How to Improve Merlin

I recently have rewatched the TV show Merlin from the BBC. That show was one of my first loves. I started watching it even before Doctor Who. It was also the first time I experienced a show ending live. (It was quite traumatic. Oh the tears!)

Anyways, as I rewatched it, I remembered all the things I loved about it, but I also realized it had a couple of blaring faults. Now, the faults were not big enough to deter me from the show (because its strengths outweigh them by a long shot), but if I could redo some of this stuff, here's what I would change...

(WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD)

1) The ending
Alright, so if you have watched this show, you'll know that a lot of people were not happy with its end.

If you know the Arthurian legends at all, you know that King Arthur does die, so that's what happened. The writers couldn't change that. He had to die. If he didn't, then they would've been rewriting too much. Also, it is written that Merlin does actually stay alive until Arthur "rises again."
What I am getting at is that I think that the ending was handled very well and I think it was a very true adaption to the Arthurian legends.
HOWEVER, my problem is that I don't think that show should have ended with Arthur's death.
The whole point of the show is that it is a prequel. It's all backstory to the Arthurian legends. I think the writers got carried away and lost sight of that after the third season. They were supposed to show the build up to Arthur's kingship and how everything came to be. They were not supposed to actually show the Arthurian legends play out. (And they didn't even do that. A lot of stuff was skipped over in time jumps.)

What I think should have happened was that the show should have ended with Arthur becoming king. Because there is so much build up to how he will be the "greatest king that Camelot will ever know" and that he will "unite the lands of Albion", so if the show would've ended with that FINALLY happening, it would've been perfect. Of course, it could have shown a little bit of the future, like how magic was allowed once more, how Merlin was Arthur's main consultant, how there was peace in the land, the Knights of the Round Table were united, Arthur and Guinevere had married, etc.
If the show had only ended on a good note like that; with what the main plot had been building up to in the first place... it would've been so much better.
Alas, no. It had to go too far. Arthur became king in the fourth season and we saw two whole seasons of him as king and then ended with him dying. He had such a short reign and we didn't really get to see him as "the greatest king the land had ever known." It was just too much.


2) Merlin's magic reveal
This sort of ties in with the last one.

The show was extremely compelling because you kept wondering how and when Merlin's powers would be discovered. At the beginning, you feared for it because he could be executed, but then as he discovered his potential and grew more and more powerful, you really wanted him to become known.
The whole point of the show was for Arthur to see that magic wasn't as bad as his father made it out to be so that when he finally became king, he would legalize it and there would be peace. However, time and time again, his heart would become hardened towards it. It was pretty compelling for a while, but in later seasons, it got a little waring and I started to think that there were some missed opportunities.
As Arthur got closer to becoming king, his heart should have been softening towards magic and yet he remained the same towards it: either mostly indifferent or hating it.

One of the most frustrating moments for me was when Uther was dying and Arthur decided to use magic to save him, so he contacted a sorcerer (Merlin in disguise). Merlin made a deal with him that if he saved the king's life, Arthur would make magic legal when he became king. It was a fantastic opportunity to begin changing Arthur's mind, but in an effort to keep the "magic is evil" plot going, the spell went wrong and Uther died, turning Arthur against magic once again. See, what they could have done was start changing Arthur's mind and then start using magic to defeat Morgana instead of keeping poor Merlin in the shadows and... Oh! So much missed opportunities! Because by the end, we should have seen how powerful Merlin had become and that he truly was "the most powerful sorcerer who has ever lived." And we couldn't see that while he was hiding in the shadows just casually saving Arthur's life by causing a rock slide or flinging people in the air or whatever. We needed to see his awesomeness!
There's a couple things I think they could have done. One idea I really like is the idea of Emrys (old Merlin). Whenever Merlin aged himself, he had no restrictions and we always saw the full extent of his power. Morgana frequently encountered him and feared him (I loved how scared of him she was). So, maybe something they could have done was let Arthur see or at least hear about Emrys helping him every once in a while. He would always wonder at this old sorcerer who was so powerful and always there at the right place at the right time. As his heart was softened towards magic by his witnessing of this old man's kindness, eventually, it would be revealed that it was Merlin all along.
All I am saying is that I really don't like how it was handled in the show. Right as Arhur is dying, Merlin's all, "Oh, BTW, I have magic. See? Oh and I've only been saving your life all this time. NBD." And then Arthur dies. It was just so rushed and Arthur didn't have time to fully appreciate it. Nor did they "unite the land of Albion" together, at least knowingly which is what all the prophecies were sort of implying. So if Merlin had just revealed his magic earlier... It could have been so epic!

3) Guinevere
This is a sort of delicate situation because it might seem like I am hating on certain things. Rest assured, I'm not. I just think things could've been better.

Anyways, Guinevere, the leading lady, future queen, etc. I don't think she was handled very well and didn't live up to her fullest potential. I know that women are very difficult to write, to make them believable, strong, interesting, and still realistic.
Guinevere was not written very well, I thought. They focused a lot on her "wisdom" and "kindness" aspects, trying to make her an intellectual equal for Arthur, but they didn't expand much on anything else. Yes, they did make her very sympathetic and caring and pretty wise, but she didn't have much else to offer. She was kind of a pathetic weakling to be honest, at least physically (even emotionally). She was the biggest damsel in distress. I'm not saying she had to be a warrior or anything (because we see too much of that nowadays too), but seriously, she could've been a little tougher. Despite her wisdom, she could never devise a plan to save herself or others and would always sit and mope when she was in trouble. She cried a lot. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with crying. It's real. However, whenever she got captured, was under stress, or anything, she not only cried, but cowered and blubbered. On more than one occasion, she would beg for mercy. She would never hold her own. She was just the opposite of a "strong" woman. Not really what Arthur needed by his side.
Also, I think that she needed a different actress. Nothing against Angel Coulby because she is a perfectly lovely woman, but I don't think she was the right choice. I'm about to sound super shallow, but I can't take it! Because the show would always talk about how beautiful Guinevere is. Literally every single man who met her would fall for her. There were always comments made about how her beauty would shine from beneath her servant's garb and dirt. So... I don't think Angel Coulby quite lived up to that.
I'm sorry! It's not that she's not pretty, it's just that she doesn't live up to all that hype. And it's NOT because she's black. They easily could've had another black girl who was just... prettier. I know I sound completely horrible, but that's just my opinion.

Princess Mithian

But it's not just that. While she did have some chemistry with Bradley James (Arthur), I thought it could've been better. In fact, I sometimes thought some of the princesses that Arthur courted/encountered had more chemistry with him than she did. For example, Princess Mithian in the fourth season whom Arthur almost marries. She is more what I pictured as a Guinevere. She was beautiful, funny, sweet, caring, spunky, had a lot of chemistry with Arthur, would get upset, but still see sense... All this in just one episode.

4) Magic spells

My last grievance is how they handled the use of magic, particularly when there was a face-off.
So, the first season or two was alright, but once it got into the third season and beyond, things got a little less creative.
What happened every single time if someone with magic wanted to hurt someone or delay them or whatever, all they would do was toss them in the air. It was always a different spell that they incanted and yet it always did the same exact thing! They would just get tossed in the air! It drove me crazy! Couldn't they think of some interesting spells with cool results? They couldn't like throw fireballs or conjure snakes or give each other the plague or something? So much potential that wasn't taken!

