Yes, quite dated. Looks like around 1000 A.D., in fact.

Replace Katrine Boorman?

MK, that is an excellent point.

I flipped past the HD version of Excalibur the other night on one of my HD movie channels and the quality looked great IMO. Didn't know it was already available in HD format. Might have to get it, unless anyone can give me a valid reason not to do so.

Commander Dan: how much to make one of those covers for me man?

Remake it, and with Hollywood's current thinking on classic stories, put Will Smith in it!

Yeah, I can see it now...

---

(The sword Excalibur breaks)

Will Smith as King Arthur: "Aww, hell no!"

(Lady in the Lake lifts up a new, undamaged Excalibur)

Will Smith as King Arthur: "Now that's what I'm talkin' about!"

(Will Smith as King Arthur takes Excalibur from Lady in the Lake and then puts on Converse tennis shoes)

Will Smith as King Arthur: "Now let's go kick Mordred's ass!"

---

the Excalibur DVD is some form of an open matte widescreen release as i said it was...

if you want to tell yourself John Boorman CHOSE to cut people's heads off in a frame to show only their torso, or cut the tops of their heads off in a scene focusing on a single face... it's a free country i guess... that isn't how DP's and director do things... you can tell from watching the DVD something is wrong...

what i posted is accurate... it's a distorted release with black bars to make it a 'matte widescreen' like companies did with so many of the Woody Allen movies on DVD... Bride of Reanimator... etc... maybe i mis-spoke with the use of the term 'pan and scan'... but that is the effect... if you simply watch the VHS copy of the film you see all the heads at least... though i guess you do see new images on the sides or periphery of the open matte release... the picture is distorted...

either way... at least we all agree it needs to be redone...

i hope it will be...

i found the entire chat session with Warner online and that does seem promising...

Well, there is an HD-dvd of it that came out just a couple months ago, I'm assuming that has the best transfer possible (and correct).

Okay, okay I take it back. The original is fine, no need to remake it!

NO NEED TO REMAKE THIS CLASSIC!!

If it was remade it would be PG-13 and Orlando Bloom would probably play Lancelot.

Or someone even worse, like the guy who plays Reed Richards in the Fantastic Four movies.

But even if they got someone cool like Clive Owen for Arthur, they'd probably still fuck it up...

Try it again without the word remake. What about just another telling of the King Arthur legend? Done right I would gladly welcome that, especially since the last one wasn't great.

I've always thought the film was shot open matte and haven't heard anything to refute that (from a knowledgable source). For me, the framing has never been an issue on DVD or HD DVD.
The HD DVD is not going to impress people who are looking for King Arthur style visual flash and pop. Many scenes grainstructure is well in evidence, and also, there is a lot of diffusion going on- which is obviously fully the intent of the DP and the director. It has a softer, more muted look than I was expecting (even though I saw this theatrically in '81).
That said, watching the HD DVD when it came out last fall, I was entranced and found myself more immersed in the film than I have been since I first saw it.
I can recite whole passages of the film by heart, but seeing it in HD- the subtle accumulation of more fine detail has a somewhat subliminal effect. Everything becomes more immediate. I had a blast the last time I watched it and don't regret the HD DVD purchase at all.

I only bring that up because this particular disc gets hit a lot in on-line reviews for being a poor example of HD and not being a 'worthwhile' upgrade over the sd version. If you have a large display, especially a 1080p fp- it is absolutely worth the upgrade- as is every other HD disc I've seen so far.

Are you sure you weren't watching Lancelot du Lac?

What kind of display do you own?

Forget Excalibur, they need to remake Zardoz!

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. )

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!

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.