Press Release WHV Press Release: The Exorcist 50th Anniversary Edition (4k UHD Combo) (Blu-ray) (2 Viewers)

[Worth]

Isn't the issue more about streaming content that goes bye-bye?

I don't do downloads or streaming so I don't pay a lot of attention, but I'm under the impression the streaming services delete content at times.

I think subscription streaming needs to be viewed in the same way as cable movie channels - something is available for a while and if you miss it, you miss it. Individual digital purchases are the equivalent of home video, aside from the fact that nothing is stored on a physical object.

 

[Tino]

Isn't the issue more about streaming content that goes bye-bye?

No. This “argument” is different.

There have been some complaints from people in various threads about purchasing physical discs as opposed to digital films due to fear of the studios making those digital films magically “vanish”.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

No. This “argument” is different.

There have been some complaints from people in various threads about purchasing physical discs as opposed to digital films due to fear of the studios making those digital films magically “vanish”.

Okay. Like I said, I don't download anything, so I don't know the way it works.

 

[JoshZ]

Okay. Like I said, I don't download anything, so I don't know the way it works.

Most digital movie purchases are streamed from providers like Vudu, Movies Anywhere, or Apple, not downloaded. Downloads are a minority, as they require a tremendous amount of storage space on the user's end.

There's a distinction between subscription streaming from services like Netflix or Max, in which content comes and goes regularly, vs. streaming purchases, which are more stable and should not be removed from your library unless something catastrophic happens such as the provider going under.

 

[JoshZ]

I'll never cease to feel stunned at people who won't buy a movie they want to own because they don't like the cover art.

A major title like this is guaranteed to re re-released eventually down the road, likely in some new packaging to distinguish it from prior editions, and probably at a lower price point. Unless you're planning to watch the disc immediately, why pay more now for a copy with cover art you don't even like?

 

[Robert Saccone]

Unlikely - the new movie is from Universal, not Warner Brothers....

Good point. Didn’t Realize that. Did Universal have to pay Warners for rights to do the sequel?

 

[WillG]

Unlikely - the new movie is from Universal, not Warner Brothers....

Doesn’t mean that WB can’t piggyback. Might not be the actual reason for the cover art but still

 

[Robert Crawford]

Doesn’t mean that WB can’t piggyback. Might not be the actual reason for the cover art but still

I doubt it! The cover art change was just a bad idea because this iconic Warner movie was always going to be released this year on 4K/UHD to celebrate Warner’s 100th and the film’s 50th Anniversaries.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

A major title like this is guaranteed to re re-released eventually down the road, likely in some new packaging to distinguish it from prior editions, and probably at a lower price point. Unless you're planning to watch the disc immediately, why pay more now for a copy with cover art you don't even like?

For one, I don't know if there's a "guarantee" WB will reissue "Exorcist" 4K down the road in a new package that'll be substantially different.

Can you point to a bunch of catalog WB 4Ks that've been reissued with new art?

But more to the point: the cover art fetish just perplexes me. I mean yeah - we all like attractive covers.

However, I don't watch a cover.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I doubt it! The cover art change was just a bad idea because this iconic Warner movie was always going to be released this year on 4K/UHD to celebrate Warner’s 100th and the film’s 50th Anniversaries.

I think when a movie has had 87 skillion home video releases, studios figure they shouldn't use the same image every time.

WB used the iconic image for the 1990s DVD, the 2000 "Version You've Never Seen" and the 1st BD, but the reissue of "Version" and the 40th BD got new images.

I wouldn't be surprised if the bean counters at WB claimed images like the one on the new 4K would be most appealing to a younger audience and that's why they went with it.

WE all hate it, but to a newer audience, it probably looks more "current" and appealing.

And it does convey what to expect from the movie more than an old due under a lamppost!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Young people always get the blame.

 

[TravisR]

However, I don't watch a cover.

That's exactly why I have no interest in paying any extra for a steelbook. They usually look cool but I'm not paying extra for it.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I'll never cease to feel stunned at people who won't buy a movie they want to own because they don't like the cover art.

Accept it. It happens. A little respect, please for those of us that feel that way.

And for the record, as one of the persons making a huge stink about the artwork, I am not normally a stickler like this when it comes to packaging. But let's face it -- this is bad artwork. But we have already talked about that ad nauseam.

But as has been pointed out already, this is a title that has been released multiple times in multiple revisions. I love the film but not in a hurry to see it again, though the 4k presentation would be appreciated.

There may be other releases and/or stock will either come back on the Best Buy SteelBook or the U.K. release, which by the way, has extras that the U.S. release doesn't. Or, perhaps I'll break down at some point when the disc is selling for $10.

 

[dpippel]

And it does convey what to expect from the movie more than an old due under a lamppost!

Perhaps, but for a film like The Exorcist, it's totally unnecessary. Anyone who DOESN'T have some idea of what to expect from this movie, that's had "87 skillion home video releases" and has been a part of pop culture for decades, is living under a rock and probably not part of the target audience.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Perhaps, but for a film like The Exorcist, it's totally unnecessary. Anyone who DOESN'T have some idea of what to expect from this movie, that's had "87 skillion home video releases" and has been a part of pop culture for decades, is living under a rock and probably not part of the target audience.

There was simply no good reason to mess with the cover art.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Good point. Didn’t Realize that. Did Universal have to pay Warners for rights to do the sequel?

No. Rights on The Exorcist franchise are convoluted. Exorcist I and II are owned by WB. Exorcist III and the subsequent sequels were produced by Morgan Creek, with the theatrical and initial home video release of III handled by Fox and the theatrical and first video releases of Beginning and Dominion handled by WB at the time. Morgan Creek’s library is now controlled by Revolution Studios and largely licenced to Sony, with some early exceptions. The Exorcist: Believer and its planned sequels are being co-produced by Blumhouse and Morgan Creek, with Universal distributing, much like Miramax and Blumhouse co-produced the most recent trilogy of Halloween sequels.

 

[Dave H]

As bad as the cover art is, Warner has been releasing A LOT of bad cover art for a while. I do agree it will eventually be re-released with something else. At least Warner UK gets it with the original art for this release.

 

[PMF]

There was simply no good reason to mess with the cover art.

What could have possessed them?

 

[WillG]

I think when a movie has had 87 skillion home video releases, studios figure they shouldn't use the same image every time.

WB used the iconic image for the 1990s DVD, the 2000 "Version You've Never Seen" and the 1st BD, but the reissue of "Version" and the 40th BD got new images.

I wouldn't be surprised if the bean counters at WB claimed images like the one on the new 4K would be most appealing to a younger audience and that's why they went with it.

WE all hate it, but to a newer audience, it probably looks more "current" and appealing.

And it does convey what to expect from the movie more than an old due under a lamppost!

Could have used the Pazuzu statue for the cover or the image of Merrin facing the statue That could have been cool

 

[JoshZ]

But more to the point: the cover art fetish just perplexes me. I mean yeah - we all like attractive covers.

However, I don't watch a cover.

The disc is going to spend more of its life on my shelf than playing on my screen. I'd prefer it have decent packaging art for that part of the ownership experience.