To the best of my knowledge, narfforc, historians by no means all agree that Arthur was a real person– that in fact is why he's regarded as a legendary, rather than historical, figure. Everything you cite there would be dealing with conjecture, not fact, anyway. So I just don't think it's fair to attack Boorman for choosing to go with the fantastical approach in that case.
This has nothing to do with my opinion of his proposed travesty of "Lord of the Rings", you understand. The two cases are just not the same.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo.
|