Talk:The Exorcist/GA2

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)

Hi, had a busy day, just acknowledging that I saw this and will be responding soon. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Great, will have additional comments very soon. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Update - I'm a little further behind than I had hoped, but I'm going to have a lot more comments in the next few hours. I recently moved to a location with an open proxy, and am trying to get this fixed with my internet service provider. As such, I'm having to edit with my mobile phone, which is further slowing me down. Hopefully this will be fixed tomorrow, but in the meantime, I will continue working on this review. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries; I've been a little distracted with an article I've been getting through DYK. Getting near the end of that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 16 July 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)

General comments

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.

This is a 50-year-old film. It is overly hyped; One has to accept that Gen Next is not into this genre. At least 1000 words can be removed without hurting the structure of the review.

Moitraanak (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I plan to suggest moves once I get through reviewing each section. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to get back so late to this ... I had a busier holiday weekend than I expected and it took till now to get to the point where I'm there mentally enough to respond here. Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The interest, or lack thereof, of the present generation has no bearing on how long the article is or isn't. Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Plot

Cast

• Should the cast section include a single sentence description of the principle characters? A number of film FAs, including recently promoted Aliens and Back to the Future do this.

This seems to be something of more recent vintage ... a lot of film FAs promoted a long time ago, like Blade Runner, don't do this (I think the thinking has been that the plot summary is sufficient).

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)

• Consider including photographs of the principal actors.

There's already photos of Blair, Burstyn, Karras and von Sydow. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Development

• When did Blatty discuss the novel on The Dick Cavett Show? Also consider moving reference 8 to the end of this sentence.

Moved the cite to the end of the graf, actually, where it tightens up the article by eliminating a subsequent ref.

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)

I think we can let this pass. Even if you could only find a reliable source for the year I would include that. But I think it's obvious with what we've got that the novel quickly became a hit. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:09, 7 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. - sentence is a bit ambiguous and a run on. Elaborate and consider splitting. Also, "McNeil" is misspelled.

I decided to move all the stuff about the connection between Blatty and MacLaine into that endnote. And I corrected the misspelling. Daniel Case (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Missing information about when the film was greenlit.

I wish I knew. People writing about film production back then did not go into that level of detail. None of the sources give any information more specific than what we have. But I'll go back through Kermode's book. Daniel Case (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

We can let this pass for now, but I'm sure you can find a date. I did a few newspaper searches and found Friedkin listed as the director as early as November 1971, but I don't know if that means the film had been greenlit yet. The script appears to have been ready by January 1972, but you'd want to confirm this. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Writing

• Subplots like the desecration of the churches (and the relationship between Karras and Kinderman that develops from the latter's investigation), Karras's efforts to get the Church bureaucracy to approve the exorcism, and the ongoing medical investigations of Regan's condition, are less prominent in the film, as are supporting characters such as Chris's household staff, Dennings, and Regan's father. - This is a hard one, but sentence could use some work. First of all, I would change the first part to Subplots like the desecration of the churches and the subsequent relationship that develops between Karras and Kinderman, Karras's efforts to convince the Church bureaucracy to approve the exorcism, and the ongoing medical investigations of Regan's condition, are less prominent in the film, as are supporting characters including.... Also, does "Church" need to be capitalized?

• 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".

 Done to both of these. When capitalized, "Church" is almost always AFAIK taken as referring to the Catholic Church as an institution (we have a lot of recorded debate over whether it should be that or "Roman Catholic Church" but I could not find anything one way or the other about the capitalized form. This is just the convention I've never heard anyone here question. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Casting

• I would remove the tidbit about Stacy Keach being initially cast from the first sentence, as it is elaborated below.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Chris and Father Karras

• 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.

 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I also realized the sentence is saying the same thing twice, so I cut that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair. I wasn't sure if this meant they were rejected by the studio. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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."

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• The two paragraphs about Miller's casting need some work. First, I would mention that Miller was only a stage actor in the first paragraph. Also, was the lapsed Catholicism an inspiration for the film? And did Friedkin give Miller the novel during this conversation? If so, I would reword these paragraphs to something like this: Friedkin had first spoken to Jason Miller, a stage actor, after a performance of his play That Championship Season, and given him a copy of the novel. Miller had received a Catholic education and studied to be a Jesuit priest for three years at Catholic University of America until experiencing a spiritual crisis similar to Karras's. Upon reading the novel, he told Friedkin "[Karras] is me". Friedkin responded that Keach had already been signed, but granted his request for a screen test. During the test Miller and Burstyn performed the scene where Chris informs Karras that she suspects Regan might be possessed. He then filmed Burstyn interviewing Miller about his life and asked him to recite Mass as if for the first time. After viewing the footage the next morning, Friedkin realized Miller's "dark good looks, haunted eyes, quiet intensity, and low, compassionate voice" were exactly what the part needed. The studio then bought out Keach's contract.

 Done "was the lapsed Catholicism an inspiration for the film?" The source says no more than that. Friedkin, I suppose, having come from a Jewish background, wanted to better understand that aspect of Chris's character. I sort of agree, though, that without something more specific to that effect we should just drop it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Also, I would link "Mass". Bneu2013 (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Regan

• I would combine the first two sentences.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Remove comma after Pamelyn Ferdin.

