MovieChat Forums > The Exorcist (1973) Discussion > "Extended Director's Cut" & "Version You...

"Extended Director's Cut" & "Version You've Never Seen"


Is there a difference between the two?

reply

If I recall correctly, "The Version..." has a lot of demonic imagery that was digitally inserted in the movie that is largely absent from "Director's Cut". I could be wrong, though, I'm still a fan of the theatrical cut.

reply

I think the theatrical cut would be just fine with only one addition--the discussion between the two priests about the demon's possible motives.

reply

I'm of two minds about that scene. On one hand, it seems like a no-brainer: it's a great dialogue, and you can certainly understand why Blatty wanted it so much on the final cut.

On the other hand, I vividly remember watching this movie for the first time, and this scene had an impact in me. The two priests, in silence, after all they witnessed. You could only guess what was on their minds. This scene was mysterious and thought-provoking and it did it without a word uttered.

But again, the dialogue is the newest versions is poignant and I can see why most people prefer it in the movie.

reply

Yes, I definitely see what you mean. Sometimes it's better to imply something instead of talk about it or have an extended scene.

But the Exorcist is a movie with a lot of dialogue which makes Merrin's extremely minimal dialogue in the original cut strange and off-putting to me.

reply

As in many other instances, the theatrical cut is still the best version for me. What I find off putting is a scene injected decades later, the same for Alien 79. It's like injecting a fifth character, say a bridge troll or whatever, to Dorothy's group in the original Wizard of Oz '39. It's out of place.



-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

Exactly, this whole reveerence for directors and their cuts needs to stop.

reply

What a ridiculous comparison. These scenes from The Exorcist were originally scripted and filmed. Not saying they should be "injected" decades later, but it's a completely different thing.

reply

The extended cut of The Exorcist added CGI faces all over the place, the pazuzu head popping up left and right, the ghostly apparition of father Karras' mother at the window. Completely revisionist additions. Slapping CGI faces onto a 1973 horror film...shocking decision. It just looks silly.

The added/extended scenes are alright in isolation, but they were likely sacrificed for the sake of pacing back in 1973. It was the right decision. The spider walk scene is cool...but serves no purpose, it just feels jarring. The extended footage of Regan at the hospital is once more cool and interesting to watch but it ultimately disrupts the flow of the film. The extended dialogue scenes between characters later on stretch proceedings out further.

I used to watch the extended cut on blu-ray but upon checking out the theatrical I won't be going back to the extended cut. It's simply not as good.

A list of all the differences.
https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=5706806

reply

Those CGI effects are silly and unnecessary, but I wouldn't compare it to adding a new character or anything like George Lucas has done to Star Wars.

Reinserting a deleted scene isn't always that bad, I actually wish they had kept Harry Dean Stanton's death scene in Alien as originally filmed.

reply

Yeah I saw Stanton’s original death recently and it was much more disturbing. Of course, Ridley adds a load of unnecessary crap, removes good stuff from the theatrical, and fails to add in the one deleted scene that would have been a genuine improvement 🤦🏻‍♂️

reply

This link only tells the difference between the theatrical and the director's cut. It doesn't tell the differences between the "Director's Cut" and "The Version You've Never Seen" cut.

reply

No, same thing.

The theatrical cut is so much better.

reply

The biggest difference I remember is the new scene when Reagan does the spider walk down the stairs. After she does the walk down the stairs she turns over onto all fours, sticks her demon tongue out repeatedly, and then chases after her mother on hands and knees. That was in the version you've never seen. In the director's cut they don't show the part where she sticks out her demon tongue and chases after her on hands and knees if I'm remembering correctly. I think if I remember right, what they do in the director's cut is as she's doing the spider walk down the stairs then a bunch of blood comes out of her mouth. Of course there's other stuff but that one thing right there is really what stood out for me.

reply

it's a good movie either way.

reply

Yes one was a cheap money grab for a theatrical reissue with really weak decisions to add VFX here and there, a few lost moments from the original shooting script, and one overt explanation that just seems like bad writing.

reply