Has anybody been watching this horrific bit of butchery? The writers have gone lets make a series about the early life of Merlin but just in case no-one knows who Merlin is we'll take everyone from Arthurian legend and stick them all together and totally screw up one of Europe's greatest legends. Because Arthur and Merlin are about the same age and Arthur knows who his dad is then there is no sword in the stone. How is Arthur supposed to learn about everything the Round Table represents when his teacher is his servant? Why has Arthur got the hots for Morgana and everyone is trying to get them together when, in legend, she is his half sister and through magic tricks Arthur to sleep with her and so Mordred is born? In fact why the fcuk was this travesty ever made? The idea of a series about the early life of Merlin is sound, but they didn't have to screw up the entire legend to do it. They could have, I don't want to sound controversial but here it is, used their own imaginations as to what he would get up to and who he met without using existing characters from Arthurian legend. God knows there's been more than enough written on Arthur to draw inspiration from.
[Reply]

Is this the one with Sam Neill as Merlin? If so I rather liked it when I saw it back in the day. I don't know the arthurian legends that well though.
[Reply]

This is a brand new version. The Sam Neill version was alright, this version has Anthony Head as Uthur, Richard Wilson as Merlins teacher and either kids or "celebrities" who's name you can't remember ("You know him of whatsit"). It's an absolute abomination.
[Reply]

Yep, a completely new BBC TV series that started a couple of weeks ago. Think of the recent Robin Hood series and you will get an idea of how it looks and is scripted.

The official site can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/merlin/

Personally I have been enjoying it. Yes it doesn't follow the historic(?) facts, but then we have no really proof of most of it anyway. It has always been more of a myth and legend. I'm just watching and enjoying it as light entertainment.
[Reply]

Of course there's no proof about the legend. But take essential parts of that legend and rip it apart is wrong.
There are several parts of the Arthur legend that are essential.
1. Arthur does not know he is of royal blood when he is growing up.
2. When Arthur is growing up he is tutored by Merlin.
3. Uthur Pendragon dies without a known heir and at a great time of unrest a Sword, in a anvil, built into a stone appears with "Whoso pulleth out this sword of this stone is the rightwise born king of all England." appears.
4. Arthur the squire pulls the sword out of the stone.
5. Arthur becomes the king of England and builds Camelot.
None of these can happen in this BBC production. They've taken the names and created their own story. The problem is kids nowadays will grow up believing that the BBC version is the real legend of Arthur. They are systematically destroying Britains legends. It doesn't matter if they are true or not. They are part of our heritage. How would the Scandenavians like it if we took their Viking mythology and utterly changed it so that Odin was a weak, limp wristed shop clerk at Ikea and that Valhalla was somewhere down the M1 near Milton Keynes?
The BBC's Merlin is just sloppy writing and very bad television at best and cultural destruction at worst.
[Reply]

This, or something similar, is exactly what's been done to it all along. I assure you, the Vikings and their lore is entirely different from the image the average guy has of it. And as one of those people who has somewhat more than a passing interest in it I admit it does annoy me a little when I see fantasy presented as it was fact. So I get you. But you have to expect this from the entertainment industry, they always have blithely ignored fact and realism if they think it will improve the quality of their product.

I haven't seen this new series however, so can't say anything about if said quality was worth improving.
[Reply]