GUERRILLA DEMOCRACY NEWS: Could Taika Waititi Be the Wild Card We Need to Direct the King Arthur: The War King Trilogy?

Taika Waititi by Pouria Afkhami

In the same way fans of Judge Dredd were initially sceptical about Taika Waititi taking the helm of their beloved dystopian franchise, a similar question now bubbles up from the cauldron of cinematic speculation: Could Waititi be the perfect – if unexpected – director for the long-anticipated “True Story” trilogy of King Arthur – The War King movies?

And while purists might clutch their swords in horror, there’s a compelling argument to be made that Waititi might be exactly the creative force the Arthurian legend needs for a modern reimagining.

From Asgard to Arthur’s Britain: Why Waititi Makes Sense.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way: Waititi is not known for brooding historical epics or solemn tales of mythic kings. But neither was he known for Shakespearean space operas until Thor: Ragnarok hit the screens like a bolt of thunder-infused genius.

What Waititi excels at is tone-bending: making us laugh just before making us cry. He plays in the sandbox of emotion and irony. He injects levity into lore without cheapening its gravity. That’s precisely the magic needed to make King Arthur feel real—not just another broadsword-and-brimstone fantasy, but a deeply human saga of betrayal, resurrection, and defiant leadership.

Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett’s telling of the Arthurian legend in The War King trilogy is radically different from the fantasy-fuelled Camelot tales we know. Their King Arthur is a warrior. A truth-teller. A man of history, not myth. It’s grounded storytelling with jaw-dropping historical implications. That kind of reinterpretation demands a director bold enough to break the mold—and that’s where Waititi thrives.

What Jojo Rabbit & Wilderpeople Tell Us About His Arthurian Potential.

If The War King trilogy is to be truly great, it must walk the line between epic and intimate. This isn’t just about battles and crowns—it’s about a king torn between destiny and mortality. And it’s in this emotional terrain that Waititi shines.

In Jojo Rabbit, Waititi explored Nazism through the lens of childhood innocence, mixing absurdity with heartbreak. In Hunt for the Wilderpeople, he gave us a fugitive road trip that turned into a profound exploration of a found family. With Boy, he told a coming-of-age story soaked in both comedy and pain.

In every case, Waititi proved himself a master of the emotional double helix: humour and heart, woven tightly together.

Isn’t that precisely what we need from a young King Arthur, sent to be schooled on how to be a great warrior general, by the most famous War Lord of them all, Merlin Emry; rising to unite the warring tribes of Britain against Saxon invaders?

The Akira That Wasn’t — And Why That Matters.

Let’s not forget that for nearly a decade, Waititi was poised to direct a live-action Akira—a project steeped in high-stakes politics, psychic warfare, and social collapse. It never materialised, but his involvement reveals something vital: Waititi isn’t afraid of dense, layered, and controversial material.

The War King trilogy, rooted in the suppressed history of Britain's true royal bloodline, is every bit as controversial as Akira, if not more so. Tackling it will require a director who isn’t afraid to poke the establishment—and do it with a smile.

Waititi’s Akira ambitions now morph naturally into King Arthur II. He’s already done the homework. And more importantly, he’s used to upsetting the apple cart.

A Director Who Dares to Ask: What If the Myths Were Wrong?

That question—What if everything we thought we knew about King Arthur is wrong?—sits at the heart of Wilson and Blackett’s work. Their Arthur isn’t the stuff of fairy tales; he’s a real historical figure, erased from the record by centuries of propaganda and mistranslation.

Who better than Waititi to tackle such a challenge?

He’s already played with sacred cows in Thor, portrayed Hitler as a cartoonish imaginary friend, and turned vampire lore into mockumentary gold. He doesn’t just think outside the box—he rewrites the box’s origin story.

A Cautionary Note: Don’t Let the Laughs Overpower the Legend.

Of course, the danger is obvious: too much humour, and The War King becomes Monty Python 2.0. That’s the line Waititi must walk carefully.

But he’s done it before. Ragnarok was hilarious without cheapening Odin’s death. Jojo Rabbit made us laugh without trivialising the Holocaust. The War King will demand that same respect—and if Waititi brings his A-game, the result could be a masterpiece: a trilogy that’s thrilling, provocative, and—most importantly—true.

Final Verdict: Long Shot or Legend in the Making?

For fans of the True Story of King Arthur, the idea of Taika Waititi taking the reins might feel like a lightning bolt from a clear sky. But sometimes the boldest casting is the most inspired. Waititi has the vision, the nerve, and the narrative chops to steer this ship through uncharted waters.

In the end, King Arthur II didn’t follow tradition. He broke it. Maybe his modern-day director should do the same.

The Truth About King Arthur

King Arthur is the world’s best loved King, as popular as any other King in civilised history, including King Tutankhamun, King Solomon or even the King of all Kings, Jesus Christ. What most people may not be aware of, is that what we know of King Arthur today, is based on a number of misconceptions from the Victorian era. Now for the first time in over 1500 years, historical detectives Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett, have rediscovered the truth about King Arthur, and that there were in-fact two great King Arthur's, who have been mistakenly rolled into one. King Arthur II was a real historical figure, who’s life and times, has been well documented in the ancient Welsh Khurmic records. As the prophecy of King Arthur begins to come true, here are the top 10 misconceptions about King Arthur, based on the historical research of Alan Wilson, Baram Blackett and Ross Broadstock.

The legend of King Arthur is one of the most popular and enduring in British history. However, many of the details of the legend are not actually true. In fact, there is some debate about whether or not there was ever a single King Arthur.

Here are some of the most common misconceptions about King Arthur:

There was more than one King Arthur. There is evidence to suggest that there were actually several different kings who were combined into one figure over time. For example, the names "Arthur" and "Pendragon" were common in Celtic Britain, and there were several different kings who ruled during the 5th and 6th centuries who had these names.
King Arthur didn't pull a sword from a stone to become King. This famous story was first mentioned in the 12th century, and there is no evidence to suggest that it actually happened. In fact, it is more likely that Arthur was a legitimate king who inherited his throne.
Merlin was not a wizard. Merlin is often portrayed as a wise old wizard, but there is no evidence to suggest that he was actually magical. In fact, he is more likely to have been a real person who was a skilled advisor and Warlord in his own right.
Guinevere didn't have an affair with Lancelot. This famous story is also first mentioned in the 12th century, and there is no evidence to suggest that it actually happened. In fact, it is more likely that Guinevere was a faithful wife who was wrongly accused of adultery, though being fair to history, she was a flirt and it was an issue.
King Arthur created The Round Table. The Round Table is a symbol of equality and fellowship, which was actually created by King Arthur. Breaking away from the traditional structure of a rectangle table, King Arthur II created his Round Table, so that everyone was equal.
King Arthur invented the Summer 'Festive' Games. The Summer 'Festive' Games are a tradition that dates back to ancient Greece, and was used by King Arthur to keep his Army and population challenged, pushed and primed for action, during times of peace. In fact, not only did King Arthur create his Summer Games, he actively participated in them.
King Arthur’s son did not kill him. The story of Arthur's death is retold in ancient Welsh poems and chronicles. It is more likely that he died in battle, than at the hands of his son.
King Arthur didn’t give Excalibur to the Lady of the Lake. The story of Excalibur is also complicated and there are many different versions. However, it is more likely that the story of Excalibur is nothing more than Hollywood fiction.
King Arthur didn’t exactly die in battle. The story of Arthur's death is that a native savage speared him in his heart, having just taken his armour off, after a long day in battle against the Red Indians of Kentucky, America. Born a War King, it was destined Arthur would die in battle, rather than any other cause of death.
King Arthur’s Kingdom was destroyed by asteroid debris. This is a new theory that has not been widely accepted by historians. However, it is an interesting possibility that could explain the sudden disappearance of Arthur and his kingdom, explaining the advent of the Dark Ages. A period of 7-11 years when Britain was reduced to a toxic wasteland, and nothing grew.

The truth about King Arthur is that he is a complex figure who has been shrouded in myth and legend for centuries. While there is ample evidence to prove he was a real historical person, much of what we know about him is based on Hollywood fiction.

The legend of King Arthur continues to inspire people all over the world, and it is a reminder of the power of stories to shape our understanding of the past.

Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Confusion of Ancient British History

Geoffrey of Monmouth was a 12th-century historian who wrote a book called Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain). This book was very popular and influential, and it helped to shape the way that people thought about ancient British history. However, Geoffrey's book was also full of fiction and exaggeration, and it has done much to confuse our understanding of the past.

