this is very typical of Hollywood now a days. No one is original anymore so they turn to remaking classic movies.

The movie was perfect the way it was and is considered to be a classic! Why remake it?

I hope it isn't a literal remake, like the Gus Van Sant version of Psycho back in 1998 - a miserable affair. If so, it is doomed to failure by comparison to the original.

Someone on this thread said that Bernard Cornwall's Warlord series would be a good project. I agree, though it would be better served by a TV mini-series. I'm not sure how well Cornwell's negative view of the late Romano-British Church would be received.

If Excalibur is set in a Medieval NeverNeverLand, I'd like it to be a 13th century one with knights still wearing maille.

Quite frankly, it is much easier for a director to say that he's remaking 'Excalibur' than to say "I'm making a movie based on La' Morte de Arthur."

Given the fact that Arthur as we know him is a creation of high/late medieval poets who is given his definitive English form by Mallory in the 15th century, I think that plate armour makes too much sense not to use, since Arthur is a mythic figure, whatever his historical origins.

As to the redundancy of a remake compared to the original, in many ways the original movie is quite well done, but speaking as a younger (earlier 20's) person who wasn't even born when it was made, the movie is incredibly dated. The kind of stylized and dreamlike effect (and oh God the soundtrack, except for the Wagner) these days comes across as just a rather quaint if not actually cheesy product of it's times ("it's so early 80's, dude!") rather than a timeless masterpiece, despite it's many virtues. The way that fantasy movies are -done- has changed so completely after LOTR that it can't help but look dated. Now I have enough faith in Singer to hope that he won't simply remake "Lord of the Rings" with Arthurian characters (look at how poorly cribbing Jackson's style works for the Narnia movies!), but still, movies have moved on, and unlike say Apocalypse Now (still timeless, -despite- it's soundtrack) Excalibur no longer resonates with younger folks today.

-Wilhelm

Hehehe, if you want a REALLY bad "medieval" movie, try "Darkest Knight". If it isn't the worst thing you've ever seen, I don't know what is.

M.

I have high hopes for this remake. Bryan Singer is a talented director, there's no question. I loved the first two X-Men movies, though what does worry me is that he might once again take the direction he took with Superman Returns and rely much too heavily on the original film rather than create his own vision of the story and characters.

SR wasn't exactly the worst movie ever but it certainly lacked in the originality department and was a bit of a snoozefest. Had Singer tried to break away from the original and did his own thing, it might have turned out to be a more unique film. I'm all for paying homage and all that, but if you're doing something like Superman or Excalibur, might as well do it big and do some different that audiences haven't seen before.

That said, I love the original Excalibur movie. It has a dreamy, timeless quality about it with the way it was shot and directed. The knights were gritty and dirty and pulled no punches, in contrast to the highly sanitized Disney-esque shenanigans of First Knight. And the supporting cast for Excalibur were wonderful too; Merlin had the right mix of wily and uncanny; and the actor playing him had his funny moments with the character too (the Clive Owen King Arthur movie took itself WAY too seriously). Helen Mirren as Morgana was great too; very sexy and menacing at the same time.

Sure, some of the effects look somewhat dated and campy by today's standards, but who could forget the elaborate costumes, rousing main musical themes (come on, it's Carmen Urbana, sp), and the classic story of love and betrayal at the heart of the film? That, and the swords. :) It's one of the movies that sparked my interest in weaponry, history, and fantasy back when I was a kid.

Mr. Lui,

I agree with you completely about both movies. Furthermore I think Singer should have cast someone who resembled Superman and not somebody who resembled Christopher Reeves. I thought that was a bit mawkinsh.
And as for Excalibur I think your right on the money. I also think that digital/computer SFX are a bit overused and can be a shortcut to creativity. Good old fashioned film making tricks of the trade can often be just as affective and sometimes more. When you see digital stuff you immediatly know how it was done, sometimes it makes me lose interest in what I'm watching.
If anyone has the dvd of excalibur I recommend listening to John Boorman's commentary.

So I watched the original earlier. My GODS that was boring :/

M.