This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a derivative work. See Wikipedia's Copyright FAQ. |
Moving these previous comments of mine into this new section, "Banners." NearTheZoo ( talk) 21:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted three out of four "needs" banners, due to added info. Production section still needed. Other sections need to be developed, although some (like "response") may need to wait for official April 1 premiere. NearTheZoo ( talk) 20:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Are we sure it's an official FB page? It seems to be be updated in Turkish? Twobells ( talk)
The "positive" reaction mentioned extensively (TheHDRoom.com) is actually very reserved ("shows promises") and not positive at all. Another reaction (Daily Inquirer) is based on a "sneak preview" and should be removed as such. Sneak previews are supposed to be appealing, and there has now been several episodes aired, so there should be real critics based on these first episodes, not sneak previews.
Besides, I wonder how positive the reviews are now. After the very first episodes, this has rapidly turned into your usual American fantasy story of sex and magic, with Arthur's adulterous love story with his best friend's wife now dominating each episode, and not very positive for the historical image of King Arthur either. Chimel31 ( talk) 09:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The same question. Actually I read many viewer comments about Camelot and only from 5% up to 10% are positive. "Arthur" is usually described as too "gay", scenario as "stupid and predictable", actions of heroes and their results as "non credible". I believe there should be an extension to the reception section with all this information. Ilya3L ( talk) 08:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree that this article is excessively positive in general, and reads like official promotional material. Particularly the 'Description' section (which appears to be composed of Starz press releases) and the 'Reception' section, which consists almost exclusively of positive reviews, or even brief positive quotes from longer reviews. I've never watched this show, but given that it was cancelled after one season, I find it hard to believe that no one had anything bad to say about it. Robofish ( talk) 21:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
After watching this on Ch4 UK, I am bemused that despite the money spent on its big stars, big sets and big post production e.g. CGI, there are going to be no more series. Funny how all this investment comes to nought. This article should explore these facets. Why spend millions on a soon-to-be-consigned-to-the-supermarket-bargain-bin DVDs of history? Why did they not just drop the pilot and forget about producing another 9 shows? Maybe this article could become part of the other series that just went off into the TV ether after just a single season?
There have certainly been a number of notable precedents, for instance: Spiderman, Streethawk, Manimal, Firefly..!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.249.27 ( talk) 15:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a derivative work. See Wikipedia's Copyright FAQ. |
Moving these previous comments of mine into this new section, "Banners." NearTheZoo ( talk) 21:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted three out of four "needs" banners, due to added info. Production section still needed. Other sections need to be developed, although some (like "response") may need to wait for official April 1 premiere. NearTheZoo ( talk) 20:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Are we sure it's an official FB page? It seems to be be updated in Turkish? Twobells ( talk)
The "positive" reaction mentioned extensively (TheHDRoom.com) is actually very reserved ("shows promises") and not positive at all. Another reaction (Daily Inquirer) is based on a "sneak preview" and should be removed as such. Sneak previews are supposed to be appealing, and there has now been several episodes aired, so there should be real critics based on these first episodes, not sneak previews.
Besides, I wonder how positive the reviews are now. After the very first episodes, this has rapidly turned into your usual American fantasy story of sex and magic, with Arthur's adulterous love story with his best friend's wife now dominating each episode, and not very positive for the historical image of King Arthur either. Chimel31 ( talk) 09:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The same question. Actually I read many viewer comments about Camelot and only from 5% up to 10% are positive. "Arthur" is usually described as too "gay", scenario as "stupid and predictable", actions of heroes and their results as "non credible". I believe there should be an extension to the reception section with all this information. Ilya3L ( talk) 08:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree that this article is excessively positive in general, and reads like official promotional material. Particularly the 'Description' section (which appears to be composed of Starz press releases) and the 'Reception' section, which consists almost exclusively of positive reviews, or even brief positive quotes from longer reviews. I've never watched this show, but given that it was cancelled after one season, I find it hard to believe that no one had anything bad to say about it. Robofish ( talk) 21:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
After watching this on Ch4 UK, I am bemused that despite the money spent on its big stars, big sets and big post production e.g. CGI, there are going to be no more series. Funny how all this investment comes to nought. This article should explore these facets. Why spend millions on a soon-to-be-consigned-to-the-supermarket-bargain-bin DVDs of history? Why did they not just drop the pilot and forget about producing another 9 shows? Maybe this article could become part of the other series that just went off into the TV ether after just a single season?
There have certainly been a number of notable precedents, for instance: Spiderman, Streethawk, Manimal, Firefly..!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.249.27 ( talk) 15:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)