Camelot - Starz Series - Spoiler • Collecting General • The Acaeum

The Acaeum Forums • Collecting General

Camelot - Starz Series - Spoiler
	Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2

Author

DiscoDadda
Prolific Collector

Posts: 208
Joined: Mar 22, 2011
Last Visit: Jun 15, 2026
Location: Steeler Country

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:07 pm

All-

First, stop reading if you do not want to find out details of this pathetic attempt at the Arthurian Legend.

I have watched the 1st set of episodes and was outraged at the "creative license" taken... and the abuse, lack of respect and general disregard for the legend.

A few of my issues:

1. The Sword in the Stone. This is a critical part of what makes Arthur The King of All Britons... in the series; The sword was placed in the stone at the top of the waterfall by Merlin several generations ago and he created the "myth" that whoever pulls the sword...... blah blah blah.... He thens tell Arthur how to do it... It was a "trick" or "gimmick" had nothing to do with the True King... The True Blood... being able to pull the sword... ANYONE COULD DO IT WHO KNEW THE TRICK... and the sword pulled from the stone WASN"T EXCALIBUR !!! it was a normal Piece of Crap Rusted Sword...... Arrrrgggghhhhhhhh.

2. They reversed Guenivere... Instead of Lancelot and Gunivere having an affair... They have Lancelot Marry Gunivere then Arthur Steals her from him.... Arrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhh.... This is critical because in the legend it leads King Arthur to cast aside his responibilities as King and Excalibur.... I have no idea how this abomination is going to resolve itself.... but it leads to the next comment.

3. Lady in the Lake... In the series the "Lady in the Lake" was the Murdered Daughter of the Murdered Sword Smith who made Excalibur... The poor girl Drowns, Merlin rescues the sword and gives it to King Arthur.... Then creates the Lady in the Lake Story... Merlin is a Liar a Trickster, a Fraud and worse a Child Killer.... Arrrrgggggggghhhhhhh.... So he gives Excalibur to King Arthur that has an innocents blood on it !!!! That is Screwed.

Anyway, all this is coming from a person who read Stienbecks King Arthur and The Knights of the Round Table 3 Times... My Sensibilities and Arthurian Lore have been violated.... I wonder what they are going to do with Modred.... and the Quest for the Holy Grail?

Is Nothing Sacred?!?!?!

Tom aka DiscoDadda

Blackmoor
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3601
Joined: Dec 20, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 13, 2026
Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:38 pm

Well it sounds like I will never seek out this series now

Games can get you through times of no money but money can not get you through times of no games!!

MetaSigma
** Banned **

Posts: 1213
Joined: Aug 04, 2009
Last Visit: Nov 02, 2013

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:39 pm

DiscoDadda wrote:Is Nothing Sacred?!?!?!

Tom aka DiscoDadda

Naw, not really. Not that anything ever was too sacred when it came to the Arthur legend. They've been "rebooting" this one for the past 1000 years.

My personal favorite version is the one where the KotRT are all Sarmatian cavalry, Merlin is a woad-encrusted witchdoctor, and Arthur is a Romano-British chieftain. But hey, I'm a social scientist so I like the attention to historical detail (as much as such a thing is possible).

But I do feel your rage. The version I grew up on has been twisted beyond recognizability. This Starz version sounds kind of like "4E" for Camelot.

Ithaca Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-

FormCritic
Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 30, 2022

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:43 pm

One mistake people often make is that there's only one Arthurian story arc.

There are (literally) thousands, and they differ widely from each other.

A true adherent to the Arthurian story would say, "Lancelot? Who's that?" "Camelot? What's that?" "Merlin? He's in the story? Why?" "Grail....?"

So, no, nothing is sacred.

"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

DiscoDadda
Prolific Collector

Posts: 208
Joined: Mar 22, 2011
Last Visit: Jun 15, 2026
Location: Steeler Country

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:50 pm

FormCritic wrote:One mistake people often make is that there's only one Arthurian story arc.

