/horror/ general megathread - Let's talk about movies and shit.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I saw The Exorcist: Believer. It's a very mediocre POS with memberberry scenes galore and (I never thought I would say this) it legitimately makes Exorcist 2: the Heretic look like a masterpiece. I'm not just saying that. I genuinely mean it. The new film really is that bad.

I hope the ghost of William Friedkin tortures the director, the writers and the producers for the rest of eternity.
 
I hate Exorcist 2, but at the very least it is a visually interesting film. You can really tell it was made by the same guy who did Zardoz. Actually, one of the reasons I hate it so much is because it feels like it could have been good. I rank it as one of my least favorite films ever, but I have no plans on ever watching Exorcist: Believer
 
Ged! said:
I hate Exorcist 2, but at the very least it is a visually interesting film. You can really tell it was made by the same guy who did Zardoz. Actually, one of the reasons I hate it so much is because it feels like it could have been good. I rank it as one of my least favorite films ever, but I have no plans on ever watching Exorcist: Believer
Click to expand...
Martin Scorsese liked it.
 
BrunoMattei said:
I saw The Exorcist: Believer. It's a very mediocre POS with memberberry scenes galore and (I never thought I would say this) it legitimately makes Exorcist 2: the Heretic look like a masterpiece. I'm not just saying that. I genuinely mean it. The new film really is that bad.

I hope the ghost of William Friedkin tortures the director, the writers and the producers for the rest of eternity.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, Exorcist: Believer will look like a masterpiece when DGG makes Exorcist: Deceiver which will be worse but people will soy out over Regan returning, and then the third film which will make that look good.
 
Almighty Kevin said:
Didn't he hint that he might not be directing the next ones?
Click to expand...
Nope still has a directing and writing credit for Deceiver.

Though looking into it, the poor reception of Believer did make Blumhouse realize that DGG should maybe stay out of their horror films especially given his Halloween sequels earned less money with each subsequent entry.

So who knows, but I doubt it'd be any good. Unless the person behind it at least has a religious understanding of the Exorcist and doesn't do stupid shit like the multicultural exorcism or "MUH COMMUNITY!" bullshit.
 
I was thinking of this article:
Green currently has outlines for the next two chapters of his Exorcist sequel trilogy, and while he once had plans to co-write and direct all three chapters, he’s not quite ready to say if he’s definitely directing April 2025’s The Exorcist: Deceiver or the eventual trilogy capper.

“My intention is just to start making things, and as those plans come together, if I find myself in that [The Exorcist: Deceiver] director’s chair, I’d be thrilled,” Green says.” But right now, I’m navigating it from a story perspective and looking at my realities of life as I pivot.”
Click to expand...
Maybe a different director could salvage the trilogy, not that I have much faith or enthusiasm.
He lost me with Halloween 3. Hopefully he takes the hint and fucks off back to indie comedies.
 
With the $400 million right fee they paid to make 3 movies, they kind of have to make the other 2. The Exorcist: Believer cost $30 million to make and made $125 million at the box office, so on its own the movie is profitable before counting in VoD and streaming money, Not like that $400 million they already paid is cut by 2/3 if they were to stop here anyway.

The best way going forward is to just make 2 standalone movies, maybe have Regan turn up in them for nostalgia money, but other than that don't follow the characters of Believer.

The $400 million for the Exorcist rights for 3 movies has to be the dumbest misspending I can think of when it comes to horror movies, no way in hell would it ever offset that cost even if people liked the movies.
 
Last edited:
Product Placement said:
The $500 million for the Exorcist rights for 3 movies has to be the dumbest misspending I can think of when it comes to horror movies, no way in hell would it ever offset that cost even if people liked the movies.
Click to expand...
wow that's really bad for just rights to make three movies
that's more "own the IP going forward including merch and game license rights", or "buying an already filmed trilogy"
 
Exorcist III is the only good Exorcist sequel.
Product Placement said:
The $500 million for the Exorcist rights for 3 movies has to be the dumbest misspending I can think of when it comes to horror movies, no way in hell would it ever offset that cost even if people liked the movies.
Click to expand...
Universal and Blumhouse are really taking the L on this. They've already planned a sequel midway through Believer's production after the rights to Halloween had expired. This is what happens when studios get too cocky
 
Product Placement said:
With the $500 million right fee they paid to make 3 movies, they kind of have to make the other 2. The Exorcist: Believer cost $30 million to make and made $125 million at the box office, so on its own the movie is profitable because counting in VoD and streaming money, Not like that $500 million they already paid is cut by 2/3 if they were to stop here anyway.

The best way going forward is to just make 2 standalone movies, maybe have Regan turn up in them for nostalgia money, but other than that don't follow the characters of Believer.

The $500 million for the Exorcist rights for 3 movies has to be the dumbest misspending I can think of when it comes to horror movies, no way in hell would it ever offset that cost even if people liked the movies.
Click to expand...
My take is that what they should do is experiment with the formula. Try something different. THIS is the time to do a Halloween Ends kind of shit.
 
TVB said:
Exorcist III is the only good Exorcist sequel.

Universal and Blumhouse are really taking the L on this. They've already planned a sequel midway through Believer's production after the rights to Halloween had expired. This is what happens when studios get too cocky
Click to expand...
No, the plan was always for a trilogy. However 2-ish year turnaround from getting the rights isn't a good look anyway.

Was wrong it was $400 million rather than $ 500 million, still not good, however.
 
BrunoMattei said:
My take is that what they should do is experiment with the formula. Try something different. THIS is the time to do a Halloween Ends kind of shit.
Click to expand...
They couldn't. The best they could do would do some shit similar to II, but I wouldn't know.
Product Placement said:
No, the plan was always for a trilogy. However 2-ish year turnaround from getting the rights isn't a good look anyway.

Was wrong it was $400 million rather than $ 500 million, still not good, however.
Click to expand...
Well again, that's why Uni and Blum were being too cocky
 
Product Placement said:
No, the plan was always for a trilogy. However 2-ish year turnaround from getting the rights isn't a good look anyway.

Was wrong it was $400 million rather than $ 500 million, still not good, however.
Click to expand...
I can see why it cost $400 million because Exorcist is a huge franchise. But I think Blumhouse massively overestimated the nostalgia bucks for it. By that I mean that you can't just throw in memberberries and expect this audience to lap it up like other goyslop. Exorcist fans expect more. I doubt Jason Blum is crying very much because their other production (Five Nights at Fuccbois) killed it at the box office.
 
BrunoMattei said:
I can see why it cost $400 million because Exorcist is a huge franchise. But I think Blumhouse massively overestimated the nostalgia bucks for it. I doubt Jason Blum is crying very much because their other production (Five Nights at Fuccbois) killed it at the box office.
Click to expand...
I mean Jason Blum is seen to be more chill as he doesn't care if one movie fails while the other succeeds. He's more of a businessman and less of a filmmaker.
 
BrunoMattei said:
I can see why it cost $400 million because Exorcist is a huge franchise. But I think Blumhouse massively overestimated the nostalgia bucks for it. By that I mean that you can't just throw in memberberries and expect this audience to lap it up like other goyslop. Exorcist fans expect more. I doubt Jason Blum is crying very much because their other production (Five Nights at Fuccbois) killed it at the box office.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree, the first Exorcist is a huge movie but as a franchise, most of them have flopped. The Exorcist III outside the original movie is the only one that has done well, with a $44 million gross on a $11 million budget which isn't bad but a far cry from the first's $441 million.

2021 streamers wanted anything with a name to it, thus why the bidding war got so high, only for the streaming bubble to popped in the following 2 years changing plans for a way to get more Peacock subs to a movie that needed to be a smash hit in cinemas.
 
Product Placement said:
I have to disagree, the first Exorcist is a huge movie but as a franchise, most of them have flopped. The Exorcist III outside the original movie is the only one that has done well, with a $44 million gross on a $11 million budget which isn't bad but a far cry from the first's $441 million.
Click to expand...
Even adjusted for 70s inflation, The Exorcist (alongside the likes of Jaws, The Godfather, Rocky, Star Wars, etc.) was huge and had made in impact in the filmmaking industry. That said, you cannot capture the same lighting in the bottle, except for the third
 
Product Placement said:
I have to disagree, the first Exorcist is a huge movie but as a franchise, most of them have flopped. The Exorcist III outside the original movie is the only one that has done well, with a $44 million gross on a $11 million budget which isn't bad but a far cry from the first's $441 million.
Click to expand...
Agreed but I'm going off the name "Exorcist" as a franchise itself. But I guess the point I failed to make is that that audience from the 70's has slowly died off as time erodes. I think they're going to continue to see diminishing returns if they continue to pump them out (and we know they will) and not bother to make an actual good movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom