MovieChat Forums > steveb1
steveb1 (17)
Posts
'Director's Cut' - pluses (in my view of course)
The Exorcist vs Exorcist III
Lovecrafts's 'At the Mountains of Madness' - news?
deleted
View all posts >
Replies
I'm sure the decline of mainstream Christianity might weigh against a successful remake, but then so would modern sensibilities about, well, the explicit child molestation that the crucifix scene requires. How to re-do that? An adult stand-in? CGI? Omit the this crucial scene altogether?
Along the same lines, would Burke Dennings be focused on as a potential molester...? There is not a single hint of this in Blatty's original novel and screenplay. But again, considering modern sensibilities, it would be virtually obligatory to examine - in order to be faithful to Blatty's narrative - and then to dismiss the film director as a suspect. The narrative simply will not support two evil child abusers because the real - the only - such villain is the demon itself.
On a personal note, I would almost refuse to view a new version on principle - if the "principle" involved the use and over-use of CG. One of the glories of the original film is the absence of CG, stop-motion, "matte shots"/green screen and all the other doubtful marvels of modern cinema technology. All of the original film's effects were "live" and practical - which is why director Friedkin made Regan's room into a literal freezer in order to capture genuine fogged breath. Today this would almost certainly be done with CG, as would other effects such as Regan's levitation, spider walk, and any number of other grotesque possession behaviors.
As a great fan of Blatty's strange theology, I am open to a worthy new version of his original novel, but I don't trust any director, screenwriter - or anything associated with mainstream Hollywood - to do Blatty the justice he deserves. Of course, with the current pandemic, it is probably doubtful that a new Exorcist film will surface until the clear and present danger has somewhat receded. I guess that time will tell.
"The Exorcist is a serious film whereas The Omen is a genre movie."
That nails it in a succinct, pragmatic manner.
:)
Thanks, Paz! Nice to be back in communication with you for sure.
:)
Yeah, that was / is me.
I also had other "nyms" like Leland Palmer, Mr. Foot Grenade and Lesser Rorqual, if any of them ring a bell.
Nice to hear from you!
:)
Absolutely right!
I don't think Peck ever put in a bad performance... I never heard of one, anyway.
Yeah, in The Omen I always thought the Peck and Remick characters were scissor cutouts contrasted to even the smaller characters of The Exorcist. Shoot, in the Exorcist I even cared about Karl and Sharon, and (guilty) even about Burke (a little).
Agreed that The Omen depends on the screenwriters always needing to thwart the Antichrist's enemies - which, I guess for a certain kind of viewer, is good news, cuz it results in just that many more gory deaths!
;)
Gee, thank you very much.
I just love The Exorcist so I'm biased of course.
:)
Thank you, Ace.
:)
Yes! Damien never appears as a character in Legion - only his resuscitated body.
But in EXIII Damien cohabits his body with Vennamun/the Gemini, forced to watch as the Gemini carries on his Georgetown murder spree.
One thing I noticed in the exorcism scene: for the first time, Blatty shows divine intervention when a beam of holy light animates the injured Morning and assists him in encouraging Karras to "Fight him, Damien!" The God who was known only by his absence in The Exorcist and Legion is now allowed a small but crucial role in EXIII's climactic scene.
View all replies >