Vikings (Season 5 Trailer)

[tarvu]

Accusing me for being one-dimensional action junkie with bad English is rather rich, considering the sheer breadth of shows I watch. Which of course you would know absolutely nothing about by casually scrolling my posts and making erroneous assumptions based on my opinions in a few threads. I suggest being a bit more careful with pointing fingers in the future.

Personally I think the best made Historical Drama on TV is Downton Abbey. Both in terms of consistent quality, acting and accuracy, closely followed by Rome which I also immensely enjoyed. Compared to them, Pillars of the earth and its sequel are not underrated, they are just bad. I would not waste my time.

Of the current bunch on TV, I feel Game of Thrones is the best due to its sheer ambition in size and quality actors, although the series does make mistakes. However Vikings is better in the action department but lack the story that made Spartacus so exiting. Black Sails sadly lags behind on both accounts lacking both exiting drama and any particularly enthralling action (so far)

I guess I missed your posts praising drama in the sprawling Downton Abbey thread on TWC.


That was not meant to be a personal attack, just a response to your posts. You are right I don't know much about your taste in entertainment, how should I? This is a discussion forum, and I was responding to your posts in this thread and of course from the Spartacus thread where you gushed over that show because of the fight scenes. I did not make any assumptions about you personally, as I am discussing the opinion you publicly advocate on this forum rather than commenting on your person. Next thing you are going to tell me is that Pasan is not your Christian name.

The acting in Vikings I would say is markedly better than most of the acting in Spartacus. Spartacus was an okay show, but is not a show that will be remembered ten years from now in the same league as shows like Rome.

Also the Ken Follet miniseries might not be up to par with Rome either, overall, but that doesn't mean they are "bad". I would say Pillars at least was better than much of the 2nd season of Rome, which got worse not better when they started focusing more on war and action rather than the behind the scenes drama.

People (like you above) constantly blather about quality shows being slow, and not action oriented enough and to just "get to the battles", and that is the reason that we didn't have quality historical dramas on TV for so many years outside of masterpiece theater. Now they are semi-popular but it is only a matter of time before the action junkies get their way and shows like Game of Thrones, or Vikings become more like some comic book Marvel movies and less like Rome.

When you cater to that kind of mentality you get a show like Banshee. There is your action, however even with nonstop action and gratuitous sex I can barely get through an episode (like much of Spartacus).

[TheBlackTower]

I like both Pillars of Earth that someone mentioned and World without End they are really underrated, but you can find them on netflix still. Especially if you have not read the books they are worth checking out as they have some great performances in them.

"Os Pilares Da Terra" yes i watch one episode on DVD, and you know what DVD mean in Syria, the shopkeeper told me it is a Film, now i understand why i never understand the story,

Of course if you are like Pasan, etc. and don't care about anything but the "BATTLEZ!!!" or think Spartacus was the best historical drama ever made they will not appeal to you at all as they only have a few actionzzzz scenez.

i don't know both of you but i will assumed that "BATTLEZ" & "actionzzzz scenez" mean nudist scenes .

Spartacus is not just that, more or less, what they have do in the Show was true, that was the Roman era, and if they do the same with a modern era show, no one will like it, i like Vikings for that, i watch one episode, it don't have "BATTLEZ!!!" and "actionzzzz scenez" but it is realistic, they don't say:"okay we can't make the boy drink ale or kiss older women", they just make him do it, if i say what the most show that i like more than all is "Arrow" superhero story, childish and have nothing at all, but I like it .

The acting in Vikings I would say is markedly better than most of the acting in Spartacus. Spartacus was an okay show, but is not a show that will be remembered ten years from now in the same league as shows like Rome.

People (like you above) constantly blather about quality shows being slow, and not action oriented enough and to just "get to the battles", and that is the reason that we didn't have quality historical dramas on TV for so many years outside of masterpiece theater. Now they are semi-popular but it is only a matter of time before the action junkies get their way and shows like Game of Thrones, or Vikings become more like some comic book Marvel movies and less like Rome.

Rome no, Spartacus are way better than that, but in self defence i like the show that have Conspiracies and assassinations too, I like "Da-Vinci's Demons" and "The Borgia" they are good no one can deny that .

Personally I think the best made Historical Drama on TV is Downton Abbey. Both in terms of consistent quality, acting and accuracy, closely followed by Rome which I also immensely enjoyed. Compared to them, Pillars of the earth and its sequel are not underrated, they are just bad. I would not waste my time.

