Talk:Excalibur (film)/Archive 1

POV
There are so many POV problems with this article, especially on the "reputation" area.


 * It's a nice essay, about as good as a 9th grade English homework.--76.21.81.118 00:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Serious error in my opinion
I came very close to simply editing this section to (in my view) correct it, but I'll put the issue up here for discussion first: "'Also, in both films Arthur takes a gamble by challenging his rival lord to strike him down with Excalibur, but his enemy relents — implicitly in Excalibur, where Uryens refuses to surrender to Arthur, a mere squire, so Arthur makes Uryens knight him on the spot with his own sword - and Uryens does so, impressed by his courage; and explicitly in Merlin, where Arthur tells Lot to kill him with Excalibur if he thinks he is the true king - but Lot relents, influenced by the magic of the sword.'"

This is completely incorrect, as to what happened in Excalibur. Uryens is VERY clearly being forced, by the magic of the sword, to knight Arthur, to the extent that his face contorts as he tries to resist it and strike Arthur down. &mdash; SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 11:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is all POV as to what is making Uryens do it (his concious or the magic of the sword). Just MHO. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed: until now I'd never considered that magic from the sword made him knight Arthur, though that interpretation makes some sense. I wonder what John Boorman says on the DVD commentary about that scene, it's a long time since I listened to it. Mark Grant

I've always thought it was the power of the sword that convinced Uryens (in mid-swing) to knight, rather than strike Arthur. The music adds to what is a very powerful scene. ComaDivine 13:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Photography
The article only talks of "garish colors", but I guess I am not the only one that sees in the indoor scenes and the bright armors a visual quality similar to that of Superman II and Playboy pictures. Probably there is a technical name for the style or technique but I don't know it. Do you know what I am talking about? --Error 23:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know the technical terms but in the director's commentary he talks about shining coloured lighting on the actors. E.g. when they're in the forest you can see bright green lights glinting off the armour to make the colours even more vivid. The Singing Badger 01:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Orff
The theme was used in ads for Old Spice from the early seventies and The Doors had used it in a post Morrison album so no credit to this film for the use.


 * An ad virtually no one remembers (rubbish ..this is something of a cult advert), and an album even hardcore Doors fans didn't buy. Please.  Excalibur most certainly did introduce more people to that piece of music than anything before its time, and most certainly did seed its popularity, which remains high even today (I've heard at least 8 different techno/trance, gothic and industrial tracks that make heavy use of it, in the last 5-6 years, including a new one this year.)  &mdash; SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 11:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Surgical insertion of a prop
Just where did THAT rumour come from? Bizarre and really in need of a definite cite! Alastairward 09:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, I wish I could find one (I added it). I read about it in high school in an article in a movie magazine (forget the name).  It also questioned whether Robert Shaw should've had one of his teeth removed (for real) for a scene in Jaws.  I wish I could find something to back this up, as it impressed me at the time. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 14:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackson influence?
I have some doubts about Jackson really being influenced by "Excalibur". Excalibur had no qualms portraying characters as mythological archetypes. Jackson, on the other hand, considered it necessary to make such archetypes "more realistic". And where Boorman created a gripping final battle with just a handful of actors, Jackson needed huge computer-generated armies and monsters. Jackson, as he himself put it once, retold LotR as a modern "fantasy adventure story". Boorman retold Arthurian myth as just that: myth, with no holds barred and no watering down of mythological elements for the sake of a "modern audience". If Jackson felt indeed influenced by Excalibur, in my eyes he understood as little about the movie as he did about Tolkien who had far more in common with Romanticism than with his own modern imitators. --OliverH 10:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Charm (chant) of making
I don't know if this means anything, or whether there are any references to it, but when played backwards, the last few syllables of Merlin's Charm of Making (which are the first syllables of the chant, "Anál nathrach") sounds a lot like "hearth and home", which is a phrase spoken by Merlin elsewhere in the movie. Has anyone else heard of this? — Loadmaster 00:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. It's Old Irish. See my essay on the Charm of Making. -- Evertype·✆ 21:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This should be integrated into the article. Many fans of the film can repeat the chant, the source of which was a mystery. Upon seeing "nathrach" given as the genitive of serpent in a grammar of Old Irish I noticed the similarity and then found Evereson's explanation on the web. I would suggest that he would be best to add a comment. Should anyone fear that his doing so would be original research (I would argue it's easily verifiable with an OI dictionary and grammar) I will add the section if need be. I would add the section afterr the plot summary. Comments? Wrotesolid (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a section to the article. I am not surte about capitalization, but the placement looks right. Wrotesolid (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, your section was crappy. I know Irish, I've done the research, and the interpretation that it's old Irish doesn't stand, if only because the charm uses sounds unknown to Irish (and the same spelling is pronounced in a radically different manner, due to the language working that way since the fist records we have of it). As for the "translation", I've seen straw grasping and deciding that an unknown term means something because "it looks like that word" used a lot in crap scholarship, like the multifarious attempts at deciphering the Phaistos disk or Voynich manuscript--Svartalf (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion, but it's what is called Original research. (The fact that you don't approve of a modern actor's attempted pronunciation of a made up spell in a movie hardly refutes the fact that anal nathrach does mean serpent's breath. And, since there is no text, just the spoken dialog on the video, it is odd that you complain about words that "looks  [a]like.")

