CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
With regard to Mel Gibson, are we talking his personal problems, saying nasty things, or are we talking his film work before or behind a camera? If the former, I can see where you’re coming from.
Unlike those other folks you mention, though, I’d say Mel Gibson does more good for people — aside from his personal problems, by virtue of his work and dedication to making quality films. Personal problems, we’ve all got ’em. It’s how we deal with them that’s important. And celebrities or not, we can can be better examples to others, while hopefully avoiding our problems being “celebrated” and considered newsworthy, and marketable.
We ought to admire and celebrate the actions and works of celebrities that inspire us to be better people, rejecting their negative behaviors and opinions. They’re free to act as they will, like any of us, so it’s what they bring to the table that’s important, what should be weighed and considered, contemplated. Sometime they bring filth and poison, others times they can bring us what might be, and should be, considered quality entertainment (works with messages, with meaning). We must be selective with our entertainment diet. And our news. Seems they go hand-in-hand more than ever these days…
As for opinions of celebrities, yeah, if you don’t like it, let it go. Lots of people hate The Passion of the Christ, but Gibson’s actions seem to play a role in their hatred of the film; their loss. Of course, not subscribing to the film’s premise of divine sacrifice for humanity doesn’t help the film’s chances for appreciation, either. Art doesn’t always make sense, but if it’s good, the artist deserves respect. If, however, there celebrity really doesn’t amount to much in terms of what he or he offers the public, their followers (willing and unwilling), they’re a profound waste of their audience’s time.
*steps off the soab box*
M.I.K.E.
I’m genuinely intrigued in seeing this (as well any any other official or unnofficial versions of sequels/prequels to the original Exorcist). I’m even tempted to try getting get VCD they offer there (don’t have a multi-region player). Broke at the moment, but when that changes, I think I’ll be picking this up. If you guys don’t first. If you DO, tell me what you learn concerning its “uncut” status.
An uncut version of Harlin’s E:TB can’t be any worse than what got wheeled out to theaters.
M.I.K.E.
Wow, awesome — lots of discussion here on this and so suddenly!
Hey, so does anyone know which if any of those YesAsia copies are in fact genuinely uncut? Hatter, do you have this? I see you’re posting stuff.
The chance of seeing another version of Captain “Paz Dipenser” Howdy is too cool to pass up. I think I may be getting the VCD, but who can tell me for sure? Too curious, I am.
Thanx.
M.I.K.E.
Great ideas and insight, Granny!
It would have been better if Christ was part of the Morning’s exorcism equation, even if he just said, “Damien, may Christ save you” or something. Without Christ, it’s an affliction that just doesn’t seem to quite need an exorcism or anything holy. Why go to all that trouble but forget to “bring” Christ.
Of course, it’s been a while since I’ve seen the film, maybe Christ is mention at least once. 🙂
Flame away. 😛
M.I.K.E.
The corpus is facing away?!! Either Blatty did it as sabotage in retribution to Morgan Creek (making the exorcist of said shoe-horned exorcism appear inept… foreshadowing his selfless, noble, a-pealing fate? Sorry, bad pun. 😛 ), or it was a pure accident on the part of Blatty, Williamson, someone.
You’d think Blatty wouldn’t have let that one go. 😮
M.I.K.E.
Bravo. Yes. Great analysis and re-cap, Granville. And, let me add… Blatty’s chance to finally work with Nicol Williamson. 🙂
I need to revisit this film and forgive the Morgan Creek meddling. It does have a lot going for it.
M.I.K.E.
It’s worth further investigating, maybe even worth the gamble of buying it to see. I suspect, however, that it’s just people confusing one of the two Exorcist prequels with the other. You’d think Morgan Creek would have by now released another version of that that Renny Harlin debacle, to squeeze more money out of people, expecially in light of practically every horror film now streeting with “Uncut Edition” all over their DVD covers. 😛
I say, buy it and tell us your findings. At the very least, you’ll have an Exorcist sequel’s DVD from ASIA! 🙂
M.I.K.E.
Welcome! New fans here are always great. 😀
The answer I’d like to tell you is: The Demon (Pazuzu or whomever… is up for debate in another thread here) simply has lots of demonic powers and exhibits them in different ways and on different occasions; hence the differences of such between those found in THE EXORCIST, and now in THE EXORCIST III (there is no “II” in this trilogy… if you ask me, and many, many other folks around these parts!). As for why he was scared, everybody’s different and acts differently from time to time; Morning might be typically brave, but here just buckles under the pressure; hard to say. As for what the demon did to him, that’s his face getting pulled off. You didn’t recognize that? 😛
Now as for the real answer to all of this:
Morgan Creek shoe-horned this exorcism sequence, and thus, this particular exorcist — Father Morning — into this film. These elements weren’t even present or conceived of until it was decided, “A William Peter Blatty film featuring peripheral characters from the first film needs an exorcism! And let’s get Jason Miller in there somewhere, too! Who cares that Lee J. Cobb and O’Malley are unavailable… The more original actors in this film the better — the closer it will resemble the original Exorcist film. Every little bit helps!” In short, the exorcism and exorcist therein are really and truly pointless when you consider the kind of story Blatty intended to make before Morgan Creek at the last minute deemed it not scary enough and… made the film their own, as they did more than a decade later with that other “not scary enough” Exorcist sequel, the original prequel that this time already had an exorcism so they decided, “let’s just remake the whole thing.” The Exorcist III was just a warm-up for them in dumbing-down. But unfortunately for The Exorcist III, Blatty’s original version of the film is history — lost — whereas with Paul Schrader’s scrapped prequel, it got both a theatrical release and a DVD.
I hope I’ve helped. 🙂
M.I.K.E.
Good ideas, guys. Never thought of those!
Heck, maybe Paz never left Karras’ body in the 1973 film. I know, I know, heresy. 😛
M.I.K.E.
I forgot how talented and funny this guy had been years before his great, dramatic turn in Dominion.
Check out these priceless Wayne’s World 2 clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-qpDpeO1z8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsXNdQtS-co
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBsZVqh0VnQ
M.I.K.E.