Please tell me that you don't mean it, "Downton Abbey" man, it is show for women in the Forties, we have lot of that on our TV, we bring them from Turkey .

Of the current bunch on TV, I feel Game of Thrones is the best due to its sheer ambition in size and quality actors, although the series does make mistakes. However Vikings is better in the action department but lack the story that made Spartacus so exiting. Black Sails sadly lags behind on both accounts lacking both exiting drama and any particularly enthralling action (so far)

Game of throne are Great, only because of the unpredictable story that you can't know it if you not reed the book, Black Sails are good for those who like pirates action and don't care about Drama .

[Knight of Heaven]

You have very strange views and opinions TheBlackTower...

First Rome is much better then Spartacus... Spartacus is just pop corn TV show, with ups and downs in it and yes it has more then sex, blood and gore, but it isnt a master piece, its just somewhat entertaining, while another is a dramatic piece, inspired in Shakespeare works of Julius Ceaser.
Black Sails has drama, in it btw it is far from a mindless show, it has however a weird pacing.

I wouldnt call Arrow childish, but its certainly targeted at teens or older, it kind reminds me of smallville, unless you are into DC comics, and superheroes, it wont mean much to you imo. Part of the fun of that show, is the DC characters they are in, and the expanded story of the green arrow, wich was never this interesting, but good thing, they realy managed to make it very interesting, way cooler then batman imo as background story is concerned, similar story, only better.

Downtown abbey is drama, it doesnt mean its for women in its 40s, not that there is anything wrong with that imo.
Mad Men, Californication( drama/comedy), Boardwalk empire, House of Cards, Masters of Sex, Sopranos, the Wire, the Shield, breaking bad etc are all great shows, with dramatic pieces way better then most dramatic movies arround.

Lol did you watch pillars of the earth in a Portuguese DvD? you wrote the title in Portuguese at least.
It is a ok show, but i wont find it that briliant.

And lastly, i think Game of thrones is overated, an awesome show no doubt, but overated in many aspects. Just like the books if you ask me.

[Ramashan]

It's always an issue with finding the right balance between action and drama when telling historical stories and I find that it's often the drama that hurts project more than the action.

For the most part its the battles that generally get the most press historically. You have reems and reems of information of the details of a battle but you rarely get a look at the interpersonal drama going on around them. Especially what's going on between the general and his wife, lover, friends etc. Rome did a great job by taking two names mentioned in Caesars writings and creating full and interesting characters who not only added to the show but in a large way represented the change in Rome society.

Also, filming a battle scene is an interesting art form. You have to sort of cheat on the hits and make them look real through a series of effects and sound and then you have to get the camera in there with all these guys moving around with pointy things. So, you have to choreograph it to a degree. You either get the 300, Spartacus, Braveheart stylized battles or something that looks a lot less stylized. It's an interesting balance.

I think Vikings has pulled it off fairly well. Then again I'm not a huge fan of the Spartacus over stylization. Spartacus used hyper violence and sex in a stylized way to tell their story, History channel can't do that.

I'm really not sure what I can critique about the show, they have managed to hit all the right buttons with acting, story, and look. Perhaps they could be a little more historically accurate in costumes, but it's sort of a look we expect and I don't think it effects the over all purpose of the show.

[Col. Tartleton]

So for me there's 4 ways to tell a historical story:

Dramatic Documentary - Follow the historians to the letter come what may. You're going to do it correctly.
Dramatic Interpretation - Follow the historians for the most part, combine a few minor characters, tinker with some minor chronology. You're only adjusting it to make it fit the medium better.
Epic Interpretation - Read a few books on the subject, write the script like its your novel, jazz it up with Hollywood tropes, make it over the top. Accuracy be damned, the story needs to be told.
Epic Failure - Skim some Spark Notes, write a script without knowing how, hire some low budget actors, tell the historical experts off, you know what you're doing. You don't know what you're doing, its going to suck.

Vikings is a good Dramatic Interpretation. Spartacus was in the space between Dramatic Interpretation and Epic Interpretation because it was actually fairly historical in terms of events and characters, just really over the top. Braveheart is pure Epic Interpretation. Ironclad if you've seen Lindybeige's multi part review is an Epic Failure.

