Well, OK, hurray Saxons, hurray Vikings. But why does it all have to be so *muddy* ? Here we are at the tragic end as Northumbria's Golden Age finally ends in fire, can we not have some leftover bling? Or at least some nice embroidery? Silk hangings? The odd fancy woodcarving, or some nice trim around a tunic at least? Even the box of treasure looked kind of manky, and for some mysterious reason, even though we were clearly around for several years of Uhtred's growing up, everything took place in late autumn, so there wasn't even much colour to the grass or trees. :-(
I suppose fancy objects are expensive. But I still have my fingers crossed that there will be a bit less mud in Wessex. At least outside of the Somerset marshes.
I suppose fancy objects are expensive. But I still have my fingers crossed that there will be a bit less mud in Wessex. At least outside of the Somerset marshes.
Comments
It's all quite annoying. I've seen loads of documentaries in which various TV historians try to show us that pre-Renaissance people were far more "advanced" that the stereotype, and dazzle us with the Bling of Yore. But whenever the same TV channels do dramas set in those periods, it's all drab colours and mud and gloom.
I think there was more bling in Arthur of the Britons than in the Last Kingdom, although admittedly that was very 70's bling.
This is supposed to be going up against Game of Thrones. Has nobody *looked* at Game of Thrones...?
What you're saying is "If only the Last Kingdom Saxons had worn more sheepskin..."*
* For those readers not familiar with 'Arthur of the Britons' the key visual way to distinguish Britons from Saxons is that the Saxons all (without fail) wear lots of sheepskin.
Edited at 2015-10-23 08:28 (UTC)
' "Game of Thrones sex scenes are 'sexplanations' to distract from boring exposition", says disinterested author behind rival series '