CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sorry folks, it was very hard to screen capture the scenes above at the precise second for a side-by-side comparison. The “new” spiderwalk received the full DVD enhancements, so I think the film was brightened in other areas, too.
I do believe that more than one shot was filmed with various types of lighting. I recall somewhere on here that there was trouble with the rig holding Hager up and it had to be manually controlled. It makes sense to have several shots of that one scene as they do others.
As for the CGI, I’m glad to see some agreement. Even if the “bloody spiderwalk” was filmed in 1973, Friedkin is really the authority in his “EXORCIST FAQ by William Friedkin.” I think he’s telling the truth because he would have expounded on the bloody version if it existed. Also, let’s say there was a bloody version filmed … I don’t think the blood would be as plentiful from Hager’s mouth if CGI was not involved.
Planet Hollywood restaurant in Vegas. They have a stairwell of horror memorabilia that are real gross outs; i.e., Kathy Bate’s battered head after her head hits the typewriter in the movie Misery. The restaurant is kind enough to put the gross stuff on display in the waiting areas. There’s nothing like looking at a gory corpse from Rob Zombie’s House of 1000 Corpses, just before you chow down on a rare steak! 😉
Rob. Watch out! Run, Rob, run!
I’ve been taking an ass-kicking (LOL) on here from folks that don’t believe CGI could produce the same special effect versus actually being film back 1973.
Kermode does not provide direct evidence in his video of CGI not being utilized at all. Kermode says Friedkin used another “outtake,” but does not say if CGI was used to alter that “outtake.” That’s the lacking evidence for me because an “outtake” can be mean: “I used another shot, a better shot, of Linda R. Hager descending the stairs to create the bloody ending for the spiderwalk scene.
For a film (TVYNS) that’s already been CGI’d to death, it makes sense to those of with the philosophy that CGI is incorporated (it looks obvious to me as well). Despite the fact that we agree, we have too many naysayers that can’t buy into this premise and just say, “Oh, Kermode provides the proof.” Nonsense.
Again, it’s only “guesstures” on everyone’s part. Blatty and the CGI team could answer the question best. Yes, it looks CGI’d and I prefer Friedkin’s abrupt ending versus the silly snake-tongue ending that doesn’t have a true ending other than fading out.
Ahhh, sweet mysteries (of CGI) … (enough to fool viewers as is intended). 😉
I think that’s actually a great scene to open the film with. I would have liked to have seen the date, “1973” at that point to lend a more documentary style (Friedkin’s intention). Plus, it may have eliminated some of the laughter from newer viewers.
Ryan, I agree with you. When Mark Kermode worked in America at WB, he was given a “full-access pass” to all the stored material for The Exorcist … the “… entire archive full of stuff …”
We need a Ryan Streat documentary on Legion! 🙂
LOL, Cap! The last place I remember exhibiting the Regan dummy is the Museum of the Moving Image here.
“She” has done a lot of traveling in the U.S., including the Smithsonian Institute. I can’t remember if I saw the dummy there or NY Met. (That was a hundred years ago).
I’d search Google to find Regan’s newest home in a glass box. 🙂
Just a refreshed copy of my comments from the home page:
IMHO, Mark Kermode is not eliminating CGI at all. Kermode is rather tongue-in-cheek toward the end of video with his friend and director of FOG, Nick Jones. There is no direct evidence of the filming of a bloody spiderwalk scene presented. Friedkin already answered that question here.
The question from the fan to Kermode is regarding the disappointment in TVYNS because, “One of the scenes had been changed … the spiderwalk. Now, NOW, she pukes up blood, which looks stupid. Why, oh, why did Billy Friedkin change a perfectly good scene?”
Kermode states the following about the spiderwalk scene: “We found all the footage, the outtake footage that Friedkin had forgotten he shot.” By finding all the footage, Kermode has convinced me that he did get it all.
Two theories play out:
1. There is no filmed bloody version. This is simply a hypothesis because I do not think Friedkin had carte blanche on the editing room floor materials, which WB owns. The bloody spiderwalk did not vanish with Friedkin, nor did he have special ownership rights to any part of the film.