Most good attempts are going to be Dramatic Interpretations or Epic Interpretations. I think writers and directors are afraid of following too closely because they don't feel in control of their vision. Not to mention your minor mistakes like the wrong number of buttons or something will still come back to haunt you...

Every director and screenwriter sees themselves as an artist and for them they have a creative license even when dealing with historical events. Just like Homer used some creative license when describing Odysseus's voyage of return.

[Ramashan]

I like your historic storytelling formats Col Tartleton.

The thing about creative license when it comes to historical events is that without someone being there and creating a transcript of what was said and done it's really impossible to know the exact details. Especially in a case when it's an event where everyone is currently dead. Up until recently it was fairly easy to find people who were alive and witnessed and took part in the events of WWII. In more or less 10 years that will be impossible. So, whose to say what a WWII movie will be like in two or three decades. Even still there's enough oral recordings to help fill that gap.

For Vikings, we have nothing. So every word that comes out of their mouths is essentially creative license. What were the turns of phrases used by the people of the time? How did they interact socially? Hard to tell. The dramatization is the best they can do.

[TheBlackTower]

First Rome is much better then Spartacus... Spartacus is just pop corn TV show, with ups and downs in it and yes it has more then sex, blood and gore, but it isnt a master piece, its just somewhat entertaining, while another is a dramatic piece, inspired in Shakespeare works of Julius Caesar.

Yes it is PopCorn show, for that i like it, not only for sex and blood, but because it is fun, Rome ...... to say the truth i watch only few episodes, not all of it, but love story and friendship story, don't fet for Roman Era, it like the Days of Our live but in Romen them, at least that how i see it, and what dose Shakespeare know about Julius Caesar any way it is not like he live close to him .

Black Sails has drama, in it btw it is far from a mindless show, it has however a weird pacing.

i don't say that it has no drama but i say it for people who like Action over Drama

I wouldnt call Arrow childish, but its certainly targeted at teens or older, it kind reminds me of smallville, unless you are into DC comics, and superheroes, it wont mean much to you imo. Part of the fun of that show, is the DC characters they are in, and the expanded story of the green arrow, wich was never this interesting, but good thing, they realy managed to make it very interesting, way cooler then batman imo as background story is concerned, similar story, only better.

I Agree, it is for teens, is why i see it not weird to have the young Actress "Emily Bett Rickards", as a important role, i don't know the original Character from DC comics, i don't know DC comics at all,

Downtown abbey is drama, it doesnt mean its for women in its 40s, not that there is anything wrong with that imo.
Mad Men, Californication( drama/comedy), Boardwalk empire, House of Cards, Masters of Sex, Sopranos, the Wire, the Shield, breaking bad etc are all great shows, with dramatic pieces way better then most dramatic movies arround.

this i don't Agree with, drama is important in TV show but not to be the 100% of the Show, all the story of the series you say is no more than what happened with us every day or what could happens with us every day ............ not like my life is this interesting, and want to see it on TV again .

Lol did you watch pillars of the earth in a Portuguese DvD? you wrote the title in Portuguese at least.

yes i may, i don't know, it wasn't English, i know that, most of the DVD and CD we buy are from market called "Theft Market", for real not joking .

It's always an issue with finding the right balance between action and drama when telling historical stories and I find that it's often the drama that hurts project more than the action.

Agree too, the making of action are like Math laws, it don't change lot, but Drama are like Psycholog change according to the targeted viewers .

So for me there's 4 ways to tell a historical story:

Dramatic Documentary - Follow the historians to the letter come what may. You're going to do it correctly.
Dramatic Interpretation - Follow the historians for the most part, combine a few minor characters, tinker with some minor chronology. You're only adjusting it to make it fit the medium better.
Epic Interpretation - Read a few books on the subject, write the script like its your novel, jazz it up with Hollywood tropes, make it over the top. Accuracy be damned, the story needs to be told.
Epic Failure - Skim some Spark Notes, write a script without knowing how, hire some low budget actors, tell the historical experts off, you know what you're doing. You don't know what you're doing, its going to suck.


Vikings is a good Dramatic Interpretation. Spartacus was in the space between Dramatic Interpretation and Epic Interpretation because it was actually fairly historical in terms of events and characters, just really over the top. Braveheart is pure Epic Interpretation. Ironclad if you've seen Lindybeige's multi part review is an Epic Failure.


