History in Vogue discussion

Discussion for Vikings Series 4 on HISTORY Channel

Yay! History on the History channel... sort of

Yes! I'm excited to see what the new season will bring, although I'm also sad for the losses of last season...

Will 9:00 p.m. ever get here?

I've missed Ragnar...

I am very confused . . . I stayed up till late just to watch the show, and it didn't air for me :(. At first, I thought I'd miscalculated the exact hour, but after checking, it was right, and I saw others were watching it in my timezone with no trouble.

What's going on with these cable networks these days? Now I'm just going to ask who amongst my friends who watch it recorded the episode and can lend me the DVD with it.

That's crazy! It aired on directv, 10:00pm eastern. I don't know what they're doing... Can you watch at history channel online?

Since there are 2 History channels do you think you might've been on the wrong one?

Ranar and Rollo were both in fine form last night - the whole wedding, wedding night sequence was hilarious.

Marie wrote: "That's crazy! It aired on directv, 10:00pm eastern. I don't know what they're doing... Can you watch at history channel online?"

I don't know, never watched TV online in my life and am not sure if I know how to or not, but I'll learn just in case this incident is repeated. For this episode, I'll go watch it over the weekend at a friend's house who recorded it.

Not sure what's the problem, last season I watched it just fine and I've not changed the cable package I'm suscribed to.

Marquise wrote: "Marie wrote: "That's crazy! It aired on directv, 10:00pm eastern. I don't know what they're doing... Can you watch at history channel online?"

I don't know, never watched TV online in my life and ..."

If you get on history channel's website, there should be a page for Vikings, and on the Vikings page it should have a section for videos. The first should be the episode from the previous week.

Laurie wrote: "Since there are 2 History channels do you think you might've been on the wrong one?

Ranar and Rollo were both in fine form last night - the whole wedding, wedding night sequence was hilarious."

Wasn't that hilarious! She wanted to stab him so badly, and she didn't get the chance. I can't decide if I'm happier watching Floki under arrest, or I want to go back to Ragnar torture him.

Marie wrote: "Laurie wrote: "Since there are 2 History channels do you think you might've been on the wrong one?

Ranar and Rollo were both in fine form last night - the whole wedding, wedding night sequence was..."

I think Ragnar will let Floki go once he admits that he killed A. out of jealousy.

I saw at one Vikings site many young girls offering themselves up to Rollo if his new wife didn't want him :D

I loved the way Rollo handled the situation. I was afraid it would be the hairy, uncouth barbarian terrorizing the refined French princess but Rollo was so cool about it by pretending to fall asleep and ignoring her drama.

I was gong to be highly upset if Ragnar (RAWR!!) entered Valhalla. I don't know how he recovered but I'm glad he did.

Didn't you watch "The Last Kingdom" on the BBC channel?
I just realized that the bloodthirsty Ubba in that series is Ragnar's oldest son.

Last night's episode of Vikings was 5 stars for me.

Marie wrote: "If you get on history channel's website, they're should be a page for Vikings, and on the Vikings page it should have a section for videos. The first should be the episode from the previous week."

Thanks, Marie. I followed your instructions, and there's indeed a page for Vikings there, with the episode. I'm due for a visit to my friend to watch it tomorrow, so I'm walking past watching it on the website this time. :)

Yes, in the series Bjorn is Ragnar's eldest but in real life I think Bjorn was Lagertha's son from a previous relationship and Ragnar was his stepfather.
Lagertha and Ragnar split up because she couldn't give him a child of his own while Princess Aslaug could.

I was discussing this series at another site with people who knew a whole lot more than me when it came to Ragnar and Rollo and this information was considered to be fact. It is confusing and I wonder who will come to power after Ragnar leaves for Valhalla?

http://tvline.com/2016/02/22/clive-st...


NOOOO! What will happen to Rollo?

According to history Rollo will finally consummate his marriage :D

Nothing good ever happens from consummation... well, end results-wise. Child birth back then was always a near fatal experience.

I'm always feeling lonely in these discussions because of the overwhelming Rollo love. I detest him, and have detested him since the first season . . .

I knew there was an extended season, but I didn't know it was twenty episodes. Is it going to be shown all at once, or split? I've been wondering if this was the last season, because of the snakes in the series teaser. If they try to stay with legend, it can only go so much further, but considering there's no absolute fact for Ragnar, I suppose it could go any way. I do think Michael Hurst is making better decisions than he did with The Tudors or Camelot.

Marquise wrote: "I'm always feeling lonely in these discussions because of the overwhelming Rollo love. I detest him, and have detested him since the first season . . ."

I don't love him... I'm not especially attached to any of them. Athlestan was my favorite, because I loved the blurred, searching aspect of his character. I felt bad for Siggy. I preferred Clive Standon on BBC Robin Hood, and the small role he had on Camelot. He was in the recent Everest movie, but blink and you'll miss him.

