The Exorcist (1973) vs. Poltergeist (1982)

OK, the fact that I said the culprit was clear and you replied with "you think it's a whodunit" proves that you're only skimming what I have to say, and you're not paying attention. Selective reading. My whole argument from that getgo was that the movie is NOT unpredictable, and I never said it was trying to be. Your arguments aren't worth it because you don't care to listen to other people, so I'll end my point of OUR discussion with this since I don't want to quote a million things.

The motive was made more clear near the END of Poltergeist. Those ghosthunters may have helped elaborate, but they didn't solve the mystery. Demonic behavior is the only thing driving The Exorcist, and it's already been a recorded form of behavior since the 300's. Even if I'm wrong, and God and demons don't exist, that doesn't rewrite what people wrote down: the behavior of people suspected to be possessed. I googled this. And neither Straight's monologue or Tangina were able to expel the ghosts even after believing it was clean. THey failed because they weren't good enough, and because they didn't have all the answers. The ending twists were revealed by Craig T. Nelson. You didn't address the part I've made clear multiple times concerning exactly when in the movie the motives were made clear. And yes, the motive of the demon was to possess. H's a literal demon. And about the holy water, that little stunt the demon pulled doesn't change the fact that he turned out to be a demon. Demons are DECEPTIVE. Five year olds know this. The Exorcist is relying on typical demon behavior, which you seem to know absolutely nothing about. Basically, if you know ANYTHING about demons, you can predict The Exorcist.

https://www.avclub.com/the-horror-on...amb-1798189017

One more thing:

"You seem to think the movie doesn't want you to know there is a connection to the scenes in Iraq and the scenes in Georgetown."

Then you know I was right. If the movie wants us to know the statue's relevant to the guy on all the Exorcist posters and commercials, then that means it's likely a stone representation of our villain and you admit it.

This line of logic is what I used to predict the movie's outcome when I first watched it when I was 20 or 21, and I was right down to the letter, despite the fact that it was my first serious demon movie and the fact that I knew so little about the book that I didn't even know that the Pazuzu statue was the one in the Gorillaz video. The Exorcist is more predictable than you think, because the behavior of the entity is literally no surprise. You'd have to have a bare minimum knowledge of religious practice not to fully grasp what's going on, and if people still don't get it, then the question is not, "how is this a mysterious movie," it's "what are the people missing or not picking up on." And if I'm not a pro-critic, then other people can easily pick up on it, too.

Poltergeist had predictable moments, but it surprised me much more than the Exorcist did. Albiet, I did give the Exorcist a 9.5 because it was the first movie to really handle that behavior so accurately in movies, and the direction and acting were finely tuned. But that doesn't mean it's a mystery. Blatty obviously took inspiration from actual exorcism cases that have been recorded since the 300's, and that's what makes the Exorcist more predictable than one would think. It's a straight-forward demonic possession, but I've never read about a haunted house case like Poltergeist, and I have read about a few cases (though I believe very, very few of them).


Either way, you shouldn't have a problem. If I could predict it, you can. I don't want to know you're issue, because you'll probably half-ass reading everything I have to say anyway.

Ya know, I know, intellectually, that The Exorcist is a better film.
But I enjoy Poltergeist a lot more.

That seems to be the consensus. These days, blockbuster behavior is considered a big no-no, which also explains the higher reception for Texas Chainsaw.

Well, clearly I've lost this debate then.



Feel free to keep finding the basic plots points of Poltergeist unpredictable or an example of 'the unknown' in cinema. That's your prerogative We all look to get what we want from a film and you've found what you want. And if this precludes you from acknowledging the underlying themes of The Exorcist and how the way they are presented muddle its 'predictable' plot points, so be it. Just crumple that one up in the trashcan where it so clearly belongs.What would someone who has neglected their demonology studies as much as I have know, after all

This is based on basic religious knowledge, it's all things you can pick up on your own. It's not like I was oblivious to the fact that Chris didn't know what was going on, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend I didn't know for a fictional character's sake. The themes of the movie are also obvious, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an easy movie to read.

You're the expert

I shouldn't have assumed there were any other ways to look at the film.

You're the one who neglected key parts of my argument for the sake of yours because you didn't care what anyone else had to say. Don't blame me for neglecting other people's opinions. The problem isn't the way you look at the movie, it's the way you handle arguments. On top of that, don't blame me if you know literally nothing about one of the most common campfire monsters since the dawn of religion, that's not even what this is about anymore.


