PDA

View Full Version : The Exorcist to be Ruined on Blu-ray


X-human
01-10-2009, 02:03 AM
Friedkin has revealed his plans to redo the color timing on The Exorcist for the Blu-ray release. He will take the B&W image and then layer the color image on top at about 30% opacity. This is his new "pastel" look that will be applied to all his films in the HD format. His first victim of this process is The French Connection which you can read about here along with the article about the process:

http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=533163&page=2

I've always stood by the idea that directors should be given the freedom to see their vision fulfilled. But then again there are exceptions to every rule. :D

I'm not a huge Exorcist fan so I can live with my DVD of the theatrical cut I guess, but I'm sure many of the rest of you won't be so happy.

KamuiX
01-10-2009, 02:14 AM
Sounds like Lucas and Spielberg bit Friedkin and passed along their disease...

Katatonia
01-10-2009, 02:21 AM
Pastel look?!? Supremely lame, I'll stick with the old DVD editions.

Myron Breck
01-10-2009, 02:28 AM
Well, the man hasn't exactly been raking in the accolades (or dollars) in recent decades so maybe, as with the theatrical re-release and then the Version You've Never Seen, he's just trying to make news via his most popular title. He'll always have the "color-corrected Version You've Never Seen" followed by the "color-corrected Theatrical Version" followed by the "Ultimate Edition" followed by the...you get the idea.

Good for him. He had room to exercise huge talent once. And, frankly, I enjoyed BUG while most despised it. I feel that he deserves to be continually financially compensated for his past works for as long as there are people to pay him. He's not Rob Zombie or Guy Richie or some other no-talent douchebag. It's Billy Friedkin, for fuck's sake.

spawningblue
01-10-2009, 02:31 AM
Wow that looks terrible! Jsut add that to the list of DVDs that surpass their Blu Ray counterparts. :D

Ash28M
01-10-2009, 02:41 AM
And, frankly, I enjoyed BUG while most despised it.


Really? I thought most people liked it. I certainly did.

Myron Breck
01-10-2009, 02:42 AM
Really? I thought most people liked it. I certainly did.

See, I'm surprised to hear it. Then again, I worked at a Blockbuster at the time and we allllll know the types "those places" attract! ;) I had to quit recommending immediately.

maybrick
01-10-2009, 04:49 AM
I've always stood by the idea that directors should be given the freedom to see their vision fulfilled.

I've always been of the opinion that directors only have a finite time in which to see their vision fulfilled. After that, true ownership of their work belongs to history, not them. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with seeing a new cut of a classic, but the new cut should never be meant as a complete replacement of the old. That's why recent updates of films and shows such as Star Wars and Star Trek (and to a lesser extent The Exorcist "version you've never seen" and Blade Runner "Final Cut") make me feel ill. It's tantamount to historical revisionism.

KR~!
01-10-2009, 05:03 AM
holy mother of shit, those look awful!

Matt89
01-10-2009, 06:11 AM
Wow The French Connection looks TERRIBLE!

I mean I'm all about directors having their re-imaginings of their films, but with movies like Blade Runner, Alien and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, at least we get all the versions. (I hated Ridley Scott's "Director's Cut" of Alien, he actually ruined the film by snipping off the beginnings and ends of shots and then adding in that scene were Ripley finds everyone cocooned. The "Director's Cut" with the added footage actually has a SHORTER running time than the Theatrical Version because he trimmed so many scenes down.) But hey, at least the original version was included on the DVD release.

But I'm not surprised Friedkin's gonna fuck this up. Seems like every director's twiddling and fiddling with their classic films. From Friedkin, to George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Ridley Scott. Maybe it's better that directors like Alfred Hitchcock, Nicholas Ray, Billy Wilder, Stanley Kubrick, Douglas Sirk and Elia Kazan are dead. (I could totally see Kubrick doing something like this.) But maybe it's better they're gone, so we can be guaranteed that they won't fuck with their own films. I hate saying something like that, but reading this and seeing how much Friedkin's already ruined The French Connection, maybe director's shouldn't have so much access to their own films.

*And I realize Fox asked Ridley Scott to re-cut Alien for its re-release, but considering how many times he's fiddled with Blade Runner, he definitely gets added to the list.

~Matt

Cujo108
01-10-2009, 06:58 AM
Instead of putting this out for the umpteenth time, I just wish we could get a halfway decent edition of Sorcerer... Unfortunately, reading this thread makes me worry about it being messed with if such a release ever materializes.

Rockmjd
01-10-2009, 06:59 AM
I agree that the director has control of his films but after a long time has gone by it's pretty foolish. Your original "vision" was 35 year ago, get over it.

