Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37
  1. #16
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    While that's certainly one possibility?

    I can also very easily see where the company might have learned it's lesson as far as when it is time to cut bait.
    Somehow I don't think it's that clear to see when to cut bait when things are moving along in a timely and orderly fashion before a movie comes out. They've put in money, they've got a director, they've got a cast, why on earth would they stop and think "oh shit, we gotta pull the plug on this pronto!"? It just doesn't make sense for them not to make the movie at this point.

  2. #17
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    21,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    Somehow I don't think it's that clear to see when to cut bait when things are moving along in a timely and orderly fashion before a movie comes out. They've put in money, they've got a director, they've got a cast, why on earth would they stop and think "oh shit, we gotta pull the plug on this pronto!"? It just doesn't make sense for them not to make the movie at this point.
    They have pieces.

    If this all starts heading for the ditch once they get rolling(heck, if a couple of the wheels just wind up on the shoulder...), there is absolutely a version of this where I can see them cutting losses.

  3. #18
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    I imagine someone pitched an original story, and I imagine they pitched it as a trilogy. So I wouldn't be surprised if it does go somewhere. I doubt they'll let a lack of source material stop them (I didn't even know it was from a novel).
    You have Exorcist and Exorcist 3 was based on the sequel novel Legion (it really should have been called Legion or Exorcist: Legion).

    This whole thing seem superfluous to me. It is like that prequel to Pet Sematary we are supposed to be getting. The problem with the various Exorcist sequels, prequels or tv series is that each attempt to expand that world has taken the mystery from it. Every conceivable plot thread we had questions about from the original film have been answered:

    what happened to Reagan? Well, she ended up in a shitty sequel.
    What about Father Karras? Well, he survived his fall due to being possessed at the time and Pazuzu took revenge by putting the spirit of the Gemini Killer in him.
    What about Father Dryer? Gemini Killer possesses a dementia patient and kills him.
    Lt Kinderman? He is forced to confront his beliefs and ends up killing Father Karras/Gemini Killer.
    where did Father Merrin first do battle with Pazuzu? The young boy he ended up Exorcising? Exorcist: The Beginning.
    What about adult Reagan? Well, she changed her name, had a family, but allows herself to get repossessed to save her daughter. In return, under possession, she kills her mother and the demons, once she exercises them, breaks her neck in revenge.

    I suppose the sequel idea of focusing on Chris McNeil is one of the few things that could work (especially if it's a mixture of present day/flashback). But, that aside, the only good thing this might do is wipe that tv series away.

    Remaking it is a no go. Because it was done perfectly the first time (direction, casting and the fact the books author wrote the script/screenplay). It really depends on who pitched it too. It has to be a passion project (ala Halloween 2018) and it can't follow the other exorcism based films from the last 10 - 15 with crappy cgi and jump scares.

  4. #19
    The Nature Boy AnakinFlair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Saint Ann, MO
    Posts
    3,751

    Default

    I never watched the series. Never seen any of the sequels, either. Though I have been meaning to watch 2 and 3 for kicks one of these days.

  5. #20
    Extraordinary Member j9ac9k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,635

    Default

    They should have it be a secret crossover with "The Omen." That'd be an interesting reveal.

    Sing it with me: It was Damien all along....
    Last edited by j9ac9k; 07-30-2021 at 06:45 PM.

  6. #21
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnakinFlair View Post
    I never watched the series. Never seen any of the sequels, either. Though I have been meaning to watch 2 and 3 for kicks one of these days.
    You won't get a kick out of Heretic. That film is so bad and not in a "It's so bad it is good way" either.

    Now 3? That is underappreciated. Great cast and William Peter Blatty didn't do bad adapting his own novel. Brad Dourif's performance alone makes it worth watching. Him and George C Scott.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8SnuM7cRwww
    Last edited by Somecrazyaussie; 07-31-2021 at 05:00 AM.

  7. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by j9ac9k View Post
    They should have it be a secret crossover with "The Omen." That'd be an interesting reveal.