The 20 episodes for one season might be because it's the final one? I thought of this option immediately because in recent years many shows have opted for the split-season model for their final seasons: they air half the episodes at the start of the year and the other half later in the year (or the next, depending on schedules). "The Sopranos," "Breaking Bad," etc., have finished like that. I believe it is because the last season needs to wrap it all up so they need more time for that but don't want to film another season due to costs, the actors, and so on.

Marie wrote: "I don't love him... I'm not especially attached to any of them. Athlestan was my favorite, because I loved the blurred, searching aspect of his character. I felt bad for Siggy. I preferred Clive Standon on BBC Robin Hood, and the small role he had on Camelot. He was in the recent Everest movie, but blink and you'll miss him."

My poor Athelstan . . .! I'm still mourning him, and so is Ragnar. The serials isn't the same without him, he was the softer, kinder side, the "soul" of a story where everyone else is either brawn or brains.

Ragnar himself is no longer the same either since he died, every episode after the infamous crime has had him doing/saying something to honour Athelstan's memory, and even in this new season you can still see how much he misses the priest.

The Vikings series is true to its time I suppose and that's one reason I enjoy watching; even though the real Vikings were a whole lot worse than Ragnar and Rollo in this series. Both actors bring these characters to life and I love the fact that they aren't one dimensional. They might be horribly violent but still capable of loving their wives and children. These characters have their faults especially compared to our more modern times I agree. Ragnar and Rollo are both pagans so I expect them to behave likewise.

Since we all know that the Vikings will eventually convert to Christianity perhaps Christians such as Athelstan made this possible since Athelstan was the best friend Ragnar ever had.

Marie wrote: "I knew there was an extended season, but I didn't know it was twenty episodes. Is it going to be shown all at once, or split? I've been wondering if this was the last season, because of the snakes ..."


I hope this won't be the last season for Vikings. I was hoping the saga would continue even after Ragnar and Rollo's eventual demise. The ratings have been good and I haven't heard any rumors yet of this being the last season. It will be so disappointing if this happens.

Erik wrote: "Nothing good ever happens from consummation... well, end results-wise. Child birth back then was always a near fatal experience."

It's a miracle more women didn't die in childbirth I've often thought.

Mmm... there have been rumours about Ragnar dying this season since last year, and that coupled with the 20 episodes should've been hints enough that this would be the final season. Shows don't outlive their protagonists, and "Vikings" has always been Ragnar Lothbrok's story. He's the protagonist, the focus point, the one round whom the plot moves and who pushes the plot forward, so if he dies, it's curtains down time for the serials. What started with Ragnar should end with Ragnar instead of being overstretched, it's just logical.

Although there's some material that could be used, like the saga of the sons of Ragnar Lothbrok, screenplay-wise none of them has the weight to carry the story forward on their shoulders successfully. Bjorn doesn't have the pull his father has, and the other sons are still children. And for the other important characters like Lagertha, Ecbert, Rollo, etc., it's much the same. Besides, there's precedents that when shows go on without their main character, they tend to decrease in viewership numbers, and often storytelling quality as well when they're overstretched in an attempt to capitalise on popularity.

I sort of thought that with "Game of Thrones" too... never saw the main actor dying. I have not read the series of course.

Erik wrote: "I sort of thought that with "Game of Thrones" too... never saw the main actor dying. I have not read the series of course."

The difference is that "Game of Thrones" doesn't have a protagonist, and neither does the book series "A Song of Ice and Fire" that the show is adapting, so it's not the same.

In the books, the cast of characters is very large, and although some are recognisably important and have their own POV, none of them is The Protagonist, and it's not the story of any of them. It's a set of rival families and factions really. And the show, with all their shameless favouritism towards the Lannisters, hasn't managed to make anyone the protagonist either. To tell you it's not even ONE story but two parallel stories, one magical and one political, that have been building up towards intersecting at one point for the endgame.

Odd, but I honestly saw Sean Bean's character as the "Protagonist", till he died. Then I thought it was the family Starks... till they mostly died. That would have made them Protagonists, plural... lol. Now I have watched through season 4, and I really have no idea what the whole point of the series was... bad guys can win perhaps?

Anyhoo...don't want to derail the conversation. Back to those Vikings.

So... Athelstan! I'm glad they at least let him have a few minutes on this season.

You have no idea how excited Art history me was when the painter started mixing those pigments with eggs. No one ever includes that, and it's the reason why everyone thinks people in Medieval to Early Renaissance portraiture has green skin.

Erik wrote: "Odd, but I honestly saw Sean Bean's character as the "Protagonist", till he died. Then I thought it was the family Starks... till they mostly died. That would have made them Protagonists, plural......"

Erik, I thought the Stark family were the protagonists as well till Catelynn (view spoiler)[managed to get most of her family killed. I thought we were finally rid of here after that wedding but NO! she just won't go away. I wish Martin would just finish the series and wrap up a lot of things (hide spoiler)]

But back to those Vikings; I predict Floki will convert to Christianity.

Marie wrote: "So... Athelstan! I'm glad they at least let him have a few minutes on this season."

