Talk:The Exorcist III

Synopsis
I just spent a little bit of time cleaning up the article, but I'm not entirely sure that its lengthy synopsis is apropos for an encyclopedia entry. I'm tempted to summarize the entire synopsis (or even delete it--there's some pretty horrendous writing there), but I haven't seen the movie. --C-squared 15:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced it should stay either, but I have seen the film so I tried to improve the sludge somewhat. It appears that someone has changed the article for the novel to redirect here, which is unfortunate as even the semi-literate who produced this murky text has pointed out that there are substantial differences between the novel and the film.  Unfortunately I haven't read the novel in 23 years, so I can't even contribute a section to this article outlining the differences. Canonblack 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I sometimes check the wikipedia entry for movies I'd just seen - I find a lot (and I mean, a lot) of the movie articles have overly elaborate, blatantly POV synopsises. There is some trademark writing that makes me believe this is the work of one movie lover with poor concepts of what an encyclopedia is about, an even poorer grasp of what the movies in question are about and way too much time on their hands. I have pointed this out at several other movie talk pages, but nothing seems to happen. Here's a nice example from this article. From the "The Corridor Scene" part: "A security guard who sits in the corridor is summoned by someone and leaves, falsely suggesting to the viewer that events will follow him.". As I said, I just saw the movie, and I can say only a person who paid no attention to the scene directly preceding this one can believe the guard are of any concern. The scene preceding this one has the possesed maniac explicitly declaring that the next victim will be Amy. 213.172.254.28 01:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made a slight change to the synopsis,to correct an error, but I take your point about it being too long, however I would say that, as the film itself is a little confusing, I think entries such as these help unravel the confusion.80.42.129.6 14:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia insert
According to an A&E series episode, American Justice, the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was a huge fan of the movie. In fact, I believe they said it was Jeffrey Dahmer's favorite movie. In the American Justice episode, one of Dahmer's would-be victims said that, while watching the movie, Jeffrey would go into an almost trance-like state and giggle. I have also seen this mentioned in other reviews of the film from various sources. I think that if the Danny Rollin fact is going to be mentioned in the trivia section on the page then why not mention Jeffrey Dahmer as well.Sonicpsyops 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:The Exorcist 3.jpg
File:The Exorcist 3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary
I removed an extremely long section about the plot. We already have a synopsis. Please add essential details to that if necessary. --TS 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of poorly sourced material
I removed this poorly sourced and self-serving material:

"The Exorcist III is the subject of much discussion, notably because the film was drastically re-written and portions were refilmed when the studio became unhappy with the more psychological scares that writer/director William Peter Blatty had chosen in favor of head-spinning and pea soup. The fabled "lost cut" has been passionately debated by fans and film historians alike, and is the topic of an upcoming study by writer Erik Kristopher Myers, whose 2008 book will reveal the whole story behind the film's development, and publish never-before-seen images and interviews with Blatty, Brad Dourif, Mark Kermode, John Carpenter, and many others associated with the film. "

It was added by the aforesaid "Erik Kristopher Myers" who has only ever made edits about Exorcist films.

TuckerResearch (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Trivia insert
The rockband Guns N' Roses used the passage "This I believe in. I believe in death. I believe in disease. I believe in injustice and inhumanity, torture and anger and hate. I believe in murder. I believe in pain. I believe in cruelty and infidelity. I believe in slime and stink and every crawling putrid thing. Every possible ugliness and corruption you son of a bitch. I believe . . . in you." from the fim as an intro for some of their 2001/2002 concerts incluing Rock In Rio 3.

Confusing
"who demanded that the last-minute addition of an exorcism sequence for the climax of the film"

is the word "that" extraneous, or is there a portion of a sentence after the word "film" just missing? Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that "that" is extraneous and have removed it. Be bold in the future in making changes! :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the film (of it, but don't know it) and didn't wish to make a factual error by choosing one correction over the other. Thanks! Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

3 doesn't ignore 2
EXORCIST 3 doesn't ignore EXORCIST 2. One scene even has the cop and a priest mentioning Regan. This 3rd film simply has nothing to do with the 2nd one, which is why 2 isn't mentioned. No character in 2 is in 3. The second film went left, the 3rd right, if you will. Blatty hated 2 but that doesn't 'wish it out of existence'. Also there's the obvious fact that 3 is called THE EXORCIST 3, so they count 2. If they didn't count 2, the 3rd one wouldn't be called 3. Nothing in 2 or 3 contradict each other. Hope this clears things up. ``Abbythecat