You pick and choose what you want to argue and then make snide remarks when someone calls you out for missing an important detail. You didn't care about what I said, so you replied on a skimmed interpretation of the argument, and then blamed me for knowing something you didn't? I don't blame you for knowing something I don't know, but I do hold you accountable for the annoying and half-assed way you replied. If you believe that other interpretations matter, then treat my argument the way I treat yours and don't just skim it like it doesn't matter. I may be wrong, but you had your chance to prove that you were the one who could convince me, and you were rude instead.

More like Dumbed, but it's possible those are the same thing.

The scariest part of Poltergeist is the number of you that actually like it.

I'll just have to accept that I'm the lonely curmudgeon here, but I didn't like it as a kid and when I gave it a shot as an adult I liked it less. (and I've seen it many times thanks to 80s Cable TV programming.) I can't watch it without imagining Spielberg hovering on set saying "That's great Tobe, but could you make everything louder? We're trying to make a blockbuster here."

Again, I get that I'm outnumbered, and have been all my life. Just wanted to put my two cents in. I'll now go back to pretending that it's not a Tobe Hooper film.

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

Read my first two responses to you in this thread and please explain this supposed 'snide' of mine.


Maybe look towards your 'anyone who was paying attention' remarks afterwards to locate the exact moment where snide makes an appearance.


Then, yeah, the snide gloves are off.

How about the last three remarks where all you did was get snippy because you gave up? That's what I was saying. And how about this?

"You seem to think the Exorcist is a whodunnit. Guessing 'the culprit' might matter if this was an Agatha Christie joint. But it's not"

This came off quite rude, and you knew the point I was making was that the villain was made clear at the beginning, which means either you're REALLY BAD at paying attention, or you flat out rewrote what I had to say.


You know, I wake up every morning already having gotten used to the fact that people disagree with me on more important things like politics. A movie opinion is pretty arbitrary, but that doesn't mean it deserves the treatment you gave it. And if this "crumbed" thing is a habit with you, then obviously your opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. But I did nothing to earn the lack of attention you willingly gave me (and haven't denied yet, might I add.)

Was there any issue with my first two posts addressing you?. If there was I will apologize. If not, who was the one getting angry and making assumptions about what was being said?


But whatever. I'm done.

It was everything after the first two. I didn't accuse you of leaving things out until after the first two. If the second reply looked angry, it wasn't. That's what happens when I go on a speech about a movie.


"So, a demon qualifies as a known while a ghost qualifies as an unknown? How are either of these two things more 'knowable' than the other?"


That's the nail-in right there. It was obvious from that point that you neglected things out of two paragraphs. I never once said that the ghosts themselves were the unknown. Then it continued with other details I don't want to list because people can read them. Then when I said I was done with you simply skimming things because you didn't care, THAT'S when you got snide.

Heh. The flick that popularized the trope of a psychic arriving in the 2nd act to explain all supernatural forces with pinpoint accuracy is an example of "the unknowable." Okay, bud.

That's a misinterpretation of the movie. If the ghosthunters could explain everything, they wouldn't need help from Tangina, and the ghosts would've left. They were pretty obviously inept, shaking because there was no way they had seen an actual ghost before. And all Tangina managed to do was help rescue Carol Anne, but she never expelled the ghosts. So, the big question is: what went wrong? Nelson / Steve explained that in the last five minutes once he figured it out. I admit, I considered the big twist when Steve was taken to the graveyard, but I didn't say anything. Besides, that was more than halfway through the movie. Nothing in the first half hinted at that, and it's not the most typical haunted house movie besides that.






I guess TV communication isn't unheard of, but for the era it was more of a Videodrome thing.

This is obviously who I was referring to.

I know, but, obviously, I was starting that point from scratch. I already made that point so I reiterated with the extra detail of why Tangina came. Did any of us really believe the house was clean?

That has nothing to do with my point about her instrumental value to the narrative.

I LOVE both of these movies, but if I had pick one them, The Exorcist wins. I would also like to mention that all of the sequels and rip-offs of these movies sucked.

But it does mean that she still didn't have all the answers. Why were the ghosts still there? Steve figured it out at the end. The point I'm making is that I think Poltergeist reflects the concept of unknown more well than The Exorcist because the monster, motive and twists were less obvious to me.