Vikings tv show -- what is the appeal?

[Kyriakos]

I watched season 1 (iirc it has 4 seasons already).
Season 1 was pretty low-budget, next to similar shows afaik. Also, what is the appeal supposed to be? It has some gore, but not that much - i expected more gore in a show about viking raiders - and the depiction of viking life seems to be underwhelming, or at least not very informational (i never examined viking life much, but already knew what was being presented, so i suppose it is basic in this sense).

Another thing i didn't like is the timeline. Given this show moves on very slowly, it will never get to the varangian guard, or the battle of Stamford bridge. So it is a show about small-time viking raiders vs dirt-poor (just not as dirt poor as the vikings themselves) english minor kingdoms and afaik later on some french states.

The actors don't seem very interesting either. I only knew Gabriel Byrne

Spoiler :

who dies in the first season anyway

and knew of the Ragnar actor from his role in the Warcraft movie.

So, what is the appeal of this show? Is this just for barbarogenous audiences with no aspiration to see the varangian guard fighting for some side that has actual cities and culture?

 

[EvaDK]

Speaking as a descendant of the shows titular main characters, I like that the show offers a much more diversified view on what the Vikings and their culture were all about. There are set pieces and characters that are probably entirely fabrications of the screenwriters and enhanced for broad appeal and ratings, but quite a lot of the back ground stuff going on in the series, is fairly close to what we know about this era.

The greatest legacy we have today from the Vikings, is the foundation for enabling a singular state entity (or 3 states, if you will, Sweden, Norway and Denmark), the introduction of the Christian religion and Mercantilism. Danes have historically been very capable traders and merchants for a thousand years now and it all started in the Viking era.

With that said, I have only watched 3 seasons so far. It's not really a must see show for me, but I'll watch if it ever turns up on a channel that I can watch.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I enjoyed it for a while, but my interest kind of petered out with no central protagonist to become attached to. The men are mostly psychopaths. I'd like to see more of Athelstan's or Lagertha's stories, but I don't know if I have the patience to stick with Ragnar and Rollo.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I enjoyed it for a while, but my interest kind of petered out with no central protagonist to become attached to. The men are mostly psychopaths. I'd like to see more of Athelstan's or Lagertha's stories, but I don't know if I have the patience to stick with Ragnar and Rollo.

That's pretty much what killed the show for me after one season. It's also what killed my interest in Sons of Anarchy. I don't mind flawed characters, and I don't mind fiction that portrays cultures -real or invented- with different values, but I need some characters -not necessarily the protagonists- who I can root for. ASoIaF/GoT doesn't shy away from human depravity and deals the good guys defeats because they were noble, but it has good guys. After Sopranos too many TV writers fell into the trap of turning everybody into a dick <snip> and I find it utterly alienating.

Moderator Action: If it's obvious which rude words you meant to use, simply don't use them. ~ Arakhor

 

[Verbose]

I kinda watched the first season, and then somehow drifted away from it. And frankly, the high-point for me in the first season was the visit to the temple in Uppsala. All these handsome vikings going "Upppsalllaaaa..." in hushed, awed tones, as they walked through a stunning mountain landscape — and I look out the window on the pretty consistently flat former sea-bed that is the Uppsala plain. Great for farming though, been at it since the neolithic.

 

[JollyRoger]

I gave up after season 1 when they went 3 and 11.

 

[Zelig]

Do you like Vikings?

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I was given the first two seasons of Vikings on Blu-ray for my birthday. All that I was told before watching it was about the blood eagle. They kept telling me about the blood eagle and from the way they talked about the series I thought it was going to be like an more violent 300. After watching through the two seasons it was far less violent and gory then I expected. I did like the series so far, although I'm incapable of telling if something is good or not.

