UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - The Exorcist -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Kyle_D]

Those comparisons are more representative of the disc than the shots posted earlier in the thread, but VLC's tonemapping algorithm is still substantially dimming and compressing the dynamic range of the image (especially in the shadows) compared to the native HDR. The image is not that dark in native HDR playback, and the hues are not quite as deep. Brightness of the UHD is actually much closer to the blu-ray capture.

I agree 100% that the new grade is more revealing of the latex in the make-up, which might be perceived as a “plastic” look. On my 4K OLED, you can clearly see the seams between Linda Blair’s skin and the latex scar pieces when that image is paused.

 

[cda1143]

Those comparisons are more representative of the disc than the shots posted earlier in the thread, but VLC's tonemapping algorithm is still substantially dimming and compressing the dynamic range of the image (especially in the shadows) compared to the native HDR. The image is not that dark in native HDR playback, and the hues are not quite as deep. Brightness of the UHD is actually much closer to the blu-ray capture.

I agree 100% that the new grade is more revealing of the latex in the make-up, which might be perceived as a “plastic” look. On my 4K OLED, you can clearly see the seams between Linda Blair’s skin and the latex scar pieces when that image is paused.

Thanks for these balanced and constructive observations. Very nice description of the change in look. I would like to clarify or emphasize, that regarding the visibility of seams between makeup and skin, this is clearly visible only when the film is paused - at least that’s been my observation.

 

[Kyle_D]

Thanks for these balanced and constructive observations. Very nice description of the change in look. I would like to clarify or emphasize, that regarding the visibility of seams between makeup and skin, this is clearly visible only when the film is paused - at least that’s been my observation.

I agree the seams on Reagan's demon make-up don't become obvious until the image is paused. The old age make-up on Merrin, though, occasionally calls attention to itself even in motion; it's a little too shiny/reflective compared to real skin.

 

[Christian D66]

I cannot imagine caring what logo comes before a movie.

Then you're not as much of a film fan as many. This is part of the film's history and its preservation.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Then you're not as much of a film fan as many. This is part of the film's history and its preservation.

I don't know about that.

How much does one really have to care about that aspect of film history to be a real "film fan"? I can certainly understand if a particular logo is very specific/unique to a particular film (or handful related films), but if it's essentially a pretty generic, perhaps particularly bland, logo that's used across a sizable number of (essentially unrelated) films produced (by a given studio) during a given era or the like, that seems more film nostalgia/trivia territory, even though I do understand (to a fair degree) a desire to preserve/appreciate such, but don't know that should be used for any kind of "litmus test" for film fandom (that I'd really care to belong anyway )...

FWIW, I'm not saying I don't care at all, but it's probably one of the very last things I'd care about -- there are usually much (much!) bigger fish to fry me thinks...

_Man_

 

[Christian D66]

Not the most sterling example but the changing of the old WB logo from the TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE to the new boring one destroys the CCR opening chord vibe of "Midnight Special." And the Kubrick WB logo on A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is timed to the music. WB Batman films also play with logos. Filmmakers do actually use the logo as part of the presentation so replacing them is altering the movie.

The DC of THE EXORCIST is awful except for the one stairway scene. Those pop-up Pazzuzos were laugh-inducing in the Egyptian theater on opening night re-release.

 

[Malcolm R]

If the logo is actually incorporated into the opening of the film (like a number of Warner or Paramount productions), I can see the need to keep it. But it wouldn't bother me much if they were just to get rid of the generic studio logos that open a film. Some modern films seemingly have a never-ending string of production studio logos before the film begins.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Not the most sterling example but the changing of the old WB logo from the TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE to the new boring one destroys the CCR opening chord vibe of "Midnight Special." And the Kubrick WB logo on A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is timed to the music. WB Batman films also play with logos. Filmmakers do actually use the logo as part of the presentation so replacing them is altering the movie.

Yes, I agree some cases do significantly integrate the logo into the film's intro (and are therefore more than what one might normally see/think of fairly generic logos that are essentially tacked on before the film begins) whereas most don't really though...

_Man_

 

[Stephen_J_H]

If the logo is actually incorporated into the opening of the film (like a number of Warner or Paramount productions), I can see the need to keep it. But it wouldn't bother me much if they were just to get rid of the generic studio logos that open a film. Some modern films seemingly have a never-ending string of production studio logos before the film begins.

Indies and foreign films are the worst for multiple logos.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Then you're not as much of a film fan as many. This is part of the film's history and its preservation.

Stop with the film fan accusations! We don't allow such posts here.

 

[jayembee]

Indies and foreign films are the worst for multiple logos.

I think that's because they need a bucketload of financiers to get the films made.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Stop with the film fan accusations! We don't allow such posts here.

Agreed. Gatekeepers need not apply.

 

[Patrick McCart]

While I can't say I'd turn down a release over logos, I do think including originals is important, just like original mixes. I get contractual reasons, but it seems pointless when it's the same studio.

 

[sbjork]

Well, this discussion took a turn...

I'll freely admit that I have nostalgic feelings about many specific logos, but none of that is directly connected to any particular film. The only way that it matters is if there's some kind of connection to the body of the film, like the aforementioned WB titles, but the one that really springs to mind for me is the vintage Paramount and WB logos that David Fincher used at the beginning of Zodiac. Those were intended to help create the illusion of a film from that period.

The Exorcist doesn't fall into that category. Everyone is free to spend their own money as they will, but that just doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on.

 

[jayembee]

Everyone is free to spend their own money as they will, but that just doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on.

It doesn't seem like anyone is claiming that they're willing to die on this particular hill. They're just expressing their feeling that the original studio card is part of the movie. I, for example, would get annoyed when watching a United Artists film from, say, the 1970s, with a master created by MGM, start off with the (usually modern day) Leo the Lion card, and then a spiffy new UA card complete with URL. But I don't take it back to the store and demand my money back, or refuse to buy any further UA releases because of it. It's an annoyance, but not a deal-breaker.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Whereas Friedkin and FFC changed their movies in ways they'd openly opposed in the past.

And as I noted, WF had argued against the "Blatty ending" very shortly before he used it!

To be fair, when the extended version first came out in 2000, Friedkin still maintained that the original cut was his preferred version. It wasn't until the Blu-ray release in 2010 that it officially became known as the "Extended Director's Cut."

That said, I strongly prefer the original 1973 cut. The extended ending is especially disastrous, IMO. As others have noted, that scene works in the book mainly because Kinderman was a bigger character. But onscreen, it just kills the atmosphere for me. It's over; we don't need to hang around listening to them talk about catching a movie together.

 

[sbjork]

It doesn't seem like anyone is claiming that they're willing to die on this particular hill. They're just expressing their feeling that the original studio card is part of the movie. I, for example, would get annoyed when watching a United Artists film from, say, the 1970s, with a master created by MGM, start off with the (usually modern day) Leo the Lion card, and then a spiffy new UA card complete with URL. But I don't take it back to the store and demand my money back, or refuse to buy any further UA releases because of it. It's an annoyance, but not a deal-breaker.

There were some pretty strong statements about it earlier in the thread, from saying that having the wrong logo stopped you in your tracks before the movie even began, to using it as an example of how WB botched this release. That seems like going pretty far up the hill to me, but your mileage may vary. I agree that in a perfect world, the original logos should always be used, at least if they can (and when rights change, that may not be an option). But it still seems extreme to me to say that it affects the movie in any way. That's just me, though.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Look what showed up yesterday from across the pond:

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Look what showed up yesterday from across the pond:

View attachment 199865

Congrats!

I am waiting for the title to come back in stock in the U.K. and then I am ordering it...that is unless, BestBuy miraculously gets new SteelBook inventory in.

 

[titch]

Look what showed up yesterday from across the pond:

View attachment 199865

Mine is waiting for me back at home. The question I have: does the UK 4K UHD screen menu use the classic cover picture, or have they used the rather ghastly new American cover as the screen menu?