Re: Re: Vikings

Home Forums TV and Film Vikings Re: Re: Vikings



Alright, I know it's just TV and the History Channel has a reputation for playing it fast and loose…  but I'm going to complain about the obvious problems raised in the first two episodes.So they have Cuthbert leading Lindisfarne about 100 years after his death (but maybe it's a different Cuthbert... ).  They really downplayed the viciousness of Lindisfarne, if the accounts are to be believed.  I mean, I understand why you would want to cut some of that stuff out, it's horrible... but they created some brutal stuff that's entirely fiction, why cut out the full horror of what those vikings did?Lindisfarne gets sacked in 793.  Yet, the show opens up in 793 with Lodbrok in the Eastern Baltic.  They aren't clear on timelines, but did less than a year pass between that scene and his raid on Lindisfarne?  They spoke of summer raids, and he had to build a ship etc in the interim.  It just seems like a cramped timeline.Ragnar Lodbrok dies in Northumbria between 47 and 72 years after Lindisfarne.  And he looks like he's in his 30's in this show.  Which would make him in his 80's or 100's at the time of his death in Northumbria, which is ridiculous.  Also, this is clearly after he acquired his nickname... but it would be nice to get a reference to the whole episode with bear fur pants.Then there's the niggling things, like the fact even the minor characters are an all star cast of famous names outside of their timelines: Rollo, Cnut, Aethelstan.  That's just off the top of my head.  I know it's just TV, but come on.