 Done That was leftover from an earlier version where her name was used as an appositive. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Linda's credits were primarily in modeling and a single soap opera role. - Change "Linda's" to "Her".

 Not done This is where MOS:SAMESURNAME comes into play. "Her" would be confusing in this context. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought having her name side by side didn't read right. But to fix that you could combine the sentences. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed so now we can avoid the issue. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• "[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

• • Looks like you tried to fix it but may have mixed up parts of the sentence. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed What I get for working so late at night (as if that's stopped me from doing it again). Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Combine first three paragraphs.

Sure we want to do that? That would be a very large 17-sentence graf, the kind that WP:PARAGRAPH would advise you to split up. Per that, the existing three grafs all revolve around different points, in fact they're almost three acts: 1) They can't find a well-known actress around 12 to play the part 2) They're considering younger-looking older actresses until Linda Blair's mother brings her in, and 3) she turns out to be exactly what they were looking for. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Part of my concerns are that short paragraphs tend to make articles seem to run on longer than they actually do. From my experience, longer articles are more likely to pass GA or FA if they contain no more than four paragraphs per section (or maybe one or two with five). Also, while the first three paragraphs do indeed have different points, each of these points have more in common with each other than those of the last three paragraphs. The first three grafs are about the efforts to find the right actress to portray Regan culminating in Blair's audition, followed by three about Blair's casting and her backups. Also, these sentences are shorter than the average for probably all film FAs I've looked at, and I will probably recommend additional cuts and condensations after I finish my first sweep. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I have combined this into one supergraf ... of course, I wouldn't be surprised if down the line, at FAC, someone insists on breaking it up again. (This to me recalls an experience that I'm sure is not unique to me among people who've written professionally. I returned to graduate school after having worked in journalism, and was told that I needed to write longer paragraphs there, too). Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Space after "recalled."

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• "[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.

 Fixed I think this was inherited from the more fannish earlier text of the article (from the late 2000s). Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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.?

I perhaps should have kept the longer sentence that's still in the original version of this section—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"."

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done Although I would argue that having that second part shows that the minimal use of Dietz was a deliberate move on Friedkin's part, which explains what

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the Blair quote about playing the demon ended up between two sentences about Dietz. I would also combine 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 in the media to have done all the possession scenes. - would change "done" to something like "performed".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• I would combine the last three paragraphs.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Father Merrin

• Since this paragraph is so short, I would combine it with the "Chris MacNeil and Father Karras" section. Or alternatively, you could combine it with the supporting roles section. If I remember right, Father Merrin has a lot less screen time than Father Karras, but more than most other supporting characters such as Father Dyer. But it's been a while since I've seen the film.

This was something that the first reviewer demanded; he felt that Merrin was one of the leads, which although he's billed higher than Miller I don't see (as I said, it's like insisting that Obi-Wan is a lead and Luke is a supporting character). I in fact originally had it in the supporting roles section because it was so short. So now, I am happy to go back to my original layout. Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Change "in" in the first sentence to "for".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Although I do have an idea of what Friedkin meant by a "Brando movie", this term is still ambiguous, and isn't very descriptive. I would combine the first two sentences to something like "Warners wanted Marlon Brando for the role of Father Lankester Merrin, but Friedkin refused."

 Done I see your point even though I, too, get what Friedkin meant. Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done But since de Chardin is already linked in the adjacent text I see no reason to link again from the cutline. WP:CAPTION doesn't seem to say anything about it, but to me linking the same thing from a cutline that's already linked in nearby text is clear overlinking. Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Supporting roles

• 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".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Space needed at the end of this sentence. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Seems like at some point I had taken care of this and not noted it here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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."

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

From what I recall of the source at the AFI page, this seems to impliedly have been preproduction. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Friedkin reportedly cast Vasiliki Maliaros as Karras's mother after encountering her in a Greek restaurant. - move "reportedly" to before "encountering".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Direction

• Combine first two paragraphs.

 Done

• Why did Boorman advise against making the film?

He believed it was "negative and destructive" according to the AFI source cited, and IIRC Biskind goes into more detail, saying that Boorman felt that basically the film was about the long torture of a young girl. I'll look it up. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup, that's what he says. I had had it in there a long time ago but cut it. Will reinstate. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I would either cut "devoted to the torture of a young girl." from this sentence or reword it. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I just decided to cut it entirely. That level of detail might be better off in the article about the sequel. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we need to mention the dates of later recollections unless this was some major discovery. For example, I don't see any problem with changing Blatty recalled in 2015 that one director wanted to set the film in Salem, Massachusetts, which he rejected because he considered the contrast between the worldly nature of the capital and the supernatural aspects of the plot to be essential to the story. to something like One director wanted to set the film in Salem, Massachusetts, which Blatty rejected because he considered the contrast between the worldly nature of the capital and the supernatural aspects of the plot to be essential to the story.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• • • Date comma after "Massachusetts".

 Done I am usually a stickler for that ... how did I miss it? Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Link "Academy Award for Best Picture".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Combine the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Change "doing" to "conducting" of something equivalent in the third paragraph.

I decided on "during his press tour". "Conducting" is (to me) a strange verb to use in this context. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• ...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".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• "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."

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done

• 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.

 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• An early clash during production led to Warners telling to tell Blatty he could not take any action against Friedkin. - what led to this clash? Also, I assume this was legal action.

It was Blatty asserting that any requests for limo service by anyone had to be routed through him after Friedkin approved Burstyn's request on his own. That's a lot of detail; I had had it in there and cut it a long time ago because it didn't really seem important. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think we have to mention that. Just wanted to make sure something important wasn't left out. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• I would use (equivalent to ${{formatprice|{{inflation|US-GDP|amount|year}}}} in {{inflation-year|US-GDP}}{{inflation-fn|US-GDP}}) for inflation figures.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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 literally shaken reaction for the scene, offending the many Catholic crew members. - also did this offend all the Catholic crew members? If not, cut "the" before "many".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• "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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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."

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this sentence does not appear to have been changed. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• I feel like the two scenes about the vomit belong in the "Filming and locations" section, likely special effects. The previous point I mentioned might also fit better here; I'll have to wait until I get to that section to make a determination.

This relates to the question, which I couldn't find anything about in a reliable source, about whether Friedkin did that on purpose to get a better reaction from Miller, or whether it was really just an accident. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll come back to this when I get deeper into the filming section. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Too much about the bacon. I would condense to one sentence.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a typo in that sentence. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• "recalls" to "recall". This sentence may also need to be moved to filming, since this may have been a result of the other delays, not necessarily Friedkin's directing.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Last paragraph will most likely end up belonging in the filming section. I haven't checked yet, but if there are duplicates here that belong in that section, I'd remove them completely. Based on what I've read so far, this paragraph will most likely end up focusing on Friedkin's direction exclusively.

Doesn't look there are any, but if you see any let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The date filming began is mentioned twice; first in the filming section and second in the difficulties. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done I took it out of the latter section. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Combine paragraphs 6 and 7.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Cinematography

• 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."

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

That would be most of the quotes in the next few grafs. I wrote that because I was unaware until I found it that Roizman had spoken about the film at length in any forum, and I have been generally surprised that no one else writing about the film, anywhere, seems to have been aware of it. So it was sort of way of patting myself on the back for the research.

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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

There are stray quote marks at the end of this sentence. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Would paraphrase the quote at the end of the second paragraph

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• The quotes in the third paragraph are better and add a lot, so I would hold off on paraphrasing, but I would combine the first two sentences to read Roizman recalled that Friedkin "demanded complete realism" and "wanted to see pictures with glass in them, mirrors on the walls and all of the other highly reflective surfaces you would naturally find in a house, we never tried to cover anything up, as we would normally do for expedience in shooting."

 Done 05:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Combine the paragraphs.

 Done 05:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

Great. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Filming and locations

• First, a general comment: Per MOS:FILMPRODUCTION, filming sections should cover filming dates, locations, artistic decisions, and noteworthy events. That being said I would move the parts about the critical analysis of scenes (namely, the second paragraph of "Head spinning" and entire "Angiography scene" to "Reception" or "Themes" (I feel like the later is likely to become "Themes and analysis", but I'm not there yet).

Again, as I've said before (though I don't think to you), this is because of the fair use criteria. Number 8 has been commonly read as meaning that the text which supports the use of the fair-use media (when it is not whitelisted, such as movie onesheets, album/book/game covers etc. that usually go in the infobox) has to be as close as possible in the text to the non-free media. And you're usually in much better shape justifying its use to begin with if you have more than one instance of specific reliably sourced commentary on that media. Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense, but I'm going to have to come back to this once I get to the reception or themes section. But I do feel like this media could instead be used there to illustrate the critics' analysis. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

But the information about their production is also better off kept close by. Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• I would also move "production "difficulties and purported curse" to this section, as it appears to deal entirely with events that happened during filming. That being said, remove any duplicates that occur from this merge.

 Done I had actually moved it into a separate section because the "production" section was getting so large at the time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• I also suggest moving the subsections about the production of of specific scenes and special effects to an entirely new subsection titled "Special effects and design", "Stunts and design", or something equivalent. That is the most form that most recent film FAs follow.

I think we'd be better off with one section for the individual scenes and another for the special effects. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I would only do this if the clips and analysis paragraphs are moved elsewhere. But I'll get to that later. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Swap the first and second paragraphs for now. I would also move the date principle photography began to the first sentence and move the information about subsequent delays right after this.

 Done

• According to multiple reliable sources I've seen, filming began on August 14, 1972. I would add this. Also, when was filming completed?

To the first question: Yes, that's in Peter Biskind's book, but per WP:SS I really don't see the relevance of including the exact date over 50 years later without a good reason (I mean, is it celebrated as a holiday or something? Is there a dispute about when, precisely, it began shooting within a period short enough to be measured with exact dates? Something like that) Comes across as rather FANCRUFT-y IMO, and when done too much needlessy clutters the article. I think the chief reason it gets in so many articles without this question being raised is that so many people feel the need to indirectly demonstrate that they did their research, and to justify having gone to the lengths they did. But sometimes—a lot of times, really—it's better to let your work show itself than show it.

