I hate remakes and named them YARM.that is all i keep seeing is more and more YARM so now i am totally boycotting hollywood.
they will not get my money ever again for raping my past to many times.

PS: i can always buy used movies so they really will never get a dime out of me.

thanks a lot for destroying yet another of my fave films.

I guess Bryan Singer only had one somewhat original movie in him.

I agree with the whole remake fad - and some are being remade while the original celluloid isn't even dried out yet!
But I think it's a misnomer to call a remake of Excalibur a YARM (love it by the way, "Oh yawn, another YARM!"). The King Arthur story has been told and retold in so many movies and books - with lots of permutations along the way, some good, some bad - that the only thing unoriginal from Mr Singer is the title. Now, if it's a scene by scene recreation, then yeah, YARM!
If he's going to do it, hopefully it's a different take on the whole story. Would love to see Nigel Terry play Merlin though.

Jimmy D - You're probably talking about "X-Men", but don't forget "The Usual Suspects". That was an outstandong and original film.

No cinematic telling of the Arthur story ever got the Lancelot part right. Every actor who's played the part has been drop dead gorgeous - or at least pleasing to the eye. Le Morte de Artur clearly states that Lancelot was UGLY - looked like an ape, and Guineviere initially hated him, until she saw how pure and admirable his soul was.

Is there or is there not an original thought out there today? Again re-vamping what was already an excellent movie. Why not do stories of the other knights. Valiant re-telling would be nice or the Green Knight or even the origins of Lancelot. Tsk Tsk to Hollywood. I guess copyright issues have made them thick in the skulls.

Y...A...W...N!

In the theatrical world, it's commonplace for directors and actors to revive previously produced plays from years past, updating them for new generations. It's necessary to do this in theatre because unlike film, once a play has been performed, that performance is lost forever. Film, on the other hand, is recorded for all time. In that way, film is much more like portraiture than theatre. And you wouldn't commission a modern artist to "remake" the Mona Lisa. I'm sick of all of these goddamn remakes. Enough is enough. If Bryan Singer wants to make a King Arthur movie, fine, but don't make X-Calibur and call it a remake of Excalibur.

Well, to be fair....if they're just getting the rights to the name and calling it another movie, that's fine. Let's not call it a remake of the Boorman film, which was beautiful and moving in its own way and in how Boorman told the Arthur legend. So I'm willing to see Singer's attempt at the Arthur story...but I laugh at Singer attempting to remake a Boorman movie.

It's our own faults we are seeing all these "REMAKES" or "YARM" because we "DO NOT "support anything new the studios put out. If we don't totally ignore movies like “Sunshine” or TV Shows like “Defying Gravity” then we are ripping it apart & comparing it to something older in most cases before they become available. We also don’t support sequels so a Re-boot of practically dated material with upgraded special effects from the digital age and some fresh younger actors is going to either breathe new life into a dying franchise or create enough attention and stir that we will go see it if only in hopes it’s a pure train wreck. This is much more echinoid for the studio then making another sequel that you’ll only bash and not bother with. Case in Point “Star Trek” ****For years it was a dying franchise , it’s fan’s it’s own worst critics. People have been longing for more Trek but nothing made them happy. So why bother with a sequel? Do a Re-Boot the worst that could happen is a bunch of people will slam the damn thing to hell before it comes out or even seeing it like they normally do but this will cause so much attention to the project people will flock to see it. Turns out most people liked it - looks like the JOKE was on US. Especially when it turned out to be an alternate time-line all those critics looked dumb. Oh there you all are…..we are too spoiled too harsh & only like what we know but we wanna pick it apart

I think I'll probably have the same problem with this movie I had with Superman Returns. Constantly comparing it to the currently running TV show (in this case Merlin on BBC/NBC).

I pretty much agree about so many remakes, but as long as they do something completely new and exciting/fun then I will still watch it.

A simple remake of the previous Excalibur would probably be as disappointing as I found that film, despite its excellent cast. If they have good writing on this movie, we might see a film that would remind of all of us of the delight the stories brought to us as we first read them. I live in hope.
@LadyStarr, there was a film based on Gawaine and the Green Knight, with Sean Connery as the Green Knight. I'm sorry to say that it was pretty dreadful.

STOP THE REMAKES!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!