I don't know, Marie . . . I think his death might have affected me worse than it affected Ragnar. :D Because since he's gone I feel like I've started to lose interest in the show. And although I plan to watch it till the very end because I'm still invested in seeing where Ragnar and Lagertha go in the show (the real history I already know about), I struggle to care and I find that I watch every episode rather with indifference about what's going on.

Odin knows if I'll get into the story as the episodes keep rolling, because sometimes I'm slow in "getting the feel of it" when I watch shows and films, but I'm not that optimistic this time round. I finally know how it's for those poor fans who had their favourites killed early on or mid-point . . .

So this one won't be the last season after all! News came out that Vikings has been renewed for another season more. And "Henry Tudor" is joining. :P

https://deadline.com/2016/03/vikings-...

And (view spoiler)[Rollo (hide spoiler)] is leaving, is leaving, is leaving! Thank the gods for that, I won't have to suffer that character anymore.

Marquise wrote: "So this one won't be the last season after all! News came out that Vikings has been renewed for another season more. And "Henry Tudor" is joining. :P

https://deadline.com/2016/03/vikings-......"

Excuse me, what?! Jonathan Rhys Meyers! I don't care who he is or what he does, he will be my favorite. I have loved him since - and I can't believe I'm going to say this- Bend it Like Bekham. There, I said it... To be fair, I was twelve, and got out-voted at a party. But at least I found Jonathan. He is fantastic. And he is gorgeous!

I was starting to like Rollo's transition into the Duke of Normandy. Will be interesting to see what happens when Ragnar returns to France next week.

Marie wrote: "Marquise wrote: "Excuse me, what?! Jonathan Rhys Meyers! I don't care who he is or what he does, he will be my favorite."

The rumours say that he might play a grown-up Alfred, the son of our much-mourned Athelstan and Judith. I am failing to see how feasible that would be, though, as it would mean a huge, but really huge time jump ahead. Whilst the show has indeed made jumps in time, it's not been that large as going from baby Alfred to grown-up Alfred, at least two decades would be needed, and with five episodes in and Alfred still a baby . . . not sure whether it's possible.

I was starting to like Rollo's transition into the Duke of Normandy. Will be interesting to see what happens when Ragnar returns to France next week.

I still think one of Ragnar's weak points is that he can be merciful to people who don't deserve it. Rollo betrayed his brother once and was forgiven, and had vowed to himself he would be worthy of that pardon. And yet, here you have him, again a traitor. Is Ragnar capable of forgiveness a second time? Who knows, he loves his stupid brother dearly.

Marquise wrote: "Marie wrote: "Marquise wrote: "Excuse me, what?! Jonathan Rhys Meyers! I don't care who he is or what he does, he will be my favorite."

The rumours say that he might play a grown-up Alfred, the so..."

That does seem a bit of a stretch. I know we're dealing with two incredibly extended seasons, but they would have to skip a ton to have Alfred old enough to be played by JRM. You would almost have to have Ragnar, Rollo, Lagertha, etc. much older (probable cast change) or even dead, and focus shift to the next generation. I would honestly be surprised if Michael Hurst went that direction. When the Tudors were ending, so many people wanted him to continue the series with Mary/Edward/Elizabeth, but he said (rightly) that it often harmed a series, because most people don't want to watch a series for years, then have the entire cast disappear to go forward in time. Either way, with JRM attached I'll watch it.

Marie wrote: "You would almost have to have Ragnar, Rollo, Lagertha, etc. much older (probable cast change) or even dead, and focus shift to the next generation."

Exactly. And wouldn't they get into unintentional "competition" with The Last Kingdom, which covers the time that grown-up Alfred would?

What did I just watch?!

Is Lagertha dead or alive?

Ragnar's got some explaining to do.

The French King is pretty wily after all.

Lagertha is alive, not really spoiler-ish, since Michael Hirst announced it in a news article this afternoon.

Ragnar came back so he could return to England, but I would like to know where he's been for ten years.

I knew they were going to have to go forward in time at some point, especially with (completely unsubstantiated) rumors that JRM could be either Alfred or Magnus, but I wasn't expecting it mid episode. Rollo defeats Ragnar , and they sail off with a boat full of injured people, then ten years later Bjorn is standing in a lake??? They didn't even show the French peace negotiations or have Bjorn find out his daughter was dead. They should have had the time jump with the first episode in September.

Also, did I miss where Ragnar actually had sex with Kwentrith? I thought all this time she was claiming Magnus as Ragnar's, but there was no proof.

Where has Rangar been? I hope he hasn't been off looking for the land of whatever drug his ex-mistress was giving him.

Yay! Lagertha lives!

JRM - from Elvis, to Henry the 8th to Alfred? Bring it on.

As to your last sentence...I wish I could remember back that far :(
But I do vaguely recall a little hanky panky going on between them.

How did you like Floki's latest upgrade on the Viking ship?

It's going to be a long summer without Ragnar and the gang.