I haven't seen it yet but my husband said it was showing potential and today he said Russel T. Davies was an advisor on the project, which piqued my interest. Looks like hulu will only have 5 episodes up at a time, though, so anyone whose interested needs to start soon.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's awful. I watched the first two episodes, and it was tooth-achingly bad.
The leads are all cute near-20s with modern sensibilities. The set is early Victorian French/Austrian; costuming is similar.
Gwenevere is black, and the daughter of the local blacksmith. Merlin is like Luke Skywalker SANS charm-- he even has an old man teaching him the ropes. Also, a DRAGON who spouts dragonly mysticism and doesn't try to eat anyone.
Imagine a combination of Smallville and Dragon Tales. That's Merlin for you.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Dragons differ in level of violence setting to setting.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...well, the early Smallville (before it sucked) was supposedly part of the inspiration for this show. I liked it back then. I dunno...I've been so disappointed with fantasy/scifi on TV lately that I've been avoiding them until told otherwise.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My friend told me she was obsessed with Merlin, so I started watching it. It's really not that good but I find it entertaining. The kid who plays Arthur is ridiculously good-looking.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm surprised Scott hates it so much. I watched a few episodes when it aired on the BBC, I know a Season 2 is being worked on, but I thought it had quite a lot of potential. I didn't LOVE it, but it was pretty enjoyable.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Gwenevere is black, and the daughter of the local blacksmith. Merlin is like Luke Skywalker SANS charm-- he even has an old man teaching him the ropes. Also, a DRAGON who spouts dragonly mysticism and doesn't try to eat anyone.
In his defense, he hasn't tried to eat anyone yet.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Imagine a combination of Smallville and Dragon Tales. That's Merlin for you.
That's pretty much a perfect description. Though if you can ignore the butchering of every Arthurian legend ever and the triteness of it all, it can be kind of fun. I don't know what ep they're up to now, because I started watching it when it first aired in the UK. I watched the first four eps, and I have the rest of the season waiting for me. Gwen from Torchwood had a nice juicy recurring role.
I think the fact that I've had eps 5 and on for several months and haven't watched them is an indication of it not being all that compelling.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Scott R: You're totally missing the point. This is not your gritty realism, this is your classic Doctor Who childhood/family escapism. No, it's not rocket science and nor is it even attempting to be any real historical era.
It's important that everyone realise this isn't an adult show and nor is it supposed to be a serious one.
quote:First, some parametres. Merlin is a light ahistorical 'family' show- more so than Robin Hood or especially the new Doctor Who ever were. The pilot, at least, has a relatively simple story and the magical aspects usually lean towards the humorous/corny, a fact not due to the special effects themselves, but to the way they are included. However, the show is well written, well-acted, well-produced, interesting, funny and entertaining.
...
I can see how this show could disappoint some. It pays no little to other Arthur myths or timelines, or to the real history of Britain. It is not as dark as it could be, nor as complex.
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Hmmm...well, the early Smallville (before it sucked)
I know that memory degrades with age, but when exactly was that?
IMO, seasons 1-3, but I'm sure you'll get different opinions. I actually really enjoyed it back then, although even at the time I had to ignore Lana to do that. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It's a horrible show. Of course I don't like it.
LOL
I wish I felt this way about everything I watched. Heroes, for example, is a horrible show and yet I must like it, because I keep watching...
But I really don't need another show like that; one that I keep watching for potential when in reality, it sucks.
So to watch or not to watch...
Well, I thought "Heroes" *did* start well, despite some problems with characters who were too powerful. At least they didn't know how to use their powers very well. The reason I still watch it, despite it being mostly bad, is that I want to find out where this all goes; if only I could make myself understand that the producers likely have no idea where this is going either... Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Well, I thought "Heroes" *did* start well, despite some problems with characters who were too powerful. At least they didn't know how to use their powers very well. The reason I still watch it, despite it being mostly bad, is that I want to find out where this all goes; if only I could make myself understand that the producers likely have no idea where this is going either...
It's going to the bank, until we the viewers put an end to it. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm glad to see my instincts were right. I saw it on the free demand channel, and started watching. About five minutes in (the truly awful opening credits thing was a big clue for me) I thought, "Man, this is going to be terrible, and decided to wait and hear more.
Thanks Scott for watching an hour and a half or so of it for me! Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott R: You're totally missing the point. This is not your gritty realism, this is your classic Doctor Who childhood/family escapism. No, it's not rocket science and nor is it even attempting to be any real historical era.
It's important that everyone realise this isn't an adult show and nor is it supposed to be a serious one.
No, no-- I understand what the show's aiming for. It just misses.
And when I say it misses, I mean that it rams a stick through the viewer's eyeball.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My kids love it. The 11 year old and the 9 year old twins, that is. So, for us, it does fulfill it's purpose - a family show that appeals to younger viewers.
