Regarding the news bit that's been going around, there is no "faithful" retelling of the King Arthur story because there is no definitive version of it. It's literally impossible. His story isn't historical record but myth that has been added to by various writers over centuries.

Almost all the most famous stories and characters we know were added by either Geoffrey of Monmouth or Chrétien de Troyes a full 600+ years after "Arthur" was roughly dated to have lived. Scholars can't even agree on whether there WAS an Arthur.

The problem with people being tired of Arthurian legend movies isn't that the legends are boring or overdone but because Hollywood keeps telling the same damn love triangle story (Troyes' invention btw), or, when it does branch out, it's usually been done badly.

But that all means that when someone makes up a brand-new story for an Arthurian legend movie today, they're just doing the same damn thing those medieval writers & poets did centuries ago. They were inventing new stories & characters and adding to the myth, too.

Anyway, whatever, I stand by the belief Arthurian legend isn't tired but because Hollywood has BEEN slavishly devoted to "faithful" adaptations of a few of the tales. There's a whole history and mythology to mine, Hollywood.

If Hollywood wants a story about an ACTUAL historical warrior who defended Britain from foreign invaders well before the legend of Arthur, might I interest them in the story of Boudica, Queen of the Iceni, freedom fighter & RUTHLESS leader who burned entire cities to the ground?

When she was flogged & daughters raped by the Romans, she rallied a rebellion while the Roman governor was in Wales & laid waste to multiple Roman-held cities in Britain, including Londinium, which was so thoroughly burned there's an actual burn layer in the geological record.