Talk:The Exorcist (franchise)

Why are there two pages about The Exorcist franchise...?

I recently did some extensive cleanup, and format changes on The Exorcist (franchise) article. This was previously called "The Exorcist (film series)"... which also makes no sense given the fact that the film series is a part of the franchise. These two pages need to be merged. Seeing as this page was made in 2013, while The Exorcist (franchise) article was made/moved to the mainspace in 2009... I propose consolidating the information to that page. Who is opposed, and why?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge Discussion: Should The Exorcist (film series) and The Exorcist (franchise) be merged?

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.

---

The Exorcist (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Exorcist (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
During a recent move discussion, it was emphasized that we have two extremely duplicative articles in this topic area. Namely: "film series" and "franchise". There was some confusion about the nature of these two articles, their provenance, and whether both should remain. It seems some of this problem was created during a move many moons ago, when the old non-DAB'd "The Exorcist" article was accidentally created (now called "franchise") alongside the pre-existing "film series" article. These two pages are 99% identical, but do have small nuances.

Some suggest that "film series" should remain, because it existed first. Some suggest that "franchise" should remain because it is more recently expanded, edited, and more comprehensive (including books, movies, plays). Either way, I want to emphasize, no page history will be lost, as no pages will be deleted. I also want to emphasize, it is settled consensus that this merged article cannot be called The Exorcist, as that was taken up by the original film as a result of the aforementioned move discussion. I tried to fix this mess after the move I closed by converting "film series" into a redirect pointed at "franchise", but then another user (@Netoholic) pointed out that we should use the more extensive version history of "film series" given that it has existed since 2009 instead of 2013 for "franchise". So now what we have is a mess with both articles again. It boils down to two basic questions, emphasized by 1 vs 2 vs 3 and A vs B. So please answer both in your !vote by providing both the letter and number corresponding to choices below:

How should we go about fixing this?

• Option 1: Merge both into an article called "The Exorcist (franchise)"

1A) this new article should use the "film series" page history (done via a round robin swap, and then manual merge/redirect)

1B): this new article should use the "franchise" page history (done via a manual merge/redirect)

• Option 2: Merge both into an article called "The Exorcist (film series)"

2A) this new article should use the "film series" page history (done via a manual merge/redirect)

2B): this new article should use the "franchise" page history (done via a round robin swap, and then manual merge/redirect)

• Option 3: Do not merge these, and maintain both articles as independent things.

tagging participants of related discussions
@Netoholic, @Styyx, @Daniel Case, @MinnesotanUser, @BarrelProof, @Erik, @Rreagan007, @Roman Spinner, @Natg 19, @Anthony Appleyard, @DisneyMetalhead, @SweetTaylorJames, @BDD, @Pedro thy master

