For me it’s simple:
I’m choosing Ringu I’m simply not going to watch the tape. I also love Japan soooo any chance to be in Japan sounds like a good deal for me!
I don't know, something tells me Mike Flanagan will know how to handle himself after all his Stephen King adaptations.
Although I only live an hour and half away from these, I've never gotten to actually visit them on any DC trips. Not a single one of my family or friends give a shit about these steps, so I wanted to share my excitement and joy with you fine people (although I know you've probably seen them a million times, lol.)
I was absolutely ecstatic to go here and now I want to spend a whole weekend in Georgetown. I never knew just how amazing the town itself really is; shops, restaurants, water activities, parks, etc. If you ever come to visit the steps, you can absolutely make a whole weekend activity out of it. Although I will say.. it was definitely time consuming getting into Georgetown. We sat on the bridge in the last photo for maybe 15-20 minutes, but it had a great view so it didn't bother me, lol. Also, parking was a bit of a hassle at first, until I found a parking garage right on Prospect Street, where the house and stairs are.
I then went home and watched The Exorcist while drinking out of my exorcist coffee mug 😆
If you ever think about going, definitely go, it's so worth it!
The upcoming Exorcist film, now being developed by Mike Flanagan, is surrounded by a mix of leaks, speculation, and course-corrections after the backlash to The Exorcist: Believer. What’s becoming clear is that this isn’t a continuation—it’s more like a complete reset of the franchise.
The strongest and most consistent rumour is that the story centers on a new family, particularly a mother (reportedly played by Scarlett Johansson) and her child, where the horror begins subtly. Instead of immediate possession chaos, it starts with small behavioural changes—detachment, unease, things that feel psychological before anything supernatural is confirmed. The tone is said to lean heavily into ambiguity, making you question whether what’s happening is trauma, illness, or something genuinely demonic.
There’s also talk that the film introduces an investigative angle. A character—possibly tied to Chiwetel Ejiofor—may approach the situation from a grounded perspective, almost like a case study. This has led to comparisons with slow-burn, procedural storytelling, where the horror unfolds through observation and doubt rather than spectacle.
Another widely repeated rumour is that Flanagan is pushing the film back toward the tone of The Exorcist—cold, serious, and psychologically heavy. That means fewer jump scares, less flashy demon imagery, and a stronger focus on faith, morality, and emotional breakdown. Some fans are even expecting a blend of family trauma horror with existential dread, more in line with modern “prestige horror” than traditional possession films.
There are weaker rumours too. One of the more popular ones suggests a new family moves into the original Exorcist house in Georgetown, essentially revisiting the events of the first film. But this is widely seen as unlikely, especially given the criticism of nostalgia-heavy storytelling in recent entries. If anything, references to past events would probably be subtle rather than central.
Other bits of speculation suggest the film may delay or even question the idea of exorcism itself. Instead of rushing into priests and rituals, the story could treat exorcism as a last resort—something characters arrive at reluctantly after exhausting every rational explanation. That would make the eventual confrontation feel more grounded and desperate rather than expected.
There’s also a broader belief that this film is being treated as a “rescue mission” for the franchise. With a strong cast that may include Laurence Fishburne, and with Flanagan known for character-driven horror, the expectation is that this won’t be a typical studio horror sequel. The goal seems to be something more restrained, unsettling, and emotionally heavy—less about shocking the audience, and more about disturbing them in a lasting way.
Overall, the rumours paint a picture of a film that strips things back: one family, one case, and a slow descent into something that may or may not be understood. Less spectacle, more dread. Less mythology, more personal collapse. And instead of repeating the past, it sounds like it’s trying to rebuild what made The Exorcist terrifying in the first place.
I was always terrified of Regan's post-possession look. It's horrifying, the stuff of nightmares.
