[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by claire2281

I think it might have been the BFI screening for series 3, but essentially they were talking about Morgana's journey and how she should get some sympathy because Uther would have killed her had he known.

That rings a vague bell actually. I think we (as in the Merlin fans not just you and I) had a discussion on the forums after you'd been which centred on Morgana's journey and the fall out from the end of season two and how they were going to portray her during series three.
It's so hard to find anything now on DS because of them mucking about with the Cult forum though

[Fimber]

Wow, soon we need a thread only for the two of us... I have never gone around in circles so much. I'm not here to expose anyone. Since this discussion concerning this subject has become to be about what people said or remembered only, I find myself in a constant state of justification.

Originally Posted by Cadiva

No-one has ever said that things hadn't changed with regards to ASH's availability to play Uther. The discussion has, consistently, as far as I am concerned, been about the statement made that Uther was going to remain King until the show's end and that Arthur would not be crowned either at all or until the very end of Merlin.

That's not quite correct. Please take a look at what you said here:

From Cadiva: "As for the Uther thing, yes I would like to see some evidence of it because there's only yourself and one other person who've mentioned they know that the producers wanted Arthur to not become King until series five and yet I can find nothing in any of my press sources which confirms that. I'm certainly not saying I don't believe that you think that's what you've seen or read and that you believe they wanted to have Uther around longer."

Here you state clearly that you believed it was always planned that way, only later you admitted that maybe they wanted to keep him a little longer. You didn't quite believe me about Anthony's comment either and later you interpreted the comment the way it was convinient for your thesis (and who knows, maybe you were even right. Or maybe not. I'm not speculating about what actors know or think because, as I said, it's none of my business).

Then this is what lil_miss said: "Maybe because he died a few episodes before they originally planned. However I have no doubt his death was always planned for series 4 and most certainly during season 3 they knew his death would be in the next series."

Later from lil_miss: "Of course it was set in stone.. He said ''what will happen is very unexpected''. Not what happens to Uther is yet undecided or how Uther's death will go is as yet unplanned. What WILL happen is very unexpected.
The writers, directors and Anthony himself would have all known long before series 4, when and how Uther would be killed. The scripts would have been written, the read through's would have been done and Anthony would have had a job lined up for after Merlin long before series 4 started filming.

Im not denying that at the start of Merlin things were planned differently and Arthur was not planned to be crowned king till the final series because thats exactly what was going to happen. However what Im saying is, when the decision of when to kill Uther changed, it was long before series 4 and it wasn't a last minute thing. "


And then: "No one has been lied to at all. All those statements that you found where all before series 4, so were probably still true. Uther wasn't going to be killed until series 5 and Arthur wasn't going to be crowned king until the end. Things changed probably between series 3 and the shooting of series 4. Which is after those statements and interviews that you found"

It went from "it was always planned that way" to "it was planned to have him just a few episodes longer" to "rght, in the beginning it wasn't planned that way but Arthur was supposed to be crowned king at the end of season five".

You know, I'm not buying anything anymore becaue I have never ever read and heard so many contradictions concerning a TV show. I guess it would have been all easier for me if I hadn't read any spoilers or articles at all.

This proof-thing that obvoiously haunts the two of us - when soneone writes about comments they have heard at a convention, others could demand proof because most people don't want to just believe what someone might have heard. Most Q&A's are on youtube anyway. However, I would never demand any proof from Claire or anyone about such things. We are not in court here, we are not lawyers and judges but we discuss a TV show. It would have been nice of you, Cadiva, if you had at least taken into consideration what I (and others) remember instead of constantly denying it. Something like "I don't know about that and I'm not sure but IF it is true....blabla..." You know? Would have made this discussion much more pleasant. Just taking into consideration that what others say is true.

I mean, how can I know that you are really a journalist and that you have some insight as you say? How can I know that lil_miss is working on the show and not just claiming it? I have to trust others and believe what they say unless it contradicts logic heavily. Is lil_miss an extra, a writer, a director, an assistent, responsible for public relations or whatever? I have no idea. I can only combine what the spoilers/comments/statements said over the past years and what the show used to be about and what it has become now.
If we are going to demand proof for every single thing we read, heard or saw, we will never be able to talk about things calmly, productively and in a normal way.

Cadiva, if the poll wasnt supposed to be relevant, then why did you post it? It was to show me that 37% thought Uther would die in season four and 28% thought in season five (or so). The majority shared your point of view,.... that was the reason why you posted it, wasn't it? The majority of 68 people....

Well, everyone I know who watches "Merlin", some are fans, some just occasional viewers, was convinced the show would end with Arthur being coronated I remember when I watched season one without having heard or read ANYTHING about it, I was convinced Uther would die in season one already... those spoiler-free times were real good times ). The majority of posts I read on the internet showed the same. It might be unbelievable for you as a fan of Arthur and the Arthurian legend but Merlin" doesn't only have teens or most of all young people/kids as fans and viewers. There are also those who expect to see some gravitas and maturity and some depth instead of only shallow action and rushed epsiodes. I am one of them. I'm a consumer and a longtime viewer and certainly not someone who hallucinated about a certain direction and who is now disappointed because I didn't get what I wanted. I think I can see quite well what has changed and where the flaws are and I always try to see such things as objectively as possible.
We can have different opinions about it and we surely have different emotions but I would appreciate it if we talked about it in a civilzed manner.
Maybe we can do that when talking about the changed style and direction of season four as soon as I can

And yes, I meant season four of course, not season three. Thanks for correction.

As for the airdate, sorry if it has been posted already (if so, I haven't seen it) but rumours now say that season five starts on Oktber 6th? No idea if it is correct.

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by Fimber

It would have been nice of you, Cadiva, if you had at least taken into consideration what I (and others) remember instead of constantly denying it. Something like "I don't know about that and I'm not sure but IF it is true....blabla..." You know? Would have made this discussion much more pleasant. Just taking into consideration that what others say is true.

And, for what seems to me to be about the 10th time I have had to say this - I have NEVER said you were not telling the truth. I have repeatedly said I didn't PERSONALLY remember it and asked if you could provide a source from the production team which said so.
It's not a slight on you or the fact you believed it to be the case, it's nothing more important than me saying that I couldn't ever remember reading that the original intention of the show's producers was that Uther would remain king until it ended.
The specific issue under discussion is the fact you stated which was that the producers intended Uther to be king until the show ended. I'm not and have never been debating that they have had to change what they originally planned regarding series four. I'm talking about the comment from ASH that the show is over when Uther dies - that one single fact only.

Originally Posted by Fimber

I mean, how can I know that you are really a journalist and that you have some insight as you say? I have to trust others and believe what they say unless it contradicts logic heavily. Is lil_miss an extra, a writer, a director, an assistent, responsible for public relations or whatever? I have no idea. I can only combine what the spoilers/comments/statements said over the past years and what the show used to be about and what it has become now.
If we are going to demand proof for every single thing we read, heard or saw, we will never be able to talk about things calmly, productively and in a normal way.

Would you like to see a copy of my (former employers) Press Pass, my Rugby League Writers membership or my RFL Pass Pass or my IoJ professional membership? Or perhaps a link to a number of articles I wrote for some of the papers I've worked for?

Of course people take it as given when someone provides a spoiler as they usually also give the source for it. Claire's comments regarding Morgana and Uther were on a thread here on DS from the series three discussion thread. Unfortunately since that time DS has changed the make up of the Cult forum on a number of occasions and it is almost impossible to find anything from before last year.
However, on DS we do usually want proof, that's why you will see the vast majority of spoilers posted here have a source accompanying them. And the reason I did query your comment regarding Uther was that it did appear to be "illogical" or contrary to what I remembered myself. That's why I asked if you could provide a source. You can't have it both ways, either everyone accepts everything that's said or people question and debate it.

Originally Posted by Fimber

Cadiva, if the poll wasnt supposed to be relevant, then why did you post it? It was to show me that 37% thought Uther would die in season four and 28% thought in season five (or so). The majority shared your point of view,.... that was the reason why you posted it, wasn't it? The majority of 68 people....

No, the poll was nothing more than an interesting article in which the time scale for the death of Uther was being discussed. All it did was provide another piece of information that there did not appear to be any kind of consensus on when Uther was supposed to die. It could have had 37% showing Uther was going to die in season one or in season five and I would have still posted it. It was nothing more than an example that there have been discussions and debates elsewhere on the internet about the subject we were discussing.

Originally Posted by Fimber

It might be unbelievable for you as a fan of Arthur and the Arthurian legend. ..

There are also those who expect to see some gravitas and maturity and some depth instead of only shallow action and rushed epsiodes. I am one of them. I'm a consumer and a longtime viewer and certainly not someone who hallucinated about a certain direction and who is now disappointed because I didn't get what I wanted. I think I can see quite well what has changed and where the flaws are and I always try to see such things as objectively as possible.

I'm not a fan of Arthur, if by that you mean the character as portrayed by Bradley James in Merlin. I am, however, pretty knowledgeable on Arthurian mythology in both its aspects - as historical "fact" and as elements of literature. It is the interpretation of the classic tales found within Arthurian mythology which interests me in this production of Merlin, not any of the individual cast members or their characters.
I don't expect a show going out on a Saturday evening which is aimed at a family friendly audience to be anything other than entertaining. I don't expect it to be of documentary level accuracy or that it constantly verifies its source materials.
Do I get disappointed with it, absolutely and I have posted that on this forum on many occasions. Do I get frustrated when they mix up source material or legends or do something which them which doesn't really fit (Freya and the flying bloody cat being a prime example), yes absolutely.
Do I think Merlin should be winning Emmys and Golden Globes for its output in the same way as Game of Thrones - no. It's not the same type of show and has never had the pretensions of being so.

We can have different opinions about it and we surely have different emotions but I would appreciate it if we talked about it in a civilzed manner. Maybe we can do that when talking about the changed style and direction of season four as soon as I can

As for your comment about discussing things in a civilised manner, it baffles me frankly. That's what I thought we were doing?

[Fimber]

Originally Posted by Cadiva

Would you like to see a copy of my (former employers) Press Pass, my Rugby League Writers membership or my RFL Pass Pass or my IoJ professional membership?

No. As I said, I have to believe it, otherwise I have to suspect everyone of lying. Since I'm not Dr. House...

Originally Posted by Cadiva

Or perhaps a link to a number of articles I wrote for some of the papers I've worked for?

