Talk:The Exorcist/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ErnestKrause (talk · contribs) 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment in preparation; it may take a few days. To start things off, the article is approaching 300Kb in total size and have you given any thoughts to possibly trimming some of the text or considering a page split for some of the sections? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand this is a perfectly understandable point. On the other I would note that Aliens and Back to the Future both recently made FA at over 200K in length each, and neither of them is as historically important to modern cinema as The Exorcist. Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be so bold as to butt in—I had considered reviewing this nomination but put it off indefinitely due to the extreme length of the article—those articles are both between 10,000 and 11,000 words in length, whereas this is in excess of 23,000 words. The readable prose size is more than twice either of those, or in other words more than both of them combined. See [1][2][3]. TompaDompa (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.

As it happens, though, there are two good options for reducing the overall prose size, which until today I was not certain would be allowed.

First, the "Critical and scholarly analysis and commentary" section could easily form the basis of a larger Themes in The Exorcist article, much as we already have Themes in Blade Runner and other films. As it turns out, we've had the one on Blade Runner since 2005. I actually felt months ago this would be a good idea for this film as well, given the extensive scholarly analysis it has received over the years; my plans include, when I have the time free to spend a day doing this (which I hope will be the case at least by early June), going to a nearby university library and looking at a lot of paywalled sources. I did not want to make such a major structural change while the film was up for GA, at least not without a reviewer's consultation.

It also seems that now the mandarins of WP:FILM are OK with separate articles about a film's production. Years ago I recall, after one of said mandarins at the time complained about the length of that section in The Devil Wears Prada, I forked it off into a separate article, only to be told this was totally unnecessary; I then requested its deletion. Now it seems opinions on the matter have been relaxed.

So, I am very much amenable to splitting off separate articles on those two subsubjects (probably keeping them in draft space for a while) and appropriately condensing what's left. If either of you have any other thoughts on this, please let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it would work well; both of those page splits I'd see as a positive step and in agreement with Tompa above. I'm guessing that Tompa and myself would both support you. Any chance that you could do it over the next few days. I've just complete my complete read through of the article, and I'll need a couple of more days to type up all my comments, while you attempt those page splits. Good idea on your part for these page splits. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This weekend might be good for that ... I am finishing up an article I've been drafting that's been a bit more of a (welcome) challenge over the last two weeks. I also have some other offline projects that demand my attention. But, all the same, moving the existing sections to draft space and tightening what remains is the easy part. If not this weekend I will shoot for next week. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly ready to go ahead with this assessment as soon as you can get those two articles split. Ping me when they are separate articles; my suggestion would be to split them in the main space even if they are start or stub articles in order that you may link them from the main article. Ping me anytime this week when the splits are completed. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it was as simple as that. It was necessary to migrate several versions of full footnotes, and the long form versions of the short footnotes, to the split-off article. And write an intro. Then, in trimming down what's left in the main article (which as the history shows I've started), I have to make sure I don't remove the full versions of a footnote along with material I've decided won't be needed in the main article now that I've split off production.

I've found a good picture to use as lead image in the production article; once I add it and have trimmed what's in the main article I'll be able to move it to mainspace and link the article from the top of the section.

I'd prefer to do it this way because a) there will be readers who come upon the article completely ignorant of this GA process, and they deserve better than a stub in mainspace should they click on it, and b) leave a stub behind and you can bet some overzealous new-page patroller will see it and nominate it for deletion, a process I really don't want to be going through right now. Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds ok. It sounds like it might take a little more than a week and I'll plan to look in at 10 days, it that sounds like enough time. You can also ping me earlier if its ready. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Start assessment

To begin with some framing comments for this very long article which you've started to trim. Its currently at about 250Kb total file size which is somewhat over the two examples which you've given me which are coming in at about 205Kb and 208Kb in size. I'll make some more comments about this later, though I'm taking seriously your reference to your two examples as providing good target sizes for this article as well. My comments below are to be in two parts; the first part is here and I'll follow up with the second part after I see your answers and edits in response. Starting with comments directly below.

(1) I'll be coming back to the lede at the end of this assessment again. For now I'll comment that your research has been extensive and that there might be too much detail shown in the lede since the information is already in the article's main body. A quick example would be your sentence "The book was a bestseller, but Blatty, who also produced...", which could be presented in an alternate form such as "Even though the book was a bestseller, Blatty and Friedkin had difficulty casting the film". This is only example and you can use it or not, however, a shorter lede in total would be to your advantage. Try to let the good research you have done in the main body of the article speak for itself. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been thinking about making the intro shorter than it is. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Plot section. I'm not sure I can think of this film without reference to the Islamic call to faith which appears at the very start of the film in Iraq. Could there be a short mention of this intonation which memorably starts the film.

Good idea, especially since it's mentioned a couple of times further down. I didn't write that section, BTW, but I have no problem editing it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polite disagree: Despite my recent edit comment goofs, I see now where the recent "GAR" stuff is pertinent (this talk). If we're gunning for GA status then ideally we might like to keep the plot section as simple as possible, "keep it simple stupid", per WP:PLOTBLOAT. This norm is not set in stone, and yes a given film might need a bit more, but IMO the plot section really doesn't benefit from opening detailed language on first shot(s), opening atmosphere apart from what has been said. It's enough to note that a Catholic priest of all people is in Northern Iraq to know that someone is off in some other land. the dogs-fighting language is also useful to establish the drama depicted in film in simplest, easily verifiable terms.

The relative importance of a film's initial shots are also pertinent here. Exorcist's initial shots aren't HUGELY important to its meaning and cultural significance, relative to some other films IMO. MinnesotanUser (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Distinction of the theatrical cut and director's cut is well added here.

Again, I can't take credit for that, other than not changing it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Production section. Should this section have a main article link for the book version. The section currently has no Main article link.

It does seem like we should link the book from there, as well. And per other film articles that first section should be titled "Development" Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(5) In the writing section, it seems like much of this could be moved to the Wikipedia article for the book version. Condensing books and expanding books into film series or television series, or for abridged book presentations, can be discussed, at least in parts, in the book article as to differences between the published version and the adapted versions.

MOS:FILMPRODUCTION is clear about this sort of material being in the film article. See Jaws (an FA) and The Godfather (a GA), both groundbreaking '70s New Hollywood blockbusters like The Exorcist, both adapted from bestselling books of the era, and both with sections devoted to both their development and writing. From my own work, there's The Devil Wears Prada, based on a 2000s bestseller, also with a section on the script development. Fight Club, another FA about a more contemporary film, likewise has sections on the development and adaptation of a classic movie that few people today realize was based on a novel. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(6) Casting section. I'm wondering if I can think of Max von Sydow as "a less well-known actor", which you call him. He was a major actor by way of Ingmar Bergman, and even calling him a major European actor may not be doing him full justice. Could the wording about the importance of Sydow as a actor in general and in this film be adapted somewhat to reflect him as a major actor.

He was less well-known at the time to the majority of the American audience, who didn't frequent arthouses; granted, he had played Jesus in The Greatest Story Ever Told, but he was not an A-lister the studio would have been happier casting as someone whose name alone would bring people to see the film. I don't think at the time he had been in a successful Hollywood movie since Hawaii ... as for The Kremlin Letter it suffices to say that I only just found out about its existence right now. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(7) Top billing in the Casting section. Who is the top star here? I've read the BFI book about the film by MK and I'm not sure that I'm thinking of them in the order you present them. For example, how much of Regan's character is 'acted' and how much of it is FX? Many have commented that it is the demonic spirit depicted inside Regan which animated the audiences attention, and you can sort this out. I've already stated that Sydow, from many viewers standpoint, was the major actor. He is the one depicted in the poster for this film as approaching the house on a starless night.

Per MOS:FILMCAST: "... it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing (such as from its poster, opening credits, or main on-end credits), speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources". I didn't lay this section out, but it does seem from the on-screen credit order and the onesheet that von Sydow goes second, so I will amend. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(8) Supporting roles section. I'm mentioning again, I'm agreeing with many commentators and critics who have spoken of Sydow's centrality to the plot, etc, as more than merely a supporting role.

See above. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(9) Blatty and Friedkin became long-term friends if you look at some of the many interviews they have granted over the years sitting side by side; is there more to be said about this aspect. The sections throughout production are on the long side, and size issues for the sections still need to be taken into account.

That would be more appropriate, I think, in articles about the two of them. Both of them have spoken, and written, at considerable length about the film and its effect on their lives. I have tried to limit any discussion to matters most relevant to the film and its reception.

As an interesting sidenote, I had the occasion to meet Friedkin once, at an event in Syracuse where he was showing Rampage, hoping to get a distributor for it since De Laurentiis Entertainment Group had gone bankrupt after the film was finished, just before its intended release. Near the end of the event I asked him, up close and personal, what he thought about the upcoming Exorcist III adaptation Blatty was directing. He had already made no bones about still hating Exorcist II, and he was just as blunt about III, about which had already been reported that he and Blatty had fallen out over: "It's gonna suck just as bad as Exorcist II!."

It seems that they patched things up, which, of course, is always good to hear. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(10) One more time. No pictures of Sydow in the entire article (not the poster silhouette)?

Well ... a) my future plan is to get the video clip of that scene in next to the relevant subsection (which is why there's so much there, to justify its inclusion under the fair use criteria, b) the picture is already on the poster in the infobox, albeit at higher contrast, c) most importantly, it's a copyrighted image for which we would need a justification, and that runs into the informal limit of four non-free media/images per article.

For a picture of von Sydow, we would want to use one of the free ones we have on Commons, and try to find one from that general era (sort of an informal rule). This is really the only one we have that fits that bill, and in it he's a) wearing mustache, unlike Father Merrin and b) it's kind of small. Maybe I should see about finding another production still. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done OK, I found a production still of him and Miller and put it in. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(11) Your research for this article in many of the sections show the level of interest that this film has caused in your reading of the material. That's generally to be a good feature, though I may need to return to length issues again.

(12) Editing section. You state, "In his tweet discussing this...", might look better if framed as to the time it was made. For example, "When, many years later, in his tweet discussing this...".

OK, will do. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(13) Jump forward to Music section for this version of my comments. Its very hard for myself to think of this film's music without thinking of Tubular Bells first and foremost. I'm going to suggest you give it a much higher profile in this section than your current approach of including after your introductory material. Your research is all fine, though I sort of feel the section will look more effective if Tubular Bells is discussed right off at the top of this section. As I recall, it even charted at the time the film was released.

I suppose I could do that. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(14) Production difficulties section. Its all well researched; just be careful about the line between useful text and anecdotal text concerning size issues with this large article.

Yes, that's still on my mind.

Done I trimmed a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(15) Jump ahead to Critical response section. The MK comment at the end should not be isolated, and I think it would look better integrated into the narrative of the other paragraphs in this section.

I'll find a place for it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(16) Religious response section. I recalling that there was a significant distinction at the time the film was released between the Catholic response to the film and the Protestant response to the film. Was this evident in the RS which you looked at? RC church responses seemed to be more inclined to have a stronger response to the metaphysical and spiritual aspects of this film, though you should correct me if you think otherwise based on the RS which you have seen.

Well, that question may be better answered once I get the chance to go to a nearby university library and really dive into their holdings (as well as what may be otherwise paywalled online). What's there at the moment is based on what I could find online and read for free. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(17) Since release section might be titled as "After release" or "Post release" as options.

Will fix. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(18) Jump forward to Prequels and sequels. I'm thinking that much of this could be moved to the franchise page already existing on Wikipedia. The article you have here is already plenty long, and this reading within this section might be more appreciated on the franchise page for these films.

Yes, the point of that section is to discuss the aspects of the prequels and sequels that bear directly on the narrative of the original film, like Regan returning under an assumed name as an adult in the TV series. I was still surprised by how long it is ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That should get things started for phase one of this assessment. Let me know when the article is ready for the next set of comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case: I've added these comments 2 days ago over the week-end; could you let me know if you plan to get to these comments this week or next week? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will. Sorry, I had a busy weekend and wanted to wait till I was sufficiently rested to digest these. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments added above I've read and as I stated above, I'll need to wait for you to bring your edits into the article before starting my phase two commentary and assessment. (By the way, I'll just limit myself to a small side comment for now, that it was a nice Sydow image that you linked in your comments, if you can think of a way to use it.) Ping me when you have time to incorporate the main materials and edits described above. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: Alright, I have finally addressed all the comments you made and the issues raised where I could. Sorry it took a while ... my life on- and off-wiki just went completely crazy for most of last month. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Also, I took a second pass at the length and now it's down to about 231K, which I am happy to say is less than Terminator 2: Judgment Day, recently nominated for FA. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.