Talk:Merlin (2008 TV series)

Merlin comes to Saturday nights on BBC one

I looks very likely that Merlin makes its premier on BBC one on Saturday 20th September. Possibly around the 7pm slot as Strickly Come Dancing also starts on that evening on BBC one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onshore (talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if it's gonna be double parter for each story, like Sarah Jane Adventures and not Doctor Who. I'm watching right now ( yes it's the 20th ) and I don't want it to end before we find out who the scary witch is!!!!!!!!!!!! She's taken the form of a lady who's played by Eve Myles. Eve Myles AND Anthony Head AND Julie Gardner. Any of this sound familiar? Also are there are only four episodes? OH NO!!!!!!!!!! BBBOOOOOOO HHHHHHHHHOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.215.20 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "only four episodes"? There are 13 episodes to be aired. magnius (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WOOHOOO!!!!!!!!! But there were only four episodes on the episode page here. I guess you guys are just waiting for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.125.159 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Character List

First of all, yes, they're all part of Doctor Who. Also, Colin Morgan was in Doctor Who too in the episode Midnight (Doctor Who). Anyway, tomorrow i plan to do a Character list, hopefully so i'm hoping nobody will do it until then. Thanks

Goku1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku1st (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed sentence

Thekoyaanisqatsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added the following sentence

"The number of generations from one's grandparents down to one's children is four however."

My feeling is that, while the observation is true, picking at a minor error in a statement (made by BBC One Controller Peter Fincham) intended to get across that Merlin is a family show is not really the business of the article. We're here to write about the series, not digress into whether Peter Fincham can add up or not. However, rather than simply reverting Thekoyaanisqatsi's edit again, I thought I'd ask for other opinions on this matter. Cheers. H.G. 11:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, this is an article about a TV show called Merlin, it is not about picking apart the accuracy of a quote. magnius (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where this is going, but is this to do with the inaccuracy of the show? If so, nothing has to be exact! Its just like Dragonball, people are complaining the film will suck: ITS JUST AN ADAPTION! Transformers was an adaption of the series and it rocked!! Its Arithian legend, meaning nobody knows what REALLY happened Goku1st (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's to do with something a BBC executive said, not the show itself. H.G. 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Now come on, that clearly was a "listing and", not a "logical and". So people can watch it with their grandparents, and OTHER people can watch it with their children. Then you'll get the usual 3 generations "grandparents", "parents" and "children". 85.216.118.31 (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Season Vs Series

This is one section that keeps being altered, but (as was correctly pointed out to me yesterday) this is a British TV show so the appropriate word to describe a run of this show is the term "series". "Season" is used to describe runs of American shows. magnius (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Doctor Who is British, and uses seasons. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, classic Who uses seasons, but the new version uses series. It's a fairly standard convention that British shows use series rather than season, but that probably is becoming more inter-changeable. I know i've read something 'official' about this, but i can't find it. --Ged UK (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot

This section contains a number of inaccuracies. The union of England did not occur in 1066 (that was the Norman Conquest) but first in the 920s - Athelstan was the first monarch to be known as the King of All Britain - and then permanently in 954. Uther's kingdom could be in Wales which a set of principalities until the 1200s and that would be more consistent with the traditional origins of Merlin and his first "historical" mentionings. The series as a whole also screws with the traditional Merlin story - for example, Merlin helped Uther bed his enemy's wife, Igraine, to father Arthur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logopandecteision (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Creatures

At the end of episode three, there was a preview for The Poison Chalice. It had a scene of Arthur fighting what looked like a Dimetrodon with two sails. Probably a dragon, except it didn't look like any i've ever heard of. Maybe we should include a creatures list, with the Great Dragon, the Ajanc, the Snake-Shield and the afore mentioned creature (when the episode airs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.93.212 (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll never guess WHAT! I just saw Episode 4 and it turns out that that pelycosaur-monster was a Cockatrice!!!!!!!! A blimmin' Cockatrice!!!!!!! Rowling's portrayal of this creature may have been way off the mark, but at least it resembled some sort of serpent. This so called "Cockatrice" is to much to bare!!!!!!!! Why doesn't anyone take at least the TINIEST bit of NOTICE at the original FOLKLORE????!!!!!!!!!!! That feller Ben Vanstone needs to get what he wanted right. He could always say it was some sort of small dragon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.209.4 (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling it a cockatrice is weird, sure, but remember that most basilisks in modern culture (D&D, Warcraft) appear as giant lizards not entirely unlike the one in that episode (although they usually have three pairs of legs). Still, where is the petrifying gaze? Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagline

The article cuurently states that the tagline is "Shh. Keep the magic a secret!". I was under the impression that it was "Shh. Keep the magic secret!". Is there a difinitive source for the tagline? 84.65.58.167 (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Really needed?

"The era in which the series is set is ambiguous; traditionally the Arthurian legends are set in the dark ages, and the idea of King Uther reigning over a small kingdom (which is present in both traditional legend and the television series) sets it before the union of England in 1066. Despite this, the castle interiors are 15th century, making the series' setting entirely inconsistent with English history, and therefore should be treated purely as fantasy fiction. Britain is never mentioned; Uther's domain is referred to by the name Albion, the oldest known name for Great Britain."

So because the castles are 15th century but the lack of union is pre-1066, this should be treated as fantasy? Not because it's got Merlin and magic and a dragon in it? This feels like someone taking the opportunity to show off their knowledge, rather than anything particularly encyclopedic: it's basically original research to try and identifythe historical setting followed by an admission that doing so isimpossible. Deletion objections, anyone?JonStrines (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above it's also incorrect as the union of England predates the Norman conquest. Like you say, it's obviously a fantasy not historical setting. --Joey Roe 08:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of keeping something to this effect in the article, as the contrast between the political situation described and its likely position in time and the interior and costumes really threw me, too. There is no need to specifically add that this is Fantasy, though. 92.226.92.240 (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing episode articles

If I may suggest, please don't categorize individual episodes in Category:Arthurian film and television. If the show is successful the episode articles will quickly overload it. Category:Merlin episodes is the appropriate choice. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Merlin vs traditional Arthurian legend

I think at least a small section which shows how this story has deviated from traditional Arthurian legend could be included here:

• Arthur and Merlin were not similar ages, in fact, Merlin was already an old man when Arthur was born.
• Some tales see Arthur raised by Merlin, others in the countryside.
• Merlin allows Uther to bed his enemies wife - Ygraine, who gives birth to Arthur.
• Certainly from a historical context, Arthur would never invite sons of Wessex or Northumbria to join his knights! These, being Anglo-Saxon kingdoms would have been the enemy.
• Guinevere was certainly not a handmaiden
• Morgana is generally accepted as the foe of Merlin and certainly in 'Merlin' the mini-series, she is Arthur's half sister.
• Nimueh is often cited as the Lady of the Lake and enchanter of Merlin. White43 (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Also - Mordred was the son of Arthur and Morgan Le Fey, not a druid. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knows this for certain. Its just an arthritian legend, so nobody knows EXACTLY what happened. Its still a good show to watch, no matter how innacurate it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku1st (talk • contribs) 09:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Difficult, considering there isn't really a definitive tradition. Are you going to argue from Welsh tradition? Malory? Geoffrey of Monmouth? Stygian-sulfur (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In spite of the different tradition, isn't there some sort of overlap as to whose son Mordred is? I seem to remember there was, but I haven't read the different versions in a while and my head's muddled by all the modern ones (thanks, Prince Valiant cartoon).92.226.92.240 (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. The whole illegitimacy thing is an optional. Sometimes he's a foster son, sometimes he marries Guinevere, sometimes he's Lot's son... which is why I think constant carping on with the whole 'it doesn't fit the King Arthur storyline' stuff is pretty silly. The only firm tradition I can see in Arthurian legend is the constant alteration of the story to fit the needs of the author/poet/historian/tv channel. Stygian-sulfur (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding number of viewers (online)

It is a shame that the number of online viewers is not taken into account. As many Canadians and Americans do not have access to viewing the BBC, they typically access it online via torrents or direct-downloads. I do not know if there is any site that monitors the online popularity of a show. 6 000 000 or so viewers is rather low when you consider the amount of attention the show gets relative to other shows on sites featuring articles on internet releases of various entertainment.

So, my question is: Does anyone know where to find data on viewership on the Internet for any given show? Thanks. XJeanLuc (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to avoid a frivolous edit war due to another editor(s) conflict of interests I removed the link to the page featuring the article about the internet release of Merlin. It is not due to a conflict with wikipedia policy that I do this edit, but out of convenience and preference to avoid wasting time with Wikipedia vandals. I think anyone who may have a possible answer to my question regarding viewership would be familiar with the kind of "buzz" and popularity/distribution the show generates among those using non-TV methods of watching the programme.

I hope that the vandal finds this as an adequate compromise and not force this to be resolved through mediation. XJeanLuc (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2008 (November 2008 (UTC)

The reason these downloads are not included in viewing figures is straightforward: they're illegal. Removing tips on how to find these downloads is hardly the work of a vandal, rather it's promoting these sorts of sites that's frowned upon. So please stop inserting the name of your website which assists people in these illegal activities. 205.189.152.125 (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing the contributions of other wikipedia editors that are not in violation/contradiction to Wikipedia policy is a form of vandalism. The website in question is not my website and I do not contribute to it, nor do I upload content of questionable legal status. I was not providing any "tips" on how to obtain the episodes (there are plenty of forums for that). The legality of downloaders' actions is something that you cannot label as illegal across the board as legal status varies in different countries. I was not promoting any website. However, you clearly do have a conflict of interest with regards to your contributing to Wikipedia. I suggest that you keep that in check. You have accused me of multiple actions that are against wiki policy and I am insulted by it. Your perception of the events pertaining to this editing problem hardly resembles the physical reality. This is quite plain to see and if you have difficulty in understanding this or believing it, please find another editor to explain this to you or, as previously suggested, read wikipedia policy and editing help articles. XJeanLuc (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you want to discuss the legality of the content I suggest you do that at a more appropriate place - perhaps a forum? Maybe you could also try reading a little bit about the legal status of the material in different countries and not make the assumption that everyone lives in the USA and Canada. XJeanLuc (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment It is not vandalism to remove links to torrent sites; in fact, it is common practice when torrent sites are linked in television articles and on talk pages. With regards to this post, while the link is not directly to a copy of the episode, it is also not an "article". The linked page - and the site as a whole - exists solely to facilitate torrents and similar downloads that are considered illegal in many jurisdictions. The "restrictions on linking" section of the external links guideline and the "Linking to copyrighted works" section of the copyright policy are worth reading through as well. Please feel free to ask if you have questions about this. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The article was about the internet release of an episode of Merlin. The article's purpose it to announce the release, discuss its quality, and discuss the episode itself. You are mistaken in interpreting it as a links database. Again, the link was not to a site hosting illegal content, but to one featuring an article regarding an episode. In the comments for the article, links to content of questionable legal status were posted. So, at best there are two degrees of separation between what I wrote in the talk page for Merlin and the content in question. My intent was not to advertise. I honestly wanted to illustrate what I meant by online excitement for the show. The editor that has attempted to dispute this does not understand my intentions despite multiple attempts to explain it to him or her. If you are in fact that same editor, then I thank you for finally signing in. Again after reviewing the policy page you provided me with, I can say again that what I have done is not a violation. It is not a torrent site as you like to say. Regardless, I think we have finally come to a compromise on the situation. I would like the posts to remain unchanged as my inquiry into online viewership is a legitimate one and one that if answered could improve the quality of the article. 6 million viewers does not do this show justice. XJeanLuc (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's no mistake; the site is - per its own "About Us" description - clearly focussed on providing access to torrents. (I didn't say it was a database, just that it is a site designed and intended to promote P2P distribution of illegally copied material.) By the way, I'm not the IP - I just forgot to sign my last post - nor am I suggesting you are trying to advertise for the site. I've no reason to suspect your intentions are anything other than good. However, as an administrator, I do have to let you know that Wikipedia avoids publicizing or linking to these sort of sites because of the copyright issues involved. As for the Internet numbers, any text about that would have to be supported by reliable sources, and the torrent sites themselves are not considered as such. You'd need to find something like a news report or a comment from someone connected to the series. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course. XJeanLuc (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the name of your website once again. Please stop trying to sneak it back in. 209.183.28.64 (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good for you! Give yourself a pat on the back and proclaim "yay me! I'm so smart! I can do it!" I'm glad to see such constructive work on your behalf. Always nice to see editors developing a sense of self-fulfillment from their work. This sentence will be inappropriately placed, but I feel that it is necessary; you need to learn to read carefully before editing and you should try to control your tendency towards behaviours that most would label as idiotic. No offense. Just trying to offer constructive advice for your benefit and for the sake of other editors that will have to deal with you. XJeanLuc (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for polluting this talk page with pointless malicious comments directed at an individual "editor". XJeanLuc (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Colour-blind casting

I'm putting a reference needed on the description of the show as colour blind casting. Unless there is a direct quote from the producers or casting directors that this is the case, I would rather believe that the non-white characters were deliberately non-white. The fact that African-born people were rare in medieval Britain is no reason to suppose that Gwen and her father are impossible in the fantasy setting of the series. Secondsilk (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with the fact tag, but I suspect that it is colour-blind casting. The BBC has gone in for it of late, (Nancy in Oliver Twist, Tattycorum in Little Dorritt, even adding Jack into Robin Hood). Whether it is medieval Britain is a whole other question! I'll keep hunting for a quote. --Ged UK (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this discussion is from awhile ago, but in the 101st Geek Syndicate podcast (http://geeksyndicate.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/geek-syndicate-episode-101/), they interview creator Julian Jones who specifically says colour-blind casting was used (at 27:30) and says "We looked at all the best young actors, [Angel Coulby] was the best. Why not?" Rainchildai (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reception

Can someone add a "reception" section to the article so we can document the press and public's response the show. Most shows of this kind have one. - 92.22.95.191 (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)