There are (literally) thousands, and they differ widely from each other.

A true adherent to the Arthurian story would say, "Lancelot? Who's that?" "Camelot? What's that?" "Merlin? He's in the story? Why?" "Grail....?"

So, no, nothing is sacred.

Perhaps I should restate... The Legend I subscribe to is the one detailed by Steinbeck and the Movie Excalibur... Which are essentially the same... and are the same ones "commonly" understood... yeah sure the "original" legend... was probably something like Beowulf in its "tone" but then brilliant authors got hold of the story and turned it into the story I adhere to... What really gets me is not a "different version" its the "opposite version"... It seems the purpose of this "version" simply to run roughshod over the generally accepted legend... Monty Python and the Holy Grail was more in line with the Legend...

Oh and King Arthur was terribly miscast... My daughter has more muscle than this guy... I could knock him over with an angry look....

Disco

jkason
Prolific Collector

Posts: 501
Joined: Jan 11, 2005
Last Visit: Oct 08, 2024
Location: Derby, CT

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:28 am

It's a TV show. Get a grip.

That being said, I intend to watch the series. It's a way to feed my fantasy appetite, and I enjoy watching how others interpret the legends.

I have watched Excalibur many times (my favorite movie), and seen King Arthur, but according to La Morte D'Artur, neither one comes even close.

As an aside, I'm watching Game of Thrones on HBO also. I haven't read the series yet, but just picked up a set of paperbacks at B&N.

Dave, get the barbarian in the corner a drink, quick!

FormCritic
Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 30, 2022

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:41 am

Actually, I totally agree with you, DiscoDadda.

It's annoying when TV people try to be clever when they could be awesome.

That's part of what happened to Lost and Battlestar Galactica.

I always wanna reach into the TV screen, grab the script and say:

ME: "OK, not bad for a bunch of faeries. Just let me fix this up for you and we'll have a real story. Oh, God...no. Cut that. No, forget the kid, the kick-boxing girl and the Ewok and hip old lady. OOOOkay. Here's they way it ought to be."

WRITERS: "Wow! Thank you Awesome Guy! Now our script rocks!"

ME: "Yeah, well, it ain't exactly that hard, guys." :roll:

"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

JasonZavoda
Long-Winded Collector
JG Valuation Board

Posts: 3823
Joined: Jul 12, 2007
Last Visit: Dec 17, 2021

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:48 am

FormCritic wrote:Actually, I totally agree with you, DiscoDadda.

It's annoying when TV people try to be clever when they could be awesome.

That's part of what happened to Lost and Battlestar Galactica.

I always wanna reach into the TV screen, grab the script and say:

ME: "OK, not bad for a bunch of faeries. Just let me fix this up for you and we'll have a real story. Oh, God...no. Cut that. No, forget the kid, the kick-boxing girl and the really funny old lady. OOOOkay. Here's they way it ought to be."

WRITERS: "Wow! Thank you Awesome Guy! Now our script rocks!"

ME: "Yeah, well, it ain't exactly that hard, guys."

''

I disagree, at least for LOST. I think Abrahms or whoever wrote that series had some good ideas and recognized that just presenting enough information to get the audiences imagination all stirred up filling in the blanks for themselves seems like an incredible way to start a series. It's just that these writers have only a pedestrian imagination of their own, so when it comes time to start answering the unawsered they falll on their faces. It takes a great writer and a great philosopher to be able to unscrew the unscrew-table and still leave the mysteries of the universe mysterious, and tell a damn good story while doing so.

"You get more with a kind word and an excruciator than with just a kind word."

sauromatian
Sage Collector

Posts: 2554
Joined: Jul 25, 2007
Last Visit: Jan 06, 2024
Location: Far Harad, Texas

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:01 am

DiscoDadda wrote:and the sword pulled from the stone WASN"T EXCALIBUR !!! it was a normal Piece of Crap Rusted Sword......

