According to this article, Morgan Creek is working on something... please let this be true...
http://www.destroythebrain.com/movies/movie-news/exorcist-iii-directors-cut-is-coming
"My name is Daniel Lugo, and I believe in fitness."
Oh.
My.
GOD.
Can it be true???
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
I can't stress enough that a fan site copy/paste of an email correspondence isn't the same thing as a press release.
ekm
Writer/Director -- ROULETTE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294794/combined
[deleted]
[deleted]
Works for me. Great news.
Man, there's a lot of stressing going on in this thread.
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
Which part? hahahaha
ekm
Writer/Director -- ROULETTE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294794/combined
You're so right.
And to emphasize this, William Peter Blatty has just knocked this on the head.
According to Mark Kermode anyways, who apparently spoke to him direct.
Its not happening.
Hope it does someday.
how do you know for sure its not happening? Nothing is set in stone. apparently mMrgen Creek sees how many fans are waiting on the edge of their seats for this!
sharemMrgen Creek sees how many fans are waiting on the edge of their seats for this!
Its not happening.
Yes, yes: "please let this be true!" ... depending on what MC is really doing and producing. Although I must admit I'm so greedy for more Ex III material, I'm pretty excited at the prospect.
shareWait for an official announcement. Anything before that is just a rumor.
ekm
Writer/Director -- ROULETTE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294794/combined
[deleted]
As I said: wait for an official announcement, and note Blatty's use of italics.
ekm
Writer/Director -- ROULETTE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294794/combined
Incredibly exciting news and very unexpected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Exorcist III is easily one of my favorite horror thrillers, and to know that the original version might get released is the best film news I've heard in a very long time!!!
Feels like Christmas morning already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!
If they can turn up more footage with Brad Dourif, that'd make this announcement even better. 😁
"No more deals child, it is your flesh we want to experience, not your skill at bargaining."
So excited! Read more about the news on bloody-disgusting.com today, and it really seems like it's a sure thing!
Thank you to Morgan Creek and William Peter Blatty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People just want to hear what they want to hear.
ekm
Writer/Director -- ROULETTE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294794/combined
People just want to hear what they want to hear.
Mark Kermode the UK film critic got it from the horse's mouth, William Peter Blatty, and he said that they are utterly unfounded.
Mark Kermode the UK film critic got it from the horse's mouth, William Peter Blatty, and he said that they are utterly unfounded.
Anyone know for sure? Or does it mean it it wont happen?
shareAs I mentioned earlier: this "news" is premature. What's being quoted as an announcement is an email correspondence, not a press release. The website in question is a fan site, and in no way affiliated with Morgan Creek or Warner Brothers.
ekm
Writer/Director -- ROULETTE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294794/combined
Here's another blog article. The author gives a little insight at the end into how long the process can take and some of the odds and ends:
https://gcaggiano.wordpress.com/2016/01/04/can-we-expect-an-exorcist-iii-directors-cut-in-2016/
Crazyhorse, thanks for this article - very intriguing, a complex story/history.
I personally wouldn't care if some footage was recovered and it wasn't in good shape - my interest in the original film is sufficient to ignore visual/audio flaws. If it ever comes to fruition, maybe the owners of said footage would be willing to present it as a special edition, or perhaps sell it to an outfit like Morgan Creek... If it exists and there is enough of it to tell a coherent story, I would leap at the chance to view it.
I agree in regards to how good the footage looks, but from a production company standpoint, they will most likely not release a film if the cuts back and forth between old and new scenes show a highly visible difference.
Case in point, I have followed the situation regarding John Wayne's 1960 film "The Alamo". I know several people involved in the push to get his massive three-hour-plus epic to DVD and Blu-Ray. It was only ever released on VHS years ago. After years of refusal, MGM finally looked into it and determined the transfer would not be good enough for clearer, HD mediums. The cut footage had deteriorated so badly due to lackadaisical storage and the difference was outrageously bad on DVD and Blu Ray. VHS was the only medium where the quality difference was minimal, and even that you could notice the cut scenes slightly even if you had never seen it before. TCM shows the film every once in a while on TV in its entirety, and the result is the same as the VHS. They do not broadcast it in HD even on their HD channel due to that issue. Last I heard, they had a team of restoration artists and scientists looking at it, but I think it is currently on the back-burner once again as there is no way to make that economically feasible for the limited audience it would have.
Not saying that is the case here. This movie has a lot going for it: not as old, not as much footage, wider audience who will pay whatever the asking price is. Just wanted to give it some perspective. Its more complicated than people think, but I hope like hell it happens.
Thanks for the clarifications - I hadn't known the story on the full-version The Alamo. Like you say, there may be certain saving factors about the Ex III footage, and with you, I really hope it can be done!
shareI too don't mind if the unseen footage is in rough form, as long as it's not in horrible form and in audible. Even still, if it's edited back into the movie in a well done manner, than that would be nice too.
Just being able to see any unseen footage is very exciting!
BTW, check out this well done David Dimbleby show covering exorcism, aired shortly after the release of The Exorcist! Watch the man from 28:36 to 28:28, and look at how he goes from smiling to dead seriousness! Very creepy, though genuine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfZOH95GlQg
Here's another blog post (I am the author). If anything, we can look at the precedent set by Morgan Creek during production of "Exorcist: The Beginning":
https://gcaggiano.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/more-on-the-exorcist-iii-and-possible-directors-cut/
I called Morgan Creek this afternoon. They transferred me to someone and I left them a message. I wonder if they will call back.
