Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-110.33.239.213-20121226023324/@comment-5102537-20130929131414

Ongard Odin wrote: Thought I might as well, give my input here, its been so long since I visited this wiki :P

Anyway, first of all a constant question I notice is coming up is how bad must things get before Arthur returns? Why wouldn't he return during the World Wars? The answer to this in my opinion is that he didn't need too, think about it like this, Arthur is destined to rise again when Albion needs him most. But Albion did not need Arthur, the war was catastrophic and terrible, but England already had its own heroes like Churchill for example. And we did survive didn't we? We survived and the Albion continues to prosper without the help of Arthur.

The time when Arthur returns is a time when the world needs him, the time when a hero must be called upon and no-one bar he, truly has the ability to be that hero. Basically when we get ourselves in a situation we can't recover from without him.

ReganX has already said it all in regard to Albion and Gwen on the throne.

By the way, welcome back, Ongard.

What you wrote in your comment is very interesting and I think it's what the show wanted us to tell. So far so good, you're probably right in regard to the desired message of the show/the finale.

However, what the show presented to us in the finale (and in season five) is not believable when thinking it through. As Regan has already stated out with what she wrote about Gwen, the other kingdoms and magic. What she said makes so much sense, there's nothing I could ever dispute, even if I wanted to.

In regard to what you wrote above, Arthur returning when Albion is in need:

First of all, I'm having a problem with the fact that Arthur is being described as some kind of a holy person and maybe messiah but at the same time, it's only about Albion - which, as I think, refers to Great Britain.

So if Arthur is the greatest king of all, the one who liberates everyone (the fictional people of Albion/whoever) and who is the human messiah, I wonder what's with the rest of the world. It isn't only Great Britain. Or are there other great kings that are required for all the other countries when the world is in need of them? If so, Arthur couldn't have been called the Once and Future King.

This leads me to the next point:  if Arthur is supposed to rise again when there is even something worse happening than what has happened so far - even in the fictional world in which most certainly similar things have happened that all led to the modern world we saw in the finale - what about all the billions of people who would have needed someone inbetween? The wars and everything else that happened were terrible beyond belief, and even if mankind has survived, all the victims during those times have not. Neither do those who die at the hands of others in wars and of poverty and diseases, oppression, corruption  and whatnotcaused by others this very second I'm writing here.

Are they not important enough and can we say it was all a happy ending only because we were born after those happenings? It doesn't matter if mankind survives but what happens inbetween with the individuals. Camelot needed Arthur and Merlin (according to the show) in order to bring on equality and peace (disregarding that there was peace under Uther's reign already) and things like commoners and servants having the same rights as nobles was a big issue. But when this was so very important (and equality IS important), when those lifes and their well-being back then were so important, why weren't the billion lifes during the following centuries? Why was it alright that they suffered and died and didn't resurrect Arthur, so to speak, when they were people, too and had the same rights as those who suffered while Arthur was still alive and those who will suffer when Arthur rises again at whatever time in the future?

Moreover, I wonder what Arthur could even achieve if something worse is going to happen. He barely achieved anything while he was king - and the world has evolved. Arthur wouldn't have a chance whatsoever to do anything about what is happening right now (in the fictional world as well as in the real world), let alone what is going to happen in the future when all hope is lost. Unless the world bombs itself back to the caves and a Mad Max-scenario. Maybe then someone like Arthur could take the lead again and unite people - until it all starts all over again and a neverending cycle of destruction and build up is taking place. Over and over again.

But for what? Who of all those people is so important in the end that mankind has to survive when all they're doing is destroying each other and the world? And what makes all those victims along the way rather unimportant?

And what about the rest of the world when Arthur is actually the future king of Albion?

The show better had ended with a fairytale in the past, with Arthur and Merlin uniting the lands of Albion and a believable solution with magic, something which people can remember. Something the viewer can look back at, rather than believing that nothing had really changed, people are being killed and even something worse might happen.

Arthur is simply not good enough as a character to help the world. And neither is Merlin.

As an inspiration for democracy and equality, Arthur was great, as were Merlin, Gaius and Gwen. If they were the ones who brought this kind of thoughts up, thoughts that people can and will remember, great. All is fine. A huge part of the world has a democracy today, so people could say "see, legend has it that Arthur and his friends were the ones who started it all." But the thing is, there is democracy already and that's why I think that it would have been a better idea if the Golden Age/peace/whatever had happened back then during the story so that it can be remebered. It should have stayed in the past as a pleasant thought and as a lecture, but it was a bad idea to make the viewers believe that it is all going to happen in the future.