• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • Reminder - We have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding content involving minors, regardless of intent. Any content containing minors will result in an immediate ban. If you see any such content, please report it using the "report" button on the bottom left of the post.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

The Exorcist?

steph

Level of Grape Feather
Joined
Nov 29, 2003
Messages
16,090
Points
0
So, Mitch's post about the new movie got me wondering about this one. I know the original scared the hell out of me when I was a kid and then again when I was about 20, but I hear only Catholics had that reaction to it. (lOL) I haven't heard any buzz on the latest--anyone see this movie yet?

XOXO
 
Haven't seem the new one, but.....

I remember when i saw the first one. My brother had gone to see it, and had the novel. Intrigued by all the press and hype, i read the book...unfortunately, I was reading it at school...Evergreen Lutheran School, to be precise. I inadvertantly started a little outcry among the parents because of it.
Anyway, when they finally showed it on tv, my family and I watched it. I went to bed that night with my ears covered because I was afraid I'd hear that voice in the dark. Saw the uncut version a few years back, and it still gives me the willies.

The Sean Man
 
Same here!
It's kind of mean to find this funny but when my friend's son acts up--he's four--she uses that voice, and literally within SECONDS he's crying and begging her to stop, he'll be good, etc...

I didn't even see the director's cut that recently came out.
XOXO
 
steph said:
I didn't even see the director's cut that recently came out.

That's the one I saw a few years back. They billed it as "The version you never saw". Some missing scenes were restored, and there were some effects added. Wait'll you see the 'spider walk'.

The Sean Man
 
I saw a snip on Entertainment Tonight! Strange, but I laughed my ass off! It was just too friggin weird to be scary. Like some kind of bad acid trip or somthing...

XOXO
 
The scary thing is that Blatty has said a few times that parts are true

He specifically mentions the scene where Linda Blaires stomach spells the word help. I watched a few interviews wiht him over the years where he essentially said the same thing. He had known a psychologist who had asked him to come with him to see something that he would never believe. In real life it was the son of a Senator. He went with him and the day that they went he explained that the room was cold even though it was hot and that he saw the boys stomach spell help. He said that it was kept quiet as it was the son of a Senator. You might think I am making this up, but I kid you not. It is even stated on Amazon.com as such:

Amazon.com
When originally published in 1971, The Exorcist became not only a bestselling literary phenomenon, but one of the most frightening and controversial novels ever written. (When the author adapted his book to the screen two years later, it then became one of the most terrifying movies ever made.) Blatty fictionalized the true story of a child's demonic possession in the 1940s. The deceptively simple story focuses on Regan, the 11-year-old daughter of a movie actress residing in Washington, D.C.; the child apparently is possessed by an ancient demon. It's up to a small group of overwhelmed yet determined humans to somehow rescue Regan from this unspeakable fate. Purposefully raw and profane, this novel still has the extraordinary ability to literally shock us into forgetting that it is "just a story." The Exorcist remains a truly unforgettable reading experience.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061007226/102-6850179-8652951

Now this says it was something that happened in the 40's, and maybe Blatty may have mixed that with something from another possession, and that is where he saw the stomach do that, but he did say he saw that happen in real life, and that science could not explain it.

Now I am seeing on the net that Blatty based his book on an incident that happened to a 14 year old boy in Maryland. But I disticntly recall seeing Blatty in 2 (1 I believe was an HBO special on the making of THE EXORCIST 3, in wich Blatty directed) interveiws saying the same thing:

1. It was the son of a senator.

2. He was in the room and witnessed the boys stomach spell help.
 
Last edited:
That's something I didn't know buggs. Thanks for the interesting info. I remember reading as a kid that Linda Blair had to undergo psychotherapy during filming because some of it was so traumatic. Also the EChannel recently ran a story of the making of the film that was called, "The Curse" I'm bummed because I missed it...

XOXO
 
Well again, research on the web says one thing

And Blatty also relesed book after the movie in which he tells of the 14 year old Maryland boy in the 40's being the inspiration for the book, but I distinclty remember two Blatty interviews on TV where he said the two points I mention above in both interviews. I will do more research to see if there is anything from him on it. And no the boy wasn't G.W.. It was someone who was in the DC or surrounding area. And the boy was supposedly fine afterwards, and happily living in obscurity, according to Blatty. That was all that was said.

The thing that really gauls me about this movie, and Aliens versus Predator is that here are two prequels to a couple of great movies (and some not so great sequels) and both of them are given to two hack directors by the studios. The only good film Renny Harlin ever made was Ford Fairlane, and I dont think Paul Anderson has ever made a good movie. Both hacks. I wish Morgan creek had went with Paul Schrader's version of this new Exorcist movie. Here is the backstory of what happened to that version of Exorcist: The Begining:

Exorcist IV Fires Schrader

The New York Post is reporting that Exorcist: The Beginning director Paul Schrader has been fired because he didn't put enough blood, guts and vomit in the prequel, the fourth film in the horror franchise. Citing anonymous sources, the newspaper reported that Schrader (Auto Focus) turned the finished movie in to Morgan Creek, which refused to give him his post-production money because they hated it. According to the sources, Schrader delivered what was in the script: a creepy psychological thriller, with no gore.

But, the source added, "Morgan Creek wanted gore. They think that will sell. There were huge fights between Paul, who is more artistic, and the company, and earlier this week Paul was fired. They are planning on hiring a new director to reshoot some scenes."

Novelist Caleb Carr (The Alienist) wrote the Exorcist screenplay for Morgan Creek and told the Post: "The problem with Paul's cut of the movie is it does not deliver the psychological fear we were looking for. It does have some good dramatic elements, which can be rearranged with some good shooting into a very good movie." The picture, starring Stellan Skarsgard, Gabriel Mann and Francesca Barone, was shot in Rome and Morocco. Schrader declined comment, citing legal agreements.

So Morgan Creeks answer was to hire Harlin.

Nothing left of Paul Schrader's EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING
Sunday, February 22nd, 2004
Source: Variety

Exorcist: The Beginning: According to Variety, Renny Harlin's reshoot of Exorcist: The Beginning, which wrapped Feb. 22nd, has it that not a single frame of the footage shot by Paul Schrader will be included in the bedeviled prequel's new cut.

Harlin's 13-week effort equals the amount of time spent by Schrader on his original shoot.

Schrader ankled the Morgan Creek production last year due to creative differences. Still, his name is reportedly meant to stay on the pic.

Originally budgeted at $25 million, the antecedent to the 1973 horror classic is now jokingly being referred to in Rome as "the sequel to the prequel."

Three original key cast members -- Clara Bellar, Gabriel Mann and pop star Billy Crawford -- are not likely to appear in the final version, since they didn't return for reshooting. A new scribe, Alexi Hawley ("Grimm"), was brought in to rewrite the William Wisher and Caleb Carr script, and a new editor is working only with Harlin's material for the recut, according to sources.

While Schrader's footage is thought to have been considered too tame, new footage is said to generously feature revolving eyeballs, spinning heads and loads of projectile vomit.

This is the same guy, who in my opinion, ruined Die Hard 2. Harlin, with the exception of Ford Fairlane, couldn't direct my Grandma to take a dump if she had a raging case of the runs. If Fox had just waited two weeks for McTierrinan (Director of Die Hard 1 and 3) to be done with the HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, he was wanted to direct the sequel, we would have had 3 kick ass Die Hards instead of just 2. Harlin also directed Deep Blue Sea, so that gives you an idea of how much of a hack he is. I honestly think Ford Fairlane's success in execution was all Andrew Dice Clay and the script. The very least they should have done was tried to get the original's director William Friedkin to direct this Exorcist movie.

And the sad thing about Aliens VS Predator is that both Ridley Scott and James Cameron came to an agreement and pitched Fox studios that they if Fox didn't make Aliens VS Predator, that Cameron would write a script and Scott would direct the next Alien sequel. From here:

Check this; Ridley Scott and James Cameron were going to kick--start the Alien franchise anew with a giant, bad ass flick to reintroduce what made the franchise great. Scott was going to direct, Cameron was going to write. That's right - the director of Alien, and the director/writer of Aliens were going to work together on a NEW ALIEN MOVIE. Cameron's only stipulation " that they do not make Alien v.s. Predator before the new movie, as it would mess up the flow".

Fox got antsy with the upcoming release of Freddy v.s. Jason, and decided to cash in.

So, instead of a badass movie developed by the two guys who made the Alien series definitive, we're going to get a second-rate crossover that contextually makes no sense, and will be directed by a hack better suited to music videos and commercials.

We could have had a kick ass sequel from the two guys who made the best movies in that series. Or at the very least they should have given the directing job to, who I think is beter than the two of them, John McTerinan, who directed the first predator, Die Hard 1 and 3, and the Hunt for Red October. Well it is a shame as now we have two sucky prequels. F.U. Harlin!!! And F.U. Anderson!!!!! YOU HACKS!!!!

Right now the only studio I think that has learned from the big screw up it made in handing Godzilla to Emmerich and Devlin is Sony. It seems to me that they never want to make that mistake again. And at least Warners is getting it's act together on the Batman and Superman movies.
 
Last edited:
Your right Lime. The original had one frame inserts during the scary scenes that said in red blood letters "hate", "fear", etc. The movie came our right before advertisers and the like were told that they could not put subliminal messages in advertisements be it print, commercials, etc. I am not sure if there is a law on it or not. I also know that one of the scotch or Vodka makers continued to do it in their print adds by airbrushing a skull into an ice cube. You would barely notice it unless you know what you where looking at. I don't know what the name of the drink is as I don't drink any alcohol, but it comes in a purple pouch and there is a gold crown in the logo. I am not sure if Warners had to take out the frames in the home video version. I am also not sure if whatever it is that prevents advertisers to put subliminal messages in add aplies to films, but I think it does.
 
The alcohol in question is Crown Royal buggs--an expensive and high quality brand of whiskey.

I used to work in advertising and there's fantastic book on this subject, "Subliminal Seduction."
XOXO
 
Or as Gee Dubya calls them, "subliminables". :blaugh:

That one his PR department did, overlaying a Democratic Party commercial with the word "rats" was hillarious. So badly done it was obvious to everyone.
 
I have the film on DVD. All the removed scenes are in the "special material" part, including the "spider-walk".

Personally I thought it was both profane and enthralling, but not especially scary. Mind you, not many horror films are scary.

I have to say that Friedkin as director was lucky not to be hospitalised by irate actors or parents during the filming. During the scene where Linda Blair was being thrashed on the bed, the "corset" thingy she was wearing which was being used to throw her about began to come undone and she was jack-knifing, causing injury to her spine and ribs. She was supposed to be screaming anyway because she was possessed, but Friedkin decided he liked the real thing too much to stop rolling, so he kept the camera going and used that clip in the final cut. If I'd been Linda Blair's father on the set, they'd have had to remove my hands from Friedkin's throat with a spot-welder, because I'd have choked the bastard to death.
 
This is supposed to be a watered down version of what the first one is based on. the 1940's incident:
Titled “Case Study by Jesuit Priests,” the diary begins by supplying background information on “Roland Doe” (born 6-1-35), son of “Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Doe” (obvious pseudonyms). It states that the family lives in a middle-class Washington suburban development.

January 15, 1949—A dripping noise was heard in his grandmother’s bedroom by the boy and his grandmother. A picture of Christ on the wall shook and scratching noises were heard under the floor boards. From that night on scratching was heard every night from 7 p.m. until midnight. This continued for ten consecutive days. After three days of silence, the boy heard nighttime “squeaking shoes” on his bed that continued for six consecutive nights. (Note that the article and presumably the diary makes no mention as to which family members actually witnessed or were present when these events transpired.)

January 26, 1949—“Aunt Tillie,” who had a deep interest in spiritualism and had introduced Roland to the Ouija Board, died of multiple sclerosis at the age of 54. Mrs. Doe suspected there may have been some connection between her death and the seemingly strange events that continued to take place. At one point during the manifestations Mrs. Doe asked, “If you are Tillie, knock three times.” Waves of air began striking the grandmother, Mrs. Doe, and Roland and three knocks were heard on the floor. Mrs. Doe again queried, “If you are Tillie, tell me positively by knocking four times.” Four knocks were heard, followed by claw scratchings on Roland’s mattress. (At various points throughout this ordeal Mrs. Doe would attempt to verbally communicate with Aunt Tillie, apparently alternating her beliefs that the problems with her son were either the work of the devil or their departed relative.)

February 17, 1949—On this night a local Lutheran minister named Reverend Shultz [sic] arranged to have the boy spend the night at his parsonage. Roland arrived at 9:20 p.m. and stayed until 9:20 a.m. the next morning. The Reverend reportedly heard scratching noises, and witnessed the following: bed vibrations; a chair in which Roland sat tipping over; and the movement of a pallet of blankets upon which Roland sat.

February 26, 1949—Beginning on this night scratches or markings appeared on the boy’s body for four consecutive nights. After the fourth night words began to appear and seemed to be scratched on by claws. (The diary indicates that at this point only Mrs. Doe was present when the markings occurred.) Erdmann mentions that Father Albert Hughes of St. James Catholic Church in Mount Rainier was consulted. Hughes suggested the family use blessed candles, holy water, and special prayers. (Erdmann’s source for this information is not given.)

The chronology now becomes confusing. Between the diary writer (with information supplied by Mrs. Doe) and Erdmann’s unnamed sources a number of details are alleged. Mrs. Doe claims that she was using the blessed candles when a comb flew across the room and extinguished them. At different times fruit flew across the room, a kitchen table turned over, milk and food moved off a table, a coat and its hanger flew across the room, a Bible landed at Roland’s feet, and a rocker in which Roland sat spun around. Roland was removed from school because his desk moved around on the schoolroom floor.

The diary is quoted as saying that at one point Mrs. Doe took a bottle of holy water and sprinkled it throughout the house. When she placed the bottle on a shelf it flew across the room on its own but did not break. One night she held a lighted candle alongside Roland and the whole bed, Mrs. Doe, and Roland all began moving back and forth in unison. Attempts were made to baptize Roland Doe—it is said he responded with rage—and a three-and-a-half day stay at Georgetown University Hospital is mentioned. The events continued when the boy was taken to Normandy, Missouri, during the first week of March 1949. Various relatives in Missouri were said to have witnessed the skin brandings.

March 9, 1949—Father Raymond J. Bishop, S.J., of St. Louis University was called in (for the first time) and witnessed the scratching of the boy’s body and the motion of the mattress.

March 11, 1949—Father Bowdern (described as being pastor of St. Francis Xavier Church) arrived on the scene. After Roland retired at 11 p.m., Father Bowdern read the Novena prayer of St. Francis Xavier, blessed the boy with a relic (a piece of bone from the forearm of St. Francis Xavier), and fixed a relic-encrusted crucifix under the boy’s pillow. The relatives left and Father Bowdern and Father Bishop departed. Soon afterward, a loud noise was heard in Roland’s room and five relatives rushed to the scene. They reportedly found that a large book case had moved about, a bench had been turned over, and the crucifix had been moved to the edge of the bed. The shaking of Roland’s mattress came to a halt only after the relatives yelled, “Aunt Tillie, stop!”

March 16, 1949—Archbishop Joseph E. Ritter gave Father Bowdern permission to begin the formal rite of exorcism. That night, accompanied by Father Bishop and a Jesuit scholastic (later revealed to be Walter Halloran), Father Bowdern began reciting the ritual prayers of exorcism.

Throughout March and into April, Roland was confusingly moved back and forth between the home of his aunt in Normandy, Missouri, a nearby rectory, and Alexian Brothers Hospital in South St. Louis. The rite was an ongoing process. Instructions in the ritual command the exorcist to “pronounce the exorcism in a commanding and authoritative voice.” The Roman Ritual of Christian Exorcism reads: “I cast thee out, thou unclean spirit, along with the least encroachment of the wicked enemy and every phantom and diabolical legion. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, depart and vanish from this creature of God….”

Erdmann tells of markings appearing on Roland’s body as these proceedings continued and of the boy’s usual bad habits: outbursts featuring excessive cursing, vomiting, urinating and the use of Latin phrases. Erdmann also mentions that on one occasion Roland got his hand on a bedspring, broke it, and jabbed it into a priest’s arm. (He mentions he is not sure if this event took place in his Maryland home or during the exorcism ritual.) Another time during a round of prayers after Roland had been instructed into the Catholic faith and had received his first holy communion, a six-inch portrait of the devil with its hands held above its head, webs stretching from its hands, and horns protruding from its head appeared in deep red on the boy’s calf. (It is not stated who actually witnessed this.) Later, Roland was transported back to Maryland for a short-lived visit and on one of the train rides he became maniacal, striking Father Bowdern in the testicles and yelling, “That’s a nutcracker for you, isn’t it?”

April 18, 1949—As the nighttime ritual continued, Father Bowdern forced Roland to wear a chain of medals and hold a crucifix in his hands. Roland’s demeanor changed and he calmly asked questions about the meanings of certain Latin prayers. Bowdern continued the ritual, demanding to know who the demon was and when he would depart. Roland responded with a tantrum and screamed that he was one of the fallen angels. Bowdern kept reciting until 11:00 p.m. when Roland interrupted. In a new masculine voice Roland said, “Satan! Satan! I am St. Michael! I command you, Satan, and the other evil spirits to leave this body, in the name of Dominus, immediately! Now! Now! Now!” Roland had one last spasm before falling quiet. “He is gone,” Roland pronounced, later telling Bowdern he had had a vision of St. Michael holding a flaming sword. Twelve days later he left Missouri and returned to Maryland.

I am still trying to find info on Blatty stating in two interviews that the real story it was based upon was a Senators son. I am also remembering now the reason why he had made Reagans mom an actress was becasue he wanted to keep the parent a prominent figure like the Senator. Maybe the Senators son was the incident when he saw the kids stomach spell the word HELP in real life, and the rest of the book is based on this 1940 incident? I just know that he said the things in two interviews that I stated above.
 
Thanx!

Amazing buggs~did you see the new movie yet?

XOXO
 
steph said:
The alcohol in question is Crown Royal buggs--an expensive and high quality brand of whiskey.

...of which I consumed mass quantities of last night....!! 😀

(ya jus can't beat a $2.00 special on Crown Royal)
 
i really loved this movie. Its one of the few good horror movies ive seen. I basically thought the horror genre died with jason x and freddy vs jason. Its very nerve racking and it will make you jump with all the sound effects and scenes. Its got a good gross out factor, so if you have a weak stomach, i dont recommend it.
 
Oh R!😀

Thanx Aph! Good to hear. (And I agree w/you about the horror genre BTW...What a bunch of CRAP they're putting out these days!)
COME BACK GEORGE ROMERO!!! 😛

Now, how did it compare for you to the original and does the storyline mesh w/the first? Inquiring minds would like to know...

XOXO
 
No I haven't seen it Steph. I am nor sure if I want to too. From what I have read from people whose idea of a good movie are similar to mines have pointed out things that would probably piss me off watching it. i think Harlin is a hack. I am just not sure if I want to shell out the money to see it in a theater.
 
Thanx buggs~Your neat contribution was appreciated, just the same. I'll try to see it and report back!
XOXO
 
I'll never forget when I first saw it. I was in the middle of a very bad pubescence. I insisted on seeing it, and my parents sent me off with my uncle and two of my aunts. We saw it at the Utopia on Union Turnpike, near St John's University, and man, the lines were going out the theatre, all the way to Parsons Boulevard! This was the summer of 1974, the film had been in release for a good eight months already.

I'd say that it pretty much scared the shit out of me. There were points during the film when I had to literally look away, and at times having to hold on to my favorite aunt, who, while she loved me almost as much as life itself, hated to be held by anyone.

After the movie, we were walking in the dark towards my uncle's Malibu, and he (who never really grew up) kept coming up behind me and doing the "boo!" routine. Ha ha. Funnnnneeeee. Meanwhile, I didn't sleep for days.

I've seen it again, a few times. It was very well done.
 
You know whatKnoxx, what you said made me remember something I didn't realise I was missing. Even though it is cool now that you are pretty much guaranteed to be able to see a first run movie within its first two days of release due to the number first run of theaters now, in a way I miss the days when you had to wait in line for a movie. I think that is what actually made the movie so cool when you went to see it was the anticipation of waiting in lines that went a couple of clocks sometimes. It had been that way for Star Wars, Jaws, and I especially remember Earthquake. It was recorded in snesuround, and you could feel the earthquake scenes litterally blocks away. I think that is why they got rid of it, because owners of buildings near the theater were complaining. But it sure was great waiting in line for a movie that you where two blocks away from the door and the ground would shake and rattle. Don't know why but I miss those days for some reason.
 
You probably miss those days because they were the best days ever. I don't know, sometimes those simplar times when you didn't have to worry about bills made those small things in our lives the best. I remember before I lost my best friend, we used to sit around an N64 or PS2 and talk about anything that came to mind...

Anyways I saw this movie and let me tell you it is creepy as hell. What people should know is, were getting to a point in our horror movie lives where the small tricks like jumping out from behind a door, or someone standing in front of you when you light a match is becoming tame. Tame to us, it still scares some people today. I remember the very first scary movie I ever watched, it was Childs Play. I loved that movie, but I was scared to death to watch it. Funny if you think about it. Anyways the exorcist the beginning is alot different from the first movie (I haven't seen the second or the third...) Some people say that it's an insult to the series, but I think they are wrong.
 
geko~how do you find it compares with original? Was it a seamless plotline or obscure with NOTHING to do w/original? (I HATE that in movies!)
XOXO
 
geko~how do you find it compares with original? Was it a seamless plotline or obscure with NOTHING to do w/original? (I HATE that in movies!)

I think it compares with the original with the way it tenses you up, or makes you jump. Really if your talking about script wise, you could easily compare the entity that the characters are dealing with, but here in this version were dealing with the way that it was before the first movie. A back to orgins if you will. I think the insult "It has nothing to do with the original" should be taken with a pinch of salt, it's a hollow insult at best.
 
What's New
1/20/26
Check out Door 44 for a great selection of tickling clips.

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top