Thanks for posting.
I'm glad you reached out to them.
My personal take: if we were able to finally see Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (which a lot of people thought would never happen), then this is also possible. I think one of the most important things at this stage of the game is making sure they're aware there is a lot of interest in this (and I believe there is).
Here's hoping it happens. Here's really really hoping.
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
Keep in mind that film stock from 1990 is different from film stock of 1973 or 1960. The Wicker Man 1973 had footage restored from the outtakes that looked noticeably different from the scenes originally in the theatrical cut. Presumably the footage that was edited back in was not from the original negatives, but rather, the positives. But it's alright, though, because it looked good enough.
There's a decent chance that TEIII, because it was shot in 1990 (a time when film stock was of better quality than 20 years before), will therefore have some halfway quality footage leftover from previous edits that are salvageable or good enough for viewing pleasure today. The example you gave is from 1960, while the example I used was from 1973. 1990 is a much different time with different film technology quality of a more modern era.
Poltergeist III may be a crap film, but the film it's filmed on looks damn good compared to the Poltergeist II, the latter of which is a much better film despite the former having been shot on more advanced film technology. So 1990 (the year of P3) is a safe bet for film stock holding up decently enough. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way
That reminds me (just throwing in here for the hell of it)...
Poltergeist III may be a crap film, but I thought the trailer kicked ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d34wBLCj60
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
Poltergeist III may be a crap film, but the film it's filmed on looks damn good compared to the Poltergeist II, the latter of which is a much better film despite the former having been shot on more advanced film technology. So 1990 (the year of P3) is a safe bet for film stock holding up decently enough. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
I have the opposite problem -- I think both sequels are eminently watchable, to my own horror and disgust. Frankly, I rarely feel like watching the original, in spite of the fact that it's clearly miles ahead of the sequels; it just doesn't do much for me. On the other hand, the two subsequent movies are positively goofy, and always a good time.
Beck is certainly the MVP in Poltergeist II, but I'd argue he's got some stuff competition from Jerry Goldsmith. Plus, you can't beat that tequila worm monster.
Part III is a hot mess, and I'm baffled by my own interest in it.
I'd like to chalk it up to Tom Skerritt in a tuxedo acting the surrogate father. He feels like the 80s answer to Atticus Finch -- utterly decent (taking in his brother's daughter because he genuinely likes her and it's the right thing to do) but he lives in a skyscraper penthouse and has an awesome mustache instead of Alabama and a law degree.
(Incidentally, does anyone have the fond memories I do of Skerritt playing millionaire Evan Drake on Cheers? He was usually little more than a straight man for bar manager Kirstie Alley, but every once in a while, like with "Let Sleeping Drakes Lie", he got a chance to show off his terrific comic chops.)
But there's got to be more to it. I do love the mirror effects, and can't help but be a bit sad that Beck's absence robbed the scenes of much of their potential creepiness.
Maybe I just love hearing the name "Carol Anne" until my ears bleed. Someone counted...I think it's yelled over a hundred times.
Tom Skerritt is a good actor, but the fact that Craig T. Nelson didn't want to appear in that turkey should have been a message to Skerritt that he'd do best to stay out as well. Kind of like Ellen Burstyn's absence from Exorcist II should have been a warning to Burton, Jones, and the other wasted talent about the film's quality.
As for PII, there are just too many cringeworthy scenes (like the embracing family fighting Kane together on "the other side") for me to take it seriously. I'd put it in the same category as the made for TV adaptation of King's It: garbage made somewhat watchable (preferably when drunk) by tremendously entertaining performances by a supporting cast member (Beck's Kane and Curry's Pennywise, respectively).
I have to agree with what you say about Poltergeist I. It falls into the same category as all too many of Spielberg's post-Jaws success films: very well made, but paint by the numbers and rarely very interesting or surprising. I'm in no hurry to watch it again anytime soon.
Everyone on this forum, thanks so much for replying to my posts! Yeah I am really looking forward to seeing whatever they can salavage and put together a good Directors Cut Blatty true vision to Exorcist III! Also I think batasch8647 especially has some very good ideas about a fan edit sequel story to exorcist III. I never get tired of all of you here on the Exorcist III forum. You all give good answers and questions! You all are just wonderful!!! Thanks again! hgohari aka pazrags
shareYou're welcome - thanks for always asking provocative questions. Hope you keep coming back here.
shareThis is totally untrue. Poltergeist II is a fan favorite with a large cult following. Poltergeist II is heralded as imaginative and thrilling and well-executed similarly to how A Nightmare on Elm Street III: The Dream Warriors is loved by a cult following.
It isn't the Grade-A film that its original is, and (obviously) not as good, but it's still one of those imaginative, creative sequels that is well-regarded more than the usual sequel to your usual classic is usually received. It is a thrilling, cohesive, entertaining film. On the other hand, the third film never materializes into anything at all along the course of its plot. To compare these two sequels to one another in terms of quality is laughable.
People in general seem to accept Poltergeist II more warmly than they do Predator 2, Ghostbusters II, or Robocop 2 (to name a few examples).
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way
Poltergeist II is a fan favorite with a large cult following. Poltergeist II is heralded as imaginative and thrilling and well-executed similarly to how A Nightmare on Elm Street III: