They weren’t taking a shot at doing their version of the Arthur mythos. This was them taking their shot at doing The Once and Future King, specifically.
I was kinda hoping they would end it with Arthur asking: "So do things at least end well for me" with Merlin going "Well about that-" cut off by the ending card
That’s true. There’s a big difference between what you can read or hear about vs what you can actually see. A lot of the stories involve blood and murder and adultery >Then in the light's last glimmer Tristram show'd >And swung the ruby carcanet. She cried, >"The collar of some Order, which our King >Hath newly founded, all for thee, my soul, >For thee, to yield thee grace beyond thy peers." >"Not so, my Queen," he said, "but the red fruit >Grown on a magic oak-tree in mid-heaven, >And won by Tristram as a tourney-prize, >And hither brought by Tristram for his last >Love-offering and peace-offering unto thee." >He spoke, he turn'd, then, flinging round her neck, >Claspt it, and cried "Thine Order, O my Queen!" >But, while he bow'd to kiss the israeliteell'd throat, >Out of the dark, just as the lips had touch'd, >Behind him rose a shadow and a shriek— >"Mark's way," said Mark, and clove him thro' the brain.
>That night came Arthur home, and while he climb'd, >All in a death-dumb autumn-dripping gloom, >The stairway to the hall, and look'd and saw >The great Queen's bower was dark,—about his feet >A voice clung sobbing till he question'd it, >"What art thou?" and the voice about his feet >Sent up an answer, sobbing, "I am thy fool, >And I shall never make thee smile again."
How do you animate that?
That’s true. There’s a big difference between what you can read or hear about vs what you can actually see. A lot of the stories involve blood and murder and adultery >Then in the light's last glimmer Tristram show'd >And swung the ruby carcanet. She cried, >"The collar of some Order, which our King >Hath newly founded, all for thee, my soul, >For thee, to yield thee grace beyond thy peers." >"Not so, my Queen," he said, "but the red fruit >Grown on a magic oak-tree in mid-heaven, >And won by Tristram as a tourney-prize, >And hither brought by Tristram for his last >Love-offering and peace-offering unto thee." >He spoke, he turn'd, then, flinging round her neck, >Claspt it, and cried "Thine Order, O my Queen!" >But, while he bow'd to kiss the israeliteell'd throat, >Out of the dark, just as the lips had touch'd, >Behind him rose a shadow and a shriek— >"Mark's way," said Mark, and clove him thro' the brain.
>That night came Arthur home, and while he climb'd, >All in a death-dumb autumn-dripping gloom, >The stairway to the hall, and look'd and saw >The great Queen's bower was dark,—about his feet >A voice clung sobbing till he question'd it, >"What art thou?" and the voice about his feet >Sent up an answer, sobbing, "I am thy fool, >And I shall never make thee smile again."
How do you animate that?
>Death isn't kid-friendly
Modernity was a mistake.
To learm about? To read about? To see, in certain contexts? Yes to all
To watch a king split open the head of a knight having an affair with his wife? No.
No, they're suggesting it's trivial to make an adaptation of any old thing, as long as you go through the source material with a chainsaw. And that it's been done before by the same company.
I think too many crucial parts of any given string of stories are too boring or otherwise mature to do that. You'd be left with a mess if you tried to tone it down.
It really wasn’t that early at all. In fact, some of the problem was that the old talent was getting elderly and starting to die off. Another big part of it was financial trouble.
this movie was an insidious attempt by furgays to brainwash small children into wanting to be sexually assaulted by horny squirrel girls and make turn them into furries.
No, we turned the squirrel into a human. It's like the opposite of furry.
this movie was an insidious attempt by furgays to brainwash small children into wanting to be sexually assaulted by horny squirrel girls and make turn them into furries.
Case in point.
If they make a live action remake, you know they'll bring the squirrel back just so they can turn her into a human.
Search your heart, you know it to be true.
The Arthur mythos was adapted from old pagan welsh warrior saints myths, actually. Christians didn’t sit down and come up with the whole thing on their own.
>national people have a folk tale >character of the people changes (in this case, they adopt a new religion) >folk tale naturally changes to reflect that
There’s your answer
The first possible mentions of Arthur as a historical figure are a Roman-Briton around the 5th or 6th century, after the Chrisitanity landed in Britain.
The earliest mythologies are Christianised but do have strong traces of pre-christian celtic beliefs, though whether it was always Arthur or whether he got put in later by the romanised celts, who knows.
That makes no sense because 1) Christians do have warrior saints (Saint Michael the Archangel, Saint George, Emperor Saint Constantine, Saint Joan of Arc, and many others) and 2) King Arthur wasn’t a saint
By saint warriors I mean warriors you are supposed to look up to, admire and even copy because your religion demands you to, Muhammad and David were warlords while Jesus, Peter and Paul were all pacifists.
You are making zero sense. I just listed a bunch of warriors you are supposed to look up to, admire and even copy. King David is also a Christian figure, not just a israeli figure. And Jesus Christ was perceived as a warrior king in medieval times
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/50009/done-is-a-battle
But even if none of that was true (it is, but even if it were not), it still wouldn’t follow that “King Arthur stories were made up because unlike israelites and muslims christians didn't have their own warrior saints” because King Arthur wasn’t a saint. He’s actually a very flawed and very complex character, despite medieval stories having a reputation for simplistic morality
Nothing about your thesis makes sense.
>Islam and Judaism: religions about how to be a warrior >Christianity: religion about how to be a pacifist >King Arthur tales: stories about how to be a christian warrior
cope
People didn't read the stories so they miss how essential christianity is to King Arthur tales with God himself being more active there than in the bible with constant miracles and lessons, with most of the problems being caused by characters sinning against God.
>Judaism: religions about how to be a warrior
Lmao >King Arthur tales: stories about how to be a christian warrior
Most of the King Arthur legend has nothing to do with waging war. The Grail quest, Gawain and the Green Knight, the Sword in the Stone, none of them are about warriorhood.
Really depends on where you draw tje line on “original.”
2 years ago
Anonymous
The earliest mentions of Arthur.
And speaking of, what is the consensus on Once & Future?
2 years ago
Anonymous
He wasn’t called Arthur before his name was changed to Arthur, so even that isn’t an ideal starting point.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What are you talking about? The Historia Brittonum calls him Arthur and is the earliest known work known that mentions him
>At that time, the Saxons grew strong by virtue of their large number and increased in power in Britain. Hengist having died, however, his son Octha crossed from the northern part of Britain to the kingdom of Kent and from him are descended the kings of Kent. Then Arthur along with the kings of Britain fought against them in those days, but Arthur himself was the military commander ["dux bellorum"]. His first battle was at the mouth of the river which is called Glein. His second, third, fourth, and fifth battles were above another river which is called Dubglas and is in the region of Linnuis. The sixth battle was above the river which is called Bassas. The seventh battle was in the forest of Celidon, that is cat Coit Celidon. The eighth battle was at the fortress of Guinnion, in which Arthur carried the image of Holy Mary ever virgin on his shoulders; and the pagans were put to flight on that day. And through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the power of the blessed Virgin Mary his mother there was great slaughter among them. The ninth battle was waged in the City of the Legion. The tenth battle was waged on the banks of a river which is called Tribruit. The eleventh battle was fought on the mountain which is called Agnet. The twelfth battle was on Mount Badon in which there fell in one day 960 men from one charge by Arthur; and no one struck them down except Arthur himself, and in all the wars he emerged as victor. And while they were being defeated in all the battles, they were seeking assistance from Germany and their numbers were being augmented many times over without interruption. And they brought over kings from Germany that they might reign over them in Britain, right down to the time in which Ida reigned, who was son of Eobba. He was the first king in Bernicia, i.e., in Berneich
2 years ago
Anonymous
I think he's referring to the idea that King Arthur is based upon Ambrosius Aurelianus aka Emrys Wledig, because this is who Gildas attributed the victory at the Battle of Badon to, and this is one of the earliest acts attributed to King Arthur. I might be wrong, though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Off the top of my head after quite a few pale ales, one likely and extremely vague explanation and extrapolation was that he was a welsh or briton warlord active during or after the end of roman occupation who united a number of tribes and whatever was left of a social order at the time. He could have been concurrent with the initial spread of christianity in the north, maybe. He's a folk hero with some historical basis and a lot of bullshit added on later. Myrddin predates him but could also be concurrent with the actual figure. There's your oldest stories.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>what is the consensus on Once & Future Once & Future
I was looking for fantasy comics and just read the first arc. Art is great because it's Mora, the rest was a huge letdown. The premise is awesome but it's not very well thought out or executed well. Worse it feels like an indie comic from 15 years ago when everyone wanted to be Whedon. The protag is charming awkward """"geek"""" who never shuts up, it's quippy, there's a badass granny, etc. I wanted to like it but no.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And speaking of, what is the consensus on Once & Future?
I was excited that the twist at the start that Arthur was actually the Welsh/Brittonic Arthur, but nothing from the welsh stories ever turns up. He's more like the Horned King of Disney's Black Cauldron ironically.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Is irritating how plot holes get handwaved away or just never addressed like Welsh Arthur asking for Merlin when he's resurrected but once Merlin shows up he has no idea who he is. Or not recognizing Excalibur when the story gets kick-started by the discovering of it sheath. Hell, the sheath has vanished from the plot entirely along the french Galahad.
Yes, but they don't emphasize his Christianity, or work on any Christian theme. The Christian Arthur comes from the Grail quest, which is less about being a strong warrior and more about knightly virtues.
Yes, but they don't emphasize his Christianity, or work on any Christian theme. The Christian Arthur comes from the Grail quest, which is less about being a strong warrior and more about knightly virtues.
Not King Arthur, just one of the many figures that inspired him
I want a Cinemaphile Arthur media about the various knights.
>Tristan is a good choice considering he gets two fricking books in Le Morte d'Arthur. >The Fischer King story about two brothers fighting to die death causing the land around them to be a desolate wasteland >Or, that time King Arthur fricking killed children on a boat >Pelleas and Nimue for romance
>Made up stories
Blame the french for adding some OCs or changing some of the characters, especially when they added that Mary Sue of a character, Lancelot.
I’ll never get over how Lancelot is a literal fanfic OC, probably a self insert, by some smug French fricks who make this super knight the best knight ever and even fricks Arthur’s wife, and it just became so universally accepted it became part of the Arthurian canon.
-There's probably millions of real and fake warriors from all religions, especially mainstream ones
-Abrahamics share the majority of their lore from the same source
-The is no historical evidence for the Zionist stories in the Old Testament. ie, they are also full of made-up warriors
-King Arthur's setting takes place during the real-life resistance against Anglo-Saxons, which probably involved Christianity to some extent, even though it's romanticized
-Christ wasn't a pacifist, and he was written as a beast-slayer and army leader during the apocalypse in Revelation
Other guy was right, this is one of the dumbest posts made.
>Abrahamics share the majority of their lore from the same source
Irrelevant, new relevation and new rules >the is no historical evidence for the Zionist stories in the Old Testament. ie, they are also full of made-up warriors
Ok >King Arthur's setting takes place during the real-life resistance against Anglo-Saxons, which probably involved Christianity to some extent, even though it's romanticized
And they are all about being a good christian >Christ wasn't a pacifist
He absolutely was >and he was written as a beast-slayer and army leader during the apocalypse in Revelation
Revelation is mostly symbolic
Christ wasn't a pop-culture version of pacifist. He was perfectly willing to antagonize people.
Jesus even went as far as explaining why he was a pacifist and how to be one going as far as not even peacefully resisting like Gandhi does, he was a pacifist while Muhammad was a warrior.
>The is no historical evidence for the Zionist stories in the Old Testament
For the early parts, sure, but starting with Samuel we start to approach something resembling historicity. Stories like the Judges, and especially Samson, are fiction, but increasingly they make mention of other rulers and empires we know existed, and Assyrian records of their imperial conquests do explicitly name notable military enemies in Israel/Judah that are characters in the Old Testament.
The stories themselves were 100% made up, but the "person" that King Arthur is based on is believed to be a Roman general stuck in post-Roman Britain. So take your "history isn't real" bullshit and go away.
From my super secret sources that I shall not reveal, there were several Arthurs during pre-Roman times, and the pre-French fanfiction mythology is based on those real men, as well as a few gods and some making shit up.