Most good attempts are going to be Dramatic Interpretations or Epic Interpretations. I think writers and directors are afraid of following too closely because they don't feel in control of their vision. Not to mention your minor mistakes like the wrong number of buttons or something will still come back to haunt you...


Every director and screenwriter sees themselves as an artist and for them they have a creative license even when dealing with historical events. Just like Homer used some creative license when describing Odysseus's voyage of return.

i think you hit the point in that, Dramatic Interpretation are the most wanted, drama with history make people who are not big fans of pure history like the Show, and sex and blood mix are to make sure that the show will make a hit .

after all i think that all of us here in (Total War Center) love pure history

[Garbarsardar]

So for me there's 4 ways to tell a historical story:

Dramatic Documentary - Follow the historians to the letter come what may. You're going to do it correctly.
Dramatic Interpretation - Follow the historians for the most part, combine a few minor characters, tinker with some minor chronology. You're only adjusting it to make it fit the medium better.
Epic Interpretation - Read a few books on the subject, write the script like its your novel, jazz it up with Hollywood tropes, make it over the top. Accuracy be damned, the story needs to be told.
Epic Failure - Skim some Spark Notes, write a script without knowing how, hire some low budget actors, tell the historical experts off, you know what you're doing. You don't know what you're doing, its going to suck.

I have a different taxonomy in mind:

• Non-costume drama: The story is either transposed to a contemporary setting or happens within a timeframe where costumes our not readily distinguishable from ours (Breaking Bad, The Wire, Red Riding).
• Costume Dramas: People wear strange clothes and the clothes serve at a level of immersion (Rome, Downton Abbey)
• Tight-fitting costume dramas: People wear strange clothes and the clothes serve only to give rise to erotic fantasies (Spartacus, Vikings, Ilse-She wolf of the SS)
• Ill-fitting costume dramas: Similar to previous but with a low-budget affair, resulting in actors being naked very often.(Game of Thrones)
• Who cares about clothes costumes dramas: People wear strange clothes but have exceptionally nice facial characteristics so, who cares? (Occasionally all of the above)
• Ridley Scott Epic Costume Dramas: People can wear anything they want as long as the ratio style/substance weighs heavily on style and everything is epic, awesome and profoundly moronic. (Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Black Hawk Down, Robin Hood)

[Halie Satanus]

Just can't let the Ridley thing go eh...

[Col. Tartleton]

I have a different taxonomy in mind:

• Non-costume drama: The story is either transposed to a contemporary setting or happens within a timeframe where costumes our not readily distinguishable from ours (Breaking Bad, The Wire, Red Riding).
• Costume Dramas: People wear strange clothes and the clothes serve at a level of immersion (Rome, Downton Abbey)
• Tight-fitting costume dramas: People wear strange clothes and the clothes serve only to give rise to erotic fantasies (Spartacus, Vikings, Ilse-She wolf of the SS)
• Ill-fitting costume dramas: Similar to previous but with a low-budget affair, resulting in actors being naked very often.(Game of Thrones)
• Who cares about clothes costumes dramas: People wear strange clothes but have exceptionally nice facial characteristics so, who cares? (Occasionally all of the above)
• Ridley Scott Epic Costume Dramas: People can wear anything they want as long as the ratio style/substance weighs heavily on style and everything is epic, awesome and profoundly moronic. (Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Black Hawk Down, Robin Hood)

You win.

[white-wolf]

I have a different taxonomy in mind:

• Non-costume drama: The story is either transposed to a contemporary setting or happens within a timeframe where costumes our not readily distinguishable from ours (Breaking Bad, The Wire, Red Riding).
• Costume Dramas: People wear strange clothes and the clothes serve at a level of immersion (Rome, Downton Abbey)
• Tight-fitting costume dramas: People wear strange clothes and the clothes serve only to give rise to erotic fantasies (Spartacus, Vikings, Ilse-She wolf of the SS)
• Ill-fitting costume dramas: Similar to previous but with a low-budget affair, resulting in actors being naked very often.(Game of Thrones)
• Who cares about clothes costumes dramas: People wear strange clothes but have exceptionally nice facial characteristics so, who cares? (Occasionally all of the above)
• Ridley Scott Epic Costume Dramas: People can wear anything they want as long as the ratio style/substance weighs heavily on style and everything is epic, awesome and profoundly moronic. (Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Black Hawk Down, Robin Hood)

I would like to be not alone with a person who thinks the Vikings give rise to erotic fantasies.

Spartacus, I can understand. But why Garbarsardar, why? Why Vikings?

[Påsan]

Maybe he has a thing for beards?


I think Ridley movies have a high degree of costume accuracy though. Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood are very well presented. Gladiator.. Not so much.

Vikings costumes are mostly complete fantasy. Its safe to say this coat-of-plate thing they got going is not exactly accurate.

[Condottiere 40K]

And we can all thank her for this bounty:

[Stavroforos]

Maybe he has a thing for beards?


I think Ridley movies have a high degree of costume accuracy though. Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood are very well presented. Gladiator.. Not so much.

Vikings costumes are mostly complete fantasy. Its safe to say this coat-of-plate thing they got going is not exactly accurate.

Weren't Vikings of this time period lightly armored, or even not armored at all?

Also, Timoleon, I think it's you who needs to check his eyesight!

[Påsan]

Yes. Descriptions of vikings generally goes: Heavily armed, lightly armored. It is what you will find in muslim or christian descriptions anyway. Norse peoples of the era was generally always armed with some weapon or another, weather they were fishing, farming or raiding. Rule of thumb was never be more than one foot away from your weapon, even when you sleep.

In the period (c 800) mail would have been exceedingly rare. It would be mostly reserved for chieftains if present at all. Likewise for helmets. The main protection would have been the shield and secondly some padding, skin or leather armor. A century later during the "great invasions" the hird or huscarls would probably have some quality armor though.

But this is true for the Saxons as well. Certainly they would not be uniformed in coat-of-plates from the 15th century or if they was, the vikings would not just abandon the quality armour and helmets from the two battles in season 1. They are raiders after all and that would be worth a full treasury of a decent sized kingdom

[Condottiere 40K]

Norwegian kingdoms; even a full equipped Scots knight is only carrying the worth of his home village.

[Garbarsardar]

Just can't let the Ridley thing go eh...

Got to admire my consistency.

You win.

The definition of Pyrrhic victory

I would like to be not alone with a person who thinks the Vikings give rise to erotic fantasies.

Spartacus, I can understand. But why Garbarsardar, why? Why Vikings?

Halie likes it, couldn't resist.

Maybe he has a thing for beards?

The only acceptable TV beard was Toby in West Wing. And you wouldn't even call it a beard.

[RubiconDecision]

As historically bad as Kingdom of Heaven is, it's honestly the third film I'd most want to see for the last time before I die (1st being Seven Samurai and 2nd Twilight Samurai).

Viking's budget is saved by the fact that they don't need that much armor. That stuff is terribly expensive and tailored. They could improve on the writing though.

If they were being historically accurate, the Vikings' practical art found throughout their society should make an appearance, either with mockups or maybe some museum would loan them some pieces for studio filming. I don't think people realize the caliber of their art at all, but think them brutish and that's incorrect. Look at the detailwork on that axe, which indicates not only a deep artistic soul, but one who honored war.
http://www.pinterest.com/thevoiceofb...an-viking-art/

The British Museum has a new exhibition if anyone's interested.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/about_...nd_legend.aspx

[TheBlackTower]

As always people, you change the subject from Drama and Action into the History of Armour, as the normal Total War Center people , care only about what the Vikings wear.

[Halie Satanus]

Random covering of the last couple of pages...

Kingdom of Heaven is Scott's best film, imo. The directors cut being far better than the cinema version and not just a collection of outtakes. There's quite few scenes that change the flow of the film (and make it even more epic, epicerer if you like)..

The leather work (armour/clothing) in Vikings is outstanding, not as high level maybe as LoTR but that was over the top fantasy (beautiful all the same, especially the Rohirrim)... Though someone once made the point to me, 'why would you take the armour from a dead enemy, it didn't do him much good.' I can actually picture Ragnar saying that in the show.

I like short tough women who can fight me, so Largetha wins that contest.

A show has to have three of four basic elements Plot/Dialogue/Characters/Action. If it does 3 of those well I can overlook a deficiency or excess in the other 1. And I'm working off the basis that acting quality is going to be fairly even across the cast, some will be great others not so much. So far Vikings only lacks plot (and by that I mean there are pretty much no sub plots). But it scores pretty high in the other elements.

Hoping to catch the BM Vikings exhibition soon...
http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/e...w-9172707.html

I hate Tim Burton and all his films..