Just saw the recent episode on TiVo. Once again, Athelstan and Rollo continue to be awesome. Ragnar proposing an alliance with King Eckbert was also a nice twist. Perhaps Eckbert will attack King Aelle with his new alliance. Rollo's battle with Jarl Borg at Kattegat was particularly great to see because of how amazing it was for them to just stand their ground.
Bjorn looks like a ****** giant. I think we're going to see a lot of badassery from him later on.
I want to know where the rest of the fleet went. Did they sink or land somewhere else in England?
Personally don't know how people stand this show ._.
I mean not only is it a further confirmation of the History channel just going down the tubes these days, but the show it self isn't very good at all.
Personally don't know how people stand this show ._.
Because it's good.
Because it's good.
Eh...i'm up to date and i'd disagree.
._. The wooden acting, the poorly done battle scenes with choreography apparently done by a drunken monkey.
And the plot it self isn't anything really special.
Eh...i'm up to date and i'd disagree.
._. The wooden acting, the poorly done battle scenes with choreography apparently done by a drunken monkey.
And the plot it self isn't anything really special.
The show doesn't need a defense, so I won't provide one. In the meantime, why don't you go be a Debbie Downer somewhere else?
Eh...i'm up to date and i'd disagree.
._. The wooden acting, the poorly done battle scenes with choreography apparently done by a drunken monkey.
And the plot it self isn't anything really special.
Wooden acting? Far from it. Travis Fimmel, Clive Standen, Gustaf Skarsgard, George Blagden, and all the other actors of the show are great and have gotten me interested in the show. Game of Thrones should take note of the battle scenes in Vikings. The strategy and grit of the battle scenes are what makes it one of the highlights in the show.
Wooden acting? Far from it. Travis Fimmel, Clive Standen, Gustaf Skarsgard, George Blagden, and all the other actors of the show are great and have gotten me interested in the show. Game of Thrones should take note of the battle scenes in Vikings. The strategy and grit of the battle scenes are what makes it one of the highlights in the show.
Wooden acting, It seems about every other actor in the show suffers from the same expression to every situation, this wooden look of either Rage or Angst, that looks so shipped in it likely came from china. And while GOT has poor battle scenes as well, it shouldn't take it's cue from something that stages them so poorly, as poorly or poorer then themselves in fact. And Grits are just ground corn, it doesn't mean its good.
Wooden acting, It seems about every other actor in the show suffers from the same expression to every situation, this wooden look of either Rage or Angst, that looks so shipped in it likely came from china. And while GOT has poor battle scenes as well, it shouldn't take it's cue from something that stages them so poorly, as poorly or poorer then themselves in fact. And Grits are just ground corn, it doesn't mean its good.
On the contrary, the acting is fluid and it meshes well with the show's tonal shifts. As for the grit, that accentuates the battle scenes and the battles generally have a lot of strategy to it. It doesn't come off as clean. It's very real and you can admire the tactics that are used. The battles are not just bloody, they're intellectual.
On the contrary, the acting is fluid and it meshes well with the show's tonal shifts. As for the grit, that accentuates the battle scenes and the battles generally have a lot of strategy to it. It doesn't come off as clean. It's very real and you can admire the tactics that are used. The battles are not just bloody, they're intellectual.
Do you even watch the show? 
I swear we must be seeing two different shows.
Where you see Fluid, I see amateurish and wooden acting with painfully forced facial expression and tone of voice. Nothing natural about it other then the painfully constipated look Fimmel does whenever something "dramatic" happens.
And again Grits are merely ground corn, saying that expression doesn't make it more then it is 
And Strategy sure, as in rush in there and kill folks, sometimes with the assistance of Archers! You know just to switch it up, GOT at least has half decent source material to draw back on, The books detail some fairly decent battlefield stratagems employed during the larger battles.
And their not overly bloody, not necessarily a failing given that gore for the sake of gore does not a war make, But to me? It isn't overly intellectual either
Guest_Dobbysaurus_*
I don't know if it's just me but usually when I don't like a show, I stop watching it. Why keep on watching something you don't like just to continue on criticizing it?
I don't know if it's just me but usually when I don't like a show, I stop watching it. Why keep on watching something you don't like just to continue on criticizing it?
Numerous mostly petty reasons.
its sort of like GOT, much prefer the books but i have enough friends whom talk about the show that if i do "miss it" they will hound me for weeks about it.
Better to just watch it to have not to deal with the folks whom i encounter harping me to Watch, saves me headaches.
Do you even watch the show?
I swear we must be seeing two different shows.
Where you see Fluid, I see amateurish and wooden acting with painfully forced facial expression and tone of voice. Nothing natural about it other then the painfully constipated look Fimmel does whenever something "dramatic" happens.
And again Grits are merely ground corn, saying that expression doesn't make it more then it is
And Strategy sure, as in rush in there and kill folks, sometimes with the assistance of Archers! You know just to switch it up, GOT at least has half decent source material to draw back on, The books detail some fairly decent battlefield stratagems employed during the larger battles.
