CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 21 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I don’t think it needs to be dated. Its a timeless film and doesn’t need to be pinpointed historically. Also wasn’t the novel a bit wishy-washy about the date, using the dates from a different calendar year than the one it was said to be set in?
I agree, timestamping a timeless film would send the audience down the wrong path. ‘Present Day’ would be OK, but usually you only put such things on the screen when you’ve spent time in the past… that never happens in The Exorcist.
Yeah, putting present day would be especially confusing given that people know its not “present day”. No objection to titling “Georgetown” though.
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Outdated Clothing;
Outdated Vehicles;
Outdated Set Decor;
Outdated Language;
Outdated Medical Procedures;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 …
Let’s timestamp all the movies from the 70’s. It’s fine the way it is. I like the idea of a timestamp if they make a new version, so we know what month and how long the exorcism will occur and finish. The new Hulk movie had a time reference going on which was interesting. It told us how long he didn’t change into the hulk. But if you put a timestamp then it begins to look like it’s suppose to be factual like it really happened then the illusion is lost, especially for a movie like the Exorcist.
Fada, please don’t make the mistake of thinking you can make everyone love a certain film. I certainly do not find the Exorcist funny. I think its a very scary, serious film. I admit TVYNS is in general much less scary and somewhat more humorous than the original cut but I think that was a good thing b/c the original Exorcist was just too scary. Some people won’t appreciate the film and putting a timestamp on it will not change their minds I guarantee it. So let worry about what we think of the film and stop fretting over what others think. To be honest I don’t think a timestamp would have much affect on the film. It would not ruin it. I just don’t think you’d gain from the effort. Sorry.
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:
I guess a title card for the opening of the film is up to date but there really needs to be a title card for when Karras arrives home to see his mother. I remember hearing Friedkin saying that he wished he had put one up there because he was getting complaints from the audience about where it was taking place.
A New York titlecard when Karras visits his mother would certainly be very handy! Not everyone outside the US would pick up on the change of location.
I just wish we were getting the option of seeing the original cut! >:(
Hi Father. I’m not here to criticize you. In fact I’m not even sure why I am here. Although you are incorrect about one point — I have seen both cuts of the film — I must confess that I do not own the film and in fact only saw each cut once. I admit that probably puts me in a slightly different demographic than most Captain Howdy users. Nevertheless I like this forum and the people on it — yes that includes you father.
As for the Howard instance, yes I see how that could make me look like an idiot. I know he didn’t appear in the film but I thought that he might had been cast but ended up on the editing room floor so to speak like the supposed Burke death scene and morgue scene. In fact I continue to content that he was cast b/c he appeared in the photo although most wouldn’t consider it to be “cast”.
As for my charming personality, I guess as most of you have gathered I can be a bit of a bitch, or at least a Witch!
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! 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.