Witch one is better ?
Do these shows have anything in common ?
Jacarutu!
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=20186983
I like em both, i dont personally care much of anarachronism as long as the series are entertaining (for which they are).
I got 20 minutes into #1 -- and switched to the shopping channel - the acting was better --
Μολών Λaβέ
Guys just one important small point the “English” were, in fact, Angles and Saxons etc from northern mainland Europe which most historians now believe “liberated” the lion’s share of Celtic land after the Romans left and the Celts or “Ancient” Britons (King Arthur springs to mind etc) ended up in Wales and Cornwall and in small wild pockets of what is now England. The Vikings were mostly battling against the Anglo Saxons as they are now called. The Vikings did hold sway for a while; King Canute was in fact the King for a while. Sorry to say I haven’t watched the Vikings. I can watch Kirk Douglas for that knock about image which I guess Vikings is. The Vikings didn’t leave a lot of artefacts behind just names of place and people’s surnames and some genealogy. My wife’s maiden name is Anglo Saxon not Viking while my nameis supposed to derive from Celtic.
They have vikings and early English kingdoms in common and similar tones. And the Last Kingdom recycles a lot of the same stories Vikings uses, so if you watched in the chronological order that they have aired in, well Last Kingdom seems like a low budget, low charisma poorly told knockoff.
Vikings has gorgeous cinematography, great fights (and lots of them), charismatic characters, women who kick all kinds of butt, intelligent plotting, and interesting themes and character motivations.
The Last Kingdom is mainly interior shots and green screen crap, they hardly ever fight, all of the characters are annoying especially Alfred who is too stupid to live let alone lead anyone and should have gotten a sword in his throat about 10 seconds after the first time he doesn't appreciate warriors who win for him instead demanding "respect" he's neither earned nor deserves, they make a big deal about religion but go nowhere with it instead of it being thematic.
Basically, Vikings is trying to tell an entertaining, cinematic story and making secondary points while doing so. The Last Kingdom isn't trying any harder than a vague history lesson. They aren't concerned about character development, themes, visual impact or storytelling. If you want a basic history story The Last Kingdom is for you. If you want an exciting, visually stunning, epic violent, cunning adventure and who cares what actually happened, go with Vikings.
"Good work, zombie arm."
Recycle??.TLK is based on books written loooong Before Vikings even was on! lmao
But Hopefully TLK wont "recycle" the awful princess nympho storyline from Vikings
they make a big deal about religionbut go nowhere with it instead of it being thematic.
And the history happened loooooong before the books were written.
Not knowing the current marketplace isn't an excuse for being redundant and boring.
"Good work, zombie arm."
And the history happened loooooong before the books were writtenn.
OF COURSE they are going to have similar characters and stories
No, you do not agree, TLK is not recycling "Vikings". If anything, Michael Hirst recycled Cornwell's books for his show.
However, although there are some unavoidable similarities, the shows are completely different.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
[deleted]
I've read the novels and when watching Vikings I always had the feeling that Hirst read them too.
"Now, who has the key?"
The books didn't happen first. The history happened first. Cornwell has no more prior claim to them than any other pseudo-historian writer.
There is no primacy of the books in telling the story of something that happened in real life 1000 years ago.
When the makers of TLK choose to make their show, they ignored the fact that another show with similar tone and actions was already on the air. If you watched both shows in the order that they aired, you sit there going, yep arrows in the priest game...seen it. Along with many other stories. It wasn't necessary to recycle them, yet TLK did.
Not knowing your competitive marketplace is sloppy and unprofessional. Failing to set yourself apart is even more egregious in my opinion.
"Good work, zombie arm."
How is it similar besides the the period? One is from the Vikings perspective, the other is from the Saxons. The shows dont even look a like visually. For example, the way saxons/vikings dress on TLK is very different from Vikings, sets are very different. Relationships very different etc.
I personally enjoy both shows
Please go back and read the original post. This comment has nothing to do with my original point or the subsequent discussion.
"Good work, zombie arm."
So you are saying TLK copied "Vikings" because history happened before the books?
Do you even realize how absurd that sounds?
When the makers of TLK choose to make their show, they ignored the fact that another show with similar tone and actions was already on the air.
You guys really struggle. All I said was if you watch in chronological order you will see some "recycled" storylines. The stories you saw on Vikings, you will see again on TLK.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, especially given that no one is disagreeing that they often tell the same stories. The only argument you guys have put forth was that the books were written before the show--so apparently according to you guys isn't somehow telling the same stories that Vikings aired first because Cornwell knew about history before Hirst knew about history or somehow has more "right" to history than Vikings does.
I don't care who had knowledge of history when. I watched a TV show, a year later a similar TV show airs that tells the same story. IMO that's lazy.
"Good work, zombie arm."
Your opinion is wrong.
And calling a production like this lazy is just idiotic. That, unlike the pointless blabbering you are spouting, is a fact.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
My opinion being wrong is a fact?
LOL. Great argument.
"Good work, zombie arm."
Apparently, you can't even read properly.
Why would anyone take you seriously now?
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
Like the rest your arguments you once again, don't even address what I said and instead argue about something else.
"Good work, zombie arm."
Again, the only thing you are proving is that you can't read properly.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
And now you are recycling insults.
"Good work, zombie arm."
LOL, thanks for proving me correct.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
Hahaa. When all else fails, declare yourself winner. Stellar plan.
"Good work, zombie arm."
Again, thanks for proving me correct.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
Apparently your love of redundancy knows no bounds. No wonder you like TLK.
"Good work, zombie arm."
And, again, thank you for proving me correct.
By the way, what you just wrote is called argumentum ad hominem. Which, as you probably know, only proves you wrong.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
http://67.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m53zhvKFes1rwicn1o1_500.gif
This is the argument that I just read.
a year later a similar TV show airs that tells the same story
If you watched both shows in the order that they aired, you sit there going, yep arrows in the priest game...seen it. Along with many other stories. It wasn't necessary to recycle them, yet TLK did.
yes, I'd like to see more examples of these "recycled" stories TLK copies from Vikings
shareTLK isn't recycling stories from Vikings. Michael Hirst samples famous Viking stories from 796 to c.1000AD and includes them in his series. Cromwell uses stories from the specific time period, allegedly, that TLK inhabits. The arrow scene shared by both actually happened during the invasion of the Great Northern Army led by the sons of Ragnar Lothbrok...Ubba, Halvdan, Ivar and Sigurd. By the time the Viks got to Essex, Halvdan was dead, Ivar went off to conquer Ireland and Sigurd went back to Denmark...Guthrum joined Ubba. Hirst's show isn't following a historical path, just elements of history. Vikings vague timeline is roughly set one generation prior to The Last Kingdom...and Rollo, Ragnar's brother in the series was born 100 years after the death of Ragnar Lothbrok, obviously isn't related, but did become the first Duke of Normandy...on his own. So, don't look for any accuracy in Vikings historically, look at it as a pretty entertaining look at Viking culture with some historical events, cherry picked and tied to the semi-legendary career of RL...who reportedly was married to both Laguertha and Aslaug and dropped a bunch of sons.
shareRagnars sons were dead by the time Alfred took back Wessex in 878, But no doubt Hirst will do some kind of Alfred-Ivar(instead of Guthrum) battle match up on Viking
Correct Hirst cherry pics historical stuff and adds big fictional twists i.e Athelstan being Alfred's father, Rollo and Ragnar being brothers etc.
Yep, who knows what Hirst will do with his characters. TLK seems to have written Ivar dead in Ireland off screen, but my faulty memory of the books seems to think he makes an appearance somewhere down the road...so maybe rumors of his death are incorrect...or I could be thinking of someone else.
shareIvar does appear in the books but I thought that he did die in Ireland. The writers of the series chose to not feature him.
"Now, who has the key?"
Historically, it appears he did die in Ireland. As you say, he did appear in the books, but I can't remember his fate there. Time will tell if the series writes him back in because Ubba did leave England to avenge his death in the LTK.
shareIvar does appear in the books but I thought that he did die in Ireland
Cornwell does play with the timelines (no way near the way Hirst (Vikings) does). I think he forwarded Ubba's death by a year.
"Now, who has the key?"
I think the. Ivar who appears in Lords of the North is Ivar's son and Ubba's nephew.
shareThe Last Kingdom is based on a book so I suppose it takes its lead from that. I have no idea about Vikings but I guess its Dark Ages "swash buckling"
shareVikings is by far a superior show. by far...
*******************
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=15227539
Vikings is by far a superior show. by far.
[deleted]
That would be because there is next to no source material on him. Even Paris is attibuted to Lothbrok only because the credited leader had the same forename. There are numerous candidates for the character simply because there is a chance he never existed; he is a myth but his sons were real historical figures.
Vikings is based on a myth. Thus there can only be so much fact in there. The Last Kingdom, however, is written about an intensely recorded era. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the life of Alfred by Asser provide a very clear vision of the events that happened at the time, giving any show about the time a much clearer focus and guidline for the plot.
Furthermore, The Last Kingdom is more explicitly historical fiction and thus in that respect takes fewer liberties with History.
I watch both shows, and love them both for a number of reasons.
Vikings has grown stronger by the season. While in the beginning it was pretty much the Ragnar and Lagertha show, now I have an entire cast of characters that I follow. I am particularly fond of Rollo's adventures in France, I hope they don't rush this thing of how he's going to win over the pouting spoiled princess (who is a much better actress than I first thought).
The last kingdom, as a fan of the books, feels terribly rushed. They plucked the first two books for whatever highlights they were worth. This could have been done so much better. I dislike the main actor (to the point where I have forgotten what he's called). His performance does not have the depth that I would have liked to see. But that is me. The rest of the cast is okish, with the exception of Alfred, who indeed is great (as an actor).
[deleted]
😄
I mean the actor.
And it's Alexander Dreymon.
I like both but vikings has a slight edge above tlk for me.
shareDepends on what you enjoy. If you like historical authenticity for entertainment sake, like me, then both will be really enjoyable. They both have great characters, decent scripts, compelling plots and epic battle sequences.
However, if you are after accuracy, you're looking in the wrong area. Vikings is a drama based on a myth; it is debated whether Ragnar Lothbrok existed at all, although his sons were real historical figures that appear in the Last Kingdom. Practically nothing besides Lindisfarne and Paris are historically accurate in the show, but that really isn't the point of it. The show really justs sets out to paint a fine picture of Viking and Anglo-Saxon (and later Frankish) culture, rather than tell you what happened at this time.
The Last Kingdom, however, is textbook historical fiction. The main character, Uhtred, is completely fictional, as is his personal story, but he interacts with Historical figures on both sides of the confict presented and takes a key role in historical events, such as key battles. It takes liberties, but the idea of historical fiction is not to teach but to entertain within a convincing, authentic setting that happens to revolve around historical events.
So really, if you want to be taught, you really shouldn't be watching a TV drama. If you want authentic entertainment, they are both great fun to watch and I would recommend both as they have different focuses that they pull of very well.