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)

The reason I suggested including this is because there are so many sources that mention it. My concern about not including it was because, while it's certainly not a date that's celebrated, refusing to do so might result it the "I can't believe it's not on Wikipedia" effect. Not to mention the fact that if someone wants to know the exact date, they are most likely to look on Wikipedia. Lastly, the vast majority of people who read this article are not going to read the whole thing. This is one of my criticisms directly at the strict 10k-ists. If someone wants to know , say, where the movie was filmed or the audience reaction, they are likely to come here. But, with regards to the date, the fact that the movie took much longer to film than initially expected I feel is one reason to consider including this date. With regards to when production wrapped IMDB, an unreliable source, claims it was on March 2, 1973, which is largely consistent with what is already in the article. You might want to try to corroborate this. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. I'll look it up in Biskind's book and cite it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, the same cited source says they were still shooting in March 1973. I sort of take that to mean they went a little further than the second day of the month. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• when the U.S. and Iraq these countries did not have diplomatic relations to shorten this sentence.

The sentence doesn't mention the U.S. otherwise ... it would be unclear what "these countries" meant. Daniel Case (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair, was just trying to trim. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• who required that he hire local workers as crew[1] and teach filmmaking to interested residents.

 Done, although I personally don't see the relative pronoun as required here. But that may just be a dialect/regional thing. Daniel Case (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Temperatures during the days filming took place reached 130 °F (54 °C), limiting shooting to dawn and dusk. - 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.

The intro mentions filming "taking place in both hot deserts and refrigerated sets." This sentence is the payoff for the former assertion. (As a personal aside, I would venture that The Exorcist may have set an otherwise unacknowledged record for widest temperature range filmed in, of 150 °F (66 °C). Someday we'll know this for sure). Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The reason I suggested trimming is because I think it is obvious that these temperatures only occurred at the Iraq site (if I am not mistaken, it has never gotten that hot in DC or New York City). This entire paragraph is about the Iraq scenes, so I think readers can infer what this refers to. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done I see your point now. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Since I've suggested moving information about filming dates to the beginning of this section, I would change the second sentence of the second paragraph to "The first scene to be filmed was Karras's confrontation with his uncle, shot at Goldwater Memorial Hospital, now the site of Cornell Tech, on Roosevelt Island in the East River between Manhattan and Queens; the scenes with Karras's mother in the hospital were filmed at Bellevue.

 Done Seems like I did that while making the earlier paragraph move. Daniel Case (talk)

I would replace the parentheses, as already suggested. Also, there is a stray period before reference 50. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• 36th and Prospect - Street? Avenue? I feel like we should mention the road's full names.

 Fixed They're both "streets". This is just a matter of checking the source. Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• I would condense 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."

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Remove comma after "room".

 Done Don't know how that got there. I think it's a leftover from a previous version of the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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..."

 Fixed This is one of those notes I'm retrospectively very grateful for. The cited source (that Blatty interview in the Post) didn't in the slightest support that sentence. So I had to find some new ones, and I wound up getting rid of that whole part about the Karras room set because I just couldn't find anything, much less anything reliable, to support it. Thank you very much for bringing this up!

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)

• Was The Tombs a student center?

It's a popular pub, apparently, founded by an alum (I now have a source saying it's a pub). I wonder if it might be notable in and of itself, as not only was this scene (I think it's the scene where Father Karras confesses to the other priest over pizza that he thinks he might be losing his faith, judging by the interior shots in the articles I've found about it) shot there, it was also the titular watering hole in St. Elmo's Fire. Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, we do have an article about it already. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Exorcism scenes

• 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."

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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] so that could happen.[60] - also, don't forget the inflation format I suggested.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Did the set lighting only allow the temperature to remain -20F for three minutes? Because breath becomes visible at temperatures much higher than this, and I don't know of many lights that can warm a room this fast.

That is what the source said ... I mean, it's only The Washington Post. I am guessing that Friedkin wanted the kind of thick, persistent clouds that breath forms, kind of like what we now see when people vape, only when you get down below zero Fahrenheit (you can see them in the video clip). Yes, you can see your breath not too far below freezing, but that's barely visible.

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."

I would also consider that you had a lot of people (three actors, Friedkin, Roizman and whoever could fit in there to assist him) in a very small, almost sealed bedroom set ... their breath, so essential to the scene for the first group, is going to warm up pretty quickly when combined with the lighting. Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If that's what the source says, then I'd leave it as is. While I know film lights can get hot, I was thinking more in terms of thermodynamics, which I am very familiar with. I suppose I could calculate the length of time it would take to warm the set to room temperature by estimating the density and specific heat of the air, but I'm not going to bother with that. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• {{The system broke down frequently,[1] so Friedkin was only able to complete five shots each day; the complete scene thus took a month to film, in continuity, the order they were written in the script.}} - condense to "The system frequently broke down, allowing only five shots each day. The scene was filmed chronologically over a month." Or something equivalent.

 Done I tightened it up. The point to get across here is shooting in continuity ... i.e., the order scenes appear in the script. That's not easy (usually you shoot all the scenes that require the same actors/setup/etc. together), although here now that I think about it it would have been less of a challenge than it was shooting Deliverance that way (especially since Boorman wanted the exciting whitewater scenes early on to be in sunlight but then to shoot the river on cloudy days). Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• {{Blair wore green contact lenses meant to give her eyes a bestial appearance for scenes as the possessed Regan.}} - you could keep "as the possessed Regan", but I think this is obvious to the readers. I would also move this sentence to the "Special effects" subsection, as this wasn't only during the exorcism scenes.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done I have cut "wild"—it's not a weasel word, rather the common term in film production for parts of a set (i.e., walls and ceilings) that while meant to look as solid as their real-life counterparts are actually built so they can be moved away from the set in order to put a camera there. I wound up putting it in quotes because I had thought we had somewhere I could link to to explain this, but apparently we don't. So, actually, you're right ... since the sentence explains this we really don't need the word. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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?

 Fixed A hard ceiling is the opposite of a wild one. The point here is that, since they shot the sequence in continuity, they could not have a wild ceiling for the levitation, which would have made it easier to film since they could just have lifted the ceiling up instead of paying the swing gang to cut a hole in the 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.

See above for how I reworded it. I did get rid of the chant inline, though. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Also, capitalize "the" before "80-pound". Bneu2013 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Father Merrin's arrival scene

• Do we need to include the French translation of Empire of Light?

No. That was left over from the more fannish version of this article that existed in the late 2000s. I took it out. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• What are "troopers"? Whenever I do a search for this, I get results for stormtrooper-themed lamps.

 Fixed OK, my searching around found these spotlights, known as "troupers". I suspect whoever wrote down what Friedkin said for the DGA made that mistake, perhaps innocently, and I would imagine got chewed out for it later.

But here I've linked it and corrected the spelling. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest paraphrasing "the trickiest" in the last sentence of the second paragraph.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• In order to get the beam of light the way Friedkin wanted 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. - 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.

OK. I stopped at this one earlier so I could dig out Kermode's book and see what the original language says.

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.

I hate to say it but it seems to me now that this is one place where paraphrasing (what I was trying to do) does us no favors. I am guessing they did this because otherwise it might have been too obvious that the light was coming from a spot, rather than (as it seems in the film) that the light is the room light. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, sorry for the typos. I was (and still am) editing from my phone, but have corrected them. Although this is speculation, it sounds like the light may have been beamed at an angle between the hole and frame, and the glass used to reflect and intensify the light. I also wonder if the frame was removed because the glass would have partially obscured and/or dimmed the light, but that wouldn't explain why they had to put it a few feet behind. But if we can't figure it out, then I say leave it as is. Do, however, rephrase to say that the spotlight was beamed between the window and frame, as the source doesn't explicitly say that the light fixture was placed in between the two. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Update - I just went back and watched this scene on YouTube, and if you look closely, there appears to be a gap in the top left corner of the window, where the light appears to be projected from. It looks like they may have tilted the window frame back maybe six inches or so at an angle to allow the light to be projected through. I never would have noticed this had it not been for this review. In the posters, the beam is so bright you can't even see the frame. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Paraphrase the quotes in the third paragraph.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• • • 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,
• I'm leaning towards combining some of the paragraphs in this section to make two, but I'm going to wait to see how you address the previous comments before making any recommendations.

I wouldn't object. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• • • I'm thinking split before He gave the crew a full day to light..., also rewording as necessary.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Head spinning

• Since this wasn't in the novel, should we include a sentence about its addition in the writing section?

OK, I should be clearer. The head-spinning during the crucifix scene is IIRC sort of in the novel, just that her head doesn't go all the way around, instead to what's described as an unnaturally long way back. What Kermode is saying is that the second head-spinning, during the exorcism, definitely is in neither the book nor the script, so he thinks it was added while filming. That wouldn't really make sense IMO in the writing section. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

I just took that out. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Crucifix scene

• The casting section already mentions that Dietz stood in in this scene, so I don't think we need to mention it again.

 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Again, I would paraphrase quotes.

 Done This actually turned out nicely since, on my monitor at least, no more text creeps in between the two clips afterwards. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Angiography scene

• I feel like we can cut "as Blair undergoes the steps of the actual procedure," as I think this is obvious. Also, it's technically Regan, not Blair, who undergoes the procedure.

• I would paraphrase quotes and combine paragraphs. I would start with 1 and 2, but, again, will wait to see how you paraphrase the quotes before making any other recommendations.

 Done, belatedly. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"Spider-walk" scene

• If we're not going to mention the dates any other scenes were filmed, do we need to do it for this one?

 Done Another thing left over from the earlier, fannish version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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."

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• It was restored to in 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 - 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?

 Done Rereading Kermode, it seems what he meant was that they found the shot of blood coming out of Regan's mouth after he found the scene and added it. Vercoutere had recalled the seen getting "a little bit bloody"; until they found that apparently no one understood what he was talking about. I reworded. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Websites devoted to the film in the early 21st century gave credit to, Sylvia Hager, credited after the 2000 re-release.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Special effects

• 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?

• I would change "said" to "speculated" in the last sentence of the first paragraph.

• Combine second and third paragraphs.

• 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".

 Done Looks like I did all these a while back and forgot to note them here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Post-production

Editing

• Suggest combining this section into two paragraphs.

*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".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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?

 Fixed Changed to "edit", so there's no confusion. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• After reading it over, I suggest opening this section by mentioning the first three people Friedkin hired, followed by Smith as lead editor.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Is "film, still," in the second paragraph supposed to be "film still"? Fix as necessary.

See below. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Actually, that whole sentence needs a lot of work, and is probably overly detailed.

 Fixed Trimmed and tightened. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think we need the sentence about Friedkin's tweet referring to Smith as the editor. We could mention that all four were credited in the previous paragraphs.

I moved that to an endnote. One of the issues is that it's never exactly been clear, credits notwithstanding, who did how much of the editing, especially given that they all shared an Oscar nomination. Friedkin describing Smith as if he were the only editor suggests one answer, an answer that we can now no longer get him to clarify. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Who was the editor during principal photography? I feel like this (and the succeeding sentences) belongs before this point.

 Fixed, partially. The source does not identify whoever was the editor during production; maybe given that they were under that level of control they don't want their name used . I have otherwise moved it as suggested. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Sound effects

• created the sound effects

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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".

 Fixed I changed the wording to clarify that the sound work was done last and completed just before the movie had to be printed and go to theaters. I took out "deadline", eliminating that issue. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Alleged subliminal imagery

• It sounds like in response to the 1991 article that Friedkin admits that subliminal imagery was added in post-production, but later denied this eight years later. I feel like this needs some explanation.

It's Blatty who the 1999 quotation is attributed to. Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Titles

• I would change this to "Title sequence". First glance could give the impression that other titles were considered for the film.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Perri's input into the film's opening continued after the credits. - what exactly does this mean.

 Fixed That he also suggested how to make the film appear to have begun with a sunrise. Reworded. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Paraphrase quotes. Also, a period is missing after "color"".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• The final sentence sounds opinionated. Is it a quote?

 Fixed by joining it to the previous sentence while addressing the previous issues. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Music

• 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.

 Fixed Yeah, this was the result of the previous reviewer insisting I should put this first because that was important to him. Tightened up a lot. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• "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.

 Fixed I just took that part out. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would move 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest cutting "In other words, rather than get bad imitation Stravinsky, I might as well have the real thing.".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Remove the tidbit about Psycho.

 Done I suppose, had he actually scored the film, this would have been worth mentioning. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably so. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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."

 Fixed The reason here is that this was unusual at the time to have so little music. I reworded to "There are only 17 minutes of music in a two-hour film. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I see. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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"?

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• I feel like the last paragraph belongs before the two preceding, as it is about music that was in the original cut.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Combine paragraphs for a maximum of four and reorganize as necessary.

Releases

• When was the film originally scheduled for release?

Another one of those things I honestly wish I could say I knew. The source THR article only says "sooner". My guess is an answer might come from looking through the trades from that year (Variety and THR during 1973), which might let slip somewhere what Warners was thinking. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Combine first two paragraphs.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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'm changing "preferable" to "favorable", which I had probably meant all along. January has never been a month where lots of people see movies, and what's understood by that is that Friedkin felt (and he wasn't entirely wrong) that the studio didn't have a lot of confidence in the film and was trying to cut its losses if in fact it bombed.

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)

• Combine last two paragraphs.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• It is the second all-time highest-grossing Christmas week release after 1997's Titanic. - 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.

I'll look it up at BOM. I went with your alternative. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Do we need to say that it out grossed The Godfather?

In retrospect that's only in there because of Friedkin's complaints about the release date relative to that film. I took it out. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Home media

• As short as this section is, I'm not sure we need subsections.

• Combine first two paragraphs.

• No need for parentheses around "and Blu-ray".

• Do we need to mention the 2008 interview?

• Combine last three paragraphs and reorganize if necessary.

 Done I didn't write much of this ... a lot of it was from the late 2000s when the article was very fannish, so this was necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Reception

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)

I was starting to wonder about that. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:38, 5 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Adjust inflation figures as discussed earlier.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• What are "house records"?

 Fixed The record for each theater's individual box office. Reworded. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Link "downtowns" to "business district".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest combining first two paragraphs.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

Also, looks like I missed this, but apostrophe after "African-Americans in 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)

 Fixed I changed those to “Black” too, which eliminates that problem. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• But after the theater in predominantly white Westwood showing the film

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Period after as the audience for the film was at least one-third Black

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• 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?

 Done This tied into one of the points the article makes elsewhere that people were lining up for hours to see the movie in frigid winter weather. But I guess it's not relevant here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Combine third and fourth paragraphs.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• (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.

 Done Will add source in a moment. Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Used the source we give in 1973 in film. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Punctuation error before/after ref 157.

 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Update 2014 inflation figures.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest combining last three paragraphs. Also, I think the final sentence might belong at the end of the fifth paragraph.

 Done I actually put that sentence in an endnote.

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)

Critical response

• Retitle section "Initial critical response", since reception of the film has greatly improved since.

• Suggest opening paragraph with something like "The film initially received mixed reviews from critics".

• Combine the first and second paragraphs and the third and fourth, respectively.

All  Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Audience reaction

• Even if some of this has to be forked into a spinoff, it is still going to be one of, if not the longest sections in the article. I suggest reducing the number of paragraphs to five.

 Done One of the toughest jobs so far in this GAR, but turned out to be very helpful. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• I really like that Newsweek quote; I think it summarizes the audience reaction very well.

• Who is Calley?

 Fixed John Calley, the studio head at the time. A first ref to the story about how his dog was barking at the book when he read it in his bedroom after the studio optioned it was something I cut a while back ... it's still in the production article. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• When it was over, Calley and the other executives, remained in their seats, stunned.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• I must have missed this, but change the comma after "fainted" to a semicolon.

• MOS:GEOCOMMA after "Nebraska" in photo caption.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• In New York City, 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. - also suggest Oxford comma after "rain".

 Done

• 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".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest paraphrasing quotes as before.

In this case I just trimmed them. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Were people smoking marijuana to deal with the adverse affects of seeing the film?

I don't know; that seems to be what the Star was implying. Anyway, I have decided to take that part out as it distracts from the paragraph's focus on the widespread nausea. Daniel Case (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Three separate production histories were published. - don't know what this is about, and if it is relevant to this section.

This sort of attests to the interest the film generated, as doing that was not common back then and would be a bit of a (ahem) production, more than making a website or YouTube video today. But without context no one's going to understand that, so I took it out. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: I wish I could find out what their authors and titles were, then chase them down. They might have some info otherwise lost. Most would have been sort of quick-buck jobs not authorized by the studio, and they might have just used publicly reported info. But who knows? Someone might have explained something otherwise not known, or talked about something they became more reticent about later. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Religious response

*Comma after "Devil" in first sentence of second paragraph.

• Link "Tunisia" and suggest adding that it is a predominantly Muslim country.

• Paraphrase Blatty quote at the end of the fourth 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.

• Combine last two paragraphs, and preceding two paragraphs, respectively.

All  Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Rating controversy

• Were one third of all films submitted to the MPAA in its early years edited to avoid an X rating, or just one third of films that ultimately ended up with an R rating? I find the former hard to believe.

Alright. Since I couldn't get to the right pages of Zinoman's book, I went to look at it in a nearby library that held it. He qualifies it as having come from some people working for the ratings board at the time, and I will so rephrase.

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)

Interesting. On a related note, I'd be perfectly okay with removing the too long tag at this point, now that the article is down below 15k words and most of the paragraphs are better organized. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems like someone else did that. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Since many theaters did not show those films, and newspapers did not run ads for them,

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Cut "(children admitted only with an adult)".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Paraphrase "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.

 Done I just cut the second quote entirely. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• More details needed about the theater penalization in Hattiesburg, MS.

I'll look and see if there's any news coverage outside the court opinion. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done OK ... found some and added it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest condensing to three paragraphs.

 Done, amazingly enough. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Viewing restrictions in the United Kingdom

• I suggest finding a way to merge the first two sentences into one; maybe something like "Released in London in March 1974, The Exorcist drew protests around Britain from the Nationwide Festival of Light (NFL), a Christian public action group". Also, was the film only released in London or the entire country during this time?

 Fixed Since the second sentence says the NFL protested nationwide, I have just reworded the combined sentence to reflect that. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• A letter-writing campaign to local councils by the NFL led many to screen The Exorcist before permitting it to be shown. - Many theaters?

 Fixed Many of them (i.e., the councils) Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• 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."

 Done Although not quite the way you did it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Cut stray quote mark after "1981,".

• Was the version shown on television unedited?

I'm sure it probably was in some way, but I don't think the source says anything to that effect? Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Combine second and third paragraphs.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Also, does the content about the video releases belong in the "Releases" section?

Since it deals with the denial of the film's video certificate and the resulting difficulty of finding a video copy of the film in the UK for much of the rest of the century (Addendum: See Video nasty), which did a lot to add to its notoriety there that most Americans don't know about since we never had that problem, I think this is more appropriate in this section. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

After release

• If I'm not mistaken, It also surpassed The Exorcist as the highest-grossing R-rated horror film. Is The Exorcist still the highest-grossing R-rated horror film adjusted for inflation?

You are correct. I don't think those numbers are adjusted for inflation, though, since our own inline inflation in the article puts the inflation-adjusted gross (based purely on 1973 as a baseline for all revenues, which of course leaves a lot to be desired) into the billions. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Here Forbes tries to take inflation into account in ranking horror-film grosses and puts The Exorcist second all-time after Jaws, with just under a billion total dollars as of 2019. While I salute the effort and feel this is more realistic than the $8.5B figure our GDP-based inflation calculator came up with, I still feel it falls short.

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)

That will work. If you could find a reliable source that explicitly says it is the highest grossing R-rated horror film adjusted for inflation, then I would include. Otherwise, I would leave as is. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking I might put the Forbes thing in an endnote and just mention inline that those numbers are unadjusted. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Cut extra space after "thousand films".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 18 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Combine last two paragraphs and paraphrase quotes.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Themes

• Suggest linking "cultural, political and social upheavals of the late 1960s" to Counterculture of the 1960s or 1960s#Social and political movements.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Change comma to semicolon after Vietnam War.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest combining first to paragraphs, as they both deal with the films resonance to the social and political movements of the time.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest paraphrasing Breinham quote about Watergate and rewording first sentence of this paragraph to read that some critics saw a similarly between the film and societal events like this.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget to flip the refs and ditto anywhere else.