    Sing it with me: It was Damien all along....
    Make it a crossover with Doctor Strange and I'm interested. Doc would figure a way to sort this out.

  8. #23
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    They have pieces.

    If this all starts heading for the ditch once they get rolling(heck, if a couple of the wheels just wind up on the shoulder...), there is absolutely a version of this where I can see them cutting losses.
    But that's only if it starts heading into a ditch. There's no reason for anyone to assume so this early in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    You have Exorcist and Exorcist 3 was based on the sequel novel Legion (it really should have been called Legion or Exorcist: Legion).

    This whole thing seem superfluous to me. It is like that prequel to Pet Sematary we are supposed to be getting. The problem with the various Exorcist sequels, prequels or tv series is that each attempt to expand that world has taken the mystery from it. Every conceivable plot thread we had questions about from the original film have been answered:

    what happened to Reagan? Well, she ended up in a shitty sequel.
    What about Father Karras? Well, he survived his fall due to being possessed at the time and Pazuzu took revenge by putting the spirit of the Gemini Killer in him.
    What about Father Dryer? Gemini Killer possesses a dementia patient and kills him.
    Lt Kinderman? He is forced to confront his beliefs and ends up killing Father Karras/Gemini Killer.
    where did Father Merrin first do battle with Pazuzu? The young boy he ended up Exorcising? Exorcist: The Beginning.
    What about adult Reagan? Well, she changed her name, had a family, but allows herself to get repossessed to save her daughter. In return, under possession, she kills her mother and the demons, once she exercises them, breaks her neck in revenge.

    I suppose the sequel idea of focusing on Chris McNeil is one of the few things that could work (especially if it's a mixture of present day/flashback). But, that aside, the only good thing this might do is wipe that tv series away.

    Remaking it is a no go. Because it was done perfectly the first time (direction, casting and the fact the books author wrote the script/screenplay). It really depends on who pitched it too. It has to be a passion project (ala Halloween 2018) and it can't follow the other exorcism based films from the last 10 - 15 with crappy cgi and jump scares.
    I disagree, guess it's not surprising. I mean yes, I agree a sequel is superfluous, but so was the original, so was every movie ever made. There's no reason on earth for films to exist other than an attempt to entertain and make money, so if we take away the superfuous film just wouldn't even exist. And I personally disagree that somehow removing the mystery in sequels diminishes anything, especially if they introduce new mysteries. As long as it manages to entertain enough people and make enough money then it justifies it having been made.

  9. #24
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    But that's only if it starts heading into a ditch. There's no reason for anyone to assume so this early in.



    I disagree, guess it's not surprising. I mean yes, I agree a sequel is superfluous, but so was the original, so was every movie ever made. There's no reason on earth for films to exist other than an attempt to entertain and make money, so if we take away the superfuous film just wouldn't even exist. And I personally disagree that somehow removing the mystery in sequels diminishes anything, especially if they introduce new mysteries. As long as it manages to entertain enough people and make enough money then it justifies it having been made.
    But that's the thing: they never introduced new mysteries and answered pretty much every question left over from the first. A good story works on its own and the original Exorcist was meant to be self-contained (until Blatty himself decided to do a follow up that, really, isn't actually a sequel. It is more a spin off).

    Another aspect is that sometimes sequels (especially if they are shitty ones) detract from the original work and diminish its standing. There are plenty of questions left over from The Big Lebowski. Why haven't we ever got a sequel? Because it doesn't need one (The Jesus Rolls was a spin off and did nothing to add to it).

    There is such a thing as flogging a dead horse and this is it. Go watch all the Exorcist stuff and then come back and tell me what they added. Exorcist 2 was done on the cheap and they straight up just wanted to rehash the original. It was such a farce that Blatty himself was the first person in the cinema that laughed when they screened it.

    This is a problem I have with Hollywood as a whole. Some stories are tailor made to have sequels and become a series (which is fine). But then they get hold of one that was never written or intended to be a franchise and really drive it into the ground.

