MovieChat Forums > The Exorcist III (1990) Discussion > Do i need to have seen the 2nd movie for...

Do i need to have seen the 2nd movie for this to make sense?

posted 8 years ago by MisterBabadook
4 replies | jump to latest

I've seen the 1st movie but never the 2nd one, i've heard its beyond awful so i've never felt the need to watch it. But i've heard from alot that this is a great movie and haven't watched it yet, but i'm going to tonight but do i need to have seen the 2nd movie or is this one that kinda stands alone and you don't need to have seen the other movies?

Thats what i love about these high school girls, i get older they stay the same age.

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

No, the second movie is bogus, i.e., non-canonical. Exorcist III, otoh, is really the only true Exorcist sequel - with a screenplay by original author William Peter Blatty based on his book Legion. It's filmed very differently from the Friedkin film, but it's certainly canonical. I hope you enjoy it.

EDIT: first sentence was mis-typed Exorcist II.
CORRECTED TO: Exorcist III.

[–] Falconeer 8 years ago

watch "Exorcist II: The Heretic" and please form your own opinion. It is actually a direct sequel to the "Exorcist." It continues with the story of Reagon MacNeil, the little girl who was possessed in the first film. How anyone can say this is not a legitimate sequel is beyond me. However it is not necessary to see this to understand part III, "Legion," as this film follows a different path; that of the Priest who exorcised the demon in that first film. "Heretic" is a bizarre and trippy visual experience and should be seen, if only as a curiosity piece. Personally I love that film.

Fabio Testi is GOD

[–] apollo86 8 years ago

Yes, love it or hate it, Exorcist 2 is still a part of The Exorcist canon. The third movie doesn't contradict any events in this film, but rather ignores them altogether- I consider them to be "alternate" sequels as either can be viewed as a direct sequel.

It's been well-documented that Blatty was vehemently against having "Exorcist" in the title of his sequel for that very reason- viewers would be misguided into thinking this was a follow up to The Heretic rather than the original. Despite any kitsch appeal or re-evaluation The Heretic has received over the years, it was an unmitigated disaster and stopped the series dead in its tracks for a very long time. Alas, they went and stupidly called it Exorcist 3 and it soon dropped off at the box office. It turned a profit but I suspect there were expectations that it would be a big hit due to "Exorcist" being in the title- Hollywood logic!

[–] darthsparhawk 8 years ago

NO!