Board Thread:Rewatching "Merlin" - Season Four/@comment-5102537-20131207132547/@comment-5102537-20131215140031

This epsiode would have been a good one for the "Merlin"-finale if it hadn't been for several ridiculous things. Had they done it without Arthur killing Caerleon in cold blood, without only Annis but maybe other kings as well and if it hadn't been for describing Uther as a war mongerer all of a sudden, this story could have presented the beginning of a united Albion.

Showing Arthur as the fickle man he was up to that extent and turning him into an unwise and weak simpleton didn't quite contribute to the desired portait of the greatest king ever.

When Arthur allowed Agravaine to talk him into an execution in cold blood without even a drumhead trial I thought I was watching the wrong show. Since when killed Arthur so callously when the person in question was already at his mercy and not a threat anymore? The thing that was most astonishing was the fact that he believed Agravaine when he claimed that Uther would do that too. During the entire first three seasons, Uther was being described as a king who wanted peace and who never attacked or even oppressed another kingdom (aside from conquering Camelot, of course), but, on the contrary, taught Arthur how very important peace among the kingdoms was. Especially when he united the Five Kingdoms in "Sweet Dreams" and before that, when he seeked a treaty with Bayard in "The Poisoned Chalice". Not just once was Uther the aggressor even though Camelot was said to be the most powerful kingdom. He could have conquered other kingdoms in order to strengthen his power even more, yet he didn't but wanted peace. So what in the world made Arthur think that his father would be so stupid to kill another king in cold blood when it would have been easy to hold him prisoner or to send him back home? The only reason why Agravaine urged Arthur to execute Caerleon was that he knew that this would cause war with Annis. Even Merlin knew that this would cause war with Annis. So Uther would have known even more so, yet Arthur couldn't see that? He knew his own father much better than anyone else, and him believing that he would risk/cause a war out of the blue was so ridiculous that I couldn't believe my eyes and ears. Even a child would have seen what effect killing another king would have.

It was Uther who had a peace contract with Caerleon and it was Arthur who jeopardized it by killing the king. What in the world did Uther have to do with it? Nothing. He was dead. He didn't attack other kingdoms. He had peace with Caerleon. He didn't kill other kings but was always cautious to not provoke other kingdoms (for example, when Hunith asked for Uther's help in "The Beginning of the End").

And not even the knights doubted Arthur's decision. Aside from the total failure in diplomatics, at least one of them should have objected to killing a defenceless man. What was so honourable and noble about Arthur and the knights when they all agree to have a man being killed in cold blood? Again, it's shame that Lancelot wasn't around anymore. He surely wouldn't have approved of this.

The funny thing is that later, even Arthur knew that his actions will have consequences. So why on earth had he done it in the first place? Nothing here made sense. Killing a defenceless man isn't a sign of strength but a sign of weakness, and surely other kingdoms would regard Arthur as a coward.

I found it extremely annoying that Merlin told Arthur later that Arthur only did what he thought was right whereas he had objected (and he was the only one) when Arthur killed Caerleon. Why did he take it back later and downplayed it again instead of giving him a piece of his mind so that Arthur finally wakes up and comprehends what he had done? This constant submittance to Arthur was so annoying.

As if this wasn't worse enough, Arthur continues listening to Jungle Book's Kaa (Agravaine) and breaks up with Gwen. While Agravaine was actually right (in regard to reality) that other nobles and also kingdoms wouldn't accept a serving girl as the King's girlfriend and future wife, Arthur couldn't even show some strength and backbone here. It would have been plausible if this had been a subject before and if Arthur had been fighting with own doubts all along, but suddenly listening to Agravaine out of the blue was yet another convenient plot device in order to show Arthur being uncertain and the easy sport of malicious others.

Arthur's later insight that he had done a terrible mistake and offering his own life for the life of both armies/kingdoms was noble but at the same time stupid again. Instead of choosing one of of his own champions, Arthur put again his own life and therefore the entire kingdom at risk. How many times had he done this already? What if Arthur had lost been killed in the duel? Camelot would be without a successor, Annis or another king would have taken it over.

What's more, the moment that he realised that killing Caerleon was a huge mistake and that the upcoming war was his doing because he listened to Agravaine who told him that Uther would have done the same, Arthur should have realised that Agravaine had done it on purpose, and Arthur should have drawn the consequences with his uncle here at the latest.

As for Morgana and Annis, I don't know who was more annoying. Morgana told Annis that she came in the name of Gorlois, obviously convinced of herself. Where was the slightest hint that Gorlois would have ever approved of his step-daughter waging a war and being responsible for the deaths of thousands? I have no idea why Morgana could have ever believed she was really coming in the name of Gorlois, it made absolutely no sense unless Gorlois was actually a war mongerer and against Camelot to Morgana's knowldege. Annis later comparing Morgana to Uther, the one her kingdom had a peace contract with, made no sense either. Annis knew that Uther wasn't a king of war, so why comparing a mad sorceress who wanted war and kill thousands of people with the one she had peace with? What made Annis believe that Morgana behaved like Uther when, despite Uther's revenge on magic, there was peace between the kingdoms and when there was peace in and with Camelot for more than two decades until Morgana attacked Camelot? I don't see what Uther had to do with it, I don't see what Gorlois had to do with it. It was Morgana and Arthur's doing alone, not to mention that both Gorlois and Uther were dead already.

Another ridiculous thing was Annis forgiving Arthur so quickly and easily only because he spared her champion's life. Forgotten was the callous and unnecessary execution of her husband, the grief and anger because all of a sudden, Arthur is someone who "gives hope". Glorifying the one who killed her husband in cold blood but condemning the one who had been keeping peace with her kingdom for decades?

Nothing here was believable.

Making a king of war of Uther and by that changing the entire history of him that the show had told us before was as ridiculous as turning Arthur into such a fickle and stupid king that the citizens will have to fear what next stupid thing their King is going to do next time that he has to deal with an unplesant situation in his job as King. If I lived in Camelot and got wind of it, I surely wouldn't trust Arthur with my life anymore because I would have to fear that the next relative or "mentor" might make Arthur doing silly things again that jeopardize the entire kingdom.

And again Merlin had to help Arthur and save his life because again magic overpowered Arthur and made him an easy victim. And again Arthur was blind to almost everything that happened around him, especially in regard to Agravaine and Merlin.

In this one epsiode they did great injustice to Arthur, Uther, the knights and Annis. A more believable and consistent character description would have done a much better job.