No love for Merlin?

[Checkmate]

Sorry, it's just too uninspired and too much of a retread of a hundred other shows just like it in the cheapo/cornball sf/f category.

You know what would be awesome? Turn the story over to HBO and have them to a Rome-style approach. Drop-kick the Late Medieval period that the story is always mired in (there's no "right" period for it). Have it be during the Roman Empire or even previous to that. Go way back to the times when Stonehenge was brand new. But make sure the period details are authentic (as much as possible for distant historical periods).

And forget about the "magic." Have the legends about Merlin just be superstition and myth, which he of course is happy to encourage. Just have him be a smart guy who is well educated. Anyone with a smidgen of education would be held in awe by the mud-splattered peasantry. It wouldn't be hard for him to pass himself off as anything he wanted to.

All of that is why I adore Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle. He just did a fantastic job at reinventing all of the Arthurian lore and working in other related fables and myths into it seemlessly. His writing style is a bit hard to get used to, but the meat of the story is just wonderful, and it feels more like you're reading an alternative history most of the time.

But the television series Merlin? It's God-awful. I'm so sick of execs, writers and producers thinking they have to have a young, hip (okay, not so hip in this case) crew of actors to make shows appealing to younger viewers. It's just fucking insane logic that's downright insulting most of the time. And Merlin has it in heaps. Even worse, Britian's news media has some bizarre need to insure that mixed-race or same-sex couples (or future couples) find their way into every single series they seem to produce to show how hip and modern they are. So annoying, especially when it doesn't make a lick of sense, such as in Merlin.

And seriously, Merlin being younger than Arthur on top of being a Mary Sue super wizard for no apparent reason other than a Deus ex Machina dragon saying their kin? That's just friggin' lame.

 

[Greg Cox]

I did watch the entire season on NBC but I found it to be very meh. I certainly wouldn't buy the second second, and if it was on NBC, I dunno if I would bother watching it. I kept watching waiting for some big event in the season finale (death of Uther, King Arthur, Arthur learns he's a magician)... but nothing frickin' happened!

Spoiler alert . . .
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

Well, they did blow Nimue to smithereens!

 

[Worf2DS9]

It ended here on CTV this past Sunday and I enjoyed it. It's a bit on the light and fluffy side, but entertaining nonetheless. I kept waiting for someone to find out Merlin's secret, but that never happened. Eventually, I guess. I grew to like Morgana more and more as the series progressed, and I like the new spin on Gwen. I look forward to Series 2.

 

[auntiehill]

No love for it here. I watched several episodes but really--the cheese factor, the scripts, the mangling of the legends, the shallowness of the plots and characters all equaled to one giant bore.

There's nothing here that hasn't been done a million times before, and done better, at that. It was disappointing at best, and truthfully, just bored both me and hubby.

 

[Derishton]

I watched the first two and then went on a long (unrelated to the stress of watching them) vacation/conference trip. But I wasn't that impressed, despite my professional interest in Arthuriana. I'm usually pretty tolerant, but the young-legend thing seems a little played out to me, and I think Merlin's age in relation to Arthur is one of the very few core elements that can't be changed (particularly for no compelling aesthetic or narrative reason).

 

[Greg Cox]

Honestly, I don't care about fidelity to the original sources, let alone historical accuracy. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table have always been 99% myth and folklore and maybe 1% history. Every storyteller revises the stories to suit their own purposes. Disney's SWORD IN THE STONE feels very differet from the musical CAMELOT, let alone Boorman's EXCALIBUR or the Monty Python version. And we can blame some old French troubadors for the whole Arthur/Lancelot/Guenevere triangle.

So Merlin being an contemporary of Arthur doesn't bother me. And I admit I'm curious to see how Gwen goes from maidservant to queen . . . .

 

[Derishton]

As I said, I don't usually care either - actually that's not entirely true, as I actually crave the differences. I teach Arthurian lit and I've read more Arthurian novels and romances and seen more films than I can count. The thrill of a new version is in what it does differently.

But that being said, all traditions have core components which, changed too much, undermine the point of the legend and push it towards being something else. For example, Xena was still recognizably about the world of Greek and Roman legend (at least until the very end); the current Hercules comic from Marvel is brilliant, but the setting is so different that it is no longer primarily about that world, no longer strictly a "take" on Greco-Roman mythology. Wonder Woman, I think, still is about Greek myth in a weird way.

So, for Arthur and his legend, I can buy an evil Arthur or a good Morgan le Fay; I can buy that Mordred is Arthur's son or his nephew or not related at all; I can buy Lawhead's Camelot-meets-Atlantis and Monty Python's "famous historian" being interviewed during the action.

Merlin being older than Arthur - in large part because Merlin is guide, surrogate father, anti-Christ, even the creator of Arthur himself, a tactician who builds Arthur up and then disappears before the end - you take that away from Merlin and you essentially have a new character. There's nothing wrong with that in principle, but if that new character is just "Harry Potter" you have to wonder why anyone bothered. Success is the final arbitrer of all these kinds of changes, even ones I'd otherwise consider sacrosanct; I wasn't convinced by Merlin in a way that Marion Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon convinced me Morgan could be the saga's heroine.

I hope that make some sense. Believe me, I never want to be taken for someone who is at all intolerant of new visions for old material. I'm the guy who wants to break down copyright law so we can have multiple takes on Middle-earth, after all ...

 

[Sakrysta]

All of that is why I adore Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle. He just did a fantastic job at reinventing all of the Arthurian lore and working in other related fables and myths into it seemlessly. His writing style is a bit hard to get used to, but the meat of the story is just wonderful, and it feels more like you're reading an alternative history most of the time.

I love Lawhead's books too. I think Charis is one of my all-time favorite characters.

I tried to watch the show, but I confess the anachronisms just threw me right out of the story. It felt too modern to be set when it was. I can't give any detailed critique, because I honestly didn't make it through the pilot, but the "offness" was significant enough that I moved on.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I tried to watch the show, but I confess the anachronisms just threw me right out of the story. It felt too modern to be set when it was.

Except that's a common problem to virtually any retelling of the Arthurian legend. Malory is the view that most people have of Camelot, and his version of Arthur is written in essentially 14th-century terms (as the kind of chivalry he glorifies had died by his time in the 15th-century), even though the events of Le Morte d'Arthur would have been set in the 5th- and 6th-centuries.

Does it bother me to see Arthur running around with a crossbow? Sure. Do I think Camelot looks way too clean? Absolutely. But I don't let those things bother me. What matters with Merlin is that I'm having fun. It's not a series that everyone is going to like, and I recognize that. But it's reignited my own interest in matters Arthurian, and I'm currently reading The Lancelot-Grail Reader as a result.

I can't give any detailed critique, because I honestly didn't make it through the pilot, but the "offness" was significant enough that I moved on.

If by "pilot," you mean the two episodes that NBC showed when they premiered the series, those were, by far, the two weakest episodes of the series. ("Valiant," the second episode, is probably the worst.) The following week, when Michelle Ryan appeared as Nimeuh, the series improved.

 

[Sakrysta]

Maybe "anachronism" was the wrong word. I am by no means so familiar with Arthurian legend to know whether Arthur should have a crossbow or not. My main problem was just an overall "modern" feel to a show set in a completely "non-modern" setting. It just didn't work for me. And by "pilot", I meant whatever was listed as the first episode on Hulu.

But hey, I'm by no means campaigning for its cancellation. I've loved my share of shows that others thought were lousy. As a general rule, I tend more toward sci-fi than fantasy anyway.

ETA: By "modern" I'm mainly referring to the language. There was something about the way the characters talked that just seemed so wrong for a knights & castles story. I just remember thinking, "Why are they talking like that?" Didn't make any sense to me.

 

[KB24]

At first I didn't like Merlin. IT definately starts too humourous and juvenille, and some of its new takes on Arthurian tales have been amiss. It also ups things up to Potteresque and modern fantasy bandwagon-and that doesn't help. Nevertheless, by the end of this first season, I got a bit addicted! I saw more on Hulu as well, and I wonder if they considered other viewing options in their ratings and renewal information. The cast and storylines get better as the season goes on. I hope season 2 has more reflection and growing pains than villian of the week magics. Maybe because of Anthony Head, but I keep thinking this looks very Buffy. Maybe if it survives long enough, they can tragically lose the older cast and grow into a dark and serious show. Right now beyond banter and romantic innuendo, there isn't a lot of depth-but there could be. I don't mind a black Gwen, but her being a servant is going to be odd to fix. Also, if you're going to make Valiant bad and Lancelot a charmer, they should be around all the time! There's no internal angst beyond Merlin's secrets.

 

[Rackon]

Sorry, it's just too uninspired and too much of a retread of a hundred other shows just like it in the cheapo/cornball sf/f category.

You know what would be awesome? Turn the story over to HBO and have them to a Rome-style approach. Drop-kick the Late Medieval period that the story is always mired in (there's no "right" period for it). Have it be during the Roman Empire or even previous to that. Go way back to the times when Stonehenge was brand new. But make sure the period details are authentic (as much as possible for distant historical periods).

And forget about the "magic." Have the legends about Merlin just be superstition and myth, which he of course is happy to encourage. Just have him be a smart guy who is well educated. Anyone with a smidgen of education would be held in awe by the mud-splattered peasantry. It wouldn't be hard for him to pass himself off as anything he wanted to.

I could be very enthusiastic about this type of concept - a Rome like miniseries from HBO or Showtime. However, Stonehenge predates Merlin/Arthurian Britain by many thousand years, so it wouldn't be brand spankin' new in Merlin's time. I also don't mind a bit of magic, as long as the story, historical context and acting are very strong.

My favorite Arthurian fiction happens to be mainly the story of Merlin: Mary Stewart's The Crystal Cave and The Hollow Hills, the pair of which would IMO make a wonderful miniseries. Stonehenge does figure prominently in the second book, and the setting is historical post-Roman Britain. There is magic, but not of the cringe inducing kind. I'm not as fond of Lawhead's series, although I do like Bernard Conrwall's Winter King trilogy.

I don't care for the TV show, and i didn't care for the miniseries with Sam Neill a few years ago either (and that's from someone who adores Sam).

 

[CaptainCanada]

For me, Cornwell wrote the definitive realist take on the Arthur stories. Whyte's okay, though the best parts are the ones before the actual Arthurian characters show up; I found The Crystal Caves dull; never read Lawhead's.

What little I've seen of Merlin hasn't entertained. All the obviously-mandated-'hip' stuff like the younger Merlin just doesn't click for me.

 

[Deckerd]

Maybe "anachronism" was the wrong word. I am by no means so familiar with Arthurian legend to know whether Arthur should have a crossbow or not. My main problem was just an overall "modern" feel to a show set in a completely "non-modern" setting. It just didn't work for me. And by "pilot", I meant whatever was listed as the first episode on Hulu.

But hey, I'm by no means campaigning for its cancellation. I've loved my share of shows that others thought were lousy. As a general rule, I tend more toward sci-fi than fantasy anyway.

ETA: By "modern" I'm mainly referring to the language. There was something about the way the characters talked that just seemed so wrong for a knights & castles story. I just remember thinking, "Why are they talking like that?" Didn't make any sense to me.

One wonders what you thought of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court?

More seriously, how do you expect people to talk? All video media are products of the age they were made. If the cast all went about theeing and thouing it would sound corny.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Maybe "anachronism" was the wrong word. I am by no means so familiar with Arthurian legend to know whether Arthur should have a crossbow or not. My main problem was just an overall "modern" feel to a show set in a completely "non-modern" setting. It just didn't work for me. And by "pilot", I meant whatever was listed as the first episode on Hulu.

But hey, I'm by no means campaigning for its cancellation. I've loved my share of shows that others thought were lousy. As a general rule, I tend more toward sci-fi than fantasy anyway.

ETA: By "modern" I'm mainly referring to the language. There was something about the way the characters talked that just seemed so wrong for a knights & castles story. I just remember thinking, "Why are they talking like that?" Didn't make any sense to me.

One wonders what you thought of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court?

More seriously, how do you expect people to talk? All video media are products of the age they were made. If the cast all went about theeing and thouing it would sound corny.

Well if they were speaking authentically we wouldn't understand fuck all they were saying.

 

[Starkers]

'xactly, they wouldn't even be speaking English. Of all the issues thrown at Merlin it's lack of historical authenticity is the most laughable really considering its a legend.

 

[KB24]

Actually, the latest King Arthur with Clive Owen was a weak Romanesque attempt. It had some promise, but the execution was very bad. We can have a serious film or miniseries with heavy issues and fantasy, just keep it mature and not fall trap to the this hip magic trip. I'm hoping Merlin gets darker and serious as its cast is allowed to grow older. Right now, I see it has some promise, should it get worse, then it certainly won't be around long.

I did see some ratings in the newspaper, I'm sure the exact figures are online, but Merlin only drew between 3 and 5 million viewers this summer on NBC? Enterprise was canceled with those numbers. Unless it stands out, this show might be over too quick anyway.

 

[captcalhoun]

it won't. NBC only air it. it's a BBC-funded production. as long as BBC get good figures, it'll get made. whether NBC continues to show it is another matter.

 

[Kelthaz]

Maybe if it survives long enough, they can tragically lose the older cast and grow into a dark and serious show.

That would be the worst thing that could happen to the show. The first season does have some rough spots that need to be ironed out, but you don't do that by giving the characters BSG syndrome. Merlin wants to be a light and fluffy show and doesn't need to be fixed by making it dark and gritty.

 

[KB24]

I don't want it to be as dark as BSG, but I would like the characters to progress to the more traditional representations we know. Grown ups with problems! Right now, I think Gaius and Uther are keeping things together in some ways. Their dialogue is crisp and raises the talents of the younger cast.

I know the BBC will produce the show as long as its viable, but I'm surprised Merlin made it to NBC anyway. Sunday nights used to be something special, but a fantasy family show seems out of place now in network primetime. With low numbers, maybe they would move it to Sci-Fi or such?