I watched season 1 (iirc it has 4 seasons already).
Season 1 was pretty low-budget, next to similar shows afaik. Also, what is the appeal supposed to be? It has some gore, but not that much - i expected more gore in a show about viking raiders - and the depiction of viking life seems to be underwhelming, or at least not very informational (i never examined viking life much, but already knew what was being presented, so i suppose it is basic in this sense).

Another thing i didn't like is the timeline. Given this show moves on very slowly, it will never get to the varangian guard, or the battle of Stamford bridge. So it is a show about small-time viking raiders vs dirt-poor (just not as dirt poor as the vikings themselves) english minor kingdoms and afaik later on some french states.

The actors don't seem very interesting either. I only knew Gabriel Byrne

Spoiler :

who dies in the first season anyway

and knew of the Ragnar actor from his role in the Warcraft movie.

So, what is the appeal of this show? Is this just for barbarogenous audiences with no aspiration to see the varangian guard fighting for some side that has actual cities and culture?

The timeline is compressed.

Spoiler :

It has Rollo at the raid on Lindisfarne, about 118 years before he became the Duke of Normandy.

The style of the show reminds me of a docu-drama that was released years ago called 1066, down to even using the languages back then to introduce the cultures before switching to modern English.

I think one of the things that Vikings is trying to attempt is to compare and contract the cultures of pagan Scandinavia with that of Christian Anglo-Saxon England.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I kinda watched the first season, and then somehow drifted away from it. And frankly, the high-point for me in the first season was the visit to the temple in Uppsala. All these handsome vikings going "Upppsalllaaaa..." in hushed, awed tones, as they walked through a stunning mountain landscape — and I look out the window on the pretty consistently flat former sea-bed that is the Uppsala plain. Great for farming though, been at it since the neolithic.

I haven't seen any of this series, although my ancestors were probably Vikings.

It's common with TV series and movies to embellish some details, thinking the audience would never know the difference. The movie about Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards, for example, showed lovely mountain vistas in downtown Calgary... and the fact is that Calgary is in the foothills, not the mountains. There are no mountains in downtown Calgary.

 

[warpus]

I haven't watched the show but I would imagine the appeal is that people enjoy watching Vikings doing Viking things. Plus Josh Donaldson, the famous baseball player is on the show.

 

[Kyriakos]

I kinda watched the first season, and then somehow drifted away from it. And frankly, the high-point for me in the first season was the visit to the temple in Uppsala. All these handsome vikings going "Upppsalllaaaa..." in hushed, awed tones, as they walked through a stunning mountain landscape — and I look out the window on the pretty consistently flat former sea-bed that is the Uppsala plain. Great for farming though, been at it since the neolithic.

Wasn't the temple there an actual Stavkirche (or how it is called?)? And those were christian, no? I had modeled such churches for civ3 city sets of Norway/Scandinavia.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Vikings trivia: The guy who plays Floki is Gustaf Skarsgard, Stellan's son and Alexander's brother.

 

[Leifmk]

Vikings trivia: The guy who plays Floki is Gustaf Skarsgard, Stellan's son and Alexander's brother.

Coolest dude on the show IMO.

 

[Kyriakos]

^He isn't believable as a warrior, though. Reminds one more of Loki and how he got raped by a horse

 

[Verbose]

Wasn't the temple there an actual Stavkirche (or how it is called?)? And those were christian, no? I had modeled such churches for civ3 city sets of Norway/Scandinavia.

Yeah, the Medieval Norwegian "stavkirke" style of wooden churches. 28 still standing (of originally estimated over 1000), all on the UNESO World Heritage list. Dated between 1111 and 1482, so not quiiiite "Viking age". They were, at least in the 19th c., assumed to reflect older Norse building traditions.

Exactly what the temple at Uppsala looked like is unknown. Digs in later years have turned up loads of fascinating structures (a processional causeway lined by gigantic painted tree-trunk pillars etc.), but not conclusive remains of that kind of temple.

