A New Exorcist Trilogy?

[Vakanai]

Tell that to the people who went a saw Highlander 2 or Speed 2. I know a mate who saw the former when it came out in cinemas and legit walked from the cinema. At the time the original was one of his favourite films and that experience really soured his enjoyment.

Sure, gladly. Tell your mate to join CBR forums and I'll post the same thing. Some people take sequels too seriously, too personally. Some people let shitty sequels ruin their previous love of the originals - but that is on them, it's not on the sequels. I think it's a sign of immaturity if people let sequels ruin other films for them. And that's not an insult by the way - no one is mature in all ways on all things at all times, we all are immature over something - I know I've been childish at times (like my inability to stop myself from talking **** about GvK for the past few months - I should ignore it and move on, but it's hard to resist you know?). Human nature to bitch about the **** we don't like, to take it personally. But we should recognize that about ourselves and not demand that the world bend to our wants (despite my hatred of GvK, you don't see me demanding the MonsterVerse be ended - and yes, I do wish it would end, because any movie they'll make is going to take cues from GvK, and I hate that and I don't want any more movies like it to be made - but despite that I'm not going to get haughty and demand Legendary give up making these awful movies [imo] for the people who like them).

Again, Highlander 2. The original was done in one. Connor kills Kurgan and wins the prize. The End. Except, because it was a hit, the studio couldn't leave well enough alone. Why was the sequel crap? Well, because there were no threads left over. The story was done. So they came up with contrived means to get the sequel going and that single film started dominos falling from which it never recovered. Hence why they have to now reboot the thing from scratch.

Again, doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the original was done in one. It doesn't matter that the sequels sucked and the franchise never recovered. It doesn't matter that it's getting a reboot. At the end of the day most people can still just watch the original and enjoy it just as much as they ever had. At the end of the day some people like some of the sequels or parts of them. At the end of the day the studios made enough profit from enough of the sequels for them to continue pursuing the franchise to the point of making a reboot now. Those are the points that matter.

Citizen Kane isn't a sacred cow? No. But it is one of the best films ever made and doesn't need a sequel.

Agreed, it doesn't need a sequel. But also, the original movie isn't needed either. No one needed Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane didn't need to be filmed. It didn't need to be watched. No movie is needed. So, why does it matter if a sequel is needed? Not being needed isn't a disqualification for being made - if it was none of "the best films ever made" would exist to begin with. And it sure doesn't mean that a sequel can't be good or even great. Why do people feel the need to evaluate potential films according to "need" when no film is needed to begin with? It's a weird belief that has no bearing on reality or why films get made in the first place.

Not everything needs a sequel or prequel. By your logic there should be a sequel to Romeo And Juliet. Count Of Monte Cristo too? All fair game, despite common sense saying it is a bad idea. I could go jump of a cliff without a parachute. I can do it, yes. But I don't need to do it in order to know it is a bad idea.

Agreed - not everything "needs" a sequel or prequel - but by your logic literally no movie or story on earth should exist to begin with, because they should only exist if they're "needed" and no film has ever qualified as being needed. But yes, all of those are fair game, and indeed a sequel to Romeo and Juliet does already exist - I think ABC made a miniseries back in the early 00s? I only saw like the first couple episodes for whatever reason back then, but I remember thinking it was pretty decent. Also I refute your claim that common sense says it's a bad idea - that's not common sense, that's your own subjective opinion. As for you jumping off a cliff without a parachute, I don't really know you well enough personally to speak on whether that's really such a bad idea after all (I'm joking by the way - I'm not enough of an ass to mean it, but I'm also not nearly mature enough to resist such an obvious joke).

You're trying to speak as if common sense is the same thing as what you want, or as if it's the same thing as quality - it isn't. To Hollywood making a profit is common sense. To actors, directors, camera operators, etc staying employed is common sense. To an audience, being entertained is common sense. Trying to make a masterpiece every single time, only doing sequels to wildly popular films if "needed" (whatever the heck that means), ignoring possible money making opportunities, all make absolutely zero sense at all. So no, your common sense isn't really all that sensible here. What we may want as fans does not equate to common sense. It's just merely what we want to be the case, and that's a different thing entirely.

A good sequel can make a franchise, true. But when it comes to The Exorcist, less is certainly more. It is a story of a girl who gets possessed and a priest who is wavering in his faith/more leaning towards science who has his beliefs tested as a result. Ultimately the girl is saved, but the priest sacrifices himself as a result. Lives are changed and we, the viewer, then question our own perspectives. It's beautiful. No further commentary is needed.

No further commentary is "needed" (bet you know where I'm going with here) but also the first commentary itself wasn't "needed". None of what you posted here matters though - ultimately the point still stands that some people will be interested in seeing a follow up to that story, some people who didn't see the original and considers it "too old" to bother watching it now will give a new film in the franchise a chance because it's part of a "classic franchise but without being an old movie itself" (weird I know but there's a surprising number of people who are this way), and the studio stands to profit from those people. And that's literally all that's "needed" for them to make this movie - and if they do make a profit on it, and if some people do enjoy it, then that trumps everything else. And if it doesn't, then no big deal, it's hardly the worst thing to have happened - plus horror movies are relatively cheap so it's not a large risk.

"Beautiful" doesn't really amount to much in film. It's all about entertainment and profit, and I won't pretend otherwise. We don't have to like it, but it is the reality.

A story that was complete.

Anything else(Good.../Bad.../Sacred Cow...)?

Non-issue.

Complete doesn't matter, a sequel could still follow it and it would still be a non-issue. Complete doesn't mean much of anything in storytelling. It's not like time stops when the story's over, it can always be picked up again. Because stories exist because we tell them - and since humanity hasn't ended as a species yet, that means we can always tell more stories, which means no story truly ends. We can always pick up on a story, even complete ones, and tell more. And yes, that includes Citizen Kane too.

[Somecrazyaussie]

Sure, gladly. Tell your mate to join CBR forums and I'll post the same thing. Some people take sequels too seriously, too personally. Some people let shitty sequels ruin their previous love of the originals - but that is on them, it's not on the sequels. I think it's a sign of immaturity if people let sequels ruin other films for them. And that's not an insult by the way - no one is mature in all ways on all things at all times, we all are immature over something - I know I've been childish at times (like my inability to stop myself from talking **** about GvK for the past few months - I should ignore it and move on, but it's hard to resist you know?). Human nature to bitch about the **** we don't like, to take it personally. But we should recognize that about ourselves and not demand that the world bend to our wants (despite my hatred of GvK, you don't see me demanding the MonsterVerse be ended - and yes, I do wish it would end, because any movie they'll make is going to take cues from GvK, and I hate that and I don't want any more movies like it to be made - but despite that I'm not going to get haughty and demand Legendary give up making these awful movies [imo] for the people who like them).




Again, doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the original was done in one. It doesn't matter that the sequels sucked and the franchise never recovered. It doesn't matter that it's getting a reboot. At the end of the day most people can still just watch the original and enjoy it just as much as they ever had. At the end of the day some people like some of the sequels or parts of them. At the end of the day the studios made enough profit from enough of the sequels for them to continue pursuing the franchise to the point of making a reboot now. Those are the points that matter.



Agreed, it doesn't need a sequel. But also, the original movie isn't needed either. No one needed Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane didn't need to be filmed. It didn't need to be watched. No movie is needed. So, why does it matter if a sequel is needed? Not being needed isn't a disqualification for being made - if it was none of "the best films ever made" would exist to begin with. And it sure doesn't mean that a sequel can't be good or even great. Why do people feel the need to evaluate potential films according to "need" when no film is needed to begin with? It's a weird belief that has no bearing on reality or why films get made in the first place.



Agreed - not everything "needs" a sequel or prequel - but by your logic literally no movie or story on earth should exist to begin with, because they should only exist if they're "needed" and no film has ever qualified as being needed. But yes, all of those are fair game, and indeed a sequel to Romeo and Juliet does already exist - I think ABC made a miniseries back in the early 00s? I only saw like the first couple episodes for whatever reason back then, but I remember thinking it was pretty decent. Also I refute your claim that common sense says it's a bad idea - that's not common sense, that's your own subjective opinion. As for you jumping off a cliff without a parachute, I don't really know you well enough personally to speak on whether that's really such a bad idea after all (I'm joking by the way - I'm not enough of an ass to mean it, but I'm also not nearly mature enough to resist such an obvious joke).

You're trying to speak as if common sense is the same thing as what you want, or as if it's the same thing as quality - it isn't. To Hollywood making a profit is common sense. To actors, directors, camera operators, etc staying employed is common sense. To an audience, being entertained is common sense. Trying to make a masterpiece every single time, only doing sequels to wildly popular films if "needed" (whatever the heck that means), ignoring possible money making opportunities, all make absolutely zero sense at all. So no, your common sense isn't really all that sensible here. What we may want as fans does not equate to common sense. It's just merely what we want to be the case, and that's a different thing entirely.



