CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
granville1 said:
“Merrin dropped dead of a heart attack. There is no “burning question” about “what transpired” between the demon and the priest.”
First of all, IN THE MOVIE, the hands of Regan were tied before Merrin went to the bathroom. Duh!
When Karras came in her hands were UNTIED! What happened there? I thought you were more observant GRANVILLE1. Also in a scene where Lieutenant Kinderman is parked outside, he sees Regan WALKING in the room through the window when she was left ATTACHED! Spooky isn’t it?
So the question is, AGAIN IN THE MOVIE NOT IN THE NOVEL, 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.
Boorman chose the latter, Regan killed Father Merrin.granville1 said:
“Except the question itself does not need to be asked.”
Yes the question IN THE MOVIE NEEDS TO BE ASKED. Jason Miller confirmed in an interview that the movie was shot in an ambiguous style on purpose. And that the idea of leaving questions unanswered was also on purpose. He said Friedkin wanted the movie to have an “ambiguous†tone.
granville1 said:
“This conflation is artisitic license, not “lying”, because Blatty took the incidents, and his paranormal research, at face value.”
So what only Blatty has the right to conflate? Leave Boorman alone. He's a top notch movie Director. Very meticulous.
Â
granville1 said:
“Blatty was not “lying” when he made some of these events part of the MacNeil case. Rather, Blatty conflated events from the original case with the strongest kinds of similar events from exorcistic documentation.”
No my dear GRANVILLE1, Blatty in an interview back in 1983, had asserted on live t.v. that the “levitation” scene is true. He did not conflated that. He assured it. In real exorcism that never occurs. Sorry. You can find the interview on youtube.
About real excorsism, that is not how it goes. Have you ever seen in real life how a possessed person behaves? I come from a country where excorsism is like going to work everyday. A possessed kid behaves like a kid on “ectasyâ€. Nothing more. He becomes very hyper and uncontrollable. Screaming all the time and almost resembles a epileptic seizure. Adults are more aggressive thats all. Most of the time they act like an animal (bird, wolf). But there is no levitation, no vomiting and no poltergeist phenomenon. Nothing super fancy.
Â
granville1 said:
“…about what Father Walter Halloran says “. It's a question of whom you want to believe. At least one other priest, plus “Robbie's” minister, and several eyewitnesses vouched for paranormal events in the original case.
It would not be the first time that a priest or eyewitnesses lied about something.
Ever heard about the “AMITYVILLE HORROR†incident? In 1977, the priest involved in the case also swore that he heard a voice say “get outâ€. The author of the book, Jay Anson also swore that all the events in his book were absolutely true. The Lutz family also swore that all the events were true.
Guess what? Now everyone in the world know that it was a big fat lie to sell the book and make money. They were trying to capitalize on the success of “THE EXORCIST” which was also based on true facts.
William Weber confessed: “The book is a hoax. We created this horror story over many bottles of wine.” This refers to a meeting that Weber is said to have had with George and Kathy Lutz, during which they discussed what would later become the outline of Anson's book.
Judge Weinstein concluded: “Based on what I have heard, it appears to me that to a large extent the book is a work of fiction, relying in a large part upon the suggestions of Mr. Weber.”
Oops! Busted! Like I said, there is fiction and there is reality.
granville1 said:
“No. Blatty is a big believer in the parnormal and has reported such events in his own life, such as a telephone receiver that floated up over the phone by itself while he was sitting next to it.”
 GRANVILLE1, in life there is reality and fiction.
Blatty might SAY that he is a believer of all these things, BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS TRUE OR REAL. He might fool the old generation of movie fanatics, but he can’t fool the new generation which is much smarter.
Tue. I also heard about that little telephone incident. See the thing is GRANVILLE1, some people lie for a living in order to make lucrative gains.
Have you ever studied physics GRANVILLE1? Here’s the thing…
There are two worlds in this universe…
1- The physical world (Matter), thats where we live in.
2- The metaphysical world (Anti-Matter), thats where the angels and demons exist.
One universal law separates both worlds. Matter particles and anti-matter particles cannot come in contact with each other.
Why? Because both would trigger a massive explosion and will annihilate each other. So if a demon or spirit intentionally lifted that phone receiver, it would have destroyed itself and anything or anyone near by.
Go ahead, do your home work and search in the net. So the little phone incident is a no-no. Tell that to another.
Â
granville1 said:
“The half-head spin, however, is humanly possible – it's been demonstrated on You Tube several times.”
 The half-spin head is not on debate here. I am talking about the 360 degree scene. Let’s stay within boundaries please. And yes the half-spin head is humanly possible. I never said the contrary.
Â
granville1 said:
“No. The full 360 degree head spin is not in the novel or the original screenplay.”
That is not what I said GRANVILLE1, be fair. I said the 360 degree head-spin, WHICH IS IN THE MOVIE, is false. And its still a lie. Yes it was Friedkin idea, not Blatty. I’ll give you that.
Like I told you before GRANVILLE1, for optimum answers and clear debate, PLEASE LEAVE THE NOVEL OUT. We are discussing the movie. I don’t care about the novel or the original screenplay. I care about the FINISHED product, which is the cut we all saw in the movie. Thank you.
granville1 said:
“As good a time as any to laugh and leave. The machine was ridiculous, as was the simultaneous “Merrin Agonistes” scene where the ultra-fake Blair stand-in crushes Merrin's heart while the Synchronizer does its thing. Blatty had the good sense to leave before he split a gut.”
 That scene was brilliant, original, ingenious and ahead of its time. It was the perfect and only solution to show the audience, in a new and innovative way, what really happened in that room. From Boorman's point of view of course.
About the ultra-fake Blair…Linda clrearly told Boorman that she would reprise her role only under the condition that she will not play as the “evil” Blair. She did not want to wore devil make-up again. Boorman had no choice but to replace her with another actress.
Â
Hello GRANVILLE1. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's nice to discuss with someone who is very passionate about “THE EXORCIST” franchise just like me. Before continuing our discusion, I just want to specefy that my intentions are not to enter a “pissing contest”, but rather to share diferent views and pass the time, even thought I might sound autochratic at times. Sorry. It's just the way I write. I don't want to have problems since I'm new here. Thanks.
granville1 said:
” It is the cause of the laughter that means Boorman did a bad job.”
The movie was not funny at all. The topic is about demonic possession. There is nothing funny about that.
Do you know what was the cause that made Blatty laugh? Which he immediately left the theater about 20 minutes the movie began. It was in the “synchronizer” scene.
What is so funny about that? According to Blatty there is no such thing as a “synchronizer” under hipnosis. TRUE. So according to him Boorman is a liar and is mocking the audience. O.k. then. What about the spinning head in the first “EXORCIST”? Was that a true fact? NO. So William Peter Blatty is also a liar. How would Blatty feel if someone would get up and sabotaged all of his efforts with a sarcastic and malive laugh? In the “synchronizer” scene, John Boorman was simply trying to answer one of the many questions that was left in the first “EXORCIST“, “what the hell happened between Regan and Father Merrin?”.
If “Exorcist 2” went down hill so fast it was because of the un-professional behavior of William Peter Blatty in the theater. Blatty was not going to let someone else take control of his baby and he made sure of that. A position he still holds today as he does not aprove the new “EXORCIST” remake project. And Blatty knows there is no such thing as “levitation” or “paranormal” occurences. Which again adds to the lies of the first “EXORCIST”.
By the way this is what Father Walter Halloran says about the movie which is inspired by the exorcism he performed on 13 year old Roland Doe in 1949: “Father Halloran maintained until his death in 2005 that he never witnessed the boy display any of the supernatural behavior portrayed in the film; no foreign languages, changes in tone of voice, aversion to holy objects, unusual strength, vomiting or urinating, or unusual markings on the boy's body.“Â
John Boorman's movie was great. But it had 2 or 3 cheesy scenes I'll give you that GRANVILLE1.
granville1 said:
“In the Blatty novel and in the Blatty-Friedkin film, Merrin's 12-year prior exorcism “lasted for months” and “damn near killed him”.
