[jimthepig]

Does anyone else feel that he was very under used last series and hope he has a bigger role this series?

[claire2281]

Originally Posted by jimthepig

Does anyone else feel that he was very under used last series and hope he has a bigger role this series?

Tbh, no.

I'd far rather then concentrate on giving proper character development and screen time to the core four. The knights are nice secondary characters but they don't really need to do much, with the exception of Gwaine who is the only one whose character I feel could work with an extended role.

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by claire2281

You can if the show isn't 'medieval'. It's set in a 'time of myth and a land of magic'. It's never alluded to be the 'real' Britain and is clearly a magical AU. As such, they can do what they like and will ignore what they like as it is their world and doesn't has to adhere to any pre-conceived notions or themes. It's one of the beauties of writing fantasy.

As for the rest of the post - the tropes of these 'good vs evil' stories and hero arcs are well known and well used. I VERY much doubt there's some great depth to what the producers are choosing to do; they're simply doing the story they want to see and which they think will keep their audience watching. They have to be businessmen as much as creative types after all...

They're not adhering consciously to any particularly theoretical archetype. They're writing what they think will sell, using previous experience of these types of story.

Thanks Claire, for a while I thought I was the only one who believed Merlin as a TV show was being over analysed beyond the usual speculative nature.
The heroes journey myth's been established pretty much since the Ancient Greeks starting writing about their own creation myths.

Originally Posted by claire2281

Tbh, no.

I'd far rather then concentrate on giving proper character development and screen time to the core four. The knights are nice secondary characters but they don't really need to do much, with the exception of Gwaine who is the only one whose character I feel could work with an extended role.

I'd agree, although I'd include Sir Leon as well as Gwaine. Both of those could be used to expand into Arthur and Merlin's relationships respectively. I suppose, technically, they could also use Elyan to give more background for Gwen as well but Percival, much as I love Tom Hooper, he doesn't have a connection to the original four characters to give any more depth to. Specially as it was Lancelot who brought him into the knightly fold in the first place.

[Avi8]

The entire use of Percival is a complete oddity to me. Without wanting to appear freakishly obsessive about it, I do wonder A LOT about the way Percival was introduced and subsequently used. Both Lancelot and Gwaine had their own introductory episodes and had subsequent roles to play, though killing Lancelot off just seems silly to me. Other knights, Bedivere springs to mind, get a passing mention - that's fine. Yet another knight - Leon - is a made up knight, not originally planned as a character but developed in response to fans demands - also ok by me. I am not after a purist account of the knights or any part of the Arthurian legend. I would have stopped watching long ago if I had cared about that!

But Percival is usually such an important knight in the stories, and it seems odd that he did not have his introductory episode in the way that Lancelot and Gwaine did. If it was never intended that he would have some of the importance of the legendary Percival, I wonder why they did not just call him by another name and have him as a friend of Lancelot. So, to that extent, do I feel he is underused? the answer from me would be yes.

But, on the other hand, I agree with Claire that the series as a whole has always been more about how the 4 central characters develop, and with that in mind, I am not that concerned that some, or any of the knights, get more attention. I do think Lancelot should still be in it though, and I wouldn't mind seeing Galahad, just as another background character, but it wouldn't bother me unduly if none of them were in it and we went back to nameless knights milling about and occasionally being seen to answer Arthur's call to fight.

By the way, does anyone know if Elyan has any basis in myth? I thought not, then read something, perhaps here, that suggested he was a mythical character.

[lil_miss_blonde]

Originally Posted by jimthepig

Does anyone else feel that he was very under used last series and hope he has a bigger role this series?