It was otoh NOT as much an original pagan structure, as an innovation – the result of an experienced need by the pagan proponents to come up with an architechtonically impressive central sanctuary that could compete with all the churches and and cathedrals that the converts to "Vitekrist" (Christ the White, possibly a corruption of being the people living the "vitae Christi", a Christian life) were putting up.

The "stavkirke" style even became a National Romanticist style people built private houses in in the late 19th c. The painter, architect, medical doctor, anatomical teacher and "balneologist" (the science of taking baths) Carl Curman designed a bunch for friends and clients. Including this one, "Sagatun":

 

[Yeekim]

I watched it until sometime in 2nd season the Northumbrians threw someone into a "snake-pit". The pit featured reticulated pythons iirc. This was a bit too much for me in 8th(?) century Europe context.

 

[NovaKart]

I have never seen a single episode. I'll just say I was surprised, my mother did a DNA test and she's about 25% genetically from Scandanavia. Yet we have no one from there in our family tree. She asked some expert about it and he said it was from Viking invasions in Britain. Either that or our great great grandmothers were having affairs with men from Norway.

 

[Mustakrakish]

A lot of people who dislike the show seem to be turned off by historical inaccuracy, which I find very odd. It's not a historical documentory, it's historical fiction, alike to the likes of "Spartacus" series (which was all about gore and sex) or "300" and what else we have. I mean it mixes historical character/events with mythology ffs and features magic/gods stuff happening on a regular basis (although SOMETIMES done subtly so it's up for the viewer to interpret it if it's real or character's imagination) never even trying to present itself as historically accurate. So obviosly if you want historical accuracy, this show is not for you.

As for characters not being "good guys", I find this even stranger. I have plenty of characters "to root for" They try to represent this unique harsh world they created (and I think they've done great considering the low budget of the first season) with different views, beliefs, morals blah blah blah. A Legolas or an Aragorn wouldn't fit in this world. Even "bad guy" characters are somehow done so that I am able to appreciate them, they domehow make sense and I don't hate them in a manner of "this character is awful, who wrote that?". Compared to "Sons of Anarchy" that someone mentioned above, I hated every damn character there and wanted their gang taken care of. Instead one normal human being (certain wife) got brutally killed (by certain mother) and the whole gang continued to piss me off for what, 8 seasons? I watched all seasons in the end so I guess the show itself wasn't that bad.

It's all about context. If the those characters from "Vikings" were portrayed in our modern world with the same views, beliefs and actions, I would indeed probably hate everyone of them and see them as psychopaths to be dealt with, and so would crave for characters "to root for".

But you know, to each their own. Personally I love the show and find the characters interesting and make sense.

Though I gotta say one thing that got me all cringy though:

Spoiler :

Floki who loves his gods and hates christianity with a mad passion suddenly being moved by muslims in last season and stops other from killimg them. At this point I was confused how that makes sense for this char, or is it rather tv show trying to avoid "dececrating" muslim holy places on tv or whatevs. Stupid thought I know, but still the thought occured in my head, I must admit.

 

[Arakhor]

I watched it until sometime in 2nd season the Northumbrians threw someone into a "snake-pit". The pit featured reticulated pythons iirc. This was a bit too much for me in 8th(?) century Europe context.

Presumably that would have been Ælla of Northumbria killing off Ragnarr Loðbrok, which was cited as the casus belli for the Great Heathen Army invading England in 865 and onwards, as led by Ragnarr's sons, Ivar the Boneless, Hvitserk, Halfdan and so on.

 

[Yeekim]

Presumably that would have been Ælla of Northumbria killing off Ragnarr Loðbrok, which was cited as the casus belli for the Great Heathen Army invading England in 865 and onwards, as led by Ragnarr's sons, Ivar the Boneless, Hvitserk, Halfdan and so on.

No, iirc it was said Ælla teaching a lesson for one of his henchmen, in what felt rather obvious foreboding of the event you mentioned.
Or maybe not so obvious, because Ragnar is, afaik, still alive in the show.