One of the most famous stories in Geoffrey's book is the story of King Arthur. Geoffrey claims that Arthur was a great king who united Britain and led his knights in the quest for the Holy Grail. However, there is no historical evidence to support Geoffrey's claims. In fact, most historians believe that Arthur was a fictional character.

Geoffrey also made up many other stories about ancient British history. He claimed that King Lear was a real king, and that he was the father of King Arthur. He also claimed that Merlin was a real wizard, and that he helped Arthur to become king. These stories are all fiction, and they have done much to confuse our understanding of ancient British history.

Geoffrey of Monmouth was a talented writer, and his book was very popular. However, he was also a careless historian, and he made up many stories that are not supported by historical evidence. As a result, his book has done much to confuse our understanding of ancient British history.

In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in studying ancient British history. However, historians are still struggling to separate fact from fiction in Geoffrey's book. As a result, our understanding of ancient British history remains incomplete.

Despite the confusion that Geoffrey of Monmouth has caused, his book has also had a positive impact on British culture. The stories of King Arthur and Merlin have inspired countless writers, artists, and filmmakers. As a result, the legend of King Arthur continues to be one of the most popular and enduring stories in British history.

Top 10 Misconceptions about King Arthur

Delivering a steady and staple diet of Hollywood movies, the legend of King Arthur has been told and retold throughout the decades. Prophesied to return in the UK’s darkest hour, King Arthur’s myth has endured throughout the centuries and has never disappeared from the British psyche.

While the main characters of King Arthur’s story are set in stone; namely Excalibur, Merlin, Guinevere and the Round Table, there are a number of common misconceptions about King Arthur which most people don’t know.

The first is that King Arthur didn't need to pull a sword from a stone to become King. He was born to be King.

Rediscovered by historical detectives Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett, the legend of King Arthur is being retold, in a way never heard before since the Dark Ages.

Having published a number of books on the subject, ranging from ‘Arthur The War King,’ ‘Artorius Rex Discovered,’ ‘The King Arthur Conspiracy’ and ‘Moses in the Hieroglyphs’, Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett have finally revealed the true story of our nation’s greatest King, King Arthur II - The War king.

Here are the top 10 misconceptions of King Arthur, based on the historical research of Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett.

1. There was more than one King Arthur

There were actually up to five King Arthur's in Britain’s ancient history. The first King Arthur was the eldest son of Magnus Maximus, grandson of the British Constantine the Great, Emperor of Rome. King Arthur I lived between 355-388 AD in Britain and according to the ancient Welsh chronicles, (the basis of Wilson and Blackett’s research), in 383AD conquered Gaul, Spain, Southern Germany, Switzerland and Italy; maintaining the royal dynasty, which would see the second King Arthur born on Christmas day 503AD, nearly 125 years later.

King Arthur II was born to Queen Onbrawst and King Maurice. Grandson of the Paramount Pendragon King Theoderic, whose royal lineage was claimed to go all the way back to the Holy family, to Anne, sister of Mary, mother of Jesus Christ. King Arthur II united Britain and laid the foundations for the King Arthur legend we remember today. An easy way to differentiate between the two most famous King Arthur’s in British history, is to remember that King Arthur I fought the Romans, and King Arthur II fought the Saxons.

2. King Arthur didn’t pull a sword from a stone to become King

All the King Arthur’s throughout history were born into their roles, and neither King Arthur I nor King Arthur II, needed to pull a sword from a stone to claim their right to rule. Royal inheritance was passed down between father and son; though as was the custom in ancient Celt society, if the son wasn’t fit to rule, then an uncle, cousin or nephew would naturally take over the role. This happened to King Arthur II, whereupon his father King Maurice suffering an injury that left him lame, found himself Paramount King of all Britain at the age of 15-years-old. He would go on to win 12 decisive battles against the Saxons, Picts and Scots; uniting Britain under one King, and building the foundations of a nation we call ‘Great Britain’ today.

The myth that King Arthur pulled a sword from a stone, from which only the rightful King of Britain could pull; is based on the vivid imagination of 15th-century-french-writer Chretien de Troyes, who first wrote about the Arthurian adventures, probably based on the 12th-century-historian Geoffrey of Monmouth's book, 'The History of the Kings of Britain.' Both Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett claim Geoffrey of Monmouth, made the mistake of joining both the historical King Arthur’s into one, and thus muddling ancient British history for centuries to come.

3. Merlin was not a wizard

Fictionalised as a wise old wizard and reinforced by countless Hollywood and TV films and shows, Merlin wasn’t actually a wizard, but a renowned and respected war-lord in his own right, who taught a young King Arthur everything he needed to know about being a great warrior. Quoted from ‘King Arthur The War King’ book; here is a young King Arthur’s school report; “Arthur was not the biggest or the strongest of the youths at Merlin Emry’s castle, yet he was by far the cleverest. In the mock fights and duels which they thought out to practise with their weapons, he was quite often beaten, but when tempers flared, and occasionally fought angrily with each other as boys do, he always emerged the winner.”

Common in 5th-6th century Celtic culture, boys from the nobility aged 7-14-years-old, were either sent into the clergy and taught to the priests, or sent to military camp to become warriors. Luckily for the future of Britain, a young King Arthur II was sent to the North Welsh mountains, to be taught by the old war-lord Merlin and other warriors of note, Moro and Tegid; who taught Arthur (and his peers), warfare, military strategy, how to read and write, count, play guitar, dance and win wars.

4. Guinevere didn’t have an affair with Lancelot

Reinforced by Hollywood as a adulterous wife sneaking behind King Arthur's, back to sleep with his best friend; nothing could be further than the truth, (though with the Chinese Whispers, whispering throughout the centuries, it's easy to see why Guinevere was painted in such a ‘scarlet’ light.) Lancelot was a peer of King Arthur II called King Maelgwyn Gwynedd, and never had any sexual relations with Guinevere!

According to ancient Welsh poems and stories the young Queen Guinevere (spelt Gwenhwyfar in Welsh), did have trouble adapting to court life. (Much the same as today with Meghan Markle's marriage to Prince Harry.) It’s said that Gwenhwyfar had tearful temper tantrums, and during one particular meal the young Queen was deliberately polite and charming to a particular young soldier, to arouse jealousy with her husband for being excluded from state affairs and other such matters of Kings importance. It is recounted that King Arthur wasn’t too happy and banished her to the Queen’s quarters for the next three days. Gwenhwyfar would soon become accustomed to the role as wife of a Paramount King of all Britain, and come to terms with her husband’s responsibilities and needs. Gwenhwyfar and Arthur would go on to have two children, Noe and Morgan.

5. King Arthur created The Round Table

Muddling ancient British history for centuries to come, 12th-century-historian Geoffrey of Monmouth really has made a hash of ancient British history, though to his credit, he did get some things right. For example, King Arthur really did create the Round Table.

Breaking tradition with the established seating plan of the most important people at the top, with the less important people to the left, right and below, King Arthur blew all that elitist tradition away, by adopting a round table, at which everyone had an equal say and presence. King Arthur heralded a new era of equality, leadership and innovation. Many of King Arthur’s innovations, laws and principles, were copied by the Plantagenet royal dynasty, (who reigned Britain from 1154 to 1485); building the foundations of British life today.

6. King Arthur invented the Summer 'Festive' Games

Having driven the Saxon hordes from their lands, and united the Kingdom, King Arthur had brought peace and prosperity to his people, but needed something to keep his highly trained, battle-ready and experienced army, busy and occupied. King Arthur’s Great Festival Games was his answer. Every year to celebrate Easter, he would hold a Summer Festive Games, in which everyone from his Kingdom, from young apprentices, to Freeman, to Nobleman, to battled hardened veterans; could compete against each other, across a wide and varied range of competitions, including horse races, sword-and-shield contests, hounds and falcon competitions, archery, you name it, you could compete in it. It’s mentioned in ‘King Arthur The War King’, that King Arthur himself, ‘laughed and congratulated the winners when he lost, setting the correct example of the games’.

Attracting Kings, Queen’s, Princes, Princesses, Noble-men, Free-men, and travellers from across the nation, (and abroad from Brittany), the Summer ‘Festive’ Games would last for 12 days, (one day for each apostle), and end with an Easter parade lead by King Arthur himself, carrying various Holy relics and his shield, (depicting the Virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus in her arms), through the city, followed by his priests and bishops.

7. King Arthur’s son did not kill him

While incest may have been a concern for 17th and 18th century Saxon and Norman royal dynasties, no such issues were a concern during the lives of the ancient Welsh royal families. Hollywood of the 21st century, has always depicted the demise of King Arthur to be a sordid and murky affair of family incest, betrayal and murder, but contrary to modern gossip and rumour, there was no history of incest, murder and betrayal in any of the Welsh royal dynasties of ancient Britain.

According to the historical research of Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett published in their book ‘Artorius Rex Discovered’, Modred was his nephew and his sons were called Morgan and Noe. King Arthur died sometime in 567AD in Kentucky, America. The truth is often more amazing than fiction, and in the case of King Arthur II, that’s definitely true. Keep reading and you’ll find out just how King Arthur II really died; (no doubt the same way King Arthur I died too!)

8. King Arthur didn’t give Excalibur to the Lady of the Lake

King Arthur didn’t return Excalibur to the ‘Lady in the Lake’, fatally wounded. While the truth of King Arthur II’s death is even more spectacular than most people would ever imagine; the notion that a mysterious amphibious-type woman, lived in a lake, took custody of a sword, is french romantic rubbish and obviously never happened.

The hard truth about the King Arthur story is that there was no ‘magical sword’ called ‘Excalibur’, that mysteriously found itself stuck into a stone. There was no quest for the Holy Grail, and there was definitely never a ‘Lady of the Lake’, who regained ownership of Excalibur upon King Arthur’s final demise.

9. King Arthur didn’t ‘exactly’ die in battle

The truth of how the legendary King Arthur II actually died is more amazing than you'll ever imagine; though luckily for you you're about to find out. He didn't die in battle at the hands of his son Mordred; instead, he died having taken off his armour after a strenuous day battling the red Indians of Kentucky USA. A solitary native Indian boy had slipped through the mediaeval defences and stealthily crept up to him unseen, before plunging his spear into his heart, ending the life of Britain’s greatest hero. Long live the King.

An ancient Welsh poem recalls the story of his body and belongings being wrapped in three deer skins sewn together, and sailed back across the Atlantic, to return his remains to his birth land. Laid in a cave in the Welsh countryside, King Arthur II’s bones were finally laid to rest on the grounds of Christianity's first church, St Peter’s Church in Glamorgan, South Wales. Until today, his remains lay undisturbed.

10. King Arthur’s Kingdom was destroyed by asteroid debris

King Arthur II’s kingdom was destroyed by asteroid debris in 567AD. The destruction has been remembered in history as the ‘Dark Ages’. With most of Britain devastated, the land toxic and unfarmable for between 7-11 years, nothing could stop the Saxons pouring in once the land became habitable again. King Arthur II’s brother Madoc, had just returned from across the Atlantic bringing back a black skinned man, with stories of a great land without Kings. An ancient Welsh poem recounts the dozens of questions King Arthur asked the traveller about the new land. In this time of crisis and a last ditch effort to save his people, King Arthur II salvaged what he could, built 700 ships and sailed his whole army across the Atlantic ocean, up the Mississippi river to Kentucky, before dismantling his ships to build homes, discovering America centuries before Christopher Columbus did.

Having found a new land in which his people could settle and grow, he didn’t take into account the ancient travel routes of the native Red Indians, who regularly travelled through Kentucky, and who took offence at being blocked by this new arrival from across the great sea. Ironically after the great battles with King Arthur’s armies in Kentucky, they avoided the area, going around rather than through, in respect for the many lives lost on both sides, fearful of the fields of blood and the spirits which remained in torment. King Arthur II died sometime in 569AD, assassinated by a native indian savage , and has been remembered as Britain’s greatest King ever since. With Brexit dominating Britain’s politics, isn’t it any wonder that the British hold an inbred hostility towards Europe, and an independent spirit of self-rule. King Arthur II was a real historical figure, and according to Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett, was a King, from a long line of Kings leading all the way back to the Holy family themselves. If you thought the news King Arthur was really amazing enough; simply hold onto your hats, when you hear that according to Wilson and Blackett’s research; Jesus Christ survived the crucifixion and came to South Wales for sanctuary, where after he was known as the Lame Fisher King!

GUERRILLA DEMOCRACY NEWS

Monday, 4 August 2025

Could Taika Waititi Be the Wild Card We Need to Direct the King Arthur: The War King Trilogy?

No comments:

Post a Comment