djdiscpistol
Joined Apr 2008
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews1
djdiscpistol's rating
I really wanted to like this show. Really, i tried, but watching it became too painful. The writing is bad, almost every scene is overacted, and the show gets bogged down by its many attempts to seem "edgy". I can't really blame them, though. This show was produced and developed by the same studio responsible for the modern Spartacus, and it was launched alongside Game of Thrones. I'm sure they got the memo on the importance of blood and boobs.
i was all ready to get into this show, i'm a fan of the Arthurian mythology, and I've been re- watching its various film incarnations for study. In this series, many elements of the Arthur myth are addressed, but never in the way the myth actually goes. The show goes out of its way to take the details of the original story, and make them more complicated. Much of this is done, quite obviously, to fill screen time.
What really bothered me was this show's interpretation of the classic Arthur/Gwenivere/Lancelot love triangle. In this version, Arthur is the other man, while Gwenivere is engaged to sir Leon. It becomes a major plot point: Arthur and Gwenivere have to hide their love, and the nature of jealousy is explored. I have two huge problems with this:
1) The king can't be blamed for being the other man in a love triangle. He's the king. He could demand sex from sir Kay, and everyone would just have to go with it. If this fantasy universe is supposed to be so dark and edgy, then they could have at least addressed this. 2) It weakens the Arthur character to make him the initiator of a sordid affair. His story represents chivalry in European society, and the element of betrayal in the legends liken him to Christ. It definitely goes against the original story to make Arthur a predatory womanizer.
Also, i couldn't help but notice how much this show ripped off famous fantasy franchises. Within the few episodes I could sit through, I saw this show blatantly copy visual elements from Excalibur (1981) and The Lord of the rings (2001).
If you've never heard the story of King Arthur, or don't know what good writing sounds like, you might be able to enjoy Camelot. Everyone else, though, should just watch Game of Thrones.
i was all ready to get into this show, i'm a fan of the Arthurian mythology, and I've been re- watching its various film incarnations for study. In this series, many elements of the Arthur myth are addressed, but never in the way the myth actually goes. The show goes out of its way to take the details of the original story, and make them more complicated. Much of this is done, quite obviously, to fill screen time.
What really bothered me was this show's interpretation of the classic Arthur/Gwenivere/Lancelot love triangle. In this version, Arthur is the other man, while Gwenivere is engaged to sir Leon. It becomes a major plot point: Arthur and Gwenivere have to hide their love, and the nature of jealousy is explored. I have two huge problems with this:
1) The king can't be blamed for being the other man in a love triangle. He's the king. He could demand sex from sir Kay, and everyone would just have to go with it. If this fantasy universe is supposed to be so dark and edgy, then they could have at least addressed this. 2) It weakens the Arthur character to make him the initiator of a sordid affair. His story represents chivalry in European society, and the element of betrayal in the legends liken him to Christ. It definitely goes against the original story to make Arthur a predatory womanizer.
Also, i couldn't help but notice how much this show ripped off famous fantasy franchises. Within the few episodes I could sit through, I saw this show blatantly copy visual elements from Excalibur (1981) and The Lord of the rings (2001).
If you've never heard the story of King Arthur, or don't know what good writing sounds like, you might be able to enjoy Camelot. Everyone else, though, should just watch Game of Thrones.