Norsemen!
-
@loki in my opinion, it was never the same after Ragnar.
The show-runner/producer commented that he wanted to kill Ragnar off at the end of Season 1, but he was such a great presence that he was able to justify him for another 2-3 years.
None of his sons, as portrayed in the series, rose to the charisma of Ragnar. They were surely interesting, Bjorn probably being the most interesting and Ivar being the perfect foil, but ... Ragnar!
I got disenchanted with Floki's mysticism and all that crap. It was a story that went nowhere, IMO.
-
@loki in my opinion, it was never the same after Ragnar.
The show-runner/producer commented that he wanted to kill Ragnar off at the end of Season 1, but he was such a great presence that he was able to justify him for another 2-3 years.
None of his sons, as portrayed in the series, rose to the charisma of Ragnar. They were surely interesting, Bjorn probably being the most interesting and Ivar being the perfect foil, but ... Ragnar!
I got disenchanted with Floki's mysticism and all that crap. It was a story that went nowhere, IMO.
I hear you but it allowed the women to become very interesting. Lagertha in particular. All the men we’re deeply flawed after Ragnar. Ivar the boneless made a big transition which wasn’t entirely convincing based on his past.
Floki is ultimately just inexplicable after being so important.
So it is pleasing I think because everyone who likes the show has a secret desire to be a Viking. Fearless, fate driven, adventurous, strong sense of justice, unafraid to die, driven by these powerful gods, earning entry to Valhalla and the mystical soothsayer.
-
I hear you but it allowed the women to become very interesting. Lagertha in particular. All the men we’re deeply flawed after Ragnar. Ivar the boneless made a big transition which wasn’t entirely convincing based on his past.
Yes, in the last few episodes they almost seemed to try to make him a sympathetic character. Didn't work for me. The historical Ivar aside, he was almost a cartoon-ish villain. Don't try to rehabilitate him in the last 4 or so episodes.
Floki is ultimately just inexplicable after being so important.
Yes, why bring him back? That ship sailed a long time ago. Let it rest.
So it is pleasing I think because everyone who likes the show has a secret desire to be a Viking. Fearless, fate driven, adventurous, strong sense of justice, unafraid to die, driven by these powerful gods, earning entry to Valhalla and the mystical soothsayer.
Again, yes. The adventure of the story was good, despite its flaws. Those flaws were not toxic to the tale, but evidence that the writers didn't know what they wanted to do. I suppose I could say the same thing about the last season of Hell on Wheels. But, unlike Game of Thrones, I always felt the story was going somewhere, rather than meandering about a narrative. The ending was good, satisfying, even though some stories were hurried, added as irrelevant, or historically inaccurate (a mild objection, to be sure).
It was a hell of a good ride.
In retrospect, if I had to think back (wait, isn't that what "in restropect" means?), I think the first three seasons were the strongest.
-
-
Just finished E20. I don't know that Floki's reappearance was satisfying or really necessary, but it did tie in to the end of the Viking golden age.
Rehabilitating Ivar was a bit ridiculous, and he did not die in Wessex, but in Dublin.
Still, as is said, a great ride. Will look forward to the sequel.
-
-
