Move over Game of Thrones!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Wolfstan**

Uhtred is coming to the small screen.... and about time in my opinion

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/bbcs-new-game-of-thrones-slayer-the-last-kingdom-relies-on-saxon-appeal-creators-say-9595959.html

BBC’s new 'Game of Thrones’ slayer 'The Last Kingdom' relies on Saxon appeal, creators say

An epic television drama featuring bloody battles and a feud over ancestral lands might sound familiar to fans of the hit series Game of Thrones. But The Last Kingdom, a new big budget BBC spectacular, is not a spin-off of the hugely popular US show, say its creators.

The series is instead a historically rooted drama about the ninth-century wars between the Anglo-Saxons and Viking invaders.

Based on Bernard Cornwell’s bestselling series of “Saxon stories”, the drama is set in England during the reign of King Alfred, when “the separate kingdoms of what we now know as England have fallen to the invading Vikings and the great kingdom of Wessex has been left standing alone and defiant”.

Merging historical figures and fiction, The Last Kingdom’s hero is Uhtred, born the son of a Saxon nobleman, who is orphaned by the Vikings and then kidnapped and raised as one of their own.

Forced to choose between the country of his birth and the people of his upbringing, Uhtred treads a dangerous path between Saxon and Viking as he seeks to recapture his ancestral lands.

Coming to BBC Two next year, the series is a collaboration between BBC America and Carnival Films, the award winning producers who turned ITV’s Downton Abbey into a global blockbuster. It will inevitably prompt comparisons with Game of Thrones, the HBO fantasy phenomenon.

The Last Kingdom promises “heroic deeds and epic battles” as well as clashes involving warriors like Ivar the Boneless and his feared brother, Ubba.

But Carnival said the series would be quite different from Game of Thrones, which is pure “fantasy”, whereas The Last Kingdom is a franchise of historical novels about the birth of England.

The series promises a “thematic depth that embraces politics, religion, warfare, courage, love, loyalty and our universal search for identity”. No Viking drama can be complete without its share of rape and pillage. But the BBC series is unlikely to match the explicit sex scenes found in Game of Thrones.

Gareth Neame, the award-winning executive producer, said: “Cornwell’s Saxon novels combine historical figures and events with fiction in an utterly compelling way. In the hands of screenwriter Stephen Butchard, we believe it will make original and engrossing television drama.”

Neame added: “This is not Game of Thrones. Brilliant though that show is, ours is a historical drama based on the real events around the time of King Alfred the Great and the foundation of England.”

Shooting begins in the autumn for the series, which will run for eight hour-long episodes. With eight Saxon stories novels published, the BBC hopes The Last Kingdom will become a long-running show, like Game of Thrones, which has been renewed for a fifth and sixth season after its fourth run amassed record viewing figures.

Cornwell was also responsible for the “Sharpe” novels about a soldier in the Napoleonic Wars. These became a long-running television series of the same name starring Sean Bean, who coincidentally also appeared in the first series of Game of Thrones.

**reds8n**

Great news

Just don't mess it up

**LordofHats**

Sounds like someone heard that the History Channel was doing pretty well by fully embracing historical fiction

**Orlanth**

After the BBC's dire 'Robin Hood Prince of Chavs' series I reserve the right to remain sceptical.

**Iron_Captain**

Historical fiction? That is silly!
Either make it fully historical or fully fictional.

**Daemonhammer**

For a show that claims not to be like Game of Thrones it sounds wery similar to it.

Also I fail to see how GoT is pure fantasy. Sure its set in a fictional world, but most if the show is people talking with some instances of people being stabbed. Not that im complaining

Something like for example Lord of the Rings is pure fantasy as there is some sort of a fantastical creature or event every few minutes.

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
Sounds like someone heard that the History Channel was doing pretty well by fully embracing historical fiction

Indeed. I want to see history Channel's Ragnar square off against these Saxons. Crunch!

**Wolfstan**

As much as I love Ragnar I'm pretty certain Uthred would win

Plus the Ivar the Boneless mentioned is the son of the Ragnar, according to Viking folklore.

One extra large anorak for the Geek please!

**Sasori**

Daemonhammer wrote:
For a show that claims not to be like Game of Thrones it sounds wery similar to it.

Also I fail to see how GoT is pure fantasy. Sure its set in a fictional world, but most if the show is people talking with some instances of people being stabbed. Not that im complaining
Something like for example Lord of the Rings is pure fantasy as there is some sort of a fantastical creature or event every few minutes.

Maybe the Ice Zombies, Magic, and Dragons have to do with it being considered fantasy?