The Dark Ages were not some humanity wide extinction event of knowledge, things were just not written down anymore and so it is a huge blank spot in the historical record. But it is completely plausible for various elements in the King Arthur stories to be at least REFERENCES to historical events.
When scholars do it to Beowulf, nobody bats an eye; but oh no King Arthur has the holy grail and a magic sword. Spooky~.
I'm not disagreeing on the whole, that's just a really shitty hot take with very tenuous facts to back it up. I think it's older than that.
Neither of those is the real Arthur, those guys share 1% of similarity with King Arthur, King Arthur the character was born in the Knights of the Round Table tales, no mythological character or historical figure can claim to be 51% like him, they were loose inspirations.
>born in the Knights of the Round Table tales
There was no Knights of the Round Table in the original Welsh stories. That is a much later invention by the French and English.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah different name, location, castle, enemies, allies and story.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes. Read Culhwch and Olwen, and then read the Vulgate Cycle, and tell me they are the same thing.
Christians stole a lot of their culture from other religions to try and get people to convert. >You have Saturnalia? Cool we totally have that, it's called, uh, Christmas! You should become a Christian and give us your money and stuff!
this is a very ignorant way of viewing cultures and religions
christmas wasn't "stolen" it was readapted for the europeans who ended up converting to christianity
european christians are obviously much different from middle eastern christians
Uncle Walt wasn't happy with Sword in the Stone either. To be fair, he was barely involved in the production because he was still seething over stupid kids not watching his latest megalomaniac animated project Sleeping Beauty. At the time, Walt was considering leaving the animation division to others and do other stuff like live actions and fascistic states (see Epcot) but he was so mad with Sword on the Stone that he fired the old man in charge of that movie and decided to be directly involved with the next animated feature, The Jungle Book. And the rest is history
It's not like Adult Swim shows are any less childish. If anything, they're MORE childish than Disney movies. I know that Cinemaphile hates anime, but seinen anime is the shining example of what adult animation should look like. Not a frickin' Family Guy.
The Legend of Vox Machina took a step in the right direction. There's still toilet humor, but it gets much less focus than Adult Swim shows, and it just focuses on telling the story instead of "look, ma, look how adult am I!".
One that continues the Disney film? Not a bad idea actually, in fact it would be the first live action film that’s a direct sequel to an animated canon film(unless i just missed something rather obscure). Now how will they handle it you may ask? Merlin will still be witty as ever but the story will be no doubt more serious and more people realizing that the sword in the stone isn’t Excalibur
One that continues the Disney film? Not a bad idea actually, in fact it would be the first live action film that’s a direct sequel to an animated canon film(unless i just missed something rather obscure). Now how will they handle it you may ask? Merlin will still be witty as ever but the story will be no doubt more serious and more people realizing that the sword in the stone isn’t Excalibur
>More serious
It's Arthurian legend, so I'm down with it. Could introduce more knights, that be the plot of the sequel, Arthur gathering his knights to....dunno defeat the Questing Beast to justify his rule over Britain.
>Merlin
One aspect they could they is have a rivalry. Introduce the Lady of the Lake and Lancelot. Have the Lady and Merlin be rivals, just like in the Le Morte D'Arthur stories, where the Lady basically traps Merlin forever. Have Lancelot be the be all and great, against Arthur's timid nature. It's like two knights and two magicians facing off one another on quest. Which results in the Lady and Lancelot rewarding Arthur with Excalibur, and in response Merlin and Arthur rewarding Lancelot with Arondight
>defeat the Questing Beast to justify his rule over Britain.
No. There's already a two knights that mess with the Questing Beast. Arthur doesn't need his role bloated.
The Nic Cage Sorcerer's Apprentice was already more of an Sword in the Stone sequel/ Arthurian movie then a Fantasia one by being "Merlin's magic students versus a resurgent Morgan le Fay in the modern day" and having Jay "Actually sounds like one of those puberty kids they had voice Wart in Sword in the Stone as a grownass adult" Baruchel as the star.
That movie had more to do with Arthurian Legend that the Sword in the Stone that consist on a bunch of nothing and then a sword in the stone shows up at the very end.
Is funny how nonchalan Arthur got that sword, I could see a version where nobody pays much attention to where he got the sword and they leave to their castle never noticing the sword in the stone is missing.
They'd turn the wizard duel into yet another "beams clash in mid air and they push back and forth" instead of the inventive stuff happening. Probably with a cgi white mist background to save money, just like in the last HP movie.
More on fantasy, and focuses more on Merlin than Arthur. But it's a nice watch.
>Excalibur
Essentially what most people think of when they think of King Arthur. It really gets you into the sense of the Arthurian myth. Would recommend watching this.
>King Arthur (2004)
Yeah, yeah, I know it's a typical action movie. But this is more in line with the origins of where the legend of King Arthur was. Basically if you're looking for a different take, which is somewhat closer to the original version.
The Arthur mythos are somewhat cursed due to their connections with masons, which were primarily Anglos. You can tell that towards the end Disney was struggling with them, he ended up doing a Jungle Book movie too.
They made up for it by doing a movie on Robin Hood, which is primarily Saxon. The Anglo-Saxon nonsense is why there's so much occult babble.
They are obsessed with retelling the stories of the Round Table and the Book of Enoch, but in different formats, i.e. The Man who Would Be King (which has Rudyard Kipling in it), and The Road to El Dorado is basically the outline of Enoch- an inverted hermeneutic, very popular.
when i was a kid, i always hated archimedes, but on rewatch i felt pretty bad for him. merlin was an irresponsible authority figure and my boy archimedes had to pick up the slack like crazy. no wonder he was such a cranky dick. he saved arthur's life like 3 times for no thanks and just got relentlessly shit on. he was a real one. i wonder if he had a choice in being merlin's familiar
I always find funny that Nite Owl named his battleship after Archimedes. It's in-character but I just laugh thinking on Moore watching The Sword in the Stone
The most famous stories of King Arthur are French fanfics. And it'd be kind of hard to make a two hour Disney film out of the King Arthur mythos as a whole since after actually becoming king and gathering the Knights of the Round Table, his Knights end up heavily overshadowing him. And then he gets cucked and his nephewson fricks everything up and kills him.
>the french add their own knight to the arthurian mythos >write him as literally the best knight ever and ends up cucking arthur
Dabbing on the anglos since the dawn of christendom. Between this and orchestrating the american revolution I wonder which is the more seetheworthy to the collective english psyche.
It's not quite that simple. Before the top knight was Gawain, who eventually gained superpowers when the sun was up. Then Percival happened and HE was the purest and best knight. Then Lancelot happened and HE was the the best (but not purest) knight. Then Lancelot's son Galahad happened and HE was the purest and best knight, stealing Percival's original roles. In fact, Galahad was more or less created because Lancelot was too much of a jackass and they wanted a Lancelot with none of the flaws. What's weird is that Perceival was also a French creation, yet I guess he wasn't really good enough for the role.
What's also worth noting is that in the earliest known texts involving him, Mordred was a pretty good guy. And then the Welsh turned him into Arthur's treacherous nephew, and then the French turned him into Arthur's illegitimate son with his sister. The Scots, on the other hand, claimed that Mordred wasn't Arthur's son, but WAS the legitimate ruler of Britain while Arthur himself was a traitor to the country. Whatever the case, the Scots and the French hated Arthur and thought he was shit.
Galahad is pretty much a gary stu, unlike Percival and Lancelot, he has know flaw. He's the perfect knight and christian, almost a warrior monk.
I always saw him as the idea that the quest for the Graal is not for mere men and that only a predestined being could accomplish it.
Overall, no one really cares that much about Arthur himself. That's why nearly every modern adaptation of the mythos is centered around Lancelot, Percival, Galahad or even Merlin. Ask the average layman what they know about Arthur specifically and they'll either reference Monty Python or just say that he's a king and his sword is Excalibur.
No, "Arthur" is from Proto-Brythonic "Arth", meaning "Bear". Most likely Arthur was based on a Welsh king who fought against the Saxons, probably the one mentioned here
What are you talking about? The Historia Brittonum calls him Arthur and is the earliest known work known that mentions him
>At that time, the Saxons grew strong by virtue of their large number and increased in power in Britain. Hengist having died, however, his son Octha crossed from the northern part of Britain to the kingdom of Kent and from him are descended the kings of Kent. Then Arthur along with the kings of Britain fought against them in those days, but Arthur himself was the military commander ["dux bellorum"]. His first battle was at the mouth of the river which is called Glein. His second, third, fourth, and fifth battles were above another river which is called Dubglas and is in the region of Linnuis. The sixth battle was above the river which is called Bassas. The seventh battle was in the forest of Celidon, that is Cat Coit Celidon. The eighth battle was at the fortress of Guinnion, in which Arthur carried the image of Holy Mary ever virgin on his shoulders; and the pagans were put to flight on that day. And through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the power of the blessed Virgin Mary his mother there was great slaughter among them. The ninth battle was waged in the City of the Legion. The tenth battle was waged on the banks of a river which is called Tribruit. The eleventh battle was fought on the mountain which is called Agnet. The twelfth battle was on Mount Badon in which there fell in one day 960 men from one charge by Arthur; and no one struck them down except Arthur himself, and in all the wars he emerged as victor. And while they were being defeated in all the battles, they were seeking assistance from Germany and their numbers were being augmented many times over without interruption. And they brought over kings from Germany that they might reign over them in Britain, right down to the time in which Ida reigned, who was son of Eobba. He was the first king in Bernicia, i.e., in Berneich
, but even then there's clearly a lot of distortion with him supposedly slaying 1000 men by himself.
It's always funny how despite how Arthur was supposed to find the Grail, he's not actually very involved with the quest at all. Like there's not many stories about Arthur looking for the Grail or getting his hands on it. And while he did go on adventures and do amazing things, all his feats were kinda swept under the rug and no one remembers most of them anymore.
It's unfortunately incomplete but John Steinbeck's The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights is a damn good read.
[...]
I know its easy to talk shit about Fate what with turning Arthur into a chick, but the actual Camelot stuff was pretty neat and more accurate than most things, like they actually remember that Excalibur wasn't the sword in the stone.
I have to admit I loved the Camelot Chapter of the game, seeing how each Knight obeyed the King and how at the end it was some frustration of not being there with him when he fell that moved them to follow his rules.
Then Las Vegas event happened and I was like "Lancelot and Tristan are real men of culture"
To be fair Sleeping Beauty was pretty boring up until the prince gets captured.
Admit it, you just wanted Maleficent to frick the prince.
One thing I actually kinda like about Fate/s depiction of the Knights of the Round is that it depicts the Knights of the Round Table as heavily flawed individuals who were partially responsible for much of Arthur's headaches and even the fall of Camelot itself, but Arthur him(her)self doesn't tend to notice their flaws. Except Mordred, for obvious reasons. Of course, it does kinda go hard into the other direction and depicts Arthur as some sort of flawless saint who was dragged into the mud by the people around him(her).
Arturia's flaw was that she wasn't decisive enough though. Her sainthood IS her flaw, as she failed to understand that being a "Strong" ruler sometimes required being an jerk who was willing to do cruel things to stabilize your kingdom.
This is how she contrasts with other rulers in the series who don't have their kingdoms crumble underneath them, in that she tries to stay true to the "Ideal" of a perfect king which can't work in the mortal world.
Frick, in the end she ends up getting her rapist stalker killed by her boyfriend because she's too weak to do it herself whenever she encounters him.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Arturia's flaw was that she wasn't decisive enough though. Her sainthood IS her flaw, as she failed to understand that being a "Strong" ruler sometimes required being an jerk who was willing to do cruel things to stabilize your kingdom.
That's not true at all. There were times when she had to make tough decisions, such as drain small villages of their resources in order to fuel her army. This would inevitably end up dooming those villages, but if she didn't do this, her army would have fallen and Britain would have been overrun. So it's not like she didn't do things like that.
>This is how she contrasts with other rulers in the series who don't have their kingdoms crumble underneath them, in that she tries to stay true to the "Ideal" of a perfect king which can't work in the mortal world.
If you're comparing her to Iskandar, you really should read up on what happened to his empire after his death. It's one of the more infamous aspects of his rule.
>Frick, in the end she ends up getting her rapist stalker killed by her boyfriend because she's too weak to do it herself whenever she encounters him.