A cursory inspection of etymological dictionaries will confirm that anal nathrach is perfectly grammatical old irish for serpent's breath:

Anal :to breathe, to blow 	*anǝtlo-: OIr anāl `spiritus'; Cymr anadl `Atem'; MBret alazn (Umstellung), Bret holan; *anǝtī-: MCymr eneit, Cymr eneid `Seele'; *anamon-: OIr animm, gen. anman, Ir anam `Seele' http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=\data\ie\piet&text_recno=1276&root=config

Nathrach: Celtic: *natrī > OIsl nathir, gen. nathrach `natrix, serpens'; Corn nader `Schlange', OBret pl. natrol-ion `Basilisken', MBret azr `Schlange', NBret aer ds., Cymr neidr, pl. nadroedd `ds.' http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=\data\ie\piet&text_recno=799&root=config

You are quite welcome to find some source to back up your opinion and add it to the article as an alternate opinion. Repeatedly deleting this documented material and inserting your own personal opinion is vandalism. Wrotesolid (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw all that material years ago, thank you... it's still after the fact artificial reconstruction of a nonsense formula. Problem still stands that the chant sounds perfectly good as it is, while it would be meaningless gibberish to an Irishman (yes, even a 5th century Irishman), and could never be easily chanted in the language. If the chant was traditional in any way, the actor would have had some access to the true sound of the chant, and the fact the chant sounds so well with Anglo-Germanic pronunciaion points to it being devised for that phonology. Also, while the dictionary you cite is good, it's publishing your own interpretation (or one you read somewhere) of the text without proper reference to it really and fully being redacted in Old Irish, rather than including words borrowed from that language in a nonsensical matrix that is OR. I'm the one keeping the article to verifiable fact and not pushing for dubious interpretations. --Svartalf (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First, you seem to be confused about the nature of OR. Removing citations to reliable sources is vandalism, and replacing them with your own unpublished editorializing is original research.  I have no problem with you editing the section to say that the interpretation is that of one person, or that it is uncertain, which the translator himself says about the third verse. .  But you are not entitled to assert on your own opinion that it is not Old Irish, (Absurd in the face of Walde-Pokorny)) and you are definitely not allowed to remove citations and replace sourced material with what you yourself describe as your own research: "I know Irish, I've done the research, and the interpretation that it's old Irish doesn't stand."

Please suggest some additional verbiage that leaves the current information in place but draws attention to any controversy you see.

