CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Won’t make any difference to clarity, but should (if it’s correct and if it was closer to the original shooting ratio) reveal areas top and/or bottom of screen that would have previously been missing. On the other hand if it’s not closer to the original ratio the only effect will be areas of no information at the sides of the screen.
How correct it is all depends on original shooting ratio vs scanned ratio vs intended projection ratio. In short it could be good news for purists, we’ll have to wait and see.
RatBoy said:
My main point is, the Exorcist could have suffered having the Jane Fonda stigma.
Barbarella
They Shoot Horses, Don't They?
Klute
Fun with Dick and Jane
Coming Home
The China SyndromeNone of these seemed to suffer from Ms Fondas involvement or acting abilities.
Seems the only people who actually suffered anything were angry ultra right wingers who failed to understand a young ladies disappointment at the behaviour of her country in a foreign land.
Now don't get me wrong I do agree her words and actions were actually a step to far, but when placed into the context and spirit of the times I think perfectly understandable.
I believe she has herself voiced her regret and long since apologised. Time perhaps to put aside all that nasty prejudice, it was after all 40 long years ago. Hanging on to all that anger will just harden your arteries chap.
No thanks.
I'm actually a fan of 3D in the right movies. Big blockbusters where things have been planned and shot in 3D are fine by me.
Overhauling a 40 year old documentary style chiller though, not such a good idea. It would wreck the feel of the film which I think is nice and subtle in nature. Whilst a few scenes are bombastic, in the main it's a film that slowly and gently gets under your skin. It doesn't need retro fitting with modern gimmickry.
Modern audiences should be able to view it for what it is, a 40 year old classic pure and simple. It's just fine that way.
Having said that, if they did it, I would no doubt go to see it and buy the blu-ray, being totally bereft of all sense when it comes to films I love.
Whilst I'll never say never, I find them 99% unlikely to exist. Angels and demons are an ancient concept. Fascinating as they are, they belong to an age where mankind did not understand their place in the universe, where science was in it's infancy and we sought fantastical explanations for the world around us.
Like most religious doctrine I suspect they were originally invented by one section of society in order to subjugate another. Whether it were the words of the village shaman or a more intensive work such as the bible, religion in general seems designed as a tool to shape society, and enforce moral laws through fear. Not at all a bad thing in it's day, but far less believable in these times.
When I see displays of modern day exorcism, all I see are the greedy and the megalomaniac taking advantage of the suggestive and the needy. Whilst I do not doubt the existence of the genuinely pious, for the most part exorcism is just the utilisation of smoke and mirrors designed to frighten one person and line anothers pockets.
Of course, I could be wrong and it's that tiny sliver of uncertainty that allows a work such as the exorcist to still send a shiver up my spine 😉
I enjoyed both. A bit cheesy, but there's nothing wrong with that. Not every movie has to be a hyper-realistic masterpiece.
Found the demon in Insidious visually disappointing but at least it was different.
Ooh. I don't know. Sometime's it's best to leave well alone. However, if someone were to actually get it right for a change…
Whilst I loved the air of cold desperation the original had with the scene of Merrin and Karras sat silently on the stairs, this is the one addition that adds something of value to the later version.
Still don't know if I prefer it though…
No, no and no. No subtext was ever present or intended by the author or the director. You are interpreting a late 1960s tale of demonic possession with the paranoia of pedophilia present in modern society and coming to the wrong conclusion.
Blatty said that he had been accused by Maclaine of stealing a photo from her house to use. Which he strongly denied.
Whereas he says the cover was created entirely by someone at Harper Row entirely without his input and is not nor never was Sachi.
Which makes one of them mistaken or a fibber. Take your pick.
Confirmation according to Shirley anyway, not true according to Blatty and Harper/Rowe.
I expect it's one of those old myths that repeated often enough becomes truth in the mind of whoever repeats it.
Personally I've never seen any resemblance between Sachi and that cover. however hard I squint 😉
All Dietz. From the really swift intercut where regan projectile vomits all over father karras on his first visit.