    Citizen Kane left a few questions, does that mean it should get a sequel? What about The Great Gatsby?

    Some stories end and, if there are questions left over, the author prefers to leave it up to the reader's imagination to what the answer may be.

    There is a reason so many here are rolling their eyes at this and it is because each attempt to add to it (3 sort of dodges it) have been poor. It'll take a miracle to get people to be enthusiastic about this and, honestly, I don't see it happening.
    Last edited by Somecrazyaussie; 07-31-2021 at 10:17 PM.

  10. #25
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    But that's the thing: they never introduced new mysteries and answered pretty much every question left over from the first. A good story works on its own and the original Exorcist was meant to be self-contained (until Blatty himself decided to do a follow up that, really, isn't actually a sequel. It is more a spin off).
    Still doesn't stop them from introducing new mysteries, or adding new wrinkles to answers we assumed we had. Plenty of self-contained stories have had worthwhile sequels.

    Another aspect is that sometimes sequels (especially if they are shitty ones) detract from the original work and diminish its standing.
    No, they don't. No sequel has ever ruined or diminished the story that came before. For some individuals yes, but objectively, no. We wouldn't still be talking about Jaws, Halloween, the original Star Wars trilogy, Ghostbusters, Robocop, Terminator, and others as fondly as we do if that were the case. Sure we may bitch and whine when new sequels are announced for those films, but if they were really diminished at all we wouldn't care so strongly to continue making such statements.

    There are plenty of questions left over from The Big Lebowski. Why haven't we ever got a sequel? Because it doesn't need one (The Jesus Rolls was a spin off and did nothing to add to it).
    Agreed that it doesn't need a sequel - disagree that's a valid reason to not make one. Because we didn't need The Big Lebowski to begin with! The film does not exist that was "needed" so applying a need for films to get made is not an argument I buy into.

    There is such a thing as flogging a dead horse and this is it. Go watch all the Exorcist stuff and then come back and tell me what they added. Exorcist 2 was done on the cheap and they straight up just wanted to rehash the original. It was such a farce that Blatty himself was the first person in the cinema that laughed when they screened it.
    Maybe the ghost of the dead horse is the villain?
    You can't judge a potential new sequel based on the shit quality of the previous sequels - time's passed, it's a different script, different crew behind the camera, saying this or that sequel added nothing to the original does not equate to the quality of a new unfilmed sequel in any way. Could be crap, could be great, but we can't say it shouldn't be made because Exorcist 2 was a cheap ass film a few decades ago.

    This is a problem I have with Hollywood as a whole. Some stories are tailor made to have sequels and become a series (which is fine). But then they get hold of one that was never written or intended to be a franchise and really drive it into the ground.
    And this is one of the things I love about Hollywood - their not afraid to franchise a success, and sometimes that willingness to chase after IP gives us real gold - and the times it turns up a turd? Just toss it, ignore it, and forget it. We lose not a damn thing when a shitty sequel gets made - except maybe the price of a ticket and a couple hours, which is a small price and is negated if we wait for reviews and word of mouth first.
    Look, the original Godzilla of 1954 was a standalone never intended to spawn a franchise, but the studio decided to pursue sequels because of how well it did. As a result earlier this year I saw Godzilla vs Kong and thought it was absolute shit and I truly regret the time spent watching it. Does that mean I wish Godzilla had remained an untouched classic from 1954? No, because as shit as I found Godzilla vs Kong to be, it doesn't detract from the original plus I got a film like 2016's Shin Godzilla which I freaking love. If GvK is the price I have to pay to occasionally get a Shin, I'll take it.

    Citizen Kane left a few questions, does that mean it should get a sequel? What about The Great Gatsby?
    No - because no movie in history "should" or "shouldn't" get a sequel. Should and shouldn't doesn't play a role in film. All that matters is - does someone have a story to tell? Is there a potential audience for it? Does the studio think the chance at profit is worth the risk and investment? If the answer to those questions are all yes, I personally don't see any reason why those films shouldn't get a sequel. I mean personally I've never seen the originals and don't care to, I expect they're too highbrow and dull for me, but there's a ton of movies I love that have had sequels both good and bad. Love Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade, less so the other two, but I'd still be up for an Indy 5.

    Some stories end and, if there are questions left over, the author prefers to leave it up to the reader's imagination to what the answer may be.
    And sometimes, years later, someone adds something new to it and all is well.

    There is a reason so many here are rolling their eyes at this and it is because each attempt to add to it (3 sort of dodges it) have been poor. It'll take a miracle to get people to be enthusiastic about this and, honestly, I don't see it happening.
    Miracles do happen, and even if not, it can always be avoided - and someone might still enjoy watching it to kill a lazy afternoon. Even bad sequels have their fans. What does this really cost us?

  11. #26
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    Still doesn't stop them from introducing new mysteries, or adding new wrinkles to answers we assumed we had. Plenty of self-contained stories have had worthwhile sequels.



    No, they don't. No sequel has ever ruined or diminished the story that came before. For some individuals yes, but objectively, no. We wouldn't still be talking about Jaws, Halloween, the original Star Wars trilogy, Ghostbusters, Robocop, Terminator, and others as fondly as we do if that were the case. Sure we may bitch and whine when new sequels are announced for those films, but if they were really diminished at all we wouldn't care so strongly to continue making such statements.



    Agreed that it doesn't need a sequel - disagree that's a valid reason to not make one. Because we didn't need The Big Lebowski to begin with! The film does not exist that was "needed" so applying a need for films to get made is not an argument I buy into.



    Maybe the ghost of the dead horse is the villain?
    You can't judge a potential new sequel based on the shit quality of the previous sequels - time's passed, it's a different script, different crew behind the camera, saying this or that sequel added nothing to the original does not equate to the quality of a new unfilmed sequel in any way. Could be crap, could be great, but we can't say it shouldn't be made because Exorcist 2 was a cheap ass film a few decades ago.



    And this is one of the things I love about Hollywood - their not afraid to franchise a success, and sometimes that willingness to chase after IP gives us real gold - and the times it turns up a turd? Just toss it, ignore it, and forget it. We lose not a damn thing when a shitty sequel gets made - except maybe the price of a ticket and a couple hours, which is a small price and is negated if we wait for reviews and word of mouth first.
    Look, the original Godzilla of 1954 was a standalone never intended to spawn a franchise, but the studio decided to pursue sequels because of how well it did. As a result earlier this year I saw Godzilla vs Kong and thought it was absolute shit and I truly regret the time spent watching it. Does that mean I wish Godzilla had remained an untouched classic from 1954? No, because as shit as I found Godzilla vs Kong to be, it doesn't detract from the original plus I got a film like 2016's Shin Godzilla which I freaking love. If GvK is the price I have to pay to occasionally get a Shin, I'll take it.



    No - because no movie in history "should" or "shouldn't" get a sequel. Should and shouldn't doesn't play a role in film. All that matters is - does someone have a story to tell? Is there a potential audience for it? Does the studio think the chance at profit is worth the risk and investment? If the answer to those questions are all yes, I personally don't see any reason why those films shouldn't get a sequel. I mean personally I've never seen the originals and don't care to, I expect they're too highbrow and dull for me, but there's a ton of movies I love that have had sequels both good and bad. Love Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade, less so the other two, but I'd still be up for an Indy 5.



    And sometimes, years later, someone adds something new to it and all is well.



    Miracles do happen, and even if not, it can always be avoided - and someone might still enjoy watching it to kill a lazy afternoon. Even bad sequels have their fans. What does this really cost us?
    Because bad sequels can tarnish a person's memories of the original.

    I'm not big on sequels or prequels unless the story actually warrants it. Pet Sematary absolutely didn't need a sequel because everything you needed to know was in the original. Now we are supposed to get a prequel and it just shows how creatively bankrupt Hollywood is.

