CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Now for the grand final, this is what I will do…
Right now I request peace. I am lowering my weapon and taking all the bullets out. I am now at your mercy. Can we please stop this childish spectacle and JOIN FORCES TOGETHER? How about from now on we make things fun and agreable for everyone? I promise to be less arrogant if you promise to be more humble. I that acceptable?
I cannot do more than this GRANVILLE1. I already apologized once, which I am still waiting for a proper apology coming from you about the “knee-jerk” comment.
It is up to you to make the move. The ball is in your camp. Are you willing to lower your weapon?
I'll tell you what I will do GRANVILLE1, right now. First I will ignore your last replies, as I am burning with desire to fight back. But I won't.
Jesus once asked to a soldier that hit him: “If I said something wrong, it is good that you hit me, but if I did not say anything wrong, WHY DO YOU HIT ME?”
Why do you keep bringing me down after all my answers? Let me ask you a few questions, as you still imply that I am a liar regarding “EXCORCIST” trivia moments…
1- Did I lie to you about the “ultra fake Blair” answer? About Linda refusing to wear make up?
2- Did I lie about the Vatican's protocol to authorise an excorcism?
3- Did I lie about the 9 related deaths in the first movie?
4- Did I lie about Ellen Burstin coccyx accident and why she refused the role?
5- Did I lie about Jason Miller and why he is not in the movie?
6- Did I lie about Regan being tied and untied at the end of the “EXCORCIST”?
7- Did I lie about a set getting caught on fire by accident in the studio?
8- Did I lie about Friedkin and Blatty negative comments? (The theater and Technicolor incident)
9- Did I lie about Ronald DeFeo Jr.?
10- Did I lie about the “Amityville” book hoax?
All of the answers I gave for the questions above you chose to ignore and evade.
All of these answers are in the net. So why do you keep “HITTING” me? Unlike you, I reply to 80% of your comments with hard, rock solid and verifiable evidence on the net (wikipedia and more). My comments are not based on pure personal, hypotherical and “bullet to the head” views like you. You only reply to 40% and choose to ignore the ones you can't answer.
It is not about who is the best. It is not about who knows more. It is about telling the truth. Which obviously you are not telling. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Just because you had 3 correct answers, up to now, you still evaded and ignored 10 of my 13 answers. Is it too hard to say thank you every now and then, when you don't know something? How about saying: “Hey, I didn't know that, thanks BEELZEBUB!”
Humility, the quality of being modest and respectful is not a weakness, IT IS A VIRTUE MAJOR GRANVILLE.
granville1 said:
“Thanks, Regan. Too bad the guy isn't suited to honest, informed discussion. Some folks are just like that, I see them over on the imdb discussion boards with some frequency…”
First of all, I clearly apologized to you 5 days ago. “I stand CHATISED!” Remember? I gave you a chance to make peace, and still you are too proud to do what is right. Just like the real Major Granville is, a “narcissistic” character in both prequels. You chose your pseudonym well.
I am a very humble and honest person. I always recognize my errors. You on the other hand run away from them. I am the better person for the moment.
I still thank you for correcting me with the little “metaphysical” incident. Is that what a sick, dishonest and bad guy does? Jesus said to always forgive your brother. Until you don't apologize for the “knee-jerk” comment, you will always be in dept with God.
About a demon identifying itself, true, you must force him to say its name before expelling him (this is the 3rd time I acknowledge to your answers). But your comment was not clear either. How the hell was I supposed to know that you already answered before in another thread? AND I DID NOT YELL AT YOU. I wrote to you in very calm and relaxed manner when I answered to you in that specific topic. Stop twisting situations to your advantage like you always do.
RatBoy said:
BEFORE: “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.”
AFTER: “I'm not saying that Karras should have been featured in newly filmed flashback footage. The point I was trying to make was …”
Hello RATBOY. It is not what you are “trying to say” that matters, its what you “said” that matters. As you can see, your first comment contradicts your second comment. In court it would not stand. What you said first is what counts. In a cheap shot attempt, you are trying to back-up GRANVILLE1. Instead of being greatful for the trivia info.
The title of your thread is “Why was Father Karras snubbed during “Excorcist 2”. One of the synonym for “snub” is “reject”. I am explaining to you why he was not rejected from the movie based on actual facts. Which any hardcore fan likes to know. GRANVILLE1 did not know this and like always he is misleading all of you. He ignores my response and tries to give all the fault to John Boorman and tries to make me look like a retarded, which is not right. Even though GRANVILLE1 made an erroneous comment, you are capable of “thanking” him just because he's been in the forum longer. On the other hand, BEELZEBUB which tells you the truth, you are uncapable to say “thank you” just because I'm new. How ironic.
Jason Miller is not the only one who has denied permission to use footage of his person in movies…
1- Marlon Brando filmed scenes for the movie Superman II, but after producers refused to pay him the same percentage he received for the first movie, he denied them permission to use the footage.
2- Gregory Peck denied permission to Steven Spielberg to use footage of him in Jaws.
3- Carl Weathers denied Sylvester Stallone permission to use footage of him for flashback scenes in Rocky Balboa (Rocky 6).
It’s all a question of “Work For Hire†copyrights. You must specifically ask for the right to use the footage to an actor before using it in a movie. The client owns all copyrights, and may not be willing to grant shared copyright to “Works For Hireâ€. “Work For Hire†is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally recognized author of that work. According to copyright law in the United States and certain other copyright jurisdictions, if a work is “made for hire”, the employer, not the employee,is considered the legal author.
Hope the info was useful. RATBOY.
Â
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.Â
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!Â
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.
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.
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?
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?
I prefered Renny Harlin's version. Both have their ups and down.
“Dominion” is by far the worst. The Nazi intro of the movie is superb. I was trully amazed with the idea. After that the movie went down hill fast and complety derived from Friedkin and Blatty original story. It had absolutely no connection whatsoever. Many questions were left unanswered, the biggest one being… how did Cheche get possessed in the first place?
“Dominion” was the perfect moment to show the audience how Father Merrin first encountered Pazuzu. Paul Schrader for a reason I will never understand, eliminated Pazuzu from the equation and replaced him with the “Prince Of Darkness” himself…Satan. Schrader also eliminated the Pazuzu statue and replaced it with another different representation of the Pazuzu statue. Thus making the movie void. Even though I hated it, I wacth it till the end.
“The Beginning” was much better. But still not perfect…
Renny Harlin corrected many errors that Paul Schrader made. The original foul language is restored. Pazuzu is back, as Merrin finds a big version of the statue deep inside the burried church.The movie is more creepy and violent. Including a very shocking scene where hyenas are devouring a young boy. Much better impacting music score by Trevor Rabin. Harlin even showed us how Merrin lost the Pazuzu statue which eventually he would find again in the opening of the original “Excorcist”. Not only that but Renny Harlin also gave us the reason why Merrin ends up with a bad heart in the first place…he is a heavy alcohol drinker!
The only big mistake that Harlin did was with the ending. He should have emphasized on the boy Joseph being possessed, not Sarah. And the boy should have beeng Kokumo (not Cheche) for a complete harmony of all the franchise.
My biggest deception of both prequels however, is the choice of Stellan Skarsgård as Father Merrin. He looks nothing like Max Von Sydow.
Beelzebub said:
“There are two worlds in this universe…The metaphysical world (Anti-Matter), thats where the angels and demons exist.”
I stand CHATISED!
My apologies to GRANVILLE1 and to every other members in the forum. You are correct and I am so wrong. I meant “INMATERIAL” not “METAPHYSICS”. What a prick. I beg for your forgiveness. For some “paranormal” reason, perhaps I was possessed by PAZUZU, metaphysics sounded quite correct at the moment.
Now its your turn GRANVILLE1. You owe me an apology. It's up to you to find wich one.
granville1 said:
Â
“I did an extensive research throughout many years. Learning everything there is to know about possession.”…”Even experts on possession don't take that arrogant line, any more than do scientists studying in a particular field. Apparently, you are in a class of your own. Moreover, that you did not learn “everything there is to know about possession” is revealed by the list of possession question points you posted for me, GRANVILLE, to answer.
Like I said, always using denial and evasive tactics to stay on top. A MAN MUST ALWAYS BACKUP HIS WORDS IN A DEBATE. If you know so much than prove it. Don't try to lower me just because you have no idea on the subject. You are always inventing personal views THAT EVEN EXPERTSÂ WOULD LAUGH AT YOU and all what you end up doing is confusing everyone in this FORUM. Instead of shedding light to the “EXCORCIST” franchise.
granville1 said:
“Your habit of missing the target is again exemplified in your question, “did Father Merrin die of a heart attack or did Regan kill him? Again this is one of the many questions planted in the movie.” As the film insists with the subtlety of a blow to the head with a truncheon: Merrin died of a heart attack. You make a big deal of Regan's hands being tied before Merrin's death and untied after Merrin's death. The film suggests that Merrin died of a bad heart.
It is you who makes a big deal out of it, not me.THE NOVEL SUGGESTS THAT MERRIN DIED OF A HEART ATTACK, NOT THE MOVIE. What is it that you don't understand? Friedkin did this on purpose. You can deny and withdraw as much as you want. If you want to close your eyes TO THE FACT THAT REGAN WAS TIED UP AND THEN UNTIED, it's your problem. The least you could say is: “Geez, BEELZEBUB. You are right. Regan was tied up and she was wandering in her room when left attached. Thanks for the tip. After all these years I never noticed that little detail. How could I missed that. Yes. That was the opening for “EXCORSIST 2″. Thanks.”
What you must understand GRANVILLE1 is that the novel is not the screenplay nor the script. Movies will always difer from the book. Many reasons exist. Budget and so on. The quicker you aknowledge this reality, the faster you will progress.
Â
