• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Camelot from the makers of The Tudors

Bob The Skutter

Bob The Skutter

Complete Arse Cleft
In Memoriam
Given who're making it this should probably be in TV and Media, but I figure legend is enough to qualify for Fantasy.

Tudors pair Michael Hirst and Morgan O'Sullivan are developing a contemporary retelling of Camelot, reports Variety.

Story details are being kept tightly under wraps and it is unclear how Camelot, the mythical castle from Arthurian legend, will link in with the new series.

Hirst will pen the proposed series, with O'Sullivan and Douglas Rae serving as executive producers. As with their historical drama The Tudors, Camelot will be a co-production between Showtime and the BBC.

Hirst and O'Sullivan recently completed work on the third season of The Tudors, which is scheduled to air next April.
Click to expand...

So the BBC are effectively going to be having 2 shows set in Camelot? I know they'll be very different in tone, but considering people were already saying doing an Arthurian legend show was beating a dead horse already, this seems a bit much. I'll check it out anyway, no doubt.
 
Given the job that they've done with The Tudors, that in itself warrants me at least checking it out.

If it were any other collaboration I'd probably give it a miss, what with Merlin currently airing, but a Showtime/BBC project is enough to pique my interest.
 
Don't have Showtime so if that' where it's gonna be seen in the states I am out of luck unless it will also be on BBC America.
 
Othello said:
Don't have Showtime so if that' where it's gonna be seen in the states I am out of luck unless it will also be on BBC America.
Click to expand...
These Showtime or HBO/BBC co-production always air on HBO/Showtime in the US and the BBC in the UK. I always mean to check them out, and hardly ever do, so this'll probably be the first I make an effort to watch.
 
I wish somebody would try to do a good modern fantasy take on King Arthur, but this will probably be one of the "real" takes (not that those can't work; Cornwell's book trilogy, for example).
 
Dead horse, yep.

How about something during the Napoleonic Wars instead? There's a lot of interesting history, why keep going back to the same old tired stuff?
 
Definitely will check it out since it's from the creative team behind The Tudors, although I wonder how S3 will be since there's sadly no more Anne :(
 
Temis the Vorta said:
Dead horse, yep.

How about something during the Napoleonic Wars instead? There's a lot of interesting history, why keep going back to the same old tired stuff?
Click to expand...

I thought you might say something like that. But reading it again I'm wondering if it is Arthurian legend at all, and Camelot isn't just a metaphor for something in the story.

Story details are being kept tightly under wraps and it is unclear how Camelot, the mythical castle from Arthurian legend, will link in with the new series.
Click to expand...
 
Oh, boy! An overheated, poorly acted bodice-ripper version of King Arthur! I can hardly wait!

<insert vomit smiley here>
 
yes this confused me as well, does the BBC not already have a show set in Camelot, are they honestly going to make another one, however im guessing Arthur will be king, and Merlin wont be around.
 
uh it says 'contemporary' so I don't get the bodice-ripping comments. I'd imagine that means modern day and maybe something akin to how NBC is doing a modern take on the David & Goliath storyline in Kings. I could be wrong though since I'm just theorizing based off the use of contemporary.
 
FreezeC77 said:
uh it says 'contemporary' so I don't get the bodice-ripping comments. I'd imagine that means modern day and maybe something akin to how NBC is doing a modern take on the David & Goliath storyline in Kings. I could be wrong though since I'm just theorizing based off the use of contemporary.
Click to expand...
I was thinking it was using "contemporary" in the sense that it will be updated and changed in a similar way to Rome, Deadwood or Tudors.
 
TG Theodore said:
At least they can't play loose with facts with Camelot.

--Ted
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who laughed at this?

As one who suffered through two years of Malory, I personally feel Arthurian legend should be left well alone. That said, Merlin is quite enjoyable since makes no effort to follow any of the (far too many) legends.
 
Bob The Skutter said:
FreezeC77 said:
uh it says 'contemporary' so I don't get the bodice-ripping comments. I'd imagine that means modern day and maybe something akin to how NBC is doing a modern take on the David & Goliath storyline in Kings. I could be wrong though since I'm just theorizing based off the use of contemporary.
Click to expand...
I was thinking it was using "contemporary" in the sense that it will be updated and changed in a similar way to Rome, Deadwood or Tudors.
Click to expand...
that was my thinking as well
 
FreezeC77 said:
uh it says 'contemporary' so I don't get the bodice-ripping comments. I'd imagine that means modern day and maybe something akin to how NBC is doing a modern take on the David & Goliath storyline in Kings. I could be wrong though since I'm just theorizing based off the use of contemporary.
Click to expand...

Actually "bodice-ripper" is the name of a genre and isn't really specific to the fiction being set in any particular time period. It comes from the subgenres of romance fiction, in which many authors originally used historical settings to write soft core porn, usually with broad-chested men ripping the bodices off of protesting (but only for show because they were really panting with desire) beauties. Bodice-ripper then began to be used for any romance story suffused with phrases like "his rampant manhood".

The Tudors is bodice-ripping crap, largely because the acting is so abysmal and the pandering use of gratuitous sex which is not at all sexy (due to Rhys-Meyers who only has two expressions - wide-eyed nostril-flaring and blank). I assume, whatever time period they dress King Arthur up in, it will be bodice-ripping crap of the same ilk unless they get much better actors.
 
I like The Tudors- which the whole Henry and Elizabethan genre is getting beat like there's no tomorrow with Hirst's own Elizabeth movies and The Other Boleyn Girl. I'd rather seen an lotr styled Camelot redo. Merlin doesn't do it for me.

As to Napoleonic, there's more Sharpe to be had and I wish they would make more Hornblower movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top