Bryan Singer developing a remake of Excalibur

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Mike Fleming breaks the news on his blog here that Bryan Singer has signed to develop a remake of John Boorman's Excalibur, with an eye to directing, for WB and Legendary Pictures. Singer is of course also developing Battlestar Galactica for Universal. His next film, though, will likely be Jack the Giant Killer for New Line/Legendary Pictures.

 

[Vonstadt]

Gods, not another remake....

 

[Middle Earther]

I would love to see a good King Arthur picture! Looking forward to see what happens with this!

 

[Allyn Gibson]

It appears that Warren Ellis is writing the script. See here. I'm thinking these are the same projects. Otherwise, two Hollywood projects entitled "Excalibur" at the same time? It's possible, but Occam's Razor here, people.

 

[Derishton]

I think this may be the same project, but there are two Arthur projects (at least): Brian K. Vaughn is writing one, too.

The problem with recent Arthurian films is that they attempt to do (a) the whole story every time; and (b) the same aspect of the story. The medieval Arthurian tradition was somehow more flexible, establishing Arthur's court as a setting so it could tell multiple stories. I hope one of these two projects does something like that, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Hyperspace05]

Why remake such a classic and great film? Ugh.

Although you never know, I suppose it could be good.

But I would prefer to see a more original take on Arthurian legends. Go back to the source, not a previous movie. It's as if the writers/producers are unaware that Excalibur was based on a previous work (or set of works) .

 

[Samurai8472]

OOH! maybe he can get Patrick Stewart back. Stewart had a part in "Excalibur"

Now Stewart can be Merlin complete with silver bald cap

I remember my English teacher showing the movie.

She had to shield us from the nudity(she stood in front of the TV LOL), commented on the ketchup blood and the director using his daughter in a sex scene.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

They should just stop with the King Arthur crap. Seriously, it's all the same and it's long since worn out its welcome through sheer overexposure. The last thing I liked from that milieu was Mary Stewart's Crystal Cave/Hollow Hills novels which iirc were written in the 1960s. Maybe someone should take a swipe at adapting those, but Excalibur? Meh and double meh.

 

[Scout101]

Does Singer just rehash other people's work at this point? When was the last time he directed a movie that WASN'T a ripoff/remake of another movie or tv show?

 

[Forbin]

Wait wait wait ... why remake Excalibur specifically? Why not make a King Arthur movie with its own identity? This seems silly - the source material is the legend, not the film.

 

[Forbin]

OOH! maybe he can get Patrick Stewart back. Stewart had a part in "Excalibur"

Now Stewart can be Merlin complete with silver bald cap

I remember my English teacher showing the movie.

She had to shield us from the nudity(she stood in front of the TV LOL), commented on the ketchup blood and the director using his daughter in a sex scene.

Did she point out that the armor was 1,000 years ahead of its time, and Monty Python had more accurate costuming?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Wait wait wait ... why remake Excalibur specifically? Why not make a King Arthur movie with its own identity? This seems silly - the source material is the legend, not the film.

At a guess? Announcing the film as a remake and negotiating with Boorman is probably just a way of keeping him from filing lawsuits in case the film develops in directions similar to Excalibur. They're basically buying the rights to similar work, to keep the lawyers at bay. Yes, King Arthur is very much in the public domain, but why take the chance if you don't have to?

 

[Greg Cox]

Does Singer just rehash other people's work at this point? When was the last time he directed a movie that WASN'T a ripoff/remake of another movie or tv show?

Er, VALKYRIE . . . couple of months ago.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

D.J. Caruso was previously attached to direct Jack the Giant Killer. This is the description of the film:

When a princess is kidnapped, a long-standing peace between men and giants becomes threatened, and a young farmer is given an opportunity to lead a dangerous expedition to the giant kingdom to rescue her.

 

[BalokINACTIVE]

I wonder if it will be more colorful and upbeat!

 

[ManOnTheWave]

She had to shield us from the nudity(she stood in front of the TV LOL), commented on the ketchup blood and the director using his daughter in a sex scene.

Did she point out that the armor was 1,000 years ahead of its time, and Monty Python had more accurate costuming?

Mine did. She also sheilded us from the evil, evil boobies.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Does Singer just rehash other people's work at this point? When was the last time he directed a movie that WASN'T a ripoff/remake of another movie or tv show?

Er, VALKYRIE . . . couple of months ago.

Exactly. He has also produced Trick R Treat, a horror anthology film directed by X2 and Superman Returns scribe Mike Dougherty.

 

[Nerys Myk]

They should just stop with the King Arthur crap. Seriously, it's all the same and it's long since worn out its welcome through sheer overexposure. The last thing I liked from that milieu was Mary Stewart's Crystal Cave/Hollow Hills novels which iirc were written in the 1960s. Maybe someone should take a swipe at adapting those, but Excalibur? Meh and double meh.

I recommend reading Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles, a very down and dirty, historically accurate (or as close as one can get) take on Arthur. The Camulod Chronicles by Jack Whyte isn't too bad, but runs out of steam by the time Arthur appears.

 

[Starbreaker]

King Arthur is old and busted.

 

[CaptainCanada]

I recommend reading Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles, a very down and dirty, historically accurate (or as close as one can get) take on Arthur. The Camulod Chronicles by Jack Whyte isn't too bad, but runs out of steam by the time Arthur appears.

I'd second the recommendation of Cornwell's work; Whyte's are okay.

There has yet to be a truly great King Arthur film (a serious one, anyway); Excalibur comes the closest, since it doesn't shy way from all the fantasy, and hopefully a remake won't either.