She's the one who defeats Gilgamesh in her own route though.
I kinda feel like talking too much about Fate is sort of off-topic for Cinemaphile, though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Alexander's kingdom fell apart after his death though, it never failed when he was still around. There's a reason why the mage who summoned him said "He's not the servant and me the master, I'M his Servant!"
Alexander's sole flaw in the fate series was that he wasn't immortal; he was notably the only character that Gilgamesh had absolute respect for, to the point he actually unleashed his full power on him from the start (the only reason anyone else lasts 5 seconds against him being his utter contempt).
As for Gilgamesh as a ruler, he's an butthole, but Arturia is dogged by the fact that despite how utterly evil he is, his kingdom never collapses under him and stays strong, in contrast to her struggles and lack of reward for her virtue.
I have to admit I loved the Camelot Chapter of the game, seeing how each Knight obeyed the King and how at the end it was some frustration of not being there with him when he fell that moved them to follow his rules.
Then Las Vegas event happened and I was like "Lancelot and Tristan are real men of culture"
[...]
Admit it, you just wanted Maleficent to frick the prince.
Could someone here versed on the subject explain to me why they hate Merlin so much?
>Admit it, you just wanted Maleficent to frick the prince
Nah, it's just when all the good parts happen. Aurora's the most boring character in her own movie.
Disney Princesses only started having personalities with the Renaissance.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thats only because they started being main characters in th renaissance, Snow White is about the Dwarves and Sleeping beauty about the fairies, but Alice from Alice in Wonderland is the main character of her story and she does have a personality.
Its funny how Arthur broke the sword in a seemingly pointless way: The knight he got into a fight with that ended up causing the sword to break is never named, and never appears again.
You'd think this dude who shattered this legendary magical sword created by God for the king of England would be a super important villain that would show up again, but nope: Just a nameless rando knight who just fricks off after that and never is seen again.
On that note, I like the modern retellings of it that have Caliburn get reforged into Excalibur instead of a totally different sword. It keeps the plot a bit more focused and adds a slight bit of symbolism, as reforging the sword indicates Arthur himself growing and fixing the problems of his pride that caused the sword to shatter.
>Cucks Arthur out of his wife >breaks Arthur's magic sword
Good god, Lancelot fricking shat all over Arthur, its crazy he'd let him still be in the knights of the round. All it needs is for it be him instead of mordred that fatally wounds him in the end for it to be complete.
True, but he sort of became part of the mythology.
>Cucks Arthur out of his wife >breaks Arthur's magic sword
Good god, Lancelot fricking shat all over Arthur, its crazy he'd let him still be in the knights of the round. All it needs is for it be him instead of mordred that fatally wounds him in the end for it to be complete.
To be fair, Arthur didn't find out about the on and off again affair between Lancelot and Guinevere until near the end of his reign.
Excalibur broke because Arthur used it in pride, he was only supposed to use it in defense of self and others. The identity of the nameless knight he used it on doesn't matter. A lot of scholars ASSUME it was Lancelot, but the stories never mention that knights identity.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Cucks Arthur out of his wife >breaks Arthur's magic sword
Good god, Lancelot fricking shat all over Arthur, its crazy he'd let him still be in the knights of the round. All it needs is for it be him instead of mordred that fatally wounds him in the end for it to be complete.
Oddly enough, the unnamed knight who broke Excalibur is generally agreed to be Lancelot by most scholars.
I think it'd be a good way to incorporate the literary concept of "The black knight", give the nameless knight a purpose and villainous role by basing them on this pop culture conceptual character.
Despite having nothing to do with arthurian mythos, the idea of there being a "Black knight" villain is similar to the Evil witch trope in most fairy tales, and could be pretty seemlessly woven in without people batting an eye at the incorporation. Would work as a nice antagonist to the story as well (Since, outside of Morgan and Mordred Arthur lacks a real defined villain)
2 years ago
Anonymous
The black knight is Brunor the Black, Sir Dinadan's father.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>googles him >He's a knight of the round table. Lancelot still killed all his brothers
The frick, the more you read about Lancelot the more he comes across as this villainous sociopath dedicated to ruining camelot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Lancelot comes off like a total c**t, yeah. Which is surprising considering his name sounds like the opposite. Like he sounds knightly and cool. But then you realize in his earliest depictions he was apparently ugly as frick, and he also fricked Arthur's wife and then lead a rebellion on Camelot when she was gonna be executed, and then went crazy for a little while and was totally useless.
can anyone confirm/clarify misconceptions with this post?
2 years ago
Anonymous
A lot of the Knights of the Round Table killed each other; Lancelot wasn't the only one.
King Arthur was usually the most moral person in Camelot(not counting Galahad who was perfect) ignoring a few stories.
Lancelot comes off like a total c**t, yeah. Which is surprising considering his name sounds like the opposite. Like he sounds knightly and cool. But then you realize in his earliest depictions he was apparently ugly as frick, and he also fricked Arthur's wife and then lead a rebellion on Camelot when she was gonna be executed, and then went crazy for a little while and was totally useless.
can anyone confirm/clarify misconceptions with this post?
Lancelot going crazy and being useless happened early in his career. It happened due to a curse by Morgan Le Fay.
Everything else is more or less accurate.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It happened due to a curse by Morgan Le Fay.
What was the curse about?
And man, he did dirty killing Agravain and Gareth only because his thing with Gweneviere was exposed.
I mean, mike seriously if you get caught red handed least you can do is be a fricking man and accept the concequences.
Give a scholar a chance to wank up Lancelot and they'll take it. Lancelot is pretty much everyone's favorite character and often overshadows Arthur himself.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's.... you got a point. But I still think Percival, Kay, Gawain, and Galahad plus Pelinor deserves more love.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Galahad
You should be thankful that no one cares about Galahad. He was basically designed to be Percival + Lancelot with none of their flaws and also better in every way. At least Lancelot's flaws round him out a bit, Galahad is explicitly designed to be absolutely perfect and without equal.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>even more perfect a knight than his own father Lancelot >so pure he ascends directly to heaven >turns up in the Witcher book series, implied he dicks down Ciri
What a gigachad of knights.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Galahad
You should be thankful that no one cares about Galahad. He was basically designed to be Percival + Lancelot with none of their flaws and also better in every way. At least Lancelot's flaws round him out a bit, Galahad is explicitly designed to be absolutely perfect and without equal.
Misread first post as Galachad lmao
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not really. Remember its the scholars opinion that the mystery knight was Lancelot. The stories never reveal that character's identity. It could've been any of the knights or a rando.
2 years ago
Anonymous
nah, I've heard it before too
it was only this thread that I learned the knight was apparently nameless.
Kubrick nailed it and there's no point. Mists of Avalon was also really good. I don't know, it's really stuffy unless you take liberties people won't like.
No one cares about liberties. The majority of the Arthurian mythos consists of liberties. There aren't actually enough hardcore Arthurgays who'd raise a stink about it, since there's probably less than a million of them in the world anyway. Even then, all Arthurgays are in different camps due to the multiple, wildly different versions of the lore, so it's not like everyone would get upset over the same things.
Because it's a narrative mess of like four different distinct stories and it's difficult to bring it all together. They can't even do individual Arthurian legends right. I fricking hated the Green Knight on Amazon Video.
Nah. Arthur's personal quest for the Grail doesn't last long. It's ultimately Percival or Galahad who finds it for him, and he doesn't even get to lay eyes on him.
The unification of Britain was a good story in the Le Morte D'Arthur version. A huge battle, saving Guinevere's father from a siege, the aid of King Bors, and the knights fighting a forest battle, and then there was the ending of Arthur killing a boat of children.
How come no one has managed to make a successful adaptation of the mythos in recent years? What does have Sherlock Holmes have over Arthur?
Too many versions of Arthur.
Most people go for the French version which is the well known one, and then there's the ones that predates it which is mostly a Celtic Warlord against the Anglo Saxons
What Arthur book am I supposed to be reading? I'm reading Once adn Future King right now and it's kind of corny and contains very little of the badass mythology you anons are posting
The Once and Future King is basically the culmination of the famous Arthur stories.
The one I'm reading, and the one basically used for the most Arthurian stories, is Le Morte D'Arthur.
And if you're wondering is it good? Well it depends on the chapters, the beginning chapters tells the stories of Arthur and his unification of Britain (He bangs someone before he met Guinevere, and had a son), after that it mostly focuses on the knights.
The Fischer King and the two brothers battling to the death, Merlin getting trapped by the Lady of the Lake, Arthur fighting Morgana's husband, fricking Tristan getting two fricking chapters worth (Also Arthur getting a yandere), the Lady of the Lake and Pelleas, and etc. So yeah, you can read Le Morte d'Arthur if you want non-corny. There's just one problem.
Hit up wikipedia, there are some definitive compilations and retellings but you really need to know the history and context of it all. And chunks of it are in middle english or dark age french.
ful clene
for wonder of his hwe men hade
set in his semblaunt sene
he ferde as freke were fade
and oueral enker grene
The Once And Future King is corny, and it glosses over a lot of stories, but it’s also the best introduction there is. I highly recommend reading it through to the end.
I won’t spoil the ending for you, but I would highly recommend reading Sir Thomas Mallory’s Death Of King Arthur after. In some respects, you could consider The Once And Future King a long form commentary on The Death Of King Arthur. It’s also often known by its French title, Le Morte D’Arthur.
I can’t stress enough though, finish reading The Once And Future King
After that I’d recommend Idylls Of The King
>recommendations of the Welsh Brittonic version of Arthur?
There's less written stories for these because it was more from oral tradition afaik but the main ones are Culhwch and Olwen, The Spoils of Annwfn, and The Three Welsh Romances. There's also The Dream of Rhonabwy but it's a kind of weird time travel story.
Culhwch and Olwen is the closest to an actual "story" about the Welsh Arthur, but it's very archaic and hard to read. There's a large portion of it that is just a long list of his various warriors and their feats.
I've always thought Welsh Arthur is better experienced performed, or at least in audio format, since that's how it was meant to be told.
Culhwch ag Olwen https://youtu.be/Q63Bubs7JrQ
Arthur and Rhita Gawr https://youtu.be/5qb9kwSkwJo
Dragons of Dinas Emrys https://youtu.be/nx2Avxw7wcE
There's also a lot in poetry, but since it's written in old welsh, often only survives in parts and relying on references to other stories we often don't know, it's probably hard to enjoy as straight forward entertainment. If you want to dive in anyway, the channel CelticSource translates and disects a lot of Welsh Myth and Athurian material.
This one is Pa gur yv y porthaur? (Who is the Gatekeeper?) https://youtu.be/-dIk0FmlxyM and Preiddiau Annwn https://youtu.be/HiU0vqUTxkM
The Arthur vs the Saxons stuff is written more as historical accounts, usually as part of a larger timeline. They can range from a passing mention to a decicated section.
It's probably easier to start from the Pre-Galfridian Texts section under Arthur on this wiki page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_mythology
Geoffrey of Monmouth tends to write more and is thought to have had a lot of fun doing it.
Couldn't find a collection for the Saint stories. There's also the Welsh Romances >Owain, or the Lady of the Fountain >Geraint and Enid >Peredur, son of Efrawg
which either followed the Chrétien de Troyes's tales or decended from the same Celtic source, and can be found in Charlotte Guest's version of the Mabinogion.
And then there's The Dream of Rhonabwy , which might be satire.
This. What Steinbeck wrote ruled. Make sure to find one that's has an account of all the research he did, dude was super into it and it's a fricking shame he didn't finish.
They're alright. The author cherrypicks elements from many different sources and fits them into a cohesive narrative that is pretty entertaining. It does take some liberties like having Uther and Pendragon being two brothers, Merlin being trapped by Nimue before Lancelot is born or Balin being a full-fledged member of the Round Table.
Still, not a bad way to dip your toes into Arthurian mythos.
As for how you can get them, you can try Ebay or the Hispanic equivalent, MercadoLibre. If you happen to be un Spain, you can get the whole thing straight from the editorial
>The author cherrypicks elements from many different sources and fits them into a cohesive narrative that is pretty entertaining
Dope >Uther and Pendragon being two brothers
Wack
Alright, I'll try mercadolibre or something and see how it goes
I feel that with all the unique personalities and powers and daring quests and melodrama that people would be chomping at the bit for Arthurian stuff.
