He name-dropped Shiki to show that the character himself exists canonically, even if the events of the movie aren't necessarily canon. But since he meant for them to be part of the manga, I thing that they can be treated as canon. Not that Oda will ever take into account the events of the movie in the manga, but you can sort of pretend that sometime while they were voyaging off-panel, the movie just kind of happened to them. Which you can do for any movie, but it matters a bit more for this one, since the others were just filler arcs, and this one was designed as an arc of the manga. It's nice to finally have closure on that issue. Thanks for the SBS summary, Greg.

@TheHerald:

I haven't read the book, but what your saying is pretty much the opposite of what my sister and english teacher dad (who have read it) were saying. And yes they also hated the movie (and liked the book) in fact I graded it higher then them.

And alone I can already see some huge problems with this wimpy defense.

1. The Once and Future King covers the stuff of Arthurian Legend as well, the Merlin lessons are only a part of the first book. Don't act like they adapted the book when they just carved out pieces they could make into "fun" animation. And ignored the whole tetrology thing.

2. Episodic stories work with TV and lengthy novels but not film (the only ones I can think of are stuff like Pulp Fiction), there is an inherently bad idea of making a movie out of episodic events. Even in adapting they could thin out the most important material and not instead jam the contents full of chase scenes. Don't pretend this is something the book and movie are inseparable on when it's pure fault of the movie.
So yes of course I can fucking blame a movie for deciding to be something it wasn't fit to be as virtue of being a movie.
This is the entire basis of what makes an adaption suck or not. Not it's getoutofjail free card.

3. Tell us about Kay and all the other important things shafted and watered down into nothing by the movie. Or were these less important then the wolf

1. They called it "The Sword in the Stone", not "The Once and Future King". They were only adapting the first part. The parts based on Malory are in the other three books (except for the actual pulling the sword out of the stone), so they can't have put them in. They aren't "a part" of the first book, they're the entire first book.

2. If you think it doesn't flow together as a story, fine, that's a point against choosing to adapt The Sword in the Stone, or at least against how they adapted it. It would've been hard to put all of the transformation bits into the framework of a larger goal, since nobody really harped on the fact that Arthur was going to become king, he was just being tutored. A story as episodic as The Sword in the Stone would be hard to make into one coherent whole. If you wanna count that as a point against how they adapted it or against choosing to adapt it in the first place, fine, they were at fault.

3. Well, that was a flaw in the adaption. Kay got a fair bit of development over the course of the book, whereas he was rather one-dimensional in the movie. I can't defend it, you're right.

I'm not providing a very good defense because I can't. It's been too long since I really watched The Sword in the Stone to judge it properly, and I hadn't read the book then, so I wasn't comparing. I can't defend the movie as good in itself, or as good because the book was, because too much of the book was left out, and I haven't seen the movie recently enough to argue about it in depth. I just remember that I liked it. I guess it's sort of like Terek said, in that it's a filler movie, but tolerable if you like filler, because I don't mind filler.

@Ubiq:

The Once and Future King was the collected works of T.S. Elliot minus his The Book of Merlyn; the film is actually based on The Sword in the Stone segment. They originally intended to make a film of the Ill-Made Knight, but wound up going with the story of Arthur's youth instead.

Trivia note: The Ill-Made Knight became part of the basis for Camelot.

T.H. White wrote The Once and Future King, not T.S. Elliot. I'm actually surprised that they were going to do The Ill-made Knight instead, it seems far too depressing, not to mention religious. Maybe it wasn't an issue in the early 60's, but I can't see anybody getting away with animating the Grail Quest nowadays. Though that's probably why they went with The Sword in the Stone, that one's a children's classic in its own right.

Oh, the summaries are the same, only in English (I checked). Which is AWESOME, because that Japanese site is a wonderful way to get a quick synopsis of the story. I was wishing that I could understand it, and then Viz goes and translates the site. I just wish they'd get to Baroque Works already, preferably before they start releasing the Skypiea volumes. Although they probably designed the schedule with that in mind.

@robbybevard:

My entire life I always assumed that he drew the sword out of the stone in the first 5-10 minutes, and then proceeded to train to be king and lead armies and such, or gathered knights or fought a dragon to save a princess or fighting Morgana LeFay or looking for a shurbbery or something. I didn't know WHAT it was about, because nothing EVER showed a clip out of it except for the part where he pulls the sword out, and I knew it wasn't going to chronicle his entire life or anything, but I assumed, that being Arthurian legend in Disney form, it would kick ass.

Then it finally came to TAPE, (thus revealing how long ago this was) I bought it, eagerly watched it. Just the once.

Its been collecting dust in a box somewhere ever since.

What a complete waste.

Its a sad sad day when King Arthur and the Knights of Justice, a terrible television animated series where football players get transported through time and PRETEND to be Arthur's knights, is more entertaining and true to the material than a Disney production.

Well, at least Gargoyles sorta did it right in the 90's. As a minor subplot in the back of two or three random episodes.

The Sword in the Stone is PLENTY true to the source material, just not to La Morte D'Arthur. It IS faithful to the actual book, The Sword in the Stone. Which tells a part of the Arthurian legend that pretty much no other version even bothers with (Arthur's childhood), so T.H. White made it up himself. And it was a wonderful book, although like Peter Pan, the author's writing style sort of makes it, and that couldn't translate to the movie, so Disney had to convey the same sort of feeling without using narration, but I liked the results.

They kept very much to the spirit of whimsy that infused the book, and I thought the movie was a very good adaptation of T.H. White's work. If you expect it to be the actual Arthurian legend, you're expecting the wrong thing, because that's not what the story ever was. As to the changing into animals, well, it was an episodic bildungsroman, which I think the movie kept intact. If you don't like the story, you don't like the story, but you can't blame the movie for being the type of story that the book was.

@Aohige_AP:

No, he is right.
Youtube only actively deletes material when said copyright holders take action.

The only alternative they have by ignoring the requests of copyright holders is to be legally responsible for the poster's action as a company.
Which is a downright ignorant, self-destructive action.
Youtube doesn't do extensive research in each of the material, they simply acknowledge the requests of the copyright holders.
With the amount of posts in youtube, do you seriously think it would be feasable to research each video? No.

If you want to whine, blame the rightholders, not Youtube.

The thing is, they pull videos based on copyright claims from ANYONE. I've seen One Piece videos pulled due to copyright claims by 4Kids, after FUNimation got the license. Probably because somebody just reported the video and cited 4Kids, and YouTube just figured "Okay, we'd better take this down before we get sued" without researching to see whether or not 4Kids even had a right to claim copyright violation. So while its understandable that YouTube doesn't research every claim, that doesn't mean that these videos were pulled due to an actual claim from Toei.

Part 5's scanlations are fine. Good scanlations for Part 4 aren't worth looking for, because they don't exist. Except for volumes 29, 30, 31, and 36.

@Nobodyman:

Ha ha, true that. Of course this song is pretty ballin'

CLnADKgurvc

Wow, that's actually a lot more mindf*ck-ish than I remember.

I saw a list of the 100 scariest scenes in cinema, and that was on there. As number 77, or so. The Pink Elephants on Parade scene from Dumbo was also on the list, but I think in the 90's. Heffalumps and Woozles always did creep me out as a kid, but I still enjoyed it. The Many Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh as a whole is one of my favorite Disney movies.

@Super-Franky:

We're debating whether his name is pronounced as Jesus or Jésus.

Which involves Spanish and English. I still don't see how Hebrew got involved, but whatever.

@Wagomu:

Yeah, that's the thing. I forget the name of any parts besides the letters, haha. It's become widely excepted in modern hebrew, though, at this point. Things like the word for jacket use that.

You mean a Dagesh in a Gimmel, or Dageshim in general? Because I think that Dageshim have been in use since the vowels were invented, and that was about two millenia ago, I think. Also, what word for jacket are you thinking of? Because the only one that I know of is M'eel, and that doesn't have any Dageshim.

Though at this point, I think this should be taken to PM…

@Super-Franky:

"Ies"/"Yes"? Hmph. Doesn't J=Y in Hebrew? Granted, I know virtually nothing about the language…

Sort of. It's more that when the Bible was translated, the names were transliterated rather stupidly. So in Hebrew, the name Judah is actually pronounced Yehudah, but for some reason the "ehu" got screwed up, and the "Y" became a "J". The same goes for a lot of other names too, such as Yirmiyah/Jeremiah, Yehoshafat/Jehoshafat, etc. In the Jesus' case, I believe that his Hebrew name was Yeshua, but it was transliterated as Jesus.

What does this have to do with Burgess' name, exactly?

@Wagomu:

There is no J sound in hebrew, though in modern times, some transliterations use a special gimmel to do the trick.

Well, sort of. Ashkenazim don't have a "J" sound, but I believe that Temanim (Yemenites) do have the Gimmel with a Dagesh (dot) in it for the "J" sound, and they've been doing that for a long time.

@Verilance:

if it wasn't for the greek changing Yeshua to Jesus we would probably be calling him Joshua which is how that name is anglicized elsewhere :D

That would be a bad idea, calling Jesus by the name Joshua, since "Joshua" is the transliteration used for "Yehoshua". It'd be rather confusing to use it for both names.