Exorcist: The Beginning, redone cuz the kids need more blood in their diet.


Has anyone else heard about this??? Apparently the new exorcist prequel was shot, and in the can ready to be distributed and the studio decided it wasn’t bloody enough to make a buck. They fired Paul Schrader and brought in Renny Harlin (known for directing a Nightmare on Elm Street bomb) to spice it up and make it more what the kids will like to see…lmao!! Now, in most cases they will fire a director part way through shooting and re-shoot what the new director doesn’t like and salvage what they can, or if its already shot they may re-edit it and add some scenes…in this case a completed movie was scrapped and they shot it all from scratch. Now what they are saying is that when the dvd is released it will actually include both versions!! While most DVDs include deleted scenes, this one will include a deleted movie…lol

The funny thing is, i’ll bet the original one is going to be way better than the one they are releasing, and if one is going to be remembered it will be the original version…as they said the whole reason for re-doing the picture was to make to more gory and violent, and we all know that what can be imagined is way more brutal and memorable as what is on the screen!

Think of movies like Reservior Dogs…you remember it as being a very violent and bloody movie, but in reality it wasn’t at all…QT used reactions to make it seem more violent than it was…when Mr. Blonde (Michael Madson) is cutting off the cops ear, nothing is shown…its all cuts of blondes reaction and the radio…all you see is the resulting ear, but when you remember it later it was about as violent and bloody as anything you’ve seen because your imagination added in the part you couldn’t see, and that is so much more powerful!

Execs don’t seem to get that…they always want to see everything.

Take Signs for instance…the whole movie was ruined when you see the alien at the end and they explain how man defeated the aliens…had they ended it with them coming up from the attic it would have been a GREAT movie…instead they decided to extend it too long and use up that FX budget, and ruin the whole movie!

I’m personnally pretty excited about the first cut of the new exorcist movie…but not at all interested in the teen slasher version thats gonna be released. Oh well, if history serves us well, the one thats being released will bomb, and the dvd will be out in a month…and hey, if the dvd sales do really well because the ditched version is a good movie, maybe they will release it in theaters… :slight_smile:



I heard about that…someone at the office was telling me they reshot the whole film and that both versions were planned to be on the dvd release.


Pathetic. This just goes to show how uncreative Hollywood executives are, especially when it comes to “big-name” films. Gimme a break, since when is the Excorcist “gory,” anyway? This is one of the most ridiculous stories I’ve read in a while. Personally, I’ll be checking out Schrader’s version (hopefully it’ll be in a theater instead of DVD).


i think everyone has it all wrong. who says the first version was the best one? maybe they are actually trying to do the film justice and put out the best possible picture. maybe the first one wasnt up to par? who needs more gore? do i need to bring up aliens vs predator? i dont come up with a sequel(or prequel i guess) that doesnt have the same feel. the exorcist is one ofmy favorite movies, and probably the most goriest one at that. especially for its time. why would you tone it down? most directors do thatcoughstupid paul andersoncough to make more money. i dont think the studio would put this much money int a movie that they didnt want to be really good.


" i dont think the studio would put this much money int a movie that they didnt want to be really good."

hA HA ha haaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa…mmmmmmmmmmmm haaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaa

Since when does hollywood care about quality, its about the cash my friend. Deep Blue Sea was horrible but it made a ton of dough. They tend to go with bankable directors, Shraeders last film was cool but didn’t make as much money as Renny Harlens last one. Its unfare but its the real world.


hmm… like how AI should have ended with him at the bottom of the ocean staring at the blue fairy forever




hA HA ha haaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa…mmmmmmmmmmmm haaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaa


you can laugh all you want but its lame to think all movies are made without care. what i was saying, was that theres a difference between a movie being made without much thought and just money, and a movie being made that has tons of effort put into it, including making money. i know money is a big part of it, but there are those great films that have directors that care to keep their vision, and i htink those are the ones that shine and make tons of money, at the same time. plus comparing the shitty shark movie to one of the greatest horror movies shows your knowledge when it comes to film, so please dont mock me, thanks


I think what chudofsinister was trying to say was that the reason the studio heads chose Harlin to re-shoot the film is due to of his past box office success. Not due to his passion for the material and/or artistic vision. Harlin directed the so-called “shitty shark movie” and it’s part of the reason he was chosen as Schrader’s replacement. I personally feel that this is a very dumb decision, especially based on the premise for the replacement (not enough gore). Talk about “dumbing down” the material.

The original Exorcist was not the goriest film by any stretch of the imagination (watch any “teen slasher” film if that’s what you want). Granted, the original film did have a few scenes of blood and gore, but that’s not at all what made it scary or compelling to watch. The Exorcist was a captivating (and scary) film because it dealt with the notion that pure evil does exist and that it can destroy even the purest of things. The film is a character-driven one which deals with the subjects of courage, faith (or lack thereof) self-sacrifice, and redemption. If you want gore, see Freddy or Jason. :rolleyes:


Yes…I HAVE heard about this, and it makes my blood boil. This just makes me hate the US movie industry anymore. I guess studio executives think that we are all too dumb to enjoy a psychological thriller and think instead that we need in your face gore to be scared shitless. Exorcist 1 and 3 are some of my favorite movies of all time, and they definately didnt need gore to be scary.


If you wonder why the studio’s decision to do this pisses off so many Exorcist fans, you should look at the track records of both directors on imdb.com.


I just watched the trailer on the apple site and that scared the living shyt out of me!! Whose version is that???



Well the first quarter or so is footage from the original, the rest is Renny Harlin’s version.

I still cant get over this boneheaded move on the studio’s behalf though. They sacked the guy (after the movie is done, no less) who wrote ‘Taxi Driver’ in favor of the guy who directed ‘Cliffhanger’ and ‘Die Hard 2’? Come on!

Ugh…at least Schrader is getting a DVD release. I cant wait to see it.


Just watched the trailer and I have to say it was not too bad at all. Actually made me wanna see this. Anyhow, I really wanna see both of the versions.

I guess this is the first Harlin movie without any explosions…maybe…



It’ll be nice to see both interpetations. Both directors are good at what they do. Cliffhanger and Die Hard 2 weren’t bad films for their objective. It’s just which way the studio wants to go. It’s a bit lame that they only discovered what they wanted afterwards. But then again, we get two versions for one price. Not a bad deal!! (Obviously The Exorcist isn’t too close to my heart although I do think it’s a very good film).


“The power of Christ C…BOOM!!!


Funny, they used the theme music from Halloween in the last few seconds of the trailer :slight_smile:


That was not from the Halloween. It is the original soundtrack, Tubular Bells by Mike Oldfield.


Yay, let’s turn this into a hollywood bashing party. Hollywood sucks, I hate hollywood. They don’t know what they are doing, yet I can’t keep myself from watching the bullsheet that they realease…yay…:rolleyes: okay I’m done now…:shrug:


I’m not here to bash hollywood but, I’m just trying to understand this whole sequal business? I mean sequals to this, sequals to that? Does hollywood just ignore all of the new writers or what? Are they saving any money on development costs? Personally I’m getting tired of the whole writer,director,producer thing, even Spielberg worked with writers on alot of his stuff. This whole singular vision thing is getting a little myopic.


You of all people… I’d say pixar cares about quality. I’d say Peter Jackson with his little LOTR franchise cares. Well, Pete isn’t a studio but with Pixar there’s one. Any others?


This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.