Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4962906-20151023123622/@comment-26159109-20151023171653

Eskaver wrote: Farerb wrote: Gusey1397 wrote: TBH, if they did have a conversation about Arthur using the sands to make people trust him again, thus removing their memories of the sand and treachery, it wouldn't make sense as Arthur will be the only one with this knowledge. So maybe they shouldn't have used the sand in the first place. But the writers can't seemingly do something without magic. I mean it's not like King George was a decent villain, murdering people, creating an angry mob, pull politcal and emotional sway, or normal and tactical means of doing things.

Random magic FTW! Exactly, why not making both Arthur and Guinevere complex characters. Why not building Guinevere and Lancelot's relationship like they did with Snow and David in season 1. Why not making Guinevere actually choosing Arthur because she thinks it is more important to do her duty as a wife and a queen than being with the man she truly loves.

I think another problem I have with the season is that they usually make their spins on stories more sophisticated and deep, but with Camelot it just seems more shallow, it seems that they couldn't handle the intrigue and complexity of the Arthurian Legends. Also, there are much better adaptations of those legends that just make OUAT's take on the story seem bleak. When I watch the episodes it just makes me want to watch Merlin.