CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Do I really HAVE TO choose? So difficult. 😛
Yo, this is the funniest idea for a poll or survey. HA! 😀
Okay, I select:
“Your mother [office safe]sips roosters[/office safe] in Hell!”
Truly, the Devil is the “coolest” (um, “hottest”…?) cat out there, and ahead of his time (wait a minute; nevermind, time means nothing to him, fine. I digress…). Using this line was surely the genesis of the great “Your Mom” one-liner craze of the late ’90s and beyond. Way to go, Satan.
M.I.K.E.
Ps.Satan, ’tis YOU who [office safe]sips roosters[/office safe] in Hell. You’ll never get me. Your lies bounce off me, they’re truly absurd. Oh, and Jesus Christ has my back. So there.
The performance was good and more than simply paint-by-numbers (ie. James D’arcy in…wow, a lot of things, including…! No, I’m sick of typing that title! Gah!).
And at the risk (big or small) of ridicule of my own character or that of the actor Mann or his character portrayed in Dominion, I offer humbly that…
Mann portrays a human being. A Christian . There are men of all types in this world, just like the women. Father Francis is one extremely specific example, just as any other man is in real life or in anything else. Merrin, as played by Skarsgard is another. Both actors portray truth, in that limited, and superficial sense (to say nothing of the content of their character or actions). Heck, anytime you see characters in any film, and humans are portraying them, you have specific examples of humanity; the characters appear and act as they ultimately do, based on all kinds of determining factors. We accept it; in theory, the actors are portraying the characters — characters who, like it or not — have real-life counterparts whom we may or may not to varying degrees like to associate ourselves with. Characters in novels, film, video games, they’re all based on humanity, to various extents.
Anyway, in reference to Dominion, Mann’s Francis is a portrayal of a young man (20s or so), who’s given his life to Christ. His mind and heart are on helping others — whomever — theoretically for God, not himself. There you have it: A human being, and a priest atypical of even Damian Karras from the original Exorcist, a priest of a totally different era and background, geography and age. Karras, if I’m not mistaken was a failed boxer. He’s more world-worn. Merrin, too, in The Exorcist (where he’s barely there), and in Dominion; he’s imperfect and world-weary; you might say, “a wimp”. And Francis is just as real. He’s a priest doing his thing, in Kenya, trusting in the Lord and doing his best to help those around him in a loving way, as Christ would have done (and instructed his followers) — with compassion, a compassion similar but different to that of Karras’. One’s lifestyle can help inform one’s demeanor/manner. Francis may appear a wimp to some, and I DO see your point, but the “wimp”, again, is who Francis aspires to be like — Christ. Christ wasn’t a bullying street tough or gruff and frank wise guy. Christ was all kinds of things in all kinds of situations, yes, but specfically he was warm and compassionate to a child, adults,lepers, anyone, even his enemies. He could also be strong, confident and stern to others. But he did everything in LOVE, not for ego or profit, etc.
Francis, Merrin, “Joe Christian” down the street, Christians aspire to be Christlike. Anyway, Mann’s character Francis could have been more stern or hard-edged or whatnot, and still be loving, but that would have been another story for another time, as they say. This one was about Merrin, pre-1973. And the young priest he’d once known in Kenya was a very different kind of man, Christian, Catholic, whatever than you’d expected. No matter one’s beliefs, we, men, women, we can all be strong, patient, humble, weak, anything and everything at different ratios and at different times in our lives, if not our whole lives.
If you want a tougher, “safer”, Father Francis, you should see EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING; it’s a character that shows that particular aspect which every man is capable of, as well. It’s not nearly as performed as well as Mann’s portrayal. D’arcy is too… as the great EKM (www.bloodynews.com) once said about the performance, “He’sa ghostbuster in training.” He stands around. Mann’s version, however, suits the story just fine, and shows us another aspect of what it means to be Christian — “like Christ”, even if he is sort of a wimp — or, because you mentioned it, “effeminate”. By the way, “effemminate”…? I really think that’s painting with too broad of a brush stoke. His outward appearance might be softer-edged than, say, a crazyman like Jack Nicholson or somebody, but not every hairy apeman-type actor can get these kind of priest parts; probably not many, if any. Incidentally, since this is an issue for some, Mann doesn’t look like his character in real life; he’s an actor, and dresses the part when before camera. Father Francis is a young man. Younger men are by default “less manly” , more “effeminate” than the men they will ultimately become in time (ie.old men). Need I go on? Anyway, one other thing:
As for “Satan is real,” I bought it. The timing and delivery were right, considering it was a sudden revelation for Francis, who now had to get the heck out for there to get that Roman Ritual book!