I think all the knights have a slightly bigger role this year

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by Avi8

The entire use of Percival is a complete oddity to me. Without wanting to appear freakishly obsessive about it, I do wonder A LOT about the way Percival was introduced and subsequently used. Both Lancelot and Gwaine had their own introductory episodes and had subsequent roles to play, though killing Lancelot off just seems silly to me. Other knights, Bedivere springs to mind, get a passing mention - that's fine. Yet another knight - Leon - is a made up knight, not originally planned as a character but developed in response to fans demands - also ok by me. I am not after a purist account of the knights or any part of the Arthurian legend. I would have stopped watching long ago if I had cared about that!

But Percival is usually such an important knight in the stories, and it seems odd that he did not have his introductory episode in the way that Lancelot and Gwaine did. If it was never intended that he would have some of the importance of the legendary Percival, I wonder why they did not just call him by another name and have him as a friend of Lancelot. So, to that extent, do I feel he is underused? the answer from me would be yes.

But, on the other hand, I agree with Claire that the series as a whole has always been more about how the 4 central characters develop, and with that in mind, I am not that concerned that some, or any of the knights, get more attention. I do think Lancelot should still be in it though, and I wouldn't mind seeing Galahad, just as another background character, but it wouldn't bother me unduly if none of them were in it and we went back to nameless knights milling about and occasionally being seen to answer Arthur's call to fight.

By the way, does anyone know if Elyan has any basis in myth? I thought not, then read something, perhaps here, that suggested he was a mythical character.

Elyan is indeed an Arthurian knight in the legends He is the son of Sir Bors and is known as Elyan the White and Lancelot is his cousin. He doesn't have a major role though in the mythologies, he's just there as one of the other knights.
Avis - I suspect the reason they haven't done Percival's story is that it's mostly related to the search for the Holy Grail and they've not done that specific aspect of the mythology.

[Cadiva]

Ran out of editing time as I had to go get my son from nursery. What I was going to expand on with Percival is that I don't think this version in Merlin is supposed to have a connection directly to the legendary one. I think they just wanted another knight, one who was very strong and who could be used to bulk out Arthur's companions.
They could have given him a random name but they do seem to like to use "proper" knights of the Round Table names even when they don't use the myths behind them - Sir Bedivere being a prime example from Series One.
Percival in history is linked to the Welsh name Peredur. There are three specific and distinct stories surrounding people named Peredur but all are generally held to be warriors fighting against various foes. I've actually done Percival on my website here.

Originally Posted by Cadiva

. . . love Tom Hooper

and, I did, of course, mean Tom Hopper!

[Avi8]

Originally Posted by Cadiva

I suspect the reason they haven't done Percival's story is that it's mostly related to the search for the Holy Grail and they've not done that specific aspect of the mythology.

Oh durr! I think I have asked about Percival before and this point was made (probably by you!) I really should try and remember things! It makes a lot of sense, anyway, and would also account (maybe?) for the lack of Galahad too.

[Avi8]

It doesn't fully explain why they didn't give Percival his own proper story though. Afterall, no account I have read of Gawain has him as the orphan son of a knight of Caerleon, or indeed has Lancelot as a peasant friend of Merlin. I still think it is a bit odd the way Percival didn't get his own introductory episode, giving him some back story, no matter how made up it might have been. All we actually know about him was supplied by Merlin half a series later (when he tells Arthur that Percival's family was all killed by Caerleon) I know there is a deleted scene from the first episode he was in, in which Lancelot explained in one sentence something about him to Merlin, but that is hardly the same introduction as Lancelot, Gwaine, and for that matter Elyan, got.

It isn't important, but I think that is what I meant when I said his treatment has always niggled me a bit. OK to no Holy Grail story, but the writers could have given him a bit more, especially when you think that he was introduced in series 3 and that series really did contain one or two utterly pointless episodes (don't kill me for saying this! )

[claire2281]

Originally Posted by Cadiva

Elyan is indeed an Arthurian knight in the legends He is the son of Sir Bors and is known as Elyan the White and Lancelot is his cousin. He doesn't have a major role though in the mythologies, he's just there as one of the other knights.

Doesn't he support Lancelot and Guinevere as such and doesn't want them punished? I seem to remember a few friends getting quite annoyed about his reaction to Gwen in the Lancelot episode last year because not only is she is his sister but in the legends he wasn't against them...

[MikeAP001]

Originally Posted by lil_miss_blonde

I think all the knights have a slightly bigger role this year

That's nice. Literary-wise, the best way to develop the protagonist is often to develop those around him/her as well. That way, most of us viewers get comparisons and contrasts which help define the Hero. I figure one of those knights to be Gwaine but I'd also like to see Percy get his due... and Leon (I'd like to see him acknowledge the value of Merlin and undo some of the things he'd said in LAMIA).

I know you or some on this board don't like the analysis bits but the knights aren't merely secondary characters. They each represent something about Merlin and Arthur. For instance: Leon is the expressed nobility of the knights, Gwaine the hidden nobility, Elyan the courage found in all of us--- noble or not, and Percival the strength in all of us.

That's why for me, The Sharer of Secrets was a bit of a disappointment because the writers should have put more of an overt connection between Merlin and Gwaine which if you believe the Vogel theory could have given more background on Gwaine while developing Merlin. For instance, a representation or discussion of some mother/father/family issue, no matter, how brief that Gwaine and Merlin would have in common in as much as both were raised by their mothers but hardly knew at all their fathers. It's those sorts that make for a more powerful story and lend credence to the motivation behind some of the knight's behavior.

[lp229]

Hi everyone, I'm new to this thread but have been following it for a while. I have enjoyed reading everybody's comments, the discussion on the show is much more lively here compared to elsewhere on the web.

I also think Percival is an underdeveloped character. Ideally he could have done with his own introductory episode as with the other knights, his first appearance in the series 3 finale was just convenient for the writers. Percival was given more depth to his personality in series 4 but for me, he's still quite a one dimensional character.

One of the few changes I didn't like in S4 was the way Gwaine was treated. Gwaine in S3 was wreckless and cheeky but he wasn't stupid. However, It was good to see the writers revoke the friendship between him and Merlin and watch him get some much needed attention in the series finale.

Overall, more focus needs to be given to the knights. I'm hoping that the order of the round table will be formally established next series,other knights will join it and we'll actually see the Round table as a permanent feature of Arthur's hall. Some quests would be good aswell although there will be enough on the scene if Albion will be formed in S5.

[MikeAP001]

Originally Posted by lp229

...

One of the few changes I didn't like in S4 was the way Gwaine was treated. Gwaine in S3 was wreckless and cheeky but he wasn't stupid. However, It was good to see the writers revoke the friendship between him and Merlin and watch him get some much needed attention in the series finale.
...

Hello. The handle's familiar. Do I know you?

Anyway, I thought that Gwaine acted the way he should have. And, this is the stuff of psych majors... so, ask one of them... but Gwaine is emotionally one of the healthiest and most mature.

In the earlier episodes, we saw glimpses of how Gwaine in a group would be: serious but flippant becoming more so as the danger increased to the point of humor--- Remember the pheasant and firewood scenes? But, those groups were only temporary so he reverted back to his usual Gwaine-self.

Gwaine can't do that anymore. The difference in Gwaine's attitude in S04 is that his situation has changed. Whereas he'd been a loner for the most part, responsible for himself only, he's been thrust into a group where he's responsible for others on a regular basis.

In Group Dynamics Theory, a Group has the highest probability for success with someone like Gwaine in the Group than without. In Decision Making Analysis, the person you don't want to have as an opponent is someone like Gwaine... he might end up losing but he'll make you look really bad in the process.

That's why Morgana made a mistake in choosing Gwaine to sing for his supper: Elyan would have put up a good fight but he'd have cracked sooner against an overwhelming force: his personality dynamics wouldn't have been able to cope with situation and done something reckless--- like attacking Morgana--- resulting in his death or he'd be like a lot of warriors who in time are emotionally broken... Gwaine would have just laughed it off thinking "I'm going to die anyway, tomorrow's as good a day as any other." And, that would irritate an opponent to no end.

