I think this was pretty good! - Camelot (2011) Discussion

[–] pol-edra 14 years ago

Sorry for you, but there won't be a season 2, it's been cancelled. And although I'm part of the "haters" I suppose, at least regarding the writing (not the casting of Arthur), I too think it's a shame there won't be a season 2. It's always frustrating when a show gets killed, even when it is so deservedly.

As for your latest comment... Sorry again, but a) believing people will obey whatever you order them to do just because you say so is wishful thinking and b) expressing hate is as much part of a forum's life as expressing love. It's the juxtaposition of both that makes up a discussion of a show's merits and flaws.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] Ares84 14 years ago

It's one thing to hate and it's another to take the time and express this hate in a disrespectful manner. People here at the IMDB forums tend to think that it is ok to be disrespectful, hateful and rude just because they don't like said movie/series. In my book that isn't ok. In fact it shows a low level of intelligence. Why do I say that?

Well the answer is simple;

No right-minded person would take a second of their time and waste it on something they hate because, well they should not care for it at all. A normal person would say: "I hate this series therefor I will have nothing to do with it. I'll not search for it, I'll not even talk about it."

Or if you really itching to express your hatred towards a movie than do it respectfully and give constructive criticism unlike what we have here on IMDB.

Just because there is freedom of speech it doesn't give the right to people to be hateful and express their hatred in public. It is disgusting and can ruin anyone's day very fast.

Why can't people be just a little bit nicer?? The world would be a better place.

reply

[–] mungo- 14 years ago

Ares84, your post scares me.

Not only do you think it's okay to exclude others just because they choose to use the discussion forums in a different manner, you go ahead and say they are not right-minded, not normal and have low intelligence.

Being both intolerant and blatantly hypocritical does your integrity no favours! I hope you're not beyond seeing your own folly, here.

Also, your interpretation of freedom of speech is very worrying!

reply

[–] pol-edra 14 years ago

+1. Very scary. It's a good thing ares84 has no power over us! You and I would probably end up in the first wagon of abnormal people being deported from imdb...

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] Ares84 14 years ago

I'm not trying to get people away from the IMDB forums. It seams like I'm speaking a different language because no one understands what I'm trying to say.

I think if you feel the need to talk about something than be positive. If you feel the need to critisie than give CONSTRUCTIVE criticism that isn't disrespectful or rude.

All I would like to see from people who comment on any movie or series is to be a little bit more polite and respectful. It is much more pleasing to read constructive criticism that isn't rude but reading "This series sucks @ss, that kind who plays Arthur looks like a homo and this series should have never happend" etc...is just not very nice to see.

I think I expect too much of people because clearly some of you don't even understand the concept of being rude and disrespectful.

reply

[–] mungo- 14 years ago

No, you're not getting it, Ares84.

Whilst those you mention are criticising the show, you're here criticising the people. Again, you say they are not right-minded, not normal and have low intelligence. How is what you're saying here not disrespectful and rude?

It seems your actual problem lies in the language some members choose to excercise - it has nothing to do with having lack of intelligence or being abnormal. It is just a preference that you have. You are well within your rights to express it, but your time, I think, would be better served understanding that the world does not in fact revolve around you!

reply

[–] spalomares 14 years ago

@Ares84, I understand and I agree with you. Don't waste your time on the IMDb trying to explain logic, it's lost here and it will be turned against you for pretty much no reason, but to create a needless arguement. Just, express your thoughts and leave it at that for the like minded people to concur, the normal people to dissagree in a respectful manner, and ignore the creepy haters. There is a difference between hatred & dissagreeing, haters do not understand that difference. Granted I do believe it is a waste of time to stalk a board ( and it's members ) that harbors something you hate with a passion, but it's their life & time to waste, not yours.....happy posting.

"This one grew up in all the right places; I don't know whether the kill it or lick it." Kate/TW

reply

[–] cbrugette 14 years ago

Horrors! Someone may actually take umbrage at the snarky posts calculated to cause rancor, or, at least, offense to other posters. Perhaps you should allow others the latitude you claim for yourself, and let them have the "freedom of speech" to express their opinions in ways that may offend you.

What exactly offended you? The mere suggestion that many people come here to use the anonymity afforded by the internet to exorcise their frustrations by posting poorly constructed and very dull on how much something sucks?

While it is nearly a universally acknowledged fact that a negative review is almost always more entertaining than a positive one; it only holds true if said review has some style and wit. "This crap sucks out loud through its ears," may qualify as an opinion, it is not a critique, nor even a review. If you want to cause offense, at least, but some effort into it.

Ares84 I, too, thought the show was pretty good and thought your post a carefully worded, thoughtful opinion.

I conclude by noting that I am an abnormal, rarely in my right mind, stupid dullard. Yawn.

reply

[–] rustynail925 14 years ago

First off the story isnt good. There is no sense of direction.
The casting of Arthur is a bad choice and i also dont like the character of arthur.
the ambient/setting looks like a small set.
the acting is also bad.

The only good thing was the opeing song

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] clockworkcherry 14 years ago

I can't believe people are STILL investing so much time & energy into complaining about the show. It's gone, people! Don't kick it when it's down. Move on. Let someone who had a good time with it have a good time with it. Geez!

reply

[–] pol-edra 14 years ago

Who's preventing anyone who had a good time with it from having a good time with it??? And how can someone complaining about the show diminish in any way the good time others had watching it?

Reading some posters' comments regarding all the hate, all the disrespect etc..., you'd think that's all there's ever been on this board. It's not. Every time a new episode was shown, there were dozens of interesting threads weighing the pros and cons, the strengths and weaknesses of characters and plots, the possible sources and influences (medieval or other) behind this or that aspect, speculations as to what would happen next... all along the development of season 1. Sure, now the season (and the series) is over, such detailed arguments have subsided, as they always do, on all other boards, once a show, or a movie, has been over for a while. But it's not like there haven't been meaningful conversations before; and many of those were thanks to people who disagreed with each other, who were of different minds, and thank God for that! People who agree have nothing much to say to each other. If you only want to read about people who love the show, just like you, then don't come to a forum; found a fan-club.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] clockworkcherry 14 years ago

If you only want to read about people who love the show, just like you, then don't come to a forum; found a fan-club.

I don't really care to find a fan club, and negative comments generally don't bother me. But when I continue to see people go out of their way to trash the show, even now after it's cancellation (to the point where they antagonize the fans), it gets my goat.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, pol. I've seen people whose sole purpose on the imdb message boards is to troll around and leave immature, anti-Camelot comments on pro-Camelot threads. And I think, "Crikey! WHY are they still going at it?!"

reply

[–] pol-edra 14 years ago

I get what you say newtonion. For the record, my fan-club comment was not directed at any poster in particular either, it was meant as a general "you", not an address to anyone here.

Of course baseless bashing can be a pain. Why do people do that, or anything else as useless and fruitless? But I'm afraid wondering at their motivations is just as fruitless. We just can't know, can we?

My view of the discussions on this board may be warped by my natural optimism, but I don't think this board has been uncommonly polluted by trolls, especially compared to other boards. Sure, here and there, some people popped up to leave a very laconic negative comment and run off, but not to the point of it becoming the rule or preventing other, better-worded criticisms and reviews (whether positive or negative). Maybe that's just me... and the fact that I remember discussions that occurred here episode by episode, and not just the scarce ones since the season has come to an end. The board does seeem less interesting now. Maybe we'll come up with more interesting topics once more new viewers join, or when old viewers start rewatching the show? I know I will at some point, and maybe then I'll have new points of discussions to bring up?

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] clockworkcherry 14 years ago

Thanks for the mature response, pol-edra. You're obviously not one of the "baseless bashers." But I know I've seen them. They attack anyone who has anything positive to say about the show, and it's getting old. Especially now that the show is over.

