US: Vikings - anyone else watching this ?

Glanza · 28 Feb 2017 at 16:31

I agree with Bjorn especially after Ragnar died he seems to be channeling him more.

Darujhistan · 28 Feb 2017 at 19:17

Richdog said:
Ivar has zero charisma and likability, and he is imo overacted to the point where he is a pain to watch on-screen. The actor simply doesn't do him justice.

Bjorn is the opposite, likeable and acted well with just the right amount of restraint needed to convince you that he is a wise leader and a fearsome warrior.

Zero charisma? that's Bjorn to a 'T'. Why does Ivar have to be likeable? You've also no idea what Ivar would have been like and neither do I. I'd guess though that being denied his lower half and unable to have sex might have left him somewhat bitter and twisted especially in a culture that placed so much emphasis on the exploits of the warrior. I think having to watch his brothers run around during childhood while he dragged his sorry arse around would have heartbreaking, he's also had to see his mother murdered and they had a very close bond.

Bjorn is easier to get behind, but I don't think that makes Ivar a bad character. I like Bjorn but he's a bit flat, unlike his father.

I think that this boils down to Bjorn being a nice guy whilst Ivar is a baddie.

Richdog · 1 Mar 2017 at 05:12

Darujhistan said:
Zero charisma? that's Bjorn to a 'T'. Why does Ivar have to be likeable? You've also no idea what Ivar would have been like and neither do I. I'd guess though that being denied his lower half and unable to have sex might have left him somewhat bitter and twisted especially in a culture that placed so much emphasis on the exploits of the warrior. I think having to watch his brothers run around during childhood while he dragged his sorry arse around would have heartbreaking, he's also had to see his mother murdered and they had a very close bond.

Bjorn is easier to get behind, but I don't think that makes Ivar a bad character. I like Bjorn but he's a bit flat, unlike his father.

I think that this boils down to Bjorn being a nice guy whilst Ivar is a baddie.

No, you didn't get what I was saying. I mean Ivar is not imo ideally acted.

Darujhistan · 1 Mar 2017 at 19:14

Richdog said:
No, you didn't get what I was saying. I mean Ivar is not imo ideally acted.

You also said he had 'zero likeability and charisma', as well as being 'overacted'. I did understand what you said, you just forgot some of your criticisms.

Richdog · 2 Mar 2017 at 08:10

Darujhistan said:
You also said he had 'zero likeability and charisma', as well as being 'overacted'. I did understand what you said, you just forgot some of your criticisms.

Don't be daft I didn't forget, but in this case those things are imo a consequence of the character not being convincingly acted. For me he is a little too exaggeratedly unstable, too wild-eyed and twitchy with his head movements, too emotionally psychotic.

And yes, I realise that Ivar The Boneless is a damn hard character for any actor to portray.

Combat Fighter · 2 Mar 2017 at 12:15

When is Vikings back on?

Glanza · 2 Mar 2017 at 14:47

Combat Fighter said:
When is Vikings back on?

S5 probably around September if they split the season again.

SexyGreyFox · 2 Mar 2017 at 17:09

Does anybody else think Ragnar isn't dead?
He was thrown in a pit of constrictors which won't do a lot of harm and certainly can't eat him.
Even his own men didn't open the doors up and we haven't seen the body.

Darujhistan · 2 Mar 2017 at 18:37

Richdog said:
Don't be daft I didn't forget, but in this case those things are imo a consequence of the character not being convincingly acted. For me he is a little too exaggeratedly unstable, too wild-eyed and twitchy with his head movements, too emotionally psychotic.

And yes, I realise that Ivar The Boneless is a damn hard character for any actor to portray.

That's not what you said, but i'm not getting into a semantics argument. Very hard to say that a character so far removed from our own experience is exaggerated, I could easily argue that Floki is exaggerated and overacted. He was really out there in the early series. If you wanted to say James Bond is a ridiculous portrayal of a spy, for one i'd agree with you, and that opinion would have more weight as its much easier to relate to and understand the modern world of intelligence than it is the Viking world of over a 1,000 years ago. The difference I think is Floki is a sympathetic character whilst Ivar has no redeeming qualities that we've seen so far.

Ivar is portrayed the way he has come down to us through history. He'd be more unconvincing played as a character we're going to root for.

Darujhistan · 2 Mar 2017 at 18:41

SexyGreyFox said:
Does anybody else think Ragnar isn't dead?
He was thrown in a pit of constrictors which won't do a lot of harm and certainly can't eat him.
Even his own men didn't open the doors up and we haven't seen the body.

I hope not, it would be ridiculous, there were enough snakes in that pit to kill him many times over. Even if they weren't large enough to eat him they could easily have squeezed the life out of him.

There's also no way he could have got out without help and who would have helped him?

SexyGreyFox · 2 Mar 2017 at 18:53

Darujhistan said:
they could easily have squeezed the life out of him.

They weren't big enough to constrict a human

Uther · 2 Mar 2017 at 19:25

I assume they were supposed to be poisonous snakes. If they are sticking roughly to the story then he's as dead as can be.
As for Ivar, I'm not sure why but I don't like the actor playing him much.

robfosters · 2 Mar 2017 at 19:36

Most of those snakes were Royal Pythons. I have a huge Royal Python and the most she can constrict is an extra large rat.

I said this earlier in the thread, in this day and age, couldn't they have used a bit of CGI to add in a few adders or something.

Darujhistan · 2 Mar 2017 at 20:00

SexyGreyFox said:
They weren't big enough to constrict a human

There were enough snakes in there to collectively kill a weakened human being (in chains) in the pitch black over time. He was half dead as the pit was closed.

robfosters · 2 Mar 2017 at 20:02

Darujhistan said:
There were enough snakes in there to collectively kill a weakened human being (in chains) in the pitch black over time. He was half dead as the pit was closed.

Collectively kill??

Do you think snakes gang up or something? Those particular species of snakes could never kill a human being. No chance.

Darujhistan · 2 Mar 2017 at 20:27

robfosters said:
Collectively kill??

Do you think snakes gang up or something? Those particular species of snakes could never kill a human being. No chance.

You didn't see him suffering bite after bite then? He wasn't in there 30 seconds and looked half dead. Oh and let's not forget Ragnar was desperate to die...so that rules out trying to escape.

Wishful thinking on your part methinks, and of course Aelle et al wouldn't have known what would and wouldn't have killed a human in a pit...

You know when his eyes closed at the end did you think he was just having a little nap?

robfosters · 2 Mar 2017 at 20:49

Not wishful thinking. It's a show, he's dead and I don't really care at all.

My main gripe is that they could have put in more effort into the snakes they used rather than fill a pit up with snakes you can buy from a pet store.

And the bite after bite means nothing at all. Unless they are venomous, the bites wouldn't do any serious damage at all.

Uther · 2 Mar 2017 at 21:46

Yes I think that's one scene where cgi poisonous snakes would have helped a lot.

SexyGreyFox · 2 Mar 2017 at 21:52

robfosters said:
Do you think snakes gang up or something?

Have you not seen that famous scene on Planet Earth II?

Constrictors wouldn't do it though.

AndyCr15 · 3 Mar 2017 at 06:35

Surely the vast majority (myself included) wouldn't know the different snake types? It would be money wasted changing them using CGI. He's dropped in a snake pit to die... that's all we really need to know surely?