Well it starts tonight here in Australia, but has anyone seen eps yet from the series? Any initial thoughts? Perhaps a comment or a quick review?
Forget everything you've read or heard about the Arthurian saga and then just enjoy it, Anthony Head is great but it almost rivals the new Robin Hood series for its inability to stick to the original story.
Unlike Robin Hood though I found it enjoyable.
Ok I have seen a few of these now (about 3 or 4- just seen the Lancelot one)and I dont mind the story as it exists or the acting or whatever but the pretense that it somehow has anything to do with Athurian legends & stories makes me writhe. It just feels to me, someone who likes the arthurian legend, that they are just flipping the bird at that whole literary tradition.
Why dont they just call it something else and use different names. I mean seriously a story about a kingdom with a king who hates sorcery, his prince son who is good with a sword & is destined for greatness, his sidekick helper who secretly uses magic to protect the prince (and his various wise advisers), an evil sorceress who wants to destroy the kingdom, some romantic twists with a ward of the king and her servant- all fine stuff for a story but nothing to do with arthurian stories.
Quite apart from the merlin as a gen-y kid (who constantly 'breaks the rules of stuffy old Uther becasue "the rules are wrong"') and who is Arthurs best bud.
I mean in the most recent one Lancelot is not of noble birth, uses a trick of deception to beat arthur in a sword fight then lies to take the oath of knighthood. Seriously What?@! The real story he is the son of a king, he is the greatest knight in the realm (including his honor--except when it realtes to guenevere)- which is tragically broken by his love/lust for his lords wife. (who by the way is not a plain serving maid who presumably later blossoms but is a princess who is the most beautiful woman in the world such beauty is enough to drive men slightly nuts). This too would be a good story but the story they choose to use seems to be just turning the legend upside down cos its cool---bleah.
anyway enough of my rant.
The new series is inoffensive fluff designed to appeal to a wide family audience, and on that basis it's actually good fun. Those expecting something dark and mythic in the tone of John Boorman's EXCALIBUR best look elsewhere, although MERLIN does make a few nods towards something darker and more interesting going on in the last few episodes. MERLIN's very inoffensiveness makes it more effective when it does something really interesting (most notably when we learn Nimueh's motivation for her vendetta against Uther, which is superbly handled).
That said, one thing that the series has done is shown how poorly informed people are about the myths, particularly Geoffrey of Monmouth's version of the legend which is the oldest coherent take on the story. Merlin was only inserted in Monmouth's original assembly of the Arthurian legend as 12th Century fanservice (his previous stories about Merlin as a sole, tragic figure had been a big hit with the nobility of the day)! A lot of the earlier legends which the Arthurian cycle draws on make zero mention of Merlin at all, and even in Monmouth Merlin is not Arthur's 'mentor' as he is often depicted, disappearing from the narrative after he encourages Unther to father the child on Igraine.
Similarly, Lancelot is totally missing from Monmouth and wasn't introduced to the legend until French versions started appearing fifty years or more later (Camelot itself is also absent from Monmouth and appears later on).
As a result, any cries of foul play or 'being unfaithful to the sources' by depicting Merlin and Arthur as the same age, or by having Lancelot as a commoner, are really just silly. The story has always shifted and changed over time to reflect different storyteller's agenda, and MERLIN is as valid a take on the story as any other.
For a really good 'realistic' take on the legend I also strongly recommend Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles trilogy of novels, which I am constantly amazed have not been snapped up to be made as a series of films.
The new series is inoffensive fluff designed to appeal to a wide family audience, and on that basis it's actually good fun. Those expecting something dark and mythic in the tone of John Boorman's EXCALIBUR best look elsewhere, although MERLIN does make a few nods towards something darker and more interesting going on in the last few episodes. MERLIN's very inoffensiveness makes it more effective when it does something really interesting (most notably when we learn Nimueh's motivation for her vendetta against Uther, which is superbly handled).
