Extended cut


I remember quite a few years ago, before I had Encore, they were advertising a extended cut of Excalibur of about 3 hours (or more) long.
Does anyone have any info on what was added and where one might find a copy?
D. v~~v

reply

I really don't think that exists.

the final cut of the movie is 140 minutes. There is a shorter version, which I believe they play on TV and the sex, nudity, and gore is edited out.

reply

I remember that version too..but I (and a few of my fellow geeks) remember that clearly.
It ran on Encore way back in the day (when the TV Guide was the small mag that actually told you what was playing and had a movie guide in the back) for about a month..was gone for a year and came back. I decided to try Encore then, but when they hooked me up....it had stopped playing.
Oh well...guess I'll check the comic/sci-fi conventions for a bootleg.

D. v~~v

reply

bootleg of what? the edited version? why on earth would you want to watch that and not the complete film on BluRay???

reply

no...not the edited version..the extended 3 hour version that played on Encore a few years back. I have the complete, theatrical version on DVD already, but want to see the extended cut.

D. v~~v

reply

there is no extended cut, just the 140 min version.

reply

and I (and most of my friends) remember, very clearly a 3hr (give or take) version airing on Encore way back in the day. Unfortunately, none of us had Encore at the time (being broke sucks) so we were unable to watch it.
Yesterday, I called a old friend who ran a rare video rental store in Tampa (one of the only, at the time to carry the European cut of Dune before DVD took off) and he said he didn't have it anymore, but it DID exist at one time and that he got his copy in Europe. Unfortunately, as is the case with VHS, it eventually degraded and became unwatchable.
So the next step would be to check any sci-fi/comic conventions to see if any of the vendors that carry the oddball/rare/foreign cuts of movies has it.
One never know what one will find there.

D. v~~v

reply

well you'd think the details page on imdb would list an extended cut....but it seems that officially the 140 min version is it.

reply

Well IMDB has been wrong before.
If I have any success in locating a bootleg I'll be sure to update it.

D. v~~v

reply

Okay, I'll bite.

So what does this extended cut that no one but you has ever heard of supposedly contain...?

Erik Kristopher Myers
Writer/Director -- ROULETTE
www.imdb.com/name/nm3138460/

reply

Hence the reason for my search....
I don't know..I only saw it advertised way back when the TV Guide was smaller and had complete movie listings in the back.
It said it was a extended version and was a little over 3hrs long, as I recall.
I saw it advertised several times in a month playing on Encore (before there was a Encore multiplex) but since I didn't have, nor could afford the movie channels, I couldn't get it.
But I and several of my friends remember it being listed.
PLUS a friend of mine in Tampa who ran a rare VHS rental place use to have a copy he found in Europe but, as with the case with VHS, had degraded to become unwatchable.


D. v~~v

reply

Two possible explanations:

1. Like Boorman's EXORCIST II, EXCALIBUR was re-edited, and for a while, only the edited version was available on TV and home video. In both cases, the film was then re-released in it's original (longer) format. This may have been false advertising.

2. Most channels "round up" a run time to fit hourly blocks; hence it being listed as three hours when it wasn't.

No documentation exists for a version longer than we have, so my belief is that this is a misconception based on confused marketing/advertising.

Erik Kristopher Myers
Writer/Director -- ROULETTE
www.imdb.com/name/nm3138460/

reply

Maybe...but I recall the ad saying it was a "extended version" of the movie which, if it was the original theatrical version, they, as a movie channel wouldn't say. And I've never known a pay channel to round the time of a movie up that long. The original version has since run on the same channel several times and it was never advertised as such, nor was the time rounded up.
And, as I've said, my friend in Tampa (who use to run a rare VHS rental store) remembers having it as a "European cut".
So, who knows?
I'll keep looking at conventions, etc. because one never knows what one will find there.

D. v~~v

reply

Though I remain sceptical, I wish you luck in your search. Please keep us posted. I hope you come back to tell me I was wrong...!

ekm
Writer/Director -- ROULETTE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294794/combined

reply

They may also have listed the theatrical version as extended if they had previously shown the shortened version. It is true that a TV showing of an 140 minute film could easily have run for three hours.

reply

What is in the extended cut that is not in the regular cut?

reply

What is in the extended cut that is not in the regular cut?


You miss the point of my reply. If what I said is true (and I do mean if because it was only a guess) then there is no extended cut, just the theatrical cut and the shortened one.

reply

please read the whole thread.
I saw this listed in the TV guide playing on Encore...a pay movie channel...NOT regular TV so there would be no reason to air the "shortened version" seen on regular TV.
Also the listing clearly said "extended version" to list it as such and then to show the theatrical version would be false advertising, and in all the years since, when they show the theatrical cut, they don't list it as the "Extended version".
Lastly, A friend of mine who use to run a rare VHS rental store use to have it as a "European Cut" but his tape had long degraded as to be unwatchable, so, to date, I haven't found it and don't know what the difference is aside for it being slightly over 3 hrs long.

D. v~~v

reply

Well if it is a difference between UK and US then I can't help you. I come from the UK therefore the UK / European cut is the only one I have ever seen.

reply

I found this on wikipedia:

According to Boorman, the film was originally three hours long; among scenes that were deleted from the finished film but featured in one of the promotional trailers was a sequence where Lancelot rescued Guenevere from a forest bandit.

Not sure if this version was ever shown, but I would be interested in seeing it.

reply

Also according to wikipedia the 140min R rated version, and the 119min PG rated version are the only two versions ever released (not that you can trust wikipwdia 100%).

reply

According to Boorman, the film was originally three hours long; among scenes that were deleted from the finished film but featured in one of the promotional trailers was a sequence where Lancelot rescued Guenevere from a forest bandit.

I'm in the UK where they don't usually cut films like they do in the US, and have never seen this version with that trailer clip. We have the long 2hrs 20mins version.

I don't even know why it was cut from the final.

If the c.3hrs version ever did exist, I'd like to hear about it here? This was the debate about Caligula - many supposed versions and now it is not banned but out on dvd?

reply

but featured in one of the promotional trailers was a sequence where Lancelot rescued Guenevere from a forest bandit.

Yes, that's (in) the trailer on my DVD.

reply

I talked to a friend who knows all about "Excalibur". He said the original cut was three hours BUT never released. The director himself cut it down to 140 minutes and he said the material he took out either didn't work or slowed the movie down too much. So there WAS a 3 hour version but it was never released and the director is happy with the 140 minute version. Maybe Encore thought they had an extended version but didn't. They're made mistakes on the running times of their movies before.

reply

Watched the blu-ray this morning with Boorman's commentary. He said what your friend said... most of the stuff cut from the initial version was from the wastelands section of the film. He felt the trimmed down 140 minute final cut was much better.

reply

i can end the speculation regarding excalibur. all that was cut were a few anal scenes involving merlin and arthur.

reply

Please SEE the "Production" portion of this Wiki on the making of the film... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excalibur_(film)


-Charles W. Bailey
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2351682/

reply

ekmyers..... great write up. My thoughts exactly.

reply

Im watching what they call a re-edited version that runs 2:25 on encore action. It looks like it has been cleaned up and it plays a bit more understandably than the version I remember seeing at least 12 times.

reply

I think the problem may simply be that the movie was 140 minutes, which is exactly 2.5 hours... it was not unheard of in the day for a movie on encore to extend beyond the normal hour or half hour cut off time by as much as 15 minutes... if a movie had over played by 15 minutes and ran until 7:15... it is then entirely possible that the TV Guide could list Excalibur as starting at 7:00 and ending at 10:00... Now look at someone how is writing the mini reviews in the TV Guide he isn't going to look at the actual time of the movie he is likely going to just look at the grid which makes it look like a 3 hour movie.

reply

Again..I recall the ad saying it was a "extended version" of the movie which, if it was the original theatrical version, they, as a movie channel wouldn't say. And I've never known a pay channel to round the time of a movie up that long. The original version has since run on the same channel several times and it was never advertised as such, nor was the time rounded up.
And, as I've said, my friend in Tampa (who use to run a rare VHS rental store) remembers having it as a "European cut". But it might have been a bootleg of the original 3 hours version...I have seen more than a few movies like that floating around
So, who knows? .

D. v~~v

reply

I would wager at least half of the people reading this post have scoured the Net for any trace of the elusive "extended cut." If it ever existed it would have been, by definition, a bootleg. It also would have been found and accessible. I think this extended cut (or European cut) is a false memory. No offense to the OP, but all the evidence (lack of) points to that conclusion.

reply

Well you can believe what you wish but I'm not the only one who remembers that listing. Several of my family and friends remember seeing it listed in the TV Guide that way AND I recently touched base with the son of the original owner of the rental store who ALSO remembers having that VHS in his father's inventory.
But, as I said..you can believe what you wish, but I know my memory isn't "false".

D. v~~v

reply

[deleted]

I've seen many films listed as "extended versions" that were simply 15-minute featurettes tacked onto the end of the movie.

Yeah, they're dead; they're--all messed up!

reply

May it be that the so-called 3 hrs version was jus the 140 min plus the commercial breaks ?

reply

I was about to say the commercials as well!

But I also have this childhood memory that, at the start of the final battle, when Arthur's knights charge, I seem to recall the Mordred soldier turning around to get the lance in the chest was shown twice in the battle.

reply

try a site called fan edits some there try to create the full lenth like the dawn of dead 156 min version

That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons even death may die
H.P.LOVECRAFT

reply

just found this "According to Boorman, the film was originally three hours long; among scenes that were deleted from the finished film but featured in one of the promotional trailers was a sequence where Lancelot rescued Guenevere from a forest bandit." its here on its official fb page https://www.facebook.com/pages/Excalibur/105933682771316?nr#

That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons even death may die
H.P.LOVECRAFT

reply

There was one scene involving sex between Merlin and Morgana (I'm not kidding.) that I only saw a still shot of in a Japanese movie book. The shot was of her in his arms, apparantly after the act.

reply

Link?

All this talk of 'extended' versions is either American fans suddenly seeing UK cuts (not as strict as US censors) or original Cannes festival releases before the theatrical edits?

I doubt the supposed 'love scenes' between Merlin and Morgana.

reply

If you watch trailers of Excalibur, you'll see clips of scenes that are not included in today's versions. Yuo have to watch them all and watch carefully. There were scenes of Uther and Igrayne cut out.

reply

That happens in just about every movie.

We shoulda rented a car.
We have my pony.
Your pony is an old nag.

Powwow Highway

reply

For sure, but I think the point we're trying to get across is that the 3 hour version may in fact have existed just as one of the previous posters has claimed.

On Youtube there also might be scenes of Lancelot in the forest, scenes nowhere in any version of Excalibur, either rated PG or R.

Here, look at this trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emF-m9qnF5o

In this official trailer, you see Igrayne and Uther doing more foreplay than the R version featured. You also see Lancelot whacking a forest bandit. That scene is in no PG or R version. You also here Nicol Williamson's real undubbed voice as he channels the Dragon and attempts to double cross Morgana.

Did a 3 hour version exist? I think it did.

reply

Possibly, I have seen the trailer of course, and remember a charging Llancelot throwing an axe at a Cossack-looking warrior to save Guenevere.

But how come none of the cast or Boorman have mentioned the Merlin/Morgana or Uther/Igrayne sex scenes since?

reply

Don't know jh66, but I am really thinking that the R and PG versions were "Americanized:, and the 3 hour version was some European version. Grounds for that is the scene of Uther and Igrayne preparing for foreplay that is far more graphic than anything shown in the R version. I think back in 1981, if a man and woman were shown getting ready to do what those two were clearly getting ready to do, the R rating wouldn't be sufficient. A movie like that would have been "NC 17" but NC 17 probably didn't even exist in 1981. So for the US market it is cut out entirely.

Merlin and Morgana. The old rumor was that Nicol Williamson and Helen Mirren simply didn't like each other. Also, Helen Mirren has always been involved in provacative stuff. There would be no reason to ask her about a simulated sex love scene with some ancient actor (that probably isn't that well know in the USA) when she has done far more controversial things (going topless, Caligula, etc).

The fact that all of this extra footage is presented in trailer form is probably proof that there was another version out there longer than the PG or R versions extant in the USA. You don't put something in a trailer unless it is actually in the movie. The R version is something like 2 hours and 20 minutes long. So a 3 hour version has just a liiiittle bit more left in to make it that much longer.

If you want to gossip, the real question is: Did Helen Mirren and Nicol Williamson ever make it? Being as the guy was so tall and she was always a freak from day one, plus the fact that if there was no sexual tension they should've never hated each other to begin with, I think the chances are pretty high that Nicol and Helen may have connected, once upon a time.

reply

sorry....but the scene of having sex between merlin and morgana does exist...it was on a stone altar....I remember it distinctly cause I brough my two boys (age 10 and 11)and thinking at the time...holy crap...this is pretty adult stuff for them....

reply

I am inclined to believe you richard.

reply

Well there was a 3hr 7min version, I had it on VHS up to a few days ago, I remember I had to use a 4hour tape due to its length (most 3hr tapes them days didnt actually last 3hrs). Among the scenes was the merlin + Morgana love scene, also the scene where Morgana mates with Arthur was A LOT more explicit (ie she was riding him for some time), I have the 2hr 20min blu ray version, and alot of dialogue and scenes are not there. Yes the love scene between Lancelot and Guinever was also more explicit. . . all the other stuff etc . . I understand people say it was a lot of boring scenes, but if you want to watch a film as the makers originally wanted it.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0165551/?ref_=tt_cl_t3

reply

Yes, but did it have adverts.

Let Zygons Be Zygons.

reply

wait, you had the 3 hour version of Excalibur? and this thread just dies off?
can you tell us more? where you got it? why is it coincidentally gone "a few days ago"? and are there commercial breaks?

reply

I recorded a broadcast of the movie on the DVR from the Encore Action channel earlier this year. The recording is 150 min. long, but the summary says the movie is 140 min. I'm guessing that the extra 10 minutes is just the filler and promos that Encore runs in between movies to start the next movie at the beginning of an hour or on an even number. (Ex., 9:20 pm instead of 9:13 pm.)

The year is listed as 1981. The summary reads as follows:

"Re-edited version of John Boorman's film about the King Arthur (Nigel Terry) legend. (Action/Adventure, 140 Mins.)"

So Encore is still advertising a "re-edited version" of the film, but it appears to be the standard theatrical release, 140 minutes in length.

The only online webpage that mentions different versions is the IMDb page, and that mentions only the theatrical version (140 min.) and the PG version for TV/movie channels (119 min.).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082348/alternateversions

reply

[deleted]

I just came here for that reason remembering the longer version. I watched it originally when I was pretty young so I remember the extended sex scenes.

reply

According to John Boorman

Q. Now I understand the original cut of Excalibur was turned it at three hours, is there any chance of this version ever being released?

A. No, I’m not planning to. The original cut of Excalibur was really only bordering the 3 hour mark in the region of 2 hours and 50 minutes. There were two or three scenes that I left out simply because I had to get the film below 2 and a half hours.

Q. Diehard fans would love to know the nature of those scenes…

A. Well during the sequence before Arthur comes to power there were some additional scenes of knights marauding around the countryside, burning villages and killing people. I wanted to express the confusion and turmoil of a land without a king but they weren’t really essential. Often necessity is the mother of invention and with Excalibur I found the more I paired it down the stronger it became because everything in the film then meant something, there was no flab. What’s important for me when I watch films is that after a few minutes one begins to realise everything in that film is intended by the director – it then assumes great power. This is the quality which the films of Kubrick possess; everything within every frame is important and intended, there’s nothing extraneous and this is what I tried to achieve with Excalibur.

Q. We can rule out a ‘Definitive Edition’ on Blu-Ray then?

A. Yes, because I think what’s left out is just as important as what’s left in. You make your decisions and you have to stand by them.


http://filmireland.net/2011/03/16/in...-john-boorman/

reply

Yes, he talks about these deleted scenes in the DVD commentary. There was also originally a lot more of the sequence where Perceval crosses the frozen wastelands during the grail quest. Boorman and his editor eventually cut this long extended sequence down to a series of brief shots of the lonely Perceval on his journey.

There was also (as has been mentioned on this message board) a deleted scene involving Lancelot on horseback in combat against attackers in a forest. Brief shots from this sequence can be glimpsed in the theatrical trailer. The trailer was assembled from Boorman's original rough-cut, and went out theatrically with brief shots from scenes which had (by the time the feature was playing theatrically) been removed from the release-print version.

It might have been nice to at least have a deleted scenes gallery as an optional extra on a new Bluray special edition, but Boorman seems to have dug his heels in on this. Idiosyncratic to the last. His own standards vary considerably. There have been oft-mooted plans to release his extended director's cut of Hell in the Pacific (1968).

Also contradicting his statement (about how his release-print versions always reflect his final intentions) is the longer extended version of his deeply flawed production Exorcist II: The Heretic; which was restored to full length for DVD and Bluray release. Boorman himself personally ordered cuts totalling almost fifteen minutes from this movie after its disastrous initial opening weekend in 1977.

So which version represents his 'final statement' of directorial intent? Shorter general release print, or longer DVD/Bluray version? Boorman has rather contradicted himself throughout his career - a statement in one interview completely contradicted by another later on. He has always seemed to be teasing and misleading his interviewers, perhaps purposely. Critics can never quite get a handle on him... A distinctly mercurial (and mischevious) talent.

reply

This would be perfect for Blu Ray.

I wonder if there is even a clean enough print.

reply