I am bothered by many of the things mentioned here, but so long as the kids like it we'll keep watching.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have enjoyed the first four episodes of Merlin, enough that I watched them and recorded Impact. But I wanted to record that anyway.
Merlin, according to the teasers, should be compared to Harry Potter. On the silliness scale, it is no worse. It could do with some more youthful characters, though, and maybe an owl or two. Plotwise, the writing has not been too bad, with some fairly good dialog from time to time. Joanna K. Rowling might have done it better, but she's English, and has a better command of the language. There is change and growth in the characters, especially in Arthur.
So far it seems that the witches are all bad, and the wizards/warlocks are all good.
The dragon confidante is silly and pointless, and can't even give a straight answer. I wonder what he eats.
I am glad that no magic wands are involved.
Whenever Merlin is working magic, his irises turn a light brown for a moment. Cool little touch there.
By the way, Gwen is very light in color. You might not even be sure she is black, until you see her father. Did they have many Africans in England in the days of King Arthur?
Arthur's father, King Uther, is really getting tiresome with his inflexible intolerance and "kill 'em all so people won't question my authority" obsession.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I decided to ignore the negative comments here and watch the pilot. I'm rather glad I did. Honestly, I liked it. I didn't LOVE it or anything, but definitely enough to give it a few more episodes. It is clearly childish, and would probably appeal most to a younger audience. It is a little corny, but comparable to Doctor Who. In fact, I found there to be a similar feel. I also thought the comparison to Harry Potter in feel was sound. It at least puts into perspective the maturity level this was aiming for.
I don't see this being profound or anything, but it was entertaining. The magic was over the top, but it appealed to the child in me who likes to see magic portrayed in terms of wish fulfillment.
The dragon was the worst part, though since he was chained up and imprisoned, I don't think his lack of eating anyone was the problem. It was more the utterly useless things he had to say.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine, it sounds like you feel exactly like I do. I would have loved this show so, so much as a kid...and as a grown-up I can still enjoy it.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having seen the whole series back in the winter, I can say honestly that I enjoyed it.
I'm never going to be a raving fangirl for the show - it's fluff, kid's TV and there's nothing deep, but my inner nine-year-old loved it.
I think it might have been the camaraderie among the characters, or the wonderful Richard Wilson and Tony Head - whatever, in the end the general sweetness of the whole thing totally won me over. It’s just like Smallville before it so utterly sucked. And yes I agree, the dragon is a bit rubbish.
Interestingly, on the subject of the dragon, and as an historian - there's really no point I can see in even complaining about historical inaccuracy in the context of this show. It's a fantasy show, set in a mythical kingdom, about a fictional king, a boy who can do magic, witches, fairies, curses, a talking dragon for crying out loud ... and you're worried because they're wearing cod-medieval armour and Guinevere is black (which, by the way, why not?)? Repeat after me - 'It's just an alternate universe.' Now relax.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the knights of the round table was black. Don't remember which one, but I know there was one.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Repeat after me - 'It's just an alternate universe.' Now relax.
LOL...yes, that's how I feel exactly. Since today is my day off, I got a chance to watch 3 of the 4 episodes now up on hulu and I'm still just having fun. The costumes don't concern me nearly as much as the characters and the story. That's where the heart of good fantasy is -- the rest is make believe. I'll suspend disbelief as long as I'm compelled by the human elements and as long as I'm generally entertained.
It does remind me a lot of Smallville before it went bad. I can see how that was a part of the inspiration for this show.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the knights of the round table was black. [Smile] Don't remember which one, but I know there was one.
Palamedes was a Saracen; most of the artwork depicting him don't depict him as being black, though.
quote:on the subject of the dragon, and as an historian - there's really no point I can see in even complaining about historical inaccuracy in the context of this show. It's a fantasy show, set in a mythical kingdom, about a fictional king, a boy who can do magic, witches, fairies, curses, a talking dragon for crying out loud ... and you're worried because they're wearing cod-medieval armour and Guinevere is black (which, by the way, why not?)?
Because it's not Arthurian. If all these things which are so wildly skewed away from the story of Arthur are necessary, call it something else.
Seriously-- change Merlin to 'Emrys.' Change Arthur to 'Brian.' Morgana to 'Morgaine,' 'Uther' to 'Usher.' THEN have fun with it, and those of us who know something about Arthurian legend will notice the nods to the story, and think it clever. (Maybe)
The name 'Merlin' is marketing. This show suffers because it fails to meet the expectations set by the name.
Or MY expectations, anyway, which are the ones that count.
I get that this is a Doctor Who type fantasy. Without, you know, the wit of Doctor Who. (I'm not fond of Doctor Who's tendency to portray older civilizations as anachronistically modern minded, either) Merlin is supposed to be a romp, a jolly good time-- but it isn't. It's vapid.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great Britain seems to have a strong history of reinventing and re-casting (in marked ways) the Arthurian legend for popular entertainment. We have 4 other series from the BBC over the last few decades that are also dramatically different than the old texts, albeit in different ways.
Robin Hood is popular for reinterpretation, too.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Great Britain seems to have a strong history of reinventing and re-casting (in marked ways) the Arthurian legend for popular entertainment. We have 4 other series from the BBC over the last few decades that are also dramatically different than the old texts, albeit in different ways.
Robin Hood is popular for reinterpretation, too.
There's actually a Robin Hood playing on the BBC that's in its second season. My brother likes it alot, I haven't had occasion to check it out.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say I find it sort of... I don't know. Charmingly naive. Oh, I don't mean the show. I mean Scott's reaction to it. "They've changed everything from King Arthur. They've made it into fiction! Is nothing sacred?"
I rib, I rib.
I've seen the entire first season. Not entirely on my own initiative -- my Mom came for a visit for a few weeks last winter and I had downloaded all the episodes out of curiosity. She started watching them and fell in love with the show, so we watched them together. Not that it's any defense, or that I feel a defense is required -- but this was right after it aired wherever it did originally, long before anything was announced about it coming to NBC. She kept saying it was delightful and bemoaning the fact that we don't get shows like this in the U.S.
For my part, I thought it was entertaining. Though at times it was painfully dumb, there was a sense of fun about it and the characters had some charm. The writing was just as formulaic as could be.
For those of you watching it in the U.S., if you haven't already figured out the pattern, you will. There aren't any episodes that deviate from the formula. Even when you think a plot is developing towards the end of the season, just rest assured -- there is no plot. There is no story. Just the formula.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comparing to to Doctor Who suggests it's at the level of Doctor Who-- it's not. BUT, like Robin Hood, it goes in the timeslot of Doctor Who, which means it's a family show.
I don't think we in North America get many family shows. There are adults shows and even more adult shows and cartoons. This is a show, like the Sarah Jane Adventures, like Robin Hood, like the original Doctor Who (the newer one transcends its original form) that is pitched at family viewing: 7-parents. It's not complicated. Everything generally comes alright. It's kid-exciting. It's formulaic. But at the same time it's not as clear cut as it could be. Uther is not as clear-cut evil as he could have been both in the past and now, for example. The dialogue is well-written.
quote:There's actually a Robin Hood playing on the BBC that's in its second season.
Third. Again, it's not gritty. I think North Americans are much more used to taking things very, very seriously. What is this? Mythical history? It has to be done with a straight face and as much historical accuracy as possible!
No, no. Mythical history is mythical because it didn't happen. Britain has seen millions of Robin Hood and King Arthur incarnations. Some are epic, and dark, and trying to retell a clear, reasonably thoughtful story. Some are musicals, for God's sake (Where Are the Simple Joys of Maidenhood?). Some throw everything but the barest framework out the window. This Merlin incarnation doesn't have to follow any previous pattern or set of stories because it's a story that belongs to whoever who wants to tell it. They can make Uther still alive. They can make Arthur and Merlin teenagers together. They can have cryptic dragons in the basement. That's the beauty of drawing on mythical history. This isn't La Morte D'Arthur, it's a kid's show.
The idea of the Doctor Who genre is that the whole family gathers together and watches the show. The parents get a pretty entertaining bundle of laughs, the kids get well-written, excitement.
Doctor Who is so well-established it has transcended this and heads boldly into adult land, but that doesn't mean the room in the BBC where the tone of these shows get decided has changed. They're still looking to fill that genre. Some shows end up pitched higher, others quite low. The Sarah Jane Adventures fall on about the same scale.
No, it's no Spellbinder (which in my experience is the best show in the teen-characters-but-aimed-at-children genre), but it's not horrible.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Teshi :-) I've seen the first 4 episodes on Hulu.
I don't have any problem with watching stuff made for juvenile demographics. Also, just because a show isn't good by usual artistic film standards, it doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile work. There is a value in exploring the themes that this show does.
One needs to realize that the names assumed in this series are marketing, and just take it as its own story, with its own characters. Do not try to relate them to the Arthurian Legends.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like Legend of the Seeker. Same production values, same formulaic stuff. You can't eat steak all the time. Sometimes, you want to snack on candy. LotS and Merlin are candy.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll watch Dr. Who with the kids, or Avatar: both are better examples of how to do family programming than Merlin.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Legend of the Seeker was just plain boring.
I don't think the current Doctor Who series would work well for kids....maybe teens but not kids. I was thinking Merlin would work for even fairly young kids, maybe a couple years older than mine (3 and 1). I was thinking of buying the DVD set when it came out because that's something I'd definitely watch with them as soon as they get past Thomas the Train and Sesame Street.