No further commentary is "needed" (bet you know where I'm going with here) but also the first commentary itself wasn't "needed". None of what you posted here matters though - ultimately the point still stands that some people will be interested in seeing a follow up to that story, some people who didn't see the original and considers it "too old" to bother watching it now will give a new film in the franchise a chance because it's part of a "classic franchise but without being an old movie itself" (weird I know but there's a surprising number of people who are this way), and the studio stands to profit from those people. And that's literally all that's "needed" for them to make this movie - and if they do make a profit on it, and if some people do enjoy it, then that trumps everything else. And if it doesn't, then no big deal, it's hardly the worst thing to have happened - plus horror movies are relatively cheap so it's not a large risk.

"Beautiful" doesn't really amount to much in film. It's all about entertainment and profit, and I won't pretend otherwise. We don't have to like it, but it is the reality.



Complete doesn't matter, a sequel could still follow it and it would still be a non-issue. Complete doesn't mean much of anything in storytelling. It's not like time stops when the story's over, it can always be picked up again. Because stories exist because we tell them - and since humanity hasn't ended as a species yet, that means we can always tell more stories, which means no story truly ends. We can always pick up on a story, even complete ones, and tell more. And yes, that includes Citizen Kane too.

We have to agree to disagree. I don't think it will work, but time will tell. I think committing to a new trilogy is a bit much.

I will agree GvK was crap though (for many, many reasons).

[Vakanai]

We have to agree to disagree. I don't think it will work, but time will tell. I think committing to a new trilogy is a bit much.

I will agree GvK was crap though (for many, many reasons).

I don't know if it will work, only that it can work. Time will tell.

Glad I'm not alone on GvK being crap.

[ChrisIII]

I still wouldn't mind a Poltergeist revival, but something better than the 2015 version which basically was more or less an updated (Drones! Ghost hunting TV shows!) carbon copy of the original except with the son getting more importance, some references to the two sequels (tequila worms from II and the III puddles) and the 80s Spielbergisms toned down.


Unfortunately a decent direct sequel with the returning cast wouldn't necessarily work out, unless they recast Carol Anne which I don't think would go over well.

[Nate Grey]

I still wouldn't mind a Poltergeist revival, but something better than the 2015 version which basically was more or less an updated (Drones! Ghost hunting TV shows!) carbon copy of the original except with the son getting more importance, some references to the two sequels (tequila worms from II and the III puddles) and the 80s Spielbergisms toned down.


Unfortunately a decent direct sequel with the returning cast wouldn't necessarily work out, unless they recast Carol Anne which I don't think would go over well.

Well..thinking out loud here, but they could go the Halloween 4 route and use Carol Anne's daughter instead. That's an easy way to sidestep recasting her, though they'd have to say she died at some point after having a child/children.

[ChrisIII]

Well..thinking out loud here, but they could go the Halloween 4 route and use Carol Anne's daughter instead. That's an easy way to sidestep recasting her, though they'd have to say she died at some point after having a child/children.

Poltergeist II sort of explained she had hereditary psychic powers, hence why she and the house were the primary target of the Beast and his ghosts despite most of the neighborhood being built on a cemetery. So that could end up with her daughter as well.

[Somecrazyaussie]

Poltergeist II sort of explained she had hereditary psychic powers, hence why she and the house were the primary target of the Beast and his ghosts despite most of the neighborhood being built on a cemetery. So that could end up with her daughter as well.

They targeted her specifically due to that, yes. But the one pushing for the spirits to do so was Reverend Kane (Poltergeist III took a dump over the second one because Kane crossed over).

Can't do another without Zelda Rubinstein's Tangina "Carol Anne? Carol Anne?"

[Nate Grey]

I have a sneaking suspicion part 1 of this new trilogy will be titled "The Exorcist." Seems to be the trend now: sequel way after the fact = leave off any subtitles or numbers.

Anyway, here's Green talking about it from two days ago. Cool that he's in constant talks with Ellen Burstyn and she seems enthused about returning.

[Nate Grey]

Jamie Lee Curtis wants to voice the devil in the new Exorcist trilogy

I always thought there was some un-written rule that actors don't campaign for roles? You often hear "why wasn't so and so in this project?" and the answer is usually "I wasn't asked."

Heck, once Linda Blair received that phone call that the new Exorcist trilogy was being made, even she didn't turn around and say "And...I'm in it, right?"

*shrugs* Well my theory is there's a new demon at play here anyway, if they want to give it to Curtis like she's asking, sure.

[Slimybug]

We have to agree to disagree. I don't think it will work, but time will tell. I think committing to a new trilogy is a bit much.

I will agree GvK was crap though (for many, many reasons).

In regards to you the big disagreement on this film, you definitely both made your point. One says a complete story shouldn't get a sequel because it doesn't need it, the says no story needs to be told (and boy did he drive that point home!)

I just want to add my two cents: Yes, I am often very skeptical about sequels to movies that have told a complete story. I have another thread on here about "perfect duologies" that should never have gotten a third film. (Note I said SHOULDN'T have gotten, not that there didn't NEED to be.)

