MovieChat Forums > Camelot (2011) Discussion > I was dissapointed at first, now I'm pis...

I was dissapointed at first, now I'm pissed off (spoilers included)

posted 14 years ago by Mad_Twinkie
8 replies | jump to latest

I started watching this series even though my best friend told me not to, him being a great fan of the legend of King Arthur, he stopped watching after Arthur's first scene.

The costumes are stunning, the settings are awesome, the music is nice, but the "liberties" the writers took are appalling.

My first opinion of the show: It's made by the same team that made The Tudors. They took a big chance in casting JRM for the role of H8, a decisión many people hated, and yet it worked because H8 is not a liked character to begin with. When you cast a sex symbol for the part of H8 and you dislike him, he's probably doing something right. They took the same risk with Jamie Campbell what's-his-name. But when you dislike King Arthur on a show inspired by the legend of King Arthur, we have a problem.

It's not Jamie's fault, his problem is his lack of experience, when put beside Joseph Fiennes, you can tell Joseph is miles above Jamie in the experience department. With some extra work, I am sure Jamie can become experienced and become a good actor. I hope he does. But the poor guy, even with all the experience in the world, how can he satisfyingly play such a poor written Arthur? My God, what have they done to this character we grew up to love and admire?

Episode 1: An ok episode, except Arthur sleeps with his brother's girlfriend, blames her for it, and then proceeds to mock his brother by saying "Things happen. Twice." Did his brother need to know that much? It was like verbally giving him the finger. And his brother tells him something like this: "Things come easy to you" and I thought "Yes, even your pardon, Kay".

Episode 2: Another ok episode.

Episode 3: Guinivere dates Leontes (whoever he is) for 10-15 years, is engaged to him for 5 years, and never puts out. She then proceeds to give her treasure to some guy she's met 3 times before. On her wedding day!!! Then she stains the wedding bedsheets with blood she got from a dead dog that was killed by an arrow and happened to lie there in the forest (how convenient, my question is, who would put an arrow through a dog just because?). Had it been me, I'd have cut my pinky toe or something rather than putting blood from a dead dog in my bed, but to each it's own. But all this didn't bother me as much as Arthur sleeping with the betrothed of a man that owes him nothing and yet saved his life. Does this guy have no values or what? Nothing to do with chivalry and loyalty and all those great values shared at the round table.

Episode 4: This was a cool episode, I was finally thinking "This is getting better" and then in a bad twist of things, Merlin murders the blacksmith that forged the king's sword, not even a magical sword or a relic of any relevance, no, just a very well made sword, but he doesn't kill him for the sword, he kills him over who gets to deliver the sword? And then he is considering his actions when the blacksmith's daughter takes the sword, that in my book belongs to her since at that point no payment had been made over the sword, and Merlin runs after her, freezes the lake, she falls to the water, he could've stopped the magic, but no, he runs to her, she breaks the ice with the sword, and he... takes... the sword. Why didn't he take her hand as a decent man would've done? No, he takes the sword, and instead of using magic to counteract the freezing of the lake, no, he bangs the ice with the hilt of the sword (I don't get how a 12 year old girl managed to break the ice underwater and a grown man can't break it from outside) and even though he is failing, he does it over and over again until the girl drowns. And then he gets beat up (like that's gonna bring back the blacksmith and his daughter) and then he proudly presents the sword to the king. I'd be embarassed to give him that sword with the history it already has.

I have 6 episodes to watch, but with Arthur ruined and Merlin ruined, I don't know what to expect now.

[–] pol-edra 14 years ago

I experienced a somewhat similar evolution, going from meh in the first episodes to ARGH! and banging my head on the walls as the series unfurled. Couple differences on our impressions though:

- I was not in the least disturbed by Arthur's "affair" with Kay's girl in episode 1. I never took her to be Kay's steady GF, more of a girl he had banged at some point. Kay's lack of resentment seemed to me clear indication that it was no big deal, hence Arthur's carefree teasing of his brother. The incident was however interesting in establishing Arthur as your average teenager, bent on fun and nothing serious. Hence the shock and difficulty in adjusting, later on, when the crown is pushed on him. That, it seems to me, was the whole point of this particular Arthur. Too bad they botched it later on.

- The affair with Guinevere was stupid, I entirely agree with you that it made no sense at all. Minor detail though: I think the animal was a deer, not a dog; it is slightly more likely to find a dead deer pierced with an arrow in the forest than a dead dog (though hunting accidents costing the life of dogs are not unheard of).

- It seemed pretty clear to me that Merlin's magic escaped him, that he panicked and entirely lost control. He could not reverse the gradual freezing over of the lake, and the ice thickened faster than he could break it.

But other than that, there is a huge problem with the characterizations of Merlin and Arthur in this series: we are told that Merlin is a clever schemer and that he had Arthur raised away from his real parents to become a better king than his father; we are told that Arthur is a good kid who was well raised by virtuous and loving foster-parents. And yet we never see that. Everything we see seems to indicate the opposite. Merlin keeps making stupid mistakes no one in his right mind would (I'm not talking about the magic, I'm talking about other things, don't want to enter into too many details because I don't want to spoil you). And Arthur never really displays any special aptitude for the duties of king. Anybody else, it seems, would make a better job of it: Kay, Leontes, Gawain, even, some might argue, Morgan. And how could he? How could anyone think that having him grow up as a regular bloke could prepare him for the job better than the specialized education he would have received from his younger age as a prince? The whole premise of the show is ludicrous. That's my beef with it, not that they changed the legend (I actually like that).

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

[–] Mad_Twinkie 14 years ago

- I was not in the least disturbed by Arthur's "affair" with Kay's girl in episode 1. I never took her to be Kay's steady GF, more of a girl he had banged at some point. Kay's lack of resentment seemed to me clear indication that it was no big deal, hence Arthur's carefree teasing of his brother. The incident was however interesting in establishing Arthur as your average teenager, bent on fun and nothing serious. Hence the shock and difficulty in adjusting, later on, when the crown is pushed on him. That, it seems to me, was the whole point of this particular Arthur. Too bad they botched it later on.

I understand they wanted to show Arthur as an average teenager that acts before he thinks and is very lightheaded. However it doesn't work for me since he is such an average teenager he is bound to make many many many mistakes. Arthur is supposed to be special, and at this point, Leontes and Kay would make better kings than Arthur. And values (or lack of values) have nothing to do with age, Kay would have never done that to Arthur.

- The affair with Guinevere was stupid, I entirely agree with you that it made no sense at all. Minor detail though: I think the animal was a deer, not a dog; it is slightly more likely to find a dead deer pierced with an arrow in the forest than a dead dog (though hunting accidents costing the life of dogs are not unheard of).

That was a deer??? My mistake, lol, it looked like a dog to me, lol. It makes even less sense that someone would shoot a deer and not take it home. Oh, I can pretend the hunter is somewhere around lost in the woods looking for the prey he just shot.

The whole Merlin thing and him loosing control with magic, I can't stand it. I like how they show how much magic is costing Morgan, and for the first 3 episodes, they never mention this, but it is implied Merlin's magic cost him dearly, you can see it physically, and you can see his experience comes from that cost. That's what bothers me so much, just as Arthur, Merlin is supposed to be special, grand, not an average guy that would loose control over such a tiny matter. It's like seeing a recovered alcoholic loose control over a new year toast after 25 years being sober. Merlin is supposed to be beyond that. That's what makes him so special, so special that he has a say on who is supposed to rule the country, so special that people respect his decisions.

we are told that Merlin is a clever schemer and that he had Arthur raised away from his real parents to become a better king than his father

I get the idea, he would be raised with a clean and pure heart and not the ambition by those close to the crown. Were it as easy as that, but the result is an average teenager (tantrums and all) trying to unify the country.

Thank you for your opinions, great post.

[–] poem 13 years ago

I understand they wanted to show Arthur as an average teenager that acts before he thinks and is very lightheaded.

I'm sorry but to me this first scene was an extreme pain. People in the middle ages wouldnt act like that. Why ? Because, before the pill, sex would result in children, and women who arent virgins when they want to marry would be in real trouble.

