|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tiberious aka Sparkles
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: I'm one cool cat!
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:47 am Post subject: |
 |
|
There's an Exorcist 4?
_*_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiberious aka Sparkles
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: I'm one cool cat!
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you mean Exorcist: The Beginning (and its doppelganger Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist ).
_*_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiberious aka Sparkles wrote: |
I think you mean Exorcist: The Beginning (and its doppelganger Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist ).
_*_ |
Still...number 4 made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiberious aka Sparkles
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: I'm one cool cat!
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cubanlord wrote: |
| Tiberious aka Sparkles wrote: |
I think you mean Exorcist: The Beginning (and its doppelganger Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist ).
_*_ |
Still...number 4 made. |
Fine; if you want to play that game, there have technically been 5 Exorcist films, so the post should read Exorcist VI: Lucifer incarnate.....
_  _ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
own_king
Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Location: here
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OK, I'll clear it up. There were three originals and two prequels. That's where some are getting confused. The first prequel and most famous tells the story leading up to the orginal Exorcist 1 (and still the best). The second prequel goes all the way back to WWII. It tells the whole story of "God is not here today," in real time where the first prequel has it only in flashback. These or also not to be confused with the Exorcism of Emily Rose and The Exorcism of Gail Bowers. They are totally different films and as far as I know not related to each other or the original series. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| own_king wrote: |
| OK, I'll clear it up. There were three originals and two prequels. That's where some are getting confused. The first prequel and most famous tells the story leading up to the orginal Exorcist 1 (and still the best). The second prequel goes all the way back to WWII. It tells the whole story of "God is not here today," in real time where the first prequel has it only in flashback. These or also not to be confused with the Exorcism of Emily Rose and The Exorcism of Gail Bowers. They are totally different films and as far as I know not related to each other or the original series. |
there were two prequels? What was the other? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| own_king wrote: |
| OK, I'll clear it up. There were three originals and two prequels. That's where some are getting confused. The first prequel and most famous tells the story leading up to the orginal Exorcist 1 (and still the best). The second prequel goes all the way back to WWII. It tells the whole story of "God is not here today," in real time where the first prequel has it only in flashback. These or also not to be confused with the Exorcism of Emily Rose and The Exorcism of Gail Bowers. They are totally different films and as far as I know not related to each other or the original series. |
Emm...I think you are a bit off base here. Anyway, here's the story of the two movies as explained by Roger Ebert aka, 'the fat one.'
| Quote: |
After Schrader delivered his version, a scenario developed that is, I think, unprecedented in modern movie history. The studio, having spent millions on the Schrader version, hired the director Renny Harlin to spend more millions remaking it in a presumably more commercial fashion.
Harlin kept some of the actors, including Skarsgard, and substituted others (Gabriel Mann was replaced by James D'Arcy, Clara Bellar by Izabella Scorupco). The same cinematographer, the great Vittorio Storaro, filmed for both directors. After Harlin's version did a break-even $82 million at the box office but drew negative reviews, Schrader succeeded in getting his version screened at a film festival in Brussels, where the positive reception inspired this theatrical release, a resurrection fully in keeping with the film's theme.
I've seen both versions and much prefer Schrader's, and yet it must be said that Harlin did not prostitute himself in his version. Indeed, oddly, it opens with more talk and less excitement than the Schrader version (Harlin dissipates the power of the Nazi sequence by fragmenting it into flashbacks). What is fascinating from a movie buff's point of view is that the movie has been filmed twice in different ways by different directors. Maybe this is what Gus Van Sant was getting at when he inexplicably did his (almost) shot-by-shot remake of Hitchcock's "Psycho." Film students are often given a series of shots and assigned to edit them to tell a story. They can fit together in countless ways, to greater or less effect.
Here we have the experiment conducted with $80 million. It's eerie, to see the same locations occupied by different actors speaking similar dialogue. Odd to see the young priest and the doctor occupying the same rooms but played by different people. Strange to see Skarsgard in both versions, some shots and dialogue exactly the same, others not. Curious how the subplot about the British shrinks in the Harlin version, while the horror is ramped up. I prefer the Schrader version, certainly, but you know what? Now that two versions exist and are available, each one makes the other more interesting. |
Anyway, they are essentially the same movie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
own_king
Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Location: here
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| own_king wrote: |
| OK, I'll clear it up. There were three originals and two prequels. That's where some are getting confused. The first prequel and most famous tells the story leading up to the orginal Exorcist 1 (and still the best). The second prequel goes all the way back to WWII. It tells the whole story of "God is not here today," in real time where the first prequel has it only in flashback. These or also not to be confused with the Exorcism of Emily Rose and The Exorcism of Gail Bowers. They are totally different films and as far as I know not related to each other or the original series. |
Emm...I think you are a bit off base here. Anyway, here's the story of the two movies as explained by Roger Ebert aka, 'the fat one.'
| Quote: |
After Schrader delivered his version, a scenario developed that is, I think, unprecedented in modern movie history. The studio, having spent millions on the Schrader version, hired the director Renny Harlin to spend more millions remaking it in a presumably more commercial fashion.
Harlin kept some of the actors, including Skarsgard, and substituted others (Gabriel Mann was replaced by James D'Arcy, Clara Bellar by Izabella Scorupco). The same cinematographer, the great Vittorio Storaro, filmed for both directors. After Harlin's version did a break-even $82 million at the box office but drew negative reviews, Schrader succeeded in getting his version screened at a film festival in Brussels, where the positive reception inspired this theatrical release, a resurrection fully in keeping with the film's theme.
I've seen both versions and much prefer Schrader's, and yet it must be said that Harlin did not prostitute himself in his version. Indeed, oddly, it opens with more talk and less excitement than the Schrader version (Harlin dissipates the power of the Nazi sequence by fragmenting it into flashbacks). What is fascinating from a movie buff's point of view is that the movie has been filmed twice in different ways by different directors. Maybe this is what Gus Van Sant was getting at when he inexplicably did his (almost) shot-by-shot remake of Hitchcock's "Psycho." Film students are often given a series of shots and assigned to edit them to tell a story. They can fit together in countless ways, to greater or less effect.
Here we have the experiment conducted with $80 million. It's eerie, to see the same locations occupied by different actors speaking similar dialogue. Odd to see the young priest and the doctor occupying the same rooms but played by different people. Strange to see Skarsgard in both versions, some shots and dialogue exactly the same, others not. Curious how the subplot about the British shrinks in the Harlin version, while the horror is ramped up. I prefer the Schrader version, certainly, but you know what? Now that two versions exist and are available, each one makes the other more interesting. |
Anyway, they are essentially the same movie. |
Right, but still two prequels and three orginals - five movies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