People are obsessed with super heroes and super hero power level bullshit, but you literally have that with the knights.
Arthurian Cinematic Universe when?
Pelleas just because his is funny. The story of a simp, who manages to find love with another simp, Th Lady of the Lake. Even though the Lady dislikes simps like Merlin who were coming on to her.
As well as the Fischer King story, and Morgana's husband. Along with King Bors.
A HOT girl.
The "Arthur was secretly a girl" thing isn't bad on its own, that's a decent angle for historical secrecy. The only problem was when they started turning like 50% of historical characters into "Secretly they were a girl!" characters, since that's when it starts getting outlandish.
I did a quick count. Out of 350 characters as of current, around 54 are historical/mythological males turned female. 14 of those 54 are just variations of King Arthur.
I still remember when my father was watching Netflix documentary about samurais and I knew almost every name thrown and understood everything that was happening all because of Nobu. I had to explain him who was who because he would lose in the story a bit during the episodes.
I don't think the normal Arturia is hot, she is supposed to have boyish looks, enough to fool most of the Rounds. Also, she has the body of an underdeveloped 14 years old girl from the middle ages, I can hardly call that hot.
she looks nothing like a 14 year old boy. She fooled the knights of the round by a combination of appearing in full armor and Merlin using both illusion spells and legit "Girl to man with a dick" spells.
>Also, she has the body of an underdeveloped 14 years old girl from the middle ages, I can hardly call that hot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Like muscle chicks >Saber says she's a muscle chick >She clearly is not >She really, really is not
my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Saber probably does have a pretty toned body, particularly around her back and arms. It's just, you'd have to be crazy to illustrate her that way. Part of the appeal behind making her a chick is making her . . . you know, a typical anime waifu.
I don't have that much problem with that, but later not even trying to make the heroes even passingly resemble what their classic version looks like, at least Saber kind of looks like a knight.
Who decided to make Alexander the great look like Ganondorf?
Armor aside, their Gilgamesh and Alexander designs could honestly be swapped and it would feel right, or else Alexander could have been a Gilface
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Gilgamesh
That guy is another whole can of worms. >Lets put a guy from the times where leather armor was high tech in a full plate knight armor.
I don't expect them to make him look like an actual ancient king but at least give him a beard.
2 years ago
Anonymous
His desing is F/Prototype is more fitting. But honestly if you consider all the lore from Fate his plate armor deosn't look that strange.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The legend of Gilgamesh has a LOT of NSFW moments. I mean, his story starts with him acting like a douche to the people he rules in Ur so that the gods make a rival to teach him humility (or kill him).
2 years ago
Anonymous
Gil is already an Emiya face, if you think about it. Or is Emiya a gilface? Either way, would've been weird for F/Z.
>Like Ganondorf >You mean CHADondorf
Ganondorf is peak male body type, you can't look at him and say "that's not a fricking alpha there"
Their explanation for why he's so huge was kind of funny though, in that they basically say "Oh yeah, the reason I couldn't fill up Darius III's throne wasn't because I'm short, its because the dude's a literal fricking giant"
>The only problem was when they started turning like 50% of historical characters into "Secretly they were a girl!" characters, since that's when it starts getting outlandish.
This. When it was just Saber, it was fine, and most of the "gasp, how could they," stuff was a joke. At least I was always joking when I said that stuff as a teensy weensy fifteen year old. It's actually pretty cool when isolated to Artoria specifically. But it became an obnoxious trend to the point where that's Fate's "thing" now.
>The only problem was when they started turning like 50% of historical characters into "Secretly they were a girl!" characters, since that's when it starts getting outlandish.
This. When it was just Saber, it was fine, and most of the "gasp, how could they," stuff was a joke. At least I was always joking when I said that stuff as a teensy weensy fifteen year old. It's actually pretty cool when isolated to Artoria specifically. But it became an obnoxious trend to the point where that's Fate's "thing" now.
What amazes me is that so far I haven't seen lgbt morons jumping on the train.
I mean seriously, when I was watching fate stay night for the first time (more or less a year after it came out) I was all like "the only man capable of pull the sword from the stone was a woman" mindset which honestly I found empowering for females many hundreds of times better than the shit they try to do nowadays like that owlgays house and whatnot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Fate is too nipponese in its most esoteric sense for that to really form.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What
Fate is too nipponese in its most esoteric sense for that to really form.
said.
Artoria's situation is really just a product of happenstance, I think. It's less >"the only man capable of pull the sword from the stone was a woman"
And more, >The fated king just so happened to be born with female genitalia.
Nothing about Saber's feminine identity seems to have contributed positively to her rule. Rather, it was suppressed, and Fate/stay night's Fate route is about teasing it back out, what with how Shirou stubbornly treats her like a girl.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah, just read yourselves and tell me how come lgbt homosexuals are not trying to get their hands on Artoria?
Like seriously in the last 10 years all the "lgbt positive media" they try to get out only surround the "it was a girl/lesbian/trans/etc" they don't give a frick if it is good or bad, they only care about it being a girl that was a man, or a man that was a woman or shit like that
2 years ago
Anonymous
If anything she could be a feminist symbol, and we know that feminists and the LGTBBQ crowd don't like each other these days. And you have to remember that she originates from a fricking porn game, no mater that it came out 20 years ago, one is going to use her as a symbol for any ideology.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And you have to remember that she originates from a fricking porn game
I think that's unfair to the fate series. They originally designed it as a ero digital novel but doubled back and exised all that for the actual release/final version after all the feedback told them "Yeah, the girls are cute, but what we actually want more of is this actual plot and story"
2 years ago
Anonymous
And yet Shirou's still basically the wife in the relationship.
There's nothing wrong with the Disney version. You have to accept that there's millions of versions of stories, songs, and whatnot loosely based around these cycles. Making a lighthearted animated version is totally acceptable and legit. You guys look like cultural dwarves for not understanding that people hundreds of years ago were totally fine with soft stories and satire.
given how the animators at Disney (Allegedly) had a animation of jimminy cricket fricking tinkerbell lying around that they'd show to new hires, I don't think they'd be surprised.
>Agravain, Gawain, Gaheris, and Gareth are all Arthur's nephews >Mordred is his son >Lancelot and his son get a spot too
man the Round Table was pure nepotism for like half its knights.
Sir Bedivere knew about Sir Lancelot and Sir Gahalad if I remember correctly, and in theory he spoke about it in a normal way, as if everyone else knew about it.
I don't think Guinevere knew that Galahad was Lancelot's son.
>It happened due to a curse by Morgan Le Fay.
What was the curse about?
And man, he did dirty killing Agravain and Gareth only because his thing with Gweneviere was exposed.
I mean, mike seriously if you get caught red handed least you can do is be a fricking man and accept the concequences.
Morgan Le Fay wanted Lancelot to be her lover he said no, she cursed him and he went crazy.
Lancelot was a low key douche, most of his stories have are about him struggling with his own hypocrisy while being the standard of chivalry.
Sir Bedivere knew about Sir Lancelot and Sir Gahalad if I remember correctly, and in theory he spoke about it in a normal way, as if everyone else knew about it.
I didn't know Bedivere knew.
The versions I read made it seem like only Lancelot knew Galahad was his son.
I remember liking it, but don't remember much about it. That's the one when Merlin was old and was telling a story to the village kids, and then used his last but of magic to make him and the love-interest young again, right?
>see multiple references to Lancelot being a “French fanfic” who isn’t in the original stories >look up when he was invented >AD 1170
HOW MUCH OF A PURIST CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE?
I’m surprised nobody’s brought this up, but Howard Pyle, the man who wrote the definitive Robin Hood book basically every Robin Hood adaptation is based on, also wrote a bunch of King Arthur books. To my knowledge, they skip over the sexual affairs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_King_Arthur_and_His_Knights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_the_Champions_of_the_Round_Table
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_the_Grail_and_the_Passing_of_King_Arthur
If looking to make a kid friendly King Arthur, these are the books to adapt, not The Once And Future King or Sir Thomas Mallory
It was the Disney Dark Age. As absurd as it sounds today, they actually were running out of money and skilled producers back then. That's why the stuff from that period always looks so rough, though I do kind of like that aesthetic.
I don't see why we shouldn't but I don't think there is much more to speak about, I think the few depictions of that part of the story are really short... Or at least no detailed story comes to mind
Coincidentally watched this movie last night at a place we were renting for a holiday trip. The house had a collection of old DVDs and this was one of them so watched it with the family.
Dear god were there many re-used animations > Arthur falling down the stairs while carrying dishes > Arthur being chased while the older dude is swatting bow/stick at him > Merlin pouting on his chair while puffing his pipe > Some of Arthurs close up expressions when being lectured to
My friend convinced to play it, ngl, I was actually addicted until he told me to do the Summer beach event. Grinded for like a month to unlock characters I found interesting, pretty cool, and can't wait to continue the main story.
That was until he told that some of the characters I unlocked in the summer event weren't permanent, and that I had to do another event (It was like some sort of wasteland) to keep them. Yeah at that point I just quit.
That is the point of the Gacha. It really is sad you didn't get in the game, right now in the 5th anniversary we had quite a deal, during these days they included the lvl 60 "superior exp" material at half energy cost, so it was great for farming and making many of your heroic spirits level up to their max.
They weren’t taking a shot at doing their version of the Arthur mythos. This was them taking their shot at doing The Once and Future King, specifically.
And yeah, maybe they coulda done better with it.
Once and Future King is the whole story of Arthur. They adapted the first and lamest part.
And most kid friendly.
The Sword in the Stone is the best part.
I'm reading it now and it's just making fun of fantasy.
I was kinda hoping they would end it with Arthur asking: "So do things at least end well for me" with Merlin going "Well about that-" cut off by the ending card
Instead it ends with a shitty wink at the audience
I think this was the only period of Arthur that could be made kid-friendly enough.
That’s true. There’s a big difference between what you can read or hear about vs what you can actually see. A lot of the stories involve blood and murder and adultery
>Then in the light's last glimmer Tristram show'd
>And swung the ruby carcanet. She cried,
>"The collar of some Order, which our King
>Hath newly founded, all for thee, my soul,
>For thee, to yield thee grace beyond thy peers."
>"Not so, my Queen," he said, "but the red fruit
>Grown on a magic oak-tree in mid-heaven,
>And won by Tristram as a tourney-prize,
>And hither brought by Tristram for his last
>Love-offering and peace-offering unto thee."
>He spoke, he turn'd, then, flinging round her neck,
>Claspt it, and cried "Thine Order, O my Queen!"
>But, while he bow'd to kiss the israeliteell'd throat,
>Out of the dark, just as the lips had touch'd,
>Behind him rose a shadow and a shriek—
>"Mark's way," said Mark, and clove him thro' the brain.
>That night came Arthur home, and while he climb'd,
>All in a death-dumb autumn-dripping gloom,
>The stairway to the hall, and look'd and saw
>The great Queen's bower was dark,—about his feet
>A voice clung sobbing till he question'd it,
>"What art thou?" and the voice about his feet
>Sent up an answer, sobbing, "I am thy fool,
>And I shall never make thee smile again."
How do you animate that?
>Death isn't kid-friendly
Modernity was a mistake.
To learm about? To read about? To see, in certain contexts? Yes to all
To watch a king split open the head of a knight having an affair with his wife? No.
I think that's a valid lesson to teach kids.
Kill adulterers and prepare to be killed if you frick over someone with balls.
If they can make Hercules kid friendly, they can make anything kid friendly.
Are you suggesting Hercules is an example of a well-done adaptation?
No, they're suggesting it's trivial to make an adaptation of any old thing, as long as you go through the source material with a chainsaw. And that it's been done before by the same company.
I dunno, Quest for Camelot exists
its not like they havent kidified things before.
I think too many crucial parts of any given string of stories are too boring or otherwise mature to do that. You'd be left with a mess if you tried to tone it down.
You gotta understand that this was still relatively early in Disney's history.
It wasn't at all. Sleeping Beauty was more than a decade earlier and it absolutely shits on it in every way.
I said "relatively" early dude, this was all still pre-reinessance era.
I'm pretty sure "early" and "pre-Renaissance" are antonyms.
It really wasn’t that early at all. In fact, some of the problem was that the old talent was getting elderly and starting to die off. Another big part of it was financial trouble.
