CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
jguthrie said:
“I think the biggest bullet this movie dodged was in the casting of Father Karras. I cannot even imagine another actor that could play his brilliant part…except perhaps for a young Robert De Niro. Friedkin was right on the money by hiring him and firing the other actor set to play him (I believe it was Stacy Keach…but I might be wrong).”
You are right. It was Stacy Keach. Jack Nicholson was also a very strong candidate for the role of Karras. Marlon Brando was also a candidate for the role of father Merrin. Friedkin rejected both. He did not want the audience to go see the movie because of Brando and Nicholson. Thats why he opted for virtually unknown actors for the movie, like Linda Blair. A decision that trully paid off.
The only person to have “suffered” from “THE EXORCIST”'s success was radio actress Mercedes McCambridge. She was un-credited for her voice of the demon in the movie. For some reason Warner Bros. tried to hide this from the public and lead to a lawsuit from McCambridge. It finally resulted in a open grudge between her and Friedkin that lasted until the day she died. So sad.
RatBoy said:
“Jane Fonda turning down the role of Chris MaCeil stating “Why would I want to be involved with a capitalist rip-off piece of shit like this?”. I don't think this movie no matter how well written and directed would have been well recieved with that treasonous bitch in the lead role.”
This is a new one for me. Never heard about that weird comment from Jane Fonda before. Thanks RATBOY. But was she refering to the movie or the role?
I know Shirley McLaine, Audrey Hepburn and Anne Bancroft were candidates for the Chris McNeil role.
granville1 said:
“However, I've never heard that it was supposed to be the aunt herself who was possessing Robbie.”
As GRANVILLE1 mentioned above, “La Plume De Ma Tante” is a non-sequitur comment made by the demon inside Regan. JGUTHRIE is also right, “La Plume De Ma Tante” is one of the very first phrase you learn in French class. And no, that comment by Regan has nothing to do with little Robbie and his aunt.
William Friedkin mentioned that in that particular scene Regan knew the intentions of father Karras. She knew he was trying to find a sign of possession by speaking in a language that Regan could not possibly know. Thats why Pazuzu decided to have a little fun with father Karras by mocking him and speaking in foreign tongues just for the hell of it. But ultimately, father Karras is the one who had the last laugh when he sprinkled Regan with supposedly holy water.
hatter76 said:
“I don't have to think about what one link will connect 2 movies, because technically I don't have to do anything.”Which proves you don't know the process required to make a film.“but as far as this particular subject is concerned, my interpretation of what would link the 2 movies together was decided 15 years ago, when this film was rumored to be in the works.”Not quite clear what you mean. Can you please elaborate? Thank you.“But The Exorcist is not about that little head, it does serve a function to the story, but it's not the story.”Wrong. It is a big part of the story. That little head opens a complete new world to explore and is excellent for a prequel. Who is Pazuzu? Where does he come from? What kind of demon is he? How did he get all the way to Washington? How did he possess Regan? Why did he possess Regan? Did Father Merrin already knew the demon? What exactly hapenned between Merrin and Pazuzu? Does Pazuzu seek revenge? Who placed the crucifix under the pillow? Why did Regan throw Burke Dennings out the window? How did the “ouija” board get in the house? How did Father Merrin die? Was it really a heart attack or did Regan/Pazuzu killed him?See, so many questions that NEED to be answered in a prequel or sequel. All these question must always be answered IN THE MOVIE, not in the novel. The novel is never the same as the movie. It's a different world.“I think we both know that your not very accurate in your statement “Dominion” has no connection whatsover with the first “EXCORCIST”. Thus it cannot be called a “prequel”.I am extremely accurate my friend. Can you tell me what connections it has with the original “EXORCIST”? Other than Father Merrin? It is not even Pazuzu in “Dominion”. It is “Lucifer”, not Pazuzu. Lucifer is Satan. Satan is the first angel to have disobeyed and defied God. Satan is not the demon Pazuzu. So the relic behind Cheche is not Pazuzu, it is a representation of the “Devil” himself. Nothing to do with Pazuzu. “Dominion” has no connection with the first “EXORCIST”. Period. It is only in your mind…friend.“If your implying that Merrin himself does not link the 2 movies, then again, I call bullshit, and will call bullshit until the day I day(perhaps you'll get lucky and God will croak me today)”I never said anything of the sort. Stop acting like a 12 year old and pay attention when you read. I said Merrin was the only link. Thats all. Not enough to be called a “PREQUEL”. Thats why it was rejected by the studio.“Now Merrin in general, is not stupid, as an archeologist as well as the other various things on that long list of what he is, he should have some idea of what the Pazuzu head would represent, he should certainly know that it's a demon.”That is your personal interpretation. It is not an asseveration. Even if it was true, then WHY THE HELL PAZUZU YELLED SO LOUD IN THE FIRST EXORCIST WHEN MERRIN ENTERED THE HOUSE? Can you answer that wise guy? And your calling me a “bullshiter”. MERRIN KNEW PAZUZU, AND PAZUZU KNEW HIM! How? Because of that exorcism that Merrin performed years ago in Africa that nearly killed him. THATS WHY. DUH!“The suggestion that a Demon would not have a Civilized conversation, is where I call bullshit again.”It is not a suggestion. It is an asseveration. Obviously you believe that in real life cars immidiately blow up like in the movies. You also believe that Superman can actually fly, and that the shark in “Jaws” is real.What do you know about demons? Have you ever seen a possessed person? Have you ever tried to talk with a demon? Do you know how a “demon” or “evil spirit” resides in a human's body? Perhaps you would be so kind as to teach us. Please do so as I am burning with desire to learn. Name me ONLY ONE PART in the Bible that stipulates that a possessed person has ever engaged in a “smart” conversation. You want to know what a demon does in general, then view the video of poor Anneliese Michel on youtube. THAT…MY FRIEND…IS THE REAL SHIT ALL THE TIME! If a possessed person engages in an open “wise” conversation or has even time to play “Monopoly”, then that means the person is FAKING and all that its trying to do is to steal your money by playing with your mind.And if you still want to use an agressive tone don't bother to reply. I am only interested in chating with civilized persons. Thank you.hatter76 said:
“Beelzebub, sharing your Opinion is fine…but it would be more POLITE of you not to take the “Guess what” approach to explaining things…to be blunt that's BULLSHIT and you know it, now maybe in your opinion Dominion has no connection…but again that would be BULLSHIT too, If your implying that Merrin himself does not link the 2 movies, then again, I call BULLSHIT, and will call BULLSHITuntil the day I day(perhaps you'll get lucky and God will croak me today)…The suggestion that a Demon would not have a Civilized conversation, is where I call BULLSHIT again. A Demon would in all likelihood do whatever it had to do to accomplish it's mission, manifest itself in any number of ways, project itself as any number of personalities, after all, it is ultimately a desperate entity.”There is no need to be a disrespectful jerk HATTER76. Obviously you need to learn the first RULE of courtesy…it is called RESPECT.1- I do not recall insulting you at any moment. On the contrary I even praise you twice, once for your video and second for Liam Neeson. I even used the word “friend”. If someone says “hello” you say “fuck off”? Grow up kid and get a life.2- I don't recall taking an autocratic tone with you at any moment. You don't tell me what to say and I don't tell you what to say. Understood? Are you an administrator here?3- As long as I don't insult you, I will use my “guess what” approach as long as I want. At least I don't use the “I'm guessing” approach like you.4- If your going to be a “tough guy” how about replying to all of my post. Just to see how ignorant you are.hatter76 said:
“I like the Africanized version of Pazuzu in Dominion, although I do have my moments where I wish it would have resembled the Iraq version a bit more, I've grown to accept it the way it is.”
It is important to be faithful to the first movie, but also reality.
“Pazuzu is often depicted as a combination of diverse animal and human parts. He has the body of a man, the head of a lion or dog, eagle-like taloned feet, two pairs of wings, a scorpion's tail, and a serpentine penis. He is often depicted with his right hand pointing upward and left hand pointing down.” Reference Wikipedia.
Again, “Dominion” fails in showing us the real Pazuzu and connecting the dots.
hatter76 said:
“…under the right lighting and angles, Skarsgard bares a creepy resemblance to Max. I liked the Idea of Liam Neeson playing Merrin…”
Liam Neeson as father Merrin?…YES! I love the idea! Damn it, why didn't I picture that before. Thanks HATTER76 for that little detail. In my opinion Liam Neeson has a stonger personality and a more imposing physique than Skarsgard. But thats me.
hatter76 said:
“For me Dominion is the superior film, maybe not a great one, and has some missed opertunities, but it does feel more like an Exorcist film thematically.”
You enjoy “Dominion” HATTER76, my respects to you. Allow me to share why it is not a valuable “prequel”. I'll try to use as less words as possible…
FIRST RULE FOR A PREQUEL. You need a very strong LINK that will immidiately connect to the first movie. And there is always only ONE that will connect both movies. Which one is it? Think hard HATTER76. Use your passion for the franchise and you will find it. What can possibly connect both movies with such a strong bound?
Here is the answer: In “EXORCIST 1”, when Merrin finds the little Pazuzu statue in Iraq, it is clear by his reaction, that he is both shocked and suprised by the founding. He recognizes the object like he has seen it before. THAT IS YOUR ULTIMATE CONNECTION. You don't need anything else for a prequel. That is the reason why “DOMINION” fails right from the start. Paul Schrader missed this little detail because he is not a hardcore fan of the “EXCORCIST”. Renny Harlin, on the other hand, immidiately saw this “opening” because he is a fan of the “EXORCIST”. Thats why “Beginning” is superior to “Dominion”. “Dominion” has no connection whatsover with the first “EXCORCIST”. Thus it cannot be called a “prequel”.
“And thats how I tried to present it in my mock teaser, to connect the themes.”
You made that little teaser? Bravo! You have talent my friend! Well done. Now how about telling me how you can I bring a video in here. I'm so stupid I don't know how. Thanks.
“I like the Africanized version of Pazuzu in Dominion, although I do have my moments where I wish it would have resembled the Iraq version a bit more, I've grown to accept it the way it is.”
Connections are very important in prequels and sequels. In “HERETIC” Boorman made 9 connections which is a gigantic feat considering all the problems he went through. In “Ninth Configuration”, Blatty only had 1 connection, and it had nothing to do with possession nor Pazuzu. “Dominion” also has only 1 connection, which is only Merrin. “Beginning” has 10 connections. This being said, in “Dominion” the Pazuzu statue should have been the IRAQ version for a complete connection.
“I prefer the idea that the Demons tactics are not quite the same in Dominion, the Demon is in a differn't setting, dealing with differn't people, it's not Manifesting through a little girl, it's not not trying to shock people with a littler girl doing vulgar and disgusting things, that was always part of the act, it was perfectly capable and willing to speak in more civilized fashion, but doing that through a little girl would not be very effective.”
Innocent idea. But unfortunately, in real life, the mission of a “demon” or “evil” spirit is to shock and scare the shit out of us mortals. Trying to make us feel inferior and weak. They have no time to be polite, civilized or social.
“I think that would have played out better, it also would have been a great way to Put Merrin through so much physical Strain that he even has a stroke or a heart attack in the process, but stell defeats the Demon.”
That would have been playing with fire. Not a good idea. If he would haved suffered a stroke right in the first prequel, or a heart attack, Merrin officially could not have been chosen by the Catholic Church in performing the excorcism on Regan. Like I mentioned before somewhere, it is part of the procedures set by the Vatican to allow a priest to perform an exorcism. He has to be in top health.
hatter76 said:
“The Beginning might have delivered the goods on levels that Dominion didn't,   but the movie is to desperete to connect dots that the story turns to moosh.”
True. But don't forget my friend that the “reason” for that is that Renny Harlin was under an extremely tight schedule. He had a very short deadline to meet set by the studio since they were very late behind schedule due to Paul Schrader's poor version of the prequel. Lets say that Harlin did the best from a bad situation…just like Boorman did.
“The Beginning does not exist to me, but thats just me, if someone else enjoys it, then thats good to, nice too know someone could like it.”
I can respect that LOL. As long as we are all happy in our own ways, thats all that matters.
“Both movies Got things right that the other got wrong, and both of them failed to deliver totally satisfying movie.”
Well said. “Dominion” had that tense psychological power that “Beginning” lacks. But “Beginning” succeeds in being more graphic and violent. Combining both movies together, the “prequel” could have been just as good as the first “EXORCIST”.
TRIVIA TIME: Did you know that it was not Friedkin's nor Blatty's idea of Karras throwing himself out the window like he did in the movie? It was Jason Miller's idea! The “Bills” wanted Jason to slowly walk towards the window, say a little cheesy prayer, take a deep breath and then jump. Jason went to talk with “Bills” and said: “Guys, this is insane. If I'm possessed by a killer demon, the last thing that I want is to take things easy. There's not time to lose! Let me jump the hell out of the window!”
Friedkin and Blatty agreed, that was the better option!
granville1 said:
“Demons need no rules! That indeed seems to be the point of Blatty's novel. Even the experts don't really know what a demon is and even the Roman Ritual has no effect.”
Demons need rules! If the experts don't know what a demon is by now it's because they are stupid. They are simply looking in the wrong direction.
1- What is a demon? A demon is an angel of God gone rogue. The first angel to become a demon is Satan. Many angels decided to follow Satan. Thus becoming bad angels called “demons”. Angels and demons belong to the family of “inmaterial” beings, because they cannot be seen by the human eye. They are bound by the rules of the anti-matter world. As the Bible clearly stipulates, Satan and including every single demon to exist have been trapped within the boundaries of the planet earth waiting for the “judgment day”.
2- Can demons possess any human? Demons cannot possess any human as they please. If that was the case, we would all be possessed by now. Since humans can be seen by the human eye, they belong to the “material” family (matter). As it is now widely confirmed by science, both worlds are separated by a universal law, matter particles and anti-matter particles cannot come in contact with each other, by danger of annihilating themselves and produced a massive explosion.
3- How can demons possess a human?  A demon always needs an invitation. There are 2 ways that a demon can enter a human. Directly or indirectly. What does this mean?
Directly: A demon can immediately enter a body if it is directly “invited” by the person. It works the same way like if you would invite a guess into your home. The same way Father Karras did.
Indirectly: A demon can also enter a body if this one begins to play with “demonic” games or toys. Like a “ouija” board. What is depicted in the movie “Exorcist” is correct. This is also what happened to little Roland Doe in real life.
But there is still one last rule a demon must respect…the very same rule that an hypnotist must respect if he wants to be able to hynotize a patient. An hypnotist cannot hypnotize anyone. There are 2 types of persons. “Positive” receptors and “negative” receptors.
Positive: A “positive” receptor is a person who is willing or believes in the art of hypnosis. Thus opening a “portal” in the brain which allows an alien entitie to enter his soul. This is exactly the kind of person that a demon looks for, and IS THE ONLY KIND OF PERSON IT CAN POSSESS!
Negative: A “negative” receptor is a person that does not believe in being hynotize. Thus maintaining the “portal” in the brain closed at all times. No matter how hard the hypnotist tries, he will never be able to hypnotize this person. This is the kind of person that A DEMON WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO POSSESS!
Father Bowdern said:
“I implore you to please keep your psychiatric appointments as they are important in adjusting the proper lithium dosages to overcome some of the multiple voices swirling in your head.”
Now that's some serious deep philosophy I had not taken in consideration. Thanks for the advice Father.
But in my humble opinion, “EXCORCIST III” is the real piece of shit.
