is this the same as Ex: the beginning? - Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) Discussion

[–] poofta1970 20 years ago

This is the original prequel to the Exorcist, When it was finished it was shown to the suits at Morgon Creek who thought it wasn't the sort of movie they had expected (No vomit and heads turning arround etc) Even though they had cleared the original script and had visited the set. They hired Harlin to make it from scratch , keeping some of the original cast and sets and some of the story, that was the 2004 version. This is the version as it should have been. So in effect Harlin's is a remake of this film and a shoddy remake at that.

reply

[–] mrgray83 20 years ago

I'll gladly check this one out then, because exorcist the beginning sucked bawls.

explosions+one-liners+pointless plot+tearjerker scene+sex scenes=summer film

reply

[–] King_Kestrel 20 years ago

OH come on! Exorcist the Beginning wasn't great but it was waaaay better than I expected. Sure, some of the graphics were sketchy, but it had a good eerie atmosphere to it, and it really held that atmosphere pretty well. There's nothing that can live up to the original, but I don't see why everyone hates Exorcist beginning.

Oh, and to be fair, I haven't seen this version yet, but I'm looking forward to the opportunity. It looks decent.
----
All your board are belong to Littonius

reply

[–] zwartekatmovies 20 years ago

Read the trivia, it explains all.

reply

[–] rossrobinson 20 years ago

is this going further back to the prequel (Exorcist: The beginning)

reply

[–] rossrobinson 20 years ago

unless there are 2 parts to the prequel.

reply

[–] lil_ray4000 19 years ago

there are not two parts to the prequel. dominion is supposed to be the original, but the people who green lighted the film (fox or wb i believe) didnt like where the director was taking the film, so they hired harlin to begin a whole new movie (and that was the beggining)

reply

[–] rossrobinson 19 years ago

I see. so, well, to me what you are saying that Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist is the real beginning.

reply

[–] realmstuff 19 years ago

I think ex:the beginning is telling how it was *the deamon* released n the first place. The film n question is the one before the exorsist

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] allan-arbour 19 years ago

Neil, I believe you missed the point of the Beginning. The movie is really not about the demons, it's about the priest. Maybe if you explain why it did not work for you, we could have a little debate about the movie.

Cheers.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GR1NDCOREK1D 19 years ago

i DEFINATELY agree with you...the beginning, 2, 3 and dominion all really sucked. The first was a classic and now they are seriously milking it for what it's worth

pisses me off, ya know?

its like making a shining 2...it would NEVER work

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] glenn-ross1 19 years ago

No this isn't Exorcist The Beginning. Can you remember in The Exorcist when Father Cannon says " Lancaster Merrin performed an exorcism on a boy in Africa 10 or 12 years ago damn near killed him?" Well this is the exorcism ten or twelve years before the original Exorcist which would have made it the 60s 1963 to 1965. Exorcist The Beginning was set in the 40s in 1949.

Another goof is Father Francis was killed in 1949, according to Exorcist2 The Heretic the priest who helped to exorcise the African boy was called Father Lamont played by the late Richard Burton.

A bit of trivia the blaxploitation version of The Exorcist, Abby:The Blaxorcist began in Africa. I wonder if it influenced the Exorcist movies with an African storyline?

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] glenn-ross1 19 years ago

You'll have to refresh my memory about Exorcist2 because it's been 25 years since I've seen it. I know Father Lamont went to Africa to meet his old friend the witch doctor. It's only that I thought Father Lamont was in Africa when Father Merrin exorcised the boy in the 60s. I can't remember Richard Burton's narration when the film first began?

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] glenn-ross1 19 years ago

In Exorcist2 it only showed the possessed African boy and Father Lamont must have mentioned about Father Merrin exorcising him? Because it didn't show it. But going back to the priest in The Exorcist who said "he'd performed an exorcism on a boy in Africa ten or twelve years earlier" he was either guessing, or figuratively speaking or mistaken about the timescale then?

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] glenn-ross1 19 years ago

Thanks for that! The priest didn't sound too sure of his story did he!? Like me alot of people misunderstood what he said and think it's set in the 60s. All that aside, chronology is immaterial, this is the prequel to "The Exorcist" and not "Exorcist4."

reply

[–] adampaul1234 19 years ago

the beginning was not a bad movie,but this movie is described as "deeper" than Harlins version so i will gladly take a look and will do so with an open mind. Exorcist 3 was described as a cop film but i thought it was very underrated and although i thought it could have been better(i say that about a lot of movies)it was well acted and a reasonable story. There is scope for a different movie with the beggining and it will be interesting to see this version.

reply