Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Vikings on History Channel


kman72

Recommended Posts

I've caught up on them as of last night... through the 4th episode anyways (I think I can watch it early with TWC?)

Overall it is pretty good.

The acting is okay. The script is alright.

I don't really like how they all speak English... I guess they didn't want to use so many subtitles...

I don't really get the "seer" dude and why he looks like some other kind of creature other than a human...

The way I see it, though, it is probably 95% more historically accurate than The Bible.. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty good. They were hyping it up to have the same type of gore and stuff as Game of Thrones but I haven't seen that yet, maybe torward the end of the season.

I had low expectations so I've been satisfied. There is a lot WORSE things on TV than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty good. They were hyping it up to have the same type of gore and stuff as Game of Thrones but I haven't seen that yet, maybe torward the end of the season.

I had low expectations so I've been satisfied. There is a lot WORSE things on TV than that.

Yeah you can tell it is wanting to ride GoT's success... but the actors in Vikings aren't anywhere near the level of those in GoT...

But like you said, it is satisfying TV if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I was just wondering, I didnt know anything about it but I caught a couple of the episodes and liked it overall. I like the storyline so far and the acting is decent, I dont watch too many series shows normally just stick to sports outside of TWD and Bar Rescue.

I am going to start Game of Thrones soon but I'm trying to read all the books first

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I was just wondering, I didnt know anything about it but I caught a couple of the episodes and liked it overall. I like the storyline so far and the acting is decent, I dont watch too many series shows normally just stick to sports outside of TWD and Bar Rescue.

I am going to start Game of Thrones soon but I'm trying to read all the books first

Don't worry about reading the books first IMO. I watched season 1 first, and if anything, it helped me visualize the characters more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry about reading the books first IMO. I watched season 1 first, and if anything, it helped me visualize the characters more.

Does the show follow the books closely or just the main idea like the walking dead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the show follow the books closely or just the main idea like the walking dead?

IMO the show has followed the books very closely. There is always going to be some differences when you put a story onto tv/movie but GoT is one the best I've seen at keeping it close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I still dig it. The last episode was pretty crazy and not much happened minus some alliances type stuff. There is better TV, but there is a LOT worse also. I like the lead character though. Crazy that Floki is Eric from True Blood's brother, and also one of the main guys on Hemlock Grove is their brother too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Every team does it's homework. More so than any fan.  Brooks, had he not been injured, would have been a first round talent.  I have zero problems with the team (Dan Morgan and company) drafting Brooks in the 2nd.  He is a fantastic talent.  As far as risk, this is the NFL.  Any and every player is exposed to the same brutality that the NFL is.  Despite Brooks latest setback, it doesn't cost the team much.  Our running back room is stacked.  Could they have drafted someone else? Sure. No promise that someone else would have made an impact last year.  Or this year.   When it's your job to do what Dan does, I pray you get it all right. Lord knows that there isn't a single GM that gets it all right.   
    • Dang, we might not be able to create the same magic from last year!
    • If we were a solid winning organization most of us would have no problems with this selection. We would have had a capable starter in place to allow him to be eased into the rotation. If were told prior to the draft that he had been completely cleared health wise, we "probably" wouldn't have a ton of reservations about this selection. If we had picked this young man on Day 3 of the draft most of us would have no problems with this selection because we wouldn't have had to use draft capital to move up and get him. Unfortunately, none of the above were true 1)  We were a terrible team in 2023 and needed an immediate impact player. 2)  He was hurt near the the end of the 2023 NCAA season. We traded up to get him even though we knew he wasn't medically cleared to play in 2024. 3) When training camp started we were hearing stories that the knee wasn't ready. That alone should have raised some red flags. I personally would have red-shirted him in 2024 in order to have him ready for 2025. We had Chubba as our lead back and other guys to fill the #2 and #3 spots on the depth chart. There was no need to rush Brooks unto the field in 2024. Here's our draft history in the 2nd round between 2021 and 2024 2021 TMJ 2022 No draft choice. We picked Matt Corall in round 3 (#94) as our only Day 2 pick. 2023 Jonathan Mingo 2024 Jonathon Brooks. We have taken 4 skill players on Day 2 of the draft for the past 4 years who have contributed absolutely nothing to the offensive side of the football. 3 are no longer on the team. Two of them are no longer in the NFL. One  could possibly never start a game due to a knee injury. This type of poor drafting is why this team has been so bad for the entire decade. 
×
×
  • Create New...