Why seeing The Hobbit made me feel even worse about Merlin!
I've just been to the local cinema to see The Hobbit (2D, 24fr). It's astounding. I loved every single moment of it, and whoever's idea it was to have a couple of sexy dwarves in the ensemble - I take my hat off to you Sir! Kili = phwoar. And Thorin ain't bad either.
As I was watching the end credits two things occurred to me. Well, three things if you count my realising that I had a numb bum.
1. I'm not sure my sanity will survive having to wait another year.
2. Now I understand completely why I'm so desperately unsatisfied with Merlin.
Not much of point 1 I can elaborate on except for ARRRGHHHH! I want part two NOW!
Watching this wonderful film brought it home to me with a 25lb lump hammer just what it means to have a well loved legend treated with affection and respect. There is nothing about this film that does not respect the vision and the creation of Tolkien, even where the story deviates from the original, it is done with a love and a level of conviction that leaves one with nothing but respect for the people involved in bringing this to the screen. Every additional scene (and there are a lot of them) has been drawn from supplementary material written by Tolkien and although many of the words are not his words, and some of the scenes are elaborations on things which were a mere sentence or two in the original material - none of if jars or seems out of place. So much of this film visually references places and cultures used in the original trilogy so closely that it really shows the wisdom of having the same basic creative team take on this prequel. Characters we saw 10 years ago are used sensitively and well, and don't look any older at all to my eyes (how do they manage that?). OK, so it cost a humungous amount of money, but every penny of it was well spent (with the possible exception of the 48fps and 3d technology, which I will reserve judgement on until I've seen it that way in a proper IMAX theater!). After the first film I can already distinguish at least seven of the dwarves from all the others, and I have complete confidence that the way they behave in the next two films will be entirely consistent with the way they behaved in this one. Thorin actually behaves like a king, Gandalf (and Radagast) actually behaves like a wise wizard. And when the occasion demands, he KICKS BUTT. (both of them do).
I can't wait to see Smaug. We really don't get more than a glimpse of him in this film, but given how big they made the eagles, I'm guessing he will be impressive enough to pick his teeth with Kilgarragh. That's money for you.
Of course, we already know what happens, those of us who have read the hobbit and the Lord of the Rings more times than we can count (plus all the supplementary material). We already know who lives and who dies at the end, who fails and who triumphs. Knowing the end state doesn't take away the impact of the movie because the journey is actually more important than the destination.
Looking at this fabulous visual feast, one might be forgiven for thinking that the lush landscapes, the intricate sets and amazing CGI effects were what made this film the treat that is is. There's no doubt that they help. It is an amazing treat for the eyes - and for the ears too. But those things were not the reason why I was sitting there wishing that I could show this beautiful thing to Tolkien and show him with what respect his 'little childrens book' had been treated. This thing is so true to the spirit of the book and the creation of Middle Earth that I found myself tearing up regularly all the way through.
So why is this post about Merlin, and not about the Hobbit, when I've spent the last x paragraphs wittering on about the latter?
Because I used to feel that way about Merlin. In the first season or two of the show, I felt that there was a degree of affection and respect for the original legend which added a layer of the same thing that has always shone through in Tolkien's work (who was of course influenced in part by those very same legends) There was the same sense that you were watching the tip of an iceberg, that there was far more of the story yet to be uncovered, everyone had history and backstories and interconnections which one felt would eventually be discovered as characters were explored and developed.
How things have changed. Wheras Peter Jackson's answer to being given an opportunity to revisit Middle Earth was more detail, more layers, more complexity, and MORE consistency with his earlier work, the Merlin producers went in completely the opposite direction, sacrificed consistency for the easy storyline, sacrificed characterisation for flashy effects and spectacle (as much as they could afford), sacrificed common sense and logic for something that actually defies description. Why would a show spend five years asking an audience to follow two young men, one apparently destined to become a great king, and the other apparently destined to become the greatest wizard ever in history, and then throw both away? How can there be a legend if there is nothing legendary in evidence? How can we have a show that ends in 'well, they tried but in the end it was never going to be, so they failed' when that story subsequently survived hundreds of years.