This is also true of many authentic Aurthurian stories from the Middle Ages. Mallory has both the stone story & the lake story for the origin of the sword(s). It's generally the first thing one finds when going from simplified, consolidated versions such as Steinbeck to the originals where the details don't agree. Plus, many critics see his adaption as a commentary on the US in Vietnam -is that truly faithful to the legend?

DiscoDadda
Prolific Collector

Posts: 208
Joined: Mar 22, 2011
Last Visit: Jun 15, 2026
Location: Steeler Country

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:33 am

jkason wrote:It's a TV show. Get a grip.

That being said, I intend to watch the series. It's a way to feed my fantasy appetite, and I enjoy watching how others interpret the legends.

I have watched Excalibur many times (my favorite movie), and seen King Arthur, but according to La Morte D'Artur, neither one comes even close.

As an aside, I'm watching Game of Thrones on HBO also. I haven't read the series yet, but just picked up a set of paperbacks at B&N.

If this was a movie or a book or a play... and they dismembered the story in such a way as to make it unrecognizable i would have the same reaction... a TV show... BTW what are you doing on a D&D blog anyway.... Just a TV show... BAH.

Also you should read the Game of Thrones ASAP... And watch as they take the Novel and "ADAPT" it to a "TV show" The way it should be done... Game of Thrones 1st 2 episodes... Thumbs Up from this Critic....

Disco

copycat
Sage Collector

Posts: 2736
Joined: May 31, 2007
Last Visit: Jul 09, 2026

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:12 pm

I say.... good. Its about time they took the established boredom of the Arthurian mythos and smacked it around, trying something actually somewhat different. I'm so damn tired of the good and kindly, yet eccentric Merlin who's o-so-powerful-yet-inept.... damn. Make him a rogue. Make him evil. Give Arthur some type of adversary he thinks is his best friend and then reveal Merlin was playing him the whole time... and then re-reveal that was a play.

Rehashing the humdrum leads to more humdrum.

Those who can, don't. Those who should not, do.

Invincible Overlord
Verbose Collector
JG Valuation Board
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1624
Joined: Aug 19, 2008
Last Visit: Aug 21, 2023
Location: Chicago, IL

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:04 pm

serleran wrote:I say.... good. Its about time they took the established boredom of the Arthurian mythos and smacked it around, trying something actually somewhat different. I'm so damn tired of the good and kindly, yet eccentric Merlin who's o-so-powerful-yet-inept.... damn. Make him a rogue. Make him evil. Give Arthur some type of adversary he thinks is his best friend and then reveal Merlin was playing him the whole time... and then re-reveal that was a play.

Rehashing the humdrum leads to more humdrum.

+1

It's refreshing to me to see Merlin as a cruel manipulator of life as we know it, and not as some lawful-gooddy goody.

And it has Eva Green in it. :wink:

RPGâ€™s, D&D in particular has had a major influence in my life. Itâ€™s bonded me together with life long friends...itâ€™s that bond in life not just as friends, but in our jokes, our mannerisms, and what we find funny. Invincible Overlord

DiscoDadda
Prolific Collector

Posts: 208
Joined: Mar 22, 2011
Last Visit: Jun 15, 2026
Location: Steeler Country

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:14 pm

Invincible Overlord wrote:
+1

It's refreshing to me to see Merlin as a cruel manipulator of life as we know it, and not as some lawful-gooddy goody.

And it has Eva Green in it.

I do not mind Merlin Manipulating Events... etc... But 2 things bother me...

#1. The Sword... Excalibur... The True King... Etc... only the True King can pull the sword... False.

#2. The Sword was made by some dude he kills then chases the daughter into the lake so she drowns... That is a bit too EVIL for me...

I do not mind a dose of realism from time to time... But come on... Arthur is on the side of good... Right? The only one in Character is Morgan... not to mention she's really smokin'

Disco

FormCritic
Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 30, 2022

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:08 pm

My recent Arthurian D&D campaign was set in a relatively historical Britain...as historical as magic and goblins will allow.

The time was the period of The Twelve Battles, when a young Arthur was fighting the Saxons.