But the best Disney stuff was made in the 40s and 50s
Yes.
this movie was an insidious attempt by furgays to brainwash small children into wanting to be sexually assaulted by horny squirrel girls and make turn them into furries.
Case in point.
Cute image, have more?
No, we turned the squirrel into a human. It's like the opposite of furry.
Nah, turned Arthur into a squirrel.
If they make a live action remake, you know they'll bring the squirrel back just so they can turn her into a human.
Search your heart, you know it to be true.
>she has red fur
Oh shit
they can't keep getting away with it!
Hazel thread? Is time for another Hazel thread? I like the Greentexts in those threads.
and he got stuck with that c**t guinevere.
Separate timeline, plus still more than 0% furry.
>ywn never see a remake where Merlin zaps both of them and Arthur has to take Gwen the squirrel through the motions of being human.
You sure you want Hazel become Gwen?
I doubt Hazel would fall for Lancelot
clearly lancelot would rape hazel instead because she's such a pure girl.
She can have my nut.
Anyone else ever felt like King Arthur stories were made up because unlike israelites and muslims christians didn't have their own warrior saints?
The Arthur mythos was adapted from old pagan welsh warrior saints myths, actually. Christians didn’t sit down and come up with the whole thing on their own.
They still changed the story to heavily focus on christianity and in the end he ended up nearly identical to King David.
>national people have a folk tale
>character of the people changes (in this case, they adopt a new religion)
>folk tale naturally changes to reflect that
There’s your answer
The oldest stories (mostly in welsh) are the least christian and reflect a syncretism of belief and "nationality" that the people were going through.
The first possible mentions of Arthur as a historical figure are a Roman-Briton around the 5th or 6th century, after the Chrisitanity landed in Britain.
The earliest mythologies are Christianised but do have strong traces of pre-christian celtic beliefs, though whether it was always Arthur or whether he got put in later by the romanised celts, who knows.
Early Christianity tended to 'attach' elements and lore to attract pagans, so I tend to subscribe to the later theory you listed.
That said, Celtic mythology is crazy enough that he fits in just fine.
Arthur is a very, very obvious Christian ripoff of Finn McCool.
When's the first mention of Fionn dated to?
That makes no sense because 1) Christians do have warrior saints (Saint Michael the Archangel, Saint George, Emperor Saint Constantine, Saint Joan of Arc, and many others) and 2) King Arthur wasn’t a saint
By saint warriors I mean warriors you are supposed to look up to, admire and even copy because your religion demands you to, Muhammad and David were warlords while Jesus, Peter and Paul were all pacifists.
You are making zero sense. I just listed a bunch of warriors you are supposed to look up to, admire and even copy. King David is also a Christian figure, not just a israeli figure. And Jesus Christ was perceived as a warrior king in medieval times
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/50009/done-is-a-battle
But even if none of that was true (it is, but even if it were not), it still wouldn’t follow that “King Arthur stories were made up because unlike israelites and muslims christians didn't have their own warrior saints” because King Arthur wasn’t a saint. He’s actually a very flawed and very complex character, despite medieval stories having a reputation for simplistic morality
Nothing about your thesis makes sense.
Charlemagne and the matter of France was the better, more well known story in the early Renaissance.
Why does St George not count? Easily half of them existed between the 800s and 1300s and were a collection of French, German, Greek and Italian.
This might be one of the dumbest posts I have ever read on Cinemaphile
>Islam and Judaism: religions about how to be a warrior
>Christianity: religion about how to be a pacifist
>King Arthur tales: stories about how to be a christian warrior
cope
People didn't read the stories so they miss how essential christianity is to King Arthur tales with God himself being more active there than in the bible with constant miracles and lessons, with most of the problems being caused by characters sinning against God.
>Judaism: religions about how to be a warrior
Lmao
>King Arthur tales: stories about how to be a christian warrior
Most of the King Arthur legend has nothing to do with waging war. The Grail quest, Gawain and the Green Knight, the Sword in the Stone, none of them are about warriorhood.
Weren't the original mythos about Arthur leading the Britons against the Anglo invasion?
Really depends on where you draw tje line on “original.”
The earliest mentions of Arthur.
And speaking of, what is the consensus on Once & Future?
He wasn’t called Arthur before his name was changed to Arthur, so even that isn’t an ideal starting point.
What are you talking about? The Historia Brittonum calls him Arthur and is the earliest known work known that mentions him
>At that time, the Saxons grew strong by virtue of their large number and increased in power in Britain. Hengist having died, however, his son Octha crossed from the northern part of Britain to the kingdom of Kent and from him are descended the kings of Kent. Then Arthur along with the kings of Britain fought against them in those days, but Arthur himself was the military commander ["dux bellorum"]. His first battle was at the mouth of the river which is called Glein. His second, third, fourth, and fifth battles were above another river which is called Dubglas and is in the region of Linnuis. The sixth battle was above the river which is called Bassas. The seventh battle was in the forest of Celidon, that is cat Coit Celidon. The eighth battle was at the fortress of Guinnion, in which Arthur carried the image of Holy Mary ever virgin on his shoulders; and the pagans were put to flight on that day. And through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the power of the blessed Virgin Mary his mother there was great slaughter among them. The ninth battle was waged in the City of the Legion. The tenth battle was waged on the banks of a river which is called Tribruit. The eleventh battle was fought on the mountain which is called Agnet. The twelfth battle was on Mount Badon in which there fell in one day 960 men from one charge by Arthur; and no one struck them down except Arthur himself, and in all the wars he emerged as victor. And while they were being defeated in all the battles, they were seeking assistance from Germany and their numbers were being augmented many times over without interruption. And they brought over kings from Germany that they might reign over them in Britain, right down to the time in which Ida reigned, who was son of Eobba. He was the first king in Bernicia, i.e., in Berneich
I think he's referring to the idea that King Arthur is based upon Ambrosius Aurelianus aka Emrys Wledig, because this is who Gildas attributed the victory at the Battle of Badon to, and this is one of the earliest acts attributed to King Arthur. I might be wrong, though.
Off the top of my head after quite a few pale ales, one likely and extremely vague explanation and extrapolation was that he was a welsh or briton warlord active during or after the end of roman occupation who united a number of tribes and whatever was left of a social order at the time. He could have been concurrent with the initial spread of christianity in the north, maybe. He's a folk hero with some historical basis and a lot of bullshit added on later. Myrddin predates him but could also be concurrent with the actual figure. There's your oldest stories.
>what is the consensus on Once & Future Once & Future
I was looking for fantasy comics and just read the first arc. Art is great because it's Mora, the rest was a huge letdown. The premise is awesome but it's not very well thought out or executed well. Worse it feels like an indie comic from 15 years ago when everyone wanted to be Whedon. The protag is charming awkward """"geek"""" who never shuts up, it's quippy, there's a badass granny, etc. I wanted to like it but no.
>And speaking of, what is the consensus on Once & Future?
I was excited that the twist at the start that Arthur was actually the Welsh/Brittonic Arthur, but nothing from the welsh stories ever turns up. He's more like the Horned King of Disney's Black Cauldron ironically.
Is irritating how plot holes get handwaved away or just never addressed like Welsh Arthur asking for Merlin when he's resurrected but once Merlin shows up he has no idea who he is. Or not recognizing Excalibur when the story gets kick-started by the discovering of it sheath. Hell, the sheath has vanished from the plot entirely along the french Galahad.
Yes, but they don't emphasize his Christianity, or work on any Christian theme. The Christian Arthur comes from the Grail quest, which is less about being a strong warrior and more about knightly virtues.
Not King Arthur, just one of the many figures that inspired him
The Grail Quest is about soldiers and there is battles as main points of the story.
Joshua - Warrior
Gideon - Warrior
Samson - Warrior
David - Warrior
>David - Warrior
David and Goliath is literally a subversion of the warrior story
David was a slinger, which was still a warrior according to the standards of his time.
Just because he wasn't decked out in full armor didn't mean he wasn't trained in kicking arse and taking names.
David goes on to wage wars before and during his reign.
I want a Cinemaphile Arthur media about the various knights.
>Tristan is a good choice considering he gets two fricking books in Le Morte d'Arthur.
>The Fischer King story about two brothers fighting to die death causing the land around them to be a desolate wasteland
>Or, that time King Arthur fricking killed children on a boat
>Pelleas and Nimue for romance
>Made up stories
Blame the french for adding some OCs or changing some of the characters, especially when they added that Mary Sue of a character, Lancelot.
I’ll never get over how Lancelot is a literal fanfic OC, probably a self insert, by some smug French fricks who make this super knight the best knight ever and even fricks Arthur’s wife, and it just became so universally accepted it became part of the Arthurian canon.
-There's probably millions of real and fake warriors from all religions, especially mainstream ones
-Abrahamics share the majority of their lore from the same source
-The is no historical evidence for the Zionist stories in the Old Testament. ie, they are also full of made-up warriors
-King Arthur's setting takes place during the real-life resistance against Anglo-Saxons, which probably involved Christianity to some extent, even though it's romanticized
-Christ wasn't a pacifist, and he was written as a beast-slayer and army leader during the apocalypse in Revelation
Other guy was right, this is one of the dumbest posts made.
>Abrahamics share the majority of their lore from the same source
Irrelevant, new relevation and new rules
>the is no historical evidence for the Zionist stories in the Old Testament. ie, they are also full of made-up warriors
Ok
>King Arthur's setting takes place during the real-life resistance against Anglo-Saxons, which probably involved Christianity to some extent, even though it's romanticized
And they are all about being a good christian
>Christ wasn't a pacifist
He absolutely was
>and he was written as a beast-slayer and army leader during the apocalypse in Revelation
Revelation is mostly symbolic
>Christ wasn't a pacifist
Delusional
Christ wasn't a pop-culture version of pacifist. He was perfectly willing to antagonize people.
If I walked in to the synagogue and started whipping israelites, you bet your ass I'm getting the 'violent terrorist' label
Jesus even went as far as explaining why he was a pacifist and how to be one going as far as not even peacefully resisting like Gandhi does, he was a pacifist while Muhammad was a warrior.
>The is no historical evidence for the Zionist stories in the Old Testament
For the early parts, sure, but starting with Samuel we start to approach something resembling historicity. Stories like the Judges, and especially Samson, are fiction, but increasingly they make mention of other rulers and empires we know existed, and Assyrian records of their imperial conquests do explicitly name notable military enemies in Israel/Judah that are characters in the Old Testament.
Are familiar with concept of "Bylina"? It's like that, but English.
*are you
technically it's Brythonic, Hengist and Horsa were the English warrior-heroes
Fun fact, Jefferson wanted 'em to be featured on one of the US coins
The stories themselves were 100% made up, but the "person" that King Arthur is based on is believed to be a Roman general stuck in post-Roman Britain. So take your "history isn't real" bullshit and go away.
From my super secret sources that I shall not reveal, there were several Arthurs during pre-Roman times, and the pre-French fanfiction mythology is based on those real men, as well as a few gods and some making shit up.
That is one of the least accepted hot takes among arthurian and actual scholars and everything about it is even more dubious than usual.
The Dark Ages were not some humanity wide extinction event of knowledge, things were just not written down anymore and so it is a huge blank spot in the historical record. But it is completely plausible for various elements in the King Arthur stories to be at least REFERENCES to historical events.
When scholars do it to Beowulf, nobody bats an eye; but oh no King Arthur has the holy grail and a magic sword. Spooky~.
I'm not disagreeing on the whole, that's just a really shitty hot take with very tenuous facts to back it up. I think it's older than that.
Neither of those is the real Arthur, those guys share 1% of similarity with King Arthur, King Arthur the character was born in the Knights of the Round Table tales, no mythological character or historical figure can claim to be 51% like him, they were loose inspirations.
>born in the Knights of the Round Table tales
There was no Knights of the Round Table in the original Welsh stories. That is a much later invention by the French and English.
Yeah different name, location, castle, enemies, allies and story.
Yes. Read Culhwch and Olwen, and then read the Vulgate Cycle, and tell me they are the same thing.
I thought the earliest sources were it being some Welsh chieftan
God, romegays are fricking insufferable.
Bruh, the entirety of Europe and the middle East have been romegays since forever. We've fought wars over who's the bigger romegay
Exactly
>Who is St. George.