The first sequel, Exorcist II: the Heretic, preposterously shows Merrin hauling a possessed boy up a cliff, which is followed by a very tame, perfunctory exorcism with no paranormalia evident. If Merrin's heart was already weak, surely the climb-cum-exorcism would have been dangerous for him. But Boorman gives us no indication that Merrin's heart is weak during this first exorcism, and Merrin himself seems perfectly fit at this moment.”
What you must understand GRANVILLE1 is that the movie world will always be different from the novel world. Stop mixing these in your mathematical equation. You will always hit a wall.
First of all, John Boorman's vision was the complete opposite from the “Bill” team. The William duo were offered first to make the sequel which they both declined. If William Friedkin and William Peter Blatty did not like “EXORCIST 2: THE HERETIC” well that's their problem. I have a very personal point of view on this subject. Let's not forget that Boorman was offered first the job to direct the first “EXORCIST”. But he felt that it was too dark. Again he was offered to make the sequel and that's where he saw the opportunity to make something more on a brighter note.
“EXORCIST 2” was awarded as the second worst movie of all time. On what grounds? A good director leaves no questions unanswered in a specific movie. John Boorman left no questions unanswered. Unlike Friedkin, which planted more questions rather than answers. That being said “EXORCIST 2” is superior to the first “EXORCIST”. Just because William Peter Blatty was the first to start laughing in the theater followed by William Friedkin does not mean John Boorman did a bad job. “A spectator must adapt to the movie, and the movie should not adapt to the spectator.” It was very disrespectful from the two “Bill's” to ridicule Boorman like they did at the premiere of the movie. On this note, I find “EXORCIST 3” from William Peter Blatty very low quality and laughable.
Boorman's vision was not as extreme as the first movie. He did not want to push everything to the limit like the “Bill's”. He wanted to make a brighter and more positive movie. Does that make him a bad director? No. Where Boorman did make a mistake, however, is that the audience was not ready for this. They wanted to feel the same rush that they felt with the first one. Boorman denied this to them. And this was the real error of judgment, as Boorman himself now confirms.
Â
Captain Howdy said:
“when his eyes stop being yellow, it's not because he is no longer possessed – it's because he has restored faith and is able to be the dominant soul in that body, even if just for a fleeting moment. Long enough to plunge out the window and end it all”
Exactly.
First of all, to come to the right conclusion it is important to differentiate the movie from the novel. They are 2 different worlds. “Apples & Oranges”. Different subjects. Here we are talking about the movie, not the novel.
When possessing a human, there is no such thing as an abduction. You are either possessed or you are not. Period. A demon cannot enter a body without a person's consent. Karras knew that. That's why he told Pazuzu to take him. But, once a demon enters a body, by no means will he leave that body to enter or re-enter another living person. A demon cannot jump from body to body like a grasshopper. There are rules that even a demon cannot overcome.
Again, not taking the novel in consideration, Karras death was not instant. As his fingers were still moving when father Dyer grasped his hand. Pazuzu was still inside Karras. That's where Blatty saw an opening to write “Legion”.
GhettoExorcist said:
 “I am sooo glad that Friedkin dismissed it. It doesn't fit quite well with THIS movie.”
I just got the chance to hear Lalo Schifrin's material a few days ago on youtube. I also agree that Friedkin made the right decision in rejecting it. It is too powerful and loud to the point it becomes annoying and repetitive. Not much variation in moods. Everything is just too “overkill”. Though his score works perfectly in the original trailer from the time. Just like Ennio Morricone, Lalo Schifrin is just a mediocre music composer (IMO). Better composer from that era where John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith.
