Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen on Blu-ray delayed

[joenostalgia23]

I hope what Warner does is release a Commemorative DigiBook that contains the two cuts using seamless branching. I like the different endings and I like the spiderwalks, but I also like being able to have an original theatrical cut available. I haven't watched the Theatrical Blu-Ray Cut of Blade Runner because I already have the version I prefer in the set, but if I was ever to want to watch that version again I could.
And when they remaster it, Friedkin better not totally change the colors like he did with French Connection.

and yes, I think those books are cool.

[HeavyHitter]

Why are some of your so surprised?

Just look at how Warner did Natural Born Killers - two seperate releases.

The same will eventually happen with Exorcist.

[McCrutchy]

I'm so torn on this...I love The Exorcist and I don't really mind TVYNS, but since I have similar struggles with other titles and asking people to rewfrain from purchasing a BD that is not up to snuff (such as American Psycho (US), Sexy Beast (UK) and Se7en (CAN) to name a few), I feel I should defer and wait for the comprehensive set.

Damn you WB!

[Mr.White]

It's funny how they still call it "The Version You've Never Seen" even though most people now have SEEN that version!

[Mobe1969]

Originally Posted by Knight-Errant

Not so, he came around to the changes William Peter Blatty wanted around the time of the 25th anniversary. He really wouldn't have done it otherwise.

His commentary on the new version DVD illustrates this.

"This is a scene I didn't think was important, but now I DO think it's important..." That kind of thing.

It's true he felt differently in the past, but that did change. He even made changes that didn't come from Blatty's ideas, like the image of Karras' mother appearing to him in his final moments.

For those who are interested in how it happened, I suggest Mark Kermode's exellent book on The Exorcist which is revised with the details of the new version added.

On the topic of what it's called, well Alien Director's Cut was called that without that being Ridley Scott's intention. The names are often marketing things.

Look at the intro to Alien alternate by Ridley. It is his cut, and I thinks he claims it as the DC, but it is probably more 20 years later thinking about it in retrospect. I like more what Juenet said about his - just an alternate version.

Regarding Exorcist, the extended version is way way superior, and much closer to what Blatty would have wanted, and the ending even fed into the Legion story. I could go on for paragraphs about how much about the original exorcist annoyed and bored me with the poor continuity with the stuff taken out that led the story to make no sense at all, just a case of "let's get to the girl playing with herself with a crucifix as quick as possible" rather than telling the story. But a lot was corrected in the extended. I got sick of watching the original and having to rewind to see if I'd missed something they were referring to, but no, I hadn't, they'd just taken it out.

[HumanMedia]

Thats the politically correct version of why he agreed to the changes. The real reason was strong arming from the studio and Blatty and more importantly the carrot of a massive percentage of the re-release takings. A percentage he didnt receive and the reason why he undertook legal proceedings against Warner.

And re. Alien. This is one example where Scott DOES say that the new version is his directors cut (unlike Black Hawk Down and Gladiator).

And for the record I far prefer the original theatrical Exorcist. The minute of blackness, positive ending and low grade CGI faces appearing popping up on walls etc, just undermine the films effect.

Originally Posted by Knight-Errant

Not so, he came around to the changes William Peter Blatty wanted around the time of the 25th anniversary. He really wouldn't have done it otherwise.

His commentary on the new version DVD illustrates this.

"This is a scene I didn't think was important, but now I DO think it's important..." That kind of thing.

It's true he felt differently in the past, but that did change. He even made changes that didn't come from Blatty's ideas, like the image of Karras' mother appearing to him in his final moments.

For those who are interested in how it happened, I suggest Mark Kermode's exellent book on The Exorcist which is revised with the details of the new version added.

On the topic of what it's called, well Alien Director's Cut was called that without that being Ridley Scott's intention. The names are often marketing things.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by HumanMedia

And re. Alien. This is one example where Scott DOES say that the new version is his directors cut (unlike Black Hawk Down and Gladiator).

I have to call B.S. on that. I am transcribing the following directly from the booklet that comes with the Alien:Quadrilogy box set (emphasis mine):

In 1979, when ALIEN was originally released, I felt that the theatrical cut of the film was the best I could possibly make it. I was very pleased with its pace and structure, and although there were several scenes left on the cutting room floor, I didn't miss any of them. For all intents and purposes, I felt that the original cut of ALIEN was perfect.

I still feel that way.

[...]

Upon viewing the proposed extended version of the film, I felt that the cut was simply too long and the pacing completely thrown off. After all, I cut those scenes for a reason back in 1979. However, in the interest of giving the fans a new experience with ALIEN, I figured there had to be an appropriate middle ground. I chose to go in and recut that proposed long version into a more streamlined and polished alternative version of the film. For marketing purposes, this version is being called "The Director's Cut."

To film purists everywhere, rest easy. The original 1979 theatrical version isn't going anywhere. It remains my version of choice and is presented fully restored and remastered under my personal supervision alongside the new Director's Cut in this DVD set.

'Nuff said.

