MovieChat Forums > Merlin (1998) Discussion > Comparing this with Excalibur and other ...

Comparing this with Excalibur and other Arthurian movies


One thing I liked about this film was the more or less historical costumes. In Excalibur, you could forgive Boorman for using anachronistic plate armor because he was being faithful to Malory, one of his sources. Here, it was refreshing to see pseudo-Roman and Celtic costumes -or at least it seemed.

And I noticed that some parts of the storyline seem to have been directly influenced by Excalibur!

-In Excalibur, Merlin gives Excalibur to Uther so that he can become king and stop fighting with Cornwall. Later he tells him that he's not the king who will unite the land, as he had hoped. Still later, Uther drives Excalibur into a rock after he is ambushed by enemies, and dies.

-In Merlin, Merlin gives Excalibur to Uther after his battle with Vortigern. Later he tells him that he's not the king who will unite the land, as he had hoped. He himself drives Excalibur into the rock. Uther later commits suicide.

In both versions, Excalibur and the Sword in the Stone are one and the same.

-In Excalibur, Arthur attacks the forces of Lot and Uryens, who are besieging the castle of Leondegrance, Guinevere's father. He disarms Uryens in combat, and tells him that he will spare his life - if he swears faith to him. Uryens refuses, for Arthur is not yet a knight, and it would be shameful for a great lord to surrender to a squire. Arthur then hands Excalibur to Uryens and tells him to knight him! Uryens is tempted to strike Arthur down and keep the sword. But he relents, dubs Arthur knight and swears fealty to him, impressed by Arthur's courage, which he got from his father Uther.

-In Merlin, Lot does not recognize Arthur as the rightful king. This leads to war. Before their forces fight, however, Arthur tells Lot to strike him down with Excalibur, if he thinks he is the true king. Lot relents, influnced by the magic of Excalibur (Right?).

One thing I didn't like in Merlin was its putting John Gielgud in the opening credits when his character was in the story for about 10 seconds or less. After that, he gets killed by Vortigern.

reply

[deleted]

Merlin had nicer costumes, designed by Alan Lee (artist for LOTR), no less!

King Arthur was drastically different from Merlin, of course. A "historical" take, they claimed - but it isn't.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Arthur_%28film%29&oldid=32499380.

reply

Well, this film had nice costumes; I think it got the Celtic feel right. Excalibur had plate armor but it wasn't trying to be realistic anyway.

A more historically grounded approach to the Arthurian legend (fantasy or straight history; should be better than King Arthur, anyway - the Wikipedia link now doesn't have those nitpicks) would be nice; it should focus on Arthur, who wasn't in this movie enough (understandably, of course).

reply

LOVE both. Can't decide which one I like more. Although both had the same characters from the same general story, 'Excalibur' focused mostly on King Arthur whereas 'Merlin', obviously, focused on Merlin.

reply

Saying the movie Excalibur influenced the making of Merlin is kind of like saying a movie about Jesus influenced another movie about Jesus because he gets crucified in both! They are taken from the same stories! Sheesh.

Sir John Gielgud is in the movie longer than you think, though without credit. He is the voice of Sir Rupert the horse.

The costumes in this movie are much closer to the period. Like you said, Excalibur was influenced by Malory. The Roman-esque costumes in Merlin were ok, but Uther's helmet pushed the limit. The leather and cloth armor were the best. And while Merlin's helmet made Sam Neil look like an idiot, it was of the period.

And at least they didn't give all the women those HUGE 185 yards of fabric gowns trailing out 30 feet behind them. Most Arthurian movies make the women wear bedsheets. I hate that, and I wonder why the costumers love them so much - what a waste of material.

reply

But these things I wrote some years ago aren't in any "classic" versions I've read (Uther using Excalibur, Arthur daring a rival to kill him)... By classic I mean non-modern fiction by Malory, Geoffrey of Monmouth, etc., not by authors like T.H. White.

Also, is this the only Arthur film apart from The Last Legion, which (spoilers) uses Vortigern?

reply

On 'Part One': I like the costumes however they aren't totally accurate, being that they are based on styles (with some changes such as long sleeves) Romans wore some hundred plus years before (and some of the Celtic parts of the Costumes such as some of the helmets) are older still.

However it is way more accurate than most other Arthurian films and as it is a fantasy version of the era I think they are justified in their designs for the costuming...at least they aren't like the makers of 'King Arthur' which also has inaccurate costumes (including many other inaccuracies that are too numerous to list), but aren't claiming that 'Merlin' is based on historical fact.

On 'Part Two': The costumes are more accurate than the first part in that they look more Early Medieval/Dark Age however some costumes look like later Early Medieval and early High Medieval and some of the parts look English rather than Romano-British (such as Arthur's and especially Mordred's (maybe they got them from Saxons?) helms which have elements from the Sutton Hoo helm on them) and in some cases Norman/French.

Must as I say compared to many others this at least is believably "Dark Age" fantasy.

"Nothings gonna change my world!"

reply