Also, be warned of the WP:3RR rule. If you revert this sourced material a third time today you will be reported to an administrator and your editing privileges can be subject to suspension. Wrotesolid (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fully warned about edit warring and the 3rr rule, and am moving this to conflict resolution. I must still mention thatYou seem sadly confused as to what constitute "sourced material".

a) "Published on the internet is definitely not a standard of reliability. While I won't use that to discredit the etymological dictionary you cited, I still notice it's remarkably obscure and jumbled, and maybe not of true scholarly standard. b) The thesis you are pushing is not directly supported by your citation, as all it does is show that one old Irish word is indeed compatible in form and meaning with your allegations. You don't give full sourcing for the whole formula, not account for grammatical weidnesses (the adjectival -ach at the end of word 2, which would make it mean "snaky" or "serpentish" rather than "snake's"), the fact that the formula as a whole is gibberish from a Gaelic speaker's viewpoint, or the fact that, as an incantation, it sounds better as pronounced by the English language actor than it would if chanted by an actual Irish speaker. Also, if it's really meaningful or traditional, there's also a complete lack of pre 1981 sources for it, indicating that it's not Old Irish, but at best a made up formula for which the author looked up old Celtic words, but had no idea as to how they should sound, or how to write them correctly in any respect.--Svartalf (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Svartalf, you said on my talk page:

"b) The thesis you are pushing is not directly supported by your citation, as all it does is show that one old Irish word is indeed compatible in form and meaning with your allegations. You don't give full sourcing for the whole formula, nor account for grammatical weidnesses (the adjectival -ach at the end of word 2, which would make it mean "snaky" or "serpentish" rather than "snake's"), the fact that the formula as a whole is gibberish from a Gaelic speaker's viewpoint, or the fact that, as an incantation, it sounds better as pronounced by the English language actor than it would if chanted by an actual Irish speaker. Also, if it's really meaningful or traditional, there's also a complete lack of pre 1981 sources for it, indicating that it's not Old Irish, but at best a made up formula for which the author looked up old Celtic words, but had no idea as to how they should sound, or how to write them correctly in any respect."

(1) I am not pushing any thesis. Michael Everson is the person who has identified this fictional charm as being composed in Old Irish, and his writing is given as the source. Have you read it? He identifies the charm as apparently made up by the film producers, and he himself indicates that there are problems with the pronunciation. If you wish to add some short relevant wording to the article along those lines (e.g., identify the translation as Everson's in the text and mention his own admission as to the problematic nature of the third line) then feel free to do so. As for the citations I have added for anal nathrach, it was done so in a good faith effort to show that the words are indeed Old Irish, which you explicitly denied.

(2) Regarding your comment "You don't give full sourcing for the whole formula, nor account for grammatical weidnesses (the adjectival -ach at the end of word 2, which would make it mean "snaky" or "serpentish" rather than "snake's", you evidently don't know or understand that nathrach is the genitive form of the noun. See the source: Nathrach: Celtic: *natrī > OIsl nathir, gen. nathrach `natrix, serpens'; Corn nader `Schlange', OBret pl. natrol-ion `Basilisken', MBret azr `Schlange', NBret aer ds., Cymr neidr, pl. nadroedd `ds.' http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=\data\ie\piet&text_recno=799&root=config .  Anal nathrach is perfectly good and grammatical Old Irish.

Finally, Perhaps you would like to change the words "evidently composed in" to "evidently made up based on" Old Irish in the text of the article. That would be fine with me, and it represents Everson' opinion. Wrotesolid (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made the edit to show that this is Everson's interpretation, and changed "composed" to "made up". Wrotesolid (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah, Michael Everson, whose thesis is about as reliable as anything pushed by David Icke or YEC creations "science". The fact that it was originally pushed by somebody else does take the OR accusation off, but does not make it right, or are you implying that Jesus was an initiate of Egyptian mysteries who also fathered all the important dynasties in the las 200 years of history is also fact because it was published by identifiable authors?

Oh, oops... My bad on "nathrach", I'd forgotten that it was indeed a genitive form for that word. --Svartalf (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please stick to the issue at hand and maintain a civil and adult attitude? Rhetorical questions about irrelevant nutcase theories which you suggest I might also hold are ad hominem attacks. "Twaddle", "crap" and "bullshit" are not helpful comments. Everson does not maintain anything such as this being a real historical spell. He simply identifies the large part of the words as identifiable as based on Old Irish, which you now seem to concede. Since the text of the article now identifies the interpretation as Everson, and says "invented" upon which you, I, and Everson agree, do you have any other relevant and civil concerns? Wrotesolid (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Response to request at Content_noticeboard: I have made no previous edits on this article and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. I am responding as a third party neutral and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.
 * Opinion: The questionable sources subsection of the Verifiability policy says:"Questionable sources are those ... with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites ... which rely heavily on ... personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves." The Everson webpage makes clear that it is his personal analysis and opinion. The Everson webpage is not therefore an acceptable source. (And since the author of that webpage is himself self-admittedly — as set forth above and on his user page — a Wikipedia editor, Evertype, selfpublish may apply, as well.) Thus both the transcription from the spoken words in the film and the possible source and meaning of those words are unsourced. The Charm of Making subsection and everything in it should be removed unless someone can come up with verifiable reliable sources which state the words used in the film — not a transcription of the spoken words, since they're not unmistakably in any particular language, but a verifiable reliable source which says what the script, the producers, the actors, or someone has said what they are — and which states their provenance and meaning. The Evertype article is not such a source and any editor's transcription or analysis of them, such as set out above and in this article, is original research — Wikipedia does not analyze and give results: it only reports pre–existing facts. In keeping with Wikipedia policy, the unsourced material should be properly tagged but left in the article and a generous amount of time should be allowed to find sources, but if they cannot be found then the unsourced material, perhaps the entire subsection, should be removed. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of self publishing is a red herring. The section was added by me with no input from or contact with Michael Everson or the user Evertype. For me to cite him is to give credit where credit is due.

There is no controversy here or in academia other than one editor's insistance that he has studied Old Irish and he knows the truth. That's his OR and his POV. His insistence on what he "knows" as a source, his crude language, and his replacing third party references with his own editorializing are all violations of WP policy. Look at the edit history. His objections have not been about the reliability of the source, but about his strongly held and mistaken belief in the falseness of the claim. You would do well, TransporterMan, to read Svartalf's edits and summaries.

Finally, regardless of Svartalf's personal objections, the phrase itself is transcribed and identified in Un espace colonial et ses avatars: naissance d'identités nationales p251, Florence Bourgne, Leo M. Carruthers, Arlette Sancery, Sorbonne. http://books.google.com/books?id=OEs4JyShTLQC&pg=RA9-PA251&dq=anal+nathrach&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0&ei=j1CDS4a_HYGYygSCo5iICw&cd=2#v=onepage&q=anal%20nathrach&f=false

Case closed. Wrotesolid (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion
My essay on the Charm of Making was written in February 1993. It was my original research. I transcribed the text, and determined that the language is Old Irish. I published this on my website. Other people have found this. If you google the URL of my essay, you will find 2,140 or so hits. If you go to Amazon.co.uk and search for "evertype", in addition to a number of books I have published, you will find at least two pagan-related books which cite the essay. It seems to me, as a Wikipedian of long-standing, that those external citations of the essay give it some credibility. In December 2008, somebody made a daft suggestion about what the Charm meant when played backward. I indicated that this was false, and that the Charm is in Old Irish. A year later, you guys had a big fight about it. I've read through the fight, and in my opinion—and I was not asked for my opinion; I only came here because the Excalibur film page is on my watchlist—Svartalf has made a whole lot of completely unfounded assertions which suggest to me that he never even read the original essay. Ní ionnan fuaimeanna na Sean-Ghaeilge agus fuaimeanna na Nua-Ghaeilge, a Svartailf, cé nach bhfuil sé soléir go bhfuil a fhios agatsa faoi. TransporterMan's comments seem to me to be irrelevant. The transcription from the spoken words was done by me in 1993 using my training as a linguist, my ears, and my knowledge of the IPA. My subsequent work to figure out what the sounds indicated readily that the language was Old Irish. Evidently Boorman hired somebody (probably an Irish academic) to write the charm. In the absence of a document from Boorman, that's the best you're going to get. From anybody. I can't say I'm displeased to see my essay cited here. But, TransporterMan, it was not written by a Wikipedia editor for this article. It was written in 1993 by a linguist. That was seven years before the Wikipedia was born. -- Evertype·✆ 22:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My knowledge of Old Irish is very limited. But I wonder whether "thy omen of making" oughtn't more precisely be translated as "thou omen of making".  Others' understandings?  Firstorm (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do doesn't mean 'thou'. -- Evertype·✆ 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Music
"The barren land blooms with life as they pass and is reborn with its King" -- what's the music during this part?
 * rousing music as the knights ride out of Camelot, and the land magically blooms as they pass by ? It's "O Fortuna" from the Carmina Buranas, by Carl Orff... and that scene is surely one of the most rousing in any movie... :)


