I just read that this show was cancelled because of the 3 main leads saying they had schedule conflicts for season 2 and couldn't free up time. Seriously??? I just watched the first episode and it seemed like a good show. Is this really true? or did this show just end up sucking at the end of the first season? If it's true, then these actors are on my don't watch list from now on. Shameful.
shareI hadn't heard that, but who knows. The show had a lot of potential but never really found its way.
shareI'm skeptical about that. Jamie Bower had stated repeatedly in May/June that he was waiting on a decision for "Camelot", so he was open, for sure. Joseph Fiennes has nothing lined up right now, so he was definitely free. Eva Green is doing a movie with Tim Burton, but I'm pretty sure they could have freed up space for Camelot.
Main reason was: production challenges. They probably tried to lower the budget, but to no avail. It was too expensive.
As the above user stated, it had so much potential. I love the series, and wanted it to continue. But, alas, unless Starz sells the rights to the show, we won't see it anymore.
Winter Is Coming.
A Dance With Dragons July 12th.
I think they were trying to minimize the fact it was being canceled and bow out gracefully. Like telling someone when they dump them. It's me not you.
Honestly I rewatched the series and the only glaring problem with the show was miscasting Arthur and killing off James Purfoy/King Lot in the 2nd episode.
Well, yes, but if you miscast King Arthur in a show called Camelot then that's pretty much game over isn't it? I thought the show in terms of story and writing had vast potential but Jamie Bower as Arthur was really bad casting.
Thought Joseph Fiennes made a really interesting Merlin. Fiennes v Fiennes/Merlin v Voldemort anyone?
"It's impressive what nothing can do to a man."
Joseph did a totally fresh and orignal Merlin I enjoyed the show and was hoping for a second season now I find out there wont be it's vey disapointing...
pack your panties Sammie, we're hitting the road...
apple, I appreciate your comment, and agree with it, and I know that the show already aired, but there are those who (like myself) are now catching it up online. You may want to just put the part of King Lot and mark it as a spoiler though.
This is my signature and I'm sticking to it. lol
NO WAY!! go *beep* yourself, the show has been out for ages, once its aired on tv its free to be discussed on the boards without the SPOILERS sign, same with films they are free to be discussed once they've been aired on tv. guess what if you dont want to know whats coming up on an old show dont go reading forums, why? coz people go on forums to discuss the content of these shows you stupid *beep*!!! thats why the forums are here: to discuss content of the shows. even in say the brand new game of thrones which came out a day ago, you can go on the forums and discuss as its out in the world free for everyone to watch.
under no circumstance would I go reading any topics on the forums if i hadnt watched it yet, thats stupid. when someone writes a review yes SPOILERS must be written as people go on there to get a feel for the movie or tv show without wanting to know plot points. forums: content discussion. ENGAGE YOUR BRAIN prior to bitching at someone for using the forums as there meant to be used.
"*beep* me gently with a chainsaw" Heathers
coz people go on forums to discuss the content of these shows you stupid *beep*!!!
sita chez, how classy! I didn't even write to you nor commented on a post of yours, yet you felt comfortable and good to write this to me. Again, you're a real class act.
This is my signature and I'm sticking to it. lol
Yeah but he has a point, don't go on the forums if you don't want to read spoilers. This show aired ages ago ofcourse people will be writing about plot points.
You stupid *beep*!!!
Agreed. The language was inexcusable, the argument was sound. Labelling threads with spoilers when a show is airing is common courtesy, but when it's several months old, it is pretty redundant. People will discuss what happened on the show, otherwise they wouldn't open threads. Once a show has aired, pretty much all threads will be spoilerish, if they aren't OT.
"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."
Thanks pol-edra. Some people go on the boards to get a feel of the show but not necessarily to hear what happened at the end. But I do understand what you say, and I myself avoid reading a post UNLESS I don't mind seeing spoilers. For eg if I heard a show like Sixth Sense was really good but had a great twist to the end, I wouldn't go on the board until I watched it. If I want to watch a show like Awake, I may go on the board to get a feel of it but won't read every thread.
That said, I appreciate your comments. Now why couldn't the other poster say what you said without all the insults and name calling? Thanks for responding with courtesy.
This is my signature and I'm sticking to it. lol
You're very welcome ravmeltt. Please don't be scared or digusted, there are more courteous posters than rude ones on this board, I am no exception.
Since the board isn't very active any more, may I suggest you open a specific thread if you have any enquiries? That way you can tell people you don't want spoilers because you haven't seen the show yet, but you still want explanations or feedback about this or that. I can't guarantee you'll have tons of answers, since not many posters visit this board anymore, but who knows?