Respectfully,
M.I.K.E.
Sounds like I have one reason to see this flick. Sounds like the nod to THE film (of all films! Believe it.) is noteworthy. 😀
M.I.K.E.
Agreed, and cinematically, Miller wouldn’t contradict it. In fact, much as I like Dourif’s performance in what became THE EXORCIST III (aka. Legion 2.0), I’d have preferred Miller from the get-go; I think everyone would. However, since Lee J. Cobb was unable to sign on (he was deceased), Blatty apparently rebooted the saga from scratch, effectively making his “true sequel” not too true to the original at all; in many ways, yes, but not in some major ones:
1.The discoverer of the language on the tape being English in reverse in THE EXORCIST was one of Karras’ colleagues, a man, not the mother of a Thomas Kintry as The Exorcist III would have you believe. Both films specifically state or show their respective discoverer. Impossible they’re the same person; hence, a major plot hole, or whatnot.
2.The official who gave Karras the permission to participate in the exorcism. Different people in both films; and in the latter, the guy dies.
3.Kinderman and Karras… best friends? ‘Nuff said.
That said, The Exorcist III is thoroughly watchable and not entirely mucked-up by Morgan Creek. But surely inferior to what could have been. For example, just as Dominion proved to be, once the “good one” was releaed and tanked allowing for Dominion to become resurrected.
M.I.K.E.
AMEN.
Seriously, I concur.
I concur so much… I now have a CONCUR SORE! 😮
*KLANG!* (and the joke collapses to the ground, rapidly bouncing back and forth until still)
M.I.K.E.
Who’s for an extended exorcism scene?
Just askin’. 😉
Maybe Hatter can replace the E:TB footage of Sarah spiderwalking on the cave walls with Cheche! I kid, I kid. 😉
But seriously, maybe there are things — editing tricks — which can fatten up that end exorcism.
Thoughts?
M.I.K.E.
Pps.If LEGION 2.0 ever surfaces, so might a redux of Dominion. If Morgan Creek come to their senses even once, they might do it again, except simultaneously to cut costs (of having to lift a finger); two birds with one stone, that trick.
Incidentally, WHAT an ARC of a story, his life. The writers did their job, and then some.
Priest, author, ARCHaologist.
1944. Parish priest; leaves the Church, after tragic events in which he was forced to participate; believing God abandoned him, his faith is lost.
1947. In Kenya, witnesses atrocities brought on by the unleashing of the Devil Himself from beneath an unexpected Byzantine church. Regains his faith, and faces the Devil face-to-face in the form of Cheche, an afflicted outcast turned possessed.
Post-1947, pre-1973.
X exorcisms performed, excavations overseen, and books written.
1973. Having shortly returned from a dig in Iraq, is summoned to exorcise the daughter of film star Chris MacNeil, where he ultimately gives his life to save the little girl. The Devil has neither won nor lost. And Merrin passes into legend.
Miller wasn’t in the film originally. “LEGION 1.0” featured only Dourif, as Karras, and as the possessed Karras with the Gemini Killer within.
Even so, if Blatty could go back and finish his film, his only options in terms of strategies at successfully using Miller would be:
1. Retain or edit in “Exorcist III” footage/sound of the actor.
2. See 1, and/or partically CGI it all like they’ve done with Marlon Brando in Superman Returns.
3. Have a new actor made up to look like Miller, and get the voice right through modern technology. Couldn’t be too hard.
Just some thoughts. Man, would it be great to see LEGION 1.0 in any capacity. Apparently the film only exists on a VHS tape belonging to Blatty himself (all actual footage from both versions of his sequel to The Exorcist are history, in every sense, it’s believed), and it’s not even fully produced, but more of a rough cut.
I think we’d be lucky just to have a no-Miller version. The original version LEGION, produced before Miller was hired in order to please Morgan Creek, and surely fans. But THE EXORCIST III is a film which contradicts the original in a number of ways already, so no-Miller would have been a plus; less confusion.
M.I.K.E.
The Devil DID lose, on a number of ocasions, but not in the grand scheme; he also won in different ways. Merrin was killed; Karras, too. And what are we left with? One believer (Dyer), a non-Christian (the Jewish Detective Kinderman), and agnostics (the MacNeils and Sharon). So, technically, if the theology of Catholic Christianity is THE truth (in the reality this film presents), of the main characters it is just Fr. Dyer who “lives”; his soul isn’t condemned for rejecting the divinity of Christ. Note: Agnostics must ultimately choose a side — for or against the divinity of Christ. If they don’t, Jesus has chosen for them: “If you’re not for me, you are against me.” (I think that quote is correct.) I forget the passage in the Bible, but basically, being an agnostic doesn’t cut it; if one is “warm” (a believer and liver of Christianity as prescribed by Christ), he or she is accepted and truly saved. “Cold” people, non-believers (of whatevever strength) are ULTIMATELY rejected outright. And so, too, is the fate of those who are neither hot nor cold, but luke-warm; agnostics.
In conclusion, assuming the agnostics (and non-Christians) presented in the film would go on in their ways, their fates are sealed and the Devil has won (not their physical bodies, but their souls, forfeited to him out of passive rebellion. “You’re for me, or you’re against me.” (to that effect)).
M.I.K.E.
Miller wasn’t in the film originally. “LEGION 1.0” featured only Dourif, as Karras, and as the possessed Karras with the Gemini Killer within.
Even so, if Blatty could go back and finish his film, his only options in terms of strategies at successfully using Miller would be:
1. Retain or edit in “Exorcist III” footage/sound of the actor.
2. See 1, and/or partically CGI it all like they’ve done with Marlon Brando in Superman Returns.
3. Have a new actor made up to look like Miller, and get the voice right through modern technology. Couldn’t be too hard.
Just some thoughts. Man, would it be great to see LEGION 1.0 in any capacity. Apparently the film only exists on a VHS tape belonging to Blatty himself (all actual footage from both versions of his sequel to The Exorcist are history, in every sense, it’s believed), and it’s not even fully produced, but more of a rough cut.
I think we’d be lucky just to have a no-Miller version. The original version LEGION, produced before Miller was hired in order to please Morgan Creek, and surely fans. But THE EXORCIST III is a film which contradicts the original in a number of ways already, so no-Miller would have been a plus; less confusion.
M.I.K.E.
I think the heart ATTACK via lightning is BRILLIANT, if even done with subtlety. It’s a very inspired idea. I’m truly in awe. Neat, neat, neat! 🙂
And even with any kind of lightning, that connection to the original alone could make it all worth it, and probably would.
M.I.K.E.
Justy, at least I don’t like THE NINTH CONFIGURATION. 😛 😉
(to all who do, I’m glad you do; I just don’t understand it, and hence, why people like it as much as they seem to. Waitaminute. This sort of thing sounds mighty familiar. 😮 )
Hatty, the eyes look great; much closer to what the original film and the (good) sequel had. 🙂
As for the lightning, I’m afraid it makes me think of the Emperor in Star Wars. 😮 To me, unless the lightning serves the story (ie.Merrin gets zapped by it, and you’d have to figure out how to make him convulse in pain to some extent), it’s very distracting. The eyes, however, are a cosmetic change to further tie this to the original, so my hats off to you there. Note: Cheche should have THOSE EYES whenever in the film he had the red eyes; the rest of his scenes need his normal eyes. 🙂
Incidentally, and ironically, do you know where George Lucas got the red-yellow eyes of his Darksiders? Guess. :O Too close to be an accident. 🙂
***** BY THE WAY: special request! *****
Father Francis’ tree scene, can you up the blood a bit? Arrows of any kind ought have left blood dripping much further down, at the minimum. Then again, maybe Francis had thick blood, high cholestorol or something. It just looks bizarre. He should be bleeding all over, not just a few, short trickles. WORD.
M.I.K.E.