Can't support the studios' putting out anything decent when those movies are as rare as diamonds anymore. The empty suits in Hollywood don't care about art and quality anymore. They are unimaginative and lazy, cheap, and too cowardly to take a chance on a fresh story idea. Even when there are scores of good ideas and published SF works out there to choose from! (Of course, that can stil go bad, as with Solaris.) ALMOST NO remakes are ANY good, and the more they trowel out to the ignorant, uncultured, short-memoried masses, the more I have time to read my books.

Battlestar remake....Excallibur remake??? Geez.. Can't this guy, who can apparently talk any executive into spending milliions, just make a movie nobody's ever seen before? Hey Brian, go stand in front of the Sci Fi section at any bookstore, close your eyes and pick a book to make into a movie. Go find inspiration other than your DVD collection.

Yep, no more remakes for me either. Hollywood has never seen a darker, more talentless period in its entire existence. I'm pretty much stuck with foreign films when I want to see a new movie.

The first question that pops to mind is, why? Why even think to remake Boorman's Excalibur? You want to do a film about the Arthur legend, fine, knock yourself out but leave Excalibur alone, it doesn't need 'updating'. It's a great film, to some degree an unappreciated film. At the same time I'm partially with Hackyouup on this, in part, is our fault as much as Hollywood. And the recent Star Trek film is a perfect example of how spoiled we've gotten. Less and less people, particularly sci-fi and fantasy fans, are going to see movies or watch television shows for the sheer enjoyment of it. Now everyone is a critic and in many cases, nasty, snarky, critics. Star Trek needed a fresh coat of paint and it got one, and better yet it worked. But no, the movie deviated from the original universe, 'disrespected what had come before', and on and on. Then there was GI Joe, how it 'sucked'. It-was-a-GI Joe-movie, nothing more, nothing less. Again, people are entitled to their opinion and if certain material doesn't appeal to an individual, said individual is free to speak their mind, as it should be. However, is that the case here? Or are we approaching a place as viewers, where we are aiding Hollywood in painting themselves in a corner, of 'damn, if we do, damn if we don't'? Where the idea of redoing Excalibur, sounds like a cool idea, instead of noticing how much people and critics alike pretty much enjoyed District 9? The interesting thing is, I saw GI Joe one week and District 9, the following week, and I enjoyed them both,differently. The same way I enjoyed Star Trek and can still watch The Wrath Of Khan, without missing a beat. It's all Trek to me. Again, we don't all have to agree but a lot of us need to seriously loosen up, before we're not happy with anything that comes out.

Excalibur was perfect the first time around and does not require a remake. It's bad enough that Bryan Singer destroyed the resurrection opportunity of the Superman series by giving us a film with an illegitimate SuperBrat and a love story that didn't work. Stick to X-Men and Valkyries, Bryan. You're out of your league everywhere else.

I agree with Falconer, there are so many great scifi/fantasy books out there that would make great movies so whats with all the remaking? The Belgariad, The Dark Jewels books, The Cheysuli Books etc would all make exciting movies (If done right that is!) They are full of action, adventure and battle with a touch of humor and a bit of romance. And because they are series books, IF they did them right they could get 2-3 movies out of them.

Excuse me While I use my Brian Blessed Voice for this:

"IS THERE NOTHING SACRED"???

Goes back to Normal Voice!
Excalibur is Possibly the Best (N0n-Musical/Non Cartoon) telling of Camelot!

No one Can beat Nigel Terry's Excalibur or Nicol Williamson's Merlin!

It was Dark, it was Violent, it was Magical, and it was AWESOME!

How in the Hell Can you Remake Something that good!

And omg...The Star Power in Excalibur:
Liam Neeson as Gawain
Patrick Stewart as King Leondegrance
Helen Mirren as Morgana Le Fay
Gabriel Byrne as Uther Pendragon

I mean...How Can you top that!

Not to mention, Nigel Terry is still Alive (Seen in Doctor Who Last year in The Doctor's Daughter")

Again, Excuse me While I use my Brian Blessed Voice for this:

"IS THERE NOTHING SACRED"???

Oops..I meant No one Can beat Nigel Terry's "Arthur"

Somehing I forgot to mention.

2004's "King Arthur" tried to be like Exclalibur..But it came nowhere Near the "The Real" "Excalibur"

Hmmm..normally I don't mind if someone does a "remake," "re-imagining," "Re-boot," whatever. I figure if it's good, well it's a new good movie. OTH, if it's bad, it's just a lousy movie that doesn't take much from the original. I recently rented both versions of "The Day the Earth Stood Still," and I think we all know which was better and more entertaining.

