cant find the old thread.... tbh im surprised there seems to be no interest in this programme.

 

now for a shock!

 

after being very critical of the seriese , im changing my opinion! :lol:

 

its now a 'must see' as the seriese has evolved since the departure of keith allen (whom i though made the show. taking it away from its traditional role, and creating an interesting twist with gisbourne and robin being half brothers and ultimately teaming up (good move, gisbourne was always a better character then hood (armitage better then armstrong) ) was a good move.

 

my only gripes now are having isabella (good choice of name, king john married isabella of anguoleme) be a sherife... a woman in an official position of power in plantagenet england? i dont think so!

 

and the main one..... the whole premis of robin hood, that he fought for the noble and righteous king richard (the lionheart) against his scheming evil brother john.... the thuth is that richard the lionheart was possibly our poorest king, not speaking any english, not visiting here much, and he was homosexual... hardly the image that the robin hood saga wishes to portray of him.

 

john on the other hand lived here, spoke english, and oversaw the signing of the magna carta which was one of the defining moments in british history!

 

.... but all in all, this seriese has slowly improved . :)

Oh dear, no one seems interested mate..... :lol:

 

I have to confess, I seriously never took to this, only watched about a couple of episodes from the first series.... If I were to start watching this now, I'd have absolutely no idea what was going on, and would feel obliged to trawl through about the three cr@p seasons just to catch up to what's going on, and I really DONT have the time for that..... :lol:

 

The whole "Lady Sherife" thing sounds to me like they're doing some sort of weird "alternate universe" thing..... :lol: I think I'll stick with Merlin. A much better series, IMO.....

 

I'[ve been watching this and i've found very interesting. The stories each week are very good and tell along story :D

Well seeing how last Saturday's episode of Robin Hood got just 3.24m viewers...... continuing its hemorrhaging of viewers since (the only good thing about it IMHO) Keith Allen left the show...

 

Which is significantly less than half the viewers who watched Doctor Who (although the Matt Smith years could see a similar decline); and was regularly getting beaten by ITV's Primeval (which looks like it is going to be cancelled) and nearly half the viewers who watched the rather excellent Merlin in the same BBC1 Saturday night timeslot.

 

Then maybe the BBC could make some decent savings and cull this show and replace it with something more watchable and less hokum.

Jonas Armstrong is leaving the series, expect a major cliffhanger, a 4th series is commission already

Jonas Armstrong is leaving the series, expect a major cliffhanger, a 4th series is commission already

 

seems ages ago since i found that out.

Well seeing how last Saturday's episode of Robin Hood got just 3.24m viewers...... continuing its hemorrhaging of viewers since (the only good thing about it IMHO) Keith Allen left the show...

 

Which is significantly less than half the viewers who watched Doctor Who (although the Matt Smith years could see a similar decline); and was regularly getting beaten by ITV's Primeval (which looks like it is going to be cancelled) and nearly half the viewers who watched the rather excellent Merlin in the same BBC1 Saturday night timeslot.

 

Then maybe the BBC could make some decent savings and cull this show and replace it with something more watchable and less hokum.

 

The Beeb should have cancelled Robin Hood and diverted the money saved into paying the wages of Patterson Joseph, Bobby Carlyle or Anna Friel for Dr Who..... Seeing as how it's blatantly obvious that the only reason Matt Smith and that ginger bird only got the jobs cos they were cheap..... :lol:

Oh dear, no one seems interested mate..... :lol:

 

I have to confess, I seriously never took to this, only watched about a couple of episodes from the first series.... If I were to start watching this now, I'd have absolutely no idea what was going on, and would feel obliged to trawl through about the three cr@p seasons just to catch up to what's going on, and I really DONT have the time for that..... :lol:

 

The whole "Lady Sherife" thing sounds to me like they're doing some sort of weird "alternate universe" thing..... :lol: I think I'll stick with Merlin. A much better series, IMO.....

 

i cant abide 'merlin'... its just soo fcukin cheesy and WRONG. at least the set and premis of robin hood are believeable. merlin is bad, bad bad bad,.... 6th centuary britain didnt have french chateaus for castles! :lol: theres NOTHING factually authentic about one of the most interesting periods in english history.

 

one day someone somewhere will tackle arthurian times in a realistic way, and drop the stylised american way of looking at 'camelot' and the arthurian legend. in fact, the best portrayal of arthur was in 1979 on bbc ... but everyone insists on making merlin some ridiculous almost caricatuer reprisentaion of himself..