That would be nice, but not to prove something to me but because I'm interested in what you write.

I think Anthony Head's comment about Uther's possible death - "and I can't tell that" - was the best comment he could give and was much, much better than all those misleading comments made by others. Better not say anything than making confusing and misleading statements.

Would you agree to leave this subject behind now? I'd prefer to concentrate on what we talked about before (as soon as I find the time... because... be prepared, the post will be a long one).

As for the legend being twisted, that is something I don't mind. On the contrary, I actually like that and was what I was interested in when starting to watch Merlin. If it had been about the common Arthurian legend from the beginning I would have never started to watch it in the first place.

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by Fimber

That would be nice, but not to prove something to me but because I'm interested in what you write.

Sadly there's very little from my early career online, I started as an 18-year-old on my local paper in 1998 and we didn't get a website until some time around 1998

However, during my almost 20 year career I've covered pretty much every aspect of news and features writing, including entertainment reviewing, agricultural and rural affair specialisms, court and council, crime and local affairs, community news, international news, business and sports reporting, health and education.
One of the best interviews I ever did was with a veteran of the First World War, some time around 1992. He was one of only two members still alive of the 21st Btn of the King's Royal Rifle Regiment, which had been raised from yeoman farmers in and around North Yorkshire. After my interview with him was published, another family came forward to say their great-grandfather was also a former member of the same battalion, although in a different company, and so I went and interviewed him. They remain two of the moments in my career that I was most affected by and profoundly honoured to have carried out.

I've had a search around and found this one, part of a series of historic pieces I did when I was digital news producer at the Times Series based in Hendon in the early 2000s. Unfortunately the website itself has changed and so the History section, in which there were a number of articles about the various aspects of the Battle of Barnet, are no longer available. There were photos, interviews etc. Plus the change to the new site has created a few subbing errors in my piece

There's some of my more recent stuff which I've been doing while a stay at home mum, on Digital Journal. This is a review of the British Library's exhibition of Illuminated Manuscripts.

All slightly off topic so I will throw in my website, which
I created (after Lowri on these forums asked if I would be interested in doing one so those not as familiar with Arthurian mythology would be able to find out a bit more) about Arthurian Legends and how they relate to the interpretations in Merlin. It's a work in progress though so there are still plenty of blank pages.

Originally Posted by Fimber

Better not say anything than making confusing and misleading statements.

Unfortunately that's the way of the entertainment world, it's a method by which they can stir up interest and get people talking about their shows.

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by Cadiva

Sadly there's very little from my early career online, I started as an 18-year-old on my local paper in 1998 and we didn't get a website until some time around 1998

Doh, that should say 1988 when I started work.

[Oceanneil]

I have another plot hole,

Hunith goes to Camelot to plead with Uther for help in series one. But she knows that he is the reason why her beloved Balinor leaves her with child. Why would she plead with a king who she has every reason to hate? A king who went after the man she loved?

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by Oceanneil

I have another plot hole,

Hunith goes to Camelot to plead with Uther for help in series one. But she knows that he is the reason why her beloved Balinor leaves her with child. Why would she plead with a king who she has every reason to hate? A king who went after the man she loved?

That's not a plot hole, it's a deliberate piece of writing. Hunith goes to Uther for help as she knows he is the only King, with the only army, strong enough to stand up for the people of Ealdor against the bandit Kanen when their own ruler isn't doing anything to help.
She earlier sent her son to Gaius, a man who was known to have helped Uther by giving up names of those with magic during the Great Purge, (while at the same time helping Balinor to escape), so the same "plot hole" argument could be said there. It's not a plot hole, it's been written that way for a reason. It shows that Uther, while sympathetic, cannot help Ealdor because they belong to another kingdom and it would propagate a war - something Arthur then has to learn when he has a similar situation with Caerleon.

[myselfandi]

Originally Posted by Oceanneil

I have another plot hole,

Hunith goes to Camelot to plead with Uther for help in series one. But she knows that he is the reason why her beloved Balinor leaves her with child. Why would she plead with a king who she has every reason to hate? A king who went after the man she loved?

Originally Posted by Cadiva

That's not a plot hole, it's a deliberate piece of writing. Hunith goes to Uther for help as she knows he is the only King, with the only army, strong enough to stand up for the people of Ealdor against the bandit Kanen when their own ruler isn't doing anything to help.

Agreed. And Uther is the only King compassionate enough to care about the suffering of people not in his kingdom. He honestly regrets not being able to send help.

imo, the biggest plot hole is Merlin not telling Arthur about his magic. In the series finale for series 3 and series 4, Camelot is enslaved and Arthur dispossessed. Instead, Merlin tells fairy tales. Especially after the episode where Arthur swears to make it up to the druids (episode 4.10), it is really puzzling that Merlin says nothing to Arthur.

btw, Merlin doesn't tell Arthur the truth about anything. Why not tell Arthur where he went in 3.13? Why not mention the pendant on Uther in 4.03? Why lie and tell Arthur he killed in the dragon in 2.13? The list is endless. Merlin could have said something about Morgana and Agravaine throughout series 3 and 4. Instead, he says nothing.

I'm puzzled that Arthur will have been king for for three years in series 5 and apparently Merlin will still not have said anything about his magic. However, Colin Morgan made a comment at SDCC that perhaps Merlin is too comfortable in his friendship and rapport with Arthur and may regret later not having said something. I find that an intriguing possibility.

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by myselfandi

imo, the biggest plot hole is Merlin not telling Arthur about his magic.

Again though, that's not a plot hole, it's a deliberate position from the part of the producers and writers. They've always said they don't see Merlin's magic reveal as being really relevant to the story they're telling - that of Merlin and Arthur as young men. Whether I (or you or the general audience) agrees is a different argument and one which quite often divides the fandom.
Arthur's going to have been King for about six years when the show returns in series five if I remember rightly. There is a three year gap between the end of S4 and the start of S5.

However, I expect the magic issue will be addressed in series five if it is going to be the final one, I don't expect it to happen early on though, I think it's going to be something which takes part towards the end of the run and the show is going to finish on a variant of one of two different endings:

1 - the traditional one, Arthur and Mordred dead (in these legends Merlin hasn't been around since Arthur was king so it's hard to say what they may do with Merlin
2 - they end the show with Arthur creating Albion, and Merlin is in his Dragoon/Emrys elderly disguise, therefore becoming the "Merlin" of legend and the show ends on a high note.

Personally I'm more inclined to it being the first one, the traditional ending, which would round things up and leave no loose ends. It would, however, be a little bit disappointing in that they had so many more of the Arthurian mythology they could have told before they got to the end of it.

[claire2281]

Originally Posted by myselfandi

btw, Merlin doesn't tell Arthur the truth about anything. Why not tell Arthur where he went in 3.13? Why not mention the pendant on Uther in 4.03? Why lie and tell Arthur he killed in the dragon in 2.13? The list is endless. Merlin could have said something about Morgana and Agravaine throughout series 3 and 4. Instead, he says nothing.

Convenience of plotting a lot of the time. If Merlin tells him, Arthur might wonder how he knows. In fact, they (he and Gaius) did try to tell Arthur about Agravaine during series 4 but they had no evidence and Arthur took Agravaine's word over Merlin's.

Tbh, Merlin has lied to Arthur about an awful lot of things. He's chosen what Arthur can and cannot know - what he thinks he should know and what not. It's a manipulation. Merlin is trying to control Arthur in some ways. In all honesty, Arthur should be extremely angry and feel as betrayed as he ever has when he finds out some of these truths. Even if he understands that Merlin was trying to help him, he most likely will hate all the lies he's been told, how that reflects on him, and what this means about the things he's supposedly done. I mean, if he realised that some of the great deeds he's accomplished - like pulling the sword from the stone - were actually Merlin...

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by claire2281

Convenience of plotting a lot of the time. If Merlin tells him, Arthur might wonder how he knows. In fact, they (he and Gaius) did try to tell Arthur about Agravaine during series 4 but they had no evidence and Arthur took Agravaine's word over Merlin's.

Tbh, Merlin has lied to Arthur about an awful lot of things. He's chosen what Arthur can and cannot know - what he thinks he should know and what not. It's a manipulation. Merlin is trying to control Arthur in some ways. In all honesty, Arthur should be extremely angry and feel as betrayed as he ever has when he finds out some of these truths. Even if he understands that Merlin was trying to help him, he most likely will hate all the lies he's been told, how that reflects on him, and what this means about the things he's supposedly done. I mean, if he realised that some of the great deeds he's accomplished - like pulling the sword from the stone - were actually Merlin...

But, as we've discussed before, that's fairly accurate to the traditional legend, Merlin is a great manipulator

I do agree with you though that from the start they've set themselves up with a huge mountain to climb over the fact that Merlin hasn't shared his secret with Arthur. However, his reason for not doing so while Uther was still alive was a completely justified one. It's not so much since Arthur became King though. I think Merlin knows that Arthur wouldn't have executed him but he may still believe his risk of not being able to remain in Camelot to help Arthur create Albion and the Golden Age of Camelot was too great to let him know the truth.

To be fair, the pulling of Excalibur from the stone is pretty much the only thing Arthur has done with direct interference from Merlin which wasn't a spell to save his life. I can't think of anything else of Arthur's activities throughout the four series' where Merlin's actually been the one responsible although it looks like it was Arthur. There's been lots of instances where Merlin has saved Arthur from the threat of death though without the King knowing anything about it.

[jllc]

Originally Posted by claire2281

Convenience of plotting a lot of the time. If Merlin tells him, Arthur might wonder how he knows. In fact, they (he and Gaius) did try to tell Arthur about Agravaine during series 4 but they had no evidence and Arthur took Agravaine's word over Merlin's.

Tbh, Merlin has lied to Arthur about an awful lot of things. He's chosen what Arthur can and cannot know - what he thinks he should know and what not. It's a manipulation. Merlin is trying to control Arthur in some ways. In all honesty, Arthur should be extremely angry and feel as betrayed as he ever has when he finds out some of these truths. Even if he understands that Merlin was trying to help him, he most likely will hate all the lies he's been told, how that reflects on him, and what this means about the things he's supposedly done. I mean, if he realised that some of the great deeds he's accomplished - like pulling the sword from the stone - were actually Merlin...

