Picked mine up at Walmart for $29.96. I know it isn't much less, but it looks like they have the best price for Brick&Mortar immediate gratification. Was going to get it at Best Buy but luckily I checked online for the price before heading out.

My walmart is stupid now. They used to have the best price for dvds $13.87 for new releases.(even two packs) but now they charge $19 something. Excorcist was like $39.96 i think.

Marcell, just fixed other post. Bad typing. The price was $29.96 for the set. Was also at a different Walmart yesterday and the same price there too.

They also had some very good prices on some other titles I've been wanting to pickup forever. Found Friday the 13th parts 1 and 2, Halloween II, and Duel in their $4.88 rack. Just in time for Halloween.

Hey, I just watched Exorcist II, and I can now announce that it's one of the most underrated horror movies ever. Aside from some bad acting and dialogue from Linda Blair, it's genuinely creepy, and Richard Burton is marvelous.

Exorcist III is tonight, I think. George C. Scott is good in anything.

Why does everyone think that there will be more "Exorcist" releases after this?

Sure, with home video formats you can never say never but there are absolutely no future Exorcists projects on the horizon to tie a new release into.

The whole prequel fiasco pretty much killed the franchise, which was pretty much dead already before Morgan Creek decided to try to revive it.

Between the two cuts of the first film, the feature-length doc and the other misc. supplements that film is already pretty well-covered and the mere fact that two completely different versions of the prequel are available means that those two entries are pretty conclusively and comprehensively covered on DVD.

That leaves II & III, and let's face it: there's really not much demand for these to be given any sort of elaborate treatment. You'll find people on the internet expressing interest for the alternate cuts but they're a very small minority.

This new DVD set is great: it offers nothing new for those who already bought the existing releases yet makes all the stuff available at a great price for those who didn't (and I owned the two cuts of the original and this box set was still cheaper than buying the 4 discs I didn't have seperately) so there's really no reason to pass on it if you're interested in these films.

It's gonna be a cold day in hell before Warner Bros. is interested in 2 & 3 as anything but footnotes in the history of the original film.

Um... No.

Is this thing on?

^^^

Simple answer: Money. I don't know about the sequels/prequels, but the original is one of the most popular horror films ever made. It's a sure thing for a future multi-disc SE. I agree that the "Fear of God" doc and the 2 commentaries are pretty extensive, but add some of the other deleted material that's not included in TVYNS, a shiny new transfer down-converted from HD, a DTS track, and some additional featurettes (a cast reunion, a William Friedkin filmmaker's bio, something on the cultural or cinematic impact of the film, or a historical examination of exorisms and their history in the Catholic church throughout the ages, for instance) and now you've got a whole lotta people willing to double-dip. It'll happen sooner or later.

I think the first half worked well and made for a very promising start, but then it derailed, losing all sense of cohesion and just got silly (not to mention interminably boring).


Exorcist III is very underrated, imo. It's not perfect, but it has a lot of great scares and overall works very well. I'd compare it to Psycho II, as respectable and interesting sequel to a movie that can never really be equalled or exceeded. And you're right: You can never really go wrong with George C. Scott. Even when he's over-the-top he's fantastic.

Just watched Exorcist III, and it's better than II, but the script is a little cute in some places and too noisy in others. Still, you're right, George C Scott never disappoints (remember him as Scrooge in that made for tv version of A Christmas Carol?) and Brad Dourif is a sick, sick man.

How are the two prequels, and why are there two, made so close together?

You seem to have missed my entire point.

Based on the fact that the franchise has failed to generate much interest since the release of the original film Warner Bros. isn't very likely to evaluate it in the future and decide that it's a viable option when it comes to investing a bunch of money in new material.

Like I said, there are no upcoming "Exorcist" projects on the horizon that would raise the visibility of the existing titles.

To make it as simple as possible:

Paul Schrader filmed a version, the studio didn't like it so they hired Renny Harlin to do re-shoots. He ended up doing the film all over again. Harlin's version was released and it bombed and got terrible reviews and Warner Bros. had another entire completed film (Shrader's) and so they released that, too.

It was actually just one prequel with two different versions by two directors. Paul Shrader was hired to film it, he was later fired and Renny Harlin was brought in to re-film it to make it more 'scary'. Harlin's version was released in theaters and on DVD and then Shrader's version was later released on DVD.

I'm usually against studios medling with a director's work, but this time I have to admit to enjoying Harlin's version better - it's not scarier but I think the story was more cohesive. Shrader's version meandered too much and went no where IMO.

If anything watching both versions is a great lesson on filmmaking. They may not be the best movies (and neither are particularly great) but to see what two different director's do with the same story and cast is something that doesn't happen too often and is interesting to see.

No, it's a great lesson in studio tinkering.

I think Renny Harlin is a hack but let's be realistic here, "Exorcist: The Beginning" isn't Renny Harlin's vision, it's the vision of a studio and Harlin was just their puppet.

It's actually a very poor example of two directors working with the same material because it's not the same material, the script was heavily re-written between the two productions.

I waited on watching either version until I could rent them both and watch them in the order they were produced in an attempt at understanding the process as it truly unfolded and not the backwards way they were actually released.

For my money Schrader's version successfully maintained the sensibilities of the original film whereas Harlin's version is a big, obnoxious, dumbed-down Hollywood misfire.

I think we're talking about two different things here. I was discussing the probability of another DVD release of the original and you seem to be speculating about the potential for future sequels. The popularity (and profitability) of the original will not wane as a result of any of the sequels; it will continue to be a big draw in the home video market.

Speedy just posted that this is going to be $24.99 next week at best buy. go figure?

The popularity won't wane but it won't exactly expand, either, and the demand for further treatment won't really exist as long as the franchise is adequately-presented on DVD in the eyes of the majority of it's fans as it currently is.

And no, "The Exorcist" isn't a "big draw in the home video market". I would be willing to bet that "The Break-Up" will outsell "The Exorcist" on DVD 5 to 1. That's the nature of catalog titles, and Warner Bros. has obviously evaluated the viability of "The Exorcist" on DVD and decided that 2 & 3 aren't worth the effort and that the original film and the prequels aren't worth revisiting, only repackaging.

You can't compare the sales figures of a new release to a catalog title. Yes, I imagine The Break Up will out sell The Exorcist (all incarnations currently available) this week. It will more than likely out sell it for the year. But over the next 20 years? Doubtful. The Exorcist will still be making money for Warner Bros. long after The Break Up has faded from everyone's mind. And as far as everyone being ok with the available version, that doesn't mean they won't double-dip again if there's something substantial added. The 2 current versions (as a pair) are very satisfactory for me as well. If Warner asked me if they should revisit that again or give some love to another modern classic that's a little more wanting (Deliverance, Bonnie and Clyde, Cool Hand Luke, for example...), it would be an easy call for me. But if they put out a new Exorcist 3-Disc Collector's Edition with the kind of stuff I mentioned in my earlier post, I'd definitely bite. So the market is never fixed with a popular title like this; you can always add more to bring people back to the cash register for another go-round. As long as you don't do a Sony and drop multiple double-dips on them every year, oversaturating the market and exasperating your consumer base, that tree will just keep on baring fruit for you. I can't say the same for a film like The Break Up. I highly doubt they'll be able to sell half a million units of it in 2015 (no matter how extensive the supplements).

Has anyone confirmed here already if the original version on the boxset is the one on the 25th anniversary edition or the one on the OOP first dvd?

The differences are here:
http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=663

^

It's the 25th anniversary edition in the box set.