At least do some basic b***h research before typing stupid shit.
Christians stole a lot of their culture from other religions to try and get people to convert.
>You have Saturnalia? Cool we totally have that, it's called, uh, Christmas! You should become a Christian and give us your money and stuff!
this is a very ignorant way of viewing cultures and religions
christmas wasn't "stolen" it was readapted for the europeans who ended up converting to christianity
european christians are obviously much different from middle eastern christians
This post is funny because some of the earliest Celtic tales about Arthur has him getting TOLD, trolled, pwned by Celtic saints
Once and Future by Kieron Gillen has a decently entertaining meta take
to be fair Christ is going to dunk on everybody in the end anyway
Only because he gaslit everybody into "HAHA, I MEANT to get killed, and that makes me the winner!"
christ is literally the Wimp Lo of religious figures.
You didn’t like going to church as a kid, did you?
Any decent Cinemaphile recs for Arthur? Camelot 3000 was ok but a little underwhelming.
Does Prince Valiant count?
https://floppycomics.com/store/p/triston-1-digital-copy-black-white
I'm not even sure why they landed on this book when wanting to make an Arthur movie.
Uncle Walt wasn't happy with Sword in the Stone either. To be fair, he was barely involved in the production because he was still seething over stupid kids not watching his latest megalomaniac animated project Sleeping Beauty. At the time, Walt was considering leaving the animation division to others and do other stuff like live actions and fascistic states (see Epcot) but he was so mad with Sword on the Stone that he fired the old man in charge of that movie and decided to be directly involved with the next animated feature, The Jungle Book. And the rest is history
Walt sure could make some overblown garbage when he was in a mood.
Wasn't Walt dying during all of this?
Yup.
*freezing
god bless him
That was WB's plan until they fricked up Legend of the Sword
Frick Walt.
To be fair Sleeping Beauty was pretty boring up until the prince gets captured.
Calling it fascist makes it seem better than it actual was.
Best into song ever
?t=98
Disney is western animation. It's too big to fail.
It's not like Adult Swim shows are any less childish. If anything, they're MORE childish than Disney movies. I know that Cinemaphile hates anime, but seinen anime is the shining example of what adult animation should look like. Not a frickin' Family Guy.
The Legend of Vox Machina took a step in the right direction. There's still toilet humor, but it gets much less focus than Adult Swim shows, and it just focuses on telling the story instead of "look, ma, look how adult am I!".
Just like Mulan or Peter Pan this is a good candidate for a live action movie because they can just make a new Arthur movie instead of a remake
One that continues the Disney film? Not a bad idea actually, in fact it would be the first live action film that’s a direct sequel to an animated canon film(unless i just missed something rather obscure). Now how will they handle it you may ask? Merlin will still be witty as ever but the story will be no doubt more serious and more people realizing that the sword in the stone isn’t Excalibur
>More serious
It's Arthurian legend, so I'm down with it. Could introduce more knights, that be the plot of the sequel, Arthur gathering his knights to....dunno defeat the Questing Beast to justify his rule over Britain.
>Merlin
One aspect they could they is have a rivalry. Introduce the Lady of the Lake and Lancelot. Have the Lady and Merlin be rivals, just like in the Le Morte D'Arthur stories, where the Lady basically traps Merlin forever. Have Lancelot be the be all and great, against Arthur's timid nature. It's like two knights and two magicians facing off one another on quest. Which results in the Lady and Lancelot rewarding Arthur with Excalibur, and in response Merlin and Arthur rewarding Lancelot with Arondight
>defeat the Questing Beast to justify his rule over Britain.
No. There's already a two knights that mess with the Questing Beast. Arthur doesn't need his role bloated.
The Nic Cage Sorcerer's Apprentice was already more of an Sword in the Stone sequel/ Arthurian movie then a Fantasia one by being "Merlin's magic students versus a resurgent Morgan le Fay in the modern day" and having Jay "Actually sounds like one of those puberty kids they had voice Wart in Sword in the Stone as a grownass adult" Baruchel as the star.
That movie had more to do with Arthurian Legend that the Sword in the Stone that consist on a bunch of nothing and then a sword in the stone shows up at the very end.
Is funny how nonchalan Arthur got that sword, I could see a version where nobody pays much attention to where he got the sword and they leave to their castle never noticing the sword in the stone is missing.
It’s based on book one in The Once And Future King. Arthur had no idea that the sword was THE sword
Best disney movie
bump
It was 1963, it's a wonder the even understood perspective that far back.
Of all the Disney live action remake, I unironically want them to remake Sword in the Stone. Obviously they gonna frick up anyway
Everyone speaking Welsh.
They'd turn the wizard duel into yet another "beams clash in mid air and they push back and forth" instead of the inventive stuff happening. Probably with a cgi white mist background to save money, just like in the last HP movie.
Which black actress would they cast as the squirrel?
What are the best King Arthur movies?
I can recommend these:
>Merlin (TV series)
More on fantasy, and focuses more on Merlin than Arthur. But it's a nice watch.
>Excalibur
Essentially what most people think of when they think of King Arthur. It really gets you into the sense of the Arthurian myth. Would recommend watching this.
>King Arthur (2004)
Yeah, yeah, I know it's a typical action movie. But this is more in line with the origins of where the legend of King Arthur was. Basically if you're looking for a different take, which is somewhat closer to the original version.
Excalibur
The Arthur mythos are somewhat cursed due to their connections with masons, which were primarily Anglos. You can tell that towards the end Disney was struggling with them, he ended up doing a Jungle Book movie too.
They made up for it by doing a movie on Robin Hood, which is primarily Saxon. The Anglo-Saxon nonsense is why there's so much occult babble.
They are obsessed with retelling the stories of the Round Table and the Book of Enoch, but in different formats, i.e. The Man who Would Be King (which has Rudyard Kipling in it), and The Road to El Dorado is basically the outline of Enoch- an inverted hermeneutic, very popular.
I didn't read any of your post because I can no longer even see a picture of this dude without laughing.
Disney has set its own bar very low in general.
No, that would be this
Camp
its all about a very bad time
Mebby.
Was it even properly remastered? OP looks fricking good, but the first Bluray was vaseline upscaled.
when i was a kid, i always hated archimedes, but on rewatch i felt pretty bad for him. merlin was an irresponsible authority figure and my boy archimedes had to pick up the slack like crazy. no wonder he was such a cranky dick. he saved arthur's life like 3 times for no thanks and just got relentlessly shit on. he was a real one. i wonder if he had a choice in being merlin's familiar
I always find funny that Nite Owl named his battleship after Archimedes. It's in-character but I just laugh thinking on Moore watching The Sword in the Stone
Holy shit, I never put that together. That's fricking hilarious.
The most famous stories of King Arthur are French fanfics. And it'd be kind of hard to make a two hour Disney film out of the King Arthur mythos as a whole since after actually becoming king and gathering the Knights of the Round Table, his Knights end up heavily overshadowing him. And then he gets cucked and his nephewson fricks everything up and kills him.
>the french add their own knight to the arthurian mythos
>write him as literally the best knight ever and ends up cucking arthur
Dabbing on the anglos since the dawn of christendom. Between this and orchestrating the american revolution I wonder which is the more seetheworthy to the collective english psyche.
It's not quite that simple. Before the top knight was Gawain, who eventually gained superpowers when the sun was up. Then Percival happened and HE was the purest and best knight. Then Lancelot happened and HE was the the best (but not purest) knight. Then Lancelot's son Galahad happened and HE was the purest and best knight, stealing Percival's original roles. In fact, Galahad was more or less created because Lancelot was too much of a jackass and they wanted a Lancelot with none of the flaws. What's weird is that Perceival was also a French creation, yet I guess he wasn't really good enough for the role.
What's also worth noting is that in the earliest known texts involving him, Mordred was a pretty good guy. And then the Welsh turned him into Arthur's treacherous nephew, and then the French turned him into Arthur's illegitimate son with his sister. The Scots, on the other hand, claimed that Mordred wasn't Arthur's son, but WAS the legitimate ruler of Britain while Arthur himself was a traitor to the country. Whatever the case, the Scots and the French hated Arthur and thought he was shit.
Galahad is pretty much a gary stu, unlike Percival and Lancelot, he has know flaw. He's the perfect knight and christian, almost a warrior monk.
I always saw him as the idea that the quest for the Graal is not for mere men and that only a predestined being could accomplish it.
Galahad is borderline not human. He's pretty much an angel that got sent for one task that God wanted to make sure wouldn't get fricked up.
Isn't Galahad quite literally a Turbo-Virgin? As in, his powers are dependent on his virginity?
He was the perfect human, destined to complete the Grail Quest. He had powers because he was special, not due to being a virgin.
Overall, no one really cares that much about Arthur himself. That's why nearly every modern adaptation of the mythos is centered around Lancelot, Percival, Galahad or even Merlin. Ask the average layman what they know about Arthur specifically and they'll either reference Monty Python or just say that he's a king and his sword is Excalibur.
Or, god forbid, you ask a weeb.
Since Arthur means "great man" in some old celtic tongue, it is possibly the legend is a mish-mash of several old characters.
No, "Arthur" is from Proto-Brythonic "Arth", meaning "Bear". Most likely Arthur was based on a Welsh king who fought against the Saxons, probably the one mentioned here
, but even then there's clearly a lot of distortion with him supposedly slaying 1000 men by himself.
It's always funny how despite how Arthur was supposed to find the Grail, he's not actually very involved with the quest at all. Like there's not many stories about Arthur looking for the Grail or getting his hands on it. And while he did go on adventures and do amazing things, all his feats were kinda swept under the rug and no one remembers most of them anymore.
This is weirdest King Arthur and the Knights of Justice thread ever.
I vaguely remember watching an episode of this show. I saw it in like a hotel room or something. For some reason, I remember it unusually clearly.
The premise and designs were really cool so it's pretty memorable. A medieval magical cartoon Power Rangers. Unfortunately everything else sucked.
>theme song by Shuki Levy
That's probably exhibit A why that show stuck with you, anon.
Is the guy known for good themes? What others he made?
I think you mean this is the weirdest fate/stay night thread ever.
I know its easy to talk shit about Fate what with turning Arthur into a chick, but the actual Camelot stuff was pretty neat and more accurate than most things, like they actually remember that Excalibur wasn't the sword in the stone.
Amusingly, fricking Yugi-Oh also remembered that
The creator of Yu gi oh was found dead in the pacific ocean today. His body was wearing scuba gear and had multiple shark bites.
Good. Frick him yugayoh is cancer
I have to admit I loved the Camelot Chapter of the game, seeing how each Knight obeyed the King and how at the end it was some frustration of not being there with him when he fell that moved them to follow his rules.
Then Las Vegas event happened and I was like "Lancelot and Tristan are real men of culture"
Admit it, you just wanted Maleficent to frick the prince.
I'm surprised there isn't more NTR with these two
One thing I actually kinda like about Fate/s depiction of the Knights of the Round is that it depicts the Knights of the Round Table as heavily flawed individuals who were partially responsible for much of Arthur's headaches and even the fall of Camelot itself, but Arthur him(her)self doesn't tend to notice their flaws. Except Mordred, for obvious reasons. Of course, it does kinda go hard into the other direction and depicts Arthur as some sort of flawless saint who was dragged into the mud by the people around him(her).
Arturia's flaw was that she wasn't decisive enough though. Her sainthood IS her flaw, as she failed to understand that being a "Strong" ruler sometimes required being an jerk who was willing to do cruel things to stabilize your kingdom.
This is how she contrasts with other rulers in the series who don't have their kingdoms crumble underneath them, in that she tries to stay true to the "Ideal" of a perfect king which can't work in the mortal world.
Frick, in the end she ends up getting her rapist stalker killed by her boyfriend because she's too weak to do it herself whenever she encounters him.
>Arturia's flaw was that she wasn't decisive enough though. Her sainthood IS her flaw, as she failed to understand that being a "Strong" ruler sometimes required being an jerk who was willing to do cruel things to stabilize your kingdom.
That's not true at all. There were times when she had to make tough decisions, such as drain small villages of their resources in order to fuel her army. This would inevitably end up dooming those villages, but if she didn't do this, her army would have fallen and Britain would have been overrun. So it's not like she didn't do things like that.