I agree with a lot of that. I don't think once Arthur finds out about Merlin, he is going to be very happy about it, he will feel that Merlin has betrayed him in some ways. While it was always going to be impossible to tell him while Uther was alive, Arthur has been King for some time now. The way the show was going last season mind you, I thought Gwen might work it out first.

The Lamia one, she realised that there was something different about Merlin, so I thought then well maybe Gwen will learn first, then she will have a dilemma about whether to tell Arthur or not. I never really understood the point of them doing the Lancelot du Lac episode, as I thought they had already touched on that Gwen-Lancelot situation in series two. It would of been more interesting maybe letting Gwen find out about Merlin first, then it would of made the plot a bit more dramatic, and also given Gwen a bit more to do. Instead they banished her, and another chance of developing the magic reveal had gone.

I just think that if this is the last series, they have so much to do in it, the whole thing could be quite rushed. But I'm looking forward to seeing how they fit everything in.

[claire2281]

Originally Posted by Cadiva

But, as we've discussed before, that's fairly accurate to the traditional legend, Merlin is a great manipulator

Oh I entirely agree and think it's 'right' for the story. I'm more concerned that the show itself wouldn't want to acknowledge it.

To be fair, the pulling of Excalibur from the stone is pretty much the only thing Arthur has done with direct interference from Merlin which wasn't a spell to save his life. I can't think of anything else of Arthur's activities throughout the four series' where Merlin's actually been the one responsible although it looks like it was Arthur. There's been lots of instances where Merlin has saved Arthur from the threat of death though without the King knowing anything about it.

I think there's several more minor instances where Merlin has dealt with a threat and Arthur has believed that he was the one who solved the issue. It's essentially, how much would that knock his confidence and belief in himself?

Originally Posted by jllc

I agree with a lot of that. I don't think once Arthur finds out about Merlin, he is going to be very happy about it, he will feel that Merlin has betrayed him in some ways.

After Morgana, Agravaine and Gwen (not that she did but Arthur still thinks she did alas...), I think it'd be entirely unrealistic if Arthur didn't feel HORRIBLY betrayed by Merlin. He may be able to understand his reasons but whether he could really forgive him or entirely trust him again...?

[Fimber]

Originally Posted by claire2281

Convenience of plotting a lot of the time. If Merlin tells him, Arthur might wonder how he knows. In fact, they (he and Gaius) did try to tell Arthur about Agravaine during series 4 but they had no evidence and Arthur took Agravaine's word over Merlin's.

Tbh, Merlin has lied to Arthur about an awful lot of things. He's chosen what Arthur can and cannot know - what he thinks he should know and what not. It's a manipulation. Merlin is trying to control Arthur in some ways. In all honesty, Arthur should be extremely angry and feel as betrayed as he ever has when he finds out some of these truths. Even if he understands that Merlin was trying to help him, he most likely will hate all the lies he's been told, how that reflects on him, and what this means about the things he's supposedly done. I mean, if he realised that some of the great deeds he's accomplished - like pulling the sword from the stone - were actually Merlin...

Convinience indeed. Same with what Oceanneil said about Hunith. At first I thought that this was to show that despite the hunt on magic, people saw Uther as a fair king, even Hunith. It would have applied to what Gaius told Merlin in season one that it was Uther who brought peace and stability to the land. Later I thought that Hunith just pretended to see Uther as a fair king in order to make him help her and Ealdor but since there was no reference later anymore, it is obvious that it is a plothole - which could have been filled easily if Hunith had mentioned just once (towards Merlin, Gaius or whomever) that she just did it to address Uther's conscience and honour. That would have been enough. The hole remains due to the fact that her contradictional action wasn't explained, no matter if we can think of a reason ourselves or not. Who would call the one who hunted and tried to kill our loved ones "a fair person king)" if not for manipulative and desperate reasons? She might have thought that Uther was fair in every other meaning aside from magic but calling him fair and MEANING it when he seperated her and Balinor and was the one who was the constant threat for her son's life (and maybe she even witnessed magical friends dying at his hands) is just not believable. So, a hint that she saw him as a compassionate king unless magic was involved (which was true, he was indeed the most decent one and set a great value upon honour) and therefore used his good character traits whilst ignoring the cruelty towards magical people for manipulative reasons, would have been a good idea to make people understand why she said and did what she did.

Cadiva, Arthur has been King for four years when season five starts. One year after Uther's death and three years in the time gap.

Merlin has been manipulating Arthur for quite a while. Every lie he is telling him leads Arthur into a certain direction Merlin wants him to be and Arthur often seems to be just a puppet on a string. Lying and betraying is a big subject on Merlin since everyone on Merlin lies and betrays and manipulates others. Uther and Arthur were/are the ones who have been constantly lied to and manipulated and betrayed the whole time by almost everyone, nonstop. Shame a family show gives this questionable ideal.

I guess the fact that Gaius and Merlin didn't tell Arthur about the enchanted necklace is a huge plothole if the necklace won't play a big part in season five again and was being kept a secret for a very, very good reason. Otherwise it makes no sense why Arthur still doesn't know that Morgana killed their father. It would have been easy to let him know about the whole thing, plus it would have helped convincing Arthur about Aggy's evil plans. This was another thing that was done very lazy and made Arthur appear to be an idiot. But I'll write more about those plotholes and the chaos of season four later.

PS. I forgot - Thanks for the links, Cadiva. I'll read through them as soon as I have the time.

[claire2281]

Originally Posted by Fimber

She might have thought that Uther was fair in every other meaning aside from magic but calling him fair and MEANING it when he seperated her and Balinor and was the one who was the constant threat for her son's life (and maybe she even witnessed magical friends dying at his hands) is just not believable.

This is rather assuming that they'd already planned what would be revealed in series 2 about Merlin's father and what happened to him. Tbh, I am really not convinced that's the case.

Imo, Hunith was shown to go to Uther out of desperation since he was the closest person in distance with the clout to actually help. Also obviously handy for the plot if you want to get Merlin and his merry band to go to the rescue

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by claire2281

I think there's several more minor instances where Merlin has dealt with a threat and Arthur has believed that he was the one who solved the issue. It's essentially, how much would that knock his confidence and belief in himself?

I couldn't think of anything else in which Merlin directly interfered but I do agree there's been instances where Arthur's been fighting etc and Merlin's had to do something to save him from an assassin's blow and that type of thing. I do think knowing just how many times Merlin's had his back in an "actual" sense as well as the friendship version which Arthur knows and appreciates would have an effect on him.

But, I also think the whole Excalibur and the stone thing was done deliberately so that the viewers could see Arthur having doubts about his suitability to be King and that Merlin used the sword to give him that self-belief back. I'm not sure that Merlin freeing the sword he'd magically shoved into the stone actually has that big a baring on it as it was done as a symbolic gesture I think.
Because of the way they've used magic etc in this interpretation of the stories, it would have been almost impossible to do the traditional version of Arthur being able to pull the stone out simply because he was the rightful heir. I can see why they did what they did.

Originally Posted by Fimber

Cadiva, Arthur has been King for four years when season five starts. One year after Uther's death and three years in the time gap.

Ah yes, I was including the year's gap between series three and four on top but Arthur wasn't king then, just acting king in Uther's catatonic state.

Originally Posted by Fimber

Convinience indeed. Same with what Oceanneil said about Hunith. At first I thought that this was to show that despite the hunt on magic, people saw Uther as a fair king, even Hunith. It would have applied to what Gaius told Merlin in season one that it was Uther who brought peace and stability to the land.
Later I thought that Hunith just pretended to see Uther as a fair king in order to make him help her and Ealdor but since there was no reference later anymore, it is obvious that it is a plothole - which could have been filled easily if Hunith had mentioned just once (towards Merlin, Gaius or whomever) that she just did it to address Uther's conscience and honour. That would have been enough.

The writers aren't going to telegraph things like that though, it's left up to the viewer's interpretation in most instances. It was shown within the series that Hunith went to Uther because he was the only King powerful enough to help her village. Whether Uther's an utter shit or not doesn't actually matter in this particular plot line.

Originally Posted by claire2281

This is rather assuming that they'd already planned what would be revealed in series 2 about Merlin's father and what happened to him. Tbh, I am really not convinced that's the case.

Imo, Hunith was shown to go to Uther out of desperation since he was the closest person in distance with the clout to actually help. Also obviously handy for the plot if you want to get Merlin and his merry band to go to the rescue

Quite, it's not a plot hole it's a deliberate piece of writing because it serves the story.

[Fimber]

Originally Posted by claire2281

This is rather assuming that they'd already planned what would be revealed in series 2 about Merlin's father and what happened to him. Tbh, I am really not convinced that's the case.

Imo, Hunith was shown to go to Uther out of desperation since he was the closest person in distance with the clout to actually help. Also obviously handy for the plot if you want to get Merlin and his merry band to go to the rescue

Absolutely. And I agree with you that it might not have been planned when she first appeared and asked for his help. That's why I think they could have corrected it later with having her telling someone that she simply needed his help and therefore tried to be as polite and convincing as possible.
Before the happening in season two in The Last Dragonlord I thought Hunith's opinion about Uther was to show the viewer that he was not only a cruel man who kills magical people but who is also a human being who has always been fair and caring for his people (and others) unless magic was involved.

This all changed later when they made Uther being responsible for really everything even if it contradicted what happened before.

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by Fimber

Absolutely. And I agree with you that it might not have been planned when she first appeared and asked for his help. That's why I think they could have corrected it later with having her telling someone that she simply needed his help and therefore tried to be as polite and convincing as possible.
Before the happening in season two in The Last Dragonlord I thought Hunith's opinion about Uther was to show the viewer that he was not only a cruel man who kills magical people but who is also a human being who has always been fair and caring for his people (and others) unless magic was involved.

This all changed later when they made Uther being responsible for really everything even if it contradicted what happened before.

I don't think it did change anything though. Uther was been shown to be a fair and just king and also compassionate one and a thoughtful one. He was also shown to be a tyrant and a fanatical destroyer of any one and anything related to magic.

[Fimber]

Originally Posted by Cadiva

I don't think it did change anything though. Uther has been shown to be a fair and just king and a compassionate one with the single exception of his hatred of magic.

I disagree. A lot of people were wondering why Hunith called him fair when she actually had every reason to think the opposite in regard to Balinor and Merlin. Though we can all think of the reasons why she said what she said, the show itself should be able to provide those reasons in order to describe situations and most of all characters. It's annoying when with every new happening and contradicting situation the viewer is forced to guess because the show overlooks previous happenings. The consistency and continuity is important. And a TV show is not supposed to make the viewer telling stories to themselves in order to develop the characters themselves. It would have done good to Hunith's character (Hunith's personal reasons/her ability to overcome her pride/her kindness because she doesn't seek revenge etc...) and to Uther's (people's point of view/his ruling and his actions that didn't have to do with magic).

in season four Uther was shown as the one who was responsible for every negative and cruel thing that happened. For the war with Caerleon although he had a peace contract with him, for Morgana's actions, for Annis' despise for Uther, for Arthur slaughtering the druids.... he was described as the total opposite of Arthur although Uther wanted peace and had started the peace treaties with the Five Kingdoms. Even Arthur, his own son, blamed Uther for Morgana's evilness when he confronted her in season four.

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by Fimber

I disagree. A lot of people were wondering why Hunith called him fair when she actually had every reason to think the opposite in regard to Balinor and Merlin.

Except people didn't know anything about Balinor at that point in time so they'd have no reason to question why she referred to Uther as fair at that POINT in the series.
You (generic you) can't use the information of the later shows to look back with hindsight on what went on earlier.
In addition, from memory, I don't think Hunith actually knew that Balinor was a Dragonlord? I would need to watch the episode with Balinor again to double check plus she lived in a different country so it's quite possible that the people of Ealdor didn't know everything that was going on in Camelot.
But, as I said, hindsight because of changes in later shows is why people question things which occurred in earlier episodes.

Originally Posted by Fimber

in season four Uther was shown as the one who was responsible for every negative and cruel thing that happened. For the war with Caerleon although he had a peace contract with him, for Morgana's actions, for Annis' despise for Uther, for Arthur slaughtering the druids.... he was described as the total opposite of Arthur although Uther wanted peace and had started the peace treaties with the Five Kingdoms. Even Arthur, his own son, blamed Uther for Morgana's evilness when he confronted her in season four.

I don't think that's necessarily the case either. Uther was shown to have established as many good relations with neighbouring kingdoms as he was for the issues with Caerleon. Annis despised Uther for killing her husband and for the wars which had gone on between their two countries before. The slaughter of the druids was Uther's fault, we already knew that in series one, it was part of his Great Purge and the fall out of his hatred of magic.

I'm not sure he was shown as being directly responsible for Morgana's actions though, they used a combination of factors for her turn to the "dark side" one of which was her finding out Uther was her father alongside her fears over having magic and knowing how much he hated people with it.

Continuity has always been an issue with this show, it started in series one so it's not surprising it's still going on in series four. They clearly don't have a show "bible" or one single show runner who is responsible for making sure their "lifetime" story arcs aren't contradicted during individual seasons. Or, if they do, then they're not doing such a good job with it.

[wizzywick]

So, is series 5 DEFINETELY the last series of Merlin? I hope if it is, they have something good lined up to replace it.

[Avi8]

I'm not sure I want to get involved in this debate, It makes me smile to read intelligent adults arguing back and forth about character motivations and/or plot developments in what is essentially a bit of escapist family tv drama. I think you are all overthinking this rather! Of course there are plot holes. This isn't Shakespeare or some complex scientific theory. It's only a fantasy show and very few tv series stand up to close scrutiny.

Anyway, I am not picking on you Cadiva - I agree with most of what you write - and this is not the only comment anyone has made that I could pick holes in, it's just that I happen to have the time to write a reponse right now, so I am picking the most recent thing I have an issue with.

Originally Posted by Cadiva

Annis despised Uther for killing her husband

No, she didn't. It was Arthur who killed her husband. So that part of her animosity had nothing to do with Uther. But I am sure you know that anyway. (And, speaking of which, how many of you were convinced when Annis decided Arthur was ok really, simply because he showed honour by fighting her champion himself rather than subjecting 2 armies to a bloody battle? It wouldn't have weighed that heavily with me if it had been my husband Arthur had brutally butchered in cold blood, and it didn't seem likely to me that Annis would change her opinion so easily. But hey ho, plot inconsistencies abound...)

Roll on 6th October or whenever the new series starts. I think we are all getting a bit desperate for some new material to talk about.

[ivyteainn]

From one vantage point, Uther was right about magic. Someone with great magical power could be a danger to the rest of society. It's not a good comparison of a sword to magic; it could take 100,000 swords to equal the power of a sorcerer. Look what the dragon alone did to Agravaine's troops or how Merlin dispatched a dozen or so men in the caverns by Ealdor. Yet, Merlin is also right, magic itself is not inherently evil; its the wielder that dictates that. Magic can be used to end droughts, heal people and purify water. It's important in the Merlin world that there are selfless sorcerers like himself to keep the balance.

Uther's purge is a crime by any standards. It blackens his name beyond redemption. You just can't say that he was a good king in some respects. That would be like saying Mussolini made the trains run on time while using mustard gas against the helpless Ethiopians. Interestingly, magic is a deterrent to the tyranny of kings; Uther would have been long dead if it hadn't been for Merlin. So, the young warlock is morally responsible for allowing Uther to kill hundreds of people after he came to Camelot. Not all of Merlin's action have been good, but rather exclusively aimed at putting Arthur on the throne because of prophecy. I do not know how Arthur will react to all of this. I would suggest that Merlin not tell him that he released the great dragon that killed many people with his attack on Camelot. I doubt Arthur would take this well.

