Merlin set up a chair, knowing Arthur, the future King would come

>Merlin set up a chair, knowing Arthur, the future King would come
>Arthur falls into it, and Merlin explains the case
>Merlin rejects the boy wanting to be a squire, giving him personal lessons
>Turns him into a fish
>Arthur almost got killed
>Turns into a squirrel
>Arthur got unrequited love, forcing him to leave it away
>Turns into a bird
>Arthur gets kidnapped by a rival witch
>Arthur gets tired of all this bullshit and start his squire job
>Merlin gets angry
>In the mid of angst, Arthur turns into the king because he was a squire searching for a sword
>Merlin goes LOL IT WAS MY PLAN ALL ALONG

The fuck was Merlin problem?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7bd5YUEOwlE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

T.H.White's The Once and Future King is a very good telling of the Arthur myth and you should go read it rather than autistically watching and re-watching the adaptation of The Sword and the Stone over and over.

>hating on a based movie

plebs get out

Where I said that?

True after reading OaFK I can't forgive what they did to Kay in this film.

He was pretending to be retarded

>>Arthur got unrequited love, forcing him to leave it away
He knew that love would be Arthur's undoing. He tried to prevent his incest fetish with an innocent furry fetish. Sadly he failed.

You see, sometimes when people get older, they get forgetful or act strangely. That's why grandpa sometimes thinks grandma is a thief and hits her with his cane.

on my opinion, i think it was all about education and life. He sure becames the king because we was a squire looking for a sword, but Arthur didnt know it really was going to happen. Nothing in life goes acording to plan. Merlin knew his destiny and he wanted him to be prepared for it. Sure the all angry yelling was bullshit, but we are dealing with people here. How you would act in merlin or arthur shoes? no seriously, how, there is a lot of shit going on

This movie was probably the weakest Arthur story out there, and there are some shit Arthur stories out there.

I guess that is why Disney pretends it never happened.

I wonder what modern Disney would do with the Arthur stuff.

Probably something with Guinevere and Lancelot being main characters.

But the lessons never prepared Arthur for a thing. Almost all morals went "you can't mess with the orders of nature", which is what exactly Merlin did in the first place. And in top of that, Merlin knowing it all had no reason to give him lessons to abandon the squire treatment, since him becoming a king would be exactly attributed to the squire job. Unless, of course, Merlin plan was to annoy Arthur the hardest he could, only to fulfill his destiny.

Maybe they should just adapt the next three books of This is literally it btw . He's teaching Arthur lessons but he also knows the future and is going backwards in time so he's easily frustrated.

>this movie was probably the weakest

Then why are you hard right now?

The endindg of the movie always bothered me, even when I was kid.
Merlin comes as an hypocrital asshole.

Right, but he actually is that.

Same old Broadway musical style that all post 90's Disney movies follow if they want to make money. But with a semi tragic hero and a last minute turncoat villain. They already got the first one in Wart/Arthur.

Expect Arthur to be voiced by Matt Damon or Chris Pratt or something and Merlin to be voiced by Patrick Stewart.

I didn't like the ending mostly because there was no real conflict or resolution. It just sort of ended.

After the bird stuff the movie just sort of flounders for half an hour or so and then credits.

Read this post backwards. That's how Merlin experiences time, and that's his problem.

This is explained better in the book, but Arthur pulled the sword from the stone using the muscle memory he'd learned from all those physics lessons as various animals. That's why he was the only person who could do it. Without Merlin's teaching, he would have been like any other schmo trying to pull the sword from the stone.

>Camelot is a dreary and cursed place having no king or order since the time Uther died.
>Wart is some lowly servant to a knight that stumbles upon Merlin's house in the forest
>Merlin recognized the boy of destiny and they go to lift the curse on Camelot,
>Wart's father, Sir Ector tells them it was the evil Madam Mimm that killed Uther and cursed the land so Wart and Merlin travel off to go stop her
>They make it to Mimm's house after a few adventures in the dark forest but they find out she is not the reason the kingdom is cursed and is not actually all that evil either
>She sings a jazzy song about how you cannot judge someone based on their appearance and sends them back to Camelot
>They return home to discover Sir Ector has had his son Kay crowned king in Arthur's place, turns out he was the one that killed Uther and raised Arthur to be a humble servant
>Arthur grabs the sword placed in the local churchyard and goes off to fight Kay and stop his step father Ector.
>Arthur defeats them and by slaying Ector he lifts the curse and the kingdom has a new era of prosperity

triggered so goddamn hard by this thread

worse than this fucking cockney king arthur shit from guy ritchie

you should just start tripfagging as GIANT AUTIST for when you finally run out of sonic images

>I guess that is why Disney pretends it never happened.

There are actually plans for a live action remake.

Jim Broadbent would make a fantastic merlin, but it will never happen

Well the guy can time travel, I'm sure he knew this would happen. Heck, this might not have even been his first attempt at teaching Arthur, it's possible he's tried and failed for whatever reason several times only to go back in time and try again.

youtube.com/watch?v=7bd5YUEOwlE
best scene coming through

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight>Chretein's romances>Le Morte d'Arthur>>>shit>>>Historia Regum Britanniae

The way they're pumping out King Arthur films I'd never say never.

This is news to me.
The last one I recall was the one with a focus on realism and he was a roman legionary or something? Also it was 10-15 years ago.

Actually your right that was the last film there's a Guy Ritchie one out this year, for some reason I'd factored in TV shows like Merlin and Camelot into it, there have only been 2 films recently.

Merlin lived backwards and new everything that was going to happen

I came to this thread to say I wanna fuck Mim

This. Also in the book Arthur fucks a goose.

Because making fapbaits is the easiest thing since sumeria.

Are we not even going to touch on the fact that this kid's future wife has an affair with his most trusted friend? Or the fact Arthur fucks Morgana and sires some abomination child that kills off the Knights of the Round Table? What about the reveal that his wife is fucking his best friend, and it's all Arthur's fault for hunting down some piece of shit cup a Carpenter drank out of?

WHOA WHAT.. WHOA!

Squirrel

Okay I don't know much about the Arthur myths beyond what popular media adapts. But is there any reason Merlin isn't burned at the stake for being a devil worshiper? I thought back then everyone was like "All magic=comes from the devil"

>All magic=comes from the devil
That belief didn't really take hold until the renaissance.

If Merlin knew about everything, that includes him being molested by a fat red squirrel?

Later stories made Merlin the son of a mortal and a demon, so he had magic from birth, unlike witches who are given magic in exchange for devil worship. The people at the time figured that since Merlin wasn't sinning by worshiping the devil, it didn't matter that his magic came from a demonic source, as long he was a good person.

>During the early days of Christianity, the Church had been struggling for its own survival, and so it had been tolerant of its new converts holding on to their older, pagan traditions. Even today, many widely–recognized holidays are known to be Christianized versions of ancient pagan festivals. But as the Church grew in power, it was no longer willing to tolerate its members holding on to pagan customs, and it actively began persecuting any who did as "heretics" or "witches."

>This posed a problem for Arthurian literature, much of which had been based on older, Celtic folklore. This was especially the case for the character of Merlin, who played a central role in Arthur's story, beginning with his conception. Merlin was good, yet used magic, and this had to be explained somehow.

>In the twelfth century, a Frenchman named Robert de Boron wrote a poem retelling the wizard's story from a Christian perspective. In Robert's work, the Devil is greatly angered by the good work Jesus Christ has done to save humanity from the torments of Hell, and he seeks to send the Antichrist into this world to undo it. Merlin's mother is a pious woman who comes from a strong, religious family. His father is a demon who seeks to impregnate a mortal woman in order to bring about the Antichrist. The demon wreaks havoc on her family, and causes her parents to commit suicide. Then he enters her bedchamber and rapes her while she's sleeping. The next day, she goes to her family's confessor, a religious man named Blaise, who blesses the unborn child in her womb with the sign of the cross. Merlin is immediately baptized at birth. As a result, the evil is drawn out of his soul. But because of his demonic heritage, he retains his magical abilities.

this is exactly Disney style. good job.

It was another lesson, Arthur had to make his own choice and not blindly follow what others tell him, because he has to be a fucking KING someday, and kings are not elected officials who have to get by on the good will of the unwashed masses.

Plus he took down every video on Youtube.

He's basically Hellboy.

This is pretty much how it would work out yea

The oldest stories were from pre-Christian Wales, and they had no problems with magic people. There were loads of stories of magic people, and Merlin was not the only magical guy in Arthur's court either. The Arthur stories were later Christainized for later audiences around the 1300-4000's and had a few changes like the cauldron of Annwn became the Holy Grail, Galahad being part fairy changed to being pure enough to enter heaven etc.

Even in later times it was not as huge of a problem since the early Church was not so insane about stamping out any mention of supernatural like protestant churches were. Even a few of the paladins of Charlemagne were magic in some way, or had things like magic size changing horses etc.

>The oldest stories were from pre-Christian Wales
Technically, yes, but the earliest recorded stories were nonetheless written in a Christian context. Wales was Christianized by the sixth century. This is not to say that strong pagan elements exist in the earliest recorded texts that were watered down as time went on.
>he Arthur stories were later Christainized for later audiences around the 1300-4000's
I don't understand what you mean by this date. The major works that established the popularity of Arthurian legend, Monmouth's history and Chretien de Troyes' romances, were written in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, respectively.
>the cauldron of Annwn became the Holy Grail
The notion that the Grail was based on the cauldron of Annwn is purely speculative.
>Galahad being part fairy changed to being pure enough to enter heaven
There is no way this could be true. Galahad first appeared in the French Vulgate Cycle and he has absolutely no basis in Welsh myth.

What is the true origin of Mordred?

In some versions he's Arthur's son by incest and in other versions he is Gwain's younger brother.Some versions have him as Morgan's son without any incest.

He's both. Arthur's half-sister Morgause is the mother of Gawaine, Agravaine, Gareth and Gaheris by King Lot of Orkney and the mother of Mordred by Arthur. Morgause is the sister of Morgan le Fay.

In the oldest legends, Mordred is merely a traitor and has no relation to Arthur. Usually, he's the illegitimate son of Arthur by his half-sister Morgause

Incidentally it's a shame Morgan and Morgause are fused together in so many adaptations because that family knot is one of the most interesting and complicated set of relationships of the lot, maybe only behind Arthur Lancelot and Guinivere themselves. The guy who wrote The Sword in the Stone tries hard to think about how real people might fit in these relationships, so he writes a really eviscerating take on the Orkney Clan (and a great Lancelot besides).