Options
Time for an Exorcist remake?
I watched The Exorcist last night , and as much as i like it , i really think it would be interesting to see a remake.
I don't want it to be done by Eli Roth or Rob Zombie or even Neil Marshall , i think one of the French or Spanish horror Directors would do a good job with it.
Would anyone else be up for a remake? There will always be the original , but it would be good to see a new interpretation.
I don't want it to be done by Eli Roth or Rob Zombie or even Neil Marshall , i think one of the French or Spanish horror Directors would do a good job with it.
Would anyone else be up for a remake? There will always be the original , but it would be good to see a new interpretation.
0
Comments
I also think it's one of those movies that just about every credible director would refuse,as it could be a career killer.
That being said I would not want a remake as I am already planning a very large scale attack on Hollywood for being boring and repetitive and crapping on my childhood the last few years.
Agreed, that Omen remake was dreadful and im afraid a remake of the exorcist would be the same.
Agree completely. I was dragged to see The Omen on 06/06/06 (cash-in opening night). The Exorcist is near-on perfect as it is, the last thing we need is another inferior horror remake.
Michael Bay might be available
I drove to the 06/06/06 screening and arrived too late, couldn't get tickets. When I rented the dvd I was so glad I didn't see it in a packed cinema, I would have probably been removed for shouting at the screen
So many things came together to make Exorcist such a great film of it's era. Linda Blair (can you imagine Dekota Fanning in that role? No? Me neither, and that's who they'd try and get), Mike Oldfields stunning Tubular Bells which just fitted the film so perfectly. Who would they soundtrack it with now? Seriously? Coldplay? Or some awful death metal merchants? Producers today would never have enough imagination and foresight to choose a prog rock track, that's for sure! They'd go for somehting desperately hip which would just sound crass in the confines of the story being told. Max Von Sydow was just awesome in the film, so much presence, you just KNOW they'd go for Morgan Freeman or a big name (Ok Max was a legend but hardly blockbuster material) and it would suck ass!!! They'd probably even have Will Smith as Karras, or Cruise *shudder*! Plus they'd fill it with unnessecary CGI and it would just end up looking like a computer game. Regan would probably be flying around the city or morphing into trolls
I best stop ranting, I should avoid remake threads, they give me awful gip with me blood pressure
It's perfect as it is.
For example, the Amityville Horror was terrible and improved by its remake whereas the omen was perfect and its remake while not terrible, was pointless. Same with Halloween, Nightmare on Elm St and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (competent enough remakes but once again, pointless). The Friday 13th remake was better than the original imho, but only in as much as the original was a piece of shit.
Anyway, the Exorcist - just no. There's nothing wrong with it at all and even now over 30 years later, despite it not being very gruesome at all, or particularly action-packed, is still a flawless psychological horror with occasional glimpses of truly shocking imagery that has rarely been equaled. It's a class of film they just don't make anymore.
If any film needs remaking it's The Man Who Fell to Earth.
I think a remake will be immediately hated by afficionados of the original and quite rightly.
Brilliant post and so very, very true. Linda Blair may not have cut it as an adult actress (no not that kind) but she was superb as a child actress.
Interestingly enough, Max von Sydow played a much older man but would now be nearer the right age for the literary Merrin.
Arrrgggg yeah talk about totally unnecessary additions to the film. The original is still the only version worth watching.
I really see no point in a remake, can't see where you could take the film unless they do a scene for scene remake jobby like Van Sant's horrible Physco remake. The original is just about as perfect as you can get and still stands up today.
As for a remake, what the hey - CGI pea soup, what's wrong with that? Sounds fun to me.
Regards
Mark
I was not asking you if they were based on a true story. I was telling you.
You don't have to believe if the events are true or not. These events were reported, witnessed and documented by credible sourses from all sided of the spectrum. A film was made about both of them, therefore, as I said, The Exorcist and The Exorcism of Emilly Rose are based on true stories.
I now think that the film could actually be re-made. If you stick to the same story, but just used modern techniques and equipment and actors, even if it is set in the same date, it can work.
I think it's a bit of an insult to great names in the film industry to claim that they can not improve on an old film.
True regarding Emily Rose (Anneliese Michel). Not quite true regarding The Exorcist. The movie was based on the novel by William Peter Blatty which was written two years before the film was made. Blatty has said that he heard about a 1949 exorcism while he was at school (three years before Annelise Michel was born) regarding a little boy who was possessed - which may have influenced the novel he wrote some twenty years later. But to say that The Exorcist movie is based on a true story is stretching the truth a little. The movie is based purely on a work of fiction. Whether that work of fiction was based on a true story is debatable.
I'm wondering if you are missunderstanding the term 'based on a true story.'
It does not always mean that it's a blow-by-blow account. An event happens, it inspires someone to write about it. Elements of the story can be changed for any number of reasons.
Here is an interesting read:
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-True-Story-Behind-the-Film---The-Exorcist&id=2273786
But hey, believe what you want. There are millions who believe in their invisible friend in the sky, and they're just as stupid. There's no limit on stupidity. The world is overflowing with it, in fact, so why worry?
Regards
Mark
So anyway, yeah, it's a good film, but a re-make will work. :rolleyes:
No - don't think so. I think I fully understand the term "based on a true story".
That is why I agreed with you regarding the Emily Rose movie. But The Exorcist movie is based totally and completely on a novel, a piece of fiction, written by an author called William Peter Blatty. This is not up for debate - the credits at both the start and end of the movie indicate that the film is based on the book.
Now, I did give you credit that Blatty's book may (note may) have been (slightly) based on an exorcism that took place 22 years earlier which he heard about while he was at high school. But the film is not based on the exorcism from 1949 - the film is based on a book which is complete fiction.
Whether you want to argue that because the book may have been based on something that really happened, and because the film is an adaptation of the book, then that's up to you. But you are making yourself appear a little foolish by doing so. The screenplay for the movie was developed from the novel - and the novel is not a true story. No Regan McNeil, no Father Karras, no Father Merrin. They were all fictional creations who appeared in a book.
If the book itself was inspired by a true story - so be it. The film wasn't. Neither the director, producers or actors who appeared in that movie had ever heard of a little boy called Robbie who was supposedly exorcised in both Missouri and Maryland in 1949. No, all they had ever heard of was a book written by Blatty about a little girl from Georgetown who was exorcised in 1970. And none of your supposed true story witterings had any impact on the making of that movie.
I'm not discrediting you because I don't believe in God and the devil and exorcisms (like Mark A is). I know that exorcisms take place. I know that the 1949 exorcisms did take place - whether they achieved anything or not I don't care. I'm discrediting you because The Exorcist (the movie) was not based on the exorcisms which took place in 1949. Even if the book was.