 * 86.25.122.221 (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no "s" in "Burana" - see the article, Carmina Burana (Orff). Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know there isn't... I made a typo :(
 * 86.25.120.113 (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Parody
just a passing comment but it's sometimes hrd to believe that Monty Python and the Holy Grail was made about six years before Excalibur and that the former isn't at least partially a parody of the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.226.42 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They're both based on the Morte d'Arthur. That'll account for it. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 02:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

recent edit
I have no problem with expanding the reception section. But the recent edit to the lead has changed a balanced reaction to a positive one, and has removed the citation for a verbatim quote, among other things. Given the editor in question has not justified his actions, I am reverting them. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not for nothing, but you do understand that discussion pages are meant for just that, right? Saying that you don't like an edit and are going to up and revert it wthout discussion isn't how we do things here. As has been pointed out to you on several occasions, information of that sort doesn't belong in the Lede; it belongs in the body of the article, where it was moved to. The intent of the quote was not changed, only one of reworking it from its prreviously awkward state to a better, more readable one that just happened to be better grammatically.
 * I'd urge you to reread WP:LEDE, Medeis, or simply ask around and get some input on what does and doesn't belong in the Lede section of the article. In the alternative, you could simply AGF and trust that others might know what belongs in a Lede. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, you have changed the statement about the movie's reception from a mixed, to a positive one, when reviews were mixed, and have created a bogus verbatim quote out of mid air. I am restoring the real quote, and breaking the lead into two parts again, description and reception. μηδείς (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * After fixing your indents (yet again - seriously, are you having trouble indenting, or just do not understand why we do this?), I will try to make one last attempt to square this away fro you again. The discussion page is for discussing changes to the article in dispute. This is't my impression of our policies, this is directly from WP:TALK; you might want to peruse that. What it is not is a bulletin board for you to announce that you are going to make changes. Specifically changes that you know are going to meet with resistance. I am going to urge you to use this article discussion page to work on resolving the resistance to your preferred version of the article. This is going to sound harsh, but the next time you revert without discussion, I will report you. The ball is in your court. I'd suggest you learn to work collaboratively.
 * Now, that warning dispensed with, allow me to point out - yet again - that we do not use Lede in this way. As per WP:LEDE, it is an overview and summary of the article subject. In other words, the Lede changes when the content does, not the other way around. The information you keep putting back into the Lede doesn't belong there, at least, not without having been expanded upon at length in the body of the article. This is why I've carefully preserved the intent and meaning of the referenced material and put it in the appropriate section.
 * If you feel we are at an impasse, why not file an Request for Comment, and get an outside opinion on the matter. Since its just you and I, a third opinion by someone who cares less about this tpic than myself can give you the same information. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your edit. You are simply unbalancing the article (reaction was mixed - the lead should not imply otherwise) and creating a bogus quote. Feel free to file an RfC yourself - until then your personally motivated reverts are hurting the article. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could point out the consensus for preferred version, Medeis. As well, maybe point out why you feel that our policies and guidelines don't apply to you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, an edit war is not necessary here. That said, I don't think the information about generalized (and unsourced) critical reception or box office is quite germaine to the lede. There has to be more pertinent information that points to the film's notability. For instance, its rank among influential films is important. Or a mention that it was award-winning -- but even that's fairly small cheese if you look at the information from IMDB . More importantly, the the sentence as it is written now, "Though it met with mixed reviews, many critics considered it a visually stunning film." (emphasis mine) is clearly WP:Weasel. I've put  there until this is sorted out. Halda (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've found interesting information about how the film was really essential to the nascent Irish film industry at the time. That definitely puts the film in greater context than box office rankings. There may be some more useful information in this John Boorman interview. Halda (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words
I address this to User:Medeis, who removed the inline template without addressing the concern. (In the future, you should address other editor's comments on Talk pages before unilaterally removing stuff.) The sentence still says "many critics" without specifying who they are, or otherwise providing supporting sources. It makes the article less definitive. Please see WP:Weasel for more information. Halda (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the phrase "has stood up well over time" needs to be elaborated on. It's a meaningless phrase without context or supporting information. It's also a cliché. Halda (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there's some good stuff to mine here. I'm going through it in order to find something that points to the film's lasting cultural legacy. It would be great to find an essay from Film Comment or similar. Halda (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Back again. I think the concluding paragraph in the lede works better -- it establishes that 1) critics were mixed, and 2) it made money. The Reception section is then used to elaborate on critical response (ie, the Ebert quote). I also included budget figures in the infobox in order to give the gross some context. In other words, a film that cost $11 mil earning $34 mil in the US can be considered a 'success'. I also took out the "has stood up well over time" line I can't find any proof yet that it has; I was searching for home video sales/rental info, but no luck. Without that kind of background, "stood up well" has no meaning. Maybe another route is information about Boorman retrospectives at film institutes/museums and the like... Halda (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the article. The reception section lists various critics who all remark on the films appearance. That is something certainly more helpful to a general reader of the article to know than that it helped boost the Irish film industry.
 * Please explain your conclusion how this is more helpful. Halda (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are just a dozen or so of the "who?"s who note its exquisite cinematography, etc., from Rotten Tomatoes:

March 10, 2011Full Review  | Comment Sean Axmaker Parallax View
 * John Boorman's magnificent and magical Excalibur is, to my mind, the greatest and the richest of screen incarnation of the oft-told tale.

October 8, 2008Full Review  | Comment Variety Staff Variety
 * Exquisite, a near-perfect blend of action, romance, fantasy and philosophy, finely acted and beautifully filmed by director John Boorman and cinematographer Alex Thomson.

February 27, 2008Full Review  | Comment Ken Hanke Mountain Xpress (Asheville, NC)
 * Image after image -- and incredible scenery of Ireland's Wicklow Mountains -- cascades from the screen in an amazing blend of naturalism and cinematic artifice.

November 21, 2006Full Review  | Comment John J. Puccio DVDTown.com
 * ...romantic and brutal, lyrically beautiful yet grittily realistic.

October 23, 2004Full Review  | Comments (5) Roger Ebert Chicago Sun-Times
 * What a wondrous vision Excalibur is! And what a mess.

October 21, 2004Comment Vincent Canby New York Times
 * Visually striking.

March 10, 2003Full Review  | Comment Marjorie Baumgarten Austin Chronicle
 * Beautiful rendition of King Arthur milieu by the master filmmaker John Boorman.

July 26, 2002Comment Scott Weinberg eFilmCritic.com
 * A darkly grand and gothic look at the Arthurian legends. One of Boorman's (several) masterworks.

January 17, 2002 Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat Spirituality and Practice
 * English film director John Boorman's stunning and spellbinding dramatization of the Arthurian myth.

January 1, 2000 Carlo Cavagna AboutFilm.com
 * Ambitious and soaring... [but] there isn't much beyond the show

January 1, 2000 John A. Nesbit Old School Reviews
 * Somehow it combines legendary material both visually and audibly that hooks me every time.

January 1, 2000 David Keyes Cinemaphile.org
 * ...one of those great miracles in filmmaking... It's concept of Arthur and the landscape that surrounds him is a benchmark for fantasy as we know it.

January 1, 2000 Ted Prigge rec.arts.movies.reviews μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The film is kind of simple in its plotting, but what's cool is the design.