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1AB as proposer. I think it's fine if we want to maintain the page history of the oldest article merge these, but quite emphatically I think we should maintain it at the "franchise" page name as this is more comprehensive, including the books, movies, plays, TV series, and video games. whereas "film series" really via SCOPE should be about the films and only tangentially mention anything else. This is unnecessarily narrow and leaves out a lot of content. I frankly think think the "franchise" article is just better overall, including the best parts of "film series" and expanding upon them, but I would want to maintain that content (and any non-redundant "film series" content) at the "film series" page history under the "franchise" name given the good arguments made by Netoholic mentioned above. Happy to keep the edit histories as is, as well. It truly doesn't matter since no edits are lost, and any merge can be noted in the edit summary and talk page with proper attribution. (edited 05:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC))— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1A is fine with me. I think that the term "franchise" easily encompasses "film series" as well as other elements. If there is some reason not to do it this way, and want to let me know, feel free to ping me. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• 1, no preference on technical history details of merge as long as the two redundant articles are condensed into a single thing. The important thing is to have the right descriptor in the article title and agree that "(franchise)" is the better choice since it covers movies, books, etc, all the works and and fictional narratives involved in the new article's subject. The proposer has clearly thought this through and is ready to work on/implement something. MinnesotanUser (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - I think, with some refining, both articles can be of value. The film series one needs to focus more in-depth on its stated topic (ie, the production of the films themselves), and the franchise article needs to stay more WP:BROADCONCEPT. I see this two-article setup as an experiment - the value of which has yet to be fully realized. No matter what, the edit histories need to be respected. -- Netoholic @ 03:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would remind you that creating a redirect does not delete any articles, so the edit histories are absolutely preserved. But that is okay, I do understand your concerns! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, maintaining the histories under appropriate titles is my main concern. I'd prefer that an article started as about the film series have its history preserved under the (film series) title, not round-robin swapped. So if a merge is inevitable, then i guess that means I support the 1B option. To do it the other way just increases the page history confusion for no particular benefit. -- Netoholic @ 12:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 is my choice, mainly because Friedkin only made one film, and Blatty was only involved with one other. If it were a film series with one authorial voice running through it, like George Lucas being involved with the six core Stars Wars films in a row, I would be inclined to keep both, but the series wasn't really a significant film series after the first few. And also, it's not some enormous number like a Marvel franchise list. So I'm fine with the first option, either variation. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1A I think we could continue to treat them separately, but it simply doesn't seem necessary. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 is the most constructive option. This is indeed a franchise, and there doesn't need to be a separate article about a film series when the film details can be detailed in the franchise article. NOTE: Looking at the film series article more closely, I do not think that the "fan-page"/editor specified "Peter Blaity's Faith Trilogy", Exorcist II randomly being floating by itself, "Prequel series" and then "David Gordan Green's sequel trilogy" -- are constructive to a franchise article. We should only be using official terms on these articles. Perhaps a section written in paragraph form detailing the different "timelines" is helpful to a reader, but as-is it is fanpage territory. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Can someone explain why we're even considering 1A (round robin swap)? Why are we not keeping both article histories under relevant titles? If merging is the consensus, then surely we can simply expand (franchise) and turn (film series) into a redirect, leaving the page histories where they are. If any material is directly moved from (film series) to (franchise), it can just be noted in the edit summary). -- Netoholic @ 03:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, I thought you wanted to keep the oldest edit history. But I am happy to change my vote to 1B. It truly does not matter in my opinion, so I am happy to compromise. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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.

The Ninth Configuration

Should William Peter Blatty's film/novel be included on this page? One of the characters in it (Captain Billy Cutshaw) is also in The Exorcist. And the film has been considered part of Blatty's Trilogy of Faith (alongside The Exorcist & Legion). Thoughts? CJMylentz (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Storyline Continuity

The Exorcist III is set in the same universe as Exorcist II: The Heretic. Just because it doesn't reference the movie doesn't mean it's a different universe. Further, the film goes out of its way to avoid showing the original house, since it was destroyed in the second installment. The burden of proof that the third installment isn't connected to the second is on the one making the claim.

Further, it has been said that the other Exorcist movies are still canonical to The Exorcist: Believer.

https://www.slashfilm.com/582775/david-gordon-greens-exorcist-movie-confirmed-to-be-a-direct-sequel-to-the-original "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," Green said. "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."

Exorcist II: The Heretic, The Exorcist III and The Exorcist: Believer are all direct sequels to the original film, but they all exist in the same universe.

As for the prequels, that's the complicated part. Both could fit into the continuity but not with each other. Well, they could fit with each other but they're not supposed to and it would be insane that so many characters share the same name, look the same and experienced similar events. I suppose you could say that Dominion retconed The Beginning since it acts as a replacement, but I don't know. Perhaps:

Storyline Continuity

Movie Continuity

• Exorcist: The Beginning/Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist
• The Exorcist
• Exorcist II: The Heretic
• The Exorcist III
• The Exorcist: Believer

Television Continuity

• The Exorcist
• The Exorcist (TV Series)

Regardless, Exorcist 1-3 and The Believer? All one world. ProBot1227 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)