I blame some of Merlin's mistakes on bad advice from Gauis. The old physician has cowered for over twenty years. His efforts to influence Uther failed and he gave up. His caution stopped Merlin from taking the initiative to help Morgana; although Morgana was more than willing to help him at one time. Gaius had Merlin save Uther in season one, but was against his efforts in season four. Why not tell Arthur about Morgana's enchanted necklace around Uther's neck as he laid dying? Many mistakes; all because Gaius demanded that he hide himself without risk.

[MikeAP001]

Originally Posted by moleymo

the discussions are getting a little heated for a bbc family show :-) who would have thought that such could cause such drama

Yes. Aint it just great, as we Americans who like to butcher the English language would say?

And, believe it or not, this is what "great" television, "great" literature, "great" anything was meant to do: provoke conversation and discussion which would ultimately lead to a "life lesson."

Despite the arguments back and forth on this Board illustrates the purpose envisioned by the pioneers of American radio and television envisioned and hoped would be realized: the ability to teach life lessons, effect change--- for good or ill--- from those lessons, and to improve the world through applications of those life lessons either in the here and now or in the future. It's a very high standard that few shows can or have reached BUT it is a very powerful reason that underlies the foundation of the radio and television era. It's an ennobling idea and one that most TV people like to cling to even though their driven by ratings and money...

Fimber, for all of his anguish and frustration, should come out of this discussion knowing that in any dispute he should have facts in order and to present those facts in a clear and concise manner.

The fact is: there's a lot that TPTB have said which is contrary BUT in all fairness, what had been said was accurate at the time it was said. TPTB had a (hoped for, then got a) fixed 5 year plan for MERLIN but this was subject to change if circumstances permitted (which seemed to be the case given the ratings but apparently hadn't) and for any number of socio-psychological reasons, TPTB relied upon their original premise: it was a five year plan all along.

But, I'm certain that had Anthony Head been available for 5 series, the plans for MERLIN would be very different but the actor had made other commitments which resulted in a role that didn't quite work out in US TV:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...ole-nbc-170637

And, I'm certain that if the BBC renewed MERLIN, the cast and crew would be willing to do another series.

However, the BBC like to portray themselves on the US side of the Atlantic as being driven by factors beyond ratings. If it were then MERLIN would likely be renewed. But, the BEEB has long held that their decisions are as much about quality as anything else. And, in that view, the things which define "good" or "great" television are missing--- unless you look for it.

Very likely, the arguments for cancellation will be to dismiss the show as a fantasy "kid's show" with no redeeming values. The arguments for cancellation would bear a stron semblance to the same arguments that were given for cancelling Star Trek in the 1960s: ratings below expectations, a family show that doesn't address the real issues of the day, etc.

But those won't diminish the fact that the series was "great television." It was because it changed the world since it did and could change or saved lives. In the 1970s, Gene Roddenberry proudly noted that shortly after the episode where Kirk did CPR--- cardiopulmonary resuscitation--- on the AMERIND princess, enrollment in first aid class increased around the country; James Doohan who played Montgomery Scott was awarded an honorary degree in engineering by a US college because over 50% of the entering class cited "Scotty" as their main influence in becoming engineers; Leonard Nimoy took pride that theoretical physicists were inspired by Spock; Deforest Kelly did the same with any number of doctors and nurses who cited "McCoy", and Nichelle Nichols was a role model for civil rights leaders in the US and inspired some girls to enter the space program. And I know first hand, that Walter Koenig who played Chekov owes his life--- and hobby of collecting action figures--- to a physician whom he met at a Toy and Comic Book Convention in Boston, MA, who provided information on contemporary medical care--- which had its basis in "Star Trek" (the Antibody Ep) and "Lost in Space" (the Junk Man) episodes.

Now, is there anything like that in MERLIN? Most would say no but I'd say yes. It isn't clearly shown in MERLIN but it's there. And, I'd say that in a few years and coming decades, there will be a growing awareness and research in Inflammatory diseases including SIRS (sysytemic inflammatory response syndrome--- the Longstead affliction--- shock states) and neurologic disorders like dementia (Uther's illness--- if he's under 60 years old, Uther had Alzheimer's disease and if he's over, Uther had senile dementia). Some parts of diagnosis or treatment will have a MERLIN-y feel to it.

And, who would be at risk for such things? Anyone whose race is: HUMAN. And so, that's who would stand to benefit. By my reckoning, yes, MERLIN does have a socially redeeming quality to it.

Originally Posted by moleymo

... just watched Bradley James sad goodbye to fans " we'll be back " I hope Colin and Bradley do get some good work, all the cast were brilliant I thought but those two were exceptional, I enjoyed the story and plots but I wouldn't have really got caught up in the show without the gorgeous and talented cast

Is that on youtube?

I'd like to watch it, myself.

Spoiler

For S05:

Arthur and Merlin are in a tavern and gambling. Arthur's losing to Merlin and his magic...

Morgana's been held captive for 3 years by an unnamed bandit king.

Merlin's going to become more independent of Gaius--- ready to move out on his own but sticking around for meals and chats.

You can read about it here:

http://gealach-ros.livejournal.com/827985.html