**Hulksmash**

The books are good. I hope they do them justice. That's something that the GoT writers and producers did. and it's not easy.

**Frazzled**

Wolfstan wrote:
As much as I love Ragnar I'm pretty certain Uthred would win Plus the Ivar the Boneless mentioned is the son of the Ragnar, according to Viking folklore.

One extra large anorak for the Geek please!

I should note, I favor more Saxon/Viking violencing. I'm down with more on TV. Hopefully it will make it over here (We have a BBC channel that never seems to freaking show the BBC news yargh!)

**Daemonhammer**

Sasori wrote:
Daemonhammer wrote:
For a show that claims not to be like Game of Thrones it sounds wery similar to it.

Also I fail to see how GoT is pure fantasy. Sure its set in a fictional world, but most if the show is people talking with some instances of people being stabbed. Not that im complaining
Something like for example Lord of the Rings is pure fantasy as there is some sort of a fantastical creature or event every few minutes.

Maybe the Ice Zombies, Magic, and Dragons have to do with it being considered fantasy?

Yeah but those play a small role in the series. Either one only shows up once every few episodes.

**Soladrin**

I thought we already had this series called Vikings..

That said, more Vikings isn't a bad thing, I'll give it a shot.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

YES!

**Some_Call_Me_Tim?**

Daemonhammer wrote:
Sasori wrote:
Daemonhammer wrote:
For a show that claims not to be like Game of Thrones it sounds wery similar to it.

Also I fail to see how GoT is pure fantasy. Sure its set in a fictional world, but most if the show is people talking with some instances of people being stabbed. Not that im complaining
Something like for example Lord of the Rings is pure fantasy as there is some sort of a fantastical creature or event every few minutes.

Maybe the Ice Zombies, Magic, and Dragons have to do with it being considered fantasy?

Yeah but those play a small role in the series. Either one only shows up once every few episodes.

Small role? Sure, in the first couple of books. But as the dragons age, magic in GoT starts getting more and more common and potent. The whole series is pounding towards a head-to-head clash of Dany's forces against the White Walkers and the Others.

That is, if GRRM lives to finish the series...

~Tim?

**Breotan**

Frazzled wrote:
I should note, I favor more Saxon/Viking violencing.

I'm a little rusty on my old English history. Did the Saxons ever win any battles against the Norse?

**Ensis Ferrae**

Breotan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I should note, I favor more Saxon/Viking violencing.
I'm a little rusty on my old English history. Did the Saxons ever win any battles against the Norse?

There's a reason the term is Anglo-Saxon and not, Anglo-Norse.... right??

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Breotan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I should note, I favor more Saxon/Viking violencing.
I'm a little rusty on my old English history. Did the Saxons ever win any battles against the Norse?

Yeah, lots. Every Saxon kingdom was conquered except Wessex and parts of neighbouring Mercia (which later came under the control of Wessex). King Alfred and his son,Edwad were able to halt the pagan advance, and Alfred' s grandson Aethalstan was able go on the offensive and took back most of England.

So in a way the Vikings did England a favour. If it weren't for their invasions and subsequent Anglo Saxon fightback,, England might have remained a collection of petty warring kingdoms and not become a unified country.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks to Bernard Cowell my favourite historical period is Dar Age Europe.

**Compel**

I kinda like the Saxon Chronicles but... I don't find them that memorable, what usually happens is, I read them as they come out, then by the time the next book is released, I've forgotten who everyone is. Then only work it out / remember, by the last 5 pages of the next book.

The Warlord Chronicles, however, were frigging awesome.

**Pacific**

Wow, great stuff!

Really like the Bernard Cornwell books, hopefully they will make a good job of it - perhaps the BBC can channel a little bit of the funds from Top Gear?

Will be interested to see who they line up for the cast. And, hopefully it will be more Game of Thrones, than Merlin/Robin Hood in terms of how it is executed..

**Compel**

The downside is. And I hate to be a negative on this one...

The BBC did recently try to do the exact same thing with the series 'The White Queen' which was set during the War of the Roses, one of the main inspirations for Game of Thrones.

It was generally seen to be terrible. Hopefully the team up with a US company might make this better though...

**streamdragon**

Compel wrote:
The BBC did recently try to do the exact same thing with the series 'The White Queen' which was set during the War of the Roses, one of the main inspirations for Game of Thrones.

It was generally seen to be terrible. Hopefully the team up with a US company might make this better though...

