Options
Is Camelot real?
Skinny Tree
Posts: 1,348 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Emma doesn't know. 
I think Gary will be very disappointed if one of his past lives turns out to be complete fiction.
I think Gary will be very disappointed if one of his past lives turns out to be complete fiction.
0
Comments
Oops my bad,
In that case he'll probably be disappointed but put a positive slant on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Camlann
Emma is no genius either.
That's okay, I like her anyway (at least when she controls the screetching).
Come on! She's far too dim to make that reply!
By eight a.m. the morning fog had flown...
Don't let it be forgot
That once there was a spot
For one brief shining moment that was known
As Camelot.
I am sure that Gary will be happy to see some real castles.
The thing is this is hardly the first time Gary Busey has been to Britain. He was in Nicolas Roeg's Insignificance, and that was main filmed in Wembley.
Oh, he couldn't have been. Don't you know he's never really appeared in any films of significance? Bit player that he is.
But ... he said he was looking forward to taking his wife and son to those sites. And just because he visited the country (at least) once thirty years ago, well, his interests have likely changed since then. If, during or after filming, he had any time to tour the country.
As to the BIB, well 'Point Break' 'Lethal Weapon' 'Under Siege' 'Fear and Loathing' 'Lost Highway' and especially 'A Star Is Born' are hardly insignificant movies (and Barbra Streisand was extremely effusive about his work in the last).
Support actor yes. 'Bit player'? - no prize for that one.
On the subject of King Arthur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur
"Historical documents for the post-Roman period are scarce, so a definitive answer to the question of Arthur's historical existence is unlikely. Sites and places have been identified as "Arthurian" since the 12th century, but archaeology can confidently reveal names only through inscriptions found in secure contexts. The so-called "Arthur stone", discovered in 1998 among the ruins at Tintagel Castle in Cornwall in securely dated 6th-century contexts, created a brief stir but proved irrelevant. Other inscriptional evidence for Arthur, including the Glastonbury cross, is tainted with the suggestion of forgery. Although several historical figures have been proposed as the basis for Arthur] no convincing evidence for these identifications has emerged.