Bernard Cornwell's 'The Last Kingdom' episode 1 review

[Shamash-Bel]

I was directed to resurrect this instead of making a new thread!

I will ignore the warning above:
"Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic."

I just finished the second season and really enjoyed it. It's a lot better than the weird historical revisionism the BBC has been putting out lately but that goes without saying. The characterisation was really strong and the conversations between characters on point for the most part.

As everyone else has said, Uhtred's outfit is irritating as hell (he's been wearing that fucking thing for about 7 years now?!) but this is a really solid show and it's got me thinking about going into Dark Age warfare.

EDIT: Here's a video with someone complaining for 10 minutes about minor historical inaccuracies if you want to get it out of your system.

[Antonio J Carrasco]

I've tried to watch it, twice. Both have failed after a few episodes. Can't stand the characters. Still worst: it is boring. Not as boring as Game of Thrones or Vikings, but almost as much.

Since Rome -there you have a show that is entertaining despite its historical innaccuracies- I haven't enjoyed a "historical" TV show.

[Harry Faversham]

If nothing else it's given me the name for the leader of mi' marauding warband for 'Blood Eagle'...

'Putrid son of Putrid'

[Captain Blood]

I was directed to resurrect this instead of making a new thread!

I will ignore the warning above:
"Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic."

In some cases, when one arrives late to a particular topic on which a long conversation on the forum has already taken place, it's better to revive the lapsed thread rather than having the same conversation all over again. Opening a new thread on the same subject usually entails the same people feeling obliged to weigh in and restate the same comments and points they made in the original thread. So you usually end up with a duplicate thread. All of which takes up a lot of time and hot air which has been spent once already on the original discussion.

So in cases like this, a little judicious threadomancy is preferable to re-running an entire conversation all over again.
 
It is, in the immortal words of Lucky Jack, the lesser of two weevils.

[Shamash-Bel]

If nothing else it's given me the name for the leader of mi' marauding warband for 'Blood Eagle'...

'Putrid son of Putrid'

Boot Tread the Soleless.

In some cases, when one arrives late to a particular topic on which a long conversation on the forum has already taken place, it's better to revive the lapsed thread rather than having the same conversation all over again. Opening a new thread on the same subject usually entails the same people feeling obliged to weigh in and restate the same comments and points they made in the original thread. So you usually end up with a duplicate thread. All of which takes up a lot of time and hot air which has been spent once already on the original discussion.

So in cases like this, a little judicious threadomancy is preferable to re-running an entire conversation all over again.
 
It is, in the immortal words of Lucky Jack, the lesser of two weevils.

I get you, I just felt I should add that addendum in there. :p

[Captain Blood]

No problem 

[westwaller]

I enjoyed both series, although series two reached its peak in the middle of the run and then didn't really have many episodes to conclude the new storyline imho.

I enjoyed series two more though.

[THE CID]

I enjoyed both series, although not historically correct, better than the normal crap on the box.

[bergschotten]

I have to be honest I enjoyed both series for what they were; rattling good stories.  Having just read the White Knights excellent thread on his Robin Hood project I am reminded that the majority of us came to this hobby through films and books that would not stand any level of scrutiny-The Vikings anyone!  I also enjoyed the link to the history pedant's review which I though excellent.

[Phil Portway]

Even My Wife watched it!  

I was half through the first series, when she started to watch it, so we had to watch it from the beginning.

I asked her if she thought any of it was not historical, and the only thing she mentioned was the sword slung on the back was a bit Lord of the rings, but she enjoyed both series very much.

[mweaver]

I am just now on the second series (almost done episode 6) and I am enjoying it reasonably well.  I do like season 2 better than season 1.  I like the portrayal of Alfred best, I think.

-Michael

[Phil Portway]

I am just now on the second series (almost done episode 6) and I am enjoying it reasonably well.  I do like season 2 better than season 1.  I like the portrayal of Alfred best, I think.

-Michael

Has he burnt the cakes yet? or was that series 1?

[mweaver]

He went spying on the Danes in season 1.  I can't remember if he burnt cakes.  I think maybe he did.

[westwaller]

Alfred did burn the cakes in the first series but it wasn't a big part of the plot and I think it was bread anyway IIRC.

[mweaver]

Shamash-Bel: "EDIT: Here's a video with someone complaining for 10 minutes about minor historical inaccuracies if you want to get it out of your system. Laugh"

Not available in my country, it says.  I will have to imagine it.

-Michael