    A sequel to Citizen Kane? Yeah, good luck with that Hollywood (if they ever attempt it).

    It's a shame Blatty isn't around, I'd love to see what his response would be to this.

  12. #27

    Default

    Well, again, the same guy who did Halloween H40 (well, the 2018 version) and the two upcoming sequels is doing this. If you liked H40, you might like this.

    Based on the spoilers for the old series (I forget it even existed), by virtue of them using Burstyn I guess its safe to say the series isn't in continuity. Leaves the door open for Regan at some point.

    Speaking of which, this is weird.

    In an interview with The New York Post, Blair explained that Green, Blumhouse, and Morgan Creek tipped her off about the new films but that the conversation did not include a job offer.

    Um...well...ok?

    "Hey we're doing a new Exorcist trilogy! Ok bye!"

  13. #28
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    Because bad sequels can tarnish a person's memories of the original.
    This is not true for me, and I doubt it's true for a majority of people out there. I think people who let a sequel spoil the original for them are an over-sensitive and too involved minority. If someone is the type who will let things that come after color their memories and spoil their former love of things, then they just should never watch any sequels to begin with - but it doesn't mean sequels shouldn't be made for the rest of us to possibly enjoy.

    I'm not big on sequels or prequels unless the story actually warrants it. Pet Sematary absolutely didn't need a sequel because everything you needed to know was in the original. Now we are supposed to get a prequel and it just shows how creatively bankrupt Hollywood is.
    This is where we part in our opinions - I don't even believe in the notion that some stories do or do not "warrant" further stories to begin with. It's not on the story to "warrant" a sequel or a prequel, it's on human beings as creative individuals and business as profit oriented organizations to decide whether there's a further story worth telling or not. But no story ever made ever "warranted" another story, nor has any story ever "not warranted" a further story. They're just stories, they exist solely to entertain and inspire, if someone feels they can create a story that checks one of those boxes then that's all the warranted-ness needed, whether it's an original story or a prequel or a sequel.

    A sequel to Citizen Kane? Yeah, good luck with that Hollywood (if they ever attempt it).
    Yes, I wish Hollywood good luck with all their endeavors. I know it's sarcasm from you, but it isn't for me. Citizen Kane is a story, like any other story, it's not a sacred cow nor should any movie be.

  14. #29
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    This is not true for me, and I doubt it's true for a majority of people out there. I think people who let a sequel spoil the original for them are an over-sensitive and too involved minority. If someone is the type who will let things that come after color their memories and spoil their former love of things, then they just should never watch any sequels to begin with - but it doesn't mean sequels shouldn't be made for the rest of us to possibly enjoy.
    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.


    This is where we part in our opinions - I don't even believe in the notion that some stories do or do not "warrant" further stories to begin with. It's not on the story to "warrant" a sequel or a prequel, it's on human beings as creative individuals and business as profit oriented organizations to decide whether there's a further story worth telling or not. But no story ever made ever "warranted" another story, nor has any story ever "not warranted" a further story. They're just stories, they exist solely to entertain and inspire, if someone feels they can create a story that checks one of those boxes then that's all the warranted-ness needed, whether it's an original story or a prequel or a sequel.
    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.

    Yes, I wish Hollywood good luck with all their endeavors. I know it's sarcasm from you, but it isn't for me. Citizen Kane is a story, like any other story, it's not a sacred cow nor should any movie be.
    Citizen Kane isn't a sacred cow? No. But it is one of the best films ever made and doesn't need a sequel.

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Somecrazyaussie; 08-01-2021 at 08:44 PM.

  15. #30
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    21,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    ...

    Yes, I wish Hollywood good luck with all their endeavors. I know it's sarcasm from you, but it isn't for me. Citizen Kane is a story, like any other story, it's not a sacred cow nor should any movie be.
    A story that was complete.

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

    Non-issue.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •