Lucky SOB...:)

Yep. That was the effect the film had on me, even from blurry pan-n-scan showings on A&E in the early '90s, where I first discovered this wonder.
Boorman highlights pure images to create a symbolism that climbs on the shoulders of his masterly usage of Wagner and Trevor Jones and completely immerses you.

*cue Siegfried* "I am your humble knight. And I swear allegiance to the courage in your veins. So strong it is, its source MUST be Uther Pendragon. I doubt ya no more."

*cue Parsifal* "What is the secret of the grail? Who does it serve?"

Excalibur is one of those rare, rare major-studio releases that must be watched from beginning to the very end--right through the huge, white Warner/Orion logo.

It boggles my mind how misunderstood and criminally ignored this film has become. (Or maybe it doesn't: after all, American film audiences see Welsh, Scottish and Cockney accents in their studio escapism as a foreign-language barrier. :rolleyes: )

I cringe whenever I see copies of this in Wal-mart's bargain bin or stacked by the threes on the shelves at the local used CD stores. That factor does not work in the film's favor, that it has been released in EVERY home video format to consistently poor sales.

See, this kind of release is what makes projector systems worthwhile. I pined alone, fruitlessly, for a theatrical re-release of this foundational classic, and a proper remastering of the film really needs to happen. (Just to point out where Ciaran Hinds is in the film as "Lot": I can NEVER find him! :) )

What was the story with the first release? Was Boorman still too busy directing to properly supervise the transfer? His commentary seems almost careless at a couple of points that way (re: filming his daughter the way he did).

I have no problem with the matting or framing on my original DVD. The 5.1, on the other hand...not exactly 'discrete' or 'multi-channel'.

Excalibur may well be lost to history as the greatest Hollywood studio release ever ignored by the masses. The film's sheer inspirational power demands a comprehensive collector's edition with a proper stereo remix, but unless Criterion takes a keen interest in it, it won't happen. :(

Either you have a bootleg copy, or your equipment is improperly set up. In any event, there is NOTHING wrong with the framing on the DVD. Give me a scene where you see heads chopped off, and I'll happily post a screenshot directly from the DVD to refute you (be as precise as possible).

Damnit, nice one. I was so going to respond with that! -wink-

The framing to my eyes seems unusually tight, and that's on a display with virtually no overscan. I wasn't losing any heads or anything, but on a set with a good bit of overscan, I can definitely picture viewers being disappointed.

well the number of shots where the tops of people's heads are trimmed off are too numerous to mention... it's amazing to me anyone could miss it...

you want a specific scene?... ok how about where helen mirren's character has come to authur to deceive and have sex with the him and conceive his evil son... for most of the scene you see the cropped image of authur's face... and a profile of torso with her breast through the fishnet... because her head is completely cut off by the matte widescreen crop... finally when she leans down to be right on top of him her head comes into frame... at the end of the screen she tells him 'i could have killed you brother, but i want you to see your son rise to be king"...

that is only one of several shots where the open matte widescreen crop was just so blatant you'd have to be visually impaired to miss it...

or maybe one might believe the DP and director were preparing for hours for the scene saying 'even though there are only two people in the frame make sure we can't see one of them at all... let's make her a headless torso... um... for dramatic effect...'

I just watched the scene you are speaking of. I see nothing wrong with it. No chops or framing cuts. It is exactly as it was.

Chapter 30
1:32:45 -> 1:33:30

I won't be able to check this scene later till later tonight, and I don't remember it offhand- but what you describe, to me, sounds easily like something that was consicously planned.
It sounds like having her face enter frame at a specific point could be intended as a form of visual punctuation to what she is saying.

Directors and DPs use composition more thoughtfully than just making sure ever thing is clear and cleanly visible at all times. I don't think the criticism that "the tops of heads are frequently cut off" is a valid example to show improper framing. This transfer has been out there for years now and Boorman hasn't said a peep. If he had, Warner would have gone back and rectified it.

Hmmm...so does Casablanca. Let's remake it too........N O T

of course... good point but i am well aware of this...

ok the underlined is an excellent point... dammit... you mean i'm wrong about the DVD and i have a problem with Boorman's sense of framing?...

dammit...

i hate being wrong... that's bad enough... but i have long held on to the idea that a better release would come and all those problems with the cropping effect would be resolved... the idea that a new release won't come is infinitely WORSE than being wrong...

but i suppose this would mean i already have decent copy of the film at least... well 2 copies actually...

i've seen posts on the internet saying the laserdisc release was not so 'cropped' and the tops of everybody's heads were visible... at a few different places... several people saying the laserdisc release was the best for the framing issue...

i've even seen posts on the 'net discussing this matte widescreen problem... with a person saying they watched the VHS version they still had and the cropping was not there... and i remember having the VHS and not seeing the problem...

i hope i'm never bone headed enough to not listen to opposing ideas though...

do you ALL feel sure about this?... that the sense of 'crowded', as Adam put it, framing was intended... you've never seen a version where almost every character in any given scene had the top portion of their head cropped?... or characters would almost leave the frame as the camera panned or the characters moved?... or entire heads were cropped out of frame?...

i no longer have my VHS to compare myself... are these scenes the same on the HD DVD release?...

I don't have the disc, but it sounds to me like the DVD's framing may be a little tight, and that your TV is exaggerating it with too much overscan.

I'm not saying another release won't come at some point. Warner obviously felt this title has some appeal or it wouldn't have made it an early HD DVD release.
I'm sure a more feature packed SE may come down the road at some point-in fact, I would bet on it.
As to whether it will be 'better' well...

There are ways to make a film look different. "Better" is a purely subjective opinion- Did the Lowry digital refurb of Citizen Kane look better than all the previous versions of the film in circulation on home video? A lot of people unfamiliar with the film, thought it did- even some fans did, until they realized that Lowrys de-graining software had eliminated not only the fine grain, but things like raindrops in one scene as well.
Alien looked amazing when it got re-mastered and released in the uber-quadrilogy set- but a major difference between that and the earlier release was the films color timing was totally different. this effected colors, detail in shadows, the appearence of grain and other visual quaities. Alien was another movie I saw on its original release in the theater, but I have no clue which master was more 'faithful' to the original theatrical release prints. And it is also possible that Ridleys personal tastes could have changed with the passage of 24 years- so that instead of insisting on the original color timing, he suggested and approved timing that reflects a new asthetic goal that interests him. Does that make the new transfer with the new timing better? Again, its subjective- the only thing that is objective is the fact that the new one is 'director approved'.

Boorman could come back and decide he wants a new master of the film timed to de-emphasize grain, and then wants the contrast levels boosted and the blacks crushed a little, because he wants younger audiences to feel more comfortable watching the film since those are the asthetic attributes that are currently in fashion and he doesn't want his film to be viewed as out of fashion or out of date. But that wouldn't make it objectively better.
Objectively you can say the LD master is the better version is seeing the tops of people heads is important to you. Its a subjective matter if that framing is a deal killer to you (absent any definitive statement by Boorman either way...but even then, trusting the director only gets you so far. George Lucas lies up and down in regards to the original films)

Maybe the film was telecined better for the master created for LD, than when they re-did it for DVD?
On the other hand, maybe the LD framing was off. Maybe there was a specific intention to keep things tighter for a subliminal emotional reason?

I honestly don't know.
The only thing I can say for certain is- the last time I viewed the movie (which was on HD DVD with the same transfer used for the earlier dvd) I was never taken out of the film due to a feeling that the visual information was being compromised by poor framing- whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Just the opposite- I was more drawn in than I have ever been, save for the very first time I saw it when it was all new, fresh, and without precedent for me.

This thread needs screenshots.

Crap, I just checked this thread and I'm at work. If no one has done so before I get to it, I'll post some caps from the DVD when I get home tonight.

I had the same reaction rewatching this recently in HiDef as well...

~


'someday son all this will be yours'.... 'whaaaaaat, the curtains?'

:D

commander dan: Awesome cover, man.

Ditto! I just wish it was available at a non-pay website.

He wrote earlier he said he had black bars which makes me think he's watching it on a 4x3.

Actually, Excalibur was cut and "re-issued" with a PG-13 rating soon after it's initial R-rated release (Orion wanted to get more "kiddie" money, so they cut out some of the "naughty" scenes.) Both versions were made available to premium channel services in the early 1980s. (Remember, cable wasn't everywhere in 1982, so there were broadcast, satellite and even microwave "movie" channels back then.)

Amen. If it had a single cover price I might jump.

It's a great movie and I saw it when it was first released in the theaters back in 1982 - altho I don't remember if it was the "kiddie" version!

Seeing it again 25 years later, you have to admit, some of those special effects are pretty chessy now. As an example - the scene where the knights are charging down the forest after King Arthur comes back to life and all the plants and everything are returning to life - just looked pretty lame since it didn't all match up to the actual footage and was obviously "added" in.

But for the most part, it's a great movie.

Would be nice to be an SE released - complete with deleted scenes!

OK, here are clips from that scene. As you can see, the framing is fine:


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43...g?t=1183420349


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43...g?t=1183420396


There is a moment when her head rises above the upper frame, but that is a part of the natural framing, IMO.

I just finished watching this movie tonight probably because of this thread, and you're right it does look like it was full of chopped off heads at the top of the screen. It does need a better release but it's still a great movie and I just enjoyed watching it anyway. I haven't seen this movie for a long time and I came away satisfied that I spent my night watching it after not seeing it for probably a few years now. A great movie anyway.

Well, I guess I owe the OP something of an apology. I also happen to own the laserdisc widescreen version of Excalibur and threw it in tonight for comparison. The laserdisc does indeed have a small portion of extra visual information at the top of the frame. However, it is also missing an equivalent amount of information at the bottom of the frame (which is present on the DVD).

So which is the proper framing? Considering Boorman provides audio commentary on the DVD and was obviously watching the film as he talked, I guess I'll have to assume that the image he was seeing at the time is what he was expecting to see. Who knows?

At the very least, thanks for sparking interest in this film again. As I said, it's my favorite movie of all time.

indeed it is full of lopped-off heads.... i really like the movie and will watch the two copies i have on DVD... but the framing issue is just so blatant throughout... i've always hoped for better...

welcome... it's one of my all-time favorites too... i though it needed some discussion here... more than any movie i have always had a problem with this release... always wondered about the 'heads'...

see this thing with the laserdisc is what i've seen around 6-8 people in different places on the internet say... the framing is different and there isn't a 'Dawn of the Dead', head lop by a helicopter blade look every 2 minutes... that's kinda what it looks like...

i hope a better job of framing comes out sometime as it REALLY leaps out after a while of watching that almost every head is trimmed...

anyway thank for all the info and posts...

Because of a few recent threads where total love was thrown at this movie I ended up buying it in the DDD sale. Although this movie fits in perfectly with my favorite genre I have always hated it. I saw it once when it was first released, loathed it, and never watched it again. The main reason was that as a kid and early teen I LOVED King Arthur legends. I read everything there was. When I heard they were making a movie I nearly wet myself.

I was so disappointed when I saw it because it took (I felt in my righteous teen indignation) too many liberties with the legend, that and the lead was too ugly to be King Arthur. I never watched it again and firmly placed it in the "bad movie pile" in my head.

Well, I will be giving it another chance. I was 12 or 13 when I saw it last and I'm a bit more mature. Since I am no longer a die hard Arthur fan boy, maybe it will be a better movie. I hope to get to it tonight.

ADDED: In a cool bit of synchronicity, I am typing this from work and I just glanced down at the keyboard. Resting in the groove between the numbers and the function keys is a ball point pen that the previous user left. The black letters looking up at me spell "EXCALIBUR". It's from the casino in Vegas. It's kinda cool that I didn't notice until I started typing this post.

:lol:

I agree, though, nice to see a thread about Excalibur, and 3 pages! I haven't seen this film since I was a kid but images and music have been haunting me ever since. I really got into fantasy stuff after seeing it on The Movie Channel (R-rated films during the day time!). I wonder if the framing issue will ever be solved.

deputy dave, I hope you can take the film for what it is. Any adaptation will take liberties and should be judged on its own.

I actually was indifferent toward the Arthur legend until I saw Excalibur. Then I became absolutely mesmerized, first with the aesthetic Boorman created, then the story.

There are soooooo many different versions of the Lancelot, Merlin, Gawain and others' stories out there, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to make an Arthur adaptation and NOT be seen by some as taking "too many liberties" with the legend. Sir Galahad, the Siege Perilous and the Green Knight don't exist in Rospo Pallenberg's screenplay.

Having read the Excalibur screenplay--I went through a serious fanboy phase in college and bought it along with a set of production stills from the film--as well as Le Morte D'Arthur and the other most famous knights' tales spun off from the Arthur legend, there is no doubt in my mind that Pallenberg did an incredible job being inclusive and respectful of the most important plot and character arcs of the story.

Heck, if Excalibur took so many liberties, I'd hate to see what you thought of First Knight, Dave! :(

I'm very thankful for the DVD. My jerk roommates my freshman year of college wanted to see the original, uncut VHS I had of it so badly that they tore it out of my file cabinet and ended up breaking the cabinet and the tape. :mad:

It does take a certain maturity to appreciate Excalibur, IMHO. The violence and gore have certainly formed the litmus test of more than one of my relationships.

And it wasn't until my last year of college that I could watch it with anyone without SOMEONE quoting Monty Python! Hey, "Holy Grail" was funny, but can ANYBODY here digest the Arthur legend seriously?

Excalibur rules on that level. Totally stoking.

As far as taking liberties goes, sure it does (what movie doesn't), but it is about as faithful a version of Le Morte D'Arthur we're ever likely to see.

sorry :o

I noticed something quite amusing that I never really noted until the recent The Movie Channel HD airing I watched. (that was a run-on sentance wasn't it?)

when Merlin and Arthur are lying on the grass right before Merlin instructs him to meet up with his men, they both seem to go into a very brief sleep induced state. If you look really carefully, Merlin's head tilts awkwardly and his eyes literally roll into the back of his head - that was just plain out weird.

HBO used to air both versions, PG and R back in the 80's. They did the same with Saturday Night Fever too. Both R-versions aired after 8pm, while the PG-version aired during the day. There wasn't much good Sword and Sorcery back in the day, Lord of the Rings was a pipe dream and Excalibur and Conan were all we had. Conan was great, but Excalibur blew my mind. I read Le Morte De Arthur and all the grail lore I could find back then, even bought and borrowed books from libraries on the subject. When I found out that Grail legend was the base of the last Indiana Jones movie (back in 1989) I just about wet myself. I really hope Warner comes to the plate with a nice new 2-disc set. If Lost boys and New Jack City can have them, how about some love for Excalibur?

I just rewatched this last night. I was amazed as usual by its overall quality but ambivalent as usual about the use of Wagner's and Orff's music when so many great contemporary composers could have written a memorable original score until (as usual) I reflected that Boorman was maybe inspired by this music (which gives Frenchmen hives) to do the film in the first place. Therefore no Wagner, no Excalibur... (sigh)

I have always attributed the chopped-heads problem (not to mention the chopped feet problem, see Perceval entering the Grail castle) to the overscanning of my rear-projection widescreen TV. So I set up my DVD player to non-anamorphic "letterbox" and rewatched the whole film in Theater Wide Number 2 mode which frames the film in 1.77:1 but allows you, unlike full expansion, to scroll the matted picture up and down and this allowed me to see the un-overscanned picture (which any of you with a zoom out feature can do at the push of a button) and found that the problem was a little alleviated but was still there. (I also watched it windowframed to get the full impact of the 1.85:1 picture without horizontal overscanning.)