I'm surprised there aren't more Netflix viewers popping up. *shrug* Oh well. I can't say I blame them. I wouldn't be too keen on watching a cancelled show.

reply

[–] jeffsh 14 years ago

With regards to the OP - I thought the actor was mis-cast as well until i thought that they did want to display his youthful transgressions better as well as trying to show the growth. I dont thin kthey were successful in doing so.

As for the OP's theories on who should post, how they should post and such. In principle I see where you're coming form, but you are waiting ur time thinking you know have all the right answers. humans are humans they come in all shapes and sizes, and have differing opinions. Do I like the nasty critical demeaning way some people post? No, norr can I control it just cause I think its wrong. What I can control is me. i ignore their comments or try and reply with what I think is common sense. Am I perfect, not by a long shot, I get emoinally involved at times just like the rest of us.

Its good you got it off ur chest by posting the thought, but I doubt you'll ever get anywhere with any kind of enforcement of your wishes.

-only uneducated minds are not open to any ideas other than their own.

reply

[–] gregoryland8 14 years ago

And this is why i begin to hate IMDB.

A post was "very scary" because..... he expressed his opinion in hoping people would be a bit nicer and shut the F up about how they dislike a show... I agree with him. I wish there werent F'ing hundreds of Hate threads, and if people didnt like a film or show, set up an ANTIMD or something, ( anti imdb btw).

America was not discovered by Americans - shame on them.

reply

[–] mungo- 14 years ago

@gregoryland8

Anti imdb? you make no sense.

It's a great thing that people are able to express how much they like or dislike a show on here.

It seems like you'd be better off on the Camelot facebook fan page...

reply

[–] clockworkcherry 14 years ago

I really don't think everyone hated the show, though. It's averaging a respectable 7.3 at imdb, with 24% giving Camelot a rating of 10. Unfortunately, the haters have the loudest voices--that seems true for most things in life.

reply

[–] mungo- 14 years ago

@newtonion

Most of those ratings came right after the first episode. Because it was a special preview episode and aired a couple of months in advance, a lot of ratings came in solely for that one episode. Sure imdb scores in general aren't a great measure, but in this instance I think it was even worse.

But yeah, of course not everyone hates the show.

Unfortunately, the haters have the loudest voices--that seems true for most things in life

Perhaps them voices be louder 'cos they's crampin' yo' flow, bro'.

reply

[–] NKFan 14 years ago

imo they saved the best episode until last
overall, a slow moving affair with a badly cast King(wimp?) Arthur
i won't mourn it's passing....

reply

[–] Bran_McNobre 13 years ago

Damn...

I just discovered, by coming to this forum, that the show's cancelled...

Definitely not the best show ever created - it had quite a lot of problems quite obvious has the episodes advanced - but still it had some "heart" behind it and a couple of cool details here and there. It would be cool to know there was a "The Tudors"-style-wannabe series for the arturian legend..

Yes, zero medieval authenticity, but a sunday afternoon guilty pleasure nonetheless! And now that autumn is coming..

A shame.

reply

[–] pol-edra 13 years ago

"It would be cool to know there was a "The Tudors"-style-wannabe series for the arturian legend."

I could not agree more. This is more or less how they advertised the show, hence my sore disappointment. It might not have been so bad, had they handled the promotion differently. I might even have really enjoyed the series, in the guilty pleasure department, as you say (the way I enjoyed the BBC's Robin Hood). But this show was really a mess from beginning to end, and I just couldn't get over what it was not and what it shame it was.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] karthur255 13 years ago

yes there are multiple reasons they cast this guy as arthur, first off, arthur wasnt the butch heman guy everyone thinks, at least not until much later, he had the build of a scrawny boy(original arthur was a stableboy who was usually downtrodden) second, it has been mentioned by multiple sources that he was very much influenced by his other head when it came to dealing with women in general. and another thing, this guy is one of the best actors out of the bunch in both ability and class, which is more than can be said for some of the reviewers. as someone who has studied arthurian lore since i was 7(18 years) and read hundreds of variations of the stories, i find this to be so much more accurate to the time period, the story, and the spirit of arthurian legend, so you negative reviewers can go suck on a dead dogs b***s