For example, the first time Morgana first encounters Emrys, they face off in a magic battle. It could've been so epic and we could have seen them display their powers against each other and see how they measure up. But no. All they do is throw each other up in the air over and over. So annoying and so boring! Even when Merlin overpowers her with the "big" spell (the "creative" spell) by conjuring the tornado, it still has the same result by tossing her in the air. Good grief!
The final episode was pretty good when Merlin conquers the battle with lightning. Creative! (But he still tossed Morgana in the air at one point)


Buuuut... despite all this, I still love the show. It has so many virtues that outweigh those faults.
Merlin and Arthur are FANTASTICALLY written characters! And their banter is hilarious. Colin Morgan is a great actor, he is an amazing Merlin! Even though it is a family show with very clean battles, I think they were still very well choreographed for the most part. I also really liked the concept that when someone uses magic, their eyes glow.
Even some of the silly stuff, you come to find very endearing: how very escapable the dungeons are, how bad a sneaker Merlin is, the horrid CGI in some episodes, how whenever Arthur says he's going alone, he still always brings Merlin, how Arthur always gets conveniently knocked out, how no one EVER notices Morgana's blatantly obvious evil smirks, how ridiculously vague and unhelpful the dragon is, mother-huggin' sassy old Merlin, and so on. I just love this show so much!

The Complicated Language of Love

Now that I suddenly find myself back in the world of hanging around people my age, I find myself back in the dating game. And it SUCKS! For the past two semesters, I have gone through so many ups and downs on this stupid roller coaster on the way to finding my eternal companion. No, I am not going to give any specifics, but as I’ve been going through this, it’s caused me to really think about the mystery that is love. I’ve been evaluating myself and others, trying to figure it all out. 

HOW MANY DATES?

I think that a lot of people (myself often included) have this idea that you need to be immediately attracted to a person when you go on the first date. (Some of my roommates last semester would talk about this idea a lot.) Or even if you give the person a chance and you go on a date with them, you might think they’re cool, but you aren’t attracted to them... so you decide not to pursue it. Is that really the right course? Is it possible to become attracted to them? If you think they’re cool, maybe you should go on at least another date and keep your mind open. 

I always say yes to the first date, because I think I should always give the guy a chance, but I have never been on a second date... I’ve only been asked for one twice, but I turned both of them down in the mindset that I wasn’t interested and didn’t want to pursue anything. Was that right? Should I have given it a go? Could I have become interested if I kept my mind open?

But then another problem arises if I try going on another date or two and I realize I really am not interested, but the guy is. Then he asks me out again and I have to say no. Well, after like five dates, he might’ve fallen harder for me than just one and it’ll hurt more. It could be seen as “leading him on.” Do you see the dilemma? 

So what does one do? As I said, I always say yes to the first date (unless the guy’s a creeper or whatever), but won’t say yes to another if I’m not feelin’ it afterwards. However, I’m beginning to question that idea. Because it may be possible that one date isn’t enough to gage your feelings. I’m thinking maybe two, even three dates would suffice. Of course, it depends on the guy. There are some guys that you can tell are really clingy and/or who are already falling for you hard and you don’t want to go on two or three dates only to crush them at the end of it.

Now, something I should explain to any guys reading this post: This does not apply to every single individual, so do not take it as gospel. This is just a general thing I’ve observed and experienced... 

Guys tend to view dates (at least the first few) as casual activities where they can just get to know a girl and have fun. Girls also see them as this, but with something a little extra. They’re already thinking ahead. 

First date is just the casual, getting to know you part. Second date- “OMG, he’s interested in me because he asked me out again!” Third- “He’s definitely interested. Does he want a relationship? Where is this going?” Fourth- “He must want a relationship.” And so on. Beware the overthinking female.

DO I LIKE THEM?

I know I tend to have a problem where I get confused when someone else likes me first. “Do I like them too?” My initial reaction is usually to reject it. I guess I don’t want to have to deal with it? Or maybe I’m scared? Maybe a bit of both. Because what if I do like them? Well then what? So usually I don’t think too deeply about it and decide that I don’t like them like that. I’ll go on the one date with them and then say goodbye. 

I’ve seen this problem in others. We think (often subconsciously) that we need to like the other person first. We recognize our own feelings right away when we like someone, but when someone else approaches us unexpectedly with these feelings, it’s like pure chaos! Nope! Sorry! I don’t think of you that way! ...But what if we really stopped to think about it and give it a chance? Could you like them? Love is a dastardly thing. It’s just not easy!

