CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This also links us back to WW2 in Europe where Merin had witnessed much horror. The Demon was there as well. The Demon targeted Burke {who could possibly have been Jewish} and the Christain Priests, yet never harmed Karl. If Burke”s serious allegations against Karl were true it could somehow make sense for Pazuzu not to target him.
As for Regan, she was just collateral damage in the Demon’s war against Merin.The Exorcist continues to pose many questions which still remain unanswered.
I’m not 100% convinced. I did a frame by frame comparison and couldn’t find matching stone patterns. There is also that ironwork behind the nuns (either a drainpipe or railing of some kind) that is missing, that could have been removed over the years though
You could be right.
I will have to have another closer look. My initial feeling was that it had to be the same wall.By the way, I also tried to look for the tennis courts where the Karas Kinderman scene is shot and found some in the university grounds but they dont seem to correspond with the scenery in the film.
Father Bowdern said:
Like a lot of interior shots in this film, “Dahlgren Chapel on the Georgetown campus, … is the site of a ritual desecration; however, the chapel interior seen in the film is not that of Dahlgren. Since church officials did not give William Friedkin permission to shoot the scene depicting a desecrated statue of the Virgin Mary (it was considered too blasphemous), a church in New York was used as a stand-in.”
Gee, I wonder why one church was okay with this in NY, but Dahlgren officials were not?
Father Bowdern
That is quite interesting.
Maybe the church in NY was just more liberal. It could have been a ‘progressive’ Protestant Church, as opposed to an extremely conservative Catholic one which would never allow something like that to be filmed inside its walls.
Have always wondered about this and was interested in what other fans had to say.
I’ll have to check this out. Does Philip L. Simpson touch on similar types of issues in his essay?
I think that it would be easy to make such a connection after viewing the film and seeing the friction and open hostility between the European looking Karl and the slightly Semitic looking movie director Mr Dennings.
I have seen people come up with other ‘interesting’ takes on the death of Dennings, the most popular of course being that Regan killed him becasue she was jealous and didn’t want her mother seeing him, or the ridiculous one about Burke going up to her room to sexually assault her, but these all feel a little too far fetched and quite silly. I think my suggestion needs to be looked at more seriously. I would really love to hear Mr Blatty’s opinion on this matter.
Father Bowdern said:
However, I did find this one that is perspectively more informed regarding the house and the steps here.
In that video the guy says that the interior shots of the MacNeil house were filmed in LA. From what I remember it was NY, a sound stage on Manhattan I believe.
Thanks Jagged!
The wall with the nuns walking by is most likely to be one of those around the university as the stone type matches to a tee, it could be shot from within the grounds though, I’ve not found the location.
The wall with the nuns walking by is definitely 37th St NW, right next to the entrance to the Uni where Chris begins her walk.
The shot of Karras talking to the novice is a tricky one, it’s a church exterior alright, I’m pretty sure that’s a genuine notice board on the wall but it could be another New York shot
This shot as you say must be from NY as I simply can’t find its location in the general area.
Yes I know all about the house and how they added a fake wing. What I was trying to figure out was which streets in the area Chris took on her walk home. After carefully studying street view and all possible options it appears that her ‘walk’ was not the exact route from the Uni to the house. They must have filmed this scene in another part of Georgetown. Now if I only knew which part.
Marlene Lawston is a little too young and she needs to smile more but she is an interesting choice.
Given the option of Nicole Kidman or Jody Foster I would probably vote for Kidman but I would prefer that the role go to someone who looks a little more like Ellen Burstyn {I just love her in that role}, even if they are completely unknown.
I think that these big name actresses like Kidman would distract a little from the plot. Remember how Friedkin rejected the studio’s suggestion to cast Marlon Brando, as he didnt want The Exorcist to be a ‘Brando film’?
Faceless said:
I read the novel in one sitting while listening to GG ALLIN at full volume.
the only part i remember is the psychiatrist talking to her and she said “I am from god” backwards.
Having studied alot of cryptozoology/demonology etc. i thought that made it quite a bit creepier. should have left it in.
he he GG ALLIN was one sick freak.
