The Exorcist: The Complete Anthology (1973-2005)

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by Beauvoir

Was the episode tinted?

that was over 48 hours ago. i can't remember

[TwelveVacancies]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

And that's all I've been shouting at my screen. When Friedkin altered THE FRENCH CONNECTION's color timing on the first Blu-ray and Owen Roizman cried foul, the two partnered and came out with a mutually-agreed-upon release which everyone waxed rhapsodic about. But when the two are in agreement with THE EXORCIST's intended look, everyone loses their minds and says both artists are wrong. Go figure.

Well, see, I think the issue is that it's not how it was originally intended. Back in the day, Roizman described the exorcism scenes as appearing almost black and white with the only colour coming from the actor's skin tones. So did Friedkin, and the production designer. That's why the original bedroom set was scrapped and given a more neutral colour scheme. The yellow patterned wallpaper became a plain grey, bright blue lamps were changed to gold, etc.

Early on in the film that's compensated for with namely a lot of blues - blue toys, books, pictures on the wall, and her bed sheets. Then as possession progresses it all becomes more and more monochromatic until there's nothing left that 'pops' aside from the cast.

The tint throws all that out of the window. Not only that, but it's very inconsistent (actually I've found the colour timing throughout the film to be inconsistent on the BD). The intensity of the tint seems to change between shots. It just bothers me.

I would love to see a version the way Roizman initially described it. Something like this:

Originally Posted by moviebuff75

The 1997 version has too much red in the image as well

I agree. I don't think we're ever going to get that "perfect" version. However the 1997 release is at least the most consistent, natural looking and retains that raw documentary feel Friedkin originally was was going for.

It's also worth noting that Roizman did not oversee the colour timing of the original release nor the '79 print, but was happy with what Friedkin had done. No idea if he had any involvement in the home video releases...

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by TwelveVacancies

Well, see, I think the issue is that it's not how it was originally intended.

Again, and maybe I'm just being a bit too simplistic here, but the Blu-ray's transfer, as noted in Friedkin's personal insert, is both director and DP-approved. For me, the argument ends there.

[sarah_wentworth]

this is gonna be great

[HeavyHitter]

Are there any picture quality differences at all on the Blu-rays between the extended and theatrical?

[TwelveVacancies]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Again, and maybe I'm just being a bit too simplistic here, but the Blu-ray's transfer, as noted in Friedkin's personal insert, is both director and DP-approved. For me, the argument ends there.

But as I pointed out it is not how they originally intended the film to look, so it just doesn't sit well with me no matter who approves it.

I mean, if they want to make those adjustments to the extended director's cut then I'm totally okay with that, but leave the original theatrical version as it was originally intended/released.

Friedkin messed with the sound too much in the director's cut, too. Chris Newman won an Oscar for that - why screw with his work? But it's not quite as bad because he at least he left the original theatrical version as it was.

[ditcin]

Mean while we're less than a month away from release and individual stats for each film still haven't been confirmed.

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by ditcin

Mean while we're less than a month away from release and individual stats for each film still haven't been confirmed.

I will confirm those for the first 3:

Exorcist - same disc as the existing one with the same extras
Exorcist II - only the movie, maybe the trailer
Exorcist III - only the movie, maybe the trailer

Hoping I'm wrong

[ditcin]

Actually, I meant tech specs, like sound.
The basic breakdown on Amazon (I know, Amazon) doesn't say MONO (which II should be).
Has a new stereo mix for II been done? Will WB bump up III to 6.1?

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by TwelveVacancies

But as I pointed out it is not how they originally intended the film to look, so it just doesn't sit well with me no matter who approves it.

But isn't possible this is less a move away from what was originally intended and more (at least in Friedkin's and Roizman's eyes) a move closer to it? I mean, if the goal was to make the exorcism seem more monochromatic than the film's preceding footage, it can be argued that the blanketed blue tinting furthers that agenda.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by TwelveVacancies

Friedkin messed with the sound too much in the director's cut, too. Chris Newman won an Oscar for that - why screw with his work? But it's not quite as bad because he at least he left the original theatrical version as it was.