Erick H.
01-10-2009, 08:11 AM
I hate stuff like this,retroactive changes just to take advantage of new technology.

Vlachio
01-10-2009, 08:18 AM
Your original "vision" was 35 year ago, get over it.

Yeah you tell em sugarplum!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:



Hey did any of you catch this when it was rereleased theatrically few years ago?

buck135
01-10-2009, 08:55 AM
I wonder how the studio can allow this. Looks like I'll be holding onto my DVD versions of FC/Exorcist.

Stige
01-10-2009, 10:30 AM
another one bites the dust

sometimes seems like certain dirctor's / producers/companies WANT bluray to fail

Mattapooh
01-10-2009, 04:08 PM
Lumping Ridley Scott in with Spielberg and Lucas is just wrong. The changes to Blade Runner totally worked in context and if you bought the briefcase set like all real fans of the film should have, you got not only the Final Cut but also the original theatrical version, "director's cut" from the early 90s as well as the international cut. You're not getting original versions of E.T., Star Wars or other changed flicks anywhere.

I think Friedkin is fucking retarded, to be perfectly honest. The fact that the studio actually went along with this doesn't really surprise me (studios now are run by business students who don't understand movies or any other form of art, they're essentially prostitutes who will do ANYTHING that will bring some money in), but Billy Friedkin actually thought it was a good idea to make the colour in his films look shitty? I don't even understand the aesthetic choice here, it just takes his classics movies and makes them look shitty....... and that's IT.

I don't have a problem with director's altering films in any way, so long as the ORIGINAL VERSION is included. Blade Runner changes? Shit, they took out problems and made the film a bit more cohesive. It still feels like the same film, only a bit tighter. The fact that the older versions are in there is absolutely perfect. I personally can't go back to the original versions of Aliens, The Abyss or Terminator 2 after seeing the extended cuts, but Blade Runner and those Cameron flicks are probably the only examples I can think of off-hand in which the "altered" versions are preferable. Someone needs to kick Friedkin in the balls and call him a retard for this one.

Also, Bug was REALLY good. Once again proving that people who go to Blockbuster are, for the most part, not really into movies.

maybrick
01-11-2009, 02:23 AM
You're not getting original versions of E.T., Star Wars or other changed flicks anywhere.


The original E.T. is included in the 2 disc Special Edition. The original Star Wars prints are available as extras on the last DVD releases.

Jeremy
01-11-2009, 02:31 AM
DVD has allowed the cult of the "directors original creative vision" to flourish to the point where it is perfectly acceptable to make perverse decisions about changing movies around. This is one of the less extreme examples, but it's still stupid.

mcchrist
01-11-2009, 02:51 AM
I guess I'm the only one that doesn't give a shit. I can see what he is trying to do, based off those screengrabs, but he hasn't got an eye for it IMO. It looks like a poor man's 3-strip process, anyone can do what he's done here. Admittedly, I think it fits FC, but not quite like that. The Exorcist wasn't exactly the most saturated of films, so honestly it may not be as bad as it sounds. I used to get my panties in a bunch about stuff like this, but whatever.

Matt89
01-11-2009, 04:27 AM
Lumping Ridley Scott in with Spielberg and Lucas is just wrong. The changes to Blade Runner totally worked in context and if you bought the briefcase set like all real fans of the film should have, you got not only the Final Cut but also the original theatrical version, "director's cut" from the early 90s as well as the international cut. You're not getting original versions of E.T., Star Wars or other changed flicks anywhere.

I think Friedkin is fucking retarded, to be perfectly honest. The fact that the studio actually went along with this doesn't really surprise me (studios now are run by business students who don't understand movies or any other form of art, they're essentially prostitutes who will do ANYTHING that will bring some money in), but Billy Friedkin actually thought it was a good idea to make the colour in his films look shitty? I don't even understand the aesthetic choice here, it just takes his classics movies and makes them look shitty....... and that's IT.

I don't have a problem with director's altering films in any way, so long as the ORIGINAL VERSION is included. Blade Runner changes? Shit, they took out problems and made the film a bit more cohesive. It still feels like the same film, only a bit tighter. The fact that the older versions are in there is absolutely perfect. I personally can't go back to the original versions of Aliens, The Abyss or Terminator 2 after seeing the extended cuts, but Blade Runner and those Cameron flicks are probably the only examples I can think of off-hand in which the "altered" versions are preferable. Someone needs to kick Friedkin in the balls and call him a retard for this one.

Also, Bug was REALLY good. Once again proving that people who go to Blockbuster are, for the most part, not really into movies.

Well what about that botched job Ridley Scott did to Alien? Chopping off parts of scenes, etc. Maybe I was a bit harsh on Ridley Scott (he does admit the original theatrical version of Alien is his preferred version, but he still fucked up the "Director's Cut"). However, too many directors are getting away with this. Richard Kelly RUINED Donnie Darko with his "Director's Cut" but still none of them have gone as far as George Lucas and now William Friedkin in terms of royally fucking with their films.

But I ask you, did Ridley Scott really have to alter Blade Runner so many times? Couldn't he have done it that way the first time? He's even changed what his "true" Director's Cut is, what his PREFERRED version is. The 1992 cut was his "Director's Cut" but come 2007, oh what? The "Final" Cut is now his preffered cut? Bullshit. It was a money-making gimmick. One I don't exactly understand as Ridley Scott is still very active in Hollywood, like he has been since the start of his career. But hey, at least we do get all versions (as we do of Star Wars and E.T.)

And Lucas didn't exactly ruin Star Wars, but it's like... LEAVE IT ALONE ALREADY! Friedkin, for the record, has ruined The French Connection. A lot of films from the '70s have that washed-out look, which I generally don't mind. They were originally made that way. But if your film didn't initially have that look, why go back 40 years later and change the whole color scheme? Just looking at how BAD reds look on those transfers, he REALLY fucked this up. But whatever, William Friedkin's always been a fucking dumbass, though. Just listening to what he has to say about his films on his documentaries, it sounds like such formulated bullshit.

DVD has allowed the cult of the "directors original creative vision" to flourish to the point where it is perfectly acceptable to make perverse decisions about changing movies around. This is one of the less extreme examples, but it's still stupid.

Yeah, I totally agree. It gave some people too much creative freedom to fuck with things that DIDN'T need to be fucked with.

But to sum it all up, IF IT'S NOT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!

~Matt

killit
01-11-2009, 05:12 AM
Lumping Ridley Scott in with Spielberg and Lucas is just wrong. The changes to Blade Runner totally worked in context and if you bought the briefcase set like all real fans of the film should have, you got not only the Final Cut but also the original theatrical version, "director's cut" from the early 90s as well as the international cut. You're not getting original versions of E.T., Star Wars or other changed flicks anywhere.



Ha! On a side note, some real fans also spent twenty bucks and bought the blu-ray five disc with all that, just a hundred or so dollars richer.

Regarding the exorcist, it's the version you've never seen he's doing the black and white and blue thing. I could care fuck all what he does with that film. it might make that one more interesting. Whatever he's doing he sure believes in it though and doesn't sound crazy. But I could see why fans of the film would be upset. Look on the bright side at least no cgi critters are added?

Kolpitz
01-11-2009, 05:32 AM
Well what about that botched job Ridley Scott did to Alien? Chopping off parts of scenes, etc. Maybe I was a bit harsh on Ridley Scott (he does admit the original theatrical version of Alien is his preferred version, but he still fucked up the "Director's Cut"). However, too many directors are getting away with this. Richard Kelly RUINED Donnie Darko with his "Director's Cut" but still none of them have gone as far as George Lucas and now William Friedkin in terms of royally fucking with their films.

But I ask you, did Ridley Scott really have to alter Blade Runner so many times? Couldn't he have done it that way the first time? He's even changed what his "true" Director's Cut is, what his PREFERRED version is. The 1992 cut was his "Director's Cut" but come 2007, oh what? The "Final" Cut is now his preffered cut? Bullshit. It was a money-making gimmick. One I don't exactly understand as Ridley Scott is still very active in Hollywood, like he has been since the start of his career. But hey, at least we do get all versions (as we do of Star Wars and E.T.)

In defense of Ridley Scott, it was never his intention to call either of those cuts his "director's cut." Fox was going to re-cut Alien with or without his participation. He told them that his "director's cut" came out in 1979. He made the best alternate version he could and it was Fox that slapped that "director's cut" label on the re-release. Scott never wanted it called that but it was out of his hands.

As for the "director's cut" of Blade Runner, that's even worse. Scott wasn't actually involved at all with that cut. Warner Bros. was interested in releasing this cut after the overwhelming reaction to an accidentally screened workprint of the film. They asked Scott for his involvement but he was too busy working on 1492 (I believe) at the time, that he asked them to wait. They didn't want to so they quickly slapped together a "director's cut" based on Scott's original editing notes and called it a "director's cut," once again against Scott's wishes. It wasn't until the "Final Cut" that Scott was finally able to create his true director's cut.

X-human
01-11-2009, 05:35 AM
Regarding the exorcist, it's the version you've never seen he's doing the black and white and blue thing. I could care fuck all what he does with that film. it might make that one more interesting. Whatever he's doing he sure believes in it though and doesn't sound crazy. But I could see why fans of the film would be upset. Look on the bright side at least no cgi critters are added?

