CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Jagged, I meant to mention my “blink” thought that I’ve been meaning to bring up because I think it’s pretty cool. I was going to tell you what I actually saw in your avatar the first several times I kept seeing it before I realized you did a little play in Photoshop on the pic of the two images:
If you don’t look really hard and/or you squint your eyes, your avatar resembles an abstract bald eagle with its back to the viewer (the blue part) and its head facing to the right (the red part). A very well done image with two facets that you may not know exists! 🙂
columbian, you usually make a lot of sense to me, but you been tokin’ on something with that Hulk movie reply! LOL! 🙂
Just for you, columbian:
As you grow older, you lose those minute details. 🙂
I’m sure if we get Sofia back online with us, she could point to the pages in the book that actually mention Howard/Howdy.
This is yet another reason to enjoy William Peter Blatty as a wonderful writer …
My thinking was to direct TVYNS back to its original roots and time-era setting. Yes, The Exorcist is a timeless movie, but that is not my point at all that I’m making by placing the post above.
After TVYNS “tinkering,” I was intrigued by the newer audiences that laughed at the film in the theaters based on the following criteria:
Outdated Clothing;
Outdated Vehicles;
Outdated Set Decor;
Outdated Language;
Outdated Medical Procedures;
and the real laugh: The use of Ritalin to treat Regan’s “disorder.” (This was a riot especially for the college-aged students and those in the know about the use of Ritalin as an illegal street drug).I was indeed surprised by the negative reception of the film from younger viewers that I spoke with in the lobby after the movie ended (mostly in huddles and talking about how bad the movie was based on what they expected … they were built up prior to the viewing and then let down). The negativity was mostly concentrated on a film that was “old fashioned that had CGI to spiffy it up and it didn’t work.” Of course I was surprised by the “newbies” that should have known they were going to see a film set in the past (alas, a date stamp of 1973 perhaps works in this instance?)
When I first saw the film in 1974, everyone in the movie theaters here in America were scared to their wits ends and no one laughed at all because they were waiting for the next build up to a terrifying scene. TVYNS, and I agree with Roger Ebert here, was a version that was used yet again as another marketing ploy for this franchise. I’m not saying that all of it is bad, yet most scenes were totally unnecessary (although I was thrilled with the spiderwalk scene).
When CGI is employed to “refresh” an older film, along with the newer digital picture/sound processing, a date stamp could indeed be helpful. Most noteworthy, the additional 11 or so minutes added to the film didn’t help at all, IMHO.
Lastly, and please at least entertain this for a moment in your minds, Friedkin gave us a convincing documentary-style film that makes it legendary. Case in point: the locations of Georgetown and Northern Iraq are already a part of this film. It was a smart move on Friedkin’s part to set the tone of a documentary. By denoting a year, this may offer a more historical point of view and, thusly, an even more documentary-type flair about a “true case” that took place in 1973.
If the setting of the location worked in the original version, then why could a date stamp not be employed on a “new” version of the original? After all, TVYNS employed so many tricks of CGI, what’s the big deal of the date stamp other than giving some perspective about “when this really happened.” [This movie was filmed in 1973 and this is the aspect that should be concentrated on to answer the “outdated criteria” I mentioned above.]
Of course, some the greatest films in cinematic history (like Tobe Hooper’s version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) tell you the year right at the beginning in order to set the tone of that “true story.” The list goes on and I’m sure you can think of others.
I like to talk film, discuss, to critique …
I agree. I think everything looks fine … at least for now. Oh, while I was searching for the “who is Howard in The Exorcist,” I ran across this intriguing concept from AMC website:
“One of her imaginary friends, ‘Captain Howdy’ [a play on her father’s name, Howard, and an innocuous, innocent name that would obversely connote fear] …”
I guess you could split hairs on the hypothesis, but it’s quite clever nonetheless.
Cap, I had no clue (or just let the Howdy/Howard thing rust in the back of my mind). The site is here.
Thanks for letting me know and, yes, one of your great write-ups would be wonderful … 🙂
At this point in time, the original version of The Exorcist has been buried and it’s brother the TVYNS is now king as far as WB is concerned. True fans miss the real thing that was nominated for and won various awards located here.
Maybe Hollyweird will find more footage of Citizen Kane and Psycho and colorize them. They’re not classics either, right?
Captain Howdy, that’s true on the Oscars and I’m quite familiar with that fact. My comment was simply a hasty one in which I was thinking of other cinematic nominations and awards as well. I should have mentioned that in the first place. However, the intent of my comment was only to point out a very basic flaw in choosing the TVYNS over the original version of The Exorcist for Blu-Ray: the 1973 release is, IMHO, the film that made it a legend.
Additional similar aspects: Ted Turner bought a lot of classic films and colorized them to run on his TCM channel, much to the dismay of film critics and fans. Again, point in fact, IMHO, put makeup on the Mona Lisa to make her look more modern. Better yet, let’s crush the Hope Diamond into a million pieces.
Corrections in original post above for fact seekers …
