Board Thread:Rewatching "Merlin" - Season Five/@comment-5102537-20140517082836/@comment-24785400-20140524113502

''I agree that this ending did not suit the beginning of the show at all. If it was supposed to be a growing-up, coming-of-age tale, then why didn't it end when Arthur became king? Or at least a little way into his rule when he had built the glorious kingdom he was supposed to? ''

Absolutely. Very often stories will change direction, so that what you expect  to see or the journey the characters take, will veer off in another direction, or they reach their goals (and because the show keeps going) they find another goal to aim for. Its not necessarily a bad thing. By what we're told and by implication (Arthur is Prince, Merlin is finding out his destiny, they're all young etc), It was most certainly a coming of age story. Arthur becomes King, Merlin knows that the next step is to Unite the Lands and create Albion. Its not a forgotten part, because it keeps getting referenced. The Dragon tells Merlin he must keep Arthur alive and defy the prophesies, Merlin keeps telling those with magic - Mordred, Finna etc - that things won't stay the same, they will get better one day. There are people who believe that one day Merlin will find a way for them to be free.

Neither of these things happen. The story stagnates and then Arthur is killed, and then we have the Great Dragon telling Merlin he did not fail, that everything had come to pass. Which is then immediately contradicted by the scene where Gwen is hailed as ruling monarch, and also with the show-runners interviews where they tell us that Gwen is the one who ushers in the Golden Age. Its just a big WHAT? HUH? from the audience. Especially since we're already been told by the same show-runners in different interviews, that the Golden Age happened in the three year gap, even Bradley James said as much in an early interview.

“''In the beginning of series 5, like a giant Zeppelin in the sky, Camelot soars,” James explained. “It’s in a great place and for Arthur, he achieved the world that he wanted to achieve in Camelot" ''

I just don't understand exactly what Arthur wanted to achieve, and why we're expected to believe it. Was it justice, was it equality, democratisation..? He seemed to only want to make his father proud of him.

The thing was, they kept telling us that this ending had been planned all along, when really, it feels like they threw together the script in the pub a couple of hours before had to start filming (don't knock it - most of the old Doctor Who episodes where written in the pub!)

'' Fimber has another excellent point about bringing it into the modern world. When I first saw the finale, I didn't get the point of that last scene at all—and I'm still not sure that I do, unless it's only to make sure we know how much poor Merlin must be suffering. (Although it does open the door to a lot more interpretations of what could have happened in the years in between and what would happen next.) But an amusing side effect of including that scene was that bringing it into the modern world sure kicked the show-runners' long-standing argument that historical inaccuracies didn't matter, because they were working in a fantasy world! ''

Again, I couldn't agree more with both of you. I''m not sure what to make of the ending either. I do wish there had been something a bit more "magical" with Arthur floating along the water - Mists parting, Fairies flying around...a woman's hand catching the sword even... (couldn't they have at least CGI'd it?)  Even Alex Vlahos in a recent Convention admitted that it was "a bit weird" and not at all what he'd expected to see. Also by bringing in the image of Merlin in the modern-day world, and taking it out of the fantasy context, you are left wondering how what they did to become such legends in the first place.

And of course, we never knew what became of Aithusa, did she become Merlin's side-kick in his years of waiting for Arthur, did she become the Loch Ness Monster? so sad that they just left her out.