[PowellPressburger]

Have just been listening to William Freidkins commentary track on the 25th ann. Ed DVD of EXORCIST and around 18-19 mins into it de discusses Blatty's original screenplay which deviated from the novel, and stated that he didn't like the emphasis on the horror aspect.

Funny how time changes that - I guess he likes the emphasis on the horror on his Version I saw and didn't care for.

I will hang onto my DVD even if it doesn't look as good as a HD version. WBs and Friedkin will want another buck from the film in a few more years and re-issue it releasing both versions. You can bet on it.

[HumanMedia]

Wow thanks for the correction on Alien. I'm shocked since in a promo interview with Scott he was quite emphatic about it being the Directors cut. It appears a Directors Cut isn't necessarily the preferred cut even when called The directors cut by the director.

(even more reason to have BOTH cuts of Exorcist IMO)

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by HumanMedia

Thats the politically correct version of why he agreed to the changes. The real reason was strong arming from the studio and Blatty and more importantly the carrot of a massive percentage of the re-release takings. A percentage he didnt receive and the reason why he undertook legal proceedings against Warner.

Wow really? I did not know that and have done a lot of reading about The Exorcist. One of my favourite films.

What about the story of how Friedkin and Blatty came out of the 25th anniversary screening and he said to Blatty something like "I see now what you've meant all these years"? I always got the impression he got excited when he started putting the new version together and found that things he'd cut out were much better than he remembered.

He certainly sounds like he's in favour of it on the commentary.

Do you have sources for how he still prefers the original?

And yeah, Ridley's thoughts on the "Director's Cut" of Alien are laid out clearly in the booklet. The introduction to the film on the disc seems a bit more vague to me.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by HumanMedia

Wow thanks for the correction on Alien. I'm shocked since in a promo interview with Scott he was quite emphatic about it being the Directors cut. It appears a Directors Cut isn't necessarily the preferred cut even when called The directors cut by the director.

(even more reason to have BOTH cuts of Exorcist IMO)

If what you say about The Exorcist is true, I agree with ya.

I've become very wary of these marketing extended cut things. I'm interested when the director wants to revise a film because they prefer it that way but these alternate cuts can be a minefield.

It seemed to me from what was said by Ridley Scott in that booklet that the director's cut started out as an expanded home video release (an alternate cut like the Gladiator one) and that it then became a proposed theatrical re release which was then paired down for pacing reasons.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Why are some of your so surprised?

Just look at how Warner did Natural Born Killers - two seperate releases.

The same will eventually happen with Exorcist.

With Natural Born Killers Warner didn't have the rights of the DC at first. Later they obtained them, and they could release the longer cut too. Since there's no rights issues here that doesn't apply.
Too bad, although I have confidence Owen Roizman working on it will make this film look good on Blu, I won't get this. The extended version is inferior in my opinion.

[Halfwasted]

No seemless branching = no sale

Common Warner, your relases suck and ooze of a double dip down the road.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

With Natural Born Killers Warner didn't have the rights of the DC at first. Later they obtained them, and they could release the longer cut too. Since there's no rights issues here that doesn't apply.
Too bad, although I have confidence Owen Roizman working on it will make this film look good on Blu, I won't get this. The extended version is inferior in my opinion.

I remember reading that, but I woner why they didn't just wait and release both versions on a single disc? It was only around a year ago the theatrical version came out. Just seems like a fast double dip. They sort of did the same thing with Superman Returns - releasing it just in DD, but later in lossless. They also released a remastered version of Full Metal Jacket. Of course, now with 300. These re-releases of whatever sort seem to be a pattern of Warner in just a brief three years of the BD format.

[retablo]

Yeah, you'd think that after that Friedkin did to ruin French Connection on blu that studios would step in and demand certain things on a release. Not having both versions reeks of George Lucas syndrome.

[demoni]

The Exorcist may very well be the best American horror movie ever made, and it was a big dissapointment to see the "new" version... Why tamper with something that's already perfect?

Will wait for the theatrical version...

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by Knight-Errant

What about the story of how Friedkin and Blatty came out of the 25th anniversary screening and he said to Blatty something like "I see now what you've meant all these years"?

He was being complimentary, but in a "be nice to Blatty" way. I mean he was a perfect gentleman, but it was obvious he still preferred the original cut.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

I hope what Warner does is release a Commemorative DigiBook that contains the two cuts using seamless branching.

I'll buy.

[Knight-Errant]

OK I'm gonna join the chorus wanting Friedkin's preferred cut

I must agree this is one of the greatest movies ever made.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I remember reading that, but I woner why they didn't just wait and release both versions on a single disc? It was only around a year ago the theatrical version came out. Just seems like a fast double dip. They sort of did the same thing with Superman Returns - releasing it just in DD, but later in lossless. They also released a remastered version of Full Metal Jacket. Of course, now with 300. These re-releases of whatever sort seem to be a pattern of Warner in just a brief three years of the BD format.

It's not just WB. Disney already double dipped on No Country...which didn't need a double dip. They've barely released any live action movies this year, and they are already double dipping on stuff. Sony only released the Director's Cut of Da Vinci Code. We only have the theatrical cut of Live Free or Die Hard from Fox.