Our mission at SAW is to foster conversations about this thing we all love (or love to hate): film/TV. Many of our features are designed with you in mind. Your opinions, to be more to the point. You have ’em. We want to hear ’em.
Question of the Day (QOTD) is exactly what it sounds like. It’s a film/TV-related question that we put to you, the reader. The comments section below is like the feedback box at work; except, in this example, we actually read what you write and care about what you have to say.
When the news that Universal was shelling out over $400 million for three sequels to The Exorcist came out, I saw a lot of people online ask, “Why?” Sure, there might have been some people asking for a new instalment in the franchise, but three?! And original star Ellen Burstyn is coming back for all three. Again, why?
This feels like the latest attempt to replicate the success of 2018’s Halloween, which ignored all previous films in the franchise except the original and brought back Jamie Lee Curtis as an older Laurie Strode. It worked for that film because Laurie Strode was as much a part of the franchise as Michael Myers was. Is Ellen Burstyn’s Chris MacNeil that vital to the horror franchise?
With all that said, the question I ask today is: does the world need a new Exorcist trilogy?
I have no opinion on the matter. Would it make sense for Burstyn to show up in a small role in the first sequel? Sure, why not. But by the sounds of the deal Burstyn managed to secure from Universal, I have a feeling she will play a large role throughout this new trilogy. Will it work? What happens if the first film bombs? Oh well, at least everyone involved has already been paid.
So what about you, folks? Would you gladly watch three new Exorcist movies?
I’ll see you in the trenches.