For instance, when Patrick Stewart rides up to free Excalibur from the rock, with overscanning, the sword's head is cut off. Without it, the sword's head is just shy of the top of the frame. Later, Stewart's head is neatly cut in two whatever framing method you use. Can this be considered an artistic choice to centre the viewer's attention on the sword and not the knight? I really, really wonder...

During Guinevere's trial, there are two vertical rows of courtiers, the ladies of the top row having their elaborate headdresses chopped off, which can hardly be considered an artistic choice.

I think the film suffered generally from the early 80's trend toward TV-style filming and framing where all camera operators (even in porno, where "Zoom the balls!" was the First Commandment) were used to TV's dumbed-down, scenery-saving, close-cropping and, further than that, that DVD transfers chose to place the matte at the wrong place, i.e. right in the vertical middle of the 1.37:1 picture instead of sliding it a little towards the top, as is usual.

Anyway, now that I know this, I can never enjoy this film as much again. Curse you, OP!

P.S.: This time around, I was also bothered by the horizontal jitter which is sometimes quite noticeable and is at all times a considerable waste of bitrate and definitely indicates the need for a major restoration effort.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2EVJ_MJ_3Us"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2EVJ_MJ_3Us" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I'm surprised that so many people in this thread seem unaware of the framing differences (LD vs. DVD). The tight DVD framing was discussed all over the place back in the day. Here's the HTF thread... and I know there was one here as well:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...p/t-65753.html

A couple of HD DVD threads, with screenshots:
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...nk&cd=17&gl=us
http://www.film-talk.com/forums/inde...howtopic=16417

I was wondering when someone would mention the HD-DVD version.

if you cue up the dvd or HD DVD specifically intending to watch the tops of peoples heads (as opposed to say, watching the movie), you'll be disappointed.

I put this in a few weeks back for the first time to specifically watch for the cropped head phenomenon, and yeah it is noticeable when viewed only in that context. However, many times, there was a prominent middle ground figure or object of interest which was entirely within the frame. Also, if you moved the matting up on several occassions, you would then be clipping off a figure at the wrist, which is generally also considered 'bad composition'

I'm now wondering if this wasn't a film that was actually intended with a 1.66 AR and not 1.78/85.
I know Warner in the past didn't accord 1.66 AR films any special treatment, preffering to not even give them 16:9 enhancement. Also, I think I read about some controversy with some of the Hammer horror films being over matted.

but the either way, Boorman did see the transfers when recording the commentary, so either it was fine with him or he just didn't care.

Yes but the fans care so how about an anamorphic 1.66:1 PILLARBOXED transfer? That would solve most problems.

No need to remake EXCALIBUR. It is what it is. But someone truly ought to make a faithful adaptation of T.H. White's The Once and Future King. I can't understand why this hasn't been done yet. Disney's SWORD IN THE STONE and EXCALIBUR and FIRST KNIGHT and the like simply can't hold a candle to the version told in White's book.

Damn, Helen Mirren was hot back then.

well i thought the same thing... when i brought it up i was SURE many here would be aware of this... they weren't... i was surprised this well-known issue had been forgotten and so many were unaware...

as the one poster said he saw more information at the top of the LD and LESS info at the bottom means a properly framed version has probably NEVER been released... it's all this matted widescreen stuff...

but after a few apparently long term members here said there was nothing wrong with it... what could i do?... argue?... so i tried to be political...

i've been aware of this nightmarish framing for years...

it's so obvious on the DVD i simply could not believe ANYONE didn't have it LEAP out at them...

i always try to remember these words when opposing ideas are presented on a thing... so i tried to remember them even on this... where frankly i knew i was correct on the issue...

"True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance." - Akhenaton

I have to say I wasn't all that thrilled with Disney's 'Sword in the Stone' - it was rather lacklustre in terms of story structure.

:banana: I second that remark :eyebrow: :hump: