Tag Archives: Michael Hirst

Vikings (series, season 3) – Michael Hirst (2015)

Well then. Even more so than the previous season, 3 is mostly a soap opera. The focus is almost exclusively on the characters.

We jump back and forth over the globe. In one scene we are in Kattegat, then suddenly in Britain or with many of the characters (including women) in Paris. In Britain a Viking colony is started, but the conquering of Paris would be to Lothbrok’s fame.

Besides gathering fame, Lothbrok toys with the idea of Christianity throughout season 3, much to the demise of mostly Floki who develops a growing dislike for his king and his best friend Athelstan.

There are the usual talks of the relationship between men and women, of course the raids with an occasional fight and only a handful of scenes on the sea.

A little annoying is the way Norse mythology is used. A man comes to Kattegat, tells a story that in the Edda is an adventure of Thor, but the man is Odin in disguise (and the story only used partly).

“Vikings” remains a series that may be amusing, but nothing more than that.

Vikings (series, season 2) * Michael Hirst (2014)

Season 1 did not really convince me, but a year and a half after I saw it, I still got myself season 2.

Well, season 2 is not really much better than I remember number 1, but I would not rate it 1,5 stars. Season 2 is more historical and less based on myths and sagas. It mostly tells the story of Lothbrok raising in power, travelling to England and making friends and enemies. Story-wise season 2 is more of a soap opera with more focus on the relations between people.

I still cannot say that I really like the series. I still might some day watch the third series, but they did not come high up my list after watching the first two.

Vikings (series, season 1) * Michael Hirst (2013)

When I heard about these series, I figured it would just be another popularised spectacle about raiding Vikings which of course makes nice battle scene for people who like mindless action. Then I started to hear good things about these series, also from contemporary heathens (often Viking lovers). In the end I bought the first season ouf of curiosity.

Things do not start all that bad. Main character Ragnar Lothbrok got a way (from his patron Odin) to navigate while at sea and he tries to persuade his earl to allow him to sail West, rather than the Baltic lands that the Vikings plunder every season. Ragnar is turned down, yet he sets sail with a group of fellow rebels, lands on Holy Island and plunder the Lindisfarne monestary (had not the Vikings in reality already been there as traders?). Ragnar returns with bounty, but his earl is not amused. A struggle arises and the Vikings prove to be quite like ourselves with wrath, plots and disgrace. Where is the honour of these Vikings? The series mostly portrays the Vikings in the typical way of greedy barbarians. Quite annoying.

On his first raid, Ragnar returns with the monk Athelstan who stays with him as slave, but actually more as an equal. This part of the story reminds of the accounts of Ahmad Ibn Fadlan. There are other famous elements, such as the account of Adam of Bremen with the nine-yearly offers at the temple of Uppsala (Uppsala looks nothing like how Uppsala looks today, the landscape is completely different). Myths are interwoven, sometimes as silly as a scene in which a man accuses his wife of adultery, but the pregnancy is actually called by a man named Rig (from the story of how Rig created the three ranks). Everything is mashed together into a story that supposedly has to look interesting, but I find it all rather silly. The series are -to me- nothing more than an adventure around a bunch of barbarian Vikings and -as far as I can judge- can hardly be seen as a history lesson. Still, the series are produced by the History Channel.

Not my thing I guess, like most of the popular series… I doubt I will ever see season 2 or 3.