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by Avi8

It isn't important, but I think that is what I meant when I said his treatment has always niggled me a bit. OK to no Holy Grail story, but the writers could have given him a bit more, especially when you think that he was introduced in series 3 and that series really did contain one or two utterly pointless episodes (don't kill me for saying this! )

No, I agree, (not necessarily about the rubbish episodes though ) but there definitely could have been a bit more back story given to him after he'd arrived with Lancelot. I think, to be fair, he's just there as the "strong silent type" knight to round (if you forgive the pun) out Arthur's band of merry men.

Originally Posted by claire2281

Doesn't he support Lancelot and Guinevere as such and doesn't want them punished? I seem to remember a few friends getting quite annoyed about his reaction to Gwen in the Lancelot episode last year because not only is she is his sister but in the legends he wasn't against them...

He does yes. He's one of the knights who helps Lancelot rescue Guinevere after their affair is exposed, as does the rest of his family actually, and he joins them in their exile. In most legends he goes on to be Emperor of Constantinople

Originally Posted by MikeAP001

I know you or some on this board don't like the analysis bits but the knights aren't merely secondary characters. They each represent something about Merlin and Arthur. For instance: Leon is the expressed nobility of the knights, Gwaine the hidden nobility, Elyan the courage found in all of us--- noble or not, and Percival the strength in all of us.

I'd argue against the contention that we don't like the "analysis bits". It's more a case that it would appear most of us don't subscribe to your theory that the producers are doing anything out of the ordinary or specifically related to the one type of heroic storytelling in the same way that you do

Claire and I have had repeated discussions on the motivations behind the characters actions over the last four series, as I'm sure she'll testify, including plenty of philosophical and psychological debates on just what the chuff the producers/writers were thinking about.

I'm fairly sure though that, with the deepest of respect to the producers and writers of Merlin, that they're really not being anywhere near as clever as you seem to think. Some of the episodes have really weak storylines and horrible dialogue for starters as well as some quite bad character about changes in attitude which simply wouldn't happen if they were following your monomyth theory.

[TLC1098]

Originally Posted by Avi8

It doesn't fully explain why they didn't give Percival his own proper story though. Afterall, no account I have read of Gawain has him as the orphan son of a knight of Caerleon, or indeed has Lancelot as a peasant friend of Merlin. I still think it is a bit odd the way Percival didn't get his own introductory episode, giving him some back story, no matter how made up it might have been. All we actually know about him was supplied by Merlin half a series later (when he tells Arthur that Percival's family was all killed by Caerleon) I know there is a deleted scene from the first episode he was in, in which Lancelot explained in one sentence something about him to Merlin, but that is hardly the same introduction as Lancelot, Gwaine, and for that matter Elyan, got.

It isn't important, but I think that is what I meant when I said his treatment has always niggled me a bit. OK to no Holy Grail story, but the writers could have given him a bit more, especially when you think that he was introduced in series 3 and that series really did contain one or two utterly pointless episodes (don't kill me for saying this! )

I have to agree there was one or two pointless episodes so instead they should've had an episode where Percival was introduced and then had him return in the finale.

[MikeAP001]

Originally Posted by lil_miss_blonde

They film on different locations daily, not to mention most of the time on 2 seperate units.. so im sure that 'twit' was probably correct that they were filming in the caves and therefore is actually not a 'twit'.

Oops, sorry. I meant twit as in a twitter message that's used as a tease by someone on Twitter. Seemed appropriate in as much as a synonym for twit is tease.

[lp229]

Originally Posted by Cadiva

I'd argue against the contention that we don't like the "analysis bits". It's more a case that it would appear most of us don't subscribe to your theory that the producers are doing anything out of the ordinary or specifically related to the one type of heroic storytelling in the same way that you do

I'm fairly sure though that, with the deepest of respect to the producers and writers of Merlin, that they're really not being anywhere near as clever as you seem to think. Some of the episodes have really weak storylines and horrible dialogue for starters as well as some quite bad character about changes in attitude which simply wouldn't happen if they were following your monomyth theory.

