From the time I was 10 to around 20, one of my primary obsessions was Arthurian Mythology.

I have just watched a new TV series by the name of Merlin that is a travesty.

In it, Merlin is maybe 17, serving as 'Prince' Arthur's manservant in Camelot.

Arthur is around the same age, drop-dead gorgeous, and a stereotypical snotty royal.

Guenivere is present, though not involved with Arthur as of yet.

There's also a King - 'Prince' Arthur's father presumably, whose wizard is some old dude named Gaius, who seems to be Merlin's mentor.

Lancelot and the rest of Arthur's merry band - err..knights have yet to make their appearances, but from the look of the pilot episode, I'm sure they'll be along shortly. Or at least actors with their names will be, though that may be the only resemblance to the original characters.

IMO, If one is going to write a totally different story, they could come up with their own names for people and places instead of ripping off a legend that they clearly have no interest in paying any attention to.

This sort of thing strangely pisses me off.

My first year at university I had to take a public speaking class. I chose as my final speech a critique on the movie Excalibur. Another interpretation that rubbed me the wrong way. Pretty boring stuff for the rest of the class I imagine, looking back on it. :p

Have you seen Disney's Sword and the Stone? It's a rather amusing take on the Authurian Mythology. The little owl in it also is so cute!

Oh, but it is kind of sad when Merlin turns his Arthur into a squirrel at one point, and the squirrel falls in love with the Authur squirrel, and then when he's turned back she realizes he's not a squirrel and when he leaves she's crying. It's kind of spoilers, but I hate it when I watch a movie or something and then it's like something really sad happens and I'm all sad and miserable for awhile.

The fight with Merlin & Madame Mim is hilarious too, I think I put on DVD now.

'The Sword in the Stone' was a story written by T.H. White, and then adapted by Disney into a film. T.H. White's version followed the basic formula of Thomas Malory's 'Le Morte d'Arthur', so I don't take issue with it so much. I rather liked it, and the rest of White's stories that eventually coalesced into the book, 'The Once and Future King'.

^
I have Disney's Sword and the Stone.  It was an interesting adaption from the Arthurian legend, but I haven't read T.H.White so I hadn't realised that it was adapted from White's version.  Although I do think it's one of Disney's ignored films along with a couple of others.  

As to Merlin from the television show.  I have only seen one episode and what I saw, I wasn't very impressed.  It was the usual stero-typical, rip off of one of the great legends.  It was the same with Robin Hood when the BBC did a series and the rather (inaccurate) historical clothing and certain casting of some of the characters....really bothered me.  

I wish that when they make films or television shows such as these, that they could at least keep it to some historically accurate degree.  I don't mind adaptions but I wish that they would at least make some effort in making it appropriate for the time period.

what - you mean like blackadder

Blackadder was was a masterpiece.

..I haven't seen Blackadder.

"I, Claudius" was a wonderful adaptation of the Robert Graves novel, I'd recommend it to anybody interested in Roman history.  Also, who hasn't seen the BBC adaptation of Jane Austin's "Pride and Prejudice" with Colin Firth as Mr Darcy?  I think more people have seen that than have actually read the book (to which the adaptation stayed very faithful, imo.)
Alison

You should.

I like the show, mainly because I like fantasy shows. But Merlin (according to most sources) was not a a manservant, nor was he a boy so it is very misleading. However, the main thing I appreciate about it is the conflict the boy Merlin constantly struggles with- siding with the bad for the greater good.

Its fascinating to imagine having to work with the enemy and be an enemy of yourself, in order to bring about something much better. Makes me understand politics a little better. For these reasons I appreciate the script- but it could have been just as good if they changed the names of the characters.

What I foresee happening is (SPOILER ALERT) the aged Merlin (the magical version of himself which is very old and only appears at random times as Emrys), will play the part of the more traditional idea of Merlin (the old prophet)...

I think Merlin the manservant will never be able to reveal his true identity and will (in the context of the show) ultimately be forgotten. The record of Emrys the prophet, will, however, live on, in fragments.

Im guessing that was their solution to reconciling the traditional and historical views of Merlin with their fictional character Merlin.

But who knows...have you continued to follow the show? Can you recommend any good online arthurian references?