And their not overly bloody, not necessarily a failing given that gore for the sake of gore does not a war make, But to me? It isn't overly intellectual either
Of course, I've watched the show, that's why I know how good the acting is. Travis Fimmel fits the character perfectly. You can see that the character himself sees the humor in everything, but he can easily switch to pain, sorrow, anger, etc. Indeed, one of the best things about Vikings is that the acting is never melodramatic. I'm guessing you've never even seen the series. Grit's a tool that you have to use in the right situation, a tool that Vikings uses at just the right time. The strategical aspect of the battles is refreshing because it isn't just people rushing towards each other and killing everyone, it's using the environment, confusing the enemy, leading your foe into a trap, using nighttime as your advantage, etc, etc ,etc. GOT doesn't have half-decent source material to work from, it has grade-A material to work from, but there's only been one battle in the entire series, which was essentially just defending a gate. Even in the books, the battles were more or less glossed over. We only ever saw Stan's rout at the Wall when it just began. Vikings itself is pretty intellectual because the people are at least using their head. The alternative is having a series like Naruto, where people mostly win by pulling some jutsu out of their ass, no tactics or strategy required.
Of course, I've watched the show, that's why I know how good the acting is. Travis Fimmel fits the character perfectly. You can see that the character himself sees the humor in everything, but he can easily switch to pain, sorrow, anger, etc. Indeed, one of the best things about Vikings is that the acting is never melodramatic. I'm guessing you've never even seen the series. Grit's a tool that you have to use in the right situation, a tool that Vikings uses at just the right time. The strategical aspect of the battles is refreshing because it isn't just people rushing towards each other and killing everyone, it's using the environment, confusing the enemy, leading your foe into a trap, using nighttime as your advantage, etc, etc ,etc. GOT doesn't have half-decent source material to work from, it has grade-A material to work from, but there's only been one battle in the entire series, which was essentially just defending a gate. Even in the books, the battles were more or less glossed over. We only ever saw Stan's rout at the Wall when it just began. Vikings itself is pretty intellectual because the people are at least using their head. The alternative is having a series like Naruto, where people mostly win by pulling some jutsu out of their ass, no tactics or strategy required.
I refer you to my prior post for my comments on these very concerns.
No reason to spend hours dancing around a subject when its likely neither of our opinions would change.
Edit: Thinking back, i'm surprised i even bothered with constructing a list of faults for a reasoning for my dislike of the series to be honest. Although i'm not unsatisfied with the results.
I think it forms a pretty well solid case, Just not going to hash it over back and forth when i rightly don't care if folks support my opinion of it or not.
The acting is spot on. It's meant to portray a tribal society, one that isn't quite on the same level as mainland Europe. The Vikings were expert navigators and artisans, but they were still brutal as hell. The choreography in the first season is some of the best I've seen. The small melee skirmishes are excellent, and quite frankly put GOT to shame.
Some of the musical scores aren't bad i guess.
Can't really think of anything else that i liked much about it.
Some of the musical scores aren't bad i guess.
Can't say I care what you think. Go p*ss in another bowl of cheerios.
Can't say I care what you think. Go p*ss in another bowl of cheerios.
You choose to respond to the post
The interaction and acknowledgement of said opinion was you're own doing, not my own.
So if you don't "care" what i think, not respond to it, its a relatively simple solution.
But just so we are being honest with each other, I think you are vastly overrating the series choreography .
Watched the recent episode today.
Athelstan's story arc is definitely getting better. I felt bad for him when he was getting crucified.
Athelstan is seriously f*cked. A clever twist by Hirst. Crucified by his own people, despite the fact he had no choice but to assimilate with the Vikings. What interested me is Ragnar's focus on farming, religious relics and Christianity. His interest in Christianity has come up time and again. And we know the Vikings abruptly converted with violent results. Is he set to be the one to assimilate the norse into mainland Europe?
Ragnar is indeed a very intriguing character; both compellingly flawed and unknowable, a wholly human figure with mischief just behind his eyes which makes you never quite sure what is going on in his head. In some scenes he may be deadly serious while in other scenes he behaves with an undercurrent of glee, and quite often he does both at the same time (kudos to Fimmel for doing it in a spectacular fashion). I really love his sense of curiosity for the unknown and how it correlates with the show's overall portrayal over belief systems and what people do when confronted with different kinds of gods, people, kings and societies. Really love how Season 2 has not simply continued with this but also improved on it.
Oh and I must add, I found it absolutely hilarious how Ragnar spends a good portion of the early episodes in Season 2 just trudging around with a pygmy goat for no real reason. Not only does it switch easily between finding the current of humor in his awkward love triangle, but also manages to subtly portray Ragnar escaping the fact of potentially being crushed by the reality of a fractured family. Subtle references like these are all aces in my book.
Best thing about that trailer is seeing king Ecbert. Most excellent.
I finally got caught up with this series, and its now among my favorites. I can't wait for Season 3, especially after reading this:
Retour en haut