>This is how she contrasts with other rulers in the series who don't have their kingdoms crumble underneath them, in that she tries to stay true to the "Ideal" of a perfect king which can't work in the mortal world.
If you're comparing her to Iskandar, you really should read up on what happened to his empire after his death. It's one of the more infamous aspects of his rule.
>Frick, in the end she ends up getting her rapist stalker killed by her boyfriend because she's too weak to do it herself whenever she encounters him.
She's the one who defeats Gilgamesh in her own route though.
I kinda feel like talking too much about Fate is sort of off-topic for Cinemaphile, though.
Alexander's kingdom fell apart after his death though, it never failed when he was still around. There's a reason why the mage who summoned him said "He's not the servant and me the master, I'M his Servant!"
Alexander's sole flaw in the fate series was that he wasn't immortal; he was notably the only character that Gilgamesh had absolute respect for, to the point he actually unleashed his full power on him from the start (the only reason anyone else lasts 5 seconds against him being his utter contempt).
As for Gilgamesh as a ruler, he's an butthole, but Arturia is dogged by the fact that despite how utterly evil he is, his kingdom never collapses under him and stays strong, in contrast to her struggles and lack of reward for her virtue.
Could someone here versed on the subject explain to me why they hate Merlin so much?
>Admit it, you just wanted Maleficent to frick the prince
Nah, it's just when all the good parts happen. Aurora's the most boring character in her own movie.
Disney Princesses only started having personalities with the Renaissance.
Thats only because they started being main characters in th renaissance, Snow White is about the Dwarves and Sleeping beauty about the fairies, but Alice from Alice in Wonderland is the main character of her story and she does have a personality.
>you just wanted Maleficent to frick the prince
Cinemaphile also explored that in fanfiction once upon a time ago.
Almost no one remembers Malfic.
Maybe I'd remember it a lot more easily if they gave Maleficent larger breasts.
Its funny how Arthur broke the sword in a seemingly pointless way: The knight he got into a fight with that ended up causing the sword to break is never named, and never appears again.
You'd think this dude who shattered this legendary magical sword created by God for the king of England would be a super important villain that would show up again, but nope: Just a nameless rando knight who just fricks off after that and never is seen again.
On that note, I like the modern retellings of it that have Caliburn get reforged into Excalibur instead of a totally different sword. It keeps the plot a bit more focused and adds a slight bit of symbolism, as reforging the sword indicates Arthur himself growing and fixing the problems of his pride that caused the sword to shatter.
Oddly enough, the unnamed knight who broke Excalibur is generally agreed to be Lancelot by most scholars.
>Cucks Arthur out of his wife
>breaks Arthur's magic sword
Good god, Lancelot fricking shat all over Arthur, its crazy he'd let him still be in the knights of the round. All it needs is for it be him instead of mordred that fatally wounds him in the end for it to be complete.
Lancelot was quite literally fan fiction though.
True, but he sort of became part of the mythology.
To be fair, Arthur didn't find out about the on and off again affair between Lancelot and Guinevere until near the end of his reign.
Excalibur broke because Arthur used it in pride, he was only supposed to use it in defense of self and others. The identity of the nameless knight he used it on doesn't matter. A lot of scholars ASSUME it was Lancelot, but the stories never mention that knights identity.
I think it'd be a good way to incorporate the literary concept of "The black knight", give the nameless knight a purpose and villainous role by basing them on this pop culture conceptual character.
Despite having nothing to do with arthurian mythos, the idea of there being a "Black knight" villain is similar to the Evil witch trope in most fairy tales, and could be pretty seemlessly woven in without people batting an eye at the incorporation. Would work as a nice antagonist to the story as well (Since, outside of Morgan and Mordred Arthur lacks a real defined villain)
The black knight is Brunor the Black, Sir Dinadan's father.
>googles him
>He's a knight of the round table. Lancelot still killed all his brothers
The frick, the more you read about Lancelot the more he comes across as this villainous sociopath dedicated to ruining camelot.
Lancelot comes off like a total c**t, yeah. Which is surprising considering his name sounds like the opposite. Like he sounds knightly and cool. But then you realize in his earliest depictions he was apparently ugly as frick, and he also fricked Arthur's wife and then lead a rebellion on Camelot when she was gonna be executed, and then went crazy for a little while and was totally useless.
can anyone confirm/clarify misconceptions with this post?
A lot of the Knights of the Round Table killed each other; Lancelot wasn't the only one.
King Arthur was usually the most moral person in Camelot(not counting Galahad who was perfect) ignoring a few stories.
Lancelot going crazy and being useless happened early in his career. It happened due to a curse by Morgan Le Fay.
Everything else is more or less accurate.
>It happened due to a curse by Morgan Le Fay.
What was the curse about?
And man, he did dirty killing Agravain and Gareth only because his thing with Gweneviere was exposed.
I mean, mike seriously if you get caught red handed least you can do is be a fricking man and accept the concequences.
This sounds made up
Give a scholar a chance to wank up Lancelot and they'll take it. Lancelot is pretty much everyone's favorite character and often overshadows Arthur himself.
That's.... you got a point. But I still think Percival, Kay, Gawain, and Galahad plus Pelinor deserves more love.
>Galahad
You should be thankful that no one cares about Galahad. He was basically designed to be Percival + Lancelot with none of their flaws and also better in every way. At least Lancelot's flaws round him out a bit, Galahad is explicitly designed to be absolutely perfect and without equal.
>even more perfect a knight than his own father Lancelot
>so pure he ascends directly to heaven
>turns up in the Witcher book series, implied he dicks down Ciri
What a gigachad of knights.
Misread first post as Galachad lmao
Not really. Remember its the scholars opinion that the mystery knight was Lancelot. The stories never reveal that character's identity. It could've been any of the knights or a rando.
nah, I've heard it before too
it was only this thread that I learned the knight was apparently nameless.
How come no one has managed to make a successful adaptation of the mythos in recent years? What does have Sherlock Holmes have over Arthur?
Kubrick nailed it and there's no point. Mists of Avalon was also really good. I don't know, it's really stuffy unless you take liberties people won't like.
No one cares about liberties. The majority of the Arthurian mythos consists of liberties. There aren't actually enough hardcore Arthurgays who'd raise a stink about it, since there's probably less than a million of them in the world anyway. Even then, all Arthurgays are in different camps due to the multiple, wildly different versions of the lore, so it's not like everyone would get upset over the same things.
>Kubrick nailed it
I know Kubrick never made a Kjng Arthur movie, so which one are you thinking of?
He's thinking of Excalibur. That's the only popular film.
>Kubrick
Yeah, anon must have meant John Boorman's 1981 Excalibur film.
Because it's a narrative mess of like four different distinct stories and it's difficult to bring it all together. They can't even do individual Arthurian legends right. I fricking hated the Green Knight on Amazon Video.
Most of the morals are based on ye Olde Christian morales and most of western society has turned its back on God.
They should do The Ballad of Buster Scruggs but with Arthurian Knights
I don't know, I think you could get a pretty badass stories from Arthur's battles to unify Britain or the quest for the grial
Nah. Arthur's personal quest for the Grail doesn't last long. It's ultimately Percival or Galahad who finds it for him, and he doesn't even get to lay eyes on him.
The unification of Britain was a good story in the Le Morte D'Arthur version. A huge battle, saving Guinevere's father from a siege, the aid of King Bors, and the knights fighting a forest battle, and then there was the ending of Arthur killing a boat of children.
Too many versions of Arthur.
Most people go for the French version which is the well known one, and then there's the ones that predates it which is mostly a Celtic Warlord against the Anglo Saxons
What Arthur book am I supposed to be reading? I'm reading Once adn Future King right now and it's kind of corny and contains very little of the badass mythology you anons are posting
The Once and Future King is basically the culmination of the famous Arthur stories.
The one I'm reading, and the one basically used for the most Arthurian stories, is Le Morte D'Arthur.
And if you're wondering is it good? Well it depends on the chapters, the beginning chapters tells the stories of Arthur and his unification of Britain (He bangs someone before he met Guinevere, and had a son), after that it mostly focuses on the knights.
The Fischer King and the two brothers battling to the death, Merlin getting trapped by the Lady of the Lake, Arthur fighting Morgana's husband, fricking Tristan getting two fricking chapters worth (Also Arthur getting a yandere), the Lady of the Lake and Pelleas, and etc. So yeah, you can read Le Morte d'Arthur if you want non-corny. There's just one problem.
It's written in Middle English
Hit up wikipedia, there are some definitive compilations and retellings but you really need to know the history and context of it all. And chunks of it are in middle english or dark age french.
ful clene
for wonder of his hwe men hade
set in his semblaunt sene
he ferde as freke were fade
and oueral enker grene
The Once And Future King is corny, and it glosses over a lot of stories, but it’s also the best introduction there is. I highly recommend reading it through to the end.
I won’t spoil the ending for you, but I would highly recommend reading Sir Thomas Mallory’s Death Of King Arthur after. In some respects, you could consider The Once And Future King a long form commentary on The Death Of King Arthur. It’s also often known by its French title, Le Morte D’Arthur.
I can’t stress enough though, finish reading The Once And Future King
After that I’d recommend Idylls Of The King
Not that anon but currently reading Le Morte D'Arthur, currently at the 2nd book of Tristan,but I'm more curious now of the older versions of Arthur.
You got any recommendations of the Welsh Brittonic version of Arthur? The ones about his fight against the Anglo-Saxons?
>recommendations of the Welsh Brittonic version of Arthur?
There's less written stories for these because it was more from oral tradition afaik but the main ones are Culhwch and Olwen, The Spoils of Annwfn, and The Three Welsh Romances. There's also The Dream of Rhonabwy but it's a kind of weird time travel story.
Culhwch and Olwen is the closest to an actual "story" about the Welsh Arthur, but it's very archaic and hard to read. There's a large portion of it that is just a long list of his various warriors and their feats.
I've always thought Welsh Arthur is better experienced performed, or at least in audio format, since that's how it was meant to be told.
Culhwch ag Olwen https://youtu.be/Q63Bubs7JrQ
Arthur and Rhita Gawr https://youtu.be/5qb9kwSkwJo
Dragons of Dinas Emrys https://youtu.be/nx2Avxw7wcE
There's also a lot in poetry, but since it's written in old welsh, often only survives in parts and relying on references to other stories we often don't know, it's probably hard to enjoy as straight forward entertainment. If you want to dive in anyway, the channel CelticSource translates and disects a lot of Welsh Myth and Athurian material.
This one is Pa gur yv y porthaur? (Who is the Gatekeeper?) https://youtu.be/-dIk0FmlxyM and Preiddiau Annwn https://youtu.be/HiU0vqUTxkM
The Arthur vs the Saxons stuff is written more as historical accounts, usually as part of a larger timeline. They can range from a passing mention to a decicated section.
It's probably easier to start from the Pre-Galfridian Texts section under Arthur on this wiki page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_mythology
Geoffrey of Monmouth tends to write more and is thought to have had a lot of fun doing it.
Couldn't find a collection for the Saint stories. There's also the Welsh Romances
>Owain, or the Lady of the Fountain
>Geraint and Enid
>Peredur, son of Efrawg
which either followed the Chrétien de Troyes's tales or decended from the same Celtic source, and can be found in Charlotte Guest's version of the Mabinogion.
And then there's The Dream of Rhonabwy , which might be satire.
The Cath Palug is also found in the welsh texts, though in it, Cai/Kay fights him rather than Arthur.
It's unfortunately incomplete but John Steinbeck's The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights is a damn good read.
This now needs to be updated with Morgan. And probably Summer Morgan in a few weeks.
This. What Steinbeck wrote ruled. Make sure to find one that's has an account of all the research he did, dude was super into it and it's a fricking shame he didn't finish.
The Tale of Percival and Mystery of the Grail by Julius Evola
Any of you anons read Evangeline Walton's Mabinogion books? They're based.
I've read the original Mabinogion. What sets her retellings apart?
Gorgeous prose
Ya
That's like asking is this really the best Disney could do with Oliver Twist
Here in Hispanic land a collection about the Arthurian mythos is being published, interesting read and the covers are really cool
what are those books about? Just a retelling of the mythos?
Yeah, novelized retellings
Are they good? is there a way I can get them?
They're alright. The author cherrypicks elements from many different sources and fits them into a cohesive narrative that is pretty entertaining. It does take some liberties like having Uther and Pendragon being two brothers, Merlin being trapped by Nimue before Lancelot is born or Balin being a full-fledged member of the Round Table.
Still, not a bad way to dip your toes into Arthurian mythos.
As for how you can get them, you can try Ebay or the Hispanic equivalent, MercadoLibre. If you happen to be un Spain, you can get the whole thing straight from the editorial
https://tienda.rbacoleccionables.com/cronicas-excalibur-2021.html
>The author cherrypicks elements from many different sources and fits them into a cohesive narrative that is pretty entertaining
Dope
>Uther and Pendragon being two brothers
Wack
Alright, I'll try mercadolibre or something and see how it goes
Its kinda hard to make kid friendly movies about medieval times, cause ya know people got stabbed and tortured allot
are you some kind of idiot
have you really never seen a cartoon or kids movie set in medieval times
I feel that with all the unique personalities and powers and daring quests and melodrama that people would be chomping at the bit for Arthurian stuff.
People are obsessed with super heroes and super hero power level bullshit, but you literally have that with the knights.
Arthurian Cinematic Universe when?
Ya
Who's the most underrated Knight of the round table?
Generally anyone who isn't Gawain, Percival, Lancelot, Mordred or Galahad.
Do people even rate Mordred?
Maybe Kay? He was a dick to the other Knights but most loyal to Arthur.
Tristan has the whole relationship drama with Isolde going for him.
Bedivere had a silver arm and returned Excalibur to the Lady of the Lake.
Pelleas just because his is funny. The story of a simp, who manages to find love with another simp, Th Lady of the Lake. Even though the Lady dislikes simps like Merlin who were coming on to her.
As well as the Fischer King story, and Morgana's husband. Along with King Bors.
Arthur doesn't get much but when it's good it's good
>book: Once and Future King
>movie: Excalibur
>tv: Merlin mini series
>vidya: Knights of the Round
>Percival is a bald barbarian
That is the weirdest take I've seen of him
weirder than the a black or asian knight of the round?
Japan turned Arthur into a girl, there's not much worse you can do than that.
A HOT girl.
The "Arthur was secretly a girl" thing isn't bad on its own, that's a decent angle for historical secrecy. The only problem was when they started turning like 50% of historical characters into "Secretly they were a girl!" characters, since that's when it starts getting outlandish.
I did a quick count. Out of 350 characters as of current, around 54 are historical/mythological males turned female. 14 of those 54 are just variations of King Arthur.
Sweet!
I still remember when my father was watching Netflix documentary about samurais and I knew almost every name thrown and understood everything that was happening all because of Nobu. I had to explain him who was who because he would lose in the story a bit during the episodes.
I don't think the normal Arturia is hot, she is supposed to have boyish looks, enough to fool most of the Rounds. Also, she has the body of an underdeveloped 14 years old girl from the middle ages, I can hardly call that hot.
Now if we are talking about Lion King Arturia...
she looks nothing like a 14 year old boy. She fooled the knights of the round by a combination of appearing in full armor and Merlin using both illusion spells and legit "Girl to man with a dick" spells.
>Also, she has the body of an underdeveloped 14 years old girl from the middle ages, I can hardly call that hot.
>Like muscle chicks
>Saber says she's a muscle chick
>She clearly is not
>She really, really is not
my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.
Saber probably does have a pretty toned body, particularly around her back and arms. It's just, you'd have to be crazy to illustrate her that way. Part of the appeal behind making her a chick is making her . . . you know, a typical anime waifu.
I don't have that much problem with that, but later not even trying to make the heroes even passingly resemble what their classic version looks like, at least Saber kind of looks like a knight.
Who decided to make Alexander the great look like Ganondorf?
Armor aside, their Gilgamesh and Alexander designs could honestly be swapped and it would feel right, or else Alexander could have been a Gilface
>Gilgamesh
That guy is another whole can of worms.
>Lets put a guy from the times where leather armor was high tech in a full plate knight armor.
I don't expect them to make him look like an actual ancient king but at least give him a beard.
His desing is F/Prototype is more fitting. But honestly if you consider all the lore from Fate his plate armor deosn't look that strange.
The legend of Gilgamesh has a LOT of NSFW moments. I mean, his story starts with him acting like a douche to the people he rules in Ur so that the gods make a rival to teach him humility (or kill him).
Gil is already an Emiya face, if you think about it. Or is Emiya a gilface? Either way, would've been weird for F/Z.
>Who decided to make Alexander the great look like Ganondorf?
IDK why this comparison made me smile/laugh but thank you anon.
>Like Ganondorf
>You mean CHADondorf
Ganondorf is peak male body type, you can't look at him and say "that's not a fricking alpha there"
Their explanation for why he's so huge was kind of funny though, in that they basically say "Oh yeah, the reason I couldn't fill up Darius III's throne wasn't because I'm short, its because the dude's a literal fricking giant"
I love Francis Drake and Quetzalcoatl being chicks so I don't mind it that much.
>The only problem was when they started turning like 50% of historical characters into "Secretly they were a girl!" characters, since that's when it starts getting outlandish.
This. When it was just Saber, it was fine, and most of the "gasp, how could they," stuff was a joke. At least I was always joking when I said that stuff as a teensy weensy fifteen year old. It's actually pretty cool when isolated to Artoria specifically. But it became an obnoxious trend to the point where that's Fate's "thing" now.
Im kinda eh about it since they couldd have just went a Boudica route and made her a powerful queen which wasnt unheard of in the general time.
What amazes me is that so far I haven't seen lgbt morons jumping on the train.
I mean seriously, when I was watching fate stay night for the first time (more or less a year after it came out) I was all like "the only man capable of pull the sword from the stone was a woman" mindset which honestly I found empowering for females many hundreds of times better than the shit they try to do nowadays like that owlgays house and whatnot.
Fate is too nipponese in its most esoteric sense for that to really form.
What
said.
Artoria's situation is really just a product of happenstance, I think. It's less
>"the only man capable of pull the sword from the stone was a woman"
And more,
>The fated king just so happened to be born with female genitalia.
Nothing about Saber's feminine identity seems to have contributed positively to her rule. Rather, it was suppressed, and Fate/stay night's Fate route is about teasing it back out, what with how Shirou stubbornly treats her like a girl.
Yeah, just read yourselves and tell me how come lgbt homosexuals are not trying to get their hands on Artoria?
Like seriously in the last 10 years all the "lgbt positive media" they try to get out only surround the "it was a girl/lesbian/trans/etc" they don't give a frick if it is good or bad, they only care about it being a girl that was a man, or a man that was a woman or shit like that
If anything she could be a feminist symbol, and we know that feminists and the LGTBBQ crowd don't like each other these days. And you have to remember that she originates from a fricking porn game, no mater that it came out 20 years ago, one is going to use her as a symbol for any ideology.
>And you have to remember that she originates from a fricking porn game
I think that's unfair to the fate series. They originally designed it as a ero digital novel but doubled back and exised all that for the actual release/final version after all the feedback told them "Yeah, the girls are cute, but what we actually want more of is this actual plot and story"
And yet Shirou's still basically the wife in the relationship.
There's nothing wrong with the Disney version. You have to accept that there's millions of versions of stories, songs, and whatnot loosely based around these cycles. Making a lighthearted animated version is totally acceptable and legit. You guys look like cultural dwarves for not understanding that people hundreds of years ago were totally fine with soft stories and satire.
Look man, we're just using this as an excuse to talk about Arthurian shit. Plus hoping it'll de-evolve into a Hazel thread.
Hazels is sexier as a squirrel girl than a human.
Change my mind.
Imagine telling the animators that 60 years later this film's only legacy is the squssy.
given how the animators at Disney (Allegedly) had a animation of jimminy cricket fricking tinkerbell lying around that they'd show to new hires, I don't think they'd be surprised.
They waifu'd her as they were drawing her.
>Agravain, Gawain, Gaheris, and Gareth are all Arthur's nephews
>Mordred is his son
>Lancelot and his son get a spot too
man the Round Table was pure nepotism for like half its knights.
Aren't like half of them spawns of Morgan one way or another?
Yeah, Mordred is half brother of the Okney brothers
>nobility was pure nepotism
You don't fricking say anon
Mordred is son or nephew, depending on story.
The only person who knew that Galahad was Lancelot's son was Lancelot, if I remember correctly.
Sir Bedivere knew about Sir Lancelot and Sir Gahalad if I remember correctly, and in theory he spoke about it in a normal way, as if everyone else knew about it.
Was Gweneviere always a b***h?
Having an affair with Lancelot is usually depicted as the only bad thing she ever did.
How did she take Lancelot having a kid?
I don't think Guinevere knew that Galahad was Lancelot's son.
Morgan Le Fay wanted Lancelot to be her lover he said no, she cursed him and he went crazy.
Lancelot was a low key douche, most of his stories have are about him struggling with his own hypocrisy while being the standard of chivalry.
I didn't know Bedivere knew.
The versions I read made it seem like only Lancelot knew Galahad was his son.
I might be confusing Bedivere with someone else in my mind, let me re-read some books and find out which one my memory is bringing up.
I'm pretty sure that thing with Lancelot was also deliberate character assassination on both of their parts.
No
Mybe
>Him pulling out the sword is the only good thing about the movie
Geez
Anyone else love the Sam Neill Merlin miniseries?
Completely wore the tape out as a kid, the cast was 11/10.
I remember liking it, but don't remember much about it. That's the one when Merlin was old and was telling a story to the village kids, and then used his last but of magic to make him and the love-interest young again, right?
I fricking loved this series.
>see multiple references to Lancelot being a “French fanfic” who isn’t in the original stories
>look up when he was invented
>AD 1170
HOW MUCH OF A PURIST CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE?
I’m surprised nobody’s brought this up, but Howard Pyle, the man who wrote the definitive Robin Hood book basically every Robin Hood adaptation is based on, also wrote a bunch of King Arthur books. To my knowledge, they skip over the sexual affairs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_King_Arthur_and_His_Knights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_the_Champions_of_the_Round_Table
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_the_Grail_and_the_Passing_of_King_Arthur
If looking to make a kid friendly King Arthur, these are the books to adapt, not The Once And Future King or Sir Thomas Mallory
>It's another King Arthur as depicted by the Japanese episode
Shoulda done Chanticleer.
Proto Arthur is underrated
>Proto Arthur is underrated
>The pict is Sir Gawain.
im in love with mordred guys
Everyone who watched Apocrypha or read the manga, or played the fgo game is in love with him/her (or at least holds him/her in good stead).
Honestly though, why haven't they work more stuff with Mordred and her Master?
It was the Disney Dark Age. As absurd as it sounds today, they actually were running out of money and skilled producers back then. That's why the stuff from that period always looks so rough, though I do kind of like that aesthetic.
And it got way worse. Crazy how much time Disney spent in trouble. Almost two decades.
So....we just gunna not just talk about Uther Pendragon cucking the Duke of Tintagel?
With so much cucking around?
I don't see why we shouldn't but I don't think there is much more to speak about, I think the few depictions of that part of the story are really short... Or at least no detailed story comes to mind
Coincidentally watched this movie last night at a place we were renting for a holiday trip. The house had a collection of old DVDs and this was one of them so watched it with the family.
Dear god were there many re-used animations
> Arthur falling down the stairs while carrying dishes
> Arthur being chased while the older dude is swatting bow/stick at him
> Merlin pouting on his chair while puffing his pipe
> Some of Arthurs close up expressions when being lectured to
And so many more.
>Everyone's talking about FGO
My friend convinced to play it, ngl, I was actually addicted until he told me to do the Summer beach event. Grinded for like a month to unlock characters I found interesting, pretty cool, and can't wait to continue the main story.
That was until he told that some of the characters I unlocked in the summer event weren't permanent, and that I had to do another event (It was like some sort of wasteland) to keep them. Yeah at that point I just quit.
I mean, if you roll them you get them.
That is the point of the Gacha. It really is sad you didn't get in the game, right now in the 5th anniversary we had quite a deal, during these days they included the lvl 60 "superior exp" material at half energy cost, so it was great for farming and making many of your heroic spirits level up to their max.
Also getting Paul Bunyan.
Managed to find a subtitled upload of Culhwch and Olwen from the russian-welsh collab
https://www.animatsiya.net/film.php?filmid=807