reply

[–] pol-edra 13 years ago

The "original" Arthur was not a downtrodden stableboy. You're probably thinking of young Arthur in TH White's The Sword in the Stone (and its Disney adaptation). That was in 1938.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] karthur255 13 years ago

actually t.h. white's stable-boy is based off of the welsh version of the story (which i give a lot of credence too considering Arthur was supposedly from that neck of the woods) that is still told word of mouth to this day, and is considered one of their cultural classics. and sometimes he wasn't even a stable-boy, other times he was an orphan who was begging at the festival that housed the tournament, or some other variety of unfortunate uneducated little boy. the point is he is never depicted as butch except in the movie Excalibur, in most stories he was at most competent with a sword, but still had to rely on its magic more than himself. the Kent variation of the story is actually slightly closer to the depiction they set in the show(the pretty-boy, always sleeping around bit) , and depending on how many children they had planned on Arthur having, i could narrow it down further

reply

[–] pol-edra 13 years ago

I'm not sure I understand you entirely. You're talking about local folkloric stories about Arthur, right? Oral traditions? How does that make them the "original" Arthur? What you describe sounds very much like fairytale motifs, and folklorists generally agree that fairytales derive from legends, not the other way around (that is, in the case of fairytales and legends sharing common characters; obviously not ALL fairytales need have a legendary background). There's little reason, if that is the case, to consider the young stableboy as more "original" than the warrior clan leader of, say, Culhwch and Olwen. Especially as it would be extremely hard to date a fairytale or an oral tradition. But maybe I misunderstood you entirely.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] karthur255 13 years ago

its true that its hard to date, though to be honest all the "legends" as you put them are merely the act of putting words to paper several centuries after the fact, in other words, the opposite of the fairy tales being derived from legend, the legend was actually built off the skeletons of several orally handed down fairy tales, but what makes the welsh area a higher probability of originality is that its widely agreed by arthurian scholars that arthurs origin point was in wales(via tracing of coat of arms of families in the region) and while its true that that is no definitive proof, it allows leaning toward that school of thought. to put it very clearly, the storytellers that are uninfluenced by the writings of mallory, white, geoffrey of monmouth, etc, are more likely to have kernels of truth to the story, whereas other tales(for example Culhwch ac Olwen) briefly mention him at all, though they do at least offer a region of the country that narrows down the list of camelot location possibilities, and even that account places him as more politician than warrior, as Culhwch had to blackmail his way from the gates of camelot to the moment arthur granted him his boon. A warrior king, such as some aforementioned authors portrayed arthur, would have killed the little rat. instead, on the threat of a political slander campaign, hes granted access to arthurs castle, hall, table, and is granted the boon of his aid via several knights to achieve his quest. by the way, yes i do ramble and this is nowhere near a structured text as i prefer to shoot around all over the place in conversation in any arena, if that is confusing i apologize

reply

[–] pol-edra 13 years ago

Do you have any reference for that Welsh version of the story in which Arthur is a stable-boy please? I think I need to check for myself, because I find it hard to follow your train of thoughts. For example, I do agree with you (like nearly anybody else in the Arthurian field) that the Welsh material is of the highest import to anyone looking for a pre-Galfridian Arthur. However, I fail to see how you can then discard Culhwch and Olwen (which is precisely both Welsh and pre-Galfridian), or view its Arthur as more of a politician than a warrior-king (contrary to later, more feudal, King Arthurs, such as the French Vulgate's or Malory's, this Arthur does go on the quest, he does not remain at court while young knights go on adventures), or reduce the episode of Culhwch and the porter to "the threat of a political slander campaign", disregarding the recurrence of such a highly symbolic and recurrent scene in the early medieval tradition or the other threat, which is that of a magical, "killer scream" curse. I'm afraid I start out as so far away from your views that there is little chance you might convince me, or I you. But thank you for replying anyway, as I would very much like to know more about that stable-boy thing you mentioned and which is, I must confess, entirely new to me.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] karthur255 13 years ago

the text i was referencing is actually rarely transcribed, however there were a few results when i googled it "The boy's Mabinogion" and it is considered the oldest story that we have about arthur, older even than historia brittanica. and yes, this is the same script that mentions the other story that we disagree about.