Was it? I thoroughly enjoyed The White Queen. I was under the impression people were clamouring for a second season, but BBC made it clear it was only ever intended to be one season. Wiki says critic reviews were mostly mixed to negative, but it sits at 79% on Rotten Tomatoes from regular viewer reviews.

Either way, there's no way this will "kill" Game of Thrones. It still seems like an interesting show, and I will definitely give it a watch.

**Grey Templar**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I should note, I favor more Saxon/Viking violencing.
I'm a little rusty on my old English history. Did the Saxons ever win any battles against the Norse?

There's a reason the term is Anglo-Saxon and not, Anglo-Norse.... right??

Well there actually were many Viking settlements IIRC. So the term Anglo-viking might be correct from a genetic point of view.

Anyway, Harold did win the battle of Stamford Bridge. 3 weeks before the battle of Hastings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge

Also, the Normans were technically the descendents of Viking settlers/raiders.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Grey Templar wrote:

Well there actually were many Viking settlements IIRC. So the term Anglo-viking might be correct from a genetic point of view.

Except for that little bit where Viking is not a genetic term, nor is it a "People" in the same sense of the Goths, Franks and other tribes... The people of Norway, Sweden, Iceland and the typical "Viking" countries are collectively Scandinavian, or Norse/Nordic.

Viking is a synonym for a pirate or raider... it's like saying Engineer, or LEO; They aren't a tribe of people, but rather a profession

**LordofHats**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Viking is a synonym for a pirate or raider... it's like saying Engineer, or LEO; They aren't a tribe of people, but rather a profession

True, but he's also right that the Normans as we identify them today (as a distinct ethnic group) were descended from Viking raiders to took control of Normandy and Sicily. In their own time Norman was a bit of a more generic term (shorthand for Norseman or Northman).

**Grey Templar**

Viking was still a word from a very specific culture.

Yes, it was a verb, "I'm going viking" but given that it was a specific culture who used it we could find it synonymous with the people.

As LordofHats pointed out, Norman was a little more proper as reference. But it wouldn't be improper to call someone from Denmark or Norway a Viking.

**LordofHats**

Yeah we often identify people today differently from how they identified themselves. How often is it mentioned today that pretty much all of Europe is made of German Successor States from that time the Franks crossed the Rhine and conquered everything? To the point that people outside of Europe didn't call Europeans European. They called them Franks! All the way into the Crusades the Muslims called Europeans Franks. Now we solely reserve that word for talking about France.

Viking is a word that identifies a specific group in history who had sweeping effects on the Western World. So what if its actually a verb?

**Dark Apostle 666**

I hope it is as good as the books deserve - if not, I shall be on the dragonship that hunts down whoever screws it up!

**Ensis Ferrae**

LordofHats wrote:

True, but he's also right that the Normans as we identify them today (as a distinct ethnic group) were descended from Viking raiders to took control of Normandy and Sicily. In their own time Norman was a bit of a more generic term (shorthand for Norseman or Northman).

Not really... the Franks began calling the area where the Norse raiders started to settle Normandy AFTER they began to assimilate into, what basically became French society, as in the rest of your statement is generally correct... the Franks were calling it the "Land that the Northmen have settled" or "the land we bribed the Northment with", which eventually boiled to to being called Normandy, and people living there Normans.

I've no bloody clue where youre getting the term Norman for Vikings settling on Sicily, as they didn't settle in great enough numbers to alter much, they just became like the rest of the Sicilians

**LordofHats**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not really... the Franks began calling the area where the Norse raiders started to settle Normandy AFTER they began to assimilate into, what basically became French society, as in the rest of your statement is generally correct...

I fail to see how that negates the Normans descending from people who were Vikings... I didn't say anything about what Normandy was called before they showed up. It's kind of obvious from the name the land as we call it today was named for the people who took it over. The term Norman is a little older and was being used by the Merovingians and the Byzantines even before the term Varangian or Viking were adopted to describe these people. I don't even know if a precise date can be set to when we started using Viking to describe an ethnic group rather than to simply describe raiders from a specific region.

There were a lot of words for them. Ashmen and Danes were used at times as well. My entire point here though is what those words mean way back then means little to us now unless we're trying to interpret primary source material.

I've no bloody clue where youre getting the term Norman for Vikings settling on Sicily, as they didn't settle in great enough numbers to alter much, they just became like the rest of the Sicilians

Sicily was profoundly effected by the Norman conquests and became one of the central powers behind the continued decline of the Byzantine Empire. As short lived as their Kingdom was, Norman Sicily was hardly like Sicily before the Normans and Sicily was heavily effected by the melting pot of Norman, Byzantine, and Arab culture for centuries.