![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Two articles relevant to this one (
The Exorcist (film series) and
The Exorcist (franchise)) have been proposed for
merging. If you are interested, please participate in
the merger discussion. Thank you. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
21:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I said at the peer review that I recently opened for this article in the wake of my recent expansion of it (which, as I said there, began as what I thought would be a brief copyedit) that my goal is to get the article to FA over the next year so we can run it on the Main Page for the 50th anniversary of the film's release date on December 26, 2023. It is not ready IMO (and indeed, I think, by anyone''s standards), to be nominated now. There are tasks which still need to be done, and decisions to be made, for which I welcome the assistance and input of other editors.
I am open to any other idea I might not have thought of that might improve the article. Happy editing! Daniel Case ( talk) 02:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ErnestKrause ( talk · contribs) 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Assessment in preparation; it may take a few days. To start things off, the article is approaching 300Kb in total size and have you given any thoughts to possibly trimming some of the text or considering a page split for some of the sections? ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
To begin with some framing comments for this very long article which you've started to trim. Its currently at about 250Kb total file size which is somewhat over the two examples which you've given me which are coming in at about 205Kb and 208Kb in size. I'll make some more comments about this later, though I'm taking seriously your reference to your two examples as providing good target sizes for this article as well. My comments below are to be in two parts; the first part is here and I'll follow up with the second part after I see your answers and edits in response. Starting with comments directly below.
(1) I'll be coming back to the lede at the end of this assessment again. For now I'll comment that your research has been extensive and that there might be too much detail shown in the lede since the information is already in the article's main body. A quick example would be your sentence "The book was a bestseller, but Blatty, who also produced...", which could be presented in an alternate form such as "Even though the book was a bestseller, Blatty and Friedkin had difficulty casting the film". This is only example and you can use it or not, however, a shorter lede in total would be to your advantage. Try to let the good research you have done in the main body of the article speak for itself. ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
(2) Plot section. I'm not sure I can think of this film without reference to the Islamic call to faith which appears at the very start of the film in Iraq. Could there be a short mention of this intonation which memorably starts the film.
(3) Distinction of the theatrical cut and director's cut is well added here.
(4) Production section. Should this section have a main article link for the book version. The section currently has no Main article link.
(5) In the writing section, it seems like much of this could be moved to the Wikipedia article for the book version. Condensing books and expanding books into film series or television series, or for abridged book presentations, can be discussed, at least in parts, in the book article as to differences between the published version and the adapted versions.
(6) Casting section. I'm wondering if I can think of Max von Sydow as "a less well-known actor", which you call him. He was a major actor by way of Ingmar Bergman, and even calling him a major European actor may not be doing him full justice. Could the wording about the importance of Sydow as a actor in general and in this film be adapted somewhat to reflect him as a major actor.
(7) Top billing in the Casting section. Who is the top star here? I've read the BFI book about the film by MK and I'm not sure that I'm thinking of them in the order you present them. For example, how much of Regan's character is 'acted' and how much of it is FX? Many have commented that it is the demonic spirit depicted inside Regan which animated the audiences attention, and you can sort this out. I've already stated that Sydow, from many viewers standpoint, was the major actor. He is the one depicted in the poster for this film as approaching the house on a starless night.
(8) Supporting roles section. I'm mentioning again, I'm agreeing with many commentators and critics who have spoken of Sydow's centrality to the plot, etc, as more than merely a supporting role.
(9) Blatty and Friedkin became long-term friends if you look at some of the many interviews they have granted over the years sitting side by side; is there more to be said about this aspect. The sections throughout production are on the long side, and size issues for the sections still need to be taken into account.
As an interesting sidenote, I had the occasion to meet Friedkin once, at an event in Syracuse where he was showing Rampage, hoping to get a distributor for it since De Laurentiis Entertainment Group had gone bankrupt after the film was finished, just before its intended release. Near the end of the event I asked him, up close and personal, what he thought about the upcoming Exorcist III adaptation Blatty was directing. He had already made no bones about still hating Exorcist II, and he was just as blunt about III, about which had already been reported that he and Blatty had fallen out over: "It's gonna suck just as bad as Exorcist II!."
It seems that they patched things up, which, of course, is always good to hear. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
(10) One more time. No pictures of Sydow in the entire article (not the poster silhouette)?
For a picture of von Sydow, we would want to use one of the free ones we have on Commons, and try to find one from that general era (sort of an informal rule). This is really the only one we have that fits that bill, and in it he's a) wearing mustache, unlike Father Merrin and b) it's kind of small. Maybe I should see about finding another production still. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
(11) Your research for this article in many of the sections show the level of interest that this film has caused in your reading of the material. That's generally to be a good feature, though I may need to return to length issues again.
(12) Editing section. You state, "In his tweet discussing this...", might look better if framed as to the time it was made. For example, "When, many years later, in his tweet discussing this...".
(13) Jump forward to Music section for this version of my comments. Its very hard for myself to think of this film's music without thinking of Tubular Bells first and foremost. I'm going to suggest you give it a much higher profile in this section than your current approach of including after your introductory material. Your research is all fine, though I sort of feel the section will look more effective if Tubular Bells is discussed right off at the top of this section. As I recall, it even charted at the time the film was released.
(14) Production difficulties section. Its all well researched; just be careful about the line between useful text and anecdotal text concerning size issues with this large article.
(15) Jump ahead to Critical response section. The MK comment at the end should not be isolated, and I think it would look better integrated into the narrative of the other paragraphs in this section.
(16) Religious response section. I recalling that there was a significant distinction at the time the film was released between the Catholic response to the film and the Protestant response to the film. Was this evident in the RS which you looked at? RC church responses seemed to be more inclined to have a stronger response to the metaphysical and spiritual aspects of this film, though you should correct me if you think otherwise based on the RS which you have seen.
(17) Since release section might be titled as "After release" or "Post release" as options.
(18) Jump forward to Prequels and sequels. I'm thinking that much of this could be moved to the franchise page already existing on Wikipedia. The article you have here is already plenty long, and this reading within this section might be more appreciated on the franchise page for these films.
That should get things started for phase one of this assessment. Let me know when the article is ready for the next set of comments. ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I see editors have been discussing the article length. The key factor that matters per WP:Article size isn't the bytes of wikitext but the readable prose count, which is an astonishing 17171 words. I don't think you're likely to pass FAC without some very significant cuts from that (you're looking at reducing the article around 40-50%). Admittedly, GAN has looser length criteria.
I am impressed by the dedication that it must take to write such a long article, but nevertheless keeping it concise and on-topic is essential for our readers. Although some spinoffs have already been done, there are more opportunities for the same. For example, the "litigation" section doesn't seem to me that any of the lawsuits had a major impact on the film or its legacy. I wonder if might be excised completely (or shortened to a couple sentences) and moved to a sub-article.
Unrelated, but I also noticed harv errors with Travers & Rieff 1999. ( t · c) buidhe 07:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I have recently made another pass through the article with an eye to trimming and tightening; as a result the article is leaner than I ever imagined it could be a few months ago. But it still has a couple of hundred too many words by the standards of WP:TOOBIG. I'm not sure how much more I could cut and not leave something important out of the article.
As noted in discussions between me and Buidhe in the wake of the recent GAN debacle, the reception section is overlong compared to most of the other sections, especially since I have spun off separate articles into draft space for now from the original production and themes sections. While we have plenty of other separate articles on those subjects for individual films, we don't have any " reception of ..." to a specific film, although we do have Reception of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
However, there is Reactions from India and the Indian diaspora to Slumdog Millionaire, which was also an overlong but essential aspect of that film's reaction. As it was created as a result of a talk page discussion, I think it is only fair to initiate and ask the same question here: Should we split off a separate reception article?
If no one objects within a few days, I will start that process. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bneu2013 ( talk · contribs) 04:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I will be picking up where the previous reviewer left off. While this one will probably take longer to review than most, I do promise to complete the review in a promptly manner so that we can get it to FA status by the 50th anniversary of the film's release. That being said, I will have my first comments very soon. Bneu2013 ( talk) 04:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Update - I apologize, for the slower pace, but I have been having even more computer issues the last few days, which has slowed me down a little. But my goal is still to finish this review soon so you can get it on the Main Page by the 50th anniversary. That being said, I will have more comments tomorrow. Bneu2013 ( talk) 06:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
While the length is still an issue, I agree than an article about a film of this magnitude is going to automatically be longer than most articles. The current length is 15,216 words, which is a great improvement, but still may need to be condensed by a few thousand. Some users seem to adhere to a "strict 10k" rule; i.e., will automatically fail or oppose if the article is over 10k words. I beg to differ with that; as I mentioned, an article about a film this groundbreaking is naturally going to have a lot to talk about, even if it is summarized. Some users also seem to forget that all articles are different. Not to mention that what entails constituting a complete article is bound to change over time. That being said, although this isn't a strict guideline, I personally find that articles flow better if the sections contain no more than five paragraphs. I actually prefer four as the limit, but for an article this long, no more than one or two instances of five-paragraph sections. Many of the paragraphs are short and could easily be combined. For example, the plot section contains eight paragraphs, one of which has only two sentences. This would probably be one of the paragraphs where five sentences would make sense, however.
Moitraanak ( talk) 16:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
But ... let me see what we can do with cutting the article down more and I might be more open to this. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
As for the Cavett show appearance ... I have not been able to find a reliable source online for exactly when. As I noted in a section on the talk page discussing this among other things, there is this Reddit thread that seems to be the only serious investigation of this. I think the guy who notes that a) Blatty was a backup guest, who wound up getting on only because Robert Shaw was too drunk, so he wouldn't likely be listed in any account of the show by booked guest, and b) the late Daniel Ellsberg was the first guest, for about 5 minutes, and due to the controversy at the time over his role in the Pentagon Papers leak ABC may have kept tapes of the episode from circulating. Cavett seems to confirm the interview took place in this interview of his own, but not the details.
Based on Blatty's account of how the book leapt to the top of Time's bestseller list afterwards, another Redditor on the thread pins down the possible date of the interview to between June 19 and July 21, 1971.
This was great research ... if it had been published in a reliable source, we'd have no question about using it. But as it stands ... Daniel Case ( talk) 23:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Shirley MacLaine, a friend of Blatty's whom the Chris McNeil character was based on,[11][a] using some things she had once said as dialogue, had been interested, but wanted someone other than Blatty to produce.
The film also excludes the detail from the book of the possessed Regan experiencing constant diarrhea, giving her room a strong foul odor- would change to something like "the film also excludes Regan's constant diarrhea, which gives her room a strong foul odor".
but rejected, or turned it down.→ "but either rejected or turned the offer down." Also, there is an extra space between this sentence and the first reference.
Friedkin also turned down Blatty's friend Shirley MacLaine since she had starred in 1970's similar The Possession of Joel Delaney- "Friedkin also rejected Blatty's friend Shirley MacLaine since she had starred in The Possession of Joel Delaney, a similar film."
Linda's credits were primarily in modeling and a single soap opera role.- Change "Linda's" to "Her".
"[S]mart but not precocious. Cute but not beautiful. A normal, happy 12-year-old girl", Friedkin later recalled.- Would change to something like "Friedkin later recalled that Blair was "[S]mart but not precocious. Cute but not beautiful. A normal, happy 12-year-old girl" ".
Done
She was cast after tests with Burstyn; Friedkin wanted to keep that level of spontaneity.- I would cut the second part of this sentence, as it is vague; would also change "She" to "Blair".
"[T]here wasn't one other [actress] I would have considered", said Friedkin.- would change to something like "Friedkin said that there "wasn't one other [actress] I would have considered".
But in scenes with the priests it lacked the dramatic power required,- I feel like "dramatic" is a weasel word here.
After filming, Warners did not credit her, until Screen Actors Guild arbitration.- does this mean that her name was not included in the credits in the initial theatrical release? Were the first thirty prints mentioned in the next sentence the ones produced before the arbitration. Also, is "Warners" a commonly used abbreviation for Warner Bros.?
While that arbitration was concluded quickly enough that McCambridge's name was included in the credits on all but the first 30 prints, it prevented the release of a soundtrack album that was to include excerpts of dialogue.—since that makes it clearer that the swift conclusion of the arbitration (something I'm sure everyone had an interest in) led to the later inclusion of her name in the credits. Do you think that would work?
As far as "Warners" goes, that does seem to be the standard way the studio is referred to in film journalism. Perhaps we should get some clarity on that at WT:FILM. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Friedkin gave her no notes, telling her to play the possessed Regan as "a primal force of malevolence ... I wasn't playing a little girl, I was playing the demon that possessed a little girl", she recalled.- change to something like "She recalled that Friedkin gave her no notes and said, "I wasn't playing a little girl, I was playing the demon that possessed a little girl"."
Reportedly Warners had forced Dietz on Friedkin; he in turn used her only when absolutely necessary.- I would cut the second part of this sentence, as it is pretty much redundant per the previous paragraph, and move the tidbit about Friedkin being forced to use Dietz to the first sentence of the previous paragraph.
Warners reportedly forced Friedkin to use Eileen Dietz, 15 years Blair's senior.[28] Dietz stood in for Blair in the crucifix scene, the fistfight with Father Karras, and others that were too violent or disturbing for Blair to perform.- Bneu2013 ( talk) 06:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Dietz, angry that her contribution to the film had been minimized, claimed- would change "done" to something like "performed".in the mediato have done all the possession scenes.
The Halsman photo of Teilhard de Chardin that suggested von Sydow to Friedkin- would change this caption to something like "The photograph of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin that inspired Friedkin to cast von Sydow" and link.
Two priests were cast. Father William O'Malley who had become acquainted with Blatty through his criticism of the novel, was cast as Father Dyer, a character O'Malley had considered clichéd in the novel.- for the sake of length, I would condense this sentence to something like "Father William O'Malley, who had become acquainted with Blatty through his criticism of the novel, was cast as Father Dyer, who he had considered clichéd in the novel." Comma also needed after first "O'Malley".
The Rev. Thomas Bermingham, the Georgetown professor who assigned the student Blatty the research on demonic possession that informed the novel, took the role of the university president.- reword to something like "The Rev. Thomas Bermingham, a Georgetown professor who assigned Blatty research on demonic possession as a student, took the role of the university president."
A later cast listing adds Mary Boylan and The Rev. John Nicola, one of the film's technical advisors, in small roles.- does this mean they were cast later than all the other actors or only listed in a modern cast list, such as the re-release? If the latter is true, does this mean they were uncredited in the credits in the 1973 release? Elaborate.
Friedkin reportedly cast Vasiliki Maliaros as Karras's mother after encountering her in a Greek restaurant.- move "reportedly" to before "encountering".
...a copy of Blatty's novel the author sent him.- not the best wording; I would change to "a copy of the novel Blatty sent him". Also, consider changing "began reading" to "read".
"I was so overwhelmed by the power of this story, and I didn't stop to think about the problems involved with making it."- I would paraphrase this quote into a descriptive sentence. Also, it's unclear whether "it" refers to the novel or the film. If it's the latter, I would change to something like "adapting it [the novel] into a film."
He decided the film would be best with a deliberate pace.- ambiguous and awkward wording; I personally don't see that this really adds anything of substance to the article, and so I would cut.
I wanted it to happen slowly because the story, as it affected the real people who inspired it, took place in just that way", Friedkin said in 2015.- again, I'd paraphrase this quote and remove the date.
Audiences would need to see everything that happened to Regan, everything else attempted to treat her condition.- second part of this is ambiguous, but I think I know what it means. If it is referring to all the unsuccessful treatments, I would change to something like "Friedkin felt that audiences should see everything that happened to Regan and the unsuccessful attempts at treating her condition." Also, if I'm not mistaken, "everything that happened to Regan" in the novel isn't in the film. Reword if necessary.
An early clash during production led to Warners- what led to this clash? Also, I assume this was legal action.tellingto tell Blatty he could not take any action against Friedkin.
Unsatisfied with O'Malley's performance as Dyer ministers to the dying Karras at the end of the film, he slapped him hard across the face to generate a deeply solemn yet- also did this offend all the Catholic crew members? If not, cut "the" before "many".literallyshaken reaction for the scene, offending the many Catholic crew members.
"It was beyond what anyone needs to do to make a movie," Burstyn said in 2019.- I would remove this. IMHO it doesn't really add anything to the reader's understanding, and I think most people can figure this out from the previous sentence.
He also fired blanks[19] without warning to elicit shock from Miller for a take;[8] Dietz recalls him also doing this during the scene where Regan assaults the doctors at the house.- condense to something like "He also fired blanks without warning during a take to elicit shock from Miller and reportedly did so during another scene."
Director of photography Owen Roizman had worked with Friedkin in that capacity on The French Connection. The two collaborated again on The Exorcist, with Roizman in charge of filming every scene in the film save those in the Iraqi prologue, shot by Billy Williams.- change to something like "Owen Roizman, director of photography on The French Connection, worked this position again on The Exorcist. He was in charge of filming every scene except for the Iraqi prologue, which was shot by Billy Williams."
In a 1974 interview with American Cinematographer, the magazine of the American Society of Cinematographers, Roizman discussed The Exorcist at length.- I really don't see how this adds anything in its current form. If there's something he said during this interview that's worth including, then I'd include it.
But I agree that it's really not necessary, so I'll leave it out of the main article. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Roizman and Friedkin agreed that, like their previous film, they wanted The Exorcist to look as if shot with available light. But they would eschew Connection's documentary look.- would change to "Roizman and Friedkin wanted The Exorcist, like their previous film, to appear to have been shot in available light." or something else appropriate. I would also cut the last sentence, as it is kind of off topic and "documentary" is kind of a weasel word here.
I am pleased to report that, as of these edits, we are finally below 15,000 words. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
To the second, I have not found any account of the production that gives the day it wrapped. One of the unavoidable imperfections of researching and editing encyclopedia articles is that the fact that a fact that might be useful to know undeniably exists does not necessarily mean that it will have been reliably documented somewhere. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
whento shorten this sentence.the U.S. and Iraqthese countries did not have diplomatic relations
who required that he hire local workers as crew[1] and teach filmmaking to interested residents.
Temperatures during the days- again, I think we can cut this for the sake of trimming this sentence; I don't see how doing so removes anything from the substance of the article.filming took placereached 130 °F (54 °C), limiting shooting to dawn and dusk.
The scene where Father Karras listens to the tapes of Regan was filmed in the basement of Fordham University's Keating Hall,[54] where O'Malley, who plays Dyer,was an assistant professor of theology.
36th and Prospect- Street? Avenue? I feel like we should mention the road's full names.
A mansard roof was added to account for the scene in the attic.to "A mansard roof was added to account for the attic scene."
The house was set back slightly from the steps, so the crew built an eastward extension with a false front.- I would reword this to specify that this allowed Karras to fall directly from the house.
Locations used on campus included both exteriors such as Burstyn's first scene, shot on the steps of Healy Hall, and interiors such as Dahlgren Chapel and the Archbishop's office (actually the office of the university's president).- run-on sentence; I would reword to something like "Burstyn's first scene was shot on the steps of Healy Hall. Other campus locations used included the interiors of Dahlgren Chapel and the university president's office, which was used for the Archbishop's office." Also, what was Burstyn's first scene? If it's not worth mentioning, then you might as well remove that tidbit completely, and say "Campus locations included the steps of Healy Hall and the interiors..."
Also, I added Burstyn's first scene ... it's obviously the one early in the film, after the Iraq scenes, where she's filming the scene in the movie she's making where she walks up onto the steps, grabs the megaphone and tells the protesters that if they want change, they have to work within the system. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Friedkin wanted the bedroom set to be cold as it is described in the novel, cold enough to see the actors' breath.- condense to something like "Friedkin wanted the bedroom set to be cold enough to see the actors' breath, as described in the novel."
A $50,000 ($249,000 in modern dollars[44])[1] refrigeration system was installed to cool the set to −20 °F (−29 °C)[8][48]- also, don't forget the inflation format I suggested.so that could happen.[60]
In the original version of this section, I had a graf sourced to the Roizman interview where he explains that this was the original idea:
Originally it was hoped that the room would not have to be chilled that much. But while the actors' breath was visible at just below freezing, the set was too quickly warmed by the filming equipment. Going down to 0 °F (−18 °C) worked, but according to Roizman Friedkin decided on the maximum in order to improve the actors' performance. "An actor on his knees for 15 minutes at 20 below zero is really going to feel cold. It worked out very well."
As to the lighting warming the air so quickly, are you familiar with the lights used in filmmaking? Many of them can get quite hot ... according to the article, arc lamps can reach an outer temperature of 500 °C (932 °F). To be fair, I'm not sure they used any for those scenes ... Roizman said that given Friedkin's desire to make the sets look as realistic as possible most of that scene is lit with just the regular old room lamp and some carefully hidden supplemental lights. Yup, see here:
Friedkin decided that he did not want any scenes in the movie to have "any kind of spooky lights that you typically saw in horror films", so all the lights in the bedroom come from a visible source. This was challenging because at one point one of the lamps lighting it falls on the floor, changing the way it had to be lit to preserve the impression of available light. At other times they flicker and dim, supposedly due to Pazuzu's influence. Lastly, at the end of the sequence, Friedkin wanted the lighting's mood to change, to "have an ethereal quality—a very soft, glowing, cool sort of thing" without any apparent change in its sources. "We tried, at that point, to work with absolutely no shadows in the room, using just bounce light—and I think we achieved the correct overall effect.
Since it was so necessary to hide the lights with such a small room and so many people in it both on and off camera, Roizman and his crew mostly used "inkies", small incandescent bulb lights usually used to accentuate objects within the frame, "hidden wherever we could find a place for one. We were constantly controlling them with dimmers, so that if someone got too close to one, we'd take it down." He recalls his gaffer at one point controlling four of them; as a joke he put sheet music in front of the man one day. Due to the low light used, it was necessary to use wide aperture settings in most of the interiors, not just Regan's room. "I shot 90 percent of the picture wide open, as usual."
It was easier to film some of the other supernatural manifestations, such as the bed rocking and the curtains blowing since the walls and ceiling of the set were "wild", capable of being moved to accommodate a camera.-"Other supernatural manifestations like the bed rocking and curtains blowing were easier to film since the walls and ceiling of the set could move to accommodate a camera." - "wild" sounds like a weasel word.
After the scene where the ceiling cracks it was replaced with a hard one.- I feel like this doesn't really add anything and needs to be cut. Also, what is a "hard" ceiling?
I have combined and reworked the sentences so this relationship is clearer. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
A hole was cut in it for the rig to go through when Regan levitates as the priests chant "The power of Christ compels you!", the most challenging shot in the sequence.[48] the 80-pound (36 kg) Blair wore a bodysuit under her nightgown with attached hooks for monofilament wires.- change to something like "The most difficult sequence to film proved to be Regan's levitation, where the 80-pound (36 kg) Blair wore a bodysuit under her nightgown with attached hooks for monofilament wires. A hole was cut in the ceiling for up-close shots during this scene.}} - since the Priests' chant is mentioned in the video caption, I don't see any reason to mention it here.
But here I've linked it and corrected the spelling. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
In order to get the beam of light the way Friedkin wanted- This is confusing. It sounds like the crew moved the window frame back a few feet and stuck the spotlight between the window and frame. Does this mean the light was projected out an empty hole in the building? And why did the light have to be placed between the frame and window opening. From the first part of the sentence, it sounds like the frame was in the way.it, the crew had to take the window frame out of the facade they had attached to the house for filming, put it behind the window and then put the spotlight in between the window and frame.
It turns out it's in an endnote on the very last page of text in the book (well, before the appendix with the full credits and the index). See what you might do with this as far as paraphrasing:
According to cinematographer Owen Roizman, the translation of this scene to film was particularly complex and involved removing Regan's window-frame from the facade attached to the Mahoney house, placing it behind the window, and beaming a spotlight from the opening between the two.
As they were shooting,Roizman said,the wind picked up, making it hard to hold the fog effect. By working quickly,heRoizman and the camera crew were able to get the shot,
A life-size animated dummy of Regan was built, so realistic that Blair felt uncomfortable in its presence... Special effects supervisor Marcel Vercoutere built the latex dummy with help from makeup artist Dick Smith.- Although they're not in the same paragraph, I would find a way to combine these.
but it still did not quite look real.- although most people would probably agree, this still sounds like an opinion expressed as a fact. Reword.
Whether the scene had been shot at all was debated by fans for years afterwards—Friedkin denied having done so—until Kermode found the footage in Warners' archives while researching his book on the film in the mid-1990s.- suggest rewording to "Whether the scene had been shot at all was debated by fans for years afterwards. Friedkin denied having done so until Kermode found the footage in Warners' archives in the mid-1990s while researching his book on the film."
It was restored- period at the end of this sentence and cut stray space before ref 87. Also, what was the "different take" that was used? Was this a different shot than what Kermode found? Lastly, was it edited with CGI?toin the 2000 director's cut,[85] albeit with a "muddy, grainy" look that one critic said made the scene seem superfluous,[86] using a different take showing Regan with blood flowing from her mouth
Websites devoted to the film in the early 21st century gave credit to,Sylvia Hager, creditedafter the 2000 re-release.
In one scene, von Sydow is wearing more makeup than Blair, in order to look 30 years older in facial close-ups.- Change to something like "For facial closeups, von Sydow wore more makeup than Blair in order to look 30 years older." Also, was this only in one scene?
This was filmed and then reversed in the edit so the letters seemed to appear.- change "the edit" to "post-production". You could also cut "was filmed".
*Suggest changing parentheses in second sentence to en- or em-dashes. Replace comma after "supervising editor" with a semicolon, and Oxford comma after "Norman Gay".
He asked Friedkin to let him cut one large rack of footage from the Iraq sequence.- does this mean he asked Friedkin to let him cut some of these scenes from the final film, or just edit (in general) this sequence?
created the sound effects
Friedkin was personally involved in the four-month sound process, the last aspect of the film completed, just before deadline.- was Friedkin only involved just before the deadline, or was the sound process completed just before the deadline, or both? Elaborate. Also, "the" before "deadline".
The title sequence was the first major project for film title designer Dan Perri, whom Friedkin sought out after seeing his work on Electra Glide in Blue, before The Exorcist was even completed.
Perri's input into the film's opening continued after the credits.- what exactly does this mean.
What is now considered the movie's theme, the piano-based melody which opens Tubular Bells,[112] the 1973 debut album by English progressive rock musician Mike Oldfield, became very popular after the film's release.- very awkward wording. Suggest condensing also.
"But I listened to that refrain, and it hooked me, and we won the rights to it" he said. "I think it sold 10 or 20 million records."- paraphrase quotes. Also, if it is available, I would cite data for the actual number of copies sold, not how many Friedkin thought were sold.
Friedkin rejected Lalo Schifrin's working score.to later in this paragraph, and rephrase and condense as necessary. Suggest rewording first sentence to say that Schrifin also composed a score.
"In other words, rather than get bad imitation Stravinsky, I might as well have the real thing.".
There are 17 minutes of music in a film around two hours long.- reword to something like "There are 17 minutes of music in the film."
In 1998 a restored and remastered soundtrack was released by Warner (without Tubular Bells) that included three pieces—"Music from the unused Trailer", an 11-minute "Suite from the Unused Score", and "Rock Ballad (Unused Theme)"—from Schifrin's rejected score.- comma after 1998. Also, shouldn't "Warner" be "Warners"?
He had wanted a release before the holiday, or on it, as is more common at that time of year- rephrase to something like "He had wanted a release before or on the holiday". Also replace semicolon with period at the end of this sentence.
it has been speculated that Warners wanted to avoid any controversy that might have come from releasing a film about demonic possession before a major religious holiday (Crowther, conversely, believes the studio chose Christmas to stoke controversy around the film[89])
- Capitalize "it", and split sentence in parentheses into separate sentence. I don't see the need for this to be in parentheses.
He had wanted Warners to choose a more preferable release date, such as March, like Godfather.- more preferable to who? Also, March of '73 or '74? If I'm not mistaken, filming was originally scheduled to be completed well before March of '73, which I guess would have made a release date then theoretically possible.
I think in the source Friedkin was making this complaint well after March '73 had been missed. Implicit is that The Godfather had been similarly plagued by production problems and the press reports of same,, and that when Paramount scheduled the film for its March 1972 release that date was seen as a statement of confidence in the product (because by that time of year the movie market gets competitive again). Daniel Case ( talk) 05:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
It is the second- adjusted for inflation or not? Also, you could say it was the highest-grossing Christmas week release until Titanic, and remains the second-highest today.all-timehighest-grossing Christmas week release after 1997's Titanic.
Headnote: This section I will probably be breaking out as a separate article eventually to reduce the size of the overall article, so we should keep that in mind. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Since it was a horror film that had gone well over budget, without major stars, Warner had low expectations for The Exorcist.- I would reword to something like "Warner's initially had low expectations for The Exorcist, since it was a horror film without major stars that had gone well over budget.
It did not preview the film for critics and booked the initial release for 30 screens in 24 theaters,[148] mostly in 21 large cities and metropolitan areas.- rephrase to something like "The film was not previewed for critics and initially booked for 30 screens in 24 theaters, mostly in large cities and metropolitan areas.
None of the theaters were in African American neighborhoods such as South Central Los Angeles since the studio did not expect that audience to be interested in the film, which had no African-American characters.- the initial theaters or the wide releases? Also, remove hyphens from "African-American".
Fixed I changed it to "Black", as AA is now considered sort of deprecated.
Daniel Case (
talk)
22:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
African-Americans enthusiasm for The Exorcist has been credited with ending mainstream studio support for blaxploitation movies. Also dehyphenate. Bneu2013 ( talk) 20:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Butafter the theater in predominantly white Westwood showing the film
as the audience for the film was at least one-third Black
The New York Times reported that the audience lined up to see the film was between one-quarter and one-third Black at a theater on the mostly white Upper East Side of Manhattan showing the film in late January.- Do we need to list the date here?
(trailing The Sting's $68.5 million)- I would change this to "behind The Sting. Also, if I'm not mistaken, The Exorcist was the highest-grossing film released in 1973.
Most of that money went to Warners as a result of four-wall distribution, where the studio rents the theater from the owner, keeping all the ticket revenue, in the initial run, the first time a major studio had done that.- borderline run-on.
Many of the things you noted in this section are also leftovers from the more fannish version of the article, so these changes are not too controversial with me. Daniel Case ( talk) 00:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
When it was over, Calley and the other executives,remained in their seats, stunned.
In New York City,- also suggest Oxford comma after "rain".where it first ran in a few theaters,patrons (many having already seen the film) endured 6 °F (−14 °C) cold, rain and sleet,[147] waiting for hours in long lines during a normally slow time of year for the movies to buy tickets.
Crowds gathered outside theaters sometimes rioted, and police had to be called not only in New York but Kansas City.- suggest rewording last part to something like "police were called in cities such as New York and Kansas City".
Three separate production histories were published.- don't know what this is about, and if it is relevant to this section.
*Comma after "Devil" in first sentence of second paragraph.
The changes to the film's ending from the novel, Blatty agreed, might have made it harder to perceive that "the mystery of goodness" was the theme of the work, since it appeared to many viewers, including some of those who had written in America, that the film ended with the demon triumphant through the deaths of the priests despite being exorcised from Regan.- borderline run-on.
The Rev. Lester Kinsolving, an Episcopal priest who wrote a syndicated newspaper column on religion, chastised the Church's approval, saying it did so only because its heroes were priests.- suggest rewording "saying" to "arguing"; more neutral.
I also found some other interesting tidbits that can be added to this and other articles ... one of the former would be that apparently, in one of his last letters to the police, the Zodiac killer mentioned that he had rather liked The Exorcist. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Since many theaters did not show those films,and newspapers did not run ads for them,
"The review board [has] surrendered all right to the claim that it provides moral and ethical leadership to the movie industry". Ditto the one in the next sentence.
A letter-writing campaign to local councils by the NFL led many to screen The Exorcist before permitting it to be shown.- Many theaters?
The Exorcist was available on home video from 1981 in the UK.- reword to something like "The Exorcist was released on home video in 1981 in the UK."
First, Bean suggests his estimate is based purely on adjusting all movies to 2019 ticket prices. But there's a lot of problems with that. Does it take into account second-run showings, still common in the '70s and '80s, that charged lower ticket prices? And of course no movies make their money from only ticket sales, not from 1973 or 2017. Do his numbers include video rentals? Streaming revenues? I get the feeling they don't.
The greater issue is that a truly inflation-adjusted revenue figure would reflect the curve the movie's long tail sits on. We'd want to know the revenue figures for each individual year, then apply the appropriate inflation figure to them. I suspect only Warners' accounting department has access to the best numbers for that, and studios usually prefer to keep them quiet. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
John Carpenter listed The Exorcist as one of his top eight scariest horror classics[211] and listed the film as an influence in his 1980 supernatural horror film The Fog.- reword second part to something like "and stated that the film was an influence on his 1980 supernatural horror film The Fog.
Feminism has gotten attention in discussions of The Exorcist. The U.S. women's liberation movement had enjoyed some early gains in legislatures and courts, and commentators have seen the film, in which a single working mother and her apparently uncontrollable daughter are rescued by patriarchal authority, as a reaction against feminism.- awkward wording and run-on sentence. Also link women's liberation movement and flip refs 224 and 8.
In November 1973, Blatty sued the studio and Friedkin, over both the credits and Friedkin's banning him from the set.- slightly awkward rewording; leaning towards rephrasing.
"The Exorcist has done for the horror film what 2001 did for science fiction", wrote Cinefantastique, "legitimizing it in the eyes of thousands who previously considered horror movies nothing more than a giggle".- suggest rewording to something like "Cinefantastique wrote that The Exorcist "has done for the horror film what 2001 did for science fiction, legitimizing it in the eyes of thousands who previously considered horror movies nothing more than a giggle"."
Many had major stars, who until then had often avoided the genre in their career prime.- I suggest rewording this to something like "Horror films began to cast well-known actors, who until then had often avoided the genre in their career prime" (assuming this is also true of other horror films not mentioned in the list).
Composers of original music for those films adopted some of their techniques, like dissonant intervals such as- some of the techniques used in The Exorcist or some of the composers' personal techniques? If it's the latter, and doesn't relate to anything in this film, then this sentence is likely borderline off topic.(particularly)tritones, sound massing and tone clusters, to create unease and tension.
In an early episode of the 1982-83 CBS sitcom Square Pegs, Don Novello, as his Saturday Night Live (SNL) character Father Guido Sarducci, enters a classroom, similarly backlit amidst fog, in order to exorcise a character from possession by the Pac-Man video game.- cut "1982-83" and instead replace "early" with the year the episode aired.
The Exorcist won two of its 10 Academy Awards nominations.- change to something like "The Exorcist was nominated for 10 Academy Awards and won two of them."
It was a "disgrace" that The Exorcist had not won all the awards it was nominated for, as it was "head and shoulders, the finest film made this year and in many other years".- opinion stated as a fact. Also, too much information about Blatty's interview after the Oscars. Cut this down to one sentence.
The film has led to multiple sequels and a television series.
who had turned down the original as "negative and destructive",; this is me mentioned elsewhere if I remember right. Also cut
considering the sequel to be "healthy" by comparison., as this is borderline off topic.
despite the lack of exorcism scenes (one was added after principal photography, with Nicol Williamson in the role).; again, this is borderline off topic.
And that does it. This took a lot longer than I had hoped, but once all remaining comments are addressed, it should be good to go. I look forward to seeing this article on the main page. Bneu2013 ( talk) 00:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Can we all agree that The Exorcist ended perfectly and did NOT need a sequel? BlackBuick2099 ( talk) 12:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Two articles relevant to this one (
The Exorcist (film series) and
The Exorcist (franchise)) have been proposed for
merging. If you are interested, please participate in
the merger discussion. Thank you. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
21:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I said at the peer review that I recently opened for this article in the wake of my recent expansion of it (which, as I said there, began as what I thought would be a brief copyedit) that my goal is to get the article to FA over the next year so we can run it on the Main Page for the 50th anniversary of the film's release date on December 26, 2023. It is not ready IMO (and indeed, I think, by anyone''s standards), to be nominated now. There are tasks which still need to be done, and decisions to be made, for which I welcome the assistance and input of other editors.
I am open to any other idea I might not have thought of that might improve the article. Happy editing! Daniel Case ( talk) 02:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ErnestKrause ( talk · contribs) 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Assessment in preparation; it may take a few days. To start things off, the article is approaching 300Kb in total size and have you given any thoughts to possibly trimming some of the text or considering a page split for some of the sections? ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
To begin with some framing comments for this very long article which you've started to trim. Its currently at about 250Kb total file size which is somewhat over the two examples which you've given me which are coming in at about 205Kb and 208Kb in size. I'll make some more comments about this later, though I'm taking seriously your reference to your two examples as providing good target sizes for this article as well. My comments below are to be in two parts; the first part is here and I'll follow up with the second part after I see your answers and edits in response. Starting with comments directly below.
(1) I'll be coming back to the lede at the end of this assessment again. For now I'll comment that your research has been extensive and that there might be too much detail shown in the lede since the information is already in the article's main body. A quick example would be your sentence "The book was a bestseller, but Blatty, who also produced...", which could be presented in an alternate form such as "Even though the book was a bestseller, Blatty and Friedkin had difficulty casting the film". This is only example and you can use it or not, however, a shorter lede in total would be to your advantage. Try to let the good research you have done in the main body of the article speak for itself. ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
(2) Plot section. I'm not sure I can think of this film without reference to the Islamic call to faith which appears at the very start of the film in Iraq. Could there be a short mention of this intonation which memorably starts the film.
(3) Distinction of the theatrical cut and director's cut is well added here.
(4) Production section. Should this section have a main article link for the book version. The section currently has no Main article link.
(5) In the writing section, it seems like much of this could be moved to the Wikipedia article for the book version. Condensing books and expanding books into film series or television series, or for abridged book presentations, can be discussed, at least in parts, in the book article as to differences between the published version and the adapted versions.
(6) Casting section. I'm wondering if I can think of Max von Sydow as "a less well-known actor", which you call him. He was a major actor by way of Ingmar Bergman, and even calling him a major European actor may not be doing him full justice. Could the wording about the importance of Sydow as a actor in general and in this film be adapted somewhat to reflect him as a major actor.
(7) Top billing in the Casting section. Who is the top star here? I've read the BFI book about the film by MK and I'm not sure that I'm thinking of them in the order you present them. For example, how much of Regan's character is 'acted' and how much of it is FX? Many have commented that it is the demonic spirit depicted inside Regan which animated the audiences attention, and you can sort this out. I've already stated that Sydow, from many viewers standpoint, was the major actor. He is the one depicted in the poster for this film as approaching the house on a starless night.
(8) Supporting roles section. I'm mentioning again, I'm agreeing with many commentators and critics who have spoken of Sydow's centrality to the plot, etc, as more than merely a supporting role.
(9) Blatty and Friedkin became long-term friends if you look at some of the many interviews they have granted over the years sitting side by side; is there more to be said about this aspect. The sections throughout production are on the long side, and size issues for the sections still need to be taken into account.
As an interesting sidenote, I had the occasion to meet Friedkin once, at an event in Syracuse where he was showing Rampage, hoping to get a distributor for it since De Laurentiis Entertainment Group had gone bankrupt after the film was finished, just before its intended release. Near the end of the event I asked him, up close and personal, what he thought about the upcoming Exorcist III adaptation Blatty was directing. He had already made no bones about still hating Exorcist II, and he was just as blunt about III, about which had already been reported that he and Blatty had fallen out over: "It's gonna suck just as bad as Exorcist II!."
It seems that they patched things up, which, of course, is always good to hear. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
(10) One more time. No pictures of Sydow in the entire article (not the poster silhouette)?
For a picture of von Sydow, we would want to use one of the free ones we have on Commons, and try to find one from that general era (sort of an informal rule). This is really the only one we have that fits that bill, and in it he's a) wearing mustache, unlike Father Merrin and b) it's kind of small. Maybe I should see about finding another production still. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
(11) Your research for this article in many of the sections show the level of interest that this film has caused in your reading of the material. That's generally to be a good feature, though I may need to return to length issues again.
(12) Editing section. You state, "In his tweet discussing this...", might look better if framed as to the time it was made. For example, "When, many years later, in his tweet discussing this...".
(13) Jump forward to Music section for this version of my comments. Its very hard for myself to think of this film's music without thinking of Tubular Bells first and foremost. I'm going to suggest you give it a much higher profile in this section than your current approach of including after your introductory material. Your research is all fine, though I sort of feel the section will look more effective if Tubular Bells is discussed right off at the top of this section. As I recall, it even charted at the time the film was released.
(14) Production difficulties section. Its all well researched; just be careful about the line between useful text and anecdotal text concerning size issues with this large article.
(15) Jump ahead to Critical response section. The MK comment at the end should not be isolated, and I think it would look better integrated into the narrative of the other paragraphs in this section.
(16) Religious response section. I recalling that there was a significant distinction at the time the film was released between the Catholic response to the film and the Protestant response to the film. Was this evident in the RS which you looked at? RC church responses seemed to be more inclined to have a stronger response to the metaphysical and spiritual aspects of this film, though you should correct me if you think otherwise based on the RS which you have seen.
(17) Since release section might be titled as "After release" or "Post release" as options.
(18) Jump forward to Prequels and sequels. I'm thinking that much of this could be moved to the franchise page already existing on Wikipedia. The article you have here is already plenty long, and this reading within this section might be more appreciated on the franchise page for these films.
That should get things started for phase one of this assessment. Let me know when the article is ready for the next set of comments. ErnestKrause ( talk) 14:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I see editors have been discussing the article length. The key factor that matters per WP:Article size isn't the bytes of wikitext but the readable prose count, which is an astonishing 17171 words. I don't think you're likely to pass FAC without some very significant cuts from that (you're looking at reducing the article around 40-50%). Admittedly, GAN has looser length criteria.
I am impressed by the dedication that it must take to write such a long article, but nevertheless keeping it concise and on-topic is essential for our readers. Although some spinoffs have already been done, there are more opportunities for the same. For example, the "litigation" section doesn't seem to me that any of the lawsuits had a major impact on the film or its legacy. I wonder if might be excised completely (or shortened to a couple sentences) and moved to a sub-article.
Unrelated, but I also noticed harv errors with Travers & Rieff 1999. ( t · c) buidhe 07:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I have recently made another pass through the article with an eye to trimming and tightening; as a result the article is leaner than I ever imagined it could be a few months ago. But it still has a couple of hundred too many words by the standards of WP:TOOBIG. I'm not sure how much more I could cut and not leave something important out of the article.
As noted in discussions between me and Buidhe in the wake of the recent GAN debacle, the reception section is overlong compared to most of the other sections, especially since I have spun off separate articles into draft space for now from the original production and themes sections. While we have plenty of other separate articles on those subjects for individual films, we don't have any " reception of ..." to a specific film, although we do have Reception of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
However, there is Reactions from India and the Indian diaspora to Slumdog Millionaire, which was also an overlong but essential aspect of that film's reaction. As it was created as a result of a talk page discussion, I think it is only fair to initiate and ask the same question here: Should we split off a separate reception article?
If no one objects within a few days, I will start that process. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bneu2013 ( talk · contribs) 04:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I will be picking up where the previous reviewer left off. While this one will probably take longer to review than most, I do promise to complete the review in a promptly manner so that we can get it to FA status by the 50th anniversary of the film's release. That being said, I will have my first comments very soon. Bneu2013 ( talk) 04:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Update - I apologize, for the slower pace, but I have been having even more computer issues the last few days, which has slowed me down a little. But my goal is still to finish this review soon so you can get it on the Main Page by the 50th anniversary. That being said, I will have more comments tomorrow. Bneu2013 ( talk) 06:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
While the length is still an issue, I agree than an article about a film of this magnitude is going to automatically be longer than most articles. The current length is 15,216 words, which is a great improvement, but still may need to be condensed by a few thousand. Some users seem to adhere to a "strict 10k" rule; i.e., will automatically fail or oppose if the article is over 10k words. I beg to differ with that; as I mentioned, an article about a film this groundbreaking is naturally going to have a lot to talk about, even if it is summarized. Some users also seem to forget that all articles are different. Not to mention that what entails constituting a complete article is bound to change over time. That being said, although this isn't a strict guideline, I personally find that articles flow better if the sections contain no more than five paragraphs. I actually prefer four as the limit, but for an article this long, no more than one or two instances of five-paragraph sections. Many of the paragraphs are short and could easily be combined. For example, the plot section contains eight paragraphs, one of which has only two sentences. This would probably be one of the paragraphs where five sentences would make sense, however.
Moitraanak ( talk) 16:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
But ... let me see what we can do with cutting the article down more and I might be more open to this. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
As for the Cavett show appearance ... I have not been able to find a reliable source online for exactly when. As I noted in a section on the talk page discussing this among other things, there is this Reddit thread that seems to be the only serious investigation of this. I think the guy who notes that a) Blatty was a backup guest, who wound up getting on only because Robert Shaw was too drunk, so he wouldn't likely be listed in any account of the show by booked guest, and b) the late Daniel Ellsberg was the first guest, for about 5 minutes, and due to the controversy at the time over his role in the Pentagon Papers leak ABC may have kept tapes of the episode from circulating. Cavett seems to confirm the interview took place in this interview of his own, but not the details.
Based on Blatty's account of how the book leapt to the top of Time's bestseller list afterwards, another Redditor on the thread pins down the possible date of the interview to between June 19 and July 21, 1971.
This was great research ... if it had been published in a reliable source, we'd have no question about using it. But as it stands ... Daniel Case ( talk) 23:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Shirley MacLaine, a friend of Blatty's whom the Chris McNeil character was based on,[11][a] using some things she had once said as dialogue, had been interested, but wanted someone other than Blatty to produce.
The film also excludes the detail from the book of the possessed Regan experiencing constant diarrhea, giving her room a strong foul odor- would change to something like "the film also excludes Regan's constant diarrhea, which gives her room a strong foul odor".
but rejected, or turned it down.→ "but either rejected or turned the offer down." Also, there is an extra space between this sentence and the first reference.
Friedkin also turned down Blatty's friend Shirley MacLaine since she had starred in 1970's similar The Possession of Joel Delaney- "Friedkin also rejected Blatty's friend Shirley MacLaine since she had starred in The Possession of Joel Delaney, a similar film."
Linda's credits were primarily in modeling and a single soap opera role.- Change "Linda's" to "Her".
"[S]mart but not precocious. Cute but not beautiful. A normal, happy 12-year-old girl", Friedkin later recalled.- Would change to something like "Friedkin later recalled that Blair was "[S]mart but not precocious. Cute but not beautiful. A normal, happy 12-year-old girl" ".
Done
She was cast after tests with Burstyn; Friedkin wanted to keep that level of spontaneity.- I would cut the second part of this sentence, as it is vague; would also change "She" to "Blair".
"[T]here wasn't one other [actress] I would have considered", said Friedkin.- would change to something like "Friedkin said that there "wasn't one other [actress] I would have considered".
But in scenes with the priests it lacked the dramatic power required,- I feel like "dramatic" is a weasel word here.
After filming, Warners did not credit her, until Screen Actors Guild arbitration.- does this mean that her name was not included in the credits in the initial theatrical release? Were the first thirty prints mentioned in the next sentence the ones produced before the arbitration. Also, is "Warners" a commonly used abbreviation for Warner Bros.?
While that arbitration was concluded quickly enough that McCambridge's name was included in the credits on all but the first 30 prints, it prevented the release of a soundtrack album that was to include excerpts of dialogue.—since that makes it clearer that the swift conclusion of the arbitration (something I'm sure everyone had an interest in) led to the later inclusion of her name in the credits. Do you think that would work?
As far as "Warners" goes, that does seem to be the standard way the studio is referred to in film journalism. Perhaps we should get some clarity on that at WT:FILM. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Friedkin gave her no notes, telling her to play the possessed Regan as "a primal force of malevolence ... I wasn't playing a little girl, I was playing the demon that possessed a little girl", she recalled.- change to something like "She recalled that Friedkin gave her no notes and said, "I wasn't playing a little girl, I was playing the demon that possessed a little girl"."
Reportedly Warners had forced Dietz on Friedkin; he in turn used her only when absolutely necessary.- I would cut the second part of this sentence, as it is pretty much redundant per the previous paragraph, and move the tidbit about Friedkin being forced to use Dietz to the first sentence of the previous paragraph.
Warners reportedly forced Friedkin to use Eileen Dietz, 15 years Blair's senior.[28] Dietz stood in for Blair in the crucifix scene, the fistfight with Father Karras, and others that were too violent or disturbing for Blair to perform.- Bneu2013 ( talk) 06:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Dietz, angry that her contribution to the film had been minimized, claimed- would change "done" to something like "performed".in the mediato have done all the possession scenes.
The Halsman photo of Teilhard de Chardin that suggested von Sydow to Friedkin- would change this caption to something like "The photograph of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin that inspired Friedkin to cast von Sydow" and link.
Two priests were cast. Father William O'Malley who had become acquainted with Blatty through his criticism of the novel, was cast as Father Dyer, a character O'Malley had considered clichéd in the novel.- for the sake of length, I would condense this sentence to something like "Father William O'Malley, who had become acquainted with Blatty through his criticism of the novel, was cast as Father Dyer, who he had considered clichéd in the novel." Comma also needed after first "O'Malley".
The Rev. Thomas Bermingham, the Georgetown professor who assigned the student Blatty the research on demonic possession that informed the novel, took the role of the university president.- reword to something like "The Rev. Thomas Bermingham, a Georgetown professor who assigned Blatty research on demonic possession as a student, took the role of the university president."
A later cast listing adds Mary Boylan and The Rev. John Nicola, one of the film's technical advisors, in small roles.- does this mean they were cast later than all the other actors or only listed in a modern cast list, such as the re-release? If the latter is true, does this mean they were uncredited in the credits in the 1973 release? Elaborate.
Friedkin reportedly cast Vasiliki Maliaros as Karras's mother after encountering her in a Greek restaurant.- move "reportedly" to before "encountering".
...a copy of Blatty's novel the author sent him.- not the best wording; I would change to "a copy of the novel Blatty sent him". Also, consider changing "began reading" to "read".
"I was so overwhelmed by the power of this story, and I didn't stop to think about the problems involved with making it."- I would paraphrase this quote into a descriptive sentence. Also, it's unclear whether "it" refers to the novel or the film. If it's the latter, I would change to something like "adapting it [the novel] into a film."
He decided the film would be best with a deliberate pace.- ambiguous and awkward wording; I personally don't see that this really adds anything of substance to the article, and so I would cut.
I wanted it to happen slowly because the story, as it affected the real people who inspired it, took place in just that way", Friedkin said in 2015.- again, I'd paraphrase this quote and remove the date.
Audiences would need to see everything that happened to Regan, everything else attempted to treat her condition.- second part of this is ambiguous, but I think I know what it means. If it is referring to all the unsuccessful treatments, I would change to something like "Friedkin felt that audiences should see everything that happened to Regan and the unsuccessful attempts at treating her condition." Also, if I'm not mistaken, "everything that happened to Regan" in the novel isn't in the film. Reword if necessary.
An early clash during production led to Warners- what led to this clash? Also, I assume this was legal action.tellingto tell Blatty he could not take any action against Friedkin.
Unsatisfied with O'Malley's performance as Dyer ministers to the dying Karras at the end of the film, he slapped him hard across the face to generate a deeply solemn yet- also did this offend all the Catholic crew members? If not, cut "the" before "many".literallyshaken reaction for the scene, offending the many Catholic crew members.
"It was beyond what anyone needs to do to make a movie," Burstyn said in 2019.- I would remove this. IMHO it doesn't really add anything to the reader's understanding, and I think most people can figure this out from the previous sentence.
He also fired blanks[19] without warning to elicit shock from Miller for a take;[8] Dietz recalls him also doing this during the scene where Regan assaults the doctors at the house.- condense to something like "He also fired blanks without warning during a take to elicit shock from Miller and reportedly did so during another scene."
Director of photography Owen Roizman had worked with Friedkin in that capacity on The French Connection. The two collaborated again on The Exorcist, with Roizman in charge of filming every scene in the film save those in the Iraqi prologue, shot by Billy Williams.- change to something like "Owen Roizman, director of photography on The French Connection, worked this position again on The Exorcist. He was in charge of filming every scene except for the Iraqi prologue, which was shot by Billy Williams."
In a 1974 interview with American Cinematographer, the magazine of the American Society of Cinematographers, Roizman discussed The Exorcist at length.- I really don't see how this adds anything in its current form. If there's something he said during this interview that's worth including, then I'd include it.
But I agree that it's really not necessary, so I'll leave it out of the main article. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Roizman and Friedkin agreed that, like their previous film, they wanted The Exorcist to look as if shot with available light. But they would eschew Connection's documentary look.- would change to "Roizman and Friedkin wanted The Exorcist, like their previous film, to appear to have been shot in available light." or something else appropriate. I would also cut the last sentence, as it is kind of off topic and "documentary" is kind of a weasel word here.
I am pleased to report that, as of these edits, we are finally below 15,000 words. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
To the second, I have not found any account of the production that gives the day it wrapped. One of the unavoidable imperfections of researching and editing encyclopedia articles is that the fact that a fact that might be useful to know undeniably exists does not necessarily mean that it will have been reliably documented somewhere. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
whento shorten this sentence.the U.S. and Iraqthese countries did not have diplomatic relations
who required that he hire local workers as crew[1] and teach filmmaking to interested residents.
Temperatures during the days- again, I think we can cut this for the sake of trimming this sentence; I don't see how doing so removes anything from the substance of the article.filming took placereached 130 °F (54 °C), limiting shooting to dawn and dusk.
The scene where Father Karras listens to the tapes of Regan was filmed in the basement of Fordham University's Keating Hall,[54] where O'Malley, who plays Dyer,was an assistant professor of theology.
36th and Prospect- Street? Avenue? I feel like we should mention the road's full names.
A mansard roof was added to account for the scene in the attic.to "A mansard roof was added to account for the attic scene."
The house was set back slightly from the steps, so the crew built an eastward extension with a false front.- I would reword this to specify that this allowed Karras to fall directly from the house.
Locations used on campus included both exteriors such as Burstyn's first scene, shot on the steps of Healy Hall, and interiors such as Dahlgren Chapel and the Archbishop's office (actually the office of the university's president).- run-on sentence; I would reword to something like "Burstyn's first scene was shot on the steps of Healy Hall. Other campus locations used included the interiors of Dahlgren Chapel and the university president's office, which was used for the Archbishop's office." Also, what was Burstyn's first scene? If it's not worth mentioning, then you might as well remove that tidbit completely, and say "Campus locations included the steps of Healy Hall and the interiors..."
Also, I added Burstyn's first scene ... it's obviously the one early in the film, after the Iraq scenes, where she's filming the scene in the movie she's making where she walks up onto the steps, grabs the megaphone and tells the protesters that if they want change, they have to work within the system. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Friedkin wanted the bedroom set to be cold as it is described in the novel, cold enough to see the actors' breath.- condense to something like "Friedkin wanted the bedroom set to be cold enough to see the actors' breath, as described in the novel."
A $50,000 ($249,000 in modern dollars[44])[1] refrigeration system was installed to cool the set to −20 °F (−29 °C)[8][48]- also, don't forget the inflation format I suggested.so that could happen.[60]
In the original version of this section, I had a graf sourced to the Roizman interview where he explains that this was the original idea:
Originally it was hoped that the room would not have to be chilled that much. But while the actors' breath was visible at just below freezing, the set was too quickly warmed by the filming equipment. Going down to 0 °F (−18 °C) worked, but according to Roizman Friedkin decided on the maximum in order to improve the actors' performance. "An actor on his knees for 15 minutes at 20 below zero is really going to feel cold. It worked out very well."
As to the lighting warming the air so quickly, are you familiar with the lights used in filmmaking? Many of them can get quite hot ... according to the article, arc lamps can reach an outer temperature of 500 °C (932 °F). To be fair, I'm not sure they used any for those scenes ... Roizman said that given Friedkin's desire to make the sets look as realistic as possible most of that scene is lit with just the regular old room lamp and some carefully hidden supplemental lights. Yup, see here:
Friedkin decided that he did not want any scenes in the movie to have "any kind of spooky lights that you typically saw in horror films", so all the lights in the bedroom come from a visible source. This was challenging because at one point one of the lamps lighting it falls on the floor, changing the way it had to be lit to preserve the impression of available light. At other times they flicker and dim, supposedly due to Pazuzu's influence. Lastly, at the end of the sequence, Friedkin wanted the lighting's mood to change, to "have an ethereal quality—a very soft, glowing, cool sort of thing" without any apparent change in its sources. "We tried, at that point, to work with absolutely no shadows in the room, using just bounce light—and I think we achieved the correct overall effect.
Since it was so necessary to hide the lights with such a small room and so many people in it both on and off camera, Roizman and his crew mostly used "inkies", small incandescent bulb lights usually used to accentuate objects within the frame, "hidden wherever we could find a place for one. We were constantly controlling them with dimmers, so that if someone got too close to one, we'd take it down." He recalls his gaffer at one point controlling four of them; as a joke he put sheet music in front of the man one day. Due to the low light used, it was necessary to use wide aperture settings in most of the interiors, not just Regan's room. "I shot 90 percent of the picture wide open, as usual."
It was easier to film some of the other supernatural manifestations, such as the bed rocking and the curtains blowing since the walls and ceiling of the set were "wild", capable of being moved to accommodate a camera.-"Other supernatural manifestations like the bed rocking and curtains blowing were easier to film since the walls and ceiling of the set could move to accommodate a camera." - "wild" sounds like a weasel word.
After the scene where the ceiling cracks it was replaced with a hard one.- I feel like this doesn't really add anything and needs to be cut. Also, what is a "hard" ceiling?
I have combined and reworked the sentences so this relationship is clearer. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
A hole was cut in it for the rig to go through when Regan levitates as the priests chant "The power of Christ compels you!", the most challenging shot in the sequence.[48] the 80-pound (36 kg) Blair wore a bodysuit under her nightgown with attached hooks for monofilament wires.- change to something like "The most difficult sequence to film proved to be Regan's levitation, where the 80-pound (36 kg) Blair wore a bodysuit under her nightgown with attached hooks for monofilament wires. A hole was cut in the ceiling for up-close shots during this scene.}} - since the Priests' chant is mentioned in the video caption, I don't see any reason to mention it here.
But here I've linked it and corrected the spelling. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
In order to get the beam of light the way Friedkin wanted- This is confusing. It sounds like the crew moved the window frame back a few feet and stuck the spotlight between the window and frame. Does this mean the light was projected out an empty hole in the building? And why did the light have to be placed between the frame and window opening. From the first part of the sentence, it sounds like the frame was in the way.it, the crew had to take the window frame out of the facade they had attached to the house for filming, put it behind the window and then put the spotlight in between the window and frame.
It turns out it's in an endnote on the very last page of text in the book (well, before the appendix with the full credits and the index). See what you might do with this as far as paraphrasing:
According to cinematographer Owen Roizman, the translation of this scene to film was particularly complex and involved removing Regan's window-frame from the facade attached to the Mahoney house, placing it behind the window, and beaming a spotlight from the opening between the two.
As they were shooting,Roizman said,the wind picked up, making it hard to hold the fog effect. By working quickly,heRoizman and the camera crew were able to get the shot,
A life-size animated dummy of Regan was built, so realistic that Blair felt uncomfortable in its presence... Special effects supervisor Marcel Vercoutere built the latex dummy with help from makeup artist Dick Smith.- Although they're not in the same paragraph, I would find a way to combine these.
but it still did not quite look real.- although most people would probably agree, this still sounds like an opinion expressed as a fact. Reword.
Whether the scene had been shot at all was debated by fans for years afterwards—Friedkin denied having done so—until Kermode found the footage in Warners' archives while researching his book on the film in the mid-1990s.- suggest rewording to "Whether the scene had been shot at all was debated by fans for years afterwards. Friedkin denied having done so until Kermode found the footage in Warners' archives in the mid-1990s while researching his book on the film."
It was restored- period at the end of this sentence and cut stray space before ref 87. Also, what was the "different take" that was used? Was this a different shot than what Kermode found? Lastly, was it edited with CGI?toin the 2000 director's cut,[85] albeit with a "muddy, grainy" look that one critic said made the scene seem superfluous,[86] using a different take showing Regan with blood flowing from her mouth
Websites devoted to the film in the early 21st century gave credit to,Sylvia Hager, creditedafter the 2000 re-release.
In one scene, von Sydow is wearing more makeup than Blair, in order to look 30 years older in facial close-ups.- Change to something like "For facial closeups, von Sydow wore more makeup than Blair in order to look 30 years older." Also, was this only in one scene?
This was filmed and then reversed in the edit so the letters seemed to appear.- change "the edit" to "post-production". You could also cut "was filmed".
*Suggest changing parentheses in second sentence to en- or em-dashes. Replace comma after "supervising editor" with a semicolon, and Oxford comma after "Norman Gay".
He asked Friedkin to let him cut one large rack of footage from the Iraq sequence.- does this mean he asked Friedkin to let him cut some of these scenes from the final film, or just edit (in general) this sequence?
created the sound effects
Friedkin was personally involved in the four-month sound process, the last aspect of the film completed, just before deadline.- was Friedkin only involved just before the deadline, or was the sound process completed just before the deadline, or both? Elaborate. Also, "the" before "deadline".
The title sequence was the first major project for film title designer Dan Perri, whom Friedkin sought out after seeing his work on Electra Glide in Blue, before The Exorcist was even completed.
Perri's input into the film's opening continued after the credits.- what exactly does this mean.
What is now considered the movie's theme, the piano-based melody which opens Tubular Bells,[112] the 1973 debut album by English progressive rock musician Mike Oldfield, became very popular after the film's release.- very awkward wording. Suggest condensing also.
"But I listened to that refrain, and it hooked me, and we won the rights to it" he said. "I think it sold 10 or 20 million records."- paraphrase quotes. Also, if it is available, I would cite data for the actual number of copies sold, not how many Friedkin thought were sold.
Friedkin rejected Lalo Schifrin's working score.to later in this paragraph, and rephrase and condense as necessary. Suggest rewording first sentence to say that Schrifin also composed a score.
"In other words, rather than get bad imitation Stravinsky, I might as well have the real thing.".
There are 17 minutes of music in a film around two hours long.- reword to something like "There are 17 minutes of music in the film."
In 1998 a restored and remastered soundtrack was released by Warner (without Tubular Bells) that included three pieces—"Music from the unused Trailer", an 11-minute "Suite from the Unused Score", and "Rock Ballad (Unused Theme)"—from Schifrin's rejected score.- comma after 1998. Also, shouldn't "Warner" be "Warners"?
He had wanted a release before the holiday, or on it, as is more common at that time of year- rephrase to something like "He had wanted a release before or on the holiday". Also replace semicolon with period at the end of this sentence.
it has been speculated that Warners wanted to avoid any controversy that might have come from releasing a film about demonic possession before a major religious holiday (Crowther, conversely, believes the studio chose Christmas to stoke controversy around the film[89])
- Capitalize "it", and split sentence in parentheses into separate sentence. I don't see the need for this to be in parentheses.
He had wanted Warners to choose a more preferable release date, such as March, like Godfather.- more preferable to who? Also, March of '73 or '74? If I'm not mistaken, filming was originally scheduled to be completed well before March of '73, which I guess would have made a release date then theoretically possible.
I think in the source Friedkin was making this complaint well after March '73 had been missed. Implicit is that The Godfather had been similarly plagued by production problems and the press reports of same,, and that when Paramount scheduled the film for its March 1972 release that date was seen as a statement of confidence in the product (because by that time of year the movie market gets competitive again). Daniel Case ( talk) 05:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
It is the second- adjusted for inflation or not? Also, you could say it was the highest-grossing Christmas week release until Titanic, and remains the second-highest today.all-timehighest-grossing Christmas week release after 1997's Titanic.
Headnote: This section I will probably be breaking out as a separate article eventually to reduce the size of the overall article, so we should keep that in mind. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Since it was a horror film that had gone well over budget, without major stars, Warner had low expectations for The Exorcist.- I would reword to something like "Warner's initially had low expectations for The Exorcist, since it was a horror film without major stars that had gone well over budget.
It did not preview the film for critics and booked the initial release for 30 screens in 24 theaters,[148] mostly in 21 large cities and metropolitan areas.- rephrase to something like "The film was not previewed for critics and initially booked for 30 screens in 24 theaters, mostly in large cities and metropolitan areas.
None of the theaters were in African American neighborhoods such as South Central Los Angeles since the studio did not expect that audience to be interested in the film, which had no African-American characters.- the initial theaters or the wide releases? Also, remove hyphens from "African-American".
Fixed I changed it to "Black", as AA is now considered sort of deprecated.
Daniel Case (
talk)
22:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
African-Americans enthusiasm for The Exorcist has been credited with ending mainstream studio support for blaxploitation movies. Also dehyphenate. Bneu2013 ( talk) 20:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Butafter the theater in predominantly white Westwood showing the film
as the audience for the film was at least one-third Black
The New York Times reported that the audience lined up to see the film was between one-quarter and one-third Black at a theater on the mostly white Upper East Side of Manhattan showing the film in late January.- Do we need to list the date here?
(trailing The Sting's $68.5 million)- I would change this to "behind The Sting. Also, if I'm not mistaken, The Exorcist was the highest-grossing film released in 1973.
Most of that money went to Warners as a result of four-wall distribution, where the studio rents the theater from the owner, keeping all the ticket revenue, in the initial run, the first time a major studio had done that.- borderline run-on.
Many of the things you noted in this section are also leftovers from the more fannish version of the article, so these changes are not too controversial with me. Daniel Case ( talk) 00:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
When it was over, Calley and the other executives,remained in their seats, stunned.
In New York City,- also suggest Oxford comma after "rain".where it first ran in a few theaters,patrons (many having already seen the film) endured 6 °F (−14 °C) cold, rain and sleet,[147] waiting for hours in long lines during a normally slow time of year for the movies to buy tickets.
Crowds gathered outside theaters sometimes rioted, and police had to be called not only in New York but Kansas City.- suggest rewording last part to something like "police were called in cities such as New York and Kansas City".
Three separate production histories were published.- don't know what this is about, and if it is relevant to this section.
*Comma after "Devil" in first sentence of second paragraph.
The changes to the film's ending from the novel, Blatty agreed, might have made it harder to perceive that "the mystery of goodness" was the theme of the work, since it appeared to many viewers, including some of those who had written in America, that the film ended with the demon triumphant through the deaths of the priests despite being exorcised from Regan.- borderline run-on.
The Rev. Lester Kinsolving, an Episcopal priest who wrote a syndicated newspaper column on religion, chastised the Church's approval, saying it did so only because its heroes were priests.- suggest rewording "saying" to "arguing"; more neutral.
I also found some other interesting tidbits that can be added to this and other articles ... one of the former would be that apparently, in one of his last letters to the police, the Zodiac killer mentioned that he had rather liked The Exorcist. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Since many theaters did not show those films,and newspapers did not run ads for them,
"The review board [has] surrendered all right to the claim that it provides moral and ethical leadership to the movie industry". Ditto the one in the next sentence.
A letter-writing campaign to local councils by the NFL led many to screen The Exorcist before permitting it to be shown.- Many theaters?
The Exorcist was available on home video from 1981 in the UK.- reword to something like "The Exorcist was released on home video in 1981 in the UK."
First, Bean suggests his estimate is based purely on adjusting all movies to 2019 ticket prices. But there's a lot of problems with that. Does it take into account second-run showings, still common in the '70s and '80s, that charged lower ticket prices? And of course no movies make their money from only ticket sales, not from 1973 or 2017. Do his numbers include video rentals? Streaming revenues? I get the feeling they don't.
The greater issue is that a truly inflation-adjusted revenue figure would reflect the curve the movie's long tail sits on. We'd want to know the revenue figures for each individual year, then apply the appropriate inflation figure to them. I suspect only Warners' accounting department has access to the best numbers for that, and studios usually prefer to keep them quiet. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
John Carpenter listed The Exorcist as one of his top eight scariest horror classics[211] and listed the film as an influence in his 1980 supernatural horror film The Fog.- reword second part to something like "and stated that the film was an influence on his 1980 supernatural horror film The Fog.
Feminism has gotten attention in discussions of The Exorcist. The U.S. women's liberation movement had enjoyed some early gains in legislatures and courts, and commentators have seen the film, in which a single working mother and her apparently uncontrollable daughter are rescued by patriarchal authority, as a reaction against feminism.- awkward wording and run-on sentence. Also link women's liberation movement and flip refs 224 and 8.
In November 1973, Blatty sued the studio and Friedkin, over both the credits and Friedkin's banning him from the set.- slightly awkward rewording; leaning towards rephrasing.
"The Exorcist has done for the horror film what 2001 did for science fiction", wrote Cinefantastique, "legitimizing it in the eyes of thousands who previously considered horror movies nothing more than a giggle".- suggest rewording to something like "Cinefantastique wrote that The Exorcist "has done for the horror film what 2001 did for science fiction, legitimizing it in the eyes of thousands who previously considered horror movies nothing more than a giggle"."
Many had major stars, who until then had often avoided the genre in their career prime.- I suggest rewording this to something like "Horror films began to cast well-known actors, who until then had often avoided the genre in their career prime" (assuming this is also true of other horror films not mentioned in the list).
Composers of original music for those films adopted some of their techniques, like dissonant intervals such as- some of the techniques used in The Exorcist or some of the composers' personal techniques? If it's the latter, and doesn't relate to anything in this film, then this sentence is likely borderline off topic.(particularly)tritones, sound massing and tone clusters, to create unease and tension.
In an early episode of the 1982-83 CBS sitcom Square Pegs, Don Novello, as his Saturday Night Live (SNL) character Father Guido Sarducci, enters a classroom, similarly backlit amidst fog, in order to exorcise a character from possession by the Pac-Man video game.- cut "1982-83" and instead replace "early" with the year the episode aired.
The Exorcist won two of its 10 Academy Awards nominations.- change to something like "The Exorcist was nominated for 10 Academy Awards and won two of them."
It was a "disgrace" that The Exorcist had not won all the awards it was nominated for, as it was "head and shoulders, the finest film made this year and in many other years".- opinion stated as a fact. Also, too much information about Blatty's interview after the Oscars. Cut this down to one sentence.
The film has led to multiple sequels and a television series.
who had turned down the original as "negative and destructive",; this is me mentioned elsewhere if I remember right. Also cut
considering the sequel to be "healthy" by comparison., as this is borderline off topic.
despite the lack of exorcism scenes (one was added after principal photography, with Nicol Williamson in the role).; again, this is borderline off topic.
And that does it. This took a lot longer than I had hoped, but once all remaining comments are addressed, it should be good to go. I look forward to seeing this article on the main page. Bneu2013 ( talk) 00:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Can we all agree that The Exorcist ended perfectly and did NOT need a sequel? BlackBuick2099 ( talk) 12:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)