History Renews Vikings for Season 2

Pillagers, plunderers, and rapists, great news! Your forefathers are getting another season on History. The network has ordered a second season of Vikings, its first scripted series, after ratings propelled the program to the title of best-rated new series of the year. Yes, even better ratings than Do No Harm! Season 2 will be 10 episodes long and will likely debut in early 2014. 

Vikings is a work of historical fiction that follows the burly Norsemen as they hack and slash their way through the unexplored world. Travis Fimmel stars as Ragnar Lothbrok, a young upstart with a bad haircut who wants to shake up the life of his tribe by exploring new lands. Gabriel Byrne plays Earl Heraldson, the Viking chief who's content to plunder the same old territory. Have you been watching Season 1? What do you think so far?
 


Follow TV.com writer Tim Surette on Twitter if you want to: @TimAtTVDotCom

Comments (67)
Submit
Sort: Latest | Popular
Dec 28, 2013
haha i like how they refer to the locations as being in dDenmark, but Denmark would be to boring, to flat, and to crowded, and they didnt even want to use danish names... its still fucking good anyways!
2
Reply
Flag
Oct 22, 2013
Love it. Can't wait for new season. A must see of where this is going and if the brothers become enemies.
2
Reply
Flag
May 16, 2013
Love the show,but the English"the Saxons angles and the Jutes "come from Germanic lands like Denmark Jutland,so if they came on ships to England why was Ragnar Lodbrok in the show the first to sale west?
1
Reply
Flag
Nov 23, 2013
I would say. Because the 'Jutes' from Jutland. Is connected to all the other Germanic lands, by land. Unlike Ragnar and hes kind, who lives on islands. To me, it seems logic. :)
Reply
Flag
Jun 03, 2013
Artistic license.
Reply
Flag
Apr 30, 2013
Good news everyone!!
2
Reply
Flag
Apr 24, 2013
Thats some great news, can't wait for season 2 to begin. Greetings from denmark:-)
8
Reply
Flag
Apr 17, 2013
Love this news. I wasn't sure if I would like this series, but 3 episodes in I was hooked. Great move by the History channel to keep it going.
12
Reply
Flag
Apr 16, 2013
Fantastic news, great show!!
Reply
Flag
Apr 08, 2013
Great news! Not that I was surprised - it's an awesome series. Vikings done right! They'll be going to my hometown pretty soon - Uppsala. I live 1km from the burial mounds!
7
Reply
Flag
Apr 07, 2013
I enjoy historicals, and it seems THC won't rewrite history on a whim as often as other big cable networks -- not that I'm a history major, but I read viewer comments to see what history buffs think about the history series, and so far the history complaints on Vikings have been few.
2
Reply
Flag
Apr 07, 2013
love viking pls lets have many more
3
Reply
Flag
Apr 07, 2013
Very excited to hear this. Been loving the hell out of this show (pilot was a bit slow for me, but has really picked up since). Can't wait to see more.
2
Reply
Flag
Apr 07, 2013
I really like it, but then I´ve always loved history, the mytholegy and legends of the "Norsemen". I think I´ve manage to pine-point it all to Denmark, but the home of Ragnar anoyes me, since I think it looks like Norwegian landscape and not Danish (in fact it is filmed in Irland), but hey, there might be some fjords in Denmark I don´t know about. But the Earls home is called Kategat, and that´s danish. And Floke (Loke) he is truly mad, it´s not quite uncommend to find Gustaf Skarsgård in an exentric roll, and he is actuelly the only one in the show that I know who is a scandinavien, so yeay.
7
Reply
Flag
Apr 07, 2013
You are partly right about it being Danish of sorts. Kattegat is a body of water that divides the eastern part of denmark and sweden. Denmark is a very flat nation and though we do have MANY fjords none of them are surrounded by moutainous regions. But since at this point in history most Vikings were basically Danish, since most vikings were ruled under the same Danish kings who either lived in Jutland, or Roskilde. (However the story about Ragnar Lodbrok is a myth/saga and while he probably did exist in some way or form, it is mostly legend.) From a Danish viewpoint, Vikings (the tv-show) is actually quite accurate in its portrayal, not to mention the very accurate representation of the magnificent longboat. In Denmark we are quite taken by this show and we are happy to see that the women are as strong as they were back then and that there are no horns on the raiders' helmets :)
9
Reply
Flag
Apr 24, 2013
Just for the information, I have never been in Denmark, but I am Norwegian. But is is true, Ragnar is said to be either Swedish or Danish, I belivie Danish. And I think it´s funny how they still call Uppsala in the show, but then again, I don´t know if they did call Uppsala the same at that time, possible. But most places have changed names since the Viking era. Loving the show, even for their historical flaws.
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
I like it so far. Where they are now in the story, I was thinking this would be a one season thing. I hope getting this second season doesn't make the writers drag out stories to make it last longer. I've seen one too many shows lose their umph because they lasted longer than needed...
3
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
Great show and I think you mean bad ass haircut Tim.
10
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
After seeing Tims new picture, i think he is in no condition to comment on peoples hair cuts or facial hair.
Vikings season 2 = yay
11
Reply
Flag
Apr 16, 2013
LOLZ
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
No, there were also Norwegians and Fins and Swedes, yes, but Danes were the only ones who were raiding England consistently.
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
Watching last weeks episode now and they've introduced the Swedish.
1
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
This is great news! This is one of my favorite new shows of this year. The authenticity, writing and acting are all top notch. The producers did a great job finding actors for all of the characters. I think that Gabriel Byrne isn't exactly the best actor as the "Earl" I think they could've found someone better. He's a good actor. I loved him in the HBO series "In Treatment" but he looks out of place for this series.
8
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
I wasn't sure what the think at first but I've really enjoyed the last two episodes. I'm happy that it's renewed, but I thought it was a one-off? I thought it was supposed to be a mini-series that would tell all of it's story in nine episodes? Maybe it did so well they decided to do more with it, either way I consider this good news.
2
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
i love the show, the only factual error is that the vikings are danish (which is right) but there are no mountains in denmark :p