You’ve got to be brave sometimes and give it a chance. Life's all about trying and succeeding or failing. I have an intense fear of rejection, so I don't like doing it to others. I think that's part of the reason why I like cutting things off before they even start. Because what if it turns out I don't like them? I'll have to reject them when it's even worse. Best cut it off now. 
I’m trying to be better at not immediately rejecting everything that comes at me. I have a problem where I always make a plan in my head... and it never works out. However, whenever something comes into play that messes with my plan, I reject it (i.e. an unexpected boy appears). I need to stop! 

I know we hear these stories about how someone was sitting in class and then one day this girl walked in and at that moment they had a thought, “I’m going to marry that girl,” then a year later they were married. I think that’s a very rare occurrence. For me, it’s utter bullcrap. My imagination’s too crazy for me to interpret fantasy from a genuine thought like that. If I ever have even the smallest thought like that, I immediately push it aside like, “Nope! You don’t know that! Don’t be stupid!” Getting married or even getting in a relationship is not so simple as many people make it sound.

BEING "IN LOVE"

I've never been "in love", so I have no idea what that remarkable sensation is like. However, I have observed plenty of couples to have come up with a theory. My three steps of a relationship: attraction/being "in lust", being in love/the honeymoon phase, and reality.

Allow me to explain: 

1) Attraction/being "in lust": The initial attraction of two people is more often than not based on small, trivial, physical things; physical attraction being the big one, similar interests, first impressions of certain things (they're smart, they're funny, etc). This remains the case for the first several dates while the couple is getting to know each other. Those tingly feelings (I have personally experienced) are not "love". I call them "lust", although that makes it sound sinful. However, "lust" is defined as "an intense desire of the body." You simply want to get to know this person better and are excited by the thought of them. You have "an intense desire" to be around them. Some people have this desire so intense that they misinterpret their feelings as "love", so they skip over the second step and get married right away.

2) The second step I have not personally experienced: being in love/the honeymoon phase. At some point, the couple moves out of this "intense desire" phase and into "love." I have absolutely NO idea what that is like, how it happens, when it happens, or anything. I do know that love is purer than lust. It's more than just an intense desire to be around them, but something... more. Being in love is all blissful happiness and couples always feel like they can conquer the world as long as they're together. This is what I call the "honeymoon phase." Because somewhere in this time is when people decide to get married and go on their honeymoon. Life is so perfect and grand for a time. Like the honeymoon will never end.

3) Until the last step which is reality. Now, I don't mean to imply that you always fall out of love once this sets in, but I've seen it happen. That's why the divorce rate is so high. The people who get married during the "in lust" phase often get divorced because they didn't have time to give their relationship a chance and see if they were really "in love." Those who really are in love finally start to see reality and begin to work together as a team. Of course there's trials and tribulations, but if the couple really do love one another they CAN conquer anything like they thought. 

Just an opinion based on observations.

RELATIONSHIPS

Now, I’ve never been in a relationship, so I’m really not fully qualified to speak on the subject, but I still have opinions. 

I have met a wide range of boys (that makes it sound like I hang around tons and tons of guys. I don’t really. I’ve just met a lot). And I’ve gone on a reasonable amount of dates. I have seen two types of guys: the over-attentive ones and the aloof ones (of course there are others, but let's just focus on those). Now, as a friend, I don’t mind the guy being a little aloof. I’m not a super needy person overall (most of the time). However, upon observing some couples and from personal experience on dates, etc, I have to say, you cannot be like that in a relationship! You need to pay your girl attention! Let her know you care; be by her side, call her, talk to her, take her places, whatever it takes. You can hang out with friends and talk to other people, but don’t abandon her and/or ignore her. She needs to feel like she’s important and special in your life. As Rihanna says, "Make [her] feel like [she's] the only girl in the world."

