Valhalla has dropped....
-
Watched the first half hour last night.
Got bored.
Lots of players with similar-sounding names that all end in "ssen" or something. Too many similar-looking beards.
Conflict between Greenlanders, Christians and Danes not explained well.
I'll finish a couple before I decide, but so far, 2/4 stars.
The fun of "Vikings" was the totally unique concept and compelling characters. None of the characters grabbed me, even the nominal hero, Leif Erikssen.
And in a nod to wokeness, a black woman ruling over Kattegat. Really?
And her character, Jarl Haakon, was a man.
-
Ultimately the hardest part for the series will be stepping out from under the shadow of the original. The arc of Valhalla’s first season is broadly very similar to that of the original Vikings: You’ve got different Vikings factions scheming against each other. Eventually they make their way to England, where the internal politics of the English start interweaving and complicating the situation. Even the religious undercurrents aren’t that far off of Ragnar’s early flirtations with Christianity. It’s not that there aren’t interesting moments within these conflicts or gripping battle sequences, but there’s a feeling of having seen it before.
Plus, it’s not quite as unique as it once was. Where Vikings felt like little else on TV at the time — the obvious comparison to Game of Thrones leaves out a level of broodiness that felt more akin to Hannibal — Valhalla feels entirely like TV of the moment. There’s a sheen to the whole affair, literally brighter on the screen than its forebearer. Vikings had more of a detached artfulness guiding the tone and style, allowing it to feel a little strange; Valhalla is more propulsive, but loses some of the weirdness of the original.
And this:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/feb/25/vikings-valhalla-review-gore-sex-plot-hair
-
That's funny. I was struck the same way by the trailers. I've seen all this before. Leif is too pretty, as is Sigurdson. A black woman ruling Kattegat? Show me the historical reference for that
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
That's funny. I was struck the same way by the trailers. I've seen all this before. Leif is too pretty, as is Sigurdson. A black woman ruling Kattegat? Show me the historical reference for that
-
That's funny. I was struck the same way by the trailers. I've seen all this before. Leif is too pretty, as is Sigurdson. A black woman ruling Kattegat? Show me the historical reference for that
-
"The Pedants are revolting.".
"Yes, disgusting, aren't they?".
Just watched the first episode. I thought they did good job of pulling you into the situations. But I came away from it not liking anyone but Freydis.
-
"The Pedants are revolting.".
"Yes, disgusting, aren't they?".
Just watched the first episode. I thought they did good job of pulling you into the situations. But I came away from it not liking anyone but Freydis.
@Mik said in Valhalla has dropped....:
Just watched the first episode. I thought they did good job of pulling you into the situations. But I came away from it not liking anyone but Freydis.
I got bored with it so quickly that I stopped paying attention. Perhaps tonight, after some (cheap) Scotch I'll do it again, in the interest of giving a fair shake.
And, c'mon, no one has the absolute screen power that Travis Finnel had as Ragnar Löthbrook. Even the original show, though still good, wasn't quite the same after his departure.
-
Yeah, it's a pale imitation of the original. But it's still fun to see the Vikings again. I'd still be more interested in where else they went, the origins of Russia, the other places in the Mediterranean they went, than seeing them slug it out with the English again.
-
Just watched episode 2.
Better, MUCH better than the introductory episode. I think episode 1 tried too much exposition, and too much irrelevant storyline (the rape story) and introduced too many characters, as I said before.
In episode 2, it's more focused. And though it bounces from arc to arc, there's more cohesion. The journey of Leif to England is well done. The story of Edmund II ascendency to the throne is well done. My only criticism is the "chick" side of the episode. It's all fluff, and (so far) doesn't move the story forward. Also, in that arc, too much woke ("change is good," "embrace differences"). As far as that goes, FOAD.
-
Oh, another thing. Historical trivia follows:
Æthelred the Unready doesn't mean "unprepared."
It means "poorly-advised" which is a pun on his name, which means "well-advised."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æthelred_the_Unready
I remember listening to some Great Courses lectures on this history, as well as the course on The Vikings.
Fun stuff, and now that I sort of remember what I learned, comparing history to fiction is interesting.
-
I'll retract my 2 star review and increase it to 2 ½ stars. The interplay between C'nut and the English is fun. Leif Erikson is a (so far) not too compelling character, but that might change. Battle scenes are very, very "Vikings", and after a while, get boring.
The whole Freyda goes to Uppsala thread is stupid and a waste of electrons, but, we needz wimmenz doing powerful things, so there's that. I never cared for the "mysticism" parts of the original "Vikings" and my feelings continue to this series.
Not great, not innovative, but not bad. I'll waste a few more hours to finish the series (at 1.25 speed - thanks, Netflix).
-
@jodi said in Valhalla has dropped....:
I didn’t watch the original. But I’m liking this one.
The original is MUCH better. It's also, for the most part, historically accurate. Really compelling characters.
Link to video
