How the heck would you ground any Arthurian legend stories?
From an aesthetic standpoint, by making all the swords one handers, forgoing any kind of serious plate armor look that isn't grounded in Roman designs, forgoing any kind of knighthoods and relying on war bands, showing castles as being abandoned and occasionally refurbished Roman forts, making the enemies predominantly Saxons, Angles and Jutes with their namesake knifes featured prominently, and by making the political situation in Britain where there's dozens of kings, hundreds of princes, and remaining the top dog requires being a certified, grade A member of House McBadass (house words: Come get some, if you're hard enough!)
Oh, and by doing the whole "deception and fortune instead of magic" thing. I've only seen it done well once. In the book The Dragon's Son, if you want to give it a try (incidentally, it's one of only two adaptations that preserve the classic Romance arc that I like). Other versions are popular, like Bernard Cornwell's Excalibur series.
I'm actually liking the idea of Arthur as a dirty handed warrior who has to become a leader via good old fashioned butt kicking. Too often, fantastical variations of the story are so enamored with him becoming the perfect king as soon as possible that he grabs the sword and just becomes the boss. Seeing them tackle the legend without going straight for a rote repetition of the same tired story beats is encouraging. I've read waaaaayyyy to many adaptations that treat the Romances as gospel to their Arthuriana. It's freaking annoying.
I'm also interested because I'm writing a King Artur story myself; theoretically, if this radically different and grimier (not gritty and grim, just dirtier) version is a success, it might mean my story might have an actual chance of being published without having to stuff in all the stupid freakin' incest and soap opera BS that sneaks into even the "historical fiction" versions of the story.
