Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4196008-20151202004236/@comment-1916997-20151202135240

Farerb wrote: Eskaver wrote: CoolDudeAl wrote: The thing I don't understand is the claim that they didn't see any of Arthurian Legend portrayed, and then they list Arthur's early years, and the love triangle between Arthur, Lance, and Gwen as examples of what they didn't see. Those were some of the few things we did actually see, so I don't know what to say. XD Oh, you should see across the web, some people and reviwers are saying that the writers disgraced Arthurian legend and stuff. Like lol, Once reinvents things all the time; it's their thing. It's not suppose to be a Disney Live Action and it's not suppose to be a live Action of a book. It's not about that. They really simplified the characters and they didn't exhibit any of the characteristic of the original character. The only thing that suggests it's Arthurian Legends is the sword otherwise they might as well call the characters Haword, Wonda and Steven and nobody would say they are from Arthurian Legends.

A good spin is the one that if you put a different name on the characters, you can still see they are from a certain story, for example: Ursula in poor unfortunate soul. But that's the thing: what makes the Arthurian Legend characters those characters in the first place? To me "a knight turned king that pulls a sword out of a stone" is Arthur (check), and  "he has a lover who is caught between him and one of his knights" is Gwen (check), and "the knight that she falls in love with who grew up near a lake" is Lancelot (check). They also "have contact with a powerful wizard who helps them" is Merlin (check). So to me, I saw exactly what I needed for them to be the characters.