Guess they just filmed in mountain locations because it looks more viking-ish and cool !
2
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
Weeeell depends on where they are located.
The Vikings are danish aye, but they colonised a lot of places, doesn't have to take place in Denmark ;)
4
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
I have watched every episode and I like it alot.
4
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
Historical fiction with a big emphasis on fiction. Makes me wonder why it's not called the Fictional Channel.
3
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
boring.
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
it's a decent show, but not nearly enough of anything has happened so far.
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
They had a "thing", rebelled against the earl, built a boat, found England, pillaged a monastery, came home, got b*tch slapped by the Earl, went back to England pillaged a town, had a fantastic battle scene, the Earl tried to play brother against brother, had a trial, the Earl attempted a clandestine execution that failed, the Earl burned a village, captured Ragnor, Ragnor fought his way out, Earl sold his daughter, Earl tricked Rollo and tortured him. And now Ragnor is going up against the Earl in single combat. All in like 6 episodes!

I thought they were just going to sail towards England land, wander around and maybe make it home by the end of the season, while at home the Earl watched and tormented the Lagertha. This has been awesome.
14
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
I was honestly expecting the voyage to England was going to take place in the last episodes but they went there the second episode, and so far they've been back and forth twice now.
3
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
I didn't say nothing happened, just not much of it. it's mostly a 3 talk for every 2 action
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
Liking it. Reminds me a bit of HBO's Rome, in a colder climate without the studio-ish sets and green screen panoramas; production quality, acting, and story line are solid. My wife (of 17 years) and I have dramatically different tastes in television, but this is one of those hours of TV we watch together. (I skew toward Justified, she more so Once Upon a Time. )
7
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
Woohoo, this show is fun!
7
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
It really plays out like a Bernard Cornwell novel, particularly his Viking/Saxon Series. And the only novelist who needs to come to tv more than George Martin is Bernard Cornwell.
4
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
Wasn't watching because I thought it was a mini-series. Now I'll check it out.
1
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
I love Vikings. It's a lot of fun. It does remind me a bit of the first season of Spartacus, but without out the gratuitous stylized blood and nudity, and better scenery.
9
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
i dunno about Pillagers, plunderers, and rapists, but the vikings were my forefathers and a 2nd season is great news
5
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
Vikings has been an amazing series so far, I am very glad to hear a second season is coming. Long live Ragnar (and Floki)!
7
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
I'm Norwegian, so I watched a couple of episodes until I got bored. It's definitely being true to the general history part which I appreciate, though Ragnar Lodbrok (Furrypants) is about as real as King Arthur, but it just couldn't keep my interest.
Reply
Flag
Apr 16, 2013
Acutally we know from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles that at least part of Ragnar's story as based on historical fact, and his son bjørn jærnside (Björn Ironside) is recorded as a Semi-legendary king of Sweden.
So Did there once live a man named Ragnar Lodbrok, yes probally, was he as awsome as his legend?? Well no, its a legend.... but like most legends it has its roots in some kind of fact. but the facts has sadly been lost to history.
3
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
actually I think Ragnar Lodbrok was real their is a Wikipedia page
2
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
I'm not saying there was never a man called Ragnar Lodbrok, just that his many accomplishments are legend rather than fact
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
Not really. The legends are more surrounding his death.
If you say his raids aren't real, I'm quite sure the Frankish and British raided people would have a word with you.
6
Reply
Flag
Apr 21, 2013
And the religous british munks who recorded his raids might have written ragnar, as beeing more firce/worse than he really was. Remember the people who wrote negative things about him were the people he raided. Within the viking cultur, he is spoken of as a brave hero only. (so you know that BS.)
1
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
I went to Wiki to look up Vikings, as my knowledge of them is bare bones at best. I thought Vikings were a little more noble and did not just dishonorably murder people, but it turns out we have a romanticized vision of them that I must be thinking of. Thanks comic book Thor! In the process I was surprised Ragnar was likely based on a real character. I still wonder how much is accurate though, as the impression I got makes it seem that Viking history may have some holes in it. I hope History Channel is adhering as best they can to what they know while still trying to do scripted drama for entertainment purposes.
2
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
Such great News! Love the series so far.
6
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
I'm happy it's coming back, bad haircuts be damned, thank gods for no horned helmets and for Katheryn Winnick kicking serious ass (beats her other character on Bones by a mile).

Also, love the casting of Gabriel Byrne as the Earl, spot on choice, you can almost see the madness inside the paranoid character's mind.

All in all, one of my favourite new shows of the year (Cracked and Motive up here in Canada are close seconds).
3
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
I think of it as the 'Sons of Anarchy gang in Viking Gear'.
6
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
Wow, I didn't know that Ragnar's wife was from Bones! I had a similar surprising reaction when I found out that Jessalyn Gilsig is the earl's wife. I thought a show set in medieval Europe would purely have European actors but Canadians are surely representing.
3
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
Yeah, she played Booth's ex-girlfriend Hannah, I had to look it up to cuz the actress's named seemed familiar, then was like "Holy ****, that's Hannah off Bones!? Daaaammmnnn!"
1
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
She was on Craig Ferguson recently and was AWESOME! She has been on Nikita as well. She has her own martial arts studio and is quite a badass it seems.
4
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
I'm loving Vikings. I enjoyed Hatfields & McCoys though the plot plodded along at times, but Vikings is far superior and no doubt has plenty of available material to carry on beyond a second season. The attention to detail and historical accuracy of each of those little details is both spectacular and refreshing. Not to mention, the plot arcs are really surprisingly great, so much so that there is no need to spice it up with copious levels of nudity, sex and foul language. (I cringe every time the F-bomb is dropped on Spartacus - etymology shows that the usage of any variation of the word would not have been used as so many parts of speech, if the word would have even been used at all. What? So I'm a nerd like that.)

If History can maintain this level of quality on future period dramas they will give premium cable networks a run for their money when it comes to period dramas.
7
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
Love the interaction between the Priest and Ragnar. Very funny at times
7
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
Wow-I have to say I am shocked by the comments so far. I think it was a bold move for the History channel to throw their hat in the ring with all of the good shows out right now. I think they pulled it off-this show is fantastic. I don't think that they are trying to be "game of thrones"- I think they are trying to make a show about Vikings, and that's what they did. They stepped out of the general format that History channel usually goes by and instead scripted it with character development that the viewer can get invested in while still presenting the historical story of these people. Good for you History Channel! Keep it up.
11
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
True, they need an additional 6 regions (5 if you count the "east") to be an equivalent to Westoros. More like Sons of Anarchy meets Game of Thrones
1
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
I'm liking it so far.

The biggest drawback for me may be the lack of character depth so far. It's still early in the season so it's not a significant problem for me yet, but the plotting and character deaths and the scenes that are supposed to be memorable and whatnot have all felt a little tame to me because I feel like the show hasn't given any of the characters -- even Ragnar -- enough that portrays any character depth.

Also, it reminds me of a comment I read on another article here, but Ragnar (and Travis Fimmel, the actor who plays him) totally reminds me of Jax Teller (and Charlie Hunnam) oftentimes. It's as if Jax was sent back in time and just changed his name.
2
Reply
Flag
Apr 06, 2013
I said that about Ragnar too, that Jax Teller must be his descendent.
1
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
Great news! Vikings and The Americans are two best new shows of 2013. I'm very happy Ragnar and Co will return for season 2!
4
Reply
Flag
Staff
Apr 05, 2013
It's no Game of Thrones. Watched the first couple of eps. Decided to pass.
1
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
Seriously dude? That is like comparing paella to apples. Is it even possible to compare George Martin's magnum opus to a little historical drama? Please don't mistake me, I'm a Vikings fan, but I've read all 10,000+ pages of Martin's ASOIF a few times, as have thousands of other rapid fans, and I feel confident stating it is not fair to compare Vikings. You are entitled to your opinion, but at least have a bit more of an open mind when comparing two works, because you are totally right, Vikings doesn't have a thing on GoT, but if compared to something like the Spartacus franchise on Starz, I'd have to say that thus far it shows promise of being superior to other scripted historical dramas. Just saying.
5
Reply
Flag
Staff
Apr 05, 2013
paella to apples. Both foods that can be consumed. I prefer the refined taste of HBO. Not some regurgitation of historical fiction with some fantasy elements. They can co-exist of course, just that I am fully invested in GoT and don't really want to spend the time following Vikings when it just isn't that good.

BTW, love Spartacus on Starz. So between that and GoT, my blood/gore/fantasy-historical-fiction thirst has been quenched.
1
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
Vikings is very good, you cant not compare Vikings to Spartacus or Game of Thrones for obvious reasons I watch all three Spartacus franchise is just awesome, Game of Thrones I'm about to give on first season was very good second season I was very disappointed, as for the S3 premiere again not impressed, Vikings very interesting but so far only the Earl and Ragnar are being development, we need more character development from others Floki okay so far!! glad for S2
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
As much as vikings and dragons can be a winning formula, comparing a historical fiction to a fantasy fiction is just nonsense. First impressions of this show might have been trying to mimic GoT vibe, but as the show went on, its clear that the two shows are completely different, plot wise and style wise.
3
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
Its actually a good show with an interesting plot. Its not really violent or explicit as most people might think. There are also some pretty interesting characters there too. Glad it was renewed.

Networks that don't usually have scripted show (like Disney Channel) should definitely start investing in scripted shows.
2
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
OMG they should implement an edit comment option (or I should proofread my post better). I meant Discovery Channel, not Disney Channel. My bad.
Reply
Flag
Apr 05, 2013
I am enjoying the first season. I agree with the "bad haircut". I will watch the second season.
1
Reply
Flag

Like TV.com on Facebook