The Medium is Not Enough TV blog: Microfeed for "Review: Merlin 1x1" http://www.the-medium-is-not-enough.com/2008/09/review_merlin_1x1.php Comments for the entry "Review: Merlin 1x1" en-us Movable Type v4.32-en http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:00:08 +00:00 Comment from Jane Henry Ha, Rob, that made me laugh. You're right. You're right. It's Camelot High. Didn't spot that at all. I have to say my favourite bit was the enchantment bit at the end which I really enjoyed. It annoys the ***** out of me that they always have to change the basic story which smacks of breathtaking arrogance (have blogged about that) but there was much to like here, and on the basis that it might get my kids into the Arthurian legend its worth giving it a go I think. If it turns out that Arthur isn't the true king of England though I think I may just blow up the BBC.

]]> 4376@http://www.the-medium-is-not-enough.com/#c24800 Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:00:08 +00:00 Comment from Anonymous Changing the "basic story"? Hmm, if people hadn't been willing to tinker over the centuries, we wouldn't have Merlin (Monmouth), Arthur wouldn't be a king (Monmouth again, I think), and his best fighter wouldn't be French (various cheese-eating surrender-monkeys)...

...and Ywain wouldn't have been split into two characters (Malory, though possibly by mistake), Erec and Geraint would've always remained separate characters, Mordred wouldn't be a villain nor even Arthur's son...

]]> 4376@http://www.the-medium-is-not-enough.com/#c24804 Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:48:30 +00:00 Comment from Mark H Wilkinson Why am I down as "Anon"? I filled my name in. Tsk.

]]> 4376@http://www.the-medium-is-not-enough.com/#c24805 Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:49:49 +00:00 Comment from MediumRob Don't know. It seems to be doing it once for everyone. Thanks blog software upgrade! Everyone appreciates you...

]]> 4376@http://www.the-medium-is-not-enough.com/#c24806 Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:52:48 +00:00 Comment from Jane Henry Mark I appreciate the story does change with each interpretation, but I just get a bit peed off with TV at the moment which frequently takes really good stories and decides oh no we can do better and then they don't. I am thinking specifically here of Robin Hood, where Guy of Gisborne is oodles more attractive then wet old Robin, they completely changed the character of Allan a Dale and introduced such anachronisms as black nuns in 12th century England. I am not a purist who demands things should always be sacrosanct, and new interpretations can shed new light on things, but why is Uther still alive in this? And why is Arthur living with him? I've NEVER seen a version with that in, and I am not yet convinced that Uther needs to be there. My point is when there's a perfectly good story why do you need to invent another one? (It's sort of like the Victorians deciding Shakespeare was too gloomy and changing all the tragedies so nobody dies.)

PS DON'T get me started on the travesty that is The Tudors and Elizabeth The Golden Years....

]]> 4376@http://www.the-medium-is-not-enough.com/#c24807 Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:31:48 +00:00 Comment from Marie I was at a friend's house and only watching this with half an eye but I thought the kid playing Merlin was very good, which is probably why they cast him despite his big ears. If they can give him something chewy to work with it could be a lot of fun. My problem with these kinds of series is that they usually try to be earnest and knowing at the same time. I prefer sincere and funny. Subtle but key difference.

]]> 4376@http://www.the-medium-is-not-enough.com/#c24809 Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:32:10 +00:00 Comment from Jane Henry Just had another thought in response to Mark's comments - I think what peeves me most about these kind of revisionist versions is that they seem to dismiss traditional storytelling, and I think that's part of our cultural history. What kid watching this will get a sense of the tradition? Merlin IS usually older then Arthur. Uther is normally dead etc etc. I think reinterpretation where the spirit of the original is adhered to - Neil Gaiman's Beowulf was brilliant (ok it was by Neil Gaiman, that's a given) because it filled in the gaps of the poem and linked the beginning part to the end part in a very clever way, whereas in the original the bit with the dragon feels tacked on or as if something's missing. I guess someone thought this might be a filling the gaps thing - just what did Arthur do when he was a young buck? - but it grates for me that he is already a prince in waiting and that Merlin is his age. It might have been more interesting to have Merlin and Uther young together.

However, I'm carping. I enjoyed it really. And I think Marie's right,the boy playing Merlin is great.

]]> 4376@http://www.the-medium-is-not-enough.com/#c24810 Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:10:00 +00:00 Comment from Toby O'B Finally got to see this over here in the US thanks to the installment plan of YouTube (so it could disappear at any moment). And I liked that you mentioned 'Smallville', Rob, because I thought of Tom Welling every time Merlin was out and about in that red jacket of his. Building the set must have drained the money from the wardrobe budget, because he looked ready to join a production of 'Grease' rather than be the great enchanter!

I'm thinking this tale is set in the same TV world as the new Robin Hood and that's fine, because I'm leaning toward the Sam Neill mini-series as the official Merlin saga (with a few older actors in the role set in the future tacked on for good measure).

Still it looks like fun and I hope BBC-America picks up the series soon enough, because I don't think I can count on sources like YouTube to see me through even another episode!

]]> 4376@http://www.the-medium-is-not-enough.com/#c24904 Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:28:15 +00:00