On the other end of the scale, there’s the over-attentive guys who over-do all that stuff so much that it becomes a nuisance. You’re constantly calling her, you never leave her side, you compliment her on literally everything that it doesn’t feel special anymore, in an attempt to be gentlemanly, she’s not allowed to do anything, and so on.

Girls are not off the hook for any of this stuff either though. I’ve seen aloof and overly-attentive girls too.
Everyone, find a balance somewhere in between.

In my mind, the ideal relationship should be evenly balanced. Both partners should not only respect and love one another, but should also complete each other. What I mean by that is one of two things: two opposites come together and compliment one another or two similar halves come together to make a whole. I’ve seen couples with two complete opposite personalities joined together who work remarkably well with one another. They even each other out and are happy. Then, I’ve seen couples who share many common interests and personality traits who are equally happy because they understand one another on a different level. Both types are compatible and both take a lot of work!

In any case, a spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend should be your best friend. Someone you get along really well with, someone you can have fun with, someone you can talk to, someone you’re comfortable around, someone you work well with, someone who understands you and knows you better than anybody (except maybe your parents, but even that could be debatable in some cases), and, most importantly, someone who makes you happy. 

CONCLUSION

I know this all seems impossible to find now, but I believe it can be done. Sometimes I (and others) think, “How can I possibly be a good husband/wife? I’m horrible at [insert relationship expectancy here].” I believe that once the right person comes along, you’ll just feel the need to do all these things. It will all just click. I’m holding out for a little longer! All this crap I’m going through right now ought to be worth something spectacular in the end! My husband is going to be frikin’ AWESOME!!!

I Believe...

Hey, we’re talking religion again!

Now, growing up in the church there are a lot of things that I’ve grown up hearing and believing. For example, we have a prophet who speaks for the Lord, the bible and the Book of Mormon go hand in hand, men are called of God by the laying on of hands, God speaks to us today, and so on. These were all things that I was taught from infancy and that I just accepted. I sort of took them for granted, I think. I was just like, “Yeah, OK. We have a prophet. We have priesthood power. Cool.” However, now that I am older, I am really starting to appreciate all these things that we believe in.

As I have grown older, I have started to really think for myself about all these things for myself and understand what they all mean. We have a prophet. A prophet! Just like in ancient times. “We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church...” as the sixth article of faith says. We are called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it is Christ’s church. Not Joseph Smith’s, not Mormon’s, not anybody else’s. “Therefore ye shall call the church in my name... And how be it my church save it be called in my name? ...but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel” (3 Nephi 27:7-8). It makes sense!

Then have you ever stopped to think about the priesthood? Joseph Smith and his apostles received the same priesthood authority that was on the earth from Christ’s time. The resurrected Peter, James, and John conferred it upon them because there was no proper priesthood authority on the earth after they had died. JSH 1:72 reads “The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek.” 

Specific men are actually called of God to act in His name. In 3 Nephi 11 verses 18-22, Nephi was directly called forth by Christ to be given the power to baptize. D&C 22 says that “although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.” This means that one must be baptized with proper priesthood authority.

Often, an attack against the Latter-day Saints is that we don’t believe in the bible (a misconception because we believe in the Book of Mormon). The belief is that we are replacing the bible with the Book of Mormon. This is false. We believe in both books. The bible has gone through many men’s hands and different translations and we believe in it as long as it is translated correctly. 1 Nephi 13:26-27 mentions this confusion with the mistranslation: “they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.” The scriptures are very sacred to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “The scriptures shall be given, even as they are in mine own bosom, to the salvation of mine own elect” (D&C 35:20).

I think it is such a miracle that we have all these sacred works today. Looking back on the history of the bible blows my little mind. Watch this documentary that BYUtv put together. It’s extremely fascinating: FIRES OF FAITH

I do believe in all these things. I do not rely on anyone else’s faith except for my own. God does reveal things today just as He did in ancient times. He reveals things to the individual just as easily and willingly as He does to a prophet. I have a firm testimony of all these things!