"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."
pol_edra, I might get tons of answers, but not the ones you think. hahaha. I may get more responses like the rude one I previously got from the other poster. I tend to agree with what you all say: it is hard to ask for non-spoilers when the show has long been over and been cancelled, so I guess the right thing to do is stay off the boards of a show I want to see, where I don't want to know the answers.
On another note, it's amaziing that people do keep coming back to this board. I think the show still garners interest, or people come across it online and then go and watch it, and come on to post. I don't think that's going to stop.
I will take your advice to a certain extent. If I'm really curious but don't want to be "spoiled", I will open a thread and ask specific questions and ask that no spoiling is given. That might work.
Tks again
This is my signature and I'm sticking to it. lol
I'm belgian, and the show just started airing. I'm watching the first episode as we speak. I had never heard of it up until now (although I have watched both seasons of Game of Thrones from the moment they went online). I enjoy fantasy and was curious about the show. Now I know that King lot will die in the next epi. Thanks a lot. Point in case.
shareI know how you feel and I said the same thing. But I can also understand that it's hard for
People to resist using spoilers when the show is months old. Best thing is to just read the synopsis and avoid the threads until after you watch it, or pick the threads you do watch.
This is my signature and I'm sticking to it. lol
Camelot's first episode aired little more than a year before your own post, That is not "ages ago". Among most users, the etiquette of tagging reviews and messages that include info like the above is quite common.
shareI agree with you ravmeltt. Most users here go out of their way to tag revealing comments even in the middle of a thread as having a spoiler. I know it's a rule when posting reviews. I'm not sure if it is for message boards. But none the less, it's clear the nasty reply you received is from someone with far more issues than revealing spoilers.
Thanks Alfriend. I was really surprised at that rude poster. And I was not even the first one that had commented about the spoilers. Besides, IMDB knows that people would do spoilers, that is why they put something in place to prevent it. But I agree. That guy who carried on like that has some other real issues. lol
People are still tuning in to this show on Netflix and other places and writing about it. It was a good show and I feel two more seasons would have been a good idea.
This is my signature and I'm sticking to it. lol
The show premiered 13 months before your post. That does not qualify as "ages ago". Not to mention your nastiness was uncalled for. Most imdb users try, even for actual older films and shows to respect the spoiler tag, which only takes a moment to use. Your nasty, uncalled for reply is one of the very few exceptions I've read here.
shareWhat a twat you are! I suggest you review your opinions on spoilers and learn some manners so that you don't come across as a completely uneducated and ignorant moron.
Why do you think it has 'spolier' in the tags above the box where posts are typed.
TWAT!
I agree,since I finally relented and started the first episode. Granted I should not even be on IMDB before watching.
DGZ-L
WILDCHRISSY32
Having just found this I have no clue as to why it was canceled but I disagree about the miscasting of Arthur b/c I like Jamie Campbell Bower and he was really the main reason I looked this show up. As far as the killing of Lot I didn't actually mind so much I kinda saw it as karma despite him having the potential of a great villian. I think the greatest threats to Arthur are Morgan because he seems like he wants to trust her so much that having her betray him would take him by surprise. I also see Merlin as a threat b/c he only sought out Arthur to be King in order to further his own ambitions seeing as he was the reason behind Arthurs existence in the first place everything he did was by design. Lastly I think Arthur is his own worst enemy b/c the affair with Guenivere will lead to the destruction of all he has built and the night with Morgan leads to the conception of Mordrid who then proceeds to kill Arthur in battle and in the process Arthur kills him. At least that's how it went in every other version I know of having not finished this version yet I don't know if that will happen.
"Don't go that way, Never go that way."
"Thank You."
"If she'd have kept on going that way she'd have gone straight to the castle." Labyrinth
Also, traditionally (in the U.S. anyway) lead actors aren't usually cast in a series unless they agree to sign on for three years. Not only does this let the show continue, if it's picked up for new seasons, but it means their salaries are locked in place and there won't be squabling about money all of a sudden at the beginning of each season.
Maybe things are different in the U.K., though.
[deleted]
Heh, yeah. Whatever you say. Isn't funny of people consider their opinions facts?
Winter Is Coming.
A Dance With Dragons July 12th.
[deleted]
Fiction!
shareYup. It sucked. Gave up after 2 episodes - basically after they killed of James Purefoy. Tried to give it another go when it was repeated, but it still sucks. The script is just freakin lamentable.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
That makes no sense because generally all shows work the same principal regardless where they are filmed. Wether a prime time show or soap a lead actor will sign a 4yr deal (unless the show wants then badly to renogatate that and this would only happen with well know actors) with the studio having the option of dropping the actor at their convinces. This allows the show all the control and locks in pay after 4yr contract if the show is succesful the control then goes to the actor and they can get more money per episode and have more outs like allowing them to do other projects (which most first contracts don't allow). The american soaps are a good example most soap actors can't do anything else until their contract is up and they negotiate it prime time actors the same during the taping season.
shareI dunno. Not that I know anything but it seems that UK shows jettisonn their actors all the time. Compare, for example, MI-5 (aka: spooks) or even Law and Order UK with most U.S. shows that at least have stable leads. I stopped watching MI-5 because I just couldn't handle the change-overs. It's too disruptive. It leads to me think there's a different paradigm going on over there...