It kind of reminds me of a show I used to watch when I was a teeny bopper -- The Tomorrow People. Same sort of wish fulfillment magic and adventures.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think the current Doctor Who series would work well for kids...
Yeah. The new Doctor Who is adult stuff: adult themes, adult scaryness. The classic Doctor Who can be terrifying but its complexity and adult-themeness is more of a Merlin level. Although, some kids can watch ridiculous stuff.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Merlin is fun. It's enjoyable. It isn't incredible, or fabulous television, or the best story I have ever heard ... then again, almost nothing on television is. It still is better than perhaps 80% of the other crap on TV.
I don't have any real problem with Merlin going for some variety in the parts of the legend it decides to focus on, in part, specifically because of how long that history has been around. It is public domain, it is ripe for re-imagining. That's half the fun.
Legend of the Seeker, on the other hand, I can not stomach to watch. Not because anything they do is so particularly lousy on its own, as much as because it is 'based' on a very recent story, that has never had an honest attempt made to bring it to life in a film medium. With it being a much more recent tale that has not had an honest treatment in film, I am disgusted by what a waste it is, compared to the source material. Unlike Merlin, where I have no problem with the liberties taken BECAUSE of all the other versions that have been done that are more serious, LotS should have done a good and worthy telling of story it claims to be based on. For LotS, they really should have come up with different names, and not tried to claim any connection to a story that they have no respect for.
So I will continue to watch Merlin for as long as it stays entertaining.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Batchman: Time to stick in my two cents.
Merlin is fun. It's enjoyable. It isn't incredible, or fabulous television, or the best story I have ever heard ... then again, almost nothing on television is. It still is better than perhaps 80% of the other crap on TV.
I don't have any real problem with Merlin going for some variety in the parts of the legend it decides to focus on, in part, specifically because of how long that history has been around. It is public domain, it is ripe for re-imagining. That's half the fun.
Legend of the Seeker, on the other hand, I can not stomach to watch. Not because anything they do is so particularly lousy on its own, as much as because it is 'based' on a very recent story, that has never had an honest attempt made to bring it to life in a film medium. With it being a much more recent tale that has not had an honest treatment in film, I am disgusted by what a waste it is, compared to the source material. Unlike Merlin, where I have no problem with the liberties taken BECAUSE of all the other versions that have been done that are more serious, LotS should have done a good and worthy telling of story it claims to be based on. For LotS, they really should have come up with different names, and not tried to claim any connection to a story that they have no respect for.
So I will continue to watch Merlin for as long as it stays entertaining.
This.
I watched it, I enjoyed it. It had nothing to do with established canon, and for the most part it didn't even bother trying. I'm okay with that. Either do a Morte d'Arthur, or throw it all out the window and have fun. They chose the latter. Cool. I actually find Malory to be among my least favourite redactions of the Arthur legends, anyway.
I remain convinced, however, that there is someone who really, really KNOWS the legends on the writing team. He or she got given a mandate by the BBC to make a fluffy family show with a teenaged Merlin and generally stuck with that. But every now and then, something obscure and minor gets included, something not part of Malory even, and I know this poor lonely Arthur fan is having fun.
***
Teshi, you watched Spellbinder?! I've never met anyone outside my family who watched that show...
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked Legend of the Seeker at first. But after the first four episodes, it was evident that the heroes are just wandering around aimlessly, without making any progress toward overthrowing the bad guy and fulfilling their ostensible destiny. I have to have a sense of progress in the overall story line, or I lose interest.
Merlin so far continues to be interesting, mainly because there is still a sense that it is going somewhere. Eventually Arthur will become king. Just this last episode, they introduced Lancelot, and Lancelot knows now that Merlin is a magician, but they are good buddies. So is Prince Arthur, but he does not yet know the whole story with Merlin. I keep wondering what the writers are going to do with Morgana. Didn't she come to be known as "Morgan La Fey"? Implying that she has magic. Since all the witches on the show so far have been evil, she must be evil.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you can make a determination in 5 episodes that a show has made a gender stereotype of good vs evil. As far as I can tell, even though the king is unreasonably opposed to magic, the magic users really have been bad (with the exception of Merlin).
I have a feeling that Arthur will remain oblivious to Merlin's magic at least through this season and well into the next, because that discovery will be a major moment that they will want to lead up to and savor. I can only hope that they do not drag it out too long, which often happens in American shows. I figure late second season they're going to run out of throw ins (like Lancelot) and need to make a major move.
re: Legend of the Seeker: It was rubbish, but not because it deviated from the source material. I actually thought the first episode was pretty true to the opening of the book. The problem with the show was that it was boring. Nothing happened. I didn't care about the characters. Granted, the book itself wasn't anything special...the first one was good and each one got successively worse. But there was a core of something entertaining in the book; the Anyman learning he had a greater destiny. (Oh, and it didn't help that I thought the guy they cast as Richard was funny looking.)
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
