Merlin BBC 1 - Coming soon...
- Thread starter wamdue
- Start date
looks a little too "Harry Potter meets Smallville" for me.
i've heard that some versions of the legends include Arthur being raised by Uther but shouldnt Merlin age backwards? or at least be older than Arthur?
i dunno. just didnt look like the show for me. hope other people enjoy it. heck, i'll be greedy: i hope i enjoy it.
i've heard that some versions of the legends include Arthur being raised by Uther but shouldnt Merlin age backwards? or at least be older than Arthur?
i dunno. just didnt look like the show for me. hope other people enjoy it. heck, i'll be greedy: i hope i enjoy it.
Last time they did a Merlin kinda thing, they messed it right up, so I'm not too optimistic. For one of England/Wales most persistant myths we have never really managed to do justice to the actual story. The less said about the Kiera Knightly movie the better.
All that said I haven't actually seen the promo I'm meant to be judging, so if anyone has a you-tube link!
EDIT:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIOD15LJ-YM
Have now seen it. Looks awful! Bonekickers looked better! Merlin is Scottish and has big ears? Giles is King? Victor Meldrew is the mentor? And how does any of this relate to the original myth?! I may watch this however for Will Mellor in armour and the dragon. I like Dragons, I does.
'Keep the magic secret.'
All that said I haven't actually seen the promo I'm meant to be judging, so if anyone has a you-tube link!
EDIT:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIOD15LJ-YM
Have now seen it. Looks awful! Bonekickers looked better! Merlin is Scottish and has big ears? Giles is King? Victor Meldrew is the mentor? And how does any of this relate to the original myth?! I may watch this however for Will Mellor in armour and the dragon. I like Dragons, I does.
'Keep the magic secret.'
Last edited:
Can't speak to all of this, but:
What actual story? There is no one story, but multiple tales and legends.
You've got me there!
Well, that's just daft. David Tennant is Scottish and Christopher Eccleston has big ears, but people don't seem to have too much problem with either of them being Doctor Who.
No, Anthony Head plays the king. Giles is just another character he once played.
Ditto.
Which original myth?
What actual story? There is no one story, but multiple tales and legends.
You've got me there!
Well, that's just daft. David Tennant is Scottish and Christopher Eccleston has big ears, but people don't seem to have too much problem with either of them being Doctor Who.
No, Anthony Head plays the king. Giles is just another character he once played.
Ditto.
Which original myth?
^And does it matter? As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's entertaining, fun, interesting, or any combination of the three, I'll be happy to watch it.
You are of course right. My father was a Once and future king thug, and I sadly appear to have picked up that trait. My mother preferred the French stories of the Fisherking. Arthurian legend was one thing guaranteed to cause arguements in my house. That said the multiple tales do give Merlin a Welsh background, which was why I picked on the Scottishness (Merlin appears seperate from King Arthur in many Welsh myths, many of which pre-date the main Arthurian legend(s)). The big ears was just a cheap shot which I probably should have thought about before typing.
And of course the original tales matter, they are one of the few links we still have to England/Wales past and they shouldn't be discarded just to made a few quid and include a few flashy effects.
I didn't mean does it matter, I don't care about the legends, but legends always change down the ages, but the actual legends are something to be read, studied, or make documentaries on. Things that are meant to be entertainment, movies/TV shows, those don't matter on how accurate they are. It's like expecting a procedural show to be accurate to how police investigations go.
The orginal myths were entertainment for their time. Are we now saying that they aren't good enough?
I just like things to agree with original sources as much as possible. I didn't like U-571 where the Royal Navy got stiffed so that Americans film-goers would think America retrived the enigma machine. I don't like the fact that they are adding scenes into Harry Potter because the books were exciting enough. I see this as disrepectful and to a certain degree dishonest. Orginal sources are pure, everything based on them afterwards a twisted corruption.
I just like things to agree with original sources as much as possible. I didn't like U-571 where the Royal Navy got stiffed so that Americans film-goers would think America retrived the enigma machine. I don't like the fact that they are adding scenes into Harry Potter because the books were exciting enough. I see this as disrepectful and to a certain degree dishonest. Orginal sources are pure, everything based on them afterwards a twisted corruption.
I see a difference here though, U-571 is a film based on historical fact, billed as a True Story, and it's blatantly false, so I have a problem with that. It disrespects the men involved, and it gives a false account of history.
Harry Potter on the other hand, is a fictional book, the movies and changes are made with the authors knowledge and approval, also, changing mediums is a hard thing to do. What works for a book doesn't work so well on the screen, and with a book you have hundreds of pages, but film you have 2 hours, so that doesn't bother me too much. Although calling it Harry Potter, and having it not even be based on the books would bother me.
But myths and legends are a different matter. No one can be sure what the original story was, they change so much down the years you can't even be sure the names are right, never mind the details. Also of course if you're going for mainstream entertainment some of it is going to be changed, from pacing, to clearing up some vague or esoteric meanings, that the general public won't understand, or will be turned off by.
Caleuche, your main problem continues to be that you associate The Once and Future King as the original myth. The Disney movie, and Camelot might have been based off of the book, but that doesn't make the book the original/definitive take on Arthurian legend. In fact The Once and Future King has probably changed more of the details than most other versions. If you want to talk about the original tale you probably need to go back to Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, but even that has questionable historical accuracy.
At the end of the day, the Arthurian legend is just that, a legend. It has evolved and been used for every authors purpose and speaks to the time it was written. I'm sure the BBC version will do the same. At the end of the day, as long as it's a compelling story I'm happy to sit back and enjoy the ride.
At the end of the day, the Arthurian legend is just that, a legend. It has evolved and been used for every authors purpose and speaks to the time it was written. I'm sure the BBC version will do the same. At the end of the day, as long as it's a compelling story I'm happy to sit back and enjoy the ride.
'Keep the magic secret.'
Wow. You never want a tagline that's unintentionally funny. I would hope at some point they replace it with something slightly less corny.
Digital Spy are reporting it airs Saturday 20th of September.
sounds about right to me
Well BBC Press Office is saying the week of the 20th, so it has to be.
Ill give it a change or maybe see it when it comes to DVD, since i wont be sure if they show it where i am at anytime soon.
Similar threads