I agree, but we're probably not going to get to see the original theatrical version on Blu-ray now. That's the main issue.

The original Star Wars prints are available as extras on the last DVD releases.

Yeah... In non-anamorphic interlaced transfers from masters made 15 years ago. George is a real saint. :rolleyes:

DVD has allowed the cult of the "directors original creative vision" to flourish to the point where it is perfectly acceptable to make perverse decisions about changing movies around. This is one of the less extreme examples, but it's still stupid.

He made the whole film look like a bootleg VHS tape; what has another director done to their film that's worse than that? At least Gretto shooting first only changes a few frames of the whole film.

MrKateB
01-11-2009, 06:05 AM
I wonder how the studio can allow this. Looks like I'll be holding onto my DVD versions of FC/Exorcist.


ALLOW??? :)

I suspect most studios have a list of films that they're trying to figure out new marketing angles for. Hey! Let's film new scenes for The Poseidon Adventure--the original one omitted some of the characters from the book...Hey! Let's redo the shark in Jaws--the old one looks too cartoonish...Hey! Let's make Cinderella's hair more blonde so she looks more like the Barbie versions we're selling in stores...etc. etc.

I dunno...I think any more it's got more to do with $$$ than giving a shit about artistic vision, whether it was meant to be different all along, or it's the "new & improved" artistic vision that may sometimes come from desperation...or the onset of senility.

horrorlover
01-11-2009, 06:57 AM
the screenshots for Frech Connection look like a VHS tape, great job, way to promote Blueray. Oh and I truly expect they will screw up their release of The Exorcist, but don't worry they'll release another version of the Exorcist, that isn't screwed up, so they can sell some people the same movie twice. I just refuse to buy a dvd or blueray that isn't a good release.

shithead
01-11-2009, 09:10 AM
Good, another reason not to go Blu just yet...i need all the reasons i can find dammit!

I cannot afford this shit yet.

Jeremy
01-11-2009, 11:50 AM
He made the whole film look like a bootleg VHS tape; what has another director done to their film that's worse than that? At least Gretto shooting first only changes a few frames of the whole film.

It's what he didn't do. He didn't add footage that changed the plot, or delete scenes that he had never liked in the first place. He didn't shoot new footage, add new special effects or screw around with CGI in any way. All he did was royally fuck up the color timing. Very regrettable, but it could have been much worse.

maybrick
01-11-2009, 02:54 PM
Yeah... In non-anamorphic interlaced transfers from masters made 15 years ago. George is a real saint. :rolleyes:


Off topic and not really the point. There are plenty of films that only have non-anamorphic transfers on DVD. Mattapooh said the original forms aren't available "anywhere". Clearly, they are.

KR~!
01-11-2009, 03:22 PM
Off topic and not really the point. There are plenty of films that only have non-anamorphic transfers on DVD. Mattapooh said the original forms aren't available "anywhere". Clearly, they are.

well, people wanted them untouched, so he didn't touch them. You know the newer cgi edit wasn't anywhere nearly as bad as the 1st one which was unwatchable.

Grim
01-11-2009, 08:23 PM
Ridley Scott should definitely not be lumped in with the others. One main difference is that he has allowed the other versions of his films to be available despite whatever new edits he made. And yeah, Blade Runner is probably in my top five, but I didn't need all of the superfluous extras that came with the briefcase. The five disc bu-ray set with all of the cuts of the film and all of the extras for $25 was good enough for me, a true fan.

I think what Friedkin is doing is pretty stupid, but whatever, as long as I can get the original cut on blu-ray at some point (no rush as I don't like the Exorcist THAT much), then I'll be happy.

mlock
01-12-2009, 01:05 PM
A bit off-point here for a moment before I comment on the real topic of this thread, but, I was under the impression that it was writer/producer William Peter Blatty's decision to release "the version you've never seen" theatrically and on dvd. Thus discontinuing the far superior 25th Anniversary Edition. If that's the case, Friedkin cannot be blamed for what alterations were done for that particular version, all of which I didn't agree with. I seem to recall Friedkin and Blatty discussing their differences of opinion regarding the deleted scenes and alternate ending on the extras for the original 25th Anniv dvd. As such, I prefer to call it "the version you shouldn't see" because if I wanted to see Blatty's version of the film, I would have read his book!
As for the color timing issues with the Exorcist blu ray release I agree with the rest of the fans that he's, "pulling a Lucas".
In response to what some people here were commenting on about why the studio would allow this to happen, unfortunately it has nothing to do with them. Someone has already compared them to prostitutes by doing whatever will make them some more money. A good analogy in my view. Reason being, they have no control over this film, Warner distributed it, but don't have any control over changes made by the director/producers. Exact same situation with the "not so special editions" :eek: of Star Wars, Fox distributes them, Lucas can do whatever he wants to them as they are his property. At least we have the choice to not support his decisions!