reply

[–] pol-edra 13 years ago

There's obviously some big misunderstanding here: "The Boy's Mabinogion" is a 19th century retelling of the Mabinogion, meant, as the title suggests, for juvenile readers. It is by no means a faithful translation of the Welsh material. If you took it for genuine medieval material, I no longer wonder that we did not understand each other.

By "historia brittanica" I suppose you mean the Historia Brittonum, attributed to Nennius? It is generally dated to ca. 800, which as far as written material is concerned makes it older than Culhwch (the oldest of the Mabinogion's Arthurian tales) which, although known from a rather late manuscript, is thought on linguistic terms to have been first written down as early as the 11th century. Of course, it might have originated earlier than that orally, but so might the Historia. There's no way of knowing that. The Arthurian tales in the Mabinogion are considered indeed as the oldest EXTANT Arthurian material, and they are also the earliest such material in WELSH; it does not mean it is older than the Historia (the Historia is simply disregarded, in that respect, because its allusions to Arthur are scarce and short: a list of 12 battles, and two "wonders" of the Isle of Britain; on a sidenote, it cannot beat the Mabinogion at being the earliest Welsh material, since it is in Latin...).

If you want to read the "real" Mabinogion tales, you may want to look for Lady Charlotte Guest's translation (the first one, in the 1840s, easy to find online) or one of the more recent ones as, for example, the Penguin Classics edition. There's also a translation published by the University of Berkeley (no stableboy young Arthur in any of them). Either one of those is used by Arthurianists, they all have their merits. But Sidney Lanier's "Boy's Mabinogion" is no more medieval than John Steinbeck's "The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights": both are modern retellings/adaptations of medieval texts.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] karthur255 13 years ago

yes i realize that, and yes i misspelled brittonum,(i did have about a quarter bottle of tequilla in me when i typed that, as evidenced that i went back and edited my last message, i was merely giving a google locatable title in which others who might be interested in looking this up would find it, though to be honest, reading the google search version of it was almost painful, with all the computer symbols interrupting the text and generally making a nice story rather ugly with all the mixup on the screen. but thats by the by. and in the original text, what makes it apparant that arthur was considered common(stableboy/squire/orphan) and the thing that branched the stories along those lines was that as arthur speaks of his past he says he is an only child, and mentions neither father nor mother, and when he speaks of his adventures, he speaks instead of another knight that geoffrey of monmouth misplaced timeline wise, in other words, speaking of adventure through the eyes of a squire(an easy job to land back then if history serves) thus giving the stableboy story credence

reply

[–] pol-edra 13 years ago

It might turn out all very interesting if only it wasn't so vague; I hope when you're no longer hung over you might be able to provide some references: when/where does Arthur speak of his childhood? In which tale? What other knight?
I re-read Culhwch yesterday (Guest translation); I can't find any trace of any of those things you point out, and since you insist they're in the Mabinogion and are the "earliest Arthurian material", I didn't bother re-reading the other Mabinogion Arthurian tales, which are all later than Culhwch (in which, BTW, Arthur's parents may be unnamed, but he has kin "on his mother's side" and "on his father's side" aplenty, like many other characters; there's nothing there to suggest any kind of lonely, orphaned childhood, nor of being a lowly squire at some point, although that would stand to reason if Arthur were a real-life medieval prince and not a literary/legendary Dark Ages warrior-lord: squires were apprentice-knights IRL; but still, a stableboy is a far cry from a squire...)

I'm beginning to think you're either making that up, or slowly realizing you got something wrong but won't admit it. If you know something, then share it in some useful way: quotes, refs, material that one can verify and analyze for oneself. I'm not demanding page numbers in particular editions, but a title would be a start! You bragged in your first post that you'd "studied arthurian lore since [you] w[ere] 7"; although it is beyond me how anyone aged 7 can "study" such a complex topic, I would expect you, now that you're grown up and you've spent, according to your own words, 18 years studying the subject, to be able to back up your arguments with precise references. So far you have misnamed Nennius's Historia, mixed up your dating of the Mabinogion vs. Nennius, and referred me to an American 19th century children's book in support of your "earliest Welsh Arthurian motif" regarding Arthur's childhood. It's really beginning to look bad.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] karthur255 13 years ago

the lady of the fountain is the story in which it is mentioned, and as for the relations on his mothers side and fathers side, bear in mind they didnt acknowledge arthur until after he was crowned(not after merlin announced him, after being crowned) and i count from age 7 as thats the age i was when i first started looking stuff up on the side whenever i wasnt bogged down with school work. i was also mostly researching the possible locations of arthurian events could have taken place.(for example the battle of camlann was with 2 days march from the white cliffs of dover, making the most likely location somewhere around Guildford, which is about 2 days further march from where i suspect camelot was located but i dont have definitive knowledge as to that location, merely going off of logical strategic reaction and timing for the period my suspicions of where badon hill include mostly a variety of locales in the yorkshire dales) i also have a lot of these stories from my great grandparents who were immigrants from wales, and as you said, these are word of mouth stories, if arthur existed it was likely in the late 600's when hardly anybody actually knew how to write, thereby reducing all such tales to the same level of word of mouth

reply

[–] pol-edra 13 years ago

Finally! Thank you! I shall re-read the Lady of the Fountain with great interest, although a quick browse didn't pick up anything about Arthur's childhood or memories of past adventures. But I'll look into it.
I'm afraid however, even if something does turn up, there won't be any reason to consider it as of particularly early origin. Owain or the lady of the Fountain dates back to the 13th century, it's the Golden Age of chivalric romances, not its birth, and it's little wonder it looks a lot like Chrétien's Yvain. Arthurian tales travelled throughout all of Europe during that period, producing hybrids of local tales and foreign sources of inspiration. Also, although the motif of Arthur's fosterage and accession to the throne as an unknown young man appeared around that time in the Vulgate Cycle, there is no trace of it in Owain, which does not concern itself with Arthur's coming of age and takes place years afterwards. Even less so in Culhwch, which was written down two centuries earlier than our earliest mention of that motif. So there is no way this motif can be of any relevance to the mention of Arthur's kinsmen in those texts.
I find your late 600s dating extermely surprising. Of course any precise date for Badon and Camlann is always strongly debated, but I never heard of anyone placing Arthurian events so late; historians generally argue for the late 400s/first half of the 500s. You're saying at least 100-150 years later? Any reason for that?

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] karthur255 13 years ago

the basis for the 600s is mostly due to economic, and agricultural demands for expansion in the Saxon countries, in the early 600's the Saxon's and other Nordic countries were beginning to build their own version of the empire, the first few attempts of which were toward their favorite place to raid, the British isles. however, they didnt actually take large portions of england until the around 630 a.d., (they did have territories, but for the most part were kept in check until 625-630, meaning that aggressive expansion was prevented by others more native to the area(romanized brits for the most part, maybe a few people who could claim pure descendency from the woad culture) also, while i cant remember the script i read it in, i remember reading the name Ceola of Wessex in the past tense as if he were a scourge on the country from Sir Ector's youth, and while his supposed son cynegils takes no place in arthurian legend, its often mentioned in history that the rulers of wessex didnt like other saxxons, so somewhat unsurprising that he was unwilling to aid other saxxons

reply

[–] pol-edra 13 years ago

I'm afraid we're definitely not going to see eye to eye on Arthurian matters, whether historical or literary. Good luck with your research, and good luck convincing anyone of its interest.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] loco_73 13 years ago

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

reply

[–] knghtmr3 11 years ago

This show was *beep* terrible, if you can stomach more than a few minutes of this Arthur you're seriously retarded.

reply