[RatBoy]

In one version of Exorcist II, there were photos during the begining of the movie to recaping scenes of the first movie showing Reagen and Merrin with a voice over by Richard Burton telling the previous events with no mention of Karras.

 

In both versions, Karras is never mentioned. It seemed like the writers were giving all credit to Merrin for Reagen's Excorism and tottaly snubbed poor Karras.

[granville1]

Boorman went on public record as despising the Friedkin film and Blatty's ideas. He set out to prove this by trashing Blattian motifs, and distorting characters beyond recognition – suddenly, against what the Blatty novel and screenplay made clear, Regan does remember “all of it”; Sharon becomes a creepy, witch-like Regan-hater; Chris is dropped entirely (as if Regan's Mom would permit her to live apart from her in NYC); the anonymous demon stupidly identifies its name to Merrin (something a demon would never do, and never did, in the novel); Merrin becomes the sole hero, even though it was Karras whose heroic self-sacrifice actually expelled the demon and saved Regan.

Ellen Burstyn was not available to be in the film (thank God). Karras was dead, so he could only appeared in the film – like Merrin does – through flashbacks. But Boorman probably never thought about that, in his haste to leave the eariler, far superior, film, behind. The Exorcist's chief hero and Christ-figure … figures not at all in Boorman's arrogant attempt to top the Friedkin-Blatty collaboration.

I think that your instincts are quite correct. Karras should at least have received honorable mention in this film. That the Saved Victim – Regan herself – never once mentions her savior Karras, but only Merrin, is a cinematic crime of the lowest order. Blame it all on the several failed Heretic screenplays , but especially on goofball director Boorman.

[fatherbowdern]

Superior points, granville!

Father B

[RatBoy]

Thanks for the insight gran.

 

I will never understand why the studio would want to hire Boorman  for the sequel if he hated the original or why someone that hated the original want to take on the task of doing the sequel.

 

As for Reagen's memories, I always thought the scene in the original when she looked at Father Dyer's color and kissed him hinted that she was starting to remember being possesed.

[granville1]

Father Bowdern said:

Superior points, granville!

Father B

Thanks Fr. B 🙂

[granville1]

RatBoy said:

Thanks for the insight gran.

 

You're welcome 🙂

 

I will never understand why the studio would want to hire Boorman  for the sequel if he hated the original or why someone that hated the original want to take on the task of doing the sequel.

 

I guess they hired him on his previous laurels, e.g. Deliverance…

 

As for Reagen's memories, I always thought the scene in the original when she looked at Father Dyer's color and kissed him hinted that she was starting to remember being possesed.

 

I've always thought she had some vague fever-dream type feelings that were then associated with relief. I can imagine the real Regan in a few nano-moments of clarity (like when she produced the stomach writing) noticed the Roman collars and associated them with being helped. But I take Blatty at his word that she didn't remember the entire possession. Otherwise, there would be a lot of unanswerable questions for Chris to try to explain to Regna,, and Regan's recovery would have been very problematic, had she had any lengthy, specific memories of being possessed.

[fatherbowdern]

ratboy,

On your note, I agree that the movie ended with Regan indeed remembering something despite Chris's statement to Dyer that, “She doesn't remember a thing.” In fact, Friedkin and/or Blatty wanted me (maybe others) to believe that Dyer's collar was Regan's recollection trigger despite one of the original scripts reading:

“Chris gets into the car, but Regan stands staring at Dyer's collar. She leans forward and kisses Father Dyer on the cheek. Not sure of what she has done, she retreats to the car.”

With that said, a sequel was never in the minds of either the writer or the director at that time and certainly did not have an impact on whether the turkey follow-up film The Heretic was a blip on the radar. Friedkin had wrapped the film, with this insightful scene, to reflect the feelings that Regan had regarding Dyer and past events. This is also without the knowledge that WB would want to go forward with any sequel.

As far Boorman, Deliverance did have an impact on choosing directors and I believe granville about Boorman hating the original because Boorman basically slaughtered the script too many times to make any kind of sense. Even Blair admitted that the film she started, ended up very differently.

I can recall when the film came out and I wanted it to be incredible … just as incredible as the original. Alas, even Burton couldn't save it despite his popularity in film at the time. (Yes, he was tanking out, but still had some box office draw.) However, without more familiar faces in the follow-up film, I believel audiences couldn't connect and feel that same type of suspense that the Blatty/Friedkin team created. Incorporate tin-foil pulsing lightbulbs, swarms of locusts, an African locale, and a rotten director, and we got exactly what we didn't want … a disaster.

Father B

[kokumo]

I have a love/hate relationship with Exorcist II. It's probably not what anyone wanted or expected to see but it's so brilliantly constructed and deftly produced at times it almost feels like a masterpiece. Boorman has proven himself time ant time again to have a sure hand as a director and even a visionary one.  The inclusion of the dead exorcist, the backstory set in Africa's past & that strobelight crap crippled The Heretic. Blatty made the concept work in Exorcist III but it was a hard sell even with his writing and directorial skills but ressurecting the priests wasn't what I wanted to see in Exorcist II. RIP, Karras. Stay the hell dead, Merrin.

[Beelzebub]

granville1 said:

“the anonymous demon stupidly identifies its name to Merrin (something a demon would never do, and never did, in the novel.”

FALSE. Demons do indentify themselves. Not always, but sometimes they do.

Luke 8:30 “Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” “Legion,” he replied, because many demons had gone into him”.

But what do I know right?

[Beelzebub]

RatBoy said:

“In both versions, Karras is never mentioned. It seemed like the writers were giving all credit to Merrin for Reagen's Excorism and tottaly snubbed poor Karras.”

Acurate info is necesarry to properly criticise a movie, always.

Karras was not snubbed out. Since William Friedkin and William Peter Blatty had nothing to do with it, Jason Miller wanted no part in it. To the day of his death, he never saw “EXORCIST 2”. An eccentric fellow to say the least.

But of course this is all false. What do I know?

[Beelzebub]

granville1 said:

“Chris is dropped entirely (as if Regan's Mom would permit her to live apart from her in NYC)”

The only reason why Ellen Burstin is not in “EXORCIST 2” is because she was scared shitless to reprise her role. In the first “Excorcist”, there was a total of 9 related deaths with the movie, which she constantly kept count. One of the set accidently caught on fire. And in the Regan-crotch scene, the stunt crew pulled so hard and fast on the cord attached to her that she landed on her coccyx. The pain was so unbearable that the scream we see in the movie is actually the real thing! To this day she have permanent pain to her coccyx.

But of course this is all “knee-jerk” info and a “thank you” is out of the question.

[Beelzebub]

granville1 said:

“Karras was dead, so he could only appeared in the film – like Merrin does – through flashbacks. But Boorman probably never thought about that, in his haste to leave the eariler, far superior, film, behind.”

The only reason why Karras does not appear in flashbacks is because Jason Miller did not allow it.

I don't know where I come up with all this junk. I think I'm must be possessed or something. I need Captain Howdy.

[Beelzebub]

granville1 said:

“Boorman went on public record as despising the Friedkin film and Blatty's ideas. He set out to prove this by trashing Blattian motifs, and distorting characters beyond recognition. Ellen Burstyn was not available to be in the film (thank God)… But Boorman probably never thought about that, in his haste to leave the eariler, far superior, film, behind. ..The Exorcist's chief hero and Christ-figure … figures not at all in Boorman's arrogant attempt to top the Friedkin-Blatty collaboration. Blame it all on the several failed Heretic screenplays , but especially on goofball director Boorman.”

There is no need to be disrespectful toward John Boorman as he have never thrash talked anything about the first “EXORCIST”. This is exactly why I take an arrogant and agressive tone with you GRANVILLE1. Only you have the right to bring down people for no reason? Just because you did not understand “EXORCIST 2” due to your obvious ignorance on many level imaginable, it does not give you the right to insult Boorman. 

John never discredited the “EXORCIST” magnum opus. He simply said it was too dark and disturbing. As he took on the task to direct “EXORCIST 2”, he was constantly thinking about his daughters and what they would think of him. Thats the only reason why he opted for a brighter and less frightning movie. THATS ALL! On the contrary Blatty and Friedkin insulted him. Blatty began laughing in the theater and Friedkin told everyone that he saw the movie before the premiere at “Technicolor” studios and said it was just a big mess done by a stupid director. The low class individuals are Blatty and Friedkin. Because of Blatty, poor Boorman was running like a chicken without a head in the theater. In life, if you want respect, give respect GRANVILLE1. If the “Bill Team” didn't want no one to “piss in the soup”, they should have directed the sequel when they were first offered. The only thing they have the right is to SHUT UP!

And don't try to use digration and denial like you always do when you don't know something, or try to PLAY like you already knew all this because obviously you don't know shit. Be a man and admit defeat MAJOR GRANVILLE! 

[RatBoy]

Beelzebub said:

RatBoy said:

“In both versions, Karras is never mentioned. It seemed like the writers were giving all credit to Merrin for Reagen's Excorism and tottaly snubbed poor Karras.”

Acurate info is necesarry to properly criticise a movie, always.

Karras was not snubbed out. Since William Friedkin and William Peter Blatty had nothing to do with it, Jason Miller wanted no part in it. To the day of his death, he never saw “EXORCIST 2”. An eccentric fellow to say the least.

But of course this is all false. What do I know?

 

I'm not saying that Karras should have been featured  in newly filmed flashback footage. The point I was trying to make was Karras should have been shown alongside Merrin during Lamont's voiceover and Karras also should have been mentioned several times in The Heretic instead of the characters just giving sole credit to Merrin for saving Reagen.

 

Also what's up with your snide posts towards grannville?  He's a long time member with great insighful posts.  I l enjoy his participation here. 

[granville1]

Thanks, RatBoy, for your kind words. Beelzebub's problem is that his mental capacities do not match the subject's depth, not to mention that he's angry and jumps the gun most of the time. 

I am no longer replying to him, but as an example of his “thinking”, he dissed me because I took Boorman to task for having Pazuzu blurt out his name to Merrin right off the bat. I explained that the exorcist has to “fish” for the demon's name, since to gain the demon's name is to gain power over the demon. 

I explained further that both Beelzebub and Boorman overlooked this enormous gaffe. Beelzebub then yelled at me, saying that “sometimes” demons do give their names, citing the demon who told Jesus that his name was “Legion”.

Here we see empty-headed Beelzebub missing the point in the usual major way. The Gospel demon did not blurt out his name to Jesus. On the contrary, Jesus had to ask or command that the demon reveal its name – thereby proving my point that demons don't just give away their names. They need to be prodded. Typically, Beelzebub colossally messed up my point, defended Boorman's error, defended his own/Beelzebub's error, and then had the nerve to label me ignorant … even though from the beginning, I had correctly explicated and judged the issue.

The guy's a fanatic and just not bright enough to understand the complexities The Exorcist raises. And he doesn't have the internal feedback loop that would tell him he's making a complete ass of himself. Perhaps he's more deserving of pity than scorn, but scorn is much more fun.

[Author]

Posts