CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 58 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I don’t know, I’m actually not a huge fan of TVNYS. I do love the conversation between Merrin and Karras. But I thought the CGI and the gratuitous morphing of the Eileen Dietz face throughout the cut cheapened and lessened its impact.
In terms of the spider walk, I liked the version I saw in the Fear of God documentary. That was far more disturbing than the shlocky lame blood mouth.
I’ve just watched TVYNS on DVD, and noticed something interesting. At an early point of the movie, Regan sees that doctor, and you see her spinning around and humming to herself, right?
Now, in the scene where Karras checks on Regan’s pulse after the first exorcism session, she does this strange demonic sound which is pretty similar to Regan’s early humming pattern. I could be wrong, but it’s cool anyway^_^sorry folks i cannot get logged in at all so will have to chat as a guest There have been 3 versions of the film on dvd and by far the most faithful is the original release on region 1 in 1997 and features the original red Warner logo gold couloured dream sequence and original Karras morph.
Although there are few extras it features a full frame version with 5.1 sound and a widescreen version on the flip. Full frame was friedlins preferred framing.
This dvd is very hard to come by now and is the version originall y released in theatres with no colour de-saturation changes and the rough documentery lighting and feel as discussed at the beginning of the thread.
The 25 th anniversary edition is a far more immersive experience but is still missing an awful lot of bits and pieces , more behind the scenes footage exists and could have been included.It is nice to view the extra footage in TVYNS but i feel it is not the movie which scared the pants off me. I do not hate it either as any new version is worth seeing and we are lucky enough to be able to view any new footage at all.
It is subtitled a directors version but i feel it is more of a writers version being far more Blattys vision.
I do not like the captain howdy inserts they are very misguided in mu humble opinion.Does anyone know why Warner Bros. felt the need to “enhance” the 25th Anniversary DVD and tint the majority of the film with a bluish hue? Seeing the comparisons between the two DVD versions, I much prefer the original colors. They do, indeed, look more natural and add a realism to the film that the 25th Anniversary DVD lacks. All that blue is so distracting! Especially in the exorcism scenes!
Peace,
PeteI think the colour choice is Friedkin i would imagine all 3 versions are different its a choice i suppose and i would imagine Friedkin made that choice when re mastering it, its fashionable to have these filters , remember that washed out look leaving the silver nitrate in employed by many films in the early part of this decade.
I remember the colours being very natural at the cinema , deep blacks and grainy.
The 1997 dvd was banged out probably with no touching up so represents the film as closely as i remember.
Friedkin de saturated the Karras dream sequence gone is the gold hues typical of this and The Godfather at the time.
Most new dvd releases of any movie are slightly different it all depends on what you think looks best Friedkin must have thought it needed more Blue in?I honestly enjoyed TVYNS alot more. For one, it does feel more like the book, which to me is a good thing considering it should be as similar to as possible, and I also loved the new Karras scenes. As for the new shots of Pazuzu, I don’t see what the fuss is about personally…scared the crap out of me first time I saw them. It didn’t seem like that many anyway. Correct me if I’m wrong, I thought it was nice considering there weren’t very many flashes of Pazuzu in the original version, were there?
First post here, though I’ve enjoyed reading the site for many months now.
I saw the film upon first release while I was in college. It made me very nervous!
Upon reading Blatty’s book about the movie, I was fascinated by his final script, but never figured I’d get a chance to see it.
I do believe that he had better instincts than Friedkin. The original was a powerful film, but it had a few flaws. I prefer the 2000 reworking.
Professor M, welcome to CaptainHowdy.com and thanks for signing up.
I see your point about the original, but I don’t see them as ‘flaws’. Having read the book and knowing the full context of Blatty’s story – yes, one could point out many ‘flaws’ with the film. However, for the majority of film-goers who hadn’t read the book, the film ties up nicely. I think Friedkin did a great job removing what was necessary and keeping the original nice boxed as it was (as a film – not as an honest representation of Blatty’s complete story).
This is also why I am in favor of a mini-series.
I can go along with that, Captain. Friedkin’s was a rather good condensation of the book for 1973 audiences, but an even longer version could be worthwhile.
You know that made me think of an unusual comparison. Forgive me for making such a comparison, but it’s the same thing I’ve noticed about Harry Potter though not as effectively handled in The Exorcist’s case. For example, I was asking a couple of die-hard Potter fans concerning some deeper elements that apparently are not in the films, but are more carefully explained in the books. What this means is that the people who get the most enjoyment from that universe obviously had to read the books as well because they know some things that the audience who just watch the films won’t know. What this means is there is one advantage and one disadvantage. The advantage I already mentioned, but the disadvantage is that when a screenwriter has to adapt a book he has to leave things out because he only has 2+ hour time slot to fit them in nicely without any of the details that are from the book that feel arbitrary or like fluff. That’s why adaptation is a very important matter. Films and books are two different mediums and therefore shouldn’t depend on each other for one’s understanding in the material. In HP’s case, it seems that all will be explained when the entire series is over, so it can be better expounded later. Unfortunately, it leaves a lot of things to assumption for the film audience and the films (and books) become a little too dependent on each other for information.
In Exorcist’s case, this is not a problem. You hear and see all the necessary information you need to see in order for the film to work totally on its own. If you want more, the new 2000 version works for this. However, both don’t need the book in order for things to make sense or details to be clarified.
I’ve changed my mind and voted the original in the poll after getting the original 1997 DVD. The original colours make a huge difference to me, it adds to the documentary feel to the film. For comparison pics, go here:
http://people.aapt.net.au/~bruno000/index/exorcistcomparison/
TOP: 25th
BOTTOM: Original
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.