DNRTFA, but this seems unnecessary.
Like Gus Van Sant's Psycho, or remaking A Streetcar Named Desire as a TV movie starring Treat Williams.


Why the hell would you do that?

They remade The Exorcist like a dozen times in the last few years, they just have different names.

Your mother sucks rocks in Hell!

Mugato: They remade The Exorcist like a dozen times in the last few years, they just have different names.

B-b-b-b-but--fresh! New! Reboot! Reimagined! Better f/x! Better technology!

Have I covered all of the reasons used to try and cover a total lack of originality, humility, and courage?

Sybarite: Your mother sucks rocks in Hell!

Your mother tucks blocks in gel!

The power of Christ unoriginality compels them.

Will it at least include a cameo by Father Jedediah Mayii?

The article isn't entirely clear on whether this is:

1) a remake of the movie
2) a re-adaptation of the novel, or
3) a re-re-telling of the story that "inspired" Blatty to write the novel

#1 would be a waste of time
#2 could be interesting, if the original movie diverted enough from the novel to allow for a different interpretation (think the two Total Recall movies)
#3 wouldn't be much related to 'The Exorcist' at all, and since the mini-series is about a girl and not a boy, unlikely to be the case

But will it have James Earl Jones in a bee suit? NO ONE ANSWERS THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

I hate remakes, but I understand them at least from a visual standpoint. Film is a visual medium and the ability for filmmakers to convey their vision has drastically improved with new filming techniques and technologies.

That said, movies that hold up to current visual standards should under no circumstances be remade. The exorcist falls in this category. It will not benefit from 3D and CGI will do nothing to improve the visuals they were able to accomplish practically.

The power of cash compels them.

Sybarite: Your mother sucks rocks in Hell!

Wrong. It's "Your mother sews socks in Hell."

CPennypacker: I hate remakes, but I understand them at least from a visual standpoint. Film is a visual medium and the ability for filmmakers to convey their vision has drastically improved with new filming techniques and technologies.

That said, movies that hold up to current visual standards should under no circumstances be remade. The exorcist falls in this category. It will not benefit from 3D and CGI will do nothing to improve the visuals they were able to accomplish practically.

parts of it does. parts of it simply don't. i love the exorcist as a film, but let's not pretend it didn't date pretty poorly. let's also not forget that things in the 70's that seemed extreme on film are almost tame today, altho all regan's profanity and blasphemy are still pretty good in the original film.

then there is the crab walk scene. that scene should have been cut, and remained cut because the effect is shiat.

I can understand remakes or reboots after a significant period of time, say 30-40 years. So in this case, it would fall into that range. That said, I don't really see how they could make it better due to modern special effects or the like, some movies hold up over time and The Exorcist is certainly one of them.

My main biatch is that there are plenty of good novels out there that could be made into movies, and it irritates me that Hollywood has spent so much time in recent years playing it safe. Quite frankly, the only way to send them the message to quit being lazy and rehashing the same shiat over and over, is to not buy the ticket. So that's what I'm going to do.

After I see the new Spiderman....

It's going to be a Broadway play as well.

BigMevy: I can understand remakes or reboots after a significant period of time, say 30-40 years. So in this case, it would fall into that range. That said, I don't really see how they could make it better due to modern special effects or the like, some movies hold up over time and The Exorcist is certainly one of them.

My main biatch is that there are plenty of good novels out there that could be made into movies, and it irritates me that Hollywood has spent so much time in recent years playing it safe. Quite frankly, the only way to send them the message to quit being lazy and rehashing the same shiat over and over, is to not buy the ticket. So that's what I'm going to do.

After I see the new Spiderman....

Aside from novels, scripts are often bought with no intention of ever making the film.

They cherrypick the LCD elements they think will make money, trash the rest, and churn out another piece of formulaic crap with a big name.

Good, solid, original scripts are out there. They're just being eviscerated.

There's a reason foreign and independant films are seriously encroaching on the American market.

No, I do not count Eps I-III as true "indie" films, although technically they are.

Annoying.

SweetSilverBlues: BigMevy: I can understand remakes or reboots after a significant period of time, say 30-40 years. So in this case, it would fall into that range. That said, I don't really see how they could make it better due to modern special effects or the like, some movies hold up over time and The Exorcist is certainly one of them.

My main biatch is that there are plenty of good novels out there that could be made into movies, and it irritates me that Hollywood has spent so much time in recent years playing it safe. Quite frankly, the only way to send them the message to quit being lazy and rehashing the same shiat over and over, is to not buy the ticket. So that's what I'm going to do.

After I see the new Spiderman....

