Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

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

Warner

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#41 of 121 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,226 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted June 21 2013 - 05:52 PM

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.



#42 of 121 OFFLINE   Bryan Tuck

Bryan Tuck

    Screenwriter



  • 1,556 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2002

Posted June 22 2013 - 10:54 AM

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).


"Flying a plane is no different from riding a bicycle; it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."

#43 of 121 OFFLINE   Lord Dalek

Lord Dalek

    Screenwriter



  • 2,236 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2005

Posted June 22 2013 - 01:47 PM

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).


Edited by Lord Dalek, June 22 2013 - 01:52 PM.


#44 of 121 OFFLINE   moviebuff75

moviebuff75

    Supporting Actor



  • 598 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 04 2009
  • Real Name:Eric Scott Richard
  • LocationIndianapolis, Indiana

Posted June 22 2013 - 01:56 PM

The mono track was included on the 1997 dvd.


Proud HTF Member Since: April, 2001


#45 of 121 OFFLINE   Lord Dalek

Lord Dalek

    Screenwriter



  • 2,236 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2005

Posted June 22 2013 - 02:18 PM

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.



#46 of 121 OFFLINE   JohnMor

JohnMor

    Producer



  • 3,607 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2004
  • Real Name:John Moreland
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted June 22 2013 - 02:48 PM

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.

Edited by JohnMor, June 22 2013 - 02:49 PM.


#47 of 121 ONLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,824 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted June 22 2013 - 02:51 PM

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.



#48 of 121 OFFLINE   Professor Echo

Professor Echo

    Screenwriter



  • 1,769 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 2008
  • Real Name:Glen
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted June 22 2013 - 03:00 PM

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.

#49 of 121 OFFLINE   Bryan Tuck

Bryan Tuck

    Screenwriter



  • 1,556 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2002

Posted June 23 2013 - 12:06 AM

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.


Edited by Bryan Tuck, June 23 2013 - 12:07 AM.

"Flying a plane is no different from riding a bicycle; it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."

#50 of 121 OFFLINE   Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer



  • 5,369 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted June 23 2013 - 06:18 PM

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! :lol:

 

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 $$$...


Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#51 of 121 OFFLINE   Vincent_P

Vincent_P

    Screenwriter



  • 1,774 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2003

Posted June 24 2013 - 08:52 PM

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



#52 of 121 OFFLINE   Lord Dalek

Lord Dalek

    Screenwriter



  • 2,236 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2005

Posted June 25 2013 - 05:43 AM

 

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).



#53 of 121 OFFLINE   ahollis

ahollis

    Producer



  • 5,979 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2007
  • Real Name:Allen
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted July 04 2013 - 12:12 PM

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

Attached Images

  • ImageUploadedByHome Theater Forum1372968683.670266.jpg

Edited by ahollis, July 04 2013 - 07:49 PM.

"Get a director and a writer and leave them alone. That`s how the best pictures get made" - William "Wild Bill" Wellman


#54 of 121 OFFLINE   ahollis

ahollis

    Producer



  • 5,979 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2007
  • Real Name:Allen
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted July 04 2013 - 07:48 PM

ImageUploadedByHome Theater Forum1372995960.100945.jpg 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.
"Get a director and a writer and leave them alone. That`s how the best pictures get made" - William "Wild Bill" Wellman


#55 of 121 OFFLINE   Ken Volok

Ken Volok

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 145 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 27 2012
  • Real Name:Ken Volok

Posted July 04 2013 - 11:21 PM

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.



#56 of 121 OFFLINE   Charles Smith

Charles Smith

    Extremely Talented Member



  • 4,424 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2007
  • LocationNor'east

Posted July 05 2013 - 04:50 AM

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

#57 of 121 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 25,703 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted July 05 2013 - 04:59 AM

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.

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#58 of 121 OFFLINE   ahollis

ahollis

    Producer



  • 5,979 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2007
  • Real Name:Allen
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted July 05 2013 - 07:42 AM

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

I know they will not load from an iPad. Sorry.
"Get a director and a writer and leave them alone. That`s how the best pictures get made" - William "Wild Bill" Wellman


#59 of 121 OFFLINE   Lord Dalek

Lord Dalek

    Screenwriter



  • 2,236 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2005

Posted July 05 2013 - 02:41 PM

Since modern technology hates Hollis apparantly...

 

Posted Image

 

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.



#60 of 121 OFFLINE   darkrock17

darkrock17

    Supporting Actor



  • 830 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2007
  • Real Name:Andrew McClure
  • LocationAlexandria, VA

Posted July 05 2013 - 04:01 PM

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.







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users