The Exorcist (1973) vs. Poltergeist (1982)

Her purpose is to show up and tell the parents and audience specifically what is occurring, removing us from the state of the unknown. That is the only reason she and characters like her (of which there are countless) show up in films.

She works because she had the right actress and managed to save the kid, but that doesn't discount how she was wrong about the ghosts leaving, this adding another mystery which, I repeat, Steve figured out in the last five minutes.

I don't care that the failed or who played her. Her purpose is to drop exposition so we KNOW. She does and we DO. Her existence completely dismantles your claim about the movie being an example of the horror of the unknown.

Most of us love both movies.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

No it doesn't because you weren't paying attention. I said it did a better job of reflecting that throughout the movie than the Exorcist. Throughout most of the movie, we don't get all the answers. Most. Now say it with me. Mmmmmmmmost. We do get the answers but not until the third act. Doy. I know you could misinterpret things I said (again) to mean "we never have and never will get the answers," but that's not what I said at all.

NOT ALLOWED!

Heh. Playing the hits!

Ok, repeat what I said.

"The problem is thst you already know what the deal is with the spirit in The Exorcist. But Poltergeist is all about the most feared thing in the world: the unknown."

What does "all about" mean to you? Or were you not paying attention to the specific words you used to make an easily refutable point?

No, I know what I said, so I'll elaborate.

The Exorcist can easily be figured out from the get-go, because it draws heavy inspiration from actual exorcism cases. So most of the fear and terror (at least, how I saw it), stemmed from not knowing exactly how Pazuzu was terrorizing Regan before the possession took complete hold by the time Chris called on Karras. After that, all that's unknown is whether or not he'll survive.

Poltergeist is different. It only gives you a few details at a time and raises a lot of questions. The difference between Exorcist and Poltergeist is that The Exorcist is derived heavily from historical practice, whereas Poltergeist is throwing in many new ideas we've never seen in the classic haunted house genre, and the new ideas pay off, hence earlier replies that Tangina started a new trope. That and



As far as what's going on with Regan, it's easy to figure out because of historical context. But we never see what's going on with Carol Anne while she's in this other world. I don't know about you, but if I had to pick between the two then I'd rather keep my daughter within eyesight instead of having her being trapped in another world that I can't access. You don;t even see Carol Anne through most of the movie, but all the horrible stuff is happening to her and YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT. What was that world like? What exactly happened to her during her time in there? Were they torturing her out of their envy for her flesh and purity?

And one more thing, and I'll repeat this until it's drilled into the minds of the people like a tattoo: Tangina didn't answer why it was their house specifically. If they could have any little girl, why Carol Anne? What was the link the ghosts had to THAT location?

Steve figured it out. Three minutes letter, the credits.

So up until the last five percent of the movie, we don't know the whole story, but we really want to for Carol Anne's sake. With the Exorcist, you're just waiting for people to admit there's a demon on the loose, to confirm what can be figured out. Besides, did The Exorcist even mention another world? Other than Heaven and Hell? I don't think it did. Another dimension is like the pinnacle of "unknown" and "discovery."

Your entire premise for The Exorcist being more knowable is because you're familiar with the conventions that the film created. Research the history and popular knowledge of exorcisms. They were a rare and largely forgotten practice until the novel and film became huge hits. It's "knowable" because you're familiar with its impact.

By that same metric, Poltergeist popularized similar ideas and concepts. It even calls itself "Poltergeist."

However, within the films themselves, both are structured similarly in that an authority arrives on the premises in the back half of the film. The difference is that Father Merrin doesn't simply provide answers but shifts the procedural investigative element to a spiritual investigation. This is what keeps his instrumental value different. He is a fellow finder of answers whereas Tangina is a giver of answers.

So once again, Poltergeist is not ALL about that. Neither film is ALL about that so it's a faulty premise to use that as your case for Poltergeist's superiority, especially as it has characters and plot elements specifically in place to explain away the mystery. You're not talking about Lake Mungo here.

I really can't be that familiar with its impact if it was the first demon movie I ever saw, and none of the shows I watched growing up ever really referenced it.

As far as answers go, what are the answers Farras is seeking? Simply put, how to cure the girl, and his worth as a man of God. Right? And it's not like Merrick had that much time to elaborate on that considering that something kind of important was going on. Trying to find the exact way to fight off a monster is a horror trope, and soul searches are like the biggest reason to write a protagonist. Besides, the characters who are put in Poltergeist to answer questions with their experience still don't have all the answers, and the ghosts never ended up "defeated" so to speak.



Just because we get a few answers at a time doesn't mean we have the whole story the first answer we get.

Cultural osmosis is a hell of a thing. It's like going "How would I know Darth Vader is Luke's father if I've never seen Star Wars?" Because ubiquity is a heck of a thing and you watched the Exorcist in a post-Exorcist phenomenon world.

You're still stuck on "she didn't defeat them." That's not her narrative purpose. She sets up the next act by failing but her purpose is to show up and remove the audience and characters from a state of confusion. And she does that. Which is why this archetype is immensely popular. It allows horror to flirt with the unknown then provide concrete stakes and understanding with the audience, thus stepping entirely away from the unknown.

But you don't really seem to understand how narratives are structured or operate and you won't even admit you misspoke when you said what Poltergeist is "all about" and how that's a flimsy premise to build your argument upon.

Very interesting set of debates going on in this thread!

Don't dictate what I do or don't understand about the whole of cinema if you don't know me very well. One movie opinion hardly proves anything, so refrain from your rudeness.

There's a difference between the unknown being a leading theme and no answers being given at all. If you deluded yourself into believing that you're smart enough to dictate how much people know (especially forums users you don't even know by name), then if I realize that obvious truth, you do too. So instead of deciding what I'm supposed to believe, how about you just deliver your interpretation of the movie instead, because I'm certain that if you're gonna talk THAT way, you're gonna end up using this exact excuse if you haven't already: "art is always up for interpretation." Sad when you can't talk about a movie you like without insulting someone.

Id also like to make a comment in regards to the idea that what happens to Carol Anne is worse in that she has been taken away, whereas Reagan is still there.


But that is assuming what is in bed is actually Reagan, and ignores the numerous allusions made to the fact that Reagan is in fact been taken hostage in her own body. She's, according to the demon ,'in here, with us', a cryptic line which can be interpreted that Reagan has been hidden away inside of her body, much like Carolanne has been hidden away inside of her home. There but not really there. The kind of eerie stuff that should make us wonder how much of this body is even her anymore. And, if it's not entirely her, where has she gone exactly? The kind of unknowable stuff that is so in demand in this thread.


Now I will sit and wait to learn how this comment was wrong and is blocking people from expressing their opinions fully.

What proves that you don't listen is that you don't quote users properly, likely because you're skimming arguments for something to contradict. The only one who can prove you right is yourself, and you'll need to do that by not forgetting important keywords next time. But if this is a habit that people will call "crumbing a thread," maybe you shouldn't be surprised.

As for your comment, there's something to be said there and it makes for a strong point and a good interpretation, but nevertheless I'll still add something. Both mothers are dealing with the unknown from a "what's happening to my baby" perspective, and the story is told through their perspective. However, half of The Exorcist is told from Karras' side, and he hardly has any relationship to Regan for a good deal od the movie, whereas half of Poltergeist is told through the other parent who's going through what Diane's going through.

Thing is, when you're going through desparation, when your child is in distress you wanna be close by, and that at least helps because you can be there to aid the child directly. Diane didn't have that luxury since Carol Anne was only still in the house from a multiverse angle. Of course, that last bit may also stem from a personal choice. I can understand if people would rather have their kids lost than possessed.

To be fair, and I extend this as an apology to Crumbs, and I even deleted my follow up post, my term was slightly unfair to him. It isn’t just him. What started as a jest kind of took a mean turn.

If you’re reading this, I apologize Crumbs. It was an unfair jab at you.

Removed the last few posts, as we're at the point where the discussion had gotten entirely about itself. And, preemptively, I'd like to remove more but the nature of these (needless) escalations is it's pretty hard to decide exactly where it went too far.

Good rule of thumb going forward: if a reply only disparages something without adding anything, it probably shouldn't be posted.

Both were good, Poltergeist was a fun type of scary. The Exorcist scared you but affected you too. It outright bothered you by getting in your head and under your skin. Very different movies, Poltergeist has more jump scares, but Exorcist raised the bar on horror movies overall. I guess I pick Exorcist.