So, Vikings (mild Season 1 spoilers)

[Zannah]

I kinda like it, but it's kinda shit.

Allow me to elaborate - I like the production values, I like the sets and costumes and some of the characters. But goddammit, Ragnar is such a giant Mary Sue, his star-fleet uniform is showing. Apart from always and at every occasion being one hundred percent right, and being harder to defeat in battle then Thor himself - the guy wins every single one of his battles because everyone else fell off the stupid tree, hit every branch on the way down, then rolled down stupid road for fifty stupid miles.

Case and point - Lord Attawolf (or however you spell his name); Shows up, sees the vikings, plans to outthink them - by literally camping less then a nights march away from them in an unfortified and barely guarded camp. I genuinely thought that was a trap, but instead it's being played completely and utterly for laughs.

So here's my question - does this get better at any point? Do we get anyone acting even semi-sensible or employing basic battle tactics? Or is this going to be pure "let's jerk off to how great our protagonist is, no one can touch him, he's the smartest" for the rest of the series?

 

[Breakdown]

The production values and the overall atmosphere get even better in the second series, and the battles scenes are pretty cool. On the other hand Ragnar is always right about everything, and his enemies once again take a trip to the tree of stupid. It's still worth watching though.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I'm sort of in the same boat as OP. For everything I liked about the show, I hated something equally.

The sets, costumes, acting in general, are all really, really good. I actually learned something. Great cinematography and production values. Bloody fight scenes that feel somewhat realistic.

BUT

Ragnar looks so much like Jax from "Sons of Anarchy" it's sort of distracting. And, like Jax, he's so ridiculously perfect it's just annoying. He's always right, he easily wins every fight, and women throw themselves at him.

Speaking of women, Kathryn Winnick (I think that's her name, the woman who plays Ragnar's wife) is so ridiculously hot that it's really distracting and kind of kills some of the show's realism. These are people living in a time before shampoo or proper dental care, no one should be THAT good looking. I can forgive Victoria's Secret models in a show like "Spartacus", which is supposed to be over the top and kind of ridiculous, but for a show that tries for historical authenticity it feels really absurd.

It also has what I call the "Braveheart and Spartacus" problem. The enemy Soldiers are so incredibly incompetent and weak that you actually sort of find yourself rooting for them, since it's pretty clear they're the underdogs in this particular instance.

Anyway, I did finish season 1 and enjoyed it (it helped that I was sort of on a Viking kick at the time) and when I can I'll get around to season two.

 

[Zannah]

Ragnar looks so much like Jax from "Sons of Anarchy" it's sort of distracting. And, like Jax, he's so ridiculously perfect it's just annoying. He's always right, he easily wins every fight, and women throw themselves at him.

Yeah, he does look a lot like Jax. But Jax was nowhere near as perfect as Ragnar.

(And honestly - there is very little realistic about these battle scenes, since they keep ignoring all tactics in favor of making the vikings look way more badass then they ever were in reality.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

The battle scenes got vastly improved in season 2 as they actually tried to show the importance of the shieldwall to the Viking/Saxon styles of infantry combat, and also show the Saxons with cavalry. Still not authentic enough to be considered accurate, as it really should be since it's the History Channel and all, but it certainly got improved. The characterisation and "intrigue", if you will, was also improved to the point where the major plot twist took me by complete surprise, and I had guessed it all wrong. On the whole, I'd say season 2 was much better than the first.

 

[shintakie10]

It also has what I call the "Braveheart and Spartacus" problem. The enemy Soldiers are so incredibly incompetent and weak that you actually sort of find yourself rooting for them, since it's pretty clear they're the underdogs in this particular instance.

I've always really hated when these kinds of things happen. In Spartacus it was fine because they wanted to go for over the top ridiculous bullshit, so it worked and was fun. In Vikings they wanted a more down to earth feel, yet made everyone fuckin incompetent. What's the point of rootin for the main character if you know, with absolute certainty, that they'll come out victorious. Not only will they win, they'll completely and utterly decimate their opponents to the point that you wonder how anyone thought it was a good idea to challenge them in the first place.

Its hard to be invested when there's no consequences.

 

[Joseph Hutzulak]

If that

It also has what I call the "Braveheart and Spartacus" problem. The enemy Soldiers are so incredibly incompetent and weak that you actually sort of find yourself rooting for them, since it's pretty clear they're the underdogs in this particular instance.

I've always really hated when these kinds of things happen. In Spartacus it was fine because they wanted to go for over the top ridiculous bullshit, so it worked and was fun. In Vikings they wanted a more down to earth feel, yet made everyone fuckin incompetent. What's the point of rootin for the main character if you know, with absolute certainty, that they'll come out victorious. Not only will they win, they'll completely and utterly decimate their opponents to the point that you wonder how anyone thought it was a good idea to challenge them in the first place.

Its hard to be invested when there's no consequences.

The Vikings from my best understanding lived up to the name sea wolves they were good at picking off weak wounded places, but against a real army they never did so hot.

England at the time was a backwater disorganized mess, and when the vikings throw everything they had at them aka the great heathen army they lost.

Your going to be super irked by Season 3, truth is Paris was a dinky island town that blocked the seine enroute to Burgundy not some glorious city, and it actually held back the Vikings (The real life Rollos vikings, it was a attacked a few times) eventually Charles the Bald would show with a real army and captured the Vikings. Instead of slaughtering the Vikings he decided to be merciful and let them ransack the rebellious lords of Burgundy and settle Normandy to protect the seine from Vikings so he didnt have to drain resouces to drag his army up to bumblefuck france.

In fact the biggest things to happen due to viking activity in France was the siege of paris's leader on the French side Robert the Strong and Odo would form the Capet Dynasty that would eventually rule France and turn france into the heavy weight it would remain untill the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Also France would develop its famed heavy cavalry as a quick response force to driving off the maurading vikings.

 

[Zannah]

The Vikings from my best understanding lived up to the name sea wolves they were good at picking off weak wounded places, but against a real army they never did so hot.

Pretty much this. I guess what irks me the most is that so far, every single one of the supposedly oh so genius tactics Ragnar employed could have led to his humiliating defeat if his enemies knew the ancient secret of warfare passed down by shaolin monks, only whispered of as "Fire a second volley you goddamn morons."

 

[Ihateregistering1]

It also has what I call the "Braveheart and Spartacus" problem. The enemy Soldiers are so incredibly incompetent and weak that you actually sort of find yourself rooting for them, since it's pretty clear they're the underdogs in this particular instance.

I've always really hated when these kinds of things happen. In Spartacus it was fine because they wanted to go for over the top ridiculous bullshit, so it worked and was fun. In Vikings they wanted a more down to earth feel, yet made everyone fuckin incompetent. What's the point of rootin for the main character if you know, with absolute certainty, that they'll come out victorious. Not only will they win, they'll completely and utterly decimate their opponents to the point that you wonder how anyone thought it was a good idea to challenge them in the first place.

Its hard to be invested when there's no consequences.

This is a big part of the reason why I totally lost interest in 'Spartacus' after 'Blood and Sand' and "Gods of the Arena', when the actual rebellion got under way. I get that an individual Gladiator would probably be a better fighter than an individual Roman Soldier, but Soldiers train to fight as units and teams, which would give them a big advantage in an actual full scale battle. I thought the show might actually address this.

Instead, the Roman Soldiers were complete morons who would just rush into combat with no organization whatsoever for no reason whatsoever, and get slaughtered by Spartacus and his rebels. They'd kill maybe 1 Rebel for every 100 Roman Soldiers that died. After a while, I found myself rooting for the damn Romans even though they're clearly the villains.