Already in the first scene they butchered any hope this would be even vaguely, make-belief historic (as King Athur stories typically are, even if they have wizards and witches).

---
Always listen to your own advice.

[–] pol-edra 13 years ago

You seem to be under the impression that before the invention of the pill or modern condom, sex before marriage was a very unlikely exception to the rule, because people were too afraid of unwanted pregnancies. Really, that is your belief??? Then I suggest you do some reading on sexuality in the Middle Ages. There is quite a gap between the morals claimed by a certain society (not just the medieval one) and what people do in practice. In addition, "before the pill, sex would result in children" is really a weird turn of phrase. I don't know what you knowledge of sexuality is, and it's not my place to explain such things to you, but no, before or after the pill, sex does not necessarily result in children. As for the virginity of brides-to-be: the trouble they would be in would depend on a whole lot of factors, including their family's network, social status and wealth. But those are all historical considerations, and they are of little to no consequence regarding this series, which is clearly pure fantasy.

I wonder what gave you the impression that King Arthur stories are "typically make-belief historic" though. I find the historical approach of the Arthurian legend, whether in novels or movies, a rather atypical one, on the contrary. Or a rather recent one at least. Such masterpieces as TH White's Once and Future King or Thomas Berger's Arthur Rex, or John Boorman's Excalibur movie, for example, are highly unhistorical. The historical approach really is a post-WW2, even late 20th century thing (later on screen than in novels). It's definitely not a medieval thing, at least not within our modern definition of history.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

[–] mcsanders3 13 years ago

"but he doesn't kill him for the sword, he kills him over who gets to deliver the sword? "

Not exactly. If you recall, just before this scene, Merlin wakes from a dream in which the blackmisth kills Arthur. So Merlin was saving Arthurs life by stopping a murder he'd seen in a vision.

[–] pol-edra 13 years ago

Merlin never saw the blacksmith's face in his dream. That was his own conclusion, the one that made sense to him given the context. To the viewer, it was open to interpretation: you could either question his judgement or go with it. Personnally, I thought his fear made sense, but he let it cloud his judgement, leading to his poor handling of the situation (but was there a better one?).

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

[–] poem 13 years ago

Err.

EVERY single writer of King Athur stories has taken big liberties. EVERY time King Athur is reinvented by someone its substantly different from the previous approaches. THAT was definitely NOT the problem of this show.

The main problem of this show was that there was just no point in this specific retelling. None at all. It was just extremely ahistoric, but had nothing to tell todays people either. It was just a big horrible pile of extreme b***s***.

Personally I soon called it the Eva Green show, because that was the only thing that was great about it - the acting of Eva Green.

---
Always listen to your own advice.

[–] MedievalFantasy 13 years ago

Well, with some of your points:

-It wasn't a dog, it was a deer, heh. Don't see how you can get the two mixed up. And if you listened, Gwen wasn't really interested in Leontes, at least marriage. Her mother basically set it up so she would be protected by him. So she didn't lay her heart out to him. She's a girl, and since Jamie is suppose to be some beautiful man that girls will swoon for, she must have had an urge just to do it once with him, to get it out of her system. She felt like she cheated Leontes after, but hey, it happens in the legend, albeit with Lancelot.

-"The Lady In The Lake" is one of my favorite episodes. Merlin didn't want Caliburn or whatever the blacksmith's name was to deliver the sword to Arthur because he planned on killing him with Excalibur. And the sword was pretty badass, and made specifically for him, and being indestructible, so Merlin wanted Arthur to wield it as a symbol of his kingship. That's why he wanted it so badly. He didn't mean to kill the blacksmith, his magic escaped through him, as he was being tempted to use it. And with Excalibur (the daughter), he was in a... trance, kind of, with his magic. He froze the lake, and didn't know she would fall off the boat into the water. When she stuck her arm through the ice, you could see it freezing quickly and how thick it was becoming, so he couldn't pull her out, he could only grab the sword as it was completely out of the water. And he didn't beat himself up to "bring back the blacksmith and daughter", he did it because he thought he deserved it for what he did to those two.

Winter Is Coming.
A Dance With Dragons July 12th.