The show was cancelled because of the lead period. - Camelot (2011) Discussion

[–] jazamaster 11 years ago

What a shallow *beep* you are my goodness. He's a great actor that's all that should matter my goodness. After this COB movie girls are gonna be all over his frontal area ;)

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] monet181 11 years ago

I don't know if historical accuracy for the medieval period was something the creators of the show were going for when they cast Jamie Campbell Bower, but the ideal of the day was not a super buff, manly man, macho, testosterone dripping "dude." In the medieval times, men were considered ideal or beautiful if they were pale, having "pure" skin, or a fair complexion, and a lithe, thin physique. Taking that into consideration, along with what a really fantastic actor Jamie Campbell Bower is, he's a perfect choice for a medieval Arthur.

reply

[–] pol-edra 11 years ago

The series isn't set in the Middle Ages but towards the end of the Roman Empire. What you describe as the ideal beauty canon is what runs through the literature of the 12th/13th centuries, it's 600 years off, even if the writers had had history in mind (which they obviously didn't).

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] mlaiuppa 8 years ago

He's not a "great" actor. Not even a "good" actor.

Fair or competent would be more apropos.

He would be perfectly fine as #1 Surfer Dude in a Weekend at Bernie's movie but he doesn't have the gravitas to carry the lead in an Arthur Legend. And Merlin, Morgan, etc. aside. any show about Camelot centers on Arthur. If you miss the mark on casting that, no matter how good your Merlin, Morgan, Igraine, Gawain, etc. is, your show is going to tank.

And this one did.

Pity.

I hope Bowers can still get his job back as a Calvin Klein underwear model.

reply

[–] haddesah 11 years ago

by larosat » Sat Aug 10 2013 19:47:02
“The scrawniest, wimpiest, ugliest, unmanliest, actor ever chosen for the role. The show never had a chance.”

I agree with u! Wasn't impressed at all with JCB [and there are many others who are complaining abt this too], and it was the first time I had seen or heard of him! Who on earth decided to put JCB in this role of Arthur?? He's absolutely awful!! No charisma, a complete wimpy kid with this silly little moustache. I'm so fed up with these nerdy little wimpy puny men they put in these TV Drama series roles like Arthur, Robin Hood etc... it completely spoils the whole series! These roles should be played by strong powerful men [I don't mean huge biceps either, but powerful charisma and far better looking!]. He looks like he could hardly lift Excalibur never mind fight with it! Peter Mooney [Kay] should have played this role... he has a strong presence and character and better looking too! I will not waste my time watching anymore of this series, the first was enough to know that Arthurs character was defunct before it really got started! They should have made this series for the rating of 13 for kids and teenagers... they would have loved it!!

reply

[–] Gromel 11 years ago

How about the writing? Arthur wasn't written as particularly likable and a different actor would have changed that only so much.

Sure, a more typically handsome, manly actor could be more believable as a horndog wife-stealing Arthur, but many people didn't want that kind of Arthur anyway.

reply

[–] atg_commish 10 years ago

He was perfect for the part -- the boy who Merlin would make king. It isn't muscles and brawn that make a great king, it's courage and a sense of justice.

reply

[–] girl20 10 years ago

But seemed the character didn't have much sense of justice when he slept with the soon-to-be wife of his loyal soldier and friend. Then when that soldier died, he didn't see a problem to sleep with her again on the very same day (or a day later, i don't remember).
I think Artur's character in Camelot would receive more love and admiration if he indeed loved Gwen but resisted the temptation. Now that would be a man with sense of justice. Unhappy, heartbroken, but fair and just. That's a king, not a whiny teen who can't control his hormones.

reply

[–] knghtmr3 10 years ago

The scrawniest, wimpiest, ugliest, unmanliest, actor ever chosen for the role. The show never had a chance.

Yeah though they could have maybe noticed it during casting or filming how talentless this loser was.

reply

[–] krspas2 8 years ago

This show is about the young King. If it had gone to a season two and three you
would have seen him aga become wiser and stronger. Remember Morgan (Morganna)
shape changes and seduces her half-brother. The child of this union
is Mordred who 18 years later tries to take the crown for himself.

reply

[–] pol-edra 8 years ago

why 18? Why not 16 or 21? I think you're projecting what you wished for on what was to maybe happen on this show. Yes, the incest strongly hinted at the Mordred motif of some medieval sources (although making Morgan the mother only happened in the 1980s). But there is no way we can know what they would have done in this series. Maybe the child of incest would have been a girl. Maybe it would have been a boy and called something else (after all, their sort-of-Lancelot was named Leontes).

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply