[ReganMacNeilfan]

Wonderful points granville1. 🙂 and yes beezlebub is on my ignore list too. 🙂

[granville1]

Thanks, Regan. Too bad the guy isn't suited to honest, informed discussion. Some folks are just like that, I see them over on the imdb discussion boards with some frequency…

[ReganMacNeilfan]

Welcome. I have seen my share of wackos in my time. But him? No comment. Lol

[Beelzebub]

RatBoy said:

BEFORE: “In both versions, Karras is never mentioned. It seemed like the writers were giving all credit to Merrin for Reagen's Excorism and tottaly snubbed poor Karras.”

AFTER: “I'm not saying that Karras should have been featured  in newly filmed flashback footage. The point I was trying to make was …”

Hello RATBOY. It is not what you are “trying to say” that matters, its what you “said” that matters. As you can see, your first comment contradicts your second comment. In court it would not stand. What you said first is what counts. In a cheap shot attempt, you are trying to back-up GRANVILLE1. Instead of being greatful for the trivia info.

The title of your thread is “Why was Father Karras snubbed during “Excorcist 2”. One of the synonym for “snub” is “reject”. I am explaining to you why he was not rejected from the movie based on actual facts. Which any hardcore fan likes to know. GRANVILLE1 did not know this and like always he is misleading all of you. He ignores my response and tries to give all the fault to John Boorman and tries to make me look like a retarded, which is not right. Even though GRANVILLE1 made an erroneous comment, you are capable of “thanking” him just because he's been in the forum longer. On the other hand, BEELZEBUB which tells you the truth, you are uncapable to say “thank you” just because I'm new. How ironic.

Jason Miller is not the only one who has denied permission to use footage of his person in movies…

1- Marlon Brando filmed scenes for the movie Superman II, but after producers refused to pay him the same percentage he received for the first movie, he denied them permission to use the footage.

2- Gregory Peck denied permission to Steven Spielberg to use footage of him in Jaws.

3- Carl Weathers denied Sylvester Stallone permission to use footage of him for flashback scenes in Rocky Balboa (Rocky 6).

It’s all a question of “Work For Hire” copyrights. You must specifically ask for the right to use the footage to an actor before using it in a movie. The client owns all copyrights, and may not be willing to grant shared copyright to “Works For Hire”. “Work For Hire” is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally recognized author of that work. According to copyright law in the United States and certain other copyright jurisdictions, if a work is “made for hire”, the employer, not the employee,is considered the legal author.

Hope the info was useful. RATBOY.

 

[Beelzebub]

granville1 said:

“Thanks, Regan. Too bad the guy isn't suited to honest, informed discussion. Some folks are just like that, I see them over on the imdb discussion boards with some frequency…”

First of all, I clearly apologized to you 5 days ago. “I stand CHATISED!” Remember? I gave you a chance to make peace, and still you are too proud to do what is right. Just like the real Major Granville is, a “narcissistic” character in both prequels. You chose your pseudonym well.

I am a very humble and honest person. I always recognize my errors. You on the other hand run away from them. I am the better person for the moment.

I still thank you for correcting me with the little “metaphysical” incident. Is that what a sick, dishonest and bad guy does? Jesus said to always forgive your brother. Until you don't apologize for the “knee-jerk” comment, you will always be in dept with God.

About a demon identifying itself, true, you must force him to say its name before expelling him (this is the 3rd time I acknowledge to your answers). But your comment was not clear either. How the hell was I supposed to know that you already answered before in another thread? AND I DID NOT YELL AT YOU. I wrote to you in very calm and relaxed manner when I answered to you in that specific topic. Stop twisting situations to your advantage like you always do.

[Beelzebub]

I'll tell you what I will do GRANVILLE1, right now. First I will ignore your last replies, as I am burning with desire to fight back. But I won't.

Jesus once asked to a soldier that hit him: “If I said something wrong, it is good that you hit me, but if I did not say anything wrong, WHY DO YOU HIT ME?”

Why do you keep bringing me down after all my answers? Let me ask you a few questions, as you still imply that I am a liar regarding  “EXCORCIST” trivia moments…

1- Did I lie to you about the “ultra fake Blair” answer? About Linda refusing to wear make up?

2- Did I lie about the Vatican's protocol to authorise an excorcism?

3- Did I lie about the 9 related deaths in the first movie?

4- Did I lie about Ellen Burstin coccyx accident and why she refused the role?

5- Did I lie about Jason Miller and why he is not in the movie?

6- Did I lie about Regan being tied and untied at the end of the “EXCORCIST”?

7- Did I lie about a set getting caught on fire by accident in the studio?

8- Did I lie about Friedkin and Blatty negative comments? (The theater and Technicolor incident)

9- Did I lie about Ronald DeFeo Jr.?

10- Did I lie about the “Amityville” book hoax?

All of the answers I gave for the questions above you chose to ignore and evade.

All of these answers are in the net. So why do you keep “HITTING” me? Unlike you, I reply to 80% of your comments with hard, rock solid and verifiable evidence on the net (wikipedia and more). My comments are not based on pure personal, hypotherical and “bullet to the head” views like you. You only reply to 40% and choose to ignore the ones you can't answer.

It is not about who is the best. It is not about who knows more. It is about telling the truth. Which obviously you are not telling. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Just because you had 3 correct answers, up to now, you still evaded and ignored 10 of my 13 answers. Is it too hard to say thank you every now and then, when you don't know something? How about saying: “Hey, I didn't know that, thanks BEELZEBUB!”

Humility, the quality of being modest and respectful is not a weakness, IT IS A VIRTUE MAJOR GRANVILLE.

[Beelzebub]

Now for the grand final, this is what I will do…

Right now I request peace. I am lowering my weapon and taking all the bullets out. I am now at your mercy. Can we please stop this childish spectacle and JOIN FORCES TOGETHER? How about from now on we make things fun and agreable for everyone? I promise to be less arrogant if you promise to be more humble. I that acceptable?

I cannot do more than this GRANVILLE1. I already apologized once, which I am still waiting for a proper apology coming from you about the “knee-jerk” comment.

It is up to you to make the move. The ball is in your camp. Are you willing to lower your weapon?

[Gabriel]

John Boorman is an excellent director. Look at films such as Point Blank, Deliverance, Excalibur, The Tailor of Panama and Hope and Glory for proof of that! Frankly, his filmography is considerably more consistent than William Friedkin’s.

Exorcist II was always a non-starter and the endless rewrites were partly a result of studio interference and partly circumstance: Lee J Cobb’s Kinderman had a substantial role originally, for example, and his death forced major changes.

I’m sure John Boorman, like it or not, feels the pain about Exorcist II as keenly as anyone. But it’s myopic not to acknowledge the many films he has made subsequently that were often very good indeed.

Exorcist II simply shouldn’t have been made in the first place and I doubt anyone could have done much with that screenplay.

There is mention that three people died in Regan’s room, if I remember correctly, but the failure to mention Karras is the key to a popular misunderstanding about the original film. Many people think the film is about Regan being possessed and that she’s the main character, while, in reality, Karras is the main character, the demon possessing a little girl to drive his wavering faith towards despair. Karras is the true exorcist who casts the demon out of a child who is merely a victim of an outside scheme.

Once Regan is saved, there’s no reason ever to see her again, let alone have her become a superpowered main character in a sequel.

There are aspects of Exorcist II I love. The African flashbacks are extremely atmospheric and, had they made a prequel purely about young Father Merrin in Africa starring Max Von Sydow, there might have been something in that. The opening with Ricard Burton in the church and the burning girl is also great until the jump cut to the burning dummy.

Exorcist II feels like a film made by people who’ve heard about the original, but never seen it, hence Karras is overlooked, since the basic imagery associated with the original in the public consciousness is Linda Blair in the bedroom and Max Von Sydow silhouetted by light from the house.

The wonderful thing about Karras’s character is that he is an everyman, so he doesn’t get an iconic image. His normalness, kindness and basic humanity make him what he great. So why would an unsubtle Hollywood sequel recognise someone whose power comes from how ordinary he is?

[Author]

Posts