I would have to agree, I enjoy Mike's analysis and am impressed with his knowledge but the evidence used to support the theory is being pushed a bit too far. The writers of Merlin have created almost a purely mythical setting for the show. At first I thought this was to the neglect of the historical aspects of the legend, now I can see that it has always been their intention to follow a different path from other adaptations and create the setting from a quasi-historical point of view. Geoffrey of Monmouth's writings are one example. The concept of Morgana being a priestess of the triple goddess is imaginative but no case can be clearly made that the 'Old religion' is the druidism of the pre-Roman era. The Treksilon in Aithussa was just an ancient symbol of the druids just to give the plot a feel as though it was rooted in history but to suggest anything else is just speculation.

I believe what you see is what you get with Merlin. It is after all a family show, I can't see why the writers would be so cryptic on the setting if there was something more behind it given the majority of the audience wouldn't have a knowledge of the Arthurian legends to draw their ideas from. If they had any intention of putting Merlin in its post-Roman historical context , much more would be explained. There are some cliche themes to the show but all writers borrow from each other, it doesn't implicate that their using a formula. I didn't know there is such a methodology for writing, so again I appreciate the posts. I cannot speak for the writers, but from my point of view, I wouldn't want my creativity constrained by such a fixed course.

[MikeAP001]

Originally Posted by lp229

... I cannot speak for the writers, but from my point of view, I wouldn't want my creativity constrained by such a fixed course.

It is true that if the shows aren't done well then it does appear to be "formulaic" which is what a lot of television and movies are being accused of being at least those released in the United States. And, they're right... those shows tend to run the same story lines over and over... which is what MERLIN seemed to do in stretches during S04 without taking a closer look.

But, the Monomyth needn't be a constraint on the imagination. It's merely an outline for what might be and it's up to the production--- actors, writers, directors, and editors--- to flesh out the details and make variations. If I remember right, when James Cameron was being sued by Harlan Ellison over the TERMINATOR, Cameron or his lawyers quipped something along the lines that "George Lucas gave Theseus, a light saber, and came up with Star Wars, in his hunt for the Minotaur; I had the Minotaur hunting for Theseus and Ariadne and came up with the TERMINATOR. There's no plagiarism, intented or not." And, if I see the two movies, they're different in a lot of ways... so much so that I hadn't noticed the Theseus parallel in either movie... but, it's there.

Now, in the "Old School" way of thinking, as in Eisenstein, Hitchcock and Ford, all of those involved in the presentation had duties so that the audience would "suspend its belief", be welcomed into actively participating in the presentation, and experience a "catharsis" satisfying the viewing public (so that the profits came rolling in and kept rolling in... as Samuel Goldwyn said if I remember right). And, writers had the obligation of guiding the viewer as the events unfolded.

[MikeAP001]

Originally Posted by claire2281

You can if the show isn't 'medieval'. It's set in a 'time of myth and a land of magic'. It's never alluded to be the 'real' Britain and is clearly a magical AU...

But the BBC One adverts S04 as: "Fourth series about the famous wizard's young adulthood in Camelot, set within a medieval world of fantasy and enchantment"

You can see it here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00kf3w3

Hopefully, this stays up longer than the Dragon tongue trivia.

Then, again, if you believe the BBC then you'd have to believe the pre-production scripts where Gaius is Merlin's uncle and Hunith's (step-)brother (and maybe Balinor's step-brother). And, the BBC 3 interview where Richard Wilson says Gaius is Merlin's uncle.

Originally Posted by claire2281

They're not adhering consciously to any particularly theoretical archetype. They're writing what they think will sell, using previous experience of these types of story.

