|
Except this is supposed to be about the man behind the legend.
Lancelot wasn't a part of that. He was a French folk hero who was later added to the legends...Several hundred years later. His full name, Lancelot De Luthe (Note to the Frenchies out there, I appologise for my shit spelling), should be an indication of that. There were three people upon which Arthur was based. It looks like they're either combining the three or going with the general.
There were several Merlins, as well, as Merlin was a TITLE, not the name of a person. Sorry, my father has a library of King Arthur Literature and a manuscript on the topic, so I've had a lot of opportunity to read up on the Man(Men) behind the Myth...I'd be a lot more interested in this movie if they weren't trying to make it out to be the "real story of King Arthur."
King Arthur never existed, except in legends and fairie tales. He was an amalgamation of multiple people, none of whom acheived all or close to all of the things for which Authur was renowned. Though one of them DID unite a large portion of what would later be England/Britain (Exccept he did it a few centuries before there was such a country...).
Major point of irritation for me, because I like Aurthurian stories, no matter how campy. I just think it's stupid to claim this is the "real story."
|