I actually don't care, you must realise that :/

Keep your false subjective notions of ''civilizing'' to yourself. I don't need a history lesson from the likes of you. history is my job. The simplistic binary portrayed in this show is something that good historians strive to reject. That it gets trotted out for characterisation and to manipluate the audience into…

You know using caps lock makes you look like a wide eyed fanboy crying cos someone doesn't like your little show, awh boo boo, its alright I promise if you don't read what I write you won't feel bad. Also repeating what I say is not much of a refutation.

awh you got to love fanboys. critique the object of their desire and it gets taken personal.

pmsl, fanboy doesn't even make sense.

fanboys: I can't take you seriously.

Literally none of that contradicts what I said. The Saxons are clearly being portrayed as 'civilised' while the Vikings are 'barbarians'. Take the scene with Ubba, Guthrun and the King from ep 2. The negotiation scene from this ep. The 'intelligent' Alfred giving his spiel about recording history while the 'uncouth'…

Lindelof trolls the audience week 4 'super duper' edition:

Vikings came first!?!? fanboys, pmsl !!

He clearly cuts it on the zombie with the machete in its shoulder. My question is: was the guy they were chewing on an alexandrian? One of Tobin's group? and where is Tobin? He was on the other side of the road as I recall?

Yes that's what I presumed too but it's never been made explicitly clear. I guess my point is that if Glen survives because of that, it will make it even more ridiculous that they didn't just cover themselves in the blood and guts at the woods. That being said I'm not sold on Glen surviving anyway.

Or what they really could have done was, after they killed the group of zombies in the forest, just covered themselves in the blood and guts? But then, I guess, nobody would have died other than already bitten shotgun guy…

Another great ep. The scene with Glen and Nicholas on the dumpster was just beautifully done. It really brought home the claustrophobic terror of a horde of zombies.

Fanboys pmsl. If you have nothing interesting to say, just keep quiet. good boy.

Actually it is better. Ragnar is indisputably the star but the collectivity of Viking society is still shown by the way in which other cast members are featured. Ragnar is allowed to dominate but he is at times an equal among many (as the scenes with Ecbert sought to portray). In Vikings Ragnar is a myth made flesh…

the novels are - as Seamus pointed out - a rip off of the authors own work! This is basically Sharpe in the 9th Century. Secondly ,if your criteria is that a written word text preexisted then the Icelandic Saga's, that Vikings are based on, predate Cornwells' work (however, this is a stupid point which misses what…

My charge of conservatism has nothing to do with current British politics and with everything about this show: how it's shot, how it's cast, how it's plotted, its themes, its imagery. It's all been done before. This particular variant is just coated in the Great Man Theory of English Nationalism. It's a boring story…

Only if you mean ''historically accurate'' in the sense that it alludes to people who are believed to have really existed at the time.

It's really just a rip off of Vikings without the eccentric panache; the nuanced politics and the clash of cultures replaced by a large dollop of English nationalism and Great Man Theory. The only interesting character - Brida- is a bit of an anachronism. Uthred is a cliche.

you are clearly a very weird, bitter, angry man. the amateur pychobabble was in relation to where you try tell me I'm 'fragile or emotional' or whatever all the while scrabbling together enough emotional rhetoric to keep a pyschoanalyst in business for decades. It's only the internet and I don't care about your…