 

'primeval' too isnt really any better, they probabally are right to end it...just how many dinosaurs can pop through the anomoly in london, look around, roar, run amok then get either killed or sent back... boooorrriiiinnng..

i cant find the titles to that 1979 show, but this comes a decent second.... 72-3 htv arthur of the britains

 

 

even this is more realistic then merlin.

i cant abide 'merlin'... its just soo fcukin cheesy and WRONG. at least the set and premis of robin hood are believeable. merlin is bad, bad bad bad,.... 6th centuary britain didnt have french chateaus for castles! :lol: theres NOTHING factually authentic about one of the most interesting periods in english history.

 

one day someone somewhere will tackle arthurian times in a realistic way, and drop the stylised american way of looking at 'camelot' and the arthurian legend. in fact, the best portrayal of arthur was in 1979 on bbc ... but everyone insists on making merlin some ridiculous almost caricatuer reprisentaion of himself..

 

'primeval' too isnt really any better, they probabally are right to end it...just how many dinosaurs can pop through the anomoly in london, look around, roar, run amok then get either killed or sent back... boooorrriiiinnng..

 

And where exactly are they gonna find an ACTUAL intact 6th Century castle in 2009 you prat.....? :lol: Come on... Who the fukk said "fantasy drama" actually had to be remotely "realistic" anyway...??? This is what you have the Discovery Channel and documentaries for.... Especially considering that all this is just fanciful rumour, speculation and legend anyway...... There weren't any fukkin' talking dragons either in 6th century Britain with the voice of John Hurt, surprised you didn't mention that as well...... :rolleyes: We dont know how Merlin actually was, because he never actually existed..... It's FANTASY Rob...... Just go with it and stop being such a sad anorak..... God, you're coming of worse than some spotty Trekkie..... :rolleyes: And besides, what you fail to appreciate is the fact that this series is focussing on Merlin and Arthur as KIDS..... The actual "legend" is yet to occur....

 

Merlin is fantastic drama, infinitely better than the poorly acted, scripted and overall SHODDY Robin Hood which I frankly couldn't stand in comparison to the ITV 80s drama with Michael Praed, Nikolas Grace and Ray Winstone..... Anthony Head as Uther Pendragon is BRILLIANT, Richard Wilson is also excellent, and the lads who play Merlin and Arthrur and the stunning lass who plays Morgana are really seriously good young actors who are going places, more than likely they'll be lost to us to bloody Hollywood in about four years' time....

 

And, frankly, I thought John Boorman's "Excalibur" film was a lot more 'realistic' tbh, if that's what's really important to you..... A very dark, gloomy and gritty take which focuses on the fall of the legend....

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082348/

And where exactly are they gonna find an ACTUAL intact 6th Century castle in 2009 you prat.....? :lol: Come on... Who the fukk said "fantasy drama" actually had to be remotely "realistic" anyway...??? This is what you have the Discovery Channel and documentaries for.... Especially considering that all this is just fanciful rumour, speculation and legend anyway...... There weren't any fukkin' talking dragons either in 6th century Britain with the voice of John Hurt, surprised you didn't mention that as well...... :rolleyes: We dont know how Merlin actually was, because he never actually existed..... It's FANTASY Rob...... Just go with it and stop being such a sad anorak..... God, you're coming of worse than some spotty Trekkie..... :rolleyes: And besides, what you fail to appreciate is the fact that this series is focussing on Merlin and Arthur as KIDS..... The actual "legend" is yet to occur....

 

Merlin is fantastic drama, infinitely better than the poorly acted, scripted and overall SHODDY Robin Hood which I frankly couldn't stand in comparison to the ITV 80s drama with Michael Praed, Nikolas Grace and Ray Winstone..... Anthony Head as Uther Pendragon is BRILLIANT, Richard Wilson is also excellent, and the lads who play Merlin and Arthrur and the stunning lass who plays Morgana are really seriously good young actors who are going places, more than likely they'll be lost to us to bloody Hollywood in about four years' time....

 

And, frankly, I thought John Boorman's "Excalibur" film was a lot more 'realistic' tbh, if that's what's really important to you..... A very dark, gloomy and gritty take which focuses on the fall of the legend....

