DJariya

By djariya at 2011-04-01

Synopsis:



Episode 9 of 10

Next week is the season finale. Starz hasn't made a decision yet on a 2nd season.

Promo:

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ar0p1A7RNU8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

MikahC

In the span of a few of months, I've gone from "Something called Game of Thrones" and "Oh nice, Camelot!" to "Game of Thrones!" and "Oh, Camelot". Except for the sex, which isn't notable or redeeming, this show could run on the CW, and is only marginally better (sometimes), than Legend of the Seeker.

dino88

If one good thing comes from this series, it will be that Arthur (whatever the actor's name is) will never be cast in a film/tv show again. Terrible actor. The people who thought he was right for this role should never work again either.

Bill Needle

Completely agree, a truly wretched casting decision.

At least something seemed to actually move what appeared to be an actual plot along this episode. I know, too late...but just saying. I can't not watch the finale, but it will be more of a relief than anything.

The Cow

It's too bad this didn't turn out better. The production and filming are pretty good. I didn't care for the Merlin actor early on, but he seems to have gotten a little better in his role.

But the story is soooo slow, and the actor for King Arthur is just a huge miscast.

Gunde

This show fucking sucks! There I said it.
Unbelievable that this costs more to produce than "Game Of Thrones". How's that even possible!?

valkyrie

Sadly, it appears the guy is actually getting MORE roles:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/207...al-instruments

creekdipper

That's almost verbatim what I said to my wife tonight after we caught up on Episode 9 On Demand. Take out a few swear words, a little gratuitous nudity, and a little bit of extra corn syrup/ketchup during the "battle" scenes and this could be any syndicated show.

Have to agree with everyone else that this has been a disappointment, to say the least. Really unimaginative writing (plots & dialogue), laughable costuming (IMHO), a seriously miscast lead, and plodding storyline make this one a failed opportunity.

Leontes obviously is doomed . I expect him to bit the dust in the finale...indeed, we expected him to get the shaft (literally) in Ep. 9...in order to clear the way for Arthur to hook up officially with Gweneviere. We expected the writers to do the predictable thing & have Merlin orchestrate Leontes' death & have the two illicit lovers have to bear the guilt & shame in secret. It was refreshing to be proven wrong & have Arthur's dirty little secret exposed to Kay & Gawain (loved Kay's on-the-mark dressing down of his immature half-brother). It also seems that the writers have been setting up a different origin for Mordred (well, different sperm donor, anyway).

This really is a sloppy production. Many of the extras looke as though they were plucked off the street...almost similar to Jay Leno's "casting" of ordinary folk for the surprise visit skits.

I loved the fact that when the kid rode to Camelot for help, they had to fix him a sandwich before he would relate the "urgent" message that his village was besieged. You'd think that they could at least have gotten most of the details from him on the way to the kitchen.

creekdipper

Where can we see a comparison? I was just wondering how Game of Thrones, Borgias, and Camelot compared in production costs. I assumed that Camelot was a distant third & thought maybe this fact explained the 'cheap' look of the show. Cannot see any way possible that Camelot could cost more(judging by the results on the screen) unless there's some major thievery going on.

It seems that they thought hiring Joseph Fiennes would give the show instant credibility, with good sentiments lingering from his Shakespeare In Love days. Other than that, Eva Green is marvelous & makes a stunning Morgan Le Fay. Too bad they didn't spend more time on the king (I'd have liked to see Phillip Winchester take the role).

Gunde

In this interview Neil Jordan says that the budget for the first season of 'The Borgias' was $40M. That's roughly $4,5M per episode:
http://www.assignmentx.com/2011/inte...al-crime-saga/

The Hollywood Reporter says that the first season budget for "Game Of Thrones" was $50-$60M. About $10M of those was for the pilot. So that's about $5M for each of the rest.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...numbers-178659

The Wall Street Journal claims "Camelot" was $7M per episode.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...727161888.html

Both "The Borgias" and "Game Of Thrones" look amazing. How is it possible that everything in "Camelot" looks so cheap???

Bill Needle

'The Holy Grail' without the humor, or plot, or Killer Rabbit, et-cetera et-cetera et-cetera. I do think I did see a shrubbery.

SiberianLlama

This show is like a car accident. I feel compelled to watch it even though I know it's horrible.

For a wizard, Merlin is a complete moron. How he ever thought he'd just waltz right into Morgan's castle and arrest her, without any troops or soldiers just baffles me. Also, for such a seemingly smart guy, why he hasn't figured out that Morgan is behind the attacks is just stupid.

creekdipper

Thanks for the info. & links, Gunde. Right there witcha re: the cheap appearance of the show. I was talking to a customer Sat. who said he gave up after 2 episodes because everything (especially the sets & 'look' or 'feel' of the show) seemed so cheesy (in his words). I recommended Game of Thrones to him as being everything that Camelot isn't.

Thinking that maybe the link provided had gotten the facts wrong (especially since I think it might have been written before the actual production began), I searched for other verifying sources. At least five other articles repeated the $70 million figure for 10 episodes. Simply incredible compared to the $55 million spent on ten episodes of GoT...which looks to have about 10 times the budget of Camelot.

Camelot seems mainly contained to two main sets (Camelot & Morgan's castle) plus assorted interchangeable village sets. The cast is rather limited...probably around 9 major characters (Arthur, Morgan, Gwen, Merlin, Leontes, Kay, Gawain, Vivian, the nun), although I might have forgotten a couple.

GoT, on the other hand, has a HUGE cast of characters (one of your links listed 162 speaking parts) including a bunch of major characters (the Stark family alone has at least 8 characters plus numerous retainers, guards, advisors, etc.). 7 kingdoms, bunches of families, huge & varied sets, an entire language invented for the show, etc. I'm already down for the BD when it comes out (even the extra featurettes shown On Demand are superb).

If the numbers are real & the Camelot producers aren't just blowing smoke (or GoT producers are low-balling their costs), either GoT is the best bargain ever for such a sumptuous series or Camelot is the biggest rip-off for their investors. Incredible...simply incredible...that so much money could be wasted so badly (although I know it doesn't compare to many movie bombs that cost far more). At least Camelot will undoubtedly recoup its investment & probably make a nice profit.

MikahC

Or magic. Don't forget magic. Becuase he has it, but he can't use it. The only thing that makes him interesting (he's a wizard) is bottled up. In all this time he has been a wizard, he's apparently not learned to control or master it any better than Day 1 of Greatest American Hero.

I'm OK with saying you can't run around willy nilly invoking magic as it can have unintended consequences, given it's defying the "rules" of nature and such, but Merlin is a joke.

I guess he went in armed with the knowledge that the people know he's with the king, and thus would support him.

Gunde

For an episode with "The Battle Of..." in the title, the "battle" sure was weak.
And why can everyone just walk in and out of the castles? Are there no guards?