 * These aren't good enough. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:cite. I also don't understand what you are trying to achieve here. Are you mad that you were asked to provide specific references to "visually stunning", so you just dump a bunch from Rotten Tomatoes? Do you actually think it makes a better article, or are you just trying to serve your own ego? Do you not understand that 1) these aren't properly formatted sources, 2) some are probably not notable enough (like Ted Prigge at the usenet group), 3) it makes the article less neutral, and 4) there's already a proper section for specific critical response? Halda (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You should also look at WP:NPOV about an article's neutrality. Because if you were to cite a dozen or so positive reviews, then for balance, you have to cite an equal share of negative. But again, this doesn't belong in the lede, as I've stated before. The purpose of a WP article is not to be effusively in praise of something, but rather to be neutral. Save the -- important, not usenet -- critical response for the appropriate section. And please learn how to format citations properly. Halda (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not even going to address the clusterfuckery of Indenting-Hell presented above; if the user gets ignored enough, maybe they will clue in. I'm not going to even address the fact that all of these bit references seem to be pulled almost verbatim from RottenTomatoes.com (there is a link for reading the actual review, you know); not a good idea, as RT editors who pul what they think are the best quotes out for viewing. We don't regurgitate what RT presents, as we strive for a bit more depth here.
 * I am gong to address that most of these reviews seem to be all gushing with praise for the film. Not very balanced. Read the actual reviews and pull the other details out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What's with all the emotion, rude language, and name calling? "Visually stunning" was never my comment.  I didn't add it to the article, and it has been there for quite a long time. Jack Sebastian is the one who removed the sources for it but put the comment in quote marks nonetheless.
 * That possible errors in an article have been present for a while isn't really an issue. Articles evolve and (hopefully) get better in the process. I wouldn't have even looked at this article if it wasn't for the fact that I just saw it recently. Halda (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The very simple point is that the large majority of reviewers found the film visually stunning even if they didn't care for other aspects, and that is something a reader who has not seen the film will find interesting. NPOV simply requires that we attribute opinions to those who hold them, not that we purposefully look for sources to contradict each other.  If you think there are sources that say the film is not visually stunning, the please feel free to add them to the article.  How noting the fact that most reviewers commented on the look of the film, in the same sentence that say it received mixed reviews, amounts to "gushing praise" I don't know.  As for format issues, feel free to prettify the references if you like.  (And congratulations for catching the fact that they were found at Rotten Tomatoes.  That must have been very hard to figure out, given that bad faith red herring I slipped in above saying "Here are just a dozen or so . . . from Rotten Tomatoes".)


 * Thirteen sources is indeed overkill for the lead, so I am going to move all but Canby, Ebert and Variety to the reception section. Indeed, no sources are needed in the lead for material that is covered in the body - but I will leave them there to forstall another "who?" tag. μηδείς (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why put all of them in there to begin with? We're editors. Anyway, I'm going to add a more critical element that aligns w/ "mixed views"; The review from NYT here is one of the more critical that I've seen. Halda (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me. My own impression of the film is quite mixed.  I remember liking the film when it came out, then loudly laughing along with the audience when I saw it again on campus in college.  Nowadays the only parts I find interesting are the clips of Wagner and the pseudo-Irish magical spell.  My only actions here have been to correct Jack Sebastian's repeated creation of a sourceless verbatim quote and to answer your "who?" tag.  μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out that we do not use citations in the Lede unless the matter is controversial, and there isn't controversy about that particular film (or none that I am aware of). The Lede is the overview (or summary) of the article. The citations belong in the body of the text. So,,,no citations are necessary for the Lede of this article. Period.
 * As for the name-calling, I think quite a few aspersions have been cast over the past few days. I'm willing to overlook your vicious little nonsense, if you are willing to overlook my responses to it. I do not suffer foolishness gladly. That said, let's talk no more about it, and hope it doesn't come up again. Edit on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:LEADCITE offers some general guidance regarding citations. I'd say the reasons for using them here isn't so much because the information is controversial, but that it could be challenged. Did the film really boost a nascent Irish film industry? What was the nature of the film's 'mixed response'? And so on... Halda (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary
I put the template in for a reason: the plot summary is too long according to WP manual of style. It doesn't matter whether this overly-long summary has not been an issue before. See How_to_write_a_plot_summary, specifically "What summaries aren't". Halda (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm completely with you here. The plot is a complete disaster. I'll led a hand where I can. And, speaking of the sources you noted above, there are tons for this film - every nerd, geek and gamer has likely seen this film, and many of them became film reviewers. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The biggest issue is credibility. For instance, this person raised some interesting points which I believe were taken from a Master's thesis. I'm not sure whether it's a 'valid' source (arguably a very fluid definition here on WP -- has been for years). I admit, I'm a huge fan of the film and consider it to be one of the masterworks of the 20th century, but I don't have the cred to openly say so in the article. :D Halda (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually not these sorts of sources. That said, you could run it up the flagpole at WP:RSN, and get some feedback. If nothing else, you've gain valuable insight as to how it will be dealt with during the GA and FA vetting process. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception
I edited this down considerably, keeping the more notable reviews out there, correcting URLs and so forth. (Austin Chronicle source was blank, so I took it out.) As for the lede, again let's not be too effusive. Just the facts. Halda (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is really coming along. I'm still interested in finding non-commercial film critique, if it exists. More scholarly pieces. I'll keep looking. Halda (talk)


 * The film earned praise for its visual beauty, not just style - not just camera angles - there were 13 references adduced to demonstrate this. Please revert the last revert to the lead. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you see WP:Revert so you understand what that means. It's not the same as editing an article. Look at the revision history of the page, you'll see I reverted twice: once was yours, once was my own since I realized I reverted to the wrong version. And if you're going to accuse me of violating rules, please bring it up with an admin directly. Anyone can stick a template on a user talk page. Halda (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Back to topic, which is the Reception section. I took out most of the 13-odd reviews there, mostly because it was overkill. They were taken from Rotten Tomatoes, and we already provide a link to that review page. Moreover, for a few the links were either dead or the source not quite as notable as say Variety. That said, I believe there's room for a few more reviews here. I will look at the IMDB page. Halda (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add link to IMDB reviews, which appear to be ranked by importance/popularity. That's a good barometer for deciding which critics to include. Halda (talk)
 * We don't usually link to IMDB, based upon the transient and unreviewed nature of most of the data. We typically use it solely to confirm cast listings and year of release. We also list it at the end, in "External links". - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't thinking about linking to it, just using it as a guide to find more notable film reviews. Note, for instance, that for nearly every "External reviews" page, the same larger/more popular outlets are mentioned at the top. If Ebert reviewed a film, the link to his review is almost always first. Rotten Tomatoes does this to some extent with their "Top reviewer" tab. But I found that RT aggregates a limited number of "critically important" reviews. Halda (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Charm of Making
Supposedly Merlin was a follower of Druid beliefs. So the Old Irish words used for this are appropriate. Jokem (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I agree. I would have thought that Old Welsh would be more appropriate. But it's all fictional so it doesn't really matter. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 06:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How to clarify what the "Charm of Making" is..
I see there is some dispute over what is said in this chant... is there any way someone could possibly hunt down a script used in shooting the film, so as to give concrete evidence of what was spoken? Blozier2006 (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Spelling
I revently reverted the spellings for Guenevere and Perceval used for this article here and here, mentioning several book and news cites for this film, but these were partly reverted here. Now, I do not believe there is a "proper" spelling for Arthurian characters (there are several spellings in use) however I used the spelling used by the film itself and by reliable sources for this film. Other films use different spellings for the character names. I assume the recent partial reversion was an inadvertent error. Please could editors discuss the spellings they wish to see here and come to a consensus. Should we use the spellings that appear in the film credits or some other spellings? -84user (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be the spelling used in the film, as seen in the cast credits. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. Since I am not at my DVD collection at the moment, I've checked Imdb for the spelling of the character (one of the few useful parts of that crap database), and it would appear that they spell it 'Gwenevere'. We have to list it, despite the fact that everyone else (including both the dab and character wiki article on the character and most of the more reputable sites and texts out there) spell it Guinevere. It's a variant spelling. The director was probably hopped up on twinkies or something. I've reversed my undo. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Misleading second paragraph gives impression it is an Irish film.
"Shot entirely on location in Ireland and employing Irish actors and crew, the film has been acknowledged for its importance to the Irish filmmaking industry" Since not one of the six listed starring actors is Irish and only three of the listed fifteen cast are Irish and that the film was directed by a British (though resident in Ireland) director, and is a US/UK production, I feel that this, while technically true,  is clearly misleading and ought to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.59.55 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)