Apparently, the language of the Vikings was English.

Seriously, is Mel Gibson the only person with some ambition when it comes to making historical film?

Why don't they care about these things? Who is to blame? America?

It's likely done so not to add subtitles and risk less people watching it in English speaking nations, since they dislike that for some reason, and possibly because they can use American and British actors that are recognized by many rather then hold auditions in the specific countries and have less known actors.

I'll be the first to say I cringe whenever a scandinavian name, Like Bjørn or Sverre, is pronounced in english. It just doesn't sound correctly for anyone of us in Scandinavia.

And this matters, why? What's the point in wasting money training actors to speak a dead language so that a handful of nerds/professors get joy from watching it in original Old Norse?

Also, which Mel Gibson historical film are you talking about? Because Apocalypto was incredibly inaccurate, being set in the early 1500's, playing Mayans off to be Aztecs despite Mayan civilization being dead at that point, and Braveheart (which was in English BTW, not Middle English or Gaelic) which pretty much gets the entire William Wallace story wrong.

@foxhound_fox: Think he was referring to passion of christ, which had latin and hebrew vo.

It's almost like it's fiction and not a documentary.

Despite the people of the time and region speaking Aramaic (IIRC)?

Aramaic actually....

@foxhound_fox: While I will say that Apocalypto was alright, it may not be accurate but was okay. I'll agree with bmanva, it's probably Passion of the Christ movie and I haven't seen that movie in years.

A King, a Queen and a President. Let the chaos begin!

Yep. Pretty sure 90% of the movie was in Aramaic except maybe a scene or two with Jews and Romans which were in different languages (Hebrew and Roman).

Wow you guys are so knowledgeable; it's almost like you have access to all of the information ever on the tip of your fingers.

Didn't google a damn thing. Is that what you do?

Furthermore people seem not to realize that languages of today were extremely different than what they were 1500 years ago.. If you tried to speak to a Old English speaker from 600AD, you wouldn't understand them.

What is this google thing?

I would prefer not to watch movies in subtitles. It detracts from the film, IMO.

You should probably learn what it is, then you won't go making a fool of yourself and making errors like you did.

How do I google this google thing then?

Only seen a handful of movies without subtitles in my life... For some it is the only viable option.

when i watch at home, subtitles has to be on. I dont have to turn up the volume to where my neighbors complain. plus i hear a lot more of the dialogue. there are a lot of one liners that get lost without subtitles

I prefer subtitles over dubbing---as long as the subtitles don't obscure eye candy during scenes that contain nudity and/or fornication.

Well modern day English is made up of a number of languages, Norse being one of them.

If it is in the cinema or on TV, subtitles will be on... If I use DVD/Blu-ray then I can choose... Often I end up with English subtitles. Whoever translates doesn't always do a good job these days :(

Well, Germanic, but they are related.

Apparently, the language of the Vikings was English

I seriously doubt it was.

Besides "Viking" is just a term that makes reference to a group of nordic tribes with no designation to one in particular, pretty much like the term "Barbarian".

@raugutcon: I think you missunderstood the what the OP meant. =D

@Acillatem1993: Where have you been?! Shame on you for not being around every day like the rest of us, respectful people....

@korvus: You are mistaken my dear Korvus, I am here every day. But you cannot possibly imagine the struggle of opening OT early in the morning and not finding a single topic fit for me making a reply in! ='(((

@Acillatem1993: Sadly I'm starting to know the feeling...so tired of political and religious topics here...excluding those, all there's left is silly threads (which are still preferable). Tried going back to article comments but they're so annoying too...

Anyway, we're derailing the thread. PM me =D

@themajormayor: the language they spoke was old scandinavian which we in norway call Nørron. America never gives a shit when it comes to other languages in their movies. Golden Compass was suppose to take place in my city, they never filmed anything and they never included the norwegian language in the movie. Movies like Valkyria they speak english or even most WW2 movies. Germans are apparantly very bad at speaking german and good in english

Most people don't appreciate that level of authenticity if it comes at the cost of their convenience.

Because it makes it less immersive. Nobody said it was only for a handful nerds/professors, a huge part of the audience would get joy from it.

Apocalypto and Passion of the Christ. The Mayan civilization was not dead at that point, it was in decline. Which is something that is present the whole movie. Besides, the point here is the ambition.

That's how you know that you're a hillbilly.

Which movie prompted this complaint, @themajormayor ? Is it an existing movie, or is there a new Viking-themed "historical" movie in production?

@Treflis: Well you have a movie like Trollhunter who did well in other countries

He made Braveheart. He clearly doesn't care for history.

To give him credit in some of his films he has put effort into language, but I don't think he's ever made a film that could be considered historically accurate.

Because it would be unbearable to watch, it's a dead language that we don't know that much about. I am saying this a swede, just let it go.

Apparently, the language of the Vikings was English.

And it appears you'll never watch the movie, Pathfinder starring Karl Urban and the Vikings didn't speak English, they speak Old Norse Language.

Sorry, it's a TV-series called Vikings

Blame audiences who don't like to read. Besides, that show has a ton of historical accuracy issues.

Edit: Actually to be fair, they actually do speak in native languages in scenes where not every character speaks the same language. They do it "Hunt for Red October" style where the characters are speaking in their native tongue but the dialog is in English so the audience can understand.

-Byshop

^

The Mayan civilization disappeared several hundred years prior to the rise of the Aztecs. This is historical fact. The Mayan people lived on, but their civilization vanished.

Apocalypto was a very good bad historical film.

No it didn't.

lrn2history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Maya_collapse

They were the dominant civilization in the period until the 900's CE. They had a presence after that, but other groups took over dominance, and Apocalypto does not reflect history. Gibson portrayed the Aztecs falsely as Mayans.

lol second paragraph

"The "collapse" was not the end of the Maya civilization"

Civilization and people are two different things. The massive Mayan cities were completely abandoned.

The Civilization as it existed prior to 900 CE did collapse and was the end of the "Classical" civilization.

Can you not read?

@foxhound_fox: Yeah, which is something very different from what you've been saying the whole time.

Sorry, did you watch Braveheart? And as for an authentic representation of Nordic life there's surely going to be a degree of speculation and interpretation depending on which historian is pulling the strings. It's great when a director makes an effort for sure, although if you want authenticity of cultural representation the cinema is rarely the place to look.