Ah, but did he? As with the recent release of Sorcerer, I believe the theatrical version's blu-ray only contains a surround mix -- if I remember, a surround mix that's somewhat inferior to the surround mix on the extended version. But that version itself is inferior, so what'er ya gonna do?

I don't know why this -- leaving original mono mixes on the ash heap of history, particularly when their Oscar-winning and -nominated, as with the two Friedkin films -- is considered okay. It's like this tinting business. "Original Theatrical Version" should mean what it says, and that means original WB logo, colour timing and, yes, sound mix with a lossless presentation.

(At least Bad Billy didn't add a bunch of goofy, modern-sounding library sound effects to the new mixes of The Exorcist, as he did with Sorcerer.)

Originally Posted by ditcin

Actually, I meant tech specs, like sound.
The basic breakdown on Amazon (I know, Amazon) doesn't say MONO (which II should be).
Has a new stereo mix for II been done? Will WB bump up III to 6.1?

These are good questions, but I don't think purists like me will like the answers.

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by ditcin

Actually, I meant tech specs, like sound.
The basic breakdown on Amazon (I know, Amazon) doesn't say MONO (which II should be).
Has a new stereo mix for II been done? Will WB bump up III to 6.1?

Hope WB does EXORCIST III better than the lousy 5.1 mix they used on their DVD. The bass was too much and the sound was muddy and poor. I used to watch the laserdisc instead -- the sound was much better balanced and mixed.

[moviebuff75]

I just looked at the original 1997 dvd, and there are several shots during the exorcism in which blue is coming through the lighting. The lamp is putting out a blue light on the wall in shots (just like the blu), and faces take on the blue tint sometimes as well. Also, the blu isn't entirely blue...there are other colors coming through on the walls, etc.

[sarah_wentworth]

is there no original film anywhere? if there is, then why can't the blu ray use that transfer?
i wouldn't even have known about these color issues but there has to be a reason why its not being transferred from the original film so that it looks like it did originally.

unless we are getting how it looked originally.

anyway, i'll be happy if it just looks good.

[ditcin]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

Hope WB does EXORCIST III better than the lousy 5.1 mix they used on their DVD. The bass was too much and the sound was muddy and poor. I used to watch the laserdisc instead -- the sound was much better balanced and mixed.

Thank you, yes!

[y2jman]

is the 1st exorcist movie same thing from digibook or is it going to be remasted?

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by y2jman

is the 1st exorcist movie same thing from digibook or is it going to be remasted?

It's going to be the same, but that's hardly a bad thing as it already looks fantastic.

[TwelveVacancies]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

(At least Bad Billy didn't add a bunch of goofy, modern-sounding library sound effects to the new mixes of The Exorcist, as he did with Sorcerer.)

Aside from the crucifix scene and that awfully unrealistic knife blade sound as it goes between Regan's legs.

I am yet to see Sorcerer, actually. I should really check it out.

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

But isn't possible this is less a move away from what was originally intended and more (at least in Friedkin's and Roizman's eyes) a move closer to it? I mean, if the goal was to make the exorcism seem more monochromatic than the film's preceding footage, it can be argued that the blanketed blue tinting furthers that agenda.

It's not really the "black and white" that Owen spoke of, though. The scene is actually quite colourful now with the blue, when the only colour was meant to be the skin tones.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by TwelveVacancies

I am yet to see Sorcerer, actually. I should really check it out.

It's really terrific -- my favourite Friedkin film actually. As a bonus, the blu-ray looks beautiful. I can't see myself going back to the full-frame, laser disc ported trainwreck of a DVD any time soon, soundtrack issues aside.

[88mph]

It all comes down to personal preference, there's no right or wrong.

As mentioned the colour changes have been director and DP approved, so can't really argue with that. May not have been the right decision (Star Wars SE anyone?) but you still got to respect it.

But also worth pointing out that it's not just the colour tint which is different in the 97 DVD, it also contains the original Warner logo at the beginning, the jump cutting possession of

[Show spoiler]Father Karras

rather than the CGI morph and a stereo track which should be closer to the original mono (same mix as 79 re-release perhaps?).