spawningblue
01-12-2009, 06:04 PM
I'm going to put myself out there for ridicule and say that not only did I enjoy the new versions of Star Wars, but I like them better then the original cuts. And yes, I am a huge Star Wars fan! They are in my top films of all time list, and I have been an avid collector or Star Wars related merch. for years. Mind you, now that I have gotten older I don't really buy as much, but there was a time when I would pick up anything Star Wars related.

Anyways, yes I like the original version where Greedo shoots first, and yes some of the CGI stands out in a bad way. Hell even the Jabba scene in Episode IV isn't great. But overall, it's the little changes that I like more. I like how the lightsabers are actually their correct colours, how in the Cloud City scene you actually see a city out the windows, in Empire the Empire is the same actor from the other films, ect. And as for the ending in Return of the Jedi, minus replacing Dart Vader, I like it better showing the other planets celebrating with the Williams score as opposed to the Ewoks singing. Don't get me wrong, I love the Ewoks singing, it's hilarious! But the new ending is definitely the better ending and more fitting for the original trilogy. I think the Ewoks sining would have fit the prequel trilogy more.

buck135
01-12-2009, 06:21 PM
Spawningblue, not to get off topic, but in it the new version of Empire, Vader's lightsaber is pink. That always bugs me when I see it.

Mok
01-12-2009, 07:13 PM
I'm going to put myself out there for ridicule and say that not only did I enjoy the new versions of Star Wars, but I like them better then the original cuts. And yes, I am a huge Star Wars fan! They are in my top films of all time list, and I have been an avid collector or Star Wars related merch. for years. Mind you, now that I have gotten older I don't really buy as much, but there was a time when I would pick up anything Star Wars related.

Anyways, yes I like the original version where Greedo shoots first, and yes some of the CGI stands out in a bad way. Hell even the Jabba scene in Episode IV isn't great. But overall, it's the little changes that I like more. I like how the lightsabers are actually their correct colours, how in the Cloud City scene you actually see a city out the windows, in Empire the Empire is the same actor from the other films, ect. And as for the ending in Return of the Jedi, minus replacing Dart Vader, I like it better showing the other planets celebrating with the Williams score as opposed to the Ewoks singing. Don't get me wrong, I love the Ewoks singing, it's hilarious! But the new ending is definitely the better ending and more fitting for the original trilogy. I think the Ewoks sining would have fit the prequel trilogy more.

Werd

KillerCannabis
01-15-2009, 01:31 AM
This is VERY disappointing. That French Connection transfer looks like utter shit. If The Exorcist only includes this new version on the BD then I'll pass for sure. I agree that after a certain point in time has passed then directors shouldn't be allowed to mess with a historic flick. Just look at what Walter Hill did with The Warriors. That DC is a fucking joke.

X-human
07-08-2009, 09:49 PM
Warner Brothers will bring 'The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen' to Blu-ray on September 8. (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner_Brothers/Disc_Announcements/WB_Announces_The_Exorcist:_The_Version_Youve_Never _Seen_for_Blu-ray/3001)

It'll be interesting to see...

vampyr789
07-08-2009, 10:37 PM
this is kinda off topic but why dont they put both versions of the film on one DVD or Blu-ray!??!!?

Grim
07-08-2009, 10:57 PM
this is kinda off topic but why dont they put both versions of the film on one DVD or Blu-ray!??!!?

I'm hoping this is what they end up doing. And I'm hoping the keep Friedkin as far away from this as possible. I'm convinced the man has gone senile.

rhett
07-08-2009, 11:19 PM
I agree with maybrick's line about films belonging to history after a certain point in time, but at the same time I don't have any objections to what Friedkin is doing here. I wouldn't cut many directors that slack, but he's one of the legends and contrary to most he's actually had a long and involved history with the presentation of his films. He even toured around with The Exorcist when it was first released to make sure the sound levels and video brightness were up to proper standards before showings. How many other big directors can you say have done that?

