I love Merlin to death, but the Mists of Avalon keeps drawing my attention. Has anyone seen both? What are the contrasts between the two? Is MOA like Merlin at all?
Thanks!
--WNeskora2006
"Have a nice day...and have a pleasant tomorrow"
--Kent Brockman
i absolultely love both movies, as i am a devoted fan to anything arthurian.
they are very different though. MOA is very in depth on how the women viewed what happened, whilst Merlin is through the eyes of (omg) merlin.
i think you just have to keep an open mind.
no one really knows EXACTLY what happened, so if you dont think too much about the variations, im sure you will enjoy it
I read the 5 or so books which tell the story Mists of Avalon was one of them. They were great with Mists being the best. I seen the movie and it was good though someone smaller and darker for Morgaine would have been better. I just saw Merlin on TV and I thought it was good but not as good as Mists of Avalon. I didn't like the way Merlin portrayed the Magic, and where did Mab come into this story, wheres Obereon and Titania?? I have also saw King Arthur and that was really something else, definitly a mans movie, my husband always liked the old version with Helen Mirren I forgot the name of this movie I saw it and it did'nt compare to Mists. Mists was the only one where she wasnt some evil witch.
shareI enjoyed both DVDs but preferred Merlin because I am more interested in him and he was hardly in the MOA (book or DVD).
If you are interested in Merlin - have you read The Crystal Cave by Mary Stewart? My favourite version of Merlin - in the first book he is a young man and it ends with Arthurs birth.
wizard56
Mists of Avalon was a better film to me because I liked that it was a more realistic, New Age film as opposed to a CGI-ridden fantasy like Merlin. It gave more equal respect to all the important aspects of the Arthur legend. Merlin just kept adding new characters and reduced most of the important ones like Guinivere, Lancelot, and Morgan Le Fay. The characters in Mists of Avalon were portrayed as more human and not as black and white as they used to be portrayed. Merlin just felt too rushed with important characters and storylines from the Arthur legend and the acting was a little over-the-top.
shareI haven't seen MOA, but I plan to shortly after I review this.
I'm not psycho, just a little loopy.
*~me~*
I love both these movies, but I have to say I like Mists of Avalon better. Merlin is a good introduction to the Arthurian legends, especially for kids, but Mists seems like the Arthurian legends for grownups. Not that Merlin can't be enjoyed by adults (I'm 24 and I love it), but there's clearly a bias. The story wants us to root for Merlin and what he's doing, so it portrays Queen Mab as a dark force. What I like about Mists of Avalon is the story isn't as morally lopsided. It shows that there isn't one "good" side and one "bad" side--both sides of the story have negative and positive points, both sides have their fanatics and their heroes and villains. It does a great job of showing that if we stop bickering with each other over things like power, wealth, religion, etc, that the world would be a better place. Merlin on the other hand, has the classic fairytale feel to it that I think most associate with the traditional telling of the Arthurian tales; sure, there may not be character development that's as strong as it is in Mists, but it's not supposed to be, I don't think. Like I said, it feels more like it was geared toward introducing kids to the basic ideas of the legends of Merlin and Arthur.
Nevermore!
The King Arthur movie with Helen Mirren as Morgana is called "Excalibur," and I've always felt that it portrayed the "feel" of those times better than most movies that have tried to portray life back then ~~ especially the dirt and the grit plus the blood and the violence. (Watching "Excalibur," I've always felt that I could practically smell what early England must have smelled like!)
And I'll admit to preferring Helen Mirren's portrayal of Morgana and her possibly-incestuous devotion to her son Mordred; HBC's acting in "Merlin" seemed more like a caricature to me until right before her demise.
I read the "Mists of Avalon" years ago ~~ but when it comes to books that retell the Arthurian legend, my favorite is T. H. White's "The Once and Future King" (which was really 4 novel-sized books combined into one huge volume.) "The Sword in the Stone" was the first book, which Disney turned into a cartoon; and the musical "Camelot" was derived from the rest of it. But the book had so much more detail and many more characters than could be included in "Camelot." Now that huge block-buster movies have been made based on "The Hobbit" and the "Lord of the Rings" books, I continue to wonder why the books from "The Once and Future King" haven't been made into a series of big budget movies.
I haven't seen the MoA movie, but I read the novel, which is a very fascinating story describing the female point of view of the arthurian legend. Merlin the movie portrays a very different version of the legend, with different characters, but I liked both very much.
shareThis is a super old thread but I figured I would toss in my two cents! Merlin is one of my all-time favorites, but I enjoyed Mists of Avalon as well. Mainly for the fact that it intends to tell the Arthurian legends from the women's POV. Merlin stays true to much of the patriarchal legends in that it portrays the women in a (mostly) negative light.
I enjoy them both, but for different reasons.