Aside from novels, scripts are often bought with no intention of ever making the film.

They cherrypick the LCD elements they think will make money, trash the rest, and churn out another piece of formulaic crap with a big name.

Good, solid, original scripts are out there. They're just being eviscerated.

There's a reason foreign and independent films are seriously encroaching on the American market.

No, I do not count Eps I-III as true "indie" films, although technically they are.

Annoying.

you don't REALLY believe that, do you? because that shiat isn't true.

it worked so well for the shining.

frepnog: SweetSilverBlues: BigMevy: I can understand remakes or reboots after a significant period of time, say 30-40 years. So in this case, it would fall into that range. That said, I don't really see how they could make it better due to modern special effects or the like, some movies hold up over time and The Exorcist is certainly one of them.

My main biatch is that there are plenty of good novels out there that could be made into movies, and it irritates me that Hollywood has spent so much time in recent years playing it safe. Quite frankly, the only way to send them the message to quit being lazy and rehashing the same shiat over and over, is to not buy the ticket. So that's what I'm going to do.

After I see the new Spiderman....

Aside from novels, scripts are often bought with no intention of ever making the film.

They cherrypick the LCD elements they think will make money, trash the rest, and churn out another piece of formulaic crap with a big name.

Good, solid, original scripts are out there. They're just being eviscerated.

There's a reason foreign and independent films are seriously encroaching on the American market.

No, I do not count Eps I-III as true "indie" films, although technically they are.

Annoying.

you don't REALLY believe that, do you? because that shiat isn't true.

Uh, yes, yes it is.

I didn't say it was illegal. They're not stealing scripts and butchering them. They pay a LOT of money, actually.

They own it and can do whatever they want to it.

It's annoying, but not remotely unlawful or even unethical.

frepnog: CPennypacker: I hate remakes, but I understand them at least from a visual standpoint. Film is a visual medium and the ability for filmmakers to convey their vision has drastically improved with new filming techniques and technologies.

That said, movies that hold up to current visual standards should under no circumstances be remade. The exorcist falls in this category. It will not benefit from 3D and CGI will do nothing to improve the visuals they were able to accomplish practically.

parts of it does. parts of it simply don't. i love the exorcist as a film, but let's not pretend it didn't date pretty poorly. let's also not forget that things in the 70's that seemed extreme on film are almost tame today, altho all regan's profanity and blasphemy are still pretty good in the original film.

then there is the crab walk scene. that scene should have been cut, and remained cut because the effect is shiat.

Yes, Regan would have to take them to an alternate dimension or something to get our attention now.

This isn't like remaking a movie like M or The Big Sleep, where it was so long ago some of the context had to be hidden, Exorcist pretty much did what it set out to do.

I'm possessed by evil spirits right now so I am getting a kick . . .

The AV Club has it being directed by Sean Durkin (Martha Marcy May Marlene), and since that movie had me more uncomfortable and on-edge than anything else I saw last year, I think this could be great.

SweetSilverBlues: Mugato: They remade The Exorcist like a dozen times in the last few years, they just have different names.

B-b-b-b-but--fresh! New! Reboot! Reimagined! Better f/x! Better technology!

Have I covered all of the reasons used to try and cover a total lack of originality, humility, and courage?

GRITTY reboot.

Gyrfalcon: SweetSilverBlues: Mugato: They remade The Exorcist like a dozen times in the last few years, they just have different names.

B-b-b-b-but--fresh! New! Reboot! Reimagined! Better f/x! Better technology!

Have I covered all of the reasons used to try and cover a total lack of originality, humility, and courage?

GRITTY reboot.

Oops, yup. Thanks!

I've noticed "topical" and "contemporary" are starting to edge their way in as well.

Apparently Blatty told the BBC's Mark Kermode that he (Blatty) owns the TV rights so who knows WTF this TV adaptation will be based on.

No thanks. I just read the book about two months ago, and the movie stays pretty close to the book; the movie eliminated a few non-factors and stuck to what was relevant. But Hollywood has run out of ideas, and will do anything it can to milk that cash cow. Ugh. I'll stick to the original movie and book, thank you.

By the way, side note, but I thought The Exorcist III was an amazing movie, just for that hallway scene alone (if not for Brad Dourif and George C. Scott's spectacular performances).

drongozone: Sybarite: Your mother sucks rocks in Hell!

Wrong. It's "Your mother sews socks in Hell."

Wrong again. "Your mother sews socks that smell."

As for the post 'it worked so well for The Shining', Stephen King inexplicably preferred that to the Kubrick version.

John Buck 41: drongo

Sigh. I'm getting old. Can't properly remember my 1970's SNL lines.