BUT...

SOMETIMES someone truly does have an extraordinary idea for ANOTHER story, or a way to EXPAND on the first story. For example, The Godfather is a complete story, and Puzo never intended for there to be a sequel. Coppola was offered a sequel and thought it was the dumbest idea in the world (for much the same reasons as have been expressed on this thread). But the money convinced him, and lo and behold, he ended up making a masterpiece that EXPANDED on the original story and told an even bigger, better one. The same thing, I think, can be said of David Gordon Green's 2018 Halloween sequel ("H40").

Yes, a sequel to Citizen Kane seems a bad idea. And we'd all laugh at it. But it's entirely possible someone out there would have a brilliant idea for a story of what happens next to his ex-wife, or what happens next to the Capulets and Montagues. It could be a great expansion of the story like with Godfather II, or just tell its own great story using the characters given. Heck, they could have made a brilliant Highlander 2 that was just a rom-com that happened to feature Connor MacLeood. Why the hell not? It's always possible, even if we scoff at it and remain skeptical.

BUT...

It's usually just a **** idea. Coppola returned again for Godfather Part III, again just for the money, but lightning didn't strike again.

They tried time and again to make a decent follow up to Terminator 2, even with Cameron eventually, but it just wasn't in the cards. As I said in my other thread, I just don't think a good idea for Terminator 3 is out there in the ether.

Even David Gordon Green, in my opinion, tarnished his own legacy after H40 by continuing it on into two more films, which so far have just drawn it out into another degenerate slasher film.

And just look at the debacle that is the Star Wars sequel trilogy!

So, with this sequel, I remain skeptical, especially after Halloween Kills.

[Slimybug]

I started a new thread, not knowing this one existed, so I'll repost part of my OP here...

Anyone ever notice how the entirety of the original Exorcist is "Is this girl possessed? I mean, is she really? Is she really possessed? Are we sure? Are we really sure? No, I mean, like really, are we sure? She's possessed? She's possessed? She is? Okay." And then there's an exorcism at the end.

How the **** do you make a trilogy out of that?

Probably about as well as you make one about a 61-year-old man stabbing people. You draw it the **** out!

BUT...

I could be wrong.

[Nate Grey]

I do agree I don't see how a TRILOGY can be borne out of this, and after seeing Halloween Kills, my faith in David Gordon Green has taken a drastic hit.

Meaning, we'll get a GREAT part 1 of this new trilogy...and then a sh**ty yet bizarrely more popular part 2.

Jury's still out on Halloween Ends obviously, but I doubt he can course-correct on that one. Guess we'll see.

Anyway...as far as the story? I doubt they'll repeat the same story as Exorcist '73 and call it a day. The blurb, barebones as it is, is that Leslie Odom Jr.'s character's daughter is possessed, he tries to get help, the Vatican can't (or won't) help, he turns to Chris MacNeil. Ok, that's what's known, but my theory is Chris MacNeil is the titular Exorcist...sort of. I think David Gordon Green has only one gear, and he'll go the Laurie Strode route with Chris: she becomes obsessed with getting revenge. In this case, on if not the same demon, any demon, and she has devoted her life post Regan's possession to that end. To the point that she can do exorcisms herself. Burstyn's damn near 90 so most of the heavy lifting will probably be a small team of nobodies that she has put together but she'll be the driving force.

That sounds silly even typing it out, but, David Gordon Green. I doubt she'll be a glorified cameo, and just being a sort of advisor to the side, eh, don't see that either.

They are gonna have to address the elephant in the room either way, namely, Regan's fate. Blair wasn't invited back, so that can't be good (for the character).

[Nate Grey]

Well apparently Ellen Burstyn revealed in passing that she's already filmed her scenes in the reboot.

Due out October 23, 2023, which would make it almost 50 years after the original. Now I'm wondering if they'll move it to December 26, 2023...but for right now, October 23 2023.

[Nate Grey]

Starts filming in a few weeks.

Well if Burstyn already filmed her scenes, I guess her participation is that of a cameo that can be inserted in the finished product.

[Nate Grey]

Deadline has learned that Lidya Jewett will star in The Exorcist, the first film in the rebooted trilogy, which Blumhouse, Morgan Creek, Universal and Peacock scooped up global rights to for $400M.

So, yes, this is still happening.

Jewett joins Oscar nominee Leslie Odom Jr. (Hamilton, One Night In Miami), Ann Dowd and Ellen Burstyn, who is reprising her role as Chris MacNeil, in what is a continuation of the classic possession horror film.

Is it too much to hope for any ties to part 3? lol