“If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story.”
Orson Welles
Well this isn't that hard to believe, especially for Starz. They don't renew shows until the absolute deadline. As a result actors make commitments to other projects. The same thing happened with Party Down.
|I don't have an ego. I just love how awesome I am.|
Seems odd to me. Don't shows with the potential to be long-term series usually sign up the actors to 4 or 5 year contracts so that they can keep them on for additional seasons if the first one is a success?
I don't get why they would let this show go down since it was successful on a U.S. network and is also being aired in Canada right now.
That's just the way Starz operates. Like Party Down, Camelot wasn't a ratings juggernaut and had little buzz so Starz dragged their feet on renewal and by the time negotiations came around, most of the actors had other things going on.
|I don't have an ego. I just love how awesome I am.|
Eva Green was excellent...while Joseph Fiennes made for a good Merlin...I liked the fact that he was much more of a politician, thinker and adviser than sorcerer. If he suddenly started shooting lightning out of his arse that would have done it for me and any chance this show might have been actually good.
It wasn't, the rest of the cast, the acting, the production values were quite low. Considering the other projects from Starz, like the Spartacus series, "The Pillars Of The Earth", this was quite low on the totem pole. I mean for goodness sakes, some scenes in the series reminded me of "Xena: Warrior Princess" or "Hercules", and those shows were on TV during the 90's (entertaining for their time though), you would think that there would be some progress in CGI and special effects since then, as well as wardrobe etc. It looked like all the outfits on "Camelot" were picked up and dusted off from those shows I mentioned.
If anybody remembers, there was a show with Heath Ledger back in the 90's called "Roar". I say without any hesitation, that that show was better than "Camelot". It ran on FOX briefly before those morons cancelled it. I have that show on DVD and watched it recently, and now having seen "Camelot" I am stunned that "Camelot"'s production values are not higher than "Roar"...that show was on more than a decade ago!!!!
Heath Ledger(RIP) (he was about 19 the and this role was amongst his first), was way better than the surfer dude playing King Arthur...Jamie Bower Campbell (or whatever), and don't get me started on Tamzin Eggerton...she looks like a member of that cast of "The Hills", every time I saw her on screen I expected her to whip out her cellphone and set-up an appointment for a "mani and pedi", some botox and tit implants...Ah and Leontes, Gawyn and the rest of the Knights Of The Round Table looked like they were picked-up from an Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue, meaning they are as wooden, made-up and plastic as those model dudes...
Claire Forlani was good, as was James Purefoy in his oh so brief performance as King Lot (maybe they should have kept him around longer). But it was not enough to save the show.
I am giving the show a 6 out of 10, and mind you I'm being mightily generous, and it is only because of Eva Green, Claire Forlani, Joseph Fiennes and James Purefoy.
Strange as it seems, usually when I watched "Camelot", the part I enjoyed the most were the openning credits. That openning sequence stirred me and my imagination and set me up with the desire to want to like the show, but once the openning credits were finished, the dissapointment started.
I'll stick to "Game Of Thrones" and "The Borgias". But Starz is not done yet with period pieces as "Spartacus: Vengeance" is coming in January. I have higher hopes for that show, though without Andy Withfield in the lead role, the success of the new show remains a question mark...
Starz is kind of the poor friend of HBO and Showtime, like Kenny to Cartman, but it can do better than "Camelot" of that I'm sure. I really enjoyed the work they did with Ridley and Tony Scott's production company, Scott Free on Ken Follett's "The Pilars Of The Earth", that mini-series had a great cast, good production values. So obviously they can do much better.
How about a series on the Knights Templar, The War Of Roses (York vs. Lancaster), or a series on Hannibal, or even Robin Hood (a grittier version mind you), or maybe the Reconquista in Spain and El Cid. There are many other historical periods to be explored. Or maybe something on medieval Japan (like "Shogun"), or China, the Mongols or Tartars...What about the Vikings...I would love a freaking show with them!
I don't want to piss on "Camelot", I don't hate the show as much as I regret that it was a letdown. I can never get enough of good, intelligent, imagnative TV programmes, especially in this age of cheap reality televison where the aim is the lowest common denominator.
"Today is the tomorrow I was so worried about yesterday"--Anthony Hopkins
What about the Vikings...I would love a freaking show with them!
That is good news. If the shows gets picked-up I would definitely watch. But I hope it is a gritty show not some costume piece...
"Today is the tomorrow I was so worried about yesterday"--Anthony Hopkins
The show failed because of idiotic decisions by producers which conflicted with production / investment in Ireland.
Talent and story counted for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. All the Canadian producers wanted were big names and pretty faces... and they paid for it, big time. In every sense of the world.
The show could and should have been a launching ground for local talent and should have featured worthy actors in a story centric production. It had so much potential, but clueless execs with nothing more to see than numbers made major decisions which they had absolutely no idea about.
I was involved in the casting process when it was getting into gear. In every casting there were little or no notes on characters / story and every brief focused on the demand for 'STUNNINGLY STUNNINGLY ATTRACTIVE' WOMEN AND BOYISH SEXY LOOKING MALES. This was all they cared about... literally all they cared about. Acting, and everything else was a very minor afterthought.
I'm not sure what market they were persuing, but I think it was the selling sex to little girls market which South Park so excellently parodied.
Eva Green was excellent...while Joseph Fiennes made for a good Merlin...I liked the fact that he was much more of a politician, thinker and adviser than sorcerer. If he suddenly started shooting lightning out of his arse that would have done it for me and any chance this show might have been actually good.
loco, you're loco. lol. Just teasing and playing with your name. However, I agree with you about Eva Green (and I think she's a better Morgan than Katie McGrath who plays Morgana in Merlin). But I disagree about what you said regarding Merlin. I don't want a politician, thinker or adviser in Merlin. Merlin is, was and always will be, a sorcerer. So he is expected to do magic, not spout great political words and dish out advice all the time. I want to see magic, and by the end of ep 2 I was longing for some. We did get some in ep 3 although it wasn't what I expected, and I was disappointed in him because he was not very nice in that ep either. I guess having "fallen in love" with Merlin in "Merlin", I couldn't get past how "not nice" this Merlin is as opposed to the other one. I still wish there was a Season 2 though.
This is my signature and I'm sticking to it. lol
Gosh I just read your whole post, as I had only read the first paragraph and responded to that. I did enjoy reading your whole post though. You are well informed and a fantasy TV fan like myself I gather. And what I like is that your post is informative, not rude or disparaging in any way. I find what you said extremely interesting and knowledgeable. Thanks for the read.
This is my signature and I'm sticking to it. lol
How about a series on the Knights Templar, The War Of Roses (York vs. Lancaster), or a series on Hannibal, or even Robin Hood (a grittier version mind you), or maybe the Reconquista in Spain and El Cid. There are many other historical periods to be explored. Or maybe something on medieval Japan (like "Shogun"), or China, the Mongols or Tartars...What about the Vikings...I would love a freaking show with them!
I think he meant this Hannibal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal
not this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2243973/
But I might be wrong.
Interesting. I'm a history buff, but I can't say that I've ever heard of this historical Hannibal. I checked out the link (thanks for posting). You may be right. Maybe that's the Hannibal that the other poster was talking about. I hope he reads this page and confirms whether this is so or no. I know I do like the present Hannibal series though. It is one of the best top 10 on TV right now.
The ability to always see the worst in people and situations is often a hiding place for fear.
If you're a history buff, you definitely want to look into Hannibal Barca. How many guys managed to piss off the Romans? Plus, the guy had elephants. I hope movies and series look into the character more in the future, there's very little that can go wrong with such story elements. Or not, I don't know. There's a "Hannibal the Conqueror" currently under development, starring... Vin Diesel. I don't know if it's good news or bad news yet.
"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."
pol-edra, I started to check it out in wikipedia but didn't finish. I will continue cause it does look interesting.
Is that the same Hannibal that vin Diesel is depicting? I won't mind seeing that. I do like vin Diesel. Thanks for the info.
The ability to always see the worst in people and situations is often a hiding place for fear.
If you love history, you should, should, should check Hannibal's bio. One of the most remarkable characters of ancient history, I'd say an iconic personality.
Regarding the Hannibal tv series: how gory is it? Mads Mikelsen is one of my most favorite actors, but I don't like too much violence in movies.
Regarding the Hannibal tv series: how gory is it? Mads Mikelsen is one of my most favorite actors, but I don't like too much violence in movies.
I think the real problem was the series started really slow. It didn't get good until late in the season. Most people probably lost interest in it. At the same time, Game of Thrones was amazing. Not to mention most wrote it off as a another "Spartacus". Camelot had a great cast but the production value was lower. Definitely not in the same league as Game of Thrones. I would have liked to see a second season.
share