Talk:Camelot (TV series)

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a derivative work. See Wikipedia's Copyright FAQ.

Banners

Moving these previous comments of mine into this new section, "Banners."NearTheZoo (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted three out of four "needs" banners, due to added info. Production section still needed. Other sections need to be developed, although some (like "response") may need to wait for official April 1 premiere. NearTheZoo (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted "needs production section" banner because of added information.NearTheZoo (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook page

Are we sure it's an official FB page? It seems to be be updated in Turkish? Twobells (talk)

Reception

The "positive" reaction mentioned extensively (TheHDRoom.com) is actually very reserved ("shows promises") and not positive at all. Another reaction (Daily Inquirer) is based on a "sneak preview" and should be removed as such. Sneak previews are supposed to be appealing, and there has now been several episodes aired, so there should be real critics based on these first episodes, not sneak previews.

Besides, I wonder how positive the reviews are now. After the very first episodes, this has rapidly turned into your usual American fantasy story of sex and magic, with Arthur's adulterous love story with his best friend's wife now dominating each episode, and not very positive for the historical image of King Arthur either. Chimel31 (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you are correct in noting the reviews and reception have veered to negative, you could not be more incorrect on your unsupported claim that this is either "American" or in your strange claim on "a historical image of King Aurthur" negative or positive. a) The shows writers, directors and producers are British, Irish and Canadian. Their take reflects a very and particularly modern British revision of Arthurian legend. b) the historic image of Aurthur as we know it today is a creation of Norman French writers who changed a welsh myth to their political needs and their national narrative. Adultery was and is a, if not the, main theme of Arthurian legend in both pre and post norman adaption.71.252.93.231 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guinevere Always was a women of two men in Arthurian Legend after the French romanticism was added, although usually it's Arthur she marries and Lancelot (I figure Leontes is a rename of the same character) she has the affair with. The reversal is an unusual take on it, but not a massive leap from the original mythos. As for magic, Merlin always was a powerful sorcerer/wizard, and Morgan/Morganna/Morgane tended to be described as a witch. Ewanm89 (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same question. Actually I read many viewer comments about Camelot and only from 5% up to 10% are positive. "Arthur" is usually described as too "gay", scenario as "stupid and predictable", actions of heroes and their results as "non credible". I believe there should be an extension to the reception section with all this information. Ilya3L (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that this article is excessively positive in general, and reads like official promotional material. Particularly the 'Description' section (which appears to be composed of Starz press releases) and the 'Reception' section, which consists almost exclusively of positive reviews, or even brief positive quotes from longer reviews. I've never watched this show, but given that it was cancelled after one season, I find it hard to believe that no one had anything bad to say about it. Robofish (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre single series....

After watching this on Ch4 UK, I am bemused that despite the money spent on its big stars, big sets and big post production e.g. CGI, there are going to be no more series. Funny how all this investment comes to nought. This article should explore these facets. Why spend millions on a soon-to-be-consigned-to-the-supermarket-bargain-bin DVDs of history? Why did they not just drop the pilot and forget about producing another 9 shows? Maybe this article could become part of the other series that just went off into the TV ether after just a single season?

There have certainly been a number of notable precedents, for instance: Spiderman, Streethawk, Manimal, Firefly..!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.249.27 (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]