Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-93.72.133.51-20140307194703/@comment-58.6.230.84-20140309224113

This Camelot was so insular. We had people of other Kingdoms visiting, or trying to invade occasionally with no real sense of where they came from, or what was going on in the greater world, the focus was always on Sorcerers seeking revenge, and the "fight against magic"

What really annoyed me was in the end the Saxons were what? Morgana's henchmen or something. Saxons were from another country - INVADING, why would you change that? A perfect opportunity for Arthur to rally the kingdoms around him and fight them off. Yes, I agree, Arthur needed a threat from the outside to unite everybody against. The Arthur of legends is the High King of all Britain, the one we got was just King of Camelot (for a couple of years), one that left no lasting legacy. Neither did Merlin for that matter, which is what a Legend is. Neither of these characters did anything that they would be remembered for. As other people have pointed out, we got the start of the story, and the end, but not the middle.

To my eyes, this retelling is a complete failure, because you can't reconcile these two characters with the characters of legend in anyway, even though this was supposed to be their journey towards legend status. The only thing they had in common was their names. It could have been the story of Dingleberry and Dinglebat in Camelot at the end (or an AU where the real Arthur and Merlin where off doing stuff in the real Camelot, and this was just a shadowland or something.)