I might be in the minority here to say that the demon itself never seemed scary to me. Even those "flashes" of it appearing always felt a bit goofy, it was effective at conveying that the demon is always around, but not really something I found to make me flinch or jump or even be afraid of. To be honest the scary things in this film were the HUMAN aspects, like Karras' mom and Regan.
I think she's to this day one of the freakiest looks in horror. Just something about a normal girl looking like this is embedded in my mind for years!
Even in Exorcist Believer, the girls, once possessed, were scary as heck. It just seems...wrong, and I think that's what makes it scary. Their childlike innocence stripped away and allowed to be a vessel for a demon.
In order to use 'The Exorcist' in the title does it have to include characters from the previous movies or books?
I wanted to challenge myself to paint something out of the usual figures I print and paint. This model was a little hard to work with considering there isn’t much architecture on the face but I like it. I’ll share the file in the comments if anyone is interested!
Ive brought this up before in this sub so sorry for being redundant but after reading The Devil Came to St Louis which is a book about the famous possession that inspired The Exorcist, I was a little dismayed.
As an adult Ronald said he was never possessed just a very poorly behaved boy. He had a long career with NASA and never converted to Catholicism.
Of the people who witnessed the "possesion" and were still alive when the book was written, it was almost an even split between those that thought it was genuine and those that didn't.
The author did good research looking for other church approved cases and there were very very few. One in Iowa in the 1920s and some historic ones in Europe in the middle ages.
There was Annalise in Germany which is highly controversial with the priests being charged with manslaughter.
Anyway...does this really happen or like Karras says "we'll have to get her back to the 15th century "
Now on social media I see priests who claim to have performed dozens and dozens of exorcisms which were more like the fantastic events in the movies.
Very skeptical now. Would love hearing opinions.
I've read in some media outlets that Linda Blair has been spotted on the set of the new film. If she appears, it will surely be for a surprise cameo, but I'm not entirely sure how true this is. If anyone knows anything or can confirm it, please let me know.
That's how he pronounced it, and with equal stress on each syllable. He goofed up only once, towards the end, when he uses his demon voice for some of Karras's lines. Other than that, I thought he did an awesome job. The perfect voice. I was particularly impressed by his version of Kinderman. It's abridged, only about 60% of the book, but frankly, as someone who has read the full novel, I found that an improvement. All the good parts are left in. If you've never read the book, or reading isn't your thing, you might want to give it a listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvsL7oQ2164&list=PLVkBm5JvzHj-62s3jhC24W0w48CmpK40k&index=9
Super7 Exorcist Reaction Figure. Need to check out the glow.
It was later reused for the 1979 Dolby 70mm reissue and a copy of that trailer exists on home media releases of the film starting with the 1998 vhs laserdisc and dvd versions . Back then this trailer caused seizures that it was pulled from cinemas back in 1973.
For starters, this is literally just for fun. I feel that the typical audience for this franchise would dismiss everything apart from one or two films. That's fine, I love those same two films (obviously 1 and 3), but I like to have fun putting together the broken continuity from the films and TV series together.
For starters, David Gordon Green has implied all the films are canon to The Exorcist: Believer. The TV series doesn't count to this unfortunately, which means that, if you want to make it all one stupid timeline, you have to create some really stupid reasonings. Can't get upset if I'm self-aware, right!? Anyway, Green's statements:
"To be honest, I'm not avoiding any of them, but I don't know them very well. I've seen all of them. I've seen Exorcist III more than any of them. I know that one very well. Say what you will about Exorcist II, but it ain't shy. It is a fearless epic of ideas, but [we're] not necessarily following a character from Exorcist: The Beginning. We're not looking into that. It's not that type of a franchise that needs to check boxes, but I've got two more movies, so maybe I'll find some threads to unravel from one of those."
"The Exorcist has been written. That was one of my pandemic projects. It's not inaccurate [that it will be a sequel to the original film]. I like all the Exorcist movies. And not only do I like them, I think they can all fall into the acceptable mythology for what I'm doing. It's not like I'm saying, 'Pretend that The Exorcist 2 never happened.' That's fine to exist. They're all fine to exist, and I enjoy all of them."
So, taking that into account, HOW THE HELL DO YOU MAKE THIS WORK? Well, chronologically, let's start with the prequels. Exorcist: The Beginning is a retooled "remake" of Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist after the executives rejected that version. It is an almost entirely different film with new actors and almost everyone has a different name. Let's assume that it takes place after Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist, which also tells of an encounter Merrin had in Africa which helped him regain his faith. I mean, technically it can work. They're set 2 years apart and even when a character shares a name, they're typically a different actor. Stupid, yes. Impossible, uh, well, close, but close is good enough for me. That's two boring prequels together so far.
The original film? Yeah, obviously this fits with itself. It's the first installment in the Trilogy of Faith.
The Ninth Configuration features a recast Billy Cutshaw from The Exorcist. Nothing contradicts this film being part of the universe at all, and it's connected in the books. It's the second installment in the Trilogy of Faith.
Exorcist II: The Heretic... this one has flashbacks to Merrin in Africa separate to what happens in both prequels. Thankfully, this one is pretty obvious to resolve. In The Exorcist, it is said that his Africa exorcism happened "ten, twelve years ago." Since The Exorcist takes place in 1975, that places it in 1963 rather than the 1940s. Different events.
The Exorcist III goes out of its way to avoid showing the house from the first film, which must be a deliberate attempt to avoid contradicting Exorcist II: The Heretic. It's the third installment in the Trilogy of Faith.
Exorcist: Legion VR is some random video game tie-in. Pazuzu is in it so I'm placing it before the show rather than in 2018.
The Exorcist (TV series) provides a perfect ending to the MacNeil storyline before having a second season that stands completely on it's own as a genuine expansion of the world! Too bad that The Exorcist: Believer completely shits all over it. Ugh... anyway, let's ruin the story to make it work. The Exorcist: Believer seemingly has the same history for Regan and Chris as the TV series, just without Regan becoming Angela Rance. Both have Chris using Regan's possession for frame and money, driving her away. Let's say Angela and "Chris" aren't Regan and Chris. Pazuzu is known for deceiving, so perhaps he mixed their memories with his old victims to make them more vulnerable. He gave Angela Rance memories of being Regan and gave a Chris lookalike memories of being Chris. This is ABSOLUTELY a stupid idea, by the way. Technically speaking, it works, but it's very much the case of, "a wizard did it." This TV show is amazing though and I will do anything to make it fit in my head even if I have to ruin it to work in the latest garbage movie. 😭 There is a recreation of the scissor kill scene from The Exorcist III in the last episode, so I don't think they were ignoring everything but the first movie.
Speaking of, The Exorcist: Believer is trash. 😂 Still. Whatever. Pazuzu isn't in this film which could be explained by Angela apparently killing him in the TV show. Definitely not intended but accidentally fits?
How does this look?
1947 - Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist
1949 - Exorcist: The Beginning
1975 - The Exorcist: Extended Director's Cut
1976 - The Ninth Configuration
1979 - Exorcist II: The Heretic
1990 - The Exorcist III
2016 - Exorcist: Legion VR
2016 - The Exorcist (Season 1)
2017 - The Exorcist (Season 2)
2023 - The Exorcist: Believer
I know this fanbase isn't particularly into timelines and continuities, and honestly, the TV show is really better off being it's own branched timeline separate from the latest sequel... buuuuut, this is fun. At least for me. 🤷♂️ Hey, at least it makes for an interesting watchthrough. My experience this way is that it feels like the first three are Merrin's story. After that, it feels like each sequel is a continuation of the first film following different characters in the same world. It's like each set of characters gets their own extended epilogue.
Regan was showing signs of being possessed before the party and piano scene. A lot of the exorcist (the actual book) suggests Regan learned about possession from the book she read. If that book was never left at the house after the party scene would Regan still become fully possessed?