or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Exorcist 40th Anniversary Blu-Ray In October!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Exorcist 40th Anniversary Blu-Ray In October! - Page 2

post #31 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post

But I'm reading conflicting feedback regarding Exorcist's 40th Anniversary edition -- some say the video transfer seems to "breathe" a bit better with slightly improved detail, depth, dimension and so forth while others are saying it's pretty much the same transfer as the last release...

Whoever told you that is a fool. Discs 1 and 2 are literally the same discs as before, unchanged in any way. The only differences are the packaging and a new third disc of additional bonus features.
Quote:
For what it's worth, I'm in the camp of those that feel the film can actually do with a little remastering and cleaning-up in the video department; untl we get a new master or improved encode, I don't see the point in buying this yet again in high definition...

It's a grainy movie. It was photographed that way. The only way to get rid of the grain would be to smother it out with Digital Noise Reduction, which will also remove picture detail and leave the whole thing looking like the hideous "Ultimate Hunter Edition" of Predator.
post #32 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Whoever told you that is a fool. Discs 1 and 2 are literally the same discs as before, unchanged in any way. The only differences are the packaging and a new third disc of additional bonus features.

I actually read that via an online review portal, much like the one you write for, High Def Digest; the author had stated he felt as if something simply looked better in this new release as compared to the digibook edition...I'll try to dig the site up if I can remember where I read it...

But it's good to know that this new edition contains the same discs from the digibook release, meaning because I don't want the extras that have been included (as comprehensive as they seem) I don't have to go ahead and double dip here...
Quote:
It's a grainy movie. It was photographed that way. The only way to get rid of the grain would be to smother it out with Digital Noise Reduction, which will also remove picture detail and leave the whole thing looking like the hideous "Ultimate Hunter Edition" of Predator.

The first release of Predator on Blu-ray remains one of the most notorious titles for "bad picture quality" in the history of the format's launch, whether they're catalog titles or new blockbuster releases -- is this "Ultimate Hunter Edition" the second subsequent release? I am actually in that camp of those that prefer a bit of noise smoothing to get rid of heavy dollops of grain at the expense of some detail, as crazy as that sounds...I actually read your Home Theater Magazine review (I do some reviewing myself) of that trilogy of Kubrick films that came out on Blu and noted your comments about Clockwork Orange and how this newer release, even though the film had shown at the Cannes Film Festival recently sporting a new high definition master, was "unfortunately" based on the older, dated master from the title's first release on Blu-ray (the one with the default lossy Dolby Digital track and PCM options, no Master Audio, the version which I personally own). I agree with some of what you said in that review, though I didn't think the "digital tampering" of the image to remove some noise and such was distracting at all, and I actually liked the pumped up, more contrast-y look Warner gave that release...

As for The Exorcist, I am aware this is a grainy, noisy piece of original film material -- Friedkin's film stocks were often times overrun with these kinds of "abnormalities" as I like to call them for this title, and the resulting grain-ridden frames are all over the place in this film...the sequence in which the priest is walking to the church with the flowers (which is bathed in a twitchy coating of video noise/grain), the aforementioned sequence in Karras' mother's apartment (this sequence, in the blacks department, looked atrocious on every DVD version and looks just as horrible on the Blu-ray with flashing, macroblocking blacks and unstable video noise littering the background of the sequence even in the shadows) and some elements during the final exorcism set. Where the transfer really strutted its stuff, on the DVD AND Blu-ray, was in the opening Iraq sequence when the camera closes up on Max Von Sydow's face and hands...actually, that whole sequence is riddled with incredible detail and texture, especially given that this is a film as old as I am. eek.gif

That being said, I am unfortunately one of those home theater enthusiasts that you would like to tie to a stake and beat to death with a steel crucifix because I happen to prefer a smoother, more grain-free look to film -- that's why I said I was in the (minority) camp of those Exorcist fans that feel the whole master could use a good scrubbing and reminting from top to bottom...and THAT I would replace my digibook edition for...wink.gif
post #33 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post

The first release of Predator on Blu-ray remains one of the most notorious titles for "bad picture quality" in the history of the format's launch, whether they're catalog titles or new blockbuster releases -- is this "Ultimate Hunter Edition" the second subsequent release? I am actually in that camp of those that prefer a bit of noise smoothing to get rid of heavy dollops of grain at the expense of some detail, as crazy as that sounds.

