New Show About King Arthur

Some premium cable network (I think it's Starz) is going to be making a new show that's going to be about King Arthur and Camelot, but set in modern times. What do you think about that?

Did any of you see the show Kings? It was so good. I wonder if this is going to be similar.

Its gona be crap honestly, the athurian stories are beautiful and exciting enough with out haveing to set them in modern times it realy pisses me off when tv or hollywood take somthing this good and the make is sex in the city with swords ahhh but what do you expect with the dumbing down of the populace all they have to do is show some tits a bit of sexual content and use the dialouge from friends and hey presto a top rateing tv show or movie all I can say is bring on the rapture time for god to destroy hollywood

Wikipedia says it's called Camelot and will air in early 2011. One positive (at least to me) is that it's starring Joseph Fiennes as Merlin. On the other hand, the guy they've cast as Arthur looks like a teenage girl to me.

Interesting that it seems this will be airing simultaneously with HBO's A Game Of Thorns. Similar medievalish setting, knights, horses, power struggles. But I know A Game Of Thorns is going to be superb ... it's just got to be considering the source material ... not that there's not excellent Arthurian sources. I haven't heard yet what Camelot is going to be based on ... perhaps it's original, to the extent it can be.

What's your guys' take on the Merlin series on the Syfy channel? I personally haven't seen it, my wife however said that she saw a few episodes. She said that they were pretty good.

reply to post by divinetragedy79


Gotta say I haven't seen it. I avoid Sci-Fi's miniseries like the plague (except I did watch Tin Man and actually enjoyed it).

My Arthur measuring stick is Excalibur. However, the last time I watched, a few years ago, it was still good, but seemed really dated all of a sudden. I mean, it kinda is. I'm old enough that I actually saw it in the theater ... so we're looking at probably over 30 years. But it wasn't anything like what I remembered it being. Wish there was a new, good version (yikes, here I am justifying all these ridiculous remakes when I complain about them all the time). The Clive Owen movie was a disaster, in my view, though I like him enough.

I personally dislike most of the King Arthur stuff, as I've always seen these types of show promulgating the lie that Arthur was one of the good guys.

Originally posted by Hadrian
Interesting that it seems this will be airing simultaneously with HBO's A Game Of Thorns

It's actually called Game of Thrones.

I agree that it should be good, HBO rarely produces a bad series.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Yikes. I thought I was nuts about specificity. Funny that, though, considering the first book is A Game Of Thrones. I'm more psyched for this show than I have ever, ever been for a show. The best part for me (aside from the most obvious thing in the universe of casting Boromir as Ned - yeah, I know, Sean Bean) is Peter Dinklage being cast as Tyrion. He was in The Station Agent, one of my favorites and his character wasn't all that different from Tyrion - general misanthrope of sorts with a "giant" chip on ye olde shoulder. He pulled that part off amazingly, so I'm looking forward to an extended period watching him interpret and, in some ways, originate the character of Tyrion.

reply to post by Hadrian


Camelot is filming as we type in and around Ardmore studios, in Wicklow, Ireland.

As it is coming in off the back of the huge success of The Tudors, the format is similar; bed, blood and battle field (remember the tag-line from Excalibur?)

It is not set in modern times, and is in fact based (loosely) in the late sixth century with a generous nod towards Lord of the Rings; all leather and steel armour, Roman style tunics, warrior wizards and dirt.

The lead cast are handsome and pretty - and I'm not specifying which sex that covers...

It will be full of big set pieces, cool stunts, a warrior-king that looks like he stepped out of a boy-band but who can swing a sword like a grand master, and where Merlin is very different from all previous incarnations. It promises to be entertaining in the extreme. If you want TV to teach you history, this series probably won't be the one for you.

If, however, you want to escape from reality for a while and be transported to a time when men were men, wizards and nuns were scary, power was up for the taking, and women were powerful, then Camelot will be right up your dark-age street.

And how do I know all of this? Simple; I'm in it.

reply to post by Hadrian


I hold Excalibur as the "be all end all" of Arthurian legend as far as movies go. I believe that we might be on par as far as age wise because I remember seeing it as a kind many eons ago as well. Imo it still is a great movie, dated yes, but it still hold water compared to movies of todays generation. The actors look like real people, not dimwitted models from Abercrombie and Fitch ads.

reply to post by divinetragedy79


No doubt, I mean it was way better than the Clive Owen King Arthur. Too bad they didn't make one with Boromir as Arthur ... that seems a great fit. Of course, I'm thinking about him because of Game of Thorns which is probably way too similar in scope for him to do (although both are also pretty similar to Lord of the Rings).

Never understood why no one made an Arthur movie which wasn't the same ol' story of either Excalibur or Lancelot & Guinivere. I think I recall all kinds of different stories from my Arthur reading days. Kinda like how Superman is always about either his origin and Smallville or Lex Luthor ... as if there aren't 50 years' worth of stories involving all kinds of cool stuff that doesn't rely on either of those. Read something the other day that said the new Superman movie will be an origin movie and I'm like, WHAT? Are you kidding me?

reply to post by divinetragedy79


Well, there's the Merlin series, and a couple of Merlin Mini-series.

The series is pretty good, although if you're really up on your Arthurian, it can be a bit annoying (Gwendolyn is black, and a servant to Morganna?) Huh? Effects are kind of cheesy. It once was a network show, but SciFi picked it up. It's entertaining at least.

The Mini-series with Sam Neil as Merlin is really good. Much more true to the legends...and charts the rise and use of his power.

reply to post by Hadrian


True dat. I would love to see that one character mr. mxplxtx (or however it is spelled on a superman storyline).

i grew up with arthurian legends, i actually live a few miles away from one of arthurs supposed resting places,
legend has it that merlin walks the forest here as well (yes, i live in england),

although merlin is supposed to be buried on bardsey Island in north west wales ?

if you want a clearer picture of arthur, then this is a good read

www.caerleon.net...

also, in the county of cumbria, in north west england, there are many legends about arthur,
its also rumoured that his head is buried just north of carlisle - which is supposed to be the original camelot

the film 'excalibur' is a nice romance of early england, but i think the film 'king arthur' is a truer depiction of the legend,

just my usual bit