• Citation needed at the end of third paragraph.

I'm missing this. Or perhaps I had fixed it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest trimming this section down to four paragraphs.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Update - I apologize for the delay in finishing this review, but I have had a number of circumstances come up that have limited my ability to edit routinely. I should have my final comments this weekend. Once I complete this review, I am going to have to further reduce my activity on Wikipedia. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Litigation

• 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.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comma after "1974".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think we can cut "which restored 11 minutes of footage and did well critically and commercially"; mentioned above.

 Done Yeah, I think that was some fan addition. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• What was the outcome of the 2001 and subsequent lawsuits?

I found that the LA Times reported the former was settled confidentially; I have added that (Also found that someone had FOIAed Blatty's FBI file, because he referred Warner's conduct to them believing it so egregious as to constitute criminal fraud. Might be worth mentioning this in an endnote). As for the later suit I have found nothing. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Legacy

Effects on film and industry

• Suggest an opening summarizing sentence for this subsection.

 Done, although someone will doubtless want to see sources for this sentence. I'll see what I can do. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• "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"."

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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).

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Link "avant-garde" to "Avant-garde music". Also, is there a reason Penderecki's full name isn't displayed?

 Done Probably because I had mentioned his full name in something earlier that I have since cut.  Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Composers of original music for those films adopted some of their techniques, like dissonant intervals such as (particularly) tritones, sound massing and tone clusters, to create unease and tension. - 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.

I clarified the wording to explain that the listed techniques used in modern avant-garde work like Penderecki's were emulated by composers of scores for post-Exorcist horror films. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Change "Warner" to "Warners".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• "60s to "1960s".

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Cut the Bride of Frankenstein mention; that's a bit off topic and TMI here. You can just say that most sequels were secondary properties.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Combine second and third paragraphs.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Cultural reference point

• 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.

 Done Since the show only ran one season I decided to omit any time reference. Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'd try to get this down to four paragraphs.

Working on it. The more I think about it, the more that next-to-last graf seems like it should be removed to "religious response". Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest keeping it here since the religious response paragraph deals with the initial reactions from religious groups, which, like the initial reviews of the film, has greatly improved since. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done I got rid of the court-opinions graf, since it was in retrospect just trivial, passing mentions, and trimmed that long quote back into the graf.

Yes ... I did go back and forth on that one a lot. Maybe in the future when we can better trace the evolution of this perspective. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Accolades

• 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."

• add "at the ceremony" after "crews". Also, we need to provide a link to the ceremony article here, preferably in the first sentence.

• 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.

• Combine the three paragraphs in this section into one.

All  Done. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sequels and prequels

• Suggest retitling this section "Related media", and make the original title a subheader at the beginning of this section.

• Cut The film has led to multiple sequels and a television series.

• Cut 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.

• "It made some money" is very weaselly; I would just say it was less successful than the original.

• Change colon to comma after "novel".

• Cut despite the lack of exorcism scenes (one was added after principal photography, with Nicol Williamson in the role).; again, this is borderline off topic.

• I don't think we should mention the actual dollar figure of The Exorcist IIIs gross; I would again say it was much less successful than the original.

• Cut "Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion" subheader and subsequent hatnotes.

• Combine the three paragraphs about the sequels and the two about the prequels each into one.

All  Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

2020s direct sequels trilogy

• Move this paragraph to the end of the sequels and prequels section. Don't combine with any of the paragraphs in this section.

• Merge the first two sentences.

• Unlink "the reboot"; film is linked below.

• Change "will reprise" to "is reprising" and "will be" to "are".

• Uncap "As" in "As of August 2022".

• Comma and cut extra space after "2023".

 Done A lot of this is stuff added by fans more recently in anticipation of Believer, so I wasn't terribly invested in the way it was written. I cut more than you indicated. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Related works

• Retitle section "other related works" and make it a subsection of the previous section.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Still not a subsection, but I guess that will do. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

OK. Can't believe I'm done at long last. There's just enough turnaround time to get it to FAC after spinning off the Reception section and adding the clip of Father Merrin's arrival. Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I still need to skim through it before I can pass, but I overall, I think it is ready. Some people are going to naturally object to the length (13.1k words; a huge improvement over the start of this review), but as I have said before, all articles are different. This article could also use a copyedit, which could probably shave off another 1k without removing essentially any content. It would also be nice if you could find a few minor facts, such as when the film was greenlit, but that's certainly not a requirement. Overall, I think it's ready, and I will be passing once I proofread the article one last time. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: - I have finished my final proofread, and am happy to say that I think it now largely satisfies the GA criteria and am ready to pass. The only other comments that I would like to see addressed are my suggestions that you get the music section down to four paragraphs and rearrange as necessary. I forgot to mention this, but I also suggest that you condense the plot section down to five or six paragraphs, as well as remove the director's cut section (as well as possibly this entire subsection; your choice). I am basing this off of other recently promoted film FAs. Hopefully reviewers more familiar with film FAs will have additional suggestions soon. Anyways, good job; I trust that you will address these remaining suggestions, and see no reason not to boldly pass. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.