BBC had three pre-production scripts floating around on it's website at one time in PDF: Dragon's Call, Excalibur and Uther's death. They made for some interesting reading and those writers were adhering mighty well to the Principles of Story telling of Vogel, Heinlein, MONOMYTH, etc.

Though, I admit the strict use of those principles is a bit dodgy at times in this show but it's to be expected over a series run like Merlin because it builds up the expectation for each succeeding episode (in Skiffy-speak: the writers invite the viewer to participate in the story in a more intimate way) so that the audience expects a pay-off (Spielberg speaking on Indiana Jones, that is the expected event is shown or at least is explained BUT not ignored) giving the audience a "wow" moment (Spielberg-speak; Skiffy-speak: catharsis) because when there's none then there's a let down among the fans BUT if there's more than one then the audience is emotionally drained and there's a let down often leaving the audience to think the production's been rushed (Spielberg's First and Second Lesson of Film).

BTW, Spielberg didn't believe it at first either but then at a preview showing for a test audience, he saw it first hand. The first lesson came when the test audience seemed to be enjoying Indiana Jones but when the pay off didn't happen as expected, he could see the mood change. Spielberg said that taught him a lot and he had to do a lot more editing than he planned before releasing the film if he wanted the film to be a success. The second lesson occurred during a test run of the Temple of Doom, Spielberg planned for two "wow" moments saving the bigger moment at the end. As expected, the audience really liked the first wow moment. But he was surprised the second wow wasn't quite so enthusiastically received. That experienced taught him that a director or writer couldn't expect more than one big payoff otherwise he'd lose the audience and since he had a financial stake in things... well, as someone stated he is a businessman.

As for not consciously following the Monomyth, that might be but on some level they are. There's an anecdote where Spielberg claimed he was just following story lines that he thought would sell until his good friend George Lucas pointed out using the analysis bits that he learned from Joseph Campbell that he AND Spielberg were following the MONOMYTH in their stories. Finally, Spielberg continued to deny he was but supposedly said something like: "Those similarities exist only because I like your movies, Luke." Lucas an avid MONOMYTH devotee replied: "Steve, you've just proven my point."

[lp229]

Originally Posted by MikeAP001

But, the Monomyth needn't be a constraint on the imagination. It's merely an outline for what might be and it's up to the production--- actors, writers, directors, and editors--- to flesh out the details and make variations. If I remember right, when James Cameron was being sued by Harlan Ellison over the TERMINATOR, Cameron or his lawyers quipped something along the lines that "George Lucas gave Theseus, a light saber, and came up with Star Wars, in his hunt for the Minotaur; I had the Minotaur hunting for Theseus and Ariadne and came up with the TERMINATOR. There's no plagiarism, intented or not." And, if I see the two movies, they're different in a lot of ways... so much so that I hadn't noticed the Theseus parallel in either movie... but, it's there.

I see so the monomyth is a skeleton from which the writers can expand on with their own story. I didn't know there was such a methodology behind the exchange of ideas. It makes a lot of sense when you watch some predictable films like 'Avatar' where the progress of the story is something that you have seen before. We can see that the beginning and the destination for Merlin is inspired by 'smallville' but how does the momomyth way of story writing relate to the ongoing narrative of the show which has known to take unplanned turns?

[Bio Max]

Does anyone know if the old 'librarian' will return this series?!

[Scorpio2]

Originally Posted by Bio Max

Does anyone know if the old 'librarian' will return this series?!

Believe it or not the librarian is actually Geoffrey of Monmouth so he most likely will return.

[GBali]

Originally Posted by Bio Max

Does anyone know if the old 'librarian' will return this series?!

No news about him yet.
We haven't seen Geoffrey of Monmouth since Arthur's coronation if I remember correctly.

[MikeAP001]

Originally Posted by lp229

I see so the monomyth is a skeleton from which the writers can expand on with their own story. I didn't know there was such a methodology behind the exchange of ideas.

Yes.

Originally Posted by lp229

... We can see that the beginning and the destination for Merlin is inspired by 'smallville' but how does the momomyth way of story writing relate to the ongoing narrative of the show which has known to take unplanned turns?

And Yes.

But, this is where things get tricky and you need to believe in the BOOK theory. Basically, it means that the creators of a show have a BOOK of the STORY outlining the major themes for each season the show’s on. This BOOK is termed the SHOW’S BIBLE where each episode or series of episodes touches on a central theme throughout the run of the show. Grouped together for a central theme, the episodes form SECTIONS while each individual episode forms a Chapter. And, these episodes are modified depending on the availability of the actors, the budget, etc. If these are done well, then you have an enjoyable story that will pull in viewers at any level of education as a very entertaining show but if not then people might tire complaining of “plot holes” or a “tired format” (like a “monster of the week,” “typical hero show,” etc.)

Spoiler

Just as a review for me and others, The Twelve Stages of the Hero’s Journey are:

Stage 1: Ordinary World
Stage 2: Call to Adventure
Stage 3: Refusal of the Call (Optional)
Stage 4: Meeting with the Mentor
Stage 5: Crossing the Threshold
Stage 6: Tests, Allies, Enemies
Stage 7: Approach to the Inner most Cave or the Belly of the Whale
Stage 8: Ordeal
Stage 9: Reward (Seizing the Sword)
Stage 10: The Road Back
Stage 11: Resurrection
Stage 12: Return with the Elixir

These are often lumped in classes which can be confusing because they’re also called stages but they should be looked upon as an episode. So, if you want one episode 11-12 of these stages occur. If you want two episodes then 6 and so forth. But, usually the typical division is five; though gaining in popularity is 3.

Depending on the Goal of Merlin’s Quest it’s either 3 Years:

Goal: Making Arthur less of a Prat, preparing Arthur to be a Ruler by transforming Arthur from a Chivalric Hero into a Romantic Hero, or one who will be more open to .

STAGE 1: SEPARATION/DEPARTURE--- each episode in S01 led toward the Goal with the theme of Separation and Departure. Merlin’s acceptance of being Arthur’s Servant, Arthur will be a great king, and Merlin showed that he had the makings of a great warlock by gaining in mastery over the balance of Life and Death.
STAGE 2: DESCENT/INITIATON--- each episode in S02 built toward the theme of Merlin (and Arthur) encountering Trials and Ordeals that would seduce him away from his path as a Hero (Freya as Merlin’s love interest; Morgause as the mastermind turning Arthur against Uther; Morgana as a witch). Finally, they gained possession of those things to complete the Goal (Arthur proved his worth as king of Camelot (the Fisher King’s Trident) and Merlin gains the powers of revelation (prophecy), redemption--- he breaks Trickler’s spell), resurrection and the Dragon Lord.
STAGE 3: RETURN--- each episode showed that the Hero wasn’t done, yet. He gained the Goal but needed to secure it. More trials await including the return either figuratively or literally of an Enemies who are stronger and more powerful. But, the Hero defeats these and the Hero gains his quested goal (Arthur is ready to rule and will, Merlin gains in status among the royals by having allies among Arthur’s advisors and KORT, Merlin of revelation and all this symbolized by the Sword and the Cup of Life. Because, we’re certain that in time Merlin will gain mastery over revelation, redemption, and resurrection)

Or 5 years… where the Boon is for Magic to be returned to the land. I already posted this before so I won’t again.

STAGE 1: SEPARATION
STAGE 2: DEPARTURE
STAGE 3: DESCENT
STAGE 4: INITIATION
STAGE 5: RETURN

Each year would in turn be divided into one of twelve stages or episodes leaving one episode. So at the minimum, if you wanted to make a series, you’d need a commitment to produce a minimum of 7 episodes (12 stages divided by wow moments plus one to tie things up neatly and reinforce the seasons themes) or preferably 13 episodes minimum using Spielberg’s lesson. That’s why this can fit in neatly as a BOOK with each 3 or 5 stage series being SECTIONS in the book and each of those divided into CHAPTERS (the episodes). And that way of story telling’s been the hotbed for a lot of would-be writers as I far as I can tell who use certain texts to aid in story telling because that’s what sells.

Using Christopher Vogler’s analytic framework in a WRITER’S JOURNEY, Merlin’s progress went along fine until S04. Here, we saw what Merlin will in time confront and defeat for Albion to be born… the negative aspects of the Triple Goddess--- the Maid (Aithusa if as rumored, she’s female, or LAMIA, or another Damsel in Distress), the Mother (Morgana as a Mother figure--- a Queen), and the Crone (the Callieach). To do that, during S04, Merlin should have shown glimpses that he could have mastery over revelation (prophecy), redemption (what he did for Lancelot), and resurrection (again what he did for Lancelot) and he didn’t.

In S05, these same archetypes will recur so we can expect the Maid (Aithusa if as rumored, she’s female, or another Damsel in Distress or even a False Knight like Mordred), the Mother (Morgana as a Mother figure--- to Mordred), and the Crone (the Callieach or another Old Woman like the Dorchaid or an Old Man).
Merlin must have the power to combat them… and he doesn’t. The audience should have gained some glimpse that Merlin’s power had grown. That’s why, it seemed that in S04, instead of showing that Merlin had gained greater control of his magic powers in S04E13, someone decided he hadn’t

In S05, Merlin having obtained the BOON (Gwen and Arthur on the throne of Camelot, Arthur with a sword from a stone giving him claim over Albion) must now struggle to keep it. But, Merlin doesn’t have that boon yet… the original kingdom of Bruta is nowhere near formed despite their medieval G-8 treaty from S02. And Merlin should have gained more practice in these which is what the 12 stages of the Hero’s Journey would at this time served as a central theme for each episode while Arthur should discover that Merlin has magic.

Other things that should occur in S05: Merlin encounters an enemy force that will try to keep Albion from forming but in the end helps give birth to it, Merlin meets someone who will help re-integrate him into the society of Magic wielders, and Merlin demonstrates his power to emotionally, physically, and spiritually resurrect some one or thing which will secure Merlin’s status and power. And, the episodes should be building toward those themes.

If that’s done then Merlin’s first BOOK is done and ideally a second BOOK should be started. A show following this pattern is Supernatural; however, instead of a three or five year plan they’re following a one year plan. If done well, it’s good; otherwise, it seems as if you’ve got a BIG BAD Monster of the Year to battle--- and you still might get good viewing numbers judging by Supernatural. What you don’t want is what happened to Smallville where viewership became a steady decline surviving only by piggy-backing on to another popular show before changing its format a bit.

Anyway, if the writers want Merlin to be an Anti-Hero by having him take on more negative aspects, that’s fine but often those Heroes do not get re-integrated into Society. In other words, that path will lead to Merlin’s death or banishment and he’ll not know Albion. That’d be a good story but the current climate of opinion (and that would be a discussion for another time) won’t support future episodes of Merlin.

We’ll know better once we see the episode summaries or teasers because there are two distinct Hero’s Journeys--- one which leads to the hope of renewal for another season (the idea of Immortality after Death); the other, which can be used to end a show (Tranquility of Life). But, based on the things I’ve read here and elsewhere, it’s more the second than the first that S05’s following.

Sorry about the length...

[claire2281]

Originally Posted by MikeAP001

But, this is where things get tricky and you need to believe in the BOOK theory. Basically, it means that the creators of a show have a BOOK of the STORY outlining the major themes for each season the show’s on.

Which they clearly don't - or if they do, they don't adhere to it very well - because the direction changed quite drastically after series 1 and the show contradicts its own canon all over the place!

They had a basic idea of where they were going but it was very basic and open to a LOT of change.