Kevin's Watch

CovenantJr wrote: As for decent screen renditions of Arthur/Robin, the best Robin Hood I've seen remains the 80s series, Robin of Sherwood. Not only is it darker and more mythic than other Robin Hoods, it also refers to places I actually know around Notiinghamshire, demonstrating an attention to detail that's sadly lacking in other versions.

Yea, I really liked that one myself. Don't remember wether I preferred the first actor or the second better, but, I seem to remember they were both pretty well done. The second one was Sean Connery's son, right?

Yeah, Jason Connery. I've only seen bits of his era. I should buy the rest of it at some point. Because Michael Praed was the first I saw, though, he remains the 'real' Robin to me, even if he's a little lacking in gravitas.

Oh, and regarding the subject of the thread the show Merlin - It's true it's nothing like the classic we are famililar with, but, if you detach yourself from the "real story" and just forget they share the names of Classic Arthur Mythos, it's not all that bad.

So why use the character names and some of the plot points from the Arthurian mythos at all, then? Why not just create something new?

I have several theories, most involving the television industry being lazy, cowardly, cynical, and far more interested in making money, rather than creating stories.

sindatur wrote:...if you detach yourself from the "real story"...

This is a good point - just what is the 'real story', and should it be considered something set in stone, never to be altered on pain of defenestration? Surely people have been re-interpreting older stories since The Illiad.

Still, a new interpretation of the Arthurian myth should indeed do just that; bring something new to the story. I'm not convinced 'Merlin' does that.

Ooo-kay. Now I'm arguing with myself over a TV series. Right. Time for a hot cuppa and a lie down...

Reimaginings are fine, particularly when the source material is a loosely related clump of myths. This isn't a reimagining, though; it's an original story with old names tacked on for marketing. Maybe sindatur's right and I'd enjoy it more if I ignored the names, but I'm not sure I care enough to try, heh.

Earthfriend wrote:Still, a new interpretation of the Arthurian myth should indeed do just that; bring something new to the story. I'm not convinced 'Merlin' does that.

If you haven't, read Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle.

The last book in particular, Avalon, is barely connected to the rest, but the character of Myrddin Emrys is supposedly the same in it as the one in the rest of the cycle. Avalon, while IMO not the best book in the cycle, does bring something new to it.