UHE is not a bit of smoothing, the faces appear to be melting and a ton of detail is lost. Be prepared in any forum to be laughed at suggesting UHE is better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post

As for The Exorcist, I am aware this is a grainy, noisy piece of original film material -- Friedkin's film stocks were often times overrun with these kinds of "abnormalities" as I like to call them for this title, and the resulting grain-ridden frames are all over the place in this film..

If you got such a hate-on for film grain just turn on your TV's smoothing 'feature' to max or if that's not enough buy a darbee and crank it to 11. Believe it or not baked in dnr transfers cannot be turned off. I guess this can be argued back and forth but from what I can tell thick dnr BDs tend to be thrown in the bargain bin faster then the 'grainy' BDs so I suspect there is more demand for a BD that look like films instead of video like you are demanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post

That being said, I am unfortunately one of those home theater enthusiasts that you would like to tie to a stake and beat to death with a steel crucifix because I happen to prefer a smoother, more grain-free look to film

Nah, you are clearly possessed by Satan and just in need of a long exorcism and then a little Clockwork Orange.
Edited by wuther - 10/20/13 at 2:45pm
post #34 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

UHE is not a bit of smoothing, the faces appear to be melting and a ton of detail is lost. Be prepared in any forum to be laughed at suggesting UHE is better.

I didn't SAY it was better -- I was asking if the Ultimate Hunter Edition was the subsequent followup to the first release of this title, which is decidingly known as one of the most piss-poor BD releases ever put to the format.
Quote:
If you got such a hate-on for film grain just turn on your TV's smoothing 'feature' to max or if that's not enough buy a darbee and crank it to 11. Believe it or not baked in dnr transfers cannot be turned off. I guess this can be argued back and forth but from what I can tell thick dnr BDs tend to be thrown in the bargain bin faster then the 'grainy' BDs so I suspect there is more demand for a BD that look like film instead of video.

I really don't have any idea what you're talking about with regard to certain "DNR endowed" Blu-rays being "mixed in a bargain bin with other versions" or whatever it is you're trying to say here, but with regard to the film grain comment I DO have my TV's noise reduction on LOW with my Blu-ray player's noise reduction setting adjusted according to Oppo's suggestion of what should be used before loss of detail would be introduced on my particular model (the BDP-83 as it were)...AND my display's Sharpness setting HAS been adjusted via the Spears & Munsil setup disc (BD) correctly (using the pattern test) so I am dialed in for maximum detail without extra ringing/edge enhancement...still, I just prefer films that aren't overtly grainy in nature.

Just as an FYI: Most of the "film grain noise" or "ISO camera sensor noise" issues that pop their heads up on some Blu-ray transfers can't get "DNR'ed" out via a player's noise reduction algorithm (unless the player sports overtly powerful NR abilities)...settings such as Sharpness on a display control the amount of "noise" or "grain" one would see in a transfer much like the "Treble" control on a stereo controls hiss and noise.
post #35 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

If you got such a hate-on for film grain just turn on your TV's smoothing 'feature' to max or if that's not enough buy a darbee and crank it to 11.

Darbee is not a noise reduction feature. If anything, Darbee processing will make the grain in an image stand out more.







(I don't expect Wuther to have any idea what he's talking about. I post this info so that other readers won't be misled by his rantings.)
post #36 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

[quote name="wuther" url="/t/1478163/the-exorcist-40th-anniversary-blu-ray-in-october/30#post_23857987"]If you got such a hate-on for film grain just turn on your TV's smoothing 'feature' to max or if that's not enough buy a darbee and crank it to 11. [/quote]Darbee is not a noise reduction feature. If anything, Darbee processing will make the grain in an image stand out more.[SIZE=2](I don't expect Wuther to have any idea what he's talking about. I post this info so that other readers won't be misled by his rantings.)[/SIZE]

Either way, a Darbee wrecks the image.
Reference isn't preference.
post #37 of 78
This is not a Darbee thread. If you wish to learn more about Darbee, there is much information about it in the Video Processors forum that will disabuse you of your ignorance.
post #38 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

Either way, a Darbee wrecks the image.
Reference isn't preference.

No point bothering with darbee defenders.
post #39 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

Either way, a Darbee wrecks the image.
Reference isn't preference.

Nice, I have a Darby in my system and can't seem to find a use for it.

Art
post #40 of 78
Anyone care to elaborate on this "Darbee" or "Darby" phenomenon and how it relates to the subject of noise reduction?
post #41 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post

Anyone care to elaborate on this "Darbee" or "Darby" phenomenon and how it relates to the subject of noise reduction?
Darbee is image-processing software/hardware that some higher-end home theater products are now coming with. Here is their website, I didn't realize the founder of the technology apparently passed away last month:

http://darbeevision.com/
post #42 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger View Post

Darbee is image-processing software/hardware that some higher-end home theater products are now coming with. Here is their website, I didn't realize the founder of the technology apparently passed away last month:

http://darbeevision.com/

Thank you, Phantom!
post #43 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post

Anyone care to elaborate on this "Darbee" or "Darby" phenomenon and how it relates to the subject of noise reduction?

Darbee has nothing to do with noise reduction. Darbee processing will not reduce noise. It is a detail enhancement process.

There is a ton of info on Darbee in the Video Processors forum:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1399154/darbee-vision-darblet

Let's please not derail this thread any further. Darbee haters have a tendency to turn absolutely psychotic in their evangelism that you should never ever ever use any sort of video processing on anything, under any circumstances, ever, no matter what. These arguments are tiring.

If what you're looking for is noise reduction, Darbee is not the tool for you anyway. It should never have been brought up in this thread.
post #44 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Darbee has nothing to do with noise reduction. Darbee processing will not reduce noise. It is a detail enhancement process.

There is a ton of info on Darbee in the Video Processors forum:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1399154/darbee-vision-darblet

Let's please not derail this thread any further. Darbee haters have a tendency to turn absolutely psychotic in their evangelism that you should never ever ever use any sort of video processing on anything, under any circumstances, ever, no matter what. These arguments are tiring.

If what you're looking for is noise reduction, Darbee is not the tool for you anyway. It should never have been brought up in this thread.

Jesus Christ on a saltine cracker, man...calm down...

You're not even a moderator and you keep throwing around these comments about enlightening people's ignorance and continuously telling us it "wasn't the thread" for this...

Okay, I got it; I was merely asking because I saw it being discussed in a number of posts. I was merely thanking Phantom for the reply.

This isn't the end of the world as we know it...rolleyes.gif
post #45 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelliVolume View Post

Jesus Christ on a saltine cracker, man...calm down...

You're not even a moderator and you keep throwing around these comments about enlightening people's ignorance and continuously telling us it "wasn't the thread" for this...

Okay, I got it; I was merely asking because I saw it being discussed in a number of posts. I was merely thanking Phantom for the reply.

This isn't the end of the world as we know it...rolleyes.gif

For what it's worth, my comment was not really directed at you.
post #46 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

[quote name="IntelliVolume" url="/t/1478163/the-exorcist-40th-anniversary-blu-ray-in-october/30#post_23864319"]Anyone care to elaborate on this "Darbee" or "Darby" phenomenon and how it relates to the subject of noise reduction?[/quote]Darbee has nothing to do with noise reduction. Darbee processing [b]will not[/b] reduce noise. It is a detail enhancement process. There is a ton of info on Darbee in the Video Processors forum:http://www.avsforum.com/t/1399154/darbee-vision-darbletLet's please not derail this thread any further. Darbee haters have a tendency to turn absolutely psychotic in their evangelism that you should never ever ever use any sort of video processing on anything, under any circumstances, ever, no matter what. These arguments are tiring.If what you're looking for is noise reduction, Darbee is not the tool for you anyway. It should never have been brought up in this thread.



"Detail enhancement"

Contrast and edge boosting.
post #47 of 78
Also there aren't any "Darbee haters",
Just people who point out people who're shilling Darbee.


Which is a scam like the upgrade company.
post #48 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

Also there aren't any "Darbee haters",
Just people who point out people who're shilling Darbee.


Which is a scam like the upgrade company.

You might want to post in the Darbee thread Josh Z conveniently linked above since they are users of the product. I'd be curious to see what they say about your technical findings with it. Also please call out "shillers".
post #49 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJPete View Post

[quote name="Fanboyz" url="/t/1478163/the-exorcist-40th-anniversary-blu-ray-in-october/30#post_23868361"]Also there aren't any "Darbee haters",Just people who point out people who're shilling Darbee.Which is a scam like the upgrade company.[/quote]You might want to post in the Darbee thread Josh Z conveniently linked above since they are users of the product. I'd be curious to see what they say about your technical findings with it. Also please call out "shillers".



No saving them.
post #50 of 78
The Exorcist is going to be playing at my local drive-in theatre Halloween night! They are now digital, so it will be interesting to see how it looks!
post #51 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

The Exorcist is going to be playing at my local drive-in theatre Halloween night! They are now digital, so it will be interesting to see how it looks!

If it's digital, it will probably be a DCP based on the same master as the Blu-ray. Any idea if it's the original cut or Director's "Version You've Never Seen" Cut?
post #52 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If it's digital, it will probably be a DCP based on the same master as the Blu-ray. Any idea if it's the original cut or Director's "Version You've Never Seen" Cut?

I don't know. However I do know I'll be checking it out as part of this classic horror triple feature;

*


Regardless of the order the titles are shown on the poster, "The Exorcist" will be the first to start, ending with "The Shining."


Personally, I do not know what the different cuts are. I first saw the movie on TV in 1979. Since then, I saw the version on home video with the walking upside down scene put back in. Maybe that's the director's cut?


In any case, is there a version I've never seen cut? What would that be?
post #53 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

Personally, I do not know what the different cuts are. I first saw the movie on TV in 1979. Since then, I saw the version on home video with the walking upside down scene put back in. Maybe that's the director's cut?

In any case, is there a version I've never seen cut? What would that be?

There are two versions of the movie. The original cut was 122 minutes long when it played in theaters in 1973. It did not have the "spider-walk" sequence you mention.

In 2000, the movie was re-released to theaters in a new 132-minute cut called "The Version You've Never Seen." That was a stupid title that seemed even more nonsensical when that version was released to DVD, after people had already... you know... seen it. For the Blu-ray release in 2010, "The Version You've Never Seen" was renamed the "Extended Director's Cut." Other than the name, they're the same thing.

Among the changes in the extended cut are the addition of the spider-walk scene, some random CGI images of the demon Pazuzu's face that pop up in random parts of the screen (it's superimposed over a stove in one scene for no reason), and a silly epilogue in which Lt. Kinderman and Father Dyer chat about movies and walk off into the sunset together.

The extended cut is kind of awful. It was created primarily at the insistence of author William Peter Blatty, who'd never been happy with the film. He's the type of writer who's very possessive of the sanctity of every last one of his precious words, and was extremely upset that director William Friedkin had cut some of them out from the screenplay Blatty wrote. The two men actually didn't speak for a couple of decades because of this argument. When it was released, Friedkin initially claimed that he'd only put the extended cut together as a way to humor Blatty and mend fences, but that he still preferred the theatrical cut. He called the longer version a "writer's cut." However, by the time the Blu-ray was released, Friedkin changed his tune. He now says that he's been won over by Blatty, and also prefers the extended version. That's why he allowed it to be renamed the "Director's Cut."

I don't know of too many people who agree with either William Friedkin or William Peter Blatty about this. Pretty much everyone else who's seen them both will agree that the theatrical cut is far better than the extended cut.
post #54 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

For what it's worth, my comment was not really directed at you.

Fair enough; back to Exorcist commentary! smile.gif
post #55 of 78
Josh is correct regarding the creative differences that plagued and haunted -- appropriately so -- Friedkin and Blatty for the release(s) of this film. Blatty knew what he wanted to convey through the book and Friedkin, as will happen in Hollywood, altered some of the narrative for dramatic purpose...what they agreed to, along with Warner Bros. and some Morgan Creek execs, was what we saw in theaters in 2000 called "The Version You've Never Seen" which is now called the "Director's Cut." All the elements Josh outlined were in that cut -- along with some "digitally restored" visuals and a rousing, rather aggressive Dolby EX mix on the DVD release. I saw The Version You've Never Seen twice during its theatrical release and bought Warner's snapper case DVD when it came out and I am -- wait for it -- one of those diehard fans who actually like the extended version.

While the original version as delivered by Friedkin is definitely taut, tight and creepy in its execution of mood, vibe and atmosphere, I don't really think the "extended" version "ruins" this at all, as many fans argue -- sure, the spider walk sequence was kinda cheesy and probably should have remained on the cutting room floor (you can TOTALLY tell this wasn't Blair during the "blood from the mouth" moment) but the overtones of the brooding, haunting music that lies in the background during certain key scenes (such as when Karras and Kinderman are walking along the edge of the Georgetown campus tennis courts discussing Dennings' murder and when Chris finds the crucifix in Reagan's freezing bedroom) I think worked as well as some of the CGI-enhanced "demonic flashing" moments. The extended conclusion of the Director's Cut that portrays Kinderman and Dyer walking off to lunch I think better braces their friendship, explored in Exorcist III even though it makes the film seem a bit too long and tiring, while the somewhat "extended" opening sequence showing the Georgetown townhouse and the statue didn't really add much of anything IMO.

Still, the Extended Director's Cut on DVD truly wowed me with its reworked Dolby EX track and incredibly sharp and detailed video transfer -- the audio in particular I truly enjoyed, what with its wildly aggressive surround support cues in moments such as the opening Iraq dig sequence (which is buzzing and bustling with voices all over the soundstage), the screaming of "MERRRRRRRRRINNNN!!!!" by Pazuzu before the end exorcism sequence which bellows from the right surround channel, the incredible atmosphere created in the bar sequence in which Karras talks to "Father Tom" about losing his faith and the Allman Brothers' "Ramblin' Man" along with the chaos of Georgetown students fill the rear channels...incredible work IMO. Now, don't get me wrong -- I totally respect purists and the purist approach of the audio scheme used on the Theatrical Version of the film, but after sitting through the reworked Dolby EX track on the DVD -- which was subsequently "carried over," essentially, for the digibook Blu-ray's DTS-HD Master Audio track because they sound identical to me -- I find the audio on the theatrical cut somewhat lacking and "un-involving." eek.gif
Edited by IntelliVolume - 10/27/13 at 9:16pm
post #56 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

There are two versions of the movie. The original cut was 122 minutes long when it played in theaters in 1973. It did not have the "spider-walk" sequence you mention.

Thanks for all the details. The version I saw at the drive-in was the extended cut. It had the spider walk sequence along with a few flashes of the face popping up (I only saw that happen two times) along with the extra part at the end with the movie talk. The first time I saw the demon face was near the start of the movie around a darkened fireplace and it only lasted a second. I wasn't sure what I was seeing though I thought it had to be intentional and I thought it was some sort of demon like face. I also remember thinking that particular effect was pretty interesting to have been put in during 1973. However from your comments, I now know that special effect was a much more recent "simple" digital effect. Interesting.

The quality of the image seemed to be a just a little bit soft to me when compared to the current movies I see at the drive-in; though detailed enough. Of course it's not going to look like today's film stock, however there's more than enough resolution from the original elements to produce a very nice image. The softness could have came from too much digital scrubbing (I tried looking for film grain and saw very little) to the fact I was watching the movie on a 2k projector (and the fact I was watching it through my windshield.) There were times I would pop my head out to see the slightly brighter (and more color correct) image as my windshield produces a slight cooling (bluish) effect. The slight cooling effect would not be noticed by most, though it is something I am aware of. This makes me wonder if different car brands have windshields without any color distortion at all. (I go to the drive-in a lot.)

When comparing "Nightmare On Elm Street" (1984) with "The Exorcist" (1973,) overall contrast and color saturation are both higher on the 1984 movie; a situation that contributes to The Exorcist's softer look. "The Shinning" (1980) I felt had the best overall image that night with the right amount of color (looking very much like the film stock of that era) and detail. Nightmare On Elm Street's color was also good, though hard to judge since much of the dream sequences colors were boosted adding to the fantasy effect of Krueger's world along with the boosted color contrast of the day shots when everything seemed to be ok in the "real world" even though it was really a dream sequence.) On the other hand, most of "Nightmare's" day shots looked really good (pretty much a film like look.)

Because of the digital projection system used by the drive-in, all three of these movies never looked better at any drive-in nor possibly some indoor movie houses back in the day, since I can mostly assume the digital sources are direct copies of the negatives, not the 3rd or 4th generation copies theatres would have originally shown.
post #57 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

Thanks for all the details. The version I saw at the drive-in was the extended cut. It had the spider walk sequence along with a few flashes of the face popping up (I only saw that happen two times) along with the extra part at the end with the movie talk. The first time I saw the demon face was near the start of the movie around a darkened fireplace and it only lasted a second. I wasn't sure what I was seeing though I thought it had to be intentional and I thought it was some sort of demon like face. I also remember thinking that particular effect was pretty interesting to have been put in during 1973. However from your comments, I now know that special effect was a much more recent "simple" digital effect. Interesting.

The quality of the image seemed to be a just a little bit soft to me when compared to the current movies I see at the drive-in; though detailed enough. Of course it's not going to look like today's film stock, however there's more than enough resolution from the original elements to produce a very nice image. The softness could have came from too much digital scrubbing (I tried looking for film grain and saw very little) to the fact I was watching the movie on a 2k projector (and the fact I was watching it through my windshield.) There were times I would pop my head out to see the slightly brighter (and more color correct) image as my windshield produces a slight cooling (bluish) effect. The slight cooling effect would not be noticed by most, though it is something I am aware of. This makes me wonder if different car brands have windshields without any color distortion at all. (I go to the drive-in a lot.)

When comparing "Nightmare On Elm Street" (1984) with "The Exorcist" (1973,) overall contrast and color saturation are both higher on the 1984 movie; a situation that contributes to The Exorcist's softer look. "The Shinning" (1980) I felt had the best overall image that night with the right amount of color (looking very much like the film stock of that era) and detail. Nightmare On Elm Street's color was also good, though hard to judge since much of the dream sequences colors were boosted adding to the fantasy effect of Krueger's world along with the boosted color contrast of the day shots when everything seemed to be ok in the "real world" even though it was really a dream sequence.) On the other hand, most of "Nightmare's" day shots looked really good (pretty much a film like look.)

Because of the digital projection system used by the drive-in, all three of these movies never looked better at any drive-in nor possibly some indoor movie houses back in the day, since I can mostly assume the digital sources are direct copies of the negatives, not the 3rd or 4th generation copies theatres would have originally shown.

Interestingly, the now-infamous spider walk sequence actually originally "happened" a different way -- Linda Blair was supposed to come down the steps with her normal face on but sticking out a long, serpent-like tongue which she eventually "bites" Ellen Burstyn's leg with, causing her to scream and thus the sequence segments into the "hypnotist/grabbing testicles" clip...this scene, as originally conceived, was actually much creepier than the CGI-coated "quasi-mess" we got in the "Version You've Never Seen" and is discussed in length in one of the documentaries on one of the discs, of which I cannot recall right now...

Also interesting to note is that on the first Blu-ray release of The Exorcist by Warner (the "digibook" package), at least one of the "demonic CGI additions" on the Director's Cut has been removed -- specifically in the sequence in which Chris (Burstyn) finds the crucifix in Reagan's room and when she walks out, we see the Pazuzu statue superimposed on the wall next to the bedroom door...in this scene on the first Blu-ray, the demonic statue image has been removed even though the additional subtle brooding score in the background remains; curiously, no other images from this "re-released" version, as far as I can remember, were touched...
post #58 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

The quality of the image seemed to be a just a little bit soft to me when compared to the current movies I see at the drive-in; though detailed enough. Of course it's not going to look like today's film stock, however there's more than enough resolution from the original elements to produce a very nice image. The softness could have came from too much digital scrubbing (I tried looking for film grain and saw very little) to the fact I was watching the movie on a 2k projector (and the fact I was watching it through my windshield.)

The Exorcist has always had pretty erratic photography, even for its day. Within any given scene, one shot may look sharp and detailed while the following shot will be very soft and grainy. Some of this may have been due to production circumstances (especially in the outdoor Iraq scenes), but some of it may have been due to William Friedkin's desire to give the movie a "documentary-like" feeling. He'd just come off The French Connection, where that type of rough and gritty style had been very effective.
post #59 of 78
For me the Extended version, which I saw in a theater on a large screen, was fantastic to watch and only failed to work at the every end, which was just drawn out and pointless. Those tacked on character moments were pointless. The film was over and needed to be over. If I could have a film with all of the Extended stuff, minus that extended epilogue, I would be a happy camper.

I've not purchased any Blu-Ray for this film yet.

By the way... The Exorcist II is one of the most F'd up films I have ever seen. Truly insanely bad on so many levels, but with an obvious mega budget (for the time). Certainly worth seeing once.

I love the trailer for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFspymGVZLY
Edited by Matt_Stevens - 10/28/13 at 4:00pm
post #60 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

For me the Extended version, which I saw in a theater on a large screen, was fantastic to watch and only failed to work at the every end, which was just drawn out and pointless. Those tacked on character moments were pointless. The film was over and needed to be over. If I could have a film with all of the Extended stuff, minus that extended epilogue, I would be a happy camper.

I agree to an extent, Matt; though, as I pointed out, the friendship suggested by the epilogue between Kinderman and Dyer was essential to explaining their unbreakable kinship in Exorcist III (though the character development and "aging" process as exuded by the roles played by George C. Scott and Ed Flanders for the third film were a bit ridiculous compared to their counterparts in the first film...I mean, Scott as Kinderman in the third film looked YOUNGER than Kinderman did being played by Lee J. Cobb in the first...and this was some 15 years later! Suddenly, Kinderman has a whole head of hair!?!?).

Most of the time, these "added and restored" scenes on so-called "Special Edition" or 'Director's Cut" DVDs and Blu-rays add up to nothing more than fluff that does nothing for the film save for lining the studio execs' pockets with cash on the subsequent triple-dipping they know fans will indulge in; I can recall buying the Crimson Tide Extended Director's Cut DVD that was supposed to add dramatic character development edges and the like when all it added was a few dumb scenes including one in which "Cobb" watches "Hunter" shave in his cabin before going off to stuff their faces in the mess...actually, to me, this scene TOOK AWAY from the film's narrative because in the original cut, Cobb hates Hunter and actually curses at him during the "mutiny" but in the context of the added scene in the new DVD, it seems Hunter and Cobb are very friendly and there's no need for Cobb to go off the handle like he does when Hunter takes over the sub...it just doesn't make sense...

The little bit of "intro footage" on The Exorcist's Extended Director's Version in which the townhouse is highlighted as a couple walks down the street and we get a glimpse of a religious statue was pointless in my opinion and added nothing; though some scenes such as the discussion between Karras and Merrin in the middle of the exorcism on the steps was somewhat effective, as they talk about why Reagan was "chosen" for possession by Pazuzu, the Iraqi demon, and such...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Exorcist 40th Anniversary Blu-Ray In October!