How can Merlin the boy go on to become Merlin, the legend which went on to inspire the character of Gandalf (among others) if no one ever knows about him, and if he ends up never really achieving anything in the first place? In five years he has done virtually nothing to give anyone the impression that he is a great wizard. In early days he certainly showed native power, but little wisdom. Now he shows virtually no power (pretty much everyone he meets bests him in one way or another) and has spent most of the last five years cleaning socks so has had very little chance to develop wisdom and knowledge either, and indeed, he displays much less of either than we might expect from a great legend like Merlin. Now this would be all very well and good IF his journey was still in it's infancy. But we are being told that the story will come to an abrupt end one way or another this week, and that will be that.
Ditto with Arthur. He's not a great king. He's a petulant boy who treats his servant like dirt, goes to pieces whenever his wife is threatened, believes all the sycophants around him (including his wife), is gullible, easily led, and can't even dress himself! He plays at being a king, but he's not one. Killing him now is like Tolkien having Aragorn eaten by the Balrog in Moria. It Just Makes No Sense. Tolkien would never have done that because he understood that Aragorn had to go on a hero's journey and he had to complete that journey for the story to be satisfying. Arthur has Not gone on a hero's journey. He has not acheived what he as the hero needs to achieve - the fulfilment of the legend about him, the time of Albion, the golden age of peace, etc etc. And now he never will. So when someone in this universe in 1000 years looks back, what will they know of this time which is just coming to an end? Not that Arthur and Merlin were a great king and a great wizard because - they weren't!!! They probably won't know anything, because there will be no legend. How does that respect the original mythology of Arthur and Merlin at all? Well, it doesn't.
Tolkien homages great legends, and by doing so creates a truly great legend himself. TPTB could have done something similar. They didn't need money to have great ideas and great characters. Tolkien didn't have any. he just had a fantastic imagination and a natural ability to tell a story that people wanted to follow and invest in. in the first season or so of Merlin, I really had hopes that these people were doing something similar. But they didn't have what it took. I'll stick to Tolkien's way, thank you very much. It will last, just like these films. They won't.
As I was watching the end credits two things occurred to me. Well, three things if you count my realising that I had a numb bum.
1. I'm not sure my sanity will survive having to wait another year.
2. Now I understand completely why I'm so desperately unsatisfied with Merlin.
Not much of point 1 I can elaborate on except for ARRRGHHHH! I want part two NOW!
Watching this wonderful film brought it home to me with a 25lb lump hammer just what it means to have a well loved legend treated with affection and respect. There is nothing about this film that does not respect the vision and the creation of Tolkien, even where the story deviates from the original, it is done with a love and a level of conviction that leaves one with nothing but respect for the people involved in bringing this to the screen. Every additional scene (and there are a lot of them) has been drawn from supplementary material written by Tolkien and although many of the words are not his words, and some of the scenes are elaborations on things which were a mere sentence or two in the original material - none of if jars or seems out of place. So much of this film visually references places and cultures used in the original trilogy so closely that it really shows the wisdom of having the same basic creative team take on this prequel. Characters we saw 10 years ago are used sensitively and well, and don't look any older at all to my eyes (how do they manage that?). OK, so it cost a humungous amount of money, but every penny of it was well spent (with the possible exception of the 48fps and 3d technology, which I will reserve judgement on until I've seen it that way in a proper IMAX theater!). After the first film I can already distinguish at least seven of the dwarves from all the others, and I have complete confidence that the way they behave in the next two films will be entirely consistent with the way they behaved in this one. Thorin actually behaves like a king, Gandalf (and Radagast) actually behaves like a wise wizard. And when the occasion demands, he KICKS BUTT. (both of them do).
I can't wait to see Smaug. We really don't get more than a glimpse of him in this film, but given how big they made the eagles, I'm guessing he will be impressive enough to pick his teeth with Kilgarragh. That's money for you.
Of course, we already know what happens, those of us who have read the hobbit and the Lord of the Rings more times than we can count (plus all the supplementary material). We already know who lives and who dies at the end, who fails and who triumphs. Knowing the end state doesn't take away the impact of the movie because the journey is actually more important than the destination.
Looking at this fabulous visual feast, one might be forgiven for thinking that the lush landscapes, the intricate sets and amazing CGI effects were what made this film the treat that is is. There's no doubt that they help. It is an amazing treat for the eyes - and for the ears too. But those things were not the reason why I was sitting there wishing that I could show this beautiful thing to Tolkien and show him with what respect his 'little childrens book' had been treated. This thing is so true to the spirit of the book and the creation of Middle Earth that I found myself tearing up regularly all the way through.
So why is this post about Merlin, and not about the Hobbit, when I've spent the last x paragraphs wittering on about the latter?
Because I used to feel that way about Merlin. In the first season or two of the show, I felt that there was a degree of affection and respect for the original legend which added a layer of the same thing that has always shone through in Tolkien's work (who was of course influenced in part by those very same legends) There was the same sense that you were watching the tip of an iceberg, that there was far more of the story yet to be uncovered, everyone had history and backstories and interconnections which one felt would eventually be discovered as characters were explored and developed.
How things have changed. Wheras Peter Jackson's answer to being given an opportunity to revisit Middle Earth was more detail, more layers, more complexity, and MORE consistency with his earlier work, the Merlin producers went in completely the opposite direction, sacrificed consistency for the easy storyline, sacrificed characterisation for flashy effects and spectacle (as much as they could afford), sacrificed common sense and logic for something that actually defies description. Why would a show spend five years asking an audience to follow two young men, one apparently destined to become a great king, and the other apparently destined to become the greatest wizard ever in history, and then throw both away? How can there be a legend if there is nothing legendary in evidence? How can we have a show that ends in 'well, they tried but in the end it was never going to be, so they failed' when that story subsequently survived hundreds of years.
How can Merlin the boy go on to become Merlin, the legend which went on to inspire the character of Gandalf (among others) if no one ever knows about him, and if he ends up never really achieving anything in the first place? In five years he has done virtually nothing to give anyone the impression that he is a great wizard. In early days he certainly showed native power, but little wisdom. Now he shows virtually no power (pretty much everyone he meets bests him in one way or another) and has spent most of the last five years cleaning socks so has had very little chance to develop wisdom and knowledge either, and indeed, he displays much less of either than we might expect from a great legend like Merlin. Now this would be all very well and good IF his journey was still in it's infancy. But we are being told that the story will come to an abrupt end one way or another this week, and that will be that.
Ditto with Arthur. He's not a great king. He's a petulant boy who treats his servant like dirt, goes to pieces whenever his wife is threatened, believes all the sycophants around him (including his wife), is gullible, easily led, and can't even dress himself! He plays at being a king, but he's not one. Killing him now is like Tolkien having Aragorn eaten by the Balrog in Moria. It Just Makes No Sense. Tolkien would never have done that because he understood that Aragorn had to go on a hero's journey and he had to complete that journey for the story to be satisfying. Arthur has Not gone on a hero's journey. He has not acheived what he as the hero needs to achieve - the fulfilment of the legend about him, the time of Albion, the golden age of peace, etc etc. And now he never will. So when someone in this universe in 1000 years looks back, what will they know of this time which is just coming to an end? Not that Arthur and Merlin were a great king and a great wizard because - they weren't!!! They probably won't know anything, because there will be no legend. How does that respect the original mythology of Arthur and Merlin at all? Well, it doesn't.
Tolkien homages great legends, and by doing so creates a truly great legend himself. TPTB could have done something similar. They didn't need money to have great ideas and great characters. Tolkien didn't have any. he just had a fantastic imagination and a natural ability to tell a story that people wanted to follow and invest in. in the first season or so of Merlin, I really had hopes that these people were doing something similar. But they didn't have what it took. I'll stick to Tolkien's way, thank you very much. It will last, just like these films. They won't.