The Problem with Vikings: Valhalla

Netflix’s Vikings: Valhalla is fine. It’s not a bad show, but, despite very strong critic reviews, I don’t think I’d say it’s really a good show either. That’s sort of disappointing because the first few seasons of the original Vikings, which premiered on the History channel in 2013, were really, really good. And I think part of what made the original Vikings show so good was the characters—and that’s the same area where this new Netflix show, which takes place 100 years later, falls short.

When I think back to Vikings, the first thing I remember is how distinct and good the show’s characters were, especially in the early seasons. Travis Fimmel was great as the series lead Ragnar Lothbrok. There was Lagertha, Ragnar’s wife, Bjorn, his son, Floki, the shipbuilder, Rollo, Ragnar’s brother, and Athelstan, the captured monk turned Vikings ally. There were other good characters too, but these are all ones who I remembered without even having to consult the Vikings Wikipedia page. These were all well thought-out characters with defined, unique motivations.

Well, I just finished Vikings: Valhalla a week or so ago and I remember two characters names, Leif Erikson (who, because he’s pretty widely known, I would obviously remember) and his sister, Freydis. That’s not to say you have to remember a character’s name for them to have been a good character, but I think it shows at least partially how little impact this group of Vikings had on me.

When you think of good TV shows, they always center around interesting, well-developed characters. Think of Saul Goodman on Better Call Saul or the entire Roy family on Succession. Sure, there has to be a plot and things need to happen or we wouldn’t have a series, but we’re starting with people viewers are interested in watching.

I don’t think this is what Vikings: Valhalla really did at all. I think Vikings: Valhalla started with a few “historical” events, like the (possibly historical but probably not true) story of the fall of London Bridge, and went from there. While the first four seasons of the original Vikings had really developed characters we cared about, in this show we have bland, underdeveloped characters who simply go through the motions as they play their part in supposedly historical events.

No, King Edmund! It’s a trap!

When I first started watching Vikings: Valhalla, judging from the first episode, I thought Leif Erikson was going to be the main character of the show. He’s pretty mild-mannered and boring though, and besides being a soft-spoken fighter from Greenland there’s really not much to him. Leif’s sister, Freydis, is somewhat more interesting, but her story takes a backseat to what’s happening in London for most of the season.

I know it sounds like I’m being tough on the show, but I still think Vikings: Valhalla is watchable as mindless television with some decent fight scenes. If you haven’t seen the original History channel Vikings though, the early seasons of that are definitely worth a watch before even considering this. 

Grade: 5.5/10