CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 31 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You’re welcome, dsea. The review has already been submitted to Amazon.com with a plug for this site … the more the merrier, right? 😉
Neca makes great figures. There 18″ figures are bad ass! I have a Captain Jack and a Hellboy. If the Regan sells enough, hopefully they will make one of her too. I want one in full Demon form though!
Just found out there is a “bloody variant of the Regan Spiderwalk figure….
etrigan … yes, the variant is available for purchase on Amazon.com (at least the last time I looked). And you’re right on NECA’s figurines … I’d love to have a possessed Regan that’s 18″ too! 🙂
I have really always hated the blood in the spider-walk scene. I thought they just used CGI for that part of the shot but appearntly they shot two different shots for that. The original is much better and follows the book…
As I’ve mentioned in another entry somewhere on CH.com, I do believe the blood is indeed from CGI tampering. I looked at the scene and I don’t believe it was filmed with the stunt double with the blood in her mouth at all. They “CGI’d” the TVYNS so much, it would make sense to add another factor like the blood for a newer generation of viewers. However, if you look at the full scene with Regan flicking her tongue out like a snake after descending the stairs, I can’t imagine that Friedkin would have that bloody spiderwalk scene be followed up with a “cleaned up” Regan. The continuity would have been so screwed up that it would have never made sense to us. “Does not compute!”
Good point! He stuck to the book as much as possible. That’s why I thought it was cgi’d.
That scene makes no sense what so ever.
etrigan, I think Justin would know the “real” answer. I just don’t see it happening with the blood because of what you said about sticking to the book as much as possible. And, yep, you’re right: That scene makes no sense whatsoever! I think just leaving it alone without the bloody CGI was enough … it kinda ruined it for me because it was “tampered with” and I was expected exactly what was in the book … sans the bloody mouth.
For any lurkers this is the original and fairly close to the book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av4VVFgFJlA
I think it was Justin that said he thought it was an alternate take. It ruined it for me too.
Is the spider-walk scene CGI enhanced? Well, we have a three choices:
1. They filmed the scene twice … one with blood pouring from contortionist Linda R. Hager’s mouth; the other without blood. Extremely unlikely because you can see the way it was filmed for the original (below). In that particular interview on the 25th Anniversary edition regarding this scene, prior to the TVYNS’s release, Blatty nor Friedkin mention “the blood pouring from Regan’s mouth.” They only make reference to the contortionist’s actions in the 25th Anniversary Edition in the FoG.
2. WB hired another contortionist to re-film the scene with blood pouring from Regan’s mouth that looked just like Linda R. Hager did in 1973. Definitely unlikely because we know WB did not go back and build an exact replica stairway plus perform a look-alike contortionist casting call to perform this scene.
3. CGI is amazing technology and an expert (aren’t they all?) in this field can digitally replace the original actor’s closed mouth with one that is open … and pouring blood. Definitely likely because the TVYNS was CGI’d to death (and for no good reason … IMHO).
However, you can choose for yourself. Click the pic below and you’ll be sent to the high-resolution image. Also, it sometimes helps to see images from a different angles, so I added the Linda R. Hager closeup for comparison of facial structure so that no one is confused that Hager could potentially be Blair or Dietz. Once additional quick observation, notice the color differences in the original spider walk versus in TVYNS. It’s amazing how digitally remastered copies can enhance and add new life to older films!
I’ve been asking forever if the scene with the blood was either done in 2000, or if it was from the original film. It looked too CGI’ed. You can see they sped it up. Whether if that’s how the orinal footage was intended, I don’t know. The blood looks too clear. IMO, it just doesn’t work.
They obviously released the other tongue spiderwalk scene to the media beforehand to throw the audience off as to what to expect when they watched the scene in the theaters.
howdy, you’re right about the speed of the film, way too fast! I’ll bet that Friedkin refused the scene once he saw it. Case in point, Friedkin rejected the Eileen Dietz vomit scene because the special effect looked too fake. Solution: Friedkin had an artisan paint the vomit in the scene flying from Blair’s mouth. We get to see only that split second of Dietz at the end with the special effects paraphernalia.
Friedkin claims the spider-walk was, “too early in the film,” but I think audiences would have laughed and he knew it. The scene is too gimmicky on film and didn’t quite fit what Friedkin wanted (speculation of course). Therefore, WB “fixed” the dilemma for TVYNS by adding the CGI blood to try to add more credence.
It didn’t work without the blood then and it doesn’t work with the CGI blood today, but it is cool to see something old that’s new again.
The part of Mark Kermode’s book (really worth owning if you don’t already!) that you mention is the one in which Marcel Vercoutere is recalling the spider-walk scene from memory in 1983.
Kermode summarized Vercoutere’s statements in which Vercoutere accords, “… the scene became ‘kinda bloody’ and so disrupted [sic] the natural progression of Regan’s illness, since it would have ‘clinched it for the audience that she was possessed.’ [Kermode, Mark. (1997). BFI Modern Classics: The Exorcist. London: British Film Institute Publishing.]”
Fine forensic analysis, Mr. Vercoutere. 🙂 However, William Friedkin really thought of that genuine idea and conclusion first. Friedkin directed The Exorcist and that means he directed everyone to abide by his demands.
Friedkin repeated his assessment of that scene publicly several times over that 10-year-span prior to Vercoutere’s statement. This leads me to believe Vercoutere is recapitulating the original owner’s thoughts and ideas.
Friedkin never said a word about the “kinda bloody” part. Nor does Friedkin “wow us” with the alternate version that has blood pouring from Regan’s mouth. If you listen to or read his interviews, he’s very well versed in pointing out the “wow” factors. Therefore, I don’t believe for a moment that he would have forgotten something like that scene being filmed with the blood … I’m still convinced that WB added the CGI blood to Regan’s mouth for a more “traditional bloody and gory horror film look” and to make that scene more intense.
So, let’s just say that Vercoutere has an incredible memory that is different from the director, writer, and other crew members. Keep reading until the end and maybe you be will influenced more that Vercoutere may have mixed up the crucifix scene with the spider-walk scene. That, of course, is speculation on my part about what Vercoutere could have been thinking of at the time of that statement. On the other hand, perhaps Vercourtere was simply expanding the meaning of the words ‘kinda bloody’ from actual fake blood to that of an “elevated vernacular.” His statement does have quote marks surrounding those two words which can offer another benefit of the doubt to Mr. Vercoutere.
In Kermode’s book, there are lots of incorrect statements that don’t match up with his book and his own interviews in The FoG. For instance, just before this statement is made in the book about the spider-walk scene from Vercoutere, Mark Kermode notes that Linda Blair said “.. that the athletic Eileen Dietz had taken part in such a scene.” That information is incorrect as noted by the screen capture above by WB and through simple research on who the contortionist is in that scene (Linda R. Hager).
I gave comparison shots between the original release and TVYNS of Linda R. Hager. You can see that is has been digitally remastered because of the clarity and brightness in that one shot. So, if we use Vercoutere’s statement to say that Linda R. Hager descended the stairs with blood pouring from her mouth, it certainly is more than a human mouth full of blood. If you watch the scene until the very last second, even more blood gushes from Hager’s mouth. She either swallowed massive quantities of fake blood and vomited it on cue or was wearing Dick Smith’s vomit appliance filled with fake blood. Seriously doubtful on either count. Plus, it doesn’t quite fit by today’s standards because CGI is easier (you’ll see why I am convinced of the CGI from Friedkin’s own words).
Why am I so convinced of the CGI? Friedkin!
Here’s a FAQ by William Friedkin. So, now I AM convinced that what is used in the scene is a carefully mastered version utilizing CGI:
____________________EXORCIST FAQ by William Friedkin
Q. When you release this new version on dvd, will you PLEASE include the Georgetown Birthday scene in it’s entirety and any other cut snippets or outtakes, a photo gallery from behind the scenes (I KNOW there are tons of photos not shown on the 25th Anniversary Edition such as makeup tests, closeup shots, set stills,etc.) and the audio radio spots and the television spots with the female voiceover? Also, that Spider-walk special effect in the new version… Was that digitally done for the new release or was the blood shot that way originally?… And BRAVO that upsets to the new version. This should have been the original release version… sorry Mr Friedkin if you… Is Linda still your assistant?
A. A lot of the scenes you refer to have been lost. We restored everything we had that was complete in both sound and picture. The spider walk had to be digitally restored for the new release. Thank you for your comments and, no, Linda is no longer my Assistant.
____________________Doesn’t sound like Friedkin is mentioning the filming of the blood. The spider-walk scene goes right along with that of the novel and script. To me, that is more in tune with the filming of that infamous scene than anything otherwise. In fact, Friedkin is saying from his own answer that scenes were “digitally restored.”
And, finally, but most importantly is Friedkin’s answer to this question that came from a 13-y-o no less:
____________________Q. Hi, I’m 13 and I just saw the exorcist two nights ago. it was the 25th anniversary edition. Now when it came time for that in the movie they didn’t show the spider-walk. Why is that? And was there really an alternate version where she slithered down like a snake?
A. The spider walk was cut from the original release because I didn’t feel it was very effective technically. Now with digital technology, we have been able to make it look convincing. There was no alternate version of this shot.
____________________Um, I see a period at the end of Friedkin’s sentence. And, yes, the 13-y-o asked about the, “alternate version where she slithered down like a snake.” Friedkin would have jumped on the bloody alternate scene … he’s too swift and brilliant to not take advantage of that opportunity. 😉
I hope that helps because it’s coming from the “real expert’s” mouth – William Friedkin.
Want the full FAQ by William Friedkin? Read it here.
As a favorite line of mine goes in The Exorcist:
“There is only one.” 🙂
I disagree that it was CGIed for two reasons. 1, i have read somewhere about the scene (back when the film was first shot ) getting kinda bloody-it may have been in Kermode’s book- so that leads me to belive that they DID shoot two versions. Not only that but Freidken himslef mentions finding an alternate take in the unused footage that he had forgotten about. Also, if you watch it very closely, the double has the blood in her mouth the whole trip down the stairs…you can see in the look in her face that its a challenge keeping it in her mouth all the way to the bottom of the steps…to me her expression from the top to the bottom of the stairs is one of someone with a mouthful of fake blood. Just my two cents…
For starters I want to say that they’ve been adding CGI blood to film for many, many years and it does not look fake. This leads me to think they kept blood from the original that was faked another way.
Second I don’t at all like the placement of the spiderwalk in the film. I know it happens according to the book but it just isn’t a good spot for it in the film. If I were the director and wanted to use the scene I’d had inserted it as a dream sequence for Chris O’Neil. Anyone else think it would had worked well to have Chris waking up to a nightmare of her own daughter near the beginning of the scene, perhaps when she was first introduced?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.