But "Excalibur?!?!" Even I draw the line somewhere, and I'm afraid it's here. I totally agree with Fresno, above. That movie was unbelievably good. The cinematography was drop dead gorgeous, the music incredible and the star power of the cast was terrific. The effects might be a little dated, but all the other aspects of the movie more than make up for it.

YARM!!!!!! And Singer turns out to have been a flash-in-the-pan with only one decent original film in him (i.e. The Usual Suspects). What a hack and a faker!

It is *not* our fault that studios put out remake after remake. It's too easy a cop-out to blame audiences. The fact is Hollywood is in love with remakes for purely financial reasons. Studio bosses are rarely willing to risk financial ruin by betting on an untried and untested original picture. Remakes less of a financial risk because even if audiences are unfamiliar with the original films, the remake will garner a certain audience simply by name recognition. But the solution to remakes *is* in our hands. If we, as the movie-going public, stopped going to remakes, that would remove the financial incentive and force studios to produce more original fare.

Singer still owes us a nonboring Superman movie. I wish he would go make that one. As for King Arthur, the only story I'd liek to see done on film is Camelot 3000, based on the graphic novel series.

1) Not all remakes are bad ideas. Don't believe me? Humphrey Bogart was in the 3RD Maltese Falcon, meaning they already remade it once BEFORE hiring him to play Spade. Will anyone argue that they never should have made his version?

2) What exactly is an original story? Reduced to it's thematic core elements, Jurassic Park is a remake of Frankenstein. After having several discussions with many writers I know, we have determined that there are only two stories in existence: the first is a stranger comes to town and something happens as a result, or a person goes on a journey, and something happens as a result.

It is new interpretations, new ways of looking at things, that create new product. Many times I see a movie and say "I liked this, but would have liked to see that", and with new directors and writers making new versions of things, I sometimes get the opportunity to see what I wanted the first time. Sometimes I find I prefer the original, in which case I'm glad for the remake still, because it let me see that I wasn't missing anything the first time around. The only time I will refuse a remake is if it's a shot-for-shot, like Psycho. Otherwise, I challenge them to show me something familiar in a new way.

All I want to know is if there will be a sex scene where the man is so impatient he doesn't even take the time to remove the top half of his armor.

And no one has ever thought of doing a film version of Asimov's Foundation? Shoot, that would make a kickin' TV show.

I may be in the minority here, but I've respected Singer's film career so far. He was also one of the guys who brought us House (to which I thank him), but I may very well be done with this guy. Everything he's signing on to is leaving a bitter taste in my mouth lately.

The rule should be that unless you really think you can make a re-make that is superior to the original movie, you should not make it.

In most cases, that answer (if you are really honest with yourself) is NO, as the reason for the re-make is the popularity (love) that folks have for the original.

In this case, how can they think that they can have a better Merlin ????

what the hell.whats next a star wars remake?i wouldn't put it past them.enough already.maybe a new black hole with a better ending or a big budget flash gordon.but Excalibur was a great movie

no he dose not need to do this he will
f@@k up this like he did superman
Bryan Singer dose not need make
anymore movies he will just f@@k it up

Um why?

Well, I was delighted at the idea of a remake when I first heard about it. Loved the plot line but couldn't *stand* Boorman's over the top flourishes. The whole movie just felt *excessive.*

Then it registered who Singer was. His was the first version of Superman I *didn't* like (I'm counting Superman III and IV as sequels...ugh. But Superman I and II were great!). Singer underplays as badly as Boorman overplayed.

At any rate, I will see it and give it a chance.

And a note for the person who asked why Asimov's Foundation wasn't coming. Well, it has been announced as upcoming. Don't recall the details though. Can't wait on that one! lol

You know, I get sick of all the YARMs out there too, but in all honesty, they are not really making them for us. And by "us", I mean, those of us who saw the originals and remember them fondly. They're making them for teenagers and twenty year olds (who make up the largest part of the movie going public, btw) who NEVER saw the original and will NEVER see the original. Look, I teach theatre in high school. I'm constantly talking to kids about movies and what they were re-made from and you know what? For the most part, THEY DON'T CARE! If it was made more than five or ten years ago, it's not something they're interested in. Oh sure, I've forced them to watch Casablanca or Citizen Kane and some of them have gotten into it, but most couldn't be bothered. Most of these kids had NO idea what Star Trek was before the new movie came out. They've never seen the original Superman with Chris Reeves or Batman with Michael Keaton. Hell, half of them have never even seen Star Wars or either version of Dune! And I guarantee you almost none of them have ever even heard of Excalibur! Would it be better if we just got them to go back and watch the originals? Sure, but how? Kids today live in a very sensory-overloaded present that has no room in it for the past or anything that came before. For most of them, unless they truly come to love film and become film geeks, anything made before they were born is a worthless relic, not worthy of their time or attention. And this is not something we teach them, per se. It seems to be an inbred part of being a teenager/young adult. If re-making a great movie gets a young person to look at a story and appreciate it and maybe even one day (OMG!) watch the original, then the remake is worth it, even if I personally don't think it's as good as the original. And remember, what makes many originals special to us is that they are part of the magic of our past. We own it as a cherished memory...one of the building blocks that make us who we are. That's why we get so pissed off that someone is remaking Trek or Superman or Excalibur, because it feels like they're messing with our past. the kids coming up don't have their attachment to the original. All they see is an old movie with dated sfx and a bunch of old guys in it. Let's instead TRY to look at some of these YARMs as building blocks to the next generation's past and consider that it might be better if they see some version of the story and characters we love than never be introduced to it at all. And Gorehound...why does a new version of Excalibur destroy a favorite film of yours? It's not like the Boorman film is going anywhere. You can still watch it all you want. I know I will.

anar99: Your description of Lancelot and the subsequent drama that follows would be a rendition I would LOVE to watch. I've only ever seen it played the more traditional Lancelot-is-a-heartthrob way, and I think that belittles the relationship and has always engendered negative feelings about both he and Gwen...making them out to be extremely shallow people. I'd like to see a version in which Arthur's preocupation doesn't drive his wife into the eyes of a pretty boy. However, I'm not familiar with this interpretation. I've heard of The Death of Arthur, but in it Lancelot was always so widely praised, and all the women were falling over themselves for him...some even using trickery to get him into bed. I don't see a lot of them doing this if he were gorilla ugly. :shrug:

WTF would you remake Excalibur, let alone pay money for the rights? The last time I checked, Mallory was in the common domain and had been for the last 600 years. The fact that these guys can't come up with a version of the Morte D'Arthur without buying Boorman's says all you need to know about what the end result will be: derivative, pointless crap.

Hey Singer......go back to "X-Men and LEAVE EXCALIBUR ALONE!!!!!! It is about my favorite movie and seeing how Singer treats films makes me sick to think HE is going to do a re-make.

Hey singer....IF you're REALLY serious about that re-make, GO READ THE DAM BOOK; THEN look at doing a movie cause as I see it, you're only going to F**K IT UP.

You really want to take on something? Go do the 1st book of the "Dragonriders of Pern" It's called the White Dragon. Now THERE would be a challenge, but leave Excalibur alone.

With Brian Singer making so many remakes of TV shows and movies, I hope he gives up the right to make another Superman film. Especially the long delayed "Superman: The Man Of Steel" film that should have been made and out by now.

Did anyone hear about the news of a possible Superman Reboot, possibly being directed by this director named James McTeigue? He gave no confirmation but said because of the recent court situation dealing with the rights, they cannot make a film with the origin story at the begining.

McTiegue says this is a good thing, because he's sure everyones tired of the origin story, but there's a problem . . . everyone who has only seen the cartoons, TV shows, and films do not know the origin story!!

For one, Brian Singer showed the red star Rao was a giant when it was a dwarf, and caused the destruction of Krypton when it didn't. It was the bombs of the terrorist clone group Black Zero, creating the Green Death, which caused Krypton's destruction.

Excalibur is so good that many critics consider it a valid retelling of the legend worthy in its own nway to Malory who also retold the legend (already hundreds of years old in 1485). I've always thought that a remake of Excalibur would be a good idea because we have such good special effects today, and there are plenty of editing mistakes in the original. I would be especially happy if the screenplay remained about the same. One thing I would change is the the scene where Percival throws Excalibur into the water--he is supposed to throw it on faith by virtue of Arthur's command, not because he sees the lady of the lake first. Throw the sword and then let the hand rise to catch it. No one can deny that the real stroke of Boorman's genius was his decision to use Wagner''s music; without that, the movie loses much of the depth that som many people instintively respond to when they see the film.
If the remake is not going to keep the best parts, most literary and aesthetic parts of the film then just say Singer is going to make another King Arthur movie and leave Boorman's name out of it--anybody can read the legends and make a movie. The best possible remake would be an updated, slicker copy of the the old one, a movie that Boorman would have made if he had the tools we have today. The screenplay, the imagery, the music would all be the same.