2. WB granted Kermode access to the vaults in 1997/1998. In my opinion, Kermode is the “expert on the subject.” In fact, I believe Kermode would have worked on two variations of this critical “non-existent” scene with Nick Jones (a bloodless and bloody version) for his FOG documentary. Why would Kermode only use one version when he hit the motherload by finding all the spiderwalk material? Put simply, he did not find a bloody scene. Further, Kermode would have been thrilled to have found two versions and use them both in his FOG.
While viewing the original spiderwalk, you can see that the very same scene, sans the blood, is identical to the TVYNS. The scene has a closer crop in the 2000 version and the color is more even in tonal value. Through CGI, Hager’s mouth is now poised in an open position with the blood pouring from it for a more climactic ending. Without this climax, the scene could have gone on with Regan on all fours (quadrupedal style) with a snake-like tongue lashing at Sharon’s ankles … the way in which Blatty wrote it for the novel and script.
Additionally, it would only seem wise to continue with the CGI for an updated “shock” appeal. Why? It’s used throughout the film. Also, fans of this film had already scene what Kermode presented in the FOG. In the 2000 version, we (the fans) get something we were not expecting at all. Plus, the blood hides part of Hager’s face. Bottom line, in my opinion: TVYNS is CGI’d all over the place; the bloody ending to the spiderwalk has a newly refreshed ending with shock appeal for both new and seasoned viewers; Regan crawling on all fours with the snake-like tongue is not very scary compared to the bloody climax.
Kermode’s ending in his video asks us to believe what we want as he crosses his arms. He asks us to “decide for ourselves.” That is the true tongue-in-cheek message Kermode is delivering. Just MHO … despite the ongoing debate.
As an added note, to sustain any proof as to whether the scene was filmed as is or CGI’d is really only a “guessture.” Had Kermode put a definitive answer, without the “you decide,” at the end of his video, I would believe it was actually filmed that way. There is just too much CGI in TVYNS and the spiderwalk certainly looks that way in my eyes. 🙂
There are only a small handful of real experts … and this scene is just a mystery that goes along with the lore of the fabulous film, The Exorcist.
Also, check this out again and notice the things I mentioned above about minor cropping and tonal values in the print (first set of pictures).
The last picture is the clincher in my eyes. There’s way too much blood streaming out of Hager’s mouth. In other words, her mouth could only hold so much fake blood during her descent, yet it keeps flooding out: (pic is right-side up):
I love the idea, Cap! Ghetto, I’m sure that she’s out there somewhere. God help us that she’s in a Planet Hollywood restaurant! 😉
My only decisive move in purchasing yet another copy of this film will depend on the extras. (Let’s face it, they always end up on youtube, so you can peruse that section to death there and determine the value).
I am hopeful that WB has a loot of goodies for us. Plus, having Blatty and Friedkin talk about the film at the various filming sites might be a plus (as long as it isn’t anything like the thing Blatty did on DVD).
Cap, I’d love to see a vote button on the opening page about which version is liked the most as you’ve done in the past for other fun or hot items. This one is a “broiler!” Is this possible?
For me, if TVYNS is the only choice, I’d prefer the same as you Ghetto. The only really quality issue was adding the spiderwalk back in provided they use the original shot without the CGI blood).
But, there’s alway a FF choice on Blu-Ray that I can take advantage of. 😉
Cap, I’m not a little disappointed … I’m a whole lot disappointed and pissed. From the news on the opening page, my two cents:
Note to William Friedkin:
Thank you, Mr. Friedkin, for screwing this up for the true fans of your original masterpiece. When I say “masterpiece,” I don’t expect the piece of trash that added 12 insipid minutes called, “The Exorcist: The Version You’ve Never Seen.” I really don’t care if you “laid upon the sword” by allowing your ego to be “crushed” by not calling it the “Director’s Cut.” [Laughs!] That’s pretty much bullshit … and you know it. TVYNS was simply a ploy to make money on one of the greatest films in cinematic history.
I am only one voice. However, your choices in editing in 1973 were supreme genius. Upon the release of TVYNS in 2000, I felt as though “your Mona Lisa” received a quick and outlandish swipe of garish lipstick and eye shadow via CGI. Perhaps you and WB enjoy CGI technology a little too much. Only crucial CGI corrections are necessary when toying with perfection. TVYNS was a smoke-and-mirrors production to update the film’s look upon its “new-century release.” Your audience is just as intelligent today as it was in 1973.
For God’s sake, just add the year “1973” to the film’s opening (those bell bottoms jeans and hairstyles are both dead giveaways); resist your temptation to add the fake CGI “shock” attempts; remove the 12 minutes of garbage; and, call the Blu-Ray version the “Director’s Cut.”
Peace!
Father Bowdern
etrigan (still love that avatar!),
You are absolutely right from the research I’ve done, too. I don’t understand how Halloran can get so mixed up on his “stories.” It doesn’t provide very much authenticity to the case when a member of the crew can’t keep his stories on track. Talk about derailing!
I thought there was a high school picture of Ronald Edwin Hunkeler on here? If not (after searching, that is), I can always upload his page and download here.
A repeat for you Ryan from the opening web page. I couldn’t agree more:
The CGI is so terribly and haphazardly done throughout the TVYNS. I am assuming that Friedkin wanted to update his film to fit (unwisely) by today’s quick and cheap shock-value standards for horror films. The Exorcist is not “Hostel” or “Saw.” The Exorcist is a masterpiece of writing, directing, acting, outstanding special effects, and sound to name a few for its era. The Exoricst cannot be “updated” to “force” a society of new viewers into believing the film is not from 1973.
I am wondering seriously if Friedkin, Blatty, or any WB executive attended at least three or more viewings of TVYNS with random audiences. The laughter coming from these audiences, regardless of their generation, should have given them a clue that what they did was a primary fuck up. 🙂
Another intriguing article (here) is a good reading. I especially like these paragraphs:
1. “R’s parents were becoming frantic. They had watched their son become unruly, even threatening to run away, and he seemed to be “on the verge of violence” (Allen 2000, 57). They sought help from a physician, who merely found the boy “somewhat high-strung,” then from a psychologist, whose opinions went unrecorded. A psychiatrist found R to be “normal,” but “declared that he did not believe the phenomena.” A Spiritualist and two Lutheran ministers were consulted (Bishop 1949, 248). One of the latter eventually advised the parents, “You have to see a Catholic priest. The Catholics know about things like this” (Allen 2000, 24).”
These series of events truly denied a disturbed teenager of psychiatric help and perhaps medications that could have solved his mental problems. However, it was 1949, and the use of psychiatric drugs (not the best at the time obviously) were probably more taboo than seeking more “professional” help from the Catholic church. The white-picket fence family in suburbia would perhaps be shamed by a mental illness in the family. However, an exorcism is shrouded tightly in secrecy.
Sideline: In The Exorcist (novel), Blatty does a bang up job of letting us know the medications are not helping Regan. The jolt that Blatty delivers is that Regan is heavily sedated just prior to the crucifix masturbation. Blatty lets the reader know more about Regan’s medical therapy and lets the reader deduce the obvious. As for the film, editing was of the essence (both pre- and working script), and we didn’t get enough lead up (IMHO) regarding Regan’s medical treatments.
2. “Was R possessed? Or did superstition mask a troubled youth’s problems and invite elaborate role-playing? Interestingly, Archbishop Ritter appointed a Jesuit philosophy professor to investigate the matter. According to a reportedly informed source, the investigator concluded that R “was not the victim of diabolical possession” (Allen 2000, 234). Without wishing to make a categorical judgment, Halloran states that R did not exhibit prodigious strength, showing nothing more than what could be summoned by an agitated teenager. As to speaking in Latin, Halloran thought that was nothing more than the boy’s having heard repetitious Latin phrases from the exorcising priest. (Or one occasion “the devil reportedly spoke school kids’ ‘pig Latin'”!)”
This is an interesting contrast on the level that Halloran did not believe R was truly possessed, yet he passes on the “diary” to Allen. Allen then follows up in his 2000 edition of Possessed with, “R was not the victim of diabolical possession” (Allen 2000, 234). WHAT? By updating his own original work, Allen is now complicating things more by including the confirming “diary’ while denouncing the possession. WHY? $$$ … maybe a, “How can I make Possessed more like The Exorcist?” Money is the root of all evil and the pun is intended. 🙂
Just my humble thoughts. “It’s all very remote.”
