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

[geomon]

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.

Oh ok. This actually answers a question I had about that because I noticed the missing elements from the blu-ray that were in the previous version (The Version You've Never Seen Before) and I just assumed it was an error, especially considering the audio cues were still there for them.

So I guess I can assume these will never been again outside of The Version You've Never Seen Before cut.

 

[Robert Crawford]

For those that are interested in buying this re-release the price has dropped at Amazon to 19.96.

 

[Professor Echo]

I wonder if Friedkin had anything to do with the striking cover of this re-release. He designed the original poster for the film and much of the ad campaign, including the trailer. I like the past DVD cover with Regan on it as well, but the original poster art is still the best.

 

[darkrock17]

Does this 40th Anniversary have a slip cover? Because nowhere on the cover nor spine does it state that this is the 40th Anniversary. This isn't a bad cover, though I think WB is trying to make all their classic film titles more Indie to appeal to a younger auddience with their recent covers over past how many years. The famous stairs is very good image to market the film, but it be more effective and scarier if it was the stairs but as if you were looking up them and not down.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Does this 40th Anniversary have a slip cover? Because nowhere on the cover nor spine does it state that this is the 40th Anniversary. This isn't a bad cover, though I think WB is trying to make all their classic film titles more Indie to appeal to a younger auddience with their recent covers over past how many years. The famous stairs is very good image to market the film, but it be more effective and scarier if it was the stairs but as if you were looking up them and not down.

All POV shots of the stairs (not counting distance shots) in the film are of it heading down. If you switch the direction it's just another stairway. Its also not very photogenic as that famous arch gets in the way from the other angle.

BTW, as a big of the fan of the movie who has visited Georgetown, I can tell ya the Exorcist steps are a rather brutal climb in real life. Not a lot of space to walk on and fricken steeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

 

[darkrock17]

I disagree with you Lord Dalek, and that's something everyone should be carefull about doing lest you want to be exterminated. I think the stairs going up is more iconic and sary, than looking down them.

Looking up the stairs

Looking down the stairs

Looking down the stairs to me is more Vertigo, where as looking up gives you there's something not right up at the top of the stairs.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Does this 40th Anniversary have a slip cover? Because nowhere on the cover nor spine does it state that this is the 40th Anniversary. This isn't a bad cover, though I think WB is trying to make all their classic film titles more Indie to appeal to a younger auddience with their recent covers over past how many years. The famous stairs is very good image to market the film, but it be more effective and scarier if it was the stairs but as if you were looking up them and not down.

I don't think it matters which shot of the stairs they use as this iconic film has been seen by just about everyone.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I'm pretty sure of the answer to this, but has anyone been able to confirm for absolute certain that Discs 1 & 2 of this set are exactly the same as the 2010 release?

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

The Dir Cut has a dts HD 6.1 track that used to only be offered on the old standard BLU case release. The Digibook only had the audio at dts HD 5.1 there are some on other forums that say the encodes are te same other than that.

 

[darkrock17]

I'm pretty sure of the answer to this, but has anyone been able to confirm for absolute certain that Discs 1 & 2 of this set are exactly the same as the 2010 release?

This review from DVDactive might help until bluray.com's review is up. http://www.dvdactive.com/reviews/dvd/the-exorcist-and-house-of-wax.html

 

[cineMANIAC]

Maybe the new remaster (if there is one) will make it out on the next release in a year or so. It looks like The Exorcist will join Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz as yearly Warner cash grabs. You would think the studio has nothing else to release with all of these reissues, which wouldn't be so tacky if there was actually something worth buying here. Anyone who is a true fan of the film already has at least 2 versions of it (not counting previous formats). I wish the studio would concentrate some of that effort on the sequels, both of which could use an upgrade.

 

[Jari K]

I love this film but I don't have the Blu-ray yet. So there goes this "true fan" theory.This new set has two versions of the film, all the extras from the first Blu-ray and a few new ones. What's actually the problem here? They need to create "new master" for every single release? Add 10 new documentaries? Oh, and they make you buy every release in gunpoint?Just don't buy it if you don't need it.

 

[Ruz-El]

I love this film but I don't have the Blu-ray yet. So there goes this "true fan" theory.This new set has two versions of the film, all the extras from the first Blu-ray and a few new ones. What's actually the problem here? They need to create "new master" for every single release? Add 10 new documentaries? Oh, and they make you buy every release in gunpoint?Just don't buy it if you don't need

No "actual" problem, but unless the transfer is getting spruced up then many of us wonder what the point is in re-releasing it when the money could go towards a potentially different title? The answer is, of course, they don't really care about releasing a variety of titles anymore, they are more concerned with short term sales numbers to please the board members. Any smaller, deserving titles can get a minimal clean up and dumped into an MOD program with minimal investment right?

Remember that every time a Warner Brothers tells you there is no money to be made in catalog titles, a third party boutique label like Vinegar Syndrome somehow finds a way to give a film away for free to the fans who supported them as a way of thanks...

 

[Robert Crawford]

No "actual" problem, but unless the transfer is getting spruced up then many of us wonder what the point is in re-releasing it when the money could go towards a potentially different title? The answer is, of course, they don't really care about releasing a variety of titles anymore, they are more concerned with short term sales numbers to please the board members. Any smaller, deserving titles can get a minimal clean up and dumped into an MOD program with minimal investment right?

Remember that every time a Warner Brothers tells you there is no money to be made in catalog titles, a third party boutique label like Vinegar Syndrome somehow finds a way to give a film away for free to the fans who supported them as a way of thanks...

I hate to break it to you, but studios are in the business to make money just like any other company. I'm betting this latest release sells more units in that regard than most if not all of these smaller, deserving titles.

 

[Ruz-El]

I hate to break it to you, but studios are in the business to make money just like any other company. I'm betting this latest release sells more units in that regard than most if not all of these smaller, deserving titles.

Don't think you are breaking anything to me. The difference is the major studios need to make all the money on every release, instead of being okay with making a profit on a lot of releases. It's possible to be profitable without being shamelessly greedy at the expense of film availability/fans wallets. Warner's have proven pretty shameless these past few years in my opinion. Just look at their output. Is their any reason why their Archive program can't release a 5 title noir boxset for $40 with special features and what not (and I'm being generous, prior to the Archive program we got a 8 or 10 title collection), instead of the current $20 per title MOD that is currently happening? The answer is "No reason, other then they Know that the fans who really want the titles will pay the $20. And yes, I understand they do some sale where you can get a better deal, if you live in the continental United States. Everyone else is SOL.

Which is why every time Warner's releases something like this, I look at what Shout/Criterion and Vinegar Syndrome are putting out. Tend to be more interesting and of as good a quality. To each their own of course, but in my opinion, any woes about retail that the majors are crying about are reaped by their own hands.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Don't think you are breaking anything to me. The difference is the major studios need to make all the money on every release, instead of being okay with making a profit on a lot of releases. It's possible to be profitable without being shamelessly greedy at the expense of film availability/fans wallets. Warner's have proven pretty shameless these past few years in my opinion. Just look at their output. Is their any reason why their Archive program can't release a 5 title noir boxset for $40 with special features and what not (and I'm being generous, prior to the Archive program we got a 8 or 10 title collection), instead of the current $20 per title MOD that is currently happening? The answer is "No reason, other then they Know that the fans who really want the titles will pay the $20. And yes, I understand they do some sale where you can get a better deal, if you live in the continental United States. Everyone else is SOL.

Which is why every time Warner's releases something like this, I look at what Shout/Criterion and Vinegar Syndrome are putting out. Tend to be more interesting and of as good a quality. To each their own of course, but in my opinion, any woes about retail that the majors are crying about are reaped by their own hands.

I'm sorry, but I can't begrudge anybody from making as much profit as they can, especially when increased revenues finance other projects. These studio people don't have their jobs to please classic film fans. When they're out of a job because profits are down, classic film fans aren't going to be there to help pay their bills. Just last week, Paramount announced a new round of layoffs.

I want more classics released on BD too, but to place all of the blame on people trying to keep their jobs is just wrong in my opinion because for the most part, the market place detects marketing strategies. There's just not enough of us to support what we want out of major studios.

Some people do have a tendency to use that "greed" word when it serves their purpose, but don't have much empathy for those they're using that word against.

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

I love this film but I don't have the Blu-ray yet. So there goes this "true fan" theory.This new set has two versions of the film, all the extras from the first Blu-ray and a few new ones. What's actually the problem here? They need to create "new master" for every single release? Add 10 new documentaries? Oh, and they make you buy every release in gunpoint?Just don't buy it if you don't need it.

No, just like they don't need to re-release the same movie multiple times in the same format with barely any difference. Get it right the first time. And if there are better elements available, THEN release it again.

The Exorcist had a new print available, yet Warner simply reissued the same "old" transfer. People who already have the "old" Blu-ray might have been interested in double-dipping had Warner used the new, improved print.

It has to do with a missed opportunity. It has nothing to do with pointing guns to one's head.

 

[cineMANIAC]

You want to buy the same movies 10 times that's your business. Personally, I don't plan on throwing money away on cash-grab releases just to get a shiny slipbox or a booklet I'm only going to look at once. Plus, you just know there's going to be another release in a couple of years. Maybe they'll get it right on the next one.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I don't think it's a huge investment for the studios to keep re-releasing the same
catalog titles over again.

In many cases (but not all) these days, all they are doing is taking the same disc
and putting it in new packaging.

Warner is not the only culprit. Fox is apparently doing it right now with their 25th
Anniversary of BIG.

I am not a fan of how the studios are attempting to re-cash in on catalog releases
with new slipcovers --- but then again, I don't have to buy them if I don't want to.

I just suspect that these reissues aren't really costing the studios as much money
to issue as we may think. If the studio didn't think they could turn a nice profit for
a minimal investment then this practice would probably never occur.

 

[Reed Grele]

I love those WB box sets, though I never even saw the Exorcist and Time Machine ones. Were they in print for all of five minutes, or did they appear just before I started acquiring the bulk of my collection? I shan't be seeing them any time soon at those price levels.

EDIT: Yes, I've checked, and they did appear before I got serious about collecting, learning one thing from another, etc.

I forgot I even had these:

View attachment 4905