His reasoning for going for the pastel look is actually wonderfully chronicled in the Blu-ray extras for The French Connection. It's about 15 minutes long, one of the best extras I've seen in a long time. I certainly don't think the style would work for the majority of his films, but for The French Connection and The Exorcist I think the look fits perfect. The French Connection certainly felt like a noir and looked like a Melville film, so the muted color palette really fits. The Exorcist is all classical in it's visual approach - it's that glossy, old fashioned visual restraint that makes all the debauchery coming out of Linda Blair all the more unsettling. A muted color palette would only bring that out more, similar to The Mist. I'm excited to check it out - I was very happy with how well TFC looked in Blu. This is all small stuff, naturally, until his big dog, Sorcerer finally gets an announcement!

captain_brandon
07-08-2009, 11:28 PM
Ridley Scott should definitely not be lumped in with the others. One main difference is that he has allowed the other versions of his films to be available despite whatever new edits he made. And yeah, Blade Runner is probably in my top five, but I didn't need all of the superfluous extras that came with the briefcase. The five disc bu-ray set with all of the cuts of the film and all of the extras for $25 was good enough for me, a true fan.

I think what Friedkin is doing is pretty stupid, but whatever, as long as I can get the original cut on blu-ray at some point (no rush as I don't like the Exorcist THAT much), then I'll be happy.

I do agree with most of what you said, Grim. I got a two disc edition of Blade Runner way back in late '07 during the big re-release on the home formats, and then a few months ago, the 4-disc version (all standard-def DVD, by the way), with non of that gimmicky Breifcase shit, cause the extra dollars are just to for the display case. If it was much cheaper for even a limited time, I wouldn't mind. But indeed: Blue Runner's Final Director's Cut from Mr. Scott, I feel, makes it an infinately better film. Especially since, as Frank Darabount notes in a special feature, it doesn't have that very lousy and rather out-of-place voice over work from Harrison Ford. Plus I thought all of the different cuts were somethin' a bit special, to own finally, in and of themselves, so I'm gonna leave that alone, even though I know what some might think. To each they're own.

Mean while, like many, I'll stick to my old DVD of The Exorcist in my fine up-convertor home theater system for now, thank you Mr. Friedkin, cause that print indeed look's horrible.

X-human
07-08-2009, 11:47 PM
He even toured around with The Exorcist when it was first released to make sure the sound levels and video brightness were up to proper standards before showings. How many other big directors can you say have done that?

Kubrick was notorious for having every theater that was showing his films inspected, getting reports back on all of them. He also had 1 in I think 50 film prints fully inspected before release. An absurdly high number of prints. It's also well known that he personally vaulted all the film material on his estate, not studio vaults.

He was also fully involved in marketing; getting news prints of all his ad purchases world wide and personally inspecting them himself (ruler in hand). One of his assistances remembered Kubrick getting a German paper in and calling the editor up himself to complain that it wasn't printed right.

Well... You asked. :D

I think the color change could work with Exorcist, but not so much French Connection. Even still, the original theatrical version needs to be preserved. That is what garnered the original success after all.

Grim
07-08-2009, 11:58 PM
To be clear, it's not the color change I'm disgusted with, it's just the apparent quality of the color change from the looks of those stills. Rhett vouches for the quality of the blu-ray release, but I'm still weary. If indeed it does look that bad, I just don't understand why they couldn't have used some other process to achieve that effect.

HellRazor
07-09-2009, 12:40 AM
I don't mind the re-tooling AS LONG as the original version is available in the same format.

Unfortunately what usually happens is that the studio only wants to do one release and it turns out to be the re-tooled version, thus keeping the original off the shelves. Especially for the less popular movies. :(

Katatonia
07-09-2009, 01:27 AM
I don't mind the re-tooling AS LONG as the original version is available in the same format.

Unfortunately what usually happens is that the studio only wants to do one release and it turns out to be the re-tooled version, thus keeping the original off the shelves. Especially for the less popular movies. :(

If they include the original theatrical version on the Blu-ray, I'd definitely buy it. As for this color-retooling bullshit, I'm not even remotely interested in that shit. I'll gladly keep my old DVD and upconvert it. Let him do what he wants to his beloved director's version.

I agree with Grim's comments, the dude is going senile and is having lunch with George Lucas. :eek2:

rhett
07-09-2009, 02:12 AM
Kubrick was notorious for having every theater that was showing his films inspected, getting reports back on all of them. He also had 1 in I think 50 film prints fully inspected before release. An absurdly high number of prints. It's also well known that he personally vaulted all the film material on his estate, not studio vaults.

He was also fully involved in marketing; getting news prints of all his ad purchases world wide and personally inspecting them himself (ruler in hand). One of his assistances remembered Kubrick getting a German paper in and calling the editor up himself to complain that it wasn't printed right.

Yeah, and even the House of Kubrick got flack for him wanting to keep most of his output 4x3. You can't win!

spawningblue
07-09-2009, 03:37 AM
this is kinda off topic but why dont they put both versions of the film on one DVD or Blu-ray!??!!?

Unfortunately I doubt that will happen. That was one of the things I was looking forward to on Blu, but it seems like other then a few releases, (Close Encounters being a great example!) they don't want to bother. I'm sure it has to do with a money thing as well. Why release the Star Trek films or Lord of the Rings with both cuts when you can release the theatrical cuts now, make a load of money, and then release the extended cuts later and make double profits off the movie. Damn greedy Hollywood! Watchmen was another one I was disappointed to see not come with all three cuts!

horrorlover
07-09-2009, 03:41 AM
Unfortunately I doubt that will happen. That was one of the things I was looking forward to on Blu, but it seems like other then a few releases, (Close Encounters being a great example!) they don't want to bother. I'm sure it has to do with a money thing as well. Why release the Star Trek films or Lord of the Rings with both cuts when you can release the theatrical cuts now, make a load of money, and then release the extended cuts later and make double profits off the movie. Damn greedy Hollywood! Watchmen was another one I was disappointed to see not come with all three cuts!

Why buy the movie if it's not up to yoru personal standards? I never feel compelled to buy a dvd, it's just a movie afterall. :banana:
I won't be buying this release, but then again I'm not a huge fan of the exorcist.

spawningblue
07-09-2009, 03:50 AM
Why buy the movie if it's not up to yoru personal standards? I never feel compelled to buy a dvd, it's just a movie afterall. :banana:
I won't be buying this release, but then again I'm not a huge fan of the exorcist.

Because they may never release an Ultimate set and I would rather have one cut of the movie on Blu then nothing. Don't get me wrong, I can survive with just owning Watchmen Director's Cut, but from what I've heard they didn't just add extra scenes, they took some out and switched some around so it would have been nice to own both versions for completist sake. As for Lord of the Rings, I probably will hold out and just pick up the extended editions, but again, it would have been nice for them to take advantage of Blu Ray technology and include both versions as sometimes you just want to watch the shorter cut.

And then there's the cases like Kill Bill or Grindhouse. Kill Bill may never come out, and Grindhouse finally is, but it looks like it won't include the extended cuts of the movies, so to own everything you still have to buy the movie three times! I was just really hoping then when Blu came out it would be the ultimate editions of every film, and be the end all versions, but that has rarely been the case, with a few exceptions lie once again, Close Encounters and Blade Runner.

rxfiend
07-09-2009, 05:24 AM
this is kinda off topic but why dont they put both versions of the film on one DVD or Blu-ray!??!!?

I don't think seamless branching would work so well in this case. I think there are quite a few differences that separate transfers would be the best bet (it's been awhile since I've watched the movie, so my memory may be a bit fuzzy).

fceurich39
08-24-2009, 07:08 PM
well good news,really good news and bad news
the good news is the transfer is done

The really good news is both the version you've never seen and theatrical version will be included

the bad news it wont be coming until mid-fall 2010 click here

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/17169

Dave
08-24-2009, 09:28 PM
well good news,really good news and bad news
the good news is the transfer is done

The really good news is both the version you've never seen and theatrical version will be included

the bad news it wont be coming until mid-fall 2010 click here

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/17169

Worth the wait. 25th anniv. DVD has served me well; I can live with it for another year.

Angelman
08-24-2009, 10:21 PM
Worth the wait. 25th anniv. DVD has served me well; I can live with it for another year.

Plus, with Roizman involved, perhaps the films will look as it should.

X-human
08-24-2009, 10:32 PM
Plus, with Roizman involved, perhaps the films will look as it should.

Since Owen Roizman has openly criticized what Friedkin did with The French Connection, it is a good sign indeed. I will admit a slight curiosity about how it would look with Friedkin's pastel look on The Exorcist, as it could actually work. Maybe TVYNS will use it and the TC will be just as Roizman likes it. A fair compromise I'm sure.

rhett
08-24-2009, 11:16 PM
Since Owen Roizman has openly criticized what Friedkin did with The French Connection, it is a good sign indeed. I will admit a slight curiosity about how it would look with Friedkin's pastel look on The Exorcist, as it could actually work. Maybe TVYNS will use it and the TC will be just as Roizman likes it. A fair compromise I'm sure.

Wasn't TVYNS more a cut to appease Blatty (other than to rack in more cash)? I've always been under the assumption the theatrical cut is Friedkin's director's cut and the one he'd care most about.

X-human
08-25-2009, 12:55 AM
Wasn't TVYNS more a cut to appease Blatty (other than to rack in more cash)? I've always been under the assumption the theatrical cut is Friedkin's director's cut and the one he'd care most about.

