Well, I do think that the horror genre changed a lot post-Exorcist, but regardless of that and all the movies it "inspired"... if The Exorcist were to be released today with today's technology, moviemaking techniques, etc... I doubt it would be as successful as the version released in 1973 mainly because of the decline of religion in general.
shareAlso because it pushed the envelope of what was acceptable back then.
It's hard to imagine the impact of some of the scenes depicted in the movie in 1973. I saw it when it was released. I remember being told about specific scenes by others whonhad already seen it, and i just didnt believe them. I just thought you could never show that in a movie.
To say I was shocked when I saw the movie is an understatement. Though it was more a kind of numbness.
I know a lot of people today cannot see what the fuss was back then, I get it. Its a generational thing.
[deleted]
Fully agree. The movie definitely creates a sense of unease from the very beginning. And as you rightly say, very few movies manage to create such an atmosphere.
shareIt may be considered an above-average supernatural horror film if released today w/o any of the cultural impact it had in the 1970s. Ironically people may write it off as a Conjuring knockoff.
shareI'm sure the decline of mainstream Christianity might weigh against a successful remake, but then so would modern sensibilities about, well, the explicit child molestation that the crucifix scene requires. How to re-do that? An adult stand-in? CGI? Omit the this crucial scene altogether?
Along the same lines, would Burke Dennings be focused on as a potential molester...? There is not a single hint of this in Blatty's original novel and screenplay. But again, considering modern sensibilities, it would be virtually obligatory to examine - in order to be faithful to Blatty's narrative - and then to dismiss the film director as a suspect. The narrative simply will not support two evil child abusers because the real - the only - such villain is the demon itself.
On a personal note, I would almost refuse to view a new version on principle - if the "principle" involved the use and over-use of CG. One of the glories of the original film is the absence of CG, stop-motion, "matte shots"/green screen and all the other doubtful marvels of modern cinema technology. All of the original film's effects were "live" and practical - which is why director Friedkin made Regan's room into a literal freezer in order to capture genuine fogged breath. Today this would almost certainly be done with CG, as would other effects such as Regan's levitation, spider walk, and any number of other grotesque possession behaviors.
As a great fan of Blatty's strange theology, I am open to a worthy new version of his original novel, but I don't trust any director, screenwriter - or anything associated with mainstream Hollywood - to do Blatty the justice he deserves. Of course, with the current pandemic, it is probably doubtful that a new Exorcist film will surface until the clear and present danger has somewhat receded. I guess that time will tell.