CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks, all. And thanks, Justy! You know your stuff.
Hey, but why does it say what it says at the bottom of my post now: “Tags you opened and didn’t close properly:
img…”? 😮M.I.K.E.
A very valid theory/possibility. The only problem, though, lies in the fact that additional run-ins with the same demon/devil could prove redundant and a challenge to pull off with imaginiation and honesty, as Schrader and co. had managed to do (taking evil seriously and avoiding carbon copied-cliches), and unlike Harlin and co (they took the easy way out, to cartoonish results, giving their film’s admirers a paper-thin surface-only version of an Exorcist film; granted, with a nice “surprise” ending that could be seen coming from a mile… two miles away.).
One way to avoid such a pitfall, would be to not make it a cinematically-told story, but maybe a novel or comic book.
For there to be another exorcist film, I believe it’s a black-and-white issue: it can only be as different yet respectful and complimentary to the original film as Dominion, OR, the alternative is getting something you’d laugh at based primarily on the superficial qualities, since the “story” would be sloppily told and predictably all over the place (ie. E:TB or The Heretic). That is, the quality of an ‘Exorcist’ film is hinged first on the possessed; having a female who becomes really ugly and haggard when afflicted has already been done now; in the original, and then the Renny Harlin charicature piece (“Arguably the greatest horror-comedy ever,” it’s been said; hey, I’ve said it.), plus x-unoffcial remakes and derivitives from all over the world, for ages (too many to name). Despite the nice acting, cinematography, and does-the-job-to-get-the-point-across special effects of Dominion, Schrader’s film would have been damned to good and bad E:TB-level reception). Even Paul Schrader couldn’t have made a good movie with the material, if it were another possessed female — the bottom line. ‘Course, maybe it would have prevented Renny Harlin from doing E:TB. Posessed-femme movies are what everyone expects and demands; males are immune to evil, apparently, which is stupid if you believe that all of humanity is susceptable to sin and temptation; we’re within evil’s reach — we’re not beyond it. Males can become demonically oppressed or possessed as much as the ladies; we all fall short of the glory of God, which demonstrates how and why the Devil is after anyone and everyone, not just females. Anyway. posessed-femme movies are too comfortable, too safe, too mundane, and “why bother?”.
The Exorcist (1973) was about demonic possession, but also Christian and Catholic theology. Dominion succeeds in each of those departments. And, secondary, the special effects get the point across, and aren’t so over-blown it beomes a cartoon or “special effects film”. And third, if evil and the devil and demons are all real, it reminds us that both the sexes food for the Enemy.
In conclusion, any sequels or prequels sure better avoid a possessed femme. Or at the minimum have the femme become more beautiful instead of the predictable ugly.
Just rambling. Sorry!
M.I.K.E.
Both, if you’re up to it. Otherwise, either. 🙂 Seriously, I’m very flexible. 😉
Thanks, in any event (even if you decline!)! 🙂
M.I.K.E.
Justy, are you joking? “MERRRINNNN!” is heard there? :S
That’s pretty cool!
I might say, though, that it might be even cooler if it was the voice of CHECHE instead (a new fan edit is in order, yes?). 🙂 Yeah, just take the like where Cheche says, “Run, Merrin, Run…” and distort the “Merrin” just enough to capture the tone that this one does.
Just doing crazy talk. 😛
M.I.K.E.
SPECIAL REQUEST:
Please change Cheche-demon’s eyes to the classic yellow-red of the original film and Exorcist III. The red may just be less cool, you see. 😉
THANKS!!!!!
And at the least, please do a test image and post it here. Please. 🙂
M.I.K.E.
Interesting, my friend. However, please elaborate; I’m not sure I quite understand, then again, I’ll try to respond anyway…
Comparing Merrin to Jesus… Good angle, but flawed. Jesus was God and man, and therefore ultimately able to not succumb to the Devil’s temptations. Merrin was just a man, and a man on the rebound from having lost his faith. He’d have succumbed to the devil or any other demon’s temptations anywhere, given his spiritual bankruptcy, having turned his back on Christ for so long and only just that particular night returned.