Yeah, Friedkin originally said was happy with the TC but decided to do it for Blatty (and I would assume the money. It's not like Blatty has THAT much power to get this down now just because). But more recently Friendkin has also suggested that it's now his preferred version as well. His exact words may be that Blatty "was right."

So I'm just spit balling that TVYNS could be the preferred route to alter visually for Friendkin, as he's flat out stated he wants to do this with all his films now. :rolleyes: This is not any form of speculation on my part, just hoping the best of the worst I guess.

Matt89
08-25-2009, 04:26 PM
Well that sucks that they're delaying it a year, but hey...we're getting the original cut now too! (The old DVD of the TC is starting to look terrible).

And to be honest, I actually don't mind what Friedkin did with The French Connection. It doesn't look horrible, it just makes it look more like a film from the '70s. I mean the way it was shot, the film lacked resolution anyway, and the color timing actually works and gives the movie a "cold" feel to it. I kinda wish they'd do it with the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It would suit that movie perfectly.

~Matt

Marv Inc.
08-27-2009, 06:37 PM
I hope they fix the colour for this new Blu the 25th AE adition had a cool bue look to the film. If you look at the Original Warner dvd its alot more natural.

Original 25th AE

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/Richiedvd/exorcistlogo4.pnghttp://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/Richiedvd/exorcist25thlogo.png
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/Richiedvd/exorcistorgtitle.pnghttp://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/Richiedvd/exorcist25thtitle.png
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/Richiedvd/exorcistorgiraq.pnghttp://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/Richiedvd/exorcist25thiraq.png
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/Richiedvd/exorcistorghosp.pnghttp://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/Richiedvd/exorcist25thhospital.png
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/Richiedvd/exorcistorgbridge.pnghttp://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/Richiedvd/exorcist25thbridge.png
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/Richiedvd/exorcistorgendlogo.pnghttp://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/Richiedvd/exorcist25thendlogo.png

Harry Warden
08-29-2009, 02:32 AM
I don't give a shit what they do. It will be mine come Halloween 2010.

CaptHowdy
09-24-2009, 12:47 AM
One of my absolute favorite horror films of all time...why screw with it after all these years? I have no problem with an alternate version (TVYNS) being available, as long as you don't alter the original. Make both available and I'm a happy camper. Can't wait for this one!

Hellbilly
04-23-2010, 08:01 PM
According to blu-ray.com the release date for The Exorcist is September 20. Warner will release these titles on the same day:

Forbidden Planet
Lost in Space
Mars Attacks!
Rush Hour

and one week later:

THX 1138 and
Timecop

Nailwraps
04-23-2010, 08:53 PM
To clarify, the Timecop Blu-Ray will only be available by Warner in the UK as Timecop was released/owned by Universal in the US.

fceurich39
04-23-2010, 10:23 PM
According to blu-ray.com the release date for The Exorcist is September 20. Warner will release these titles on the same day:

Forbidden Planet
Lost in Space
Mars Attacks!
Rush Hour

and one week later:

THX 1138 and
Timecop

finally some info i hope both versions will still be included

shape22
04-24-2010, 04:07 AM
I've always been of the opinion that directors only have a finite time in which to see their vision fulfilled. After that, true ownership of their work belongs to history, not them. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with seeing a new cut of a classic, but the new cut should never be meant as a complete replacement of the old. That's why recent updates of films and shows such as Star Wars and Star Trek (and to a lesser extent The Exorcist "version you've never seen" and Blade Runner "Final Cut") make me feel ill. It's tantamount to historical revisionism.

I'll take this even further. Once art goes out to the masses, it belongs to the people. If the Friedkins and Lucases of the world weren't such arrogant asses they'd remember that their careers were built on the original cuts of these films--and that they owe a debt to the public that supported them.

They're obviously entitled to tinker around if they want. And I don't begrudge them for trying to milk a few extra bucks out of their fans by releasing alternate cuts. But regardless of how enamored they might be about their revisions, they don't have the right to pull back the original versions of beloved films for selfish reasons.

X-human
04-24-2010, 05:49 AM
Forbidden Planet and Mars Attacks! on the same day? My prayers truly have been answered. Exorcist I will have to wait and see on.

cazzasguy
04-24-2010, 08:59 AM
Sounds like Lucas and Spielberg bit Friedkin and passed along their disease...

KamuiX,

I've just seen your post on this rather ancient thread and visited your site... it's fantastic, congratulations!! Currently working my way through the reviews and already ordered 3 DVDs of films I'd almost forgotten.

Maintaining a site like that must take a lot of hard work which I really appreciate.

Cheers

Shannafey
04-24-2010, 03:14 PM
Forbidden Planet and Mars Attacks! on the same day? My prayers truly have been answered. Exorcist I will have to wait and see on.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing!!