Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Exorcist is reportedly getting a big screen reboot – and it's going to be released sooner than you might have anticipated.
Dropping the news rather casually in a Deadline report, Morgan Creek Entertainment was revealed to be working on a new take of the iconic 1973 horror film, as well as an upcoming small-screen re-do of David Cronenberg's Dead Ringers.
I don't know that this really qualifies as a "remake" in the traditional sense. The original Friedkin movie wasn't original. It was based on Blatty's novel. As an adaptation, it was pretty good. But it left out a lot of the finer points of the novel.
I don't know that this really qualifies as a "remake" in the traditional sense. The original Friedkin movie wasn't original. It was based on Blatty's novel. As an adaptation, it was pretty good. But it left out a lot of the finer points of the novel.
I'm not sure I care to make a fine difference between a movie from an "original" script (since few are anything of the kind) and one made from a book or other written work. It was the first movie made with that story.
Anything new would be a remake, or something in that spectrum.
And, since they can't really top the shock and grue factor, even now, completely pointless. I'm not sure the scene with the crucifix would have appeared in any adaptation of the last ten years. And I don't think the fx are dated or need super-Lucas-izing.
I read the book. Saw the movie. Didn't find either one the least bit scary. I guess you had to be Catholic for it to make any impression.
So did you grump through Star Wars because light sabers can't possibly work?
Or walk out of Citizen Kane because no one was there to hear him say "Rosebud"?
I don't think you have to buy into a story's elements as fact (e.g. possession, Satan, exorcism) to appreciate one of the most powerful and subtle horror movies ever made.
I don't know that this really qualifies as a "remake" in the traditional sense. The original Friedkin movie wasn't original. It was based on Blatty's novel. As an adaptation, it was pretty good. But it left out a lot of the finer points of the novel.
What do you mean it's not "original"? The author of the book was heavily involved in the production of the movie. Heavily.
Are you saying there is no such thing as an "original" movie?
What do you mean it's not "original"? The author of the book was heavily involved in the production of the movie. Heavily.
Are you saying there is no such thing as an "original" movie?
I'm saying that the supposed "original" movie was in itself an adaptation of a previous work, so getting our socks twisted up about "another remake" is silly.
I don't think there is any particular need for another EXORCIST movie. On the other hand, if it ends up being a good movie, I'll watch. Whether or not a movie is a remake or not is irrelevant. All that matters is if it is good. Or not.
Took me 40 yrs to get the first one out of my head. Not interested in a revisit.
I know, right? I thought I would need therapy to get over that movie, it was horrifying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