Incidentally, I think this helps explain DOMINION’s swift exorcism: It took place in a/the church, was against THE DEVIL HIMSELF, and at a time when Merrin finally humbled himself to accept and truly re-accepted God and Christ. I believe that due to these facts, God and/or The Holy Spirit chose to adequately arm Merrin for the spirtual warfare he was up against that night. God makes all things possible, including the impossible, when it glorifies Him. It was a time, for Merrin, when God chose to intervene. He’d denied Merrin before when 10 of Merrin’s parish were murdered, and Merrin was forced to choose. The nazis, the parishiners, Merrin, any and all of the above were in need of a wake-up call; God allowed what He did so that they might re-think their lives and how they were living them (just as He does today, and in the original EXORCIST film; humans suffer) — were they humble and living for Christ and their fellow humanity, or were they relenting to their sinful natures and in rebellion with God? Believers, pretenders and non-believers alike, they were all under God, and in the case of Merrin, years later in Kenya, God did what He did… in time, His own time (not Merrin’s).
M.I.K.E.
“Good effects” for the hyenas, for example, can be found in EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING; hyenas are impossible, Renny Harlin and co. realized were correct, and literally tried too hard, and their “hyenas” looked more like the weasals in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
As for the exorcism, good reasoning, although, like with the rest of the film, Schrader gave the film a more old-fashioned, 1940s… feel; it was a must, considering how different the film’s narrative and cast/crew were compared to the original film it intended to prequel. Old-fashioned stuff: Things here and there — not everything — enough to give the illusion that we’re witnessing an older, less gritty and modern time than the 1970s. Harlin’s film, despite all of its silly components, feels like it could have taken place the day before or after thos events in Georgetown. Everything about it just seems gritty and modern, I’m sorry.
Anyway, agree or not, but Dominion’s effects suit that film moreso than E:TB’s effects suited E:TB.
Schrader and co. got effects that didn’t make you stare in wonderment and awe at how awesome and computer-generated they look. Sure, maybe we all stared, shaking our head at how limited and awkward they appeared, but at least we didn’t have to go FURTHER out to the story with the impressive, worldclass, but ultimately too-pretty-to-be-real CGI.
What we got with DOMINION, effectswise was the no-frills STAR WARS (A New Hope), in terms of achievment; points got accross and the story got told well. Harlin’s E:TB, on the other hand, was Star Wars Episode III; mind you, George Lucas’ narrative had fewer holes and remains a film that holds water (not hot air).
M.I.K.E.
I think the sole criterion (besides the obvious fact that it’s supposed to be the prequel to the beloved original) — for determining which film is the better prequel can be articulated with this question (based on all the rants and pans I’ve heard on both films):
Which one DOESN’T make you laugh or cringe more due to its performances or special effects?
In conclusion, fans will consider one or the other the true prequel, naturally. And I think it boils down to which is less hokey in the eyes of the fan.
For me, E:TB has one or two truly decent scenes or sequences (the acting of D’arcy when he spills the beans to Merrin toward the end of the film; it was beleiveable! And, Sarah leaning forward on the upside-down cross toward Merrin; truly creepy and picturesque! I even liked the opening scene where soldier-priest, Father Theron Morakis — named in the E:TB novelization — finds the Pazuzu idol in the hand of his fallen comrade; the events after he takes the idol — when the camera pulls backward and everyone’s been crucified upsided-down, HOWEVER, THAT made me groan and shake my head), and the rest is unintentional comic fluff; a cartoon — it’s not supposed to be a cartoon.
DOMINION, however, is a better-told story (Merrin’s journey, the ideal premise for an Exorcist prequel story), with actors portraying three-dimensional characters, and its only real and superficial problem is the special effects, special effects which I think still succeed in getting the point accross. All the “bad” effects are fleeting, whereas its replacement, EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING, directed by the inspired choice of Renny “Deep Blue Sea (love those shark effects!)” Harlin, features similar scenes lasting three or four times longer (How about that mammoth hyenas-massacre-boy scene!), despite the effects appearing more realistic, I guess.
In my mind, a prequel to THE EXORCIST had to be AS DIFFERENT to the original as Dominion was. E:TB shows us what happens when cannibalizing the original for whatever it can get away with just to appear a prequel.
I think the effects in Dominion are fine, and get the point accross, as effects should. 20,000,000 Leagues Under the Sea and other dated special-effects-celebrated films have often “laughable” effects, but effects which don’t hinder the viewing experience, nor do they take away. George Lucas’ Star Wars films might feature exceptional special effects, but I personally am only impressed when the effects are undetectable, otherwise I end up staring at “that creature” or “environment” for too long, and become distracted. The effects in E:TB distract even more than Dominion’s, as I said — the go on forever.
For that and so many reasons stated here and unstated, E:TB is so bad (however “perfect” and DOMINON so much better (however “imperfect”) that it should really be a no-brainer which is the better of the two.
E:TB is fine to revisit as a study, and even to be entertained, but to forever tie it to the orginial 1973 film as a, let alone THE, true prequel, it’s unthinkable. Dominion’s just not even close to it in terms of contrivedness, special-effects-over-story, and laughability.
Dominion is very different from E:TB and the original film, superficially sure, but who says a chapter of a book or saga should be a carbon copy of succeeding chapter…? Renny Harlin and Morgan Creek, okay, you got me. 🙂
M.I.K.E.
Your coined “Getting the point/across” concept sums it up best. I couldn’t have said it better, except maybe with this analogy: Books have text, including scary books like THE EXORCIST, for example; just as we must accept the text as written during the experience of reading a novel, so too must we allow th e filmmakers to tell their cinematic stories to us as their movies unfold before our eyes. Plus, I have this to say:
The audience gets what it gets, just as films of old with so-so effects challenged the viewers to suspend their disbelief; easy to do if the film is otherwise solid enough (ie.20,000 Leagues Under the Sea), if it succeeds at telling the story it had set out to do. Schrader’s film, much success. Harlin’s, not much. Dominion was a better and more believable prequel/”origin story” for the exorcist, Fr. Lankester Merrin. It is what it is, and thank God it was nothing more; Morgan Creek, apparently were intent on some big special effects sequences… On the other hand, history unfolded very differently: Morgan Creek’s feeble mind changed itself, and they could’ve scrapped the film entirely, or gutted it and tarted it up. Instead, they re-made the film; good for Schrader, us, and all the fans… BAD for them. 😛 Old news, but worth repeating.
Oh, and THE EXORCIST, incidentally, required special effects of a different sort, and THEY got the point accross splendidly, despite the exceptional yet simple special effects, effects which still hold up today. And why…? TODAY special effects in major Hollywood movies REQUIRE the computer as a main tool.
New bottom line concerning the visual effects: Less (quality) is MORE. 🙂 Bigger or better effects actually made Harlin’s E:TB worse, ironically. Yeah, the better effects made very real the silly cartoon. It was a thoroughly believable piece of junk; literally, and in every sense. Worse special effects (a lesser emphasis on such, that is) would actually have made the film unbelievable, and as per my theories above, grounded it as taking place in th 1940s. Again, it looks like the modern day, and they’re dressed up in ’40s costumes.
I ramble, so I’ll be back… in time.
M.I.K.E.
Welcome! This site rocks. Huge fan. Anyhoo…
It’s an okay film with lots of thought and depth, but thematically is the only way I can call it a sequel of any kind. There are some “links” with the original film, but I’d consider them “nods” only, if anything. To call this a “true sequel”, let alone a sequel, would mean another of Blatty’s films is a sequel (just because Blatty did it); A SHOT IN THE DARK could be a sequel. Okay, maybe I’m just being rude, sarcastic and difficult (please forgive me). 🙂 But do you see my point? TNC is about as deep and thoughtful and spirtual and well-made as THE EXORCIST, I suppose, but it’s a whole different universe; nothing, not even the tone, anchors it into the reality of 1973 Georgetown as envisioned by Blatty and Friedkin. We’d need a character FROM The Exorcist to appear and be named on screen, at the BARE MINIMUM. ‘Course, if only that much, it could in fact only be a glorified cameo or whatever. It’d be a start, though.
The true sequel to THE EXORCIST, in my opinion, is LEGION (before Morgan Creek “got” to it), or I’ll settle for THE EXORCIST III (the byproduct of Morgan Creek’s meddling with Blatty’s film.).
Respectfully my opinion,
M.I.K.E.
I’m actually very excited and intrigued by this stills preview you’ve just posted. It feels even more like the 1973 film, based on the colors. My only complaint — and it’s very minor, though I feel quite strongly about it nonetheless — is the title. THE DOMINION sounds more complete and organically tied to THE EXORCIST, than does the plain DOMINION.
THE DOMINION. THE EXORCIST; the “THE” before DOMINION is more specific. Without it, it could be a Star Trek episode or something. I know, I realize it isn’t such, but it just doesn’t hold the weight that “The Dominion” does; Just “Dominion”… it’s too vague.
Merrin’s journey… THE DOMINION. Merrin’s final battle with the Enemy… the film: THE EXORCIST.
THE DOMINION
THE EXORCIST
I dunno, I might be too picky. Please forgive me. You’ve done and will have done so much for us when your re-edit is finished. 🙂 I will say no more of this; I don’t wish to be a pest. 🙂
Your pal,
M.I.K.E.
DOMINION. THE EXORCIST. …
Your final sentence is valid, St. Michael.
And to answer your equally valid questions, here are my opinionated observations (with reference of DOMINION only, for I’ve never heard of Exorcist: The Beginning; it doesn’t exist — not after what one ticket and DVD invested into that movie do I still wish to dignify that trash.)
1.So where in Dominion is he “putting up a fight…[which] damn near kills him”? Well, technically, since this is (literally supposed to have “lasted months”), the exorcism, which while brief, with the passage of time from his much-ballyhooed post-WWII faith-taking “incident” to the 1970s (the time of that infamous conversation between the two Catholic leaders’ deciding on an exorcist), fits the bill; he’d lost his faith, and was a sitting duck during the first meeting, and then for the exorcism, with faith restored, his faith was just barely strong enough to secure a victory for him. The very night he got his faith back, he’d exorcised a demon for the first time; no easy task (it could have been longer, but all in all, it succeeded cinematically), I’m sure. Therefore, when he’d gone back to Rome to file his report (not present in the narrative of the film), he probably told the truth: Something like, “I fought the Devil. The boy survived the exorcism.” Maybe he embellished the story, but more likely, it was the official or officials he’d reported to who did, or the story of that exorcism by the Oxford-educated arhaelogist-prolific writer-priest grew and became exaggerated and more thrilling with time; from a single night to “lasted months”. The priest said: “…Africa…The exorcism lasted months… I [HEARD] it damn near killed him.”
And the other thing I wanted to add, was Schrader and co. did leave the original alone; it’s clear, and it’s a very good thing, as the resulting story is a wonderful one which doesn’t distastefully retread and stomp the original 1973 film (let alone book) into the ground, but instead stands on its own, not to mention manages to still jive with the immortal sentence by the Church official about Merrin’s experience as an exorcist. It could have been more like the 1973 film, sure, arguably so was Renny Harlin’s film. Schrader and Carr had it right, doing what they did with their prequel; they struck creative gold on a film which could have easily turned into the kind of film Morgan Creek and Renny Harlin later concocted — a cheap cartoon of the 1973 film, only set in Africa, in a desperate attempt to organically tie itself to the original. Exorcist: The Beginning only succeeds superficially there. Digging deeper than outward appearances, Dominion has a viable and different story — Father Merrin’s journey (as Schrader coined it); the kind of story not necessary for us to NOT go “de ja vu!”, but instead take on its own and more easily believe that this character, Merrin, would years later, in the darker, more modern 1970s America, return to face The Enemy (we know he’d fought at least once before… more sequels need not be made; Dominion does the job).
Dominion portrays a very different story with a very different Merrin, and a very different possessed and very different exorcism than the “Georgetown episode” of 1973. It’s a solid prequel. Yes, it might have benefitted from more nods to the original; but the makers knew when to stop, unlike their replacements.
My two cents.
M.I.K.E.
“The Dominion” should be a/the title. 🙂
As for the lead-in repeat scene from the original film, it’s a neat concept, but should stay as a promotional piece in the trailers. The film’s epilogue — as such a scene would become if included — is technically already “the sequel”, the 1973 film. So, to watch Dominion, then the 1973 film (or in reverse), would watching the same scene twice in a row really benefit the viewer or the film(s) in general? That’s why a trailer promoting the prequel, including that scene, would be best — because to include it in this film is little more than a “trailer” for the “sequel” — the 1973 film.
Just my two cents.
M.I.K.E.
