WHV Press Release: The Exorcist 40th Anniversary (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Michael Elliott]

What a great forty years. I'm sure Warner has made quite a bit of money on this title. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that they've made enough to where their legal department could get in touch with MGM's legal department and clear up the issues with ABBY so that Shout! could release it to fans.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

4k scan of the theatrical + restoring the Saul Bass logo would certainly = a win.

Echo.

I'd add the original mono mix to that.

Echo.

No, the directors cut was what appeared on the previous Blu-ray. It's not new or simply renamed from the "Version You've Never Seen." It has some minor changes from that version. Removal of some of the more clumsy superimpositions, etc. It's a subtle difference, but an improvement.

The only change I noticed (between the 2000 and 2010 versions) was the removal of the demon head superimposed over Regan's door in one scene. I guess there could have been some extra sound work done, too. What are some of the other changes?

I always thought "The Version You've Never Seen" was a silly way to market it, anyway. Whatever it's called, I'm still not a big fan of that version(s).

 

[Lord Dalek]

You guys are all assuming the mono mix is even still around. It might have been junked in 1979 for all we know.

Furthermore the previous 2k transfer was of such high quality that I think its going to be hard to better it (I'm surprised it wasn't 4k already).

 

[moviebuff75]

The mono track was included on the 1997 dvd.

 

[Lord Dalek]

The mono track was included on the 1997 dvd.

Nope it was the same Dolby 2.0 Surround mix created for the 1979 reissue. The 1999 Special Edition and 2010 blu utilized the 70mm 6-track mix made at the same time.

I assume the earliest video releases from the early 80s might have been mono but who knows if they were the defacto original track or just a fold down of the dolby mix. There probably wouldn't be any difference regardless as I don't think they added anything to that mono for the reissue.

 

[JohnMor]

The only change I noticed (between the 2000 and 2010 versions) was the removal of the demon head superimposed over Regan's door in one scene. I guess there could have been some extra sound work done, too. What are some of the other changes? I always thought "The Version You've Never Seen" was a silly way to market it, anyway. Whatever it's called, I'm still not a big fan of that version(s).

I can't remember any others off the top of my head. That was the biggest (and IMO most necessary) one to drop.I agree about the version moniker: silly. I do prefer the "Directors Cut" now over the Theatrical, except I think they need to lose the spider walk. It just doesn't work for me. But I love the other added scenes. I think they really add to the film. Especially Karras and Merrin on the stairs and the ending.

 

[TravisR]

Especially Karras and Merrin on the stairs...

I think that's one of the best scenes (new or original) in the entire movie. I can't believe they ever cut it.

 

[Professor Echo]

I agree, Travis, but the scene in silence is equally effective. No right or wrong here, both versions work very well. The ending on the other hand seemed more appropriate in the original theatrical version. Blatty's talky ending just doesn't work for me. Friedkin used to be a master of less is more at certain times, he trusted audiences to be smart and "get it" without a lot of exposition and explanation. In any case, I love being able to watch both versions when the occasion warrants.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I agree about the version moniker: silly. I do prefer the "Directors Cut" now over the Theatrical, except I think they need to lose the spider walk. It just doesn't work for me. But I love the other added scenes. I think they really add to the film. Especially Karras and Merrin on the stairs and the ending.

I can take or leave the Merrin/Karras staircase scene. I don't mind it being there, but I feel it's kind of redundant.

However, I can't stand the extended ending. It works in the book, mainly because Kinderman is a bigger character. But on screen, it just falls flat on its face. The movie's over; we don't need to sit around and listen to them babble about catching a movie together.

In any case, I love being able to watch both versions when the occasion warrants.

Absolutely. I hardly ever watch the Director's Cut, but I'm glad it's there for those who enjoy it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Echo.


Echo.



The only change I noticed (between the 2000 and 2010 versions) was the removal of the demon head superimposed over Regan's door in one scene. I guess there could have been some extra sound work done, too. What are some of the other changes?

I always thought "The Version You've Never Seen" was a silly way to market it, anyway. Whatever it's called, I'm still not a big fan of that version(s).

Of course it was - once we'd seen it, it felt dopey to call it that!

I always suspected it got that name because Friedkin resisted titling it a "Director's Cut". After all, he'd just told us a few years earlier that the changes that ended up in the "Never Seen" were alterations he didn't want - how could he save face and refer to a movie that wasn't his vision as a "Director's Cut"?I always thought Friedkin seemed like a sell-out for agreeing to the changes. I get the feeling these were "Apocalypse Now Redux" changes: the director pretended that he did them for artistic reasons but actually made them just for $$$...

 

[Vincent_P]

You guys are all assuming the mono mix is even still around. It might have been junked in 1979 for all we know.

Furthermore the previous 2k transfer was of such high quality that I think its going to be hard to better it (I'm surprised it wasn't 4k already).

Are we so sure the previous Blu-ray was based off a 2K scan and not a 4K scan? I've never seen anything regarding the "old" Blu-ray of THE EXORCIST being based off a 2K scan.

Vincent

 

[Lord Dalek]

Are we so sure the previous Blu-ray was based off a 2K scan and not a 4K scan? I've never seen anything regarding the "old" Blu-ray of THE EXORCIST being based off a 2K scan.

Vincent

Yeah, for an alleged 2k its super sharp. Practically reference quality (now there's a term I hate using mainly because its a "Bill Hunt Cliche" and half of the time it doesn't hold water).

 

[ahollis]

Adding pics is just not working on the iPad or iPhone.

 

[ahollis]

View attachment 2604 This has pic has been traveling the Internet lately and has given me a chuckle. This would be a good cross plug for this upcoming release.

 

[Ken Volok]

Why keep bringing that up when we know they're not going to do that.

Columbia seems to be doing it, "On the Waterfront" was just released by Criterion; and look at the Twilight Time Editions as well.

 

[Charles Smith]

ahollis, neither of those images displays for me, on computer or phone.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Columbia seems to be doing it, "On the Waterfront" was just released by Criterion; and look at the Twilight Time Editions as well.

Columbia isn't Warner! The latter's business model doesn't include farming out numerous titles for other companies to release onto BD.

 

[ahollis]

ahollis, neither of those images displays for me, on computer or phone.

I know they will not load from an iPad. Sorry.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Since modern technology hates Hollis apparantly...

I like it. Its surprising that up until now they've never gone with the second most remembered thing from The Exorcist (the famous steps) for box art from this film.

 

[darkrock17]

It's not a bad cover, would be better if was looking up the stairs instead of down though. Strange for WB not putting 40th Anniversary on the cover.