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082348/

 

 

there WASNT any castles in 6th centuary england, there were fortified towns/farmsteads (burghs). wooden palisades, banks, ditches...

 

oh well if its a fantasy fictional drama...lets have cars in there, ray guns to kill the ridiculous talking dragon... <_< no?... well they are as apt as a fukin 18th centuary french chateaux! :lol: i thought that even you would think a talking dragon was utter nonsense, that was taken as read.

it was set in a time, post roman/pre saxon england, thats where the myth is historically based... it isnt some made up modern story, its set in an actual historical period... it aint 'lord of the rings', its semi factual.

 

tbh the arthurian legend is p*** poor anyway, and is itself full of historical errors... robin hood is slightly more believeable.

 

as for the tv shows, hood aint great, ive been very critical of it in the past, but imho its getting better. merlin however...is a huge pile of utter cack, dragon cack at that...

 

let historical dramas be realistic, let fantasies do wtf they want.

there WASNT any castles in 6th centuary england, there were fortified towns/farmsteads (burghs). wooden palisades, banks, ditches...

 

oh well if its a fantasy fictional drama...lets have cars in there, ray guns to kill the ridiculous talking dragon... <_< no?... well they are as apt as a fukin 18th centuary french chateaux! :lol: i thought that even you would think a talking dragon was utter nonsense, that was taken as read.

it was set in a time, post roman/pre saxon england, thats where the myth is historically based... it isnt some made up modern story, its set in an actual historical period... it aint 'lord of the rings', its semi factual.

 

tbh the arthurian legend is p*** poor anyway, and is itself full of historical errors... robin hood is slightly more believeable.

 

as for the tv shows, hood aint great, ive been very critical of it in the past, but imho its getting better. merlin however...is a huge pile of utter cack, dragon cack at that...

 

let historical dramas be realistic, let fantasies do wtf they want.

 

Sorry, but I dont view Merlin as "historical drama" in any way, shape or form, to me it IS pure fantasy in a Tolkien/Pratchett kind of way and I see nothing wrong in that.... The Tudors is Historical drama, The Devils Whore is Historical drama, Rome is Historical drama, Julius Ceasar/Henry VIII/Crowell were living, breathing, historical entities, you cannot point in a history book and say "this is Arthur Pendragon". I would certainly be critical of blatant historical inaccuracies in those sorts of drama, but Merlin is just FANTASY, very loosely based on Arthurian legend, it's not a direct remake or retelling, they're just taking the characters and building up an alternate version of the story, so, as far as I'm concerned, they can do what they like.... You're taking it WAY too seriously mate..... Obviously there aren't gonna be ray-guns or cars, those wouldn't exactly fit in with the conventions of the genre..... Dragons (whether talking or mute) are part of legends and fantasy so obviously it works within the context of the genre, whereas big castles DO fit within the Fantasy drama genre; the likes of Tolkien didn't just make Dragons up, those had to come from somewhere, from some legend or folk tales or other..... If, as you say, the Arthurian legend is "p!ss poor anyway" and is itself full of errors, then what difference does it make if someone comes along and makes it even more fanstasic and unreal.....? I didn't expect grandiose historical accuracy or some kind of deep commentary about the times when I watched "Merlin" mate.... I just expected, and got, a damn good Fantasy drama which was well scripted and acted, and has an epic feel to it.....

 

Recently I sat and watched a frankly fantastic and genuinely bloody eerie and atmospheric modern day Korean take on the Hansel and Gretel story... I suppose you'll tell me that the film-makers weren't entitled to adapt and play around with that either.... There's nothing wrong with doing these sorts of things mate, it's all Intertextuality and Post-Modernism which takes ideas from the past and makes them relevant to today, if it's done well, I see nothing wrong with it.....

 

Robin Hood certainly IS a better legend than Arthur, but the Beeb's treatment of it was just dull, unconvincing (in terms of the plot and the acting..) and didn't really go anywhere for me, it's not a patch on the ITV drama of the 80s, which I guess I partly did like because it actually tried more to present a more historically accurate picture, but if the stories/plots had been uninteresting, I wouldn't have watched it regardless of how historically accurate it may have been.....

 

Primeval has just gone utterly cack, not surprisingly there isn't going to be a series 4.... I downloaded the episodes, hoping it would get better, they made a very, very big mistake in killing off Cutter.... Series 1 and 2 are better actually, d/l them and see for yourself... Frankly, I just think series 3 simply ran out of ideas......

Sorry, but I dont view Merlin as "historical drama" in any way, shape or form, to me it IS pure fantasy in a Tolkien/Pratchett kind of way and I see nothing wrong in that.... The Tudors is Historical drama, The Devils Whore is Historical drama, Rome is Historical drama, Julius Ceasar/Henry VIII/Crowell were living, breathing, historical entities, you cannot point in a history book and say "this is Arthur Pendragon". I would certainly be critical of blatant historical inaccuracies in those sorts of drama, but Merlin is just FANTASY, very loosely based on Arthurian legend, it's not a direct remake or retelling, they're just taking the characters and building up an alternate version of the story, so, as far as I'm concerned, they can do what they like.... You're taking it WAY too seriously mate..... Obviously there aren't gonna be ray-guns or cars, those wouldn't exactly fit in with the conventions of the genre..... Dragons (whether talking or mute) are part of legends and fantasy so obviously it works within the context of the genre, whereas big castles DO fit within the Fantasy drama genre; the likes of Tolkien didn't just make Dragons up, those had to come from somewhere, from some legend or folk tales or other..... If, as you say, the Arthurian legend is "p!ss poor anyway" and is itself full of errors, then what difference does it make if someone comes along and makes it even more fanstasic and unreal.....? I didn't expect grandiose historical accuracy or some kind of deep commentary about the times when I watched "Merlin" mate.... I just expected, and got, a damn good Fantasy drama which was well scripted and acted, and has an epic feel to it.....

 

Recently I sat and watched a frankly fantastic and genuinely bloody eerie and atmospheric modern day Korean take on the Hansel and Gretel story... I suppose you'll tell me that the film-makers weren't entitled to adapt and play around with that either.... There's nothing wrong with doing these sorts of things mate, it's all Intertextuality and Post-Modernism which takes ideas from the past and makes them relevant to today, if it's done well, I see nothing wrong with it.....

 

Robin Hood certainly IS a better legend than Arthur, but the Beeb's treatment of it was just dull, unconvincing (in terms of the plot and the acting..) and didn't really go anywhere for me, it's not a patch on the ITV drama of the 80s, which I guess I partly did like because it actually tried more to present a more historically accurate picture, but if the stories/plots had been uninteresting, I wouldn't have watched it regardless of how historically accurate it may have been.....

 

Primeval has just gone utterly cack, not surprisingly there isn't going to be a series 4.... I downloaded the episodes, hoping it would get better, they made a very, very big mistake in killing off Cutter.... Series 1 and 2 are better actually, d/l them and see for yourself... Frankly, I just think series 3 simply ran out of ideas......

 

well i guess it depends upon wether or not you view merlin/arthur as a historical drama or a fantasy... i go for drama because it IS based in history, it was originally told (in the eleventh centuary) as an anglo-saxon peom (like beowolf) or a viking saga was. so its unlike a tolkeinesque fantasy ...

 

either way i hate the programme with a vengance .... apart from head and wilson the characters are rubbish imho... maybe id accept it more if they had based the story in arthurian times but without arthurian characters.. but as it is hey are messing with real plantagonet material..

well i guess it depends upon wether or not you view merlin/arthur as a historical drama or a fantasy... i go for drama because it IS based in history, it was originally told (in the eleventh centuary) as an anglo-saxon peom (like beowolf) or a viking saga was. so its unlike a tolkeinesque fantasy ...

 

But the stories of Arthur and Beowulf are really just allegories standing in for themes and concepts such as courage, honour, valiance, the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the greater good, etc..... For me the new Merlin does do what these original tales did back in the day, it just does it in a more post-modern way. The subtexts of courage, honour, etc, still exist within the text of the show....

 

The Japanese similarly update things from ancient times and adapt them to the new media, but leave the essential themes intact, films like "The Ring" and "The Grudge" are based on ancient Japanese legends, ghost stories and curses.....

no comments on the last show?...

 

thought it was interesting, a massive cull of main characters, dunno if it will survive but itll be interesting to see if it does.

 

What awesome acting i thought. Great ending but of course very sad. Good to see Keith Allen make one last stint too :D

What awesome acting i thought. Great ending but of course very sad. Good to see Keith Allen make one last stint too :D

 

tbh i thought it was very brave killing off so many big characters..