That said, one thing that the series has done is shown how poorly informed people are about the myths, particularly Geoffrey of Monmouth's version of the legend which is the oldest coherent take on the story. Merlin was only inserted in Monmouth's original assembly of the Arthurian legend as 12th Century fanservice (his previous stories about Merlin as a sole, tragic figure had been a big hit with the nobility of the day)! A lot of the earlier legends which the Arthurian cycle draws on make zero mention of Merlin at all, and even in Monmouth Merlin is not Arthur's 'mentor' as he is often depicted, disappearing from the narrative after he encourages Unther to father the child on Igraine.
Similarly, Lancelot is totally missing from Monmouth and wasn't introduced to the legend until French versions started appearing fifty years or more later (Camelot itself is also absent from Monmouth and appears later on).
As a result, any cries of foul play or 'being unfaithful to the sources' by depicting Merlin and Arthur as the same age, or by having Lancelot as a commoner, are really just silly. The story has always shifted and changed over time to reflect different storyteller's agenda, and MERLIN is as valid a take on the story as any other.
For a really good 'realistic' take on the legend I also strongly recommend Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles trilogy of novels, which I am constantly amazed have not been snapped up to be made as a series of films.
I have to admit I am no arthurian scholar. I consider the arthurian tradition to be comprised of a variety of stories (including the French ones) all the way up to Mallory in the late 15th century (and probably a bit beyond). I accept there are conflicting stories but Lancelot as a foreign noble (from the time he appears in the stories), Guenevere as a paragon of beauty etc are things that are pretty common to the stories from my recollection.
When the series was advertised here (in Australia) it was on the basis that it was a telling of the story of Arthur and was likened to LOTR movies and Harry Potter series (obviously due to their success and involving magic). I guess part of the reason I enjoyed those films is that they were fairly true to their source (I concede they had a much easier time of defining the true source as they came from one book).
I do have to disagree with you on one point. A view that any old story set in medieval times claiming to be the story of merlin cant be considered unfaithful to the sources because the arthurian myths developed in inconsistent fits and starts over centuries is IMO just silly : )
I guess we will just have to disagree on this.
I have read Cornwells Warlord Chronicles and loved them. Probably undermines my complaint about the Merlin series? But my recollection is that the choices he made for character differences were explained to my satisfaction. I too would love to see them made into a film. I am also enjoying his Alfred the Great series.
It is true that outside of the UK, MERLIN has been badly mis-marketed. In the USA it's airing on NBC at 8pm, which is a prime-time slot more usually alloted to things like LOST and HEROES, whilst MERLIN is definitely a family-friendly show, probably skewing towards the younger audience. As a result, I'm seeing lots of complaints about the show being juvenile, not featuring any blood during the battles or featuring pristine white sets (and teeth!), which are all a lot more valid if the viewer is expecting a more adult show.
Interestingly, the BBC themselves agree and are, slightly confusingly, simultaneously developing an 'adult' take on MERLIN with some former HBO staffers which could very well air whilst MERLIN (currently filming its second season) is still on the air.
I think those looking for a more adult, gritty and bloody fantasy TV series are going to get their wish (and more besides) when A GAME OF THRONES airs on HBO and the BBC in late 2010/early 2011 ;-)
Saw the Season 1 finale on SciFi this morning. Decided to rework my fiscal expenditures for the month to be able to pick up Dragon Lords of Melnibone. :D
At least John Barrowman wasn't in it!
YET...(drum roll please..)
I prefer my Merlin to be an old man and an adviser to Uther on the best was to screw his eneimes wives.
Is it the one with Sam Neill?
If yes, then prepare for a massive kitsch attack, it's enjoyable for what it is though, but it won't make you forget John Boorman's Excalibur.
Is it the one with Sam Neill?
Pretty sure this is the BBC series, not the American made-for-TV miniseries. Colin Morgan is Merlin. Giles is a magic-hating Uther.