My players especially liked Sir Bedivere, who was Arthur's main general. Bedivere would twist any order Arthur gave to allow the slaughter of more Saxons.

Bedivere would say things like:

"OK, men, Wulfgar has given us until sundown today to get out of Anglia. That means our truce lasts until sundown...which is unfortunate because some of you might get delayed on the road. That would mean you'd still be in Anglia when the truce expires. So, I'll see you at Camulodunum whenever you happen to make it back. Good luck!"

Or:

"Knights of the Round Table! Arthur has ordered us to spare any of the foe who want to surrender. But, of course, Saxons always fight to the death. You know what to do."

It was lots of fun.

"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

MetaSigma
** Banned **

Posts: 1213
Joined: Aug 04, 2009
Last Visit: Nov 02, 2013

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:13 pm

FormCritic wrote:My recent Arthurian D&D campaign was set in a relatively historical Britain...as historical as magic and goblins will allow.

Priceless

.

Yeah, that Sir Bedivere is a pistol.

Ithaca Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-

ScketreWhisp®
Prolific Collector

Posts: 683
Joined: Jun 25, 2007
Last Visit: Jun 03, 2020
Location: Bedford, TX

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:34 pm

I like the old Excalibur, but I also liked the King Arthur from 2004 with Clive Owen and wasn't there another one based on the roman lineage recently ???

I like them all.... even the book series that starts with Sleeping Dragon (Guardians of the Flame? .. even eludes to Merlin's origins)...

In any case, I love the Camelot series on Stars.

It gives a totally different perspective...

Even though we are only about 5-6 episodes into the series, you get the feeling that Merlin (who is very powerful) has discovered sometime in the past (hundreds of years ago) that even with all the power at his disposal, he can't be in control... so after learning this long ago ... he decided to create his "own" king and "own" kingdom by creating his myth of the King and what would follow and then waiting out the time for a few generations so it could unfold how he planned it....

Makes Merlin very complex and the writers haven't even said what I just said (maybe I gave them more credit and they have no clue) ...

The Sword of Mars (which is in the stone in the water fall), is said by legend to only be able to be removed by the one that would be King.... well, IF Merlin actually created this legend, he had to be sure the sword would not be removed... thus the "trick" (who would think while dangling from the waterfall to push the sword before they tried to pull it ?).. perfect "trick" ... and since Arthur removed the sword... he is King... so the legend is as it should be !

As to the Excalibur issue, Merlin didn't want to kill the sword smith, the freaking sword smith went all berserk on Merlin, what was he suppose to do ... and Merlin didn't really want to use his powers... he knows the evil price he will have to pay for them....

Then the daughter... come on, Merlin didn't "kill" her... he wanted the sword, she rows the boat out, he can't "walk on water" so he starts the freeze process and tells her to stay put... she tries to row away, gets caught in the ice, the boat breaks, she falls in the water as it's freezing... she killed herself and when trying to break through the ice from below.... up comes the hand from the lake with sword (like in Excalibur) and Merlin takes the sword and even tries to break the ice, but to no avail, his magic is too strong and she is now gone

So why tell such a dreadful story to Arthur, Merlin made the best out of a bad situation.... and the legend unfolds

DiscoDadda
Prolific Collector

Posts: 208
Joined: Mar 22, 2011
Last Visit: Jun 15, 2026
Location: Steeler Country

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:22 am

ScketreWhisp® wrote:I like the old Excalibur, but I also liked the King Arthur from 2004 with Clive Owen and wasn't there another one based on the roman lineage recently ???

I like them all.... even the book series that starts with Sleeping Dragon (Guardians of the Flame? .. even eludes to Merlin's origins)...

In any case, I love the Camelot series on Stars.

It gives a totally different perspective...

Even though we are only about 5-6 episodes into the series, you get the feeling that Merlin (who is very powerful) has discovered sometime in the past (hundreds of years ago) that even with all the power at his disposal, he can't be in control... so after learning this long ago ... he decided to create his "own" king and "own" kingdom by creating his myth of the King and what would follow and then waiting out the time for a few generations so it could unfold how he planned it....

Makes Merlin very complex and the writers haven't even said what I just said (maybe I gave them more credit and they have no clue) ...

The Sword of Mars (which is in the stone in the water fall), is said by legend to only be able to be removed by the one that would be King.... well, IF Merlin actually created this legend, he had to be sure the sword would not be removed... thus the "trick" (who would think while dangling from the waterfall to push the sword before they tried to pull it ?).. perfect "trick" ... and since Arthur removed the sword... he is King... so the legend is as it should be !

As to the Excalibur issue, Merlin didn't want to kill the sword smith, the freaking sword smith went all berserk on Merlin, what was he suppose to do ... and Merlin didn't really want to use his powers... he knows the evil price he will have to pay for them....

Then the daughter... come on, Merlin didn't "kill" her... he wanted the sword, she rows the boat out, he can't "walk on water" so he starts the freeze process and tells her to stay put... she tries to row away, gets caught in the ice, the boat breaks, she falls in the water as it's freezing... she killed herself and when trying to break through the ice from below.... up comes the hand from the lake with sword (like in Excalibur) and Merlin takes the sword and even tries to break the ice, but to no avail, his magic is too strong and she is now gone

So why tell such a dreadful story to Arthur, Merlin made the best out of a bad situation.... and the legend unfolds

LoL... Working Backwards... She wouldn't have died if Merlin didn't chase her into the lake then freeze the lake causing her to drown... She would have ran if he didn't kill the Sword Smith in what he called an "accident" If the Sword of Mars was Excabur there wouldn't have been the need to have one made by the "volitile" sword smith... Merlin could have disabled the Smith... but then... the controversy wouldn't exist in my mind.

This excercise has caused me to rethink and look up various componants of the legend and I have come to realize that my understanding was a later "translation"... and given that I was in my formative years it is the one that I like the best. Excalibur, in my mind is the Sword that responds to the True King... Pulling it from the Stone is symbolic of Arthurs Right to rule the kingdom.... The Lady in The Lake reinforces that right...

In the Starz Series... Beyond being a descendant of Uther... Arthur has no appeal as King because it is based on Lies Manipulation and Murder of innocents by Merlin.

Here is a sample exchange between Arthur and Morgan... LOL:

Morgan: Your father is dead, I (Obviously) killed him AND I killed your mother by proxy!
Arthur: Let's be friends!
Morgan: No! I'm gonna keep trying and keep killing people until this kingdom is MINE. muahahaha
Arthur: Okay, you can go then.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

Disco

ScketreWhisp®
Prolific Collector

Posts: 683
Joined: Jun 25, 2007
Last Visit: Jun 03, 2020
Location: Bedford, TX

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:22 pm

I guess if you want to "see" it that way, that's your choice....

Thus a spree killer can argue he safely fired rounds into unoccupied space and the people chose to step into the path of his bullets... at least that'll be my argument should I ever go "postal"

Merlin's intent was not to kill either, so making him out to be a manipulative killer of innocents is just a bit out there...

The story in the Stars' Camelot is exactly the same story you actually know and love, you have just learned more details about the internal workings and background (you just want to see the time on the face of the clock and not really know how it works inside)....

The sword in the stone can only be removed by someone worthy to be King, and Arthur remove the sword from the stone - same story, no one before Arthur removed it, and now Arthur has removed it ...

Excalibur was given up by the Lady of the Lake, and she has done the same here...

At least on those 2 points the stories are the same... just the details on the backside that were "never known" or "left to the imagination" have now been revealed and not everyone likes these specific set of details !

I always figured Guinevere (sp?) was a slut... I mean sleeping with the King, later sleeping with Lancelot ... and in this one she's married to the current "champion" Leontes ? or something... so if she still has to do Lancelot later in the series, she more of a slut than I imagined...

The Acaeum Forums • Collecting General

Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2