Bryan Singer developing a remake of Excalibur

[LeahBoBo]

Whatever this is, I don't want it stripped down of its mythological and fantastic aspects - that turned me off of the Clive Owen movie. I want Merlin a WIZARD, a sword of power, a love triangle.

And yes Excalibur is a classic which was based on Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur. Perhaps Singer should look to that for his take?

Sharr

Ditto. And I just gagged over warrior-woman, tribal-painted Guinevere. I mean come on. Can't they ever remake a classic true to the time period, without trying to make a female character a rip-off of today's strong woman=man with tits caricature?

 

[DarthPipes]

Is Singer ever going to do anything original?

It'll be hard to find a Merlin as good as Nicol Williamson.

 

[Immolatus]

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

I agree another king arthur film would be nice, but why a remake of Excalibur? can't they leave that movie alone and do something original?

 

[Rulius]

As the poster above said... why not work with the original material? It's been a classic story for a looong time. Doesn't need a whole lot of embellishment.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I'm conflicted about this announcement. On the one hand as a Singer fan I'm really curious to see what he comes up with visually and who he casts in the roles we're all familiar with from the original, I mean come on who can really pull off Nicol Willamson's brilliant performance as Merlin? The other hand EXCALIBUR is a classic that I don't think needs to be remade. If this is Warren Ellis project he was talking about on his blog a few weeks ago then I might be a happy man when this finally does come out.

 

[ST-One]

Whatever this is, I don't want it stripped down of its mythological and fantastic aspects - that turned me off of the Clive Owen movie. I want Merlin a WIZARD, a sword of power, a love triangle.

And yes Excalibur is a classic which was based on Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur. Perhaps Singer should look to that for his take?

Sharr

Ditto. And I just gagged over warrior-woman, tribal-painted Guinevere. I mean come on. Can't they ever remake a classic true to the time period, without trying to make a female character a rip-off of today's strong woman=man with tits caricature?

True to the time period?
Knights in shining armour isn't very 6th-century-like you know?

 

[Blue_Trek]

The trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOqlV4Le9Tk

 

[Forbin]

Excalibur, is my favorite sword and armor movie, the armor is the best I have ever seen in any movie, and it's not CGI.

And it's utterly inaccurate for the 6th century time period. Full plate "suits of armor" weren't in use until almost a thousand years later. Monty Python got the costuming more accurate.

 

[Agenda]

Excalibur, is my favorite sword and armor movie, the armor is the best I have ever seen in any movie, and it's not CGI.

And it's utterly inaccurate for the 6th century time period. Full plate "suits of armor" weren't in use until almost a thousand years later. Monty Python got the costuming more accurate.

I believe Boorman readily acknowledges in the DVD that Excalibur isn't meant to capture historical truth but "mythic truth". A lot of people imagine King Arthur and co. with that type of armor, so that's what they went with.

 

[Blue_Trek]

Excalibur, is my favorite sword and armor movie, the armor is the best I have ever seen in any movie, and it's not CGI.

And it's utterly inaccurate for the 6th century time period. Full plate "suits of armor" weren't in use until almost a thousand years later. Monty Python got the costuming more accurate.

Since it's science fiction do I really care???

It looks good and it's real, best part was the sounds of real metal for excellent realism.

 

[LeahBoBo]

Excalibur, is my favorite sword and armor movie, the armor is the best I have ever seen in any movie, and it's not CGI.

And it's utterly inaccurate for the 6th century time period. Full plate "suits of armor" weren't in use until almost a thousand years later. Monty Python got the costuming more accurate.

Since it's science fiction do I really care???

It looks good and it's real, best part was the sounds of real metal for excellent realism.

Exactly. And I was talking about characterization not damn costuming.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Representations of the Round Table in fiction usually go with plate armour, so I'd rather see that.

 

[Forbin]

Well, it's fiction set in a specific time period. My personal preference is to see the look of the time period accurately represented. You wouldn't film the Battle of Agincourt with soldiers in 21st century uniform and Kevlar body armor. And Agincourt wasn't as long ago from now as full-suit armor was from Arthur's time.

YMMV, of course.

That said, Excalibur is still one of my favorite films, just because is so freakin' gorgeous to watch and listen to. In the moment of the film, and considering it's a fantasy-world anyway, one forgives.

And, btw, it is a LOT of fun to watch Excalibur and Monty Python & Holy Graile back-to-back!

 

[CaptainCanada]

Most Arthurian stories (the old ones, especially) have no specific time frame; and Arthur, if he existed at all in real life, is incredbily fictionalized. There have been some good revisionist Arthur stories told (the aforementioned Cornwell trilogy), but after Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter I really want to see modern technology deliver the Camelot of classic lit, the one that exists in the popular imagination. Excalibur gave us that, as best it could.

 

[Aragorn]

Ditto. And I just gagged over warrior-woman, tribal-painted Guinevere. I mean come on. Can't they ever remake a classic true to the time period, without trying to make a female character a rip-off of today's strong woman=man with tits caricature?

Wait... there was a woman with tits in Clive Owen's King Arthur movie?!?!? Where?

 

[the_wildcard]

Hahah remake? But the original was so good. I remember as a kid, watching the first Excalibur movie. Haha those few begining scenes were....ummm...quite enlightning.....haha

 

[Aragorn]

Considering the source story, why would this be called a remake? Ethan Hawke's Hamlet isn't a remake of Kenneth Brannagh's Hamlet, which isn't a remake of Mel Gibson's Hamlet. Batman begins isn't a remake of Tim Burton's Batman.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Considering the source story, why would this be called a remake? Ethan Hawke's Hamlet isn't a remake of Kenneth Brannagh's Hamlet, which isn't a remake of Mel Gibson's Hamlet. Batman begins isn't a remake of Tim Burton's Batman.

If it was simply a new version of the Arthurian legend, one not directly based on a previous film, then it wouldn't be a remake. But in this case they specifically bought all rights to John Boorman's Excalibur and, by all indications, are indeed remaking it.

 

[Marc]

Is Singer ever going to do anything original?

But is Singer involved as producer/writer or is he merely the director?

And FWIW I never was that impressed with Excalibur but you can put me down as another would would love to see Cornwall's Warlord Trilogy on screen (probably would have to be to a mini-series or something - too much to fit in a move unless took the LOTR path but I'm not sure it's well enough known for that).

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

But is Singer involved as producer/writer or is he merely the director?

Singer is involved as a producer on all of his directing projects. He's also started producing films for others to direct. He gets involved in shaping the story, as all major directors do, but he usually isn't a screenwriter as such. He's had a story credit on a few of his films, with Public Access, his directorial debut, the only time he's been credited as co-writer.