettier sets and costumes. It was glaringly apparent last show when they had the ridiculous banners, which Vikings surely did not carry. They didn’t carry drums, they did have Berserkers which there’s no sign of now.  Having watched the entire GOT series 4 times in a year, I recognize when Vikings changed to slicker GOT type show, and it’s really annoying. I love GOT, but Vikings isn’t it, and shouldn’t be turned into it. 

[Babalooie]

OOPS!  Wrong thread.

 

Just one more good article to share...interesting comments (to me) from Michael Hirst regarding Floki and Rollo.  What from Season 1 is he referring to regarding Rollo?

http://www.tvguide.com/news/vikings-season-5-finale-lagertha-floki/

Edited January 26, 2018 by Babalooie
wrong thread

[wiggiebegone]

Hirst has jumped the shark. It's just all fiction now! He's dragging it on for the money. Kind of like the "Drug addiction arc", which was a total waste. IMO

If this time frame was "historically" correct, the brothers would be invading Ireland and the English north areas. Where Ivar eventually dies.

The new Rollo arc is (im) pure fiction.

The Floki arc is ????  It's not the slightest interesting to to me or the watchers that I know.

Not sure That I will watch new season past first episode as it could has ended this year.

The English ongoing soap opera is meh.........

[mrspidey]

Poor Aethelwulf. A warrior king, struck down by a bee.

At least it wasn't a ruptured bladder after falling from a horse (Looking at you, William the Conqueror, descendant of Rollo).

Edited January 13, 2019 by mrspidey