Im afraid this series wont have the affect we would wish to have from it. The Exorcist at its time was an incredibly power film but now we have people everywhere subjected to far more obscene content everyday on their home computers.
I do look forward to it though
Simply throwing in obscene content and tons of gore for shock value does not make a great horror/drama.
With The Exorcist you actually cared about the people involved, it was like you were personally going through the tragedy with them, while with todays films it is very difficult to make an emotional connection to the characters, at least for me it is.Sofia said:
Ah, Iron Fist, I feel very strongly about this. I’m a lot more emotionally attached to Regan of the novel than to Linda’s portrayal of Regan. Rags of the novel is a very delicate, slender, freckled face child – you just feel like you want to protect her. I also visualize Marlene Lawston as Rags, she’s 11 years old now; it would be wonderful to cast her as Regan. I’ve stopped thinking of Linda Blair as Regan ever since I read the novel, 8 years ago. I was 16. Oh my gosh, how time flies…
I understand completely, you like the novel much more. Looking at it objectively the book is slightly superior simply due to the fact that there is so much more detail and it lets your mind create its own images. Blatty is also a phenomenal writer so I don’t necessarily disagree with your opinion.
That said I still can’t look at it objectively because the film is what I first saw as a child back in 1983/84 and it had such an impact on me, unlike anything else since. Reading the book some 12 years later as an adult could never repeat that feeling and because I saw the film first I found myself constantly thinking of Blair, Burstyn, Von Sydow and Miller while reading the novel. The film {not the book} is linked to my childhood although I still love the book very much.
Sometimes I wish that I had first read the exorcist and then seen the film.
This Marlene Lawston looks a litte too young, maybe in 2 or 3 years.
I assumed that you had already met her, being such a die hard fan and in the loop concerning all things Exorcist.
She was in Australia back in 1992, I don’t know if she has been back since. It would be cool if she would come out again and do some Horror/Sci-Fi fan convention like they do in the US and UK.horror2 said:
“Exorcist II: The Heretic” is and always will be one of my favorite films of all time. Everything about it is great. The acting, the story, the scenery, the special effects and the beautiful musical score make this one of the best film experiences I have ever had. I don't care what anyone says, this film is excellent.
Don’t forget the absolutely beautiful teenage Linda Blair.
I don’t know about it being one of the best film experiences but it is better than people make it out to be. I do feel that Heretic has gotten a lot of unjustified hate directed against it. Approached with an open mind the film is not that bad and for a mystical thriller it is quite good. The problem most people had was that it was not pure in your face horror.
Sofia said:
Quote:Iron Fist said:
The only concern I have is who will be cast? These roles are so important to the fans that it would be a real tragedy not to get the right actors.
Chris: An actress who looks like Shirley MacLaine!!!!! (when she was young, of course). Regan: A child actress who looks like Mary Beth McDonough at the time she was 11/12 years old, playing Erin in The Waltons.
Pleease, it's what I ask for! For Chris and Regan to look exactly like Chris & Rags of the novel… with her sweet freckled face, and reddish blond hair. Sorry, I have a “thing” for reddish blond hair and freckles, so this means a lot to me. Of course, it doesn't mean anything to other fans. You would have to be me in order to understand…
(Maybe Fatherb understands? You're a fan of Shirley MacLaine, right ?)
That girl would make a good Regan but Linda Blair is untouchable as far as I’m concerned. There is so much emotional attachment to her and the film as they represent a moment in time in people’s lives which can never be repeated again. The fears, the dreams, childhoods, long lost memories, smells, strange atmosphere of the past locked away in our dark subconscious and loved ones which have since passed away.
It is a strong force which the original Exorcist taps into and unleashes, it moves our very being. Sometimes I would even feel a sad emptiness and desolation after watching the film and I am not even a religious person.This is amazing news!
With a mini series they can follow the exact plot of the book in full detail, something that was impossible with the film back in 73. The only concern I have is who will be cast? These roles are so important to the fans that it would be a real tragedy not to get the right actors. I just can't think of anyone among todays crop of Hollywood actors that would fit what is needed. Also it needs to be filmed in Georgetown, that is a must.
What I would also like to see, although it will never happen, would be for Linda Blair to be given a part in the mini series. What do you guys think?
