MovieChat Forums > Vikings Discussion > Why should we care about Ivar?

Why should we care about Ivar?


I don't know where the hell this show is going, it seemed they made Ivar take the place of Ragnar after his death. But Ivar is being displayed as a cruel little bastard who is capable of killing his own son and basically anyone he loves. I want to see that guy get a sword in the gut, not win! Even though the real Ivar The Boneless lived on longer and we don't know his real fate, i hope they fictionalize a proper screen death for Ivar, they did so for his brother Halfdan, who did not die by the hands of Ivar.

reply

The show killed off Ragnar, dropped his fully grown sons (and a ton of new characters) into the narrative and expected audiences to be equally as captivated with them.

Ivar (and his brothers) just haven't been developed in a very compelling way. Which is a problem, since the show is also cycling out it's original characters (aside from Bjorn).

reply

I mostly agree, but the spirit of Ragnar is still in the show, as we saw him talking to Bjorn in the final seconds of this season’s alleged, unsatisfying, finale.

I can’t imagine that anyone likes the psychotic Ivar. The citizens of Kattegat turned against him. His wife turned against him. It looks like Lagertha is back in full blonde-and-buff-and-ShieldMaiden song next season. Remember the Norse creed: That which does not kill us makes us stronger. I am dying to see Lagertha (or, if need be, one of her sons as a stand-in) dispatch Ivar. It need not be cruel, because cruelty is ignoble. It needs to be swift and just. No “eagle.” Just a beheading.

And where is Floki?

ADDENDUM: The real problem with Vikings is the same problem that every other Michael Hirst-written series has had: it’s written by Michael Hirst, who is accountable to no one. There’s no writing staff, no hovering show runner(s). There’s no one to say “This is stupid” or “That doesn’t make sense,” or “Why did you write Floki into a corner for the next year?” Newspapers and magazines had credibility because they had editors and fact-checkers looking over the writers’ shoulders. The internet doesn’t and neither does Hirst. You see the result.

reply