Oh dear god, I started thinking about what they could possibly do with Ellen Burstyn for this film (or the whole trilogy? First I thought she might be called in as an expert on the lore like Spock in Into Darkness, and I laughed to myself at how shit that would be. Chris MacNeil was a working actress and a mother in the first film, not the titular exorcist lol. And then I put myself in the mindset of a hackneyed Hollywood writer (not saying that's what we'll have for this), and a terrible but funnily plausible idea hit me; Is the hackneyed path they'll take with her character... that the events of the first film did such a toll on her (understandable) that she has now spent the last 50 years to become an exorcist herself, in the path of Father Merrin? Is Ellen Burstyn gonna be the the titular Exorcist for this trilogy? It would definitely be following in the footsteps of what they did with Laurie Strode in Hallowen '18 lol, but it would be much worse.
A criticism people have about the '73 film is that Chris MacNeil basically takes a backseat in the third act of the film, despite being the central character for the first two. I occasionally agree with it, despite the film being possibly my favorite of all-time, but a more hackneyed Hollywood script would force her into the exorcism. It feels far more natural and believable that she wouldn't be involved, and by that point the film has already done a stellar job building up Father Karras as a secondary protagonist that we don't feel lost when it switches almost entirely to his point of view. ...But I could definitely see wheels turning when a group of writers try to crack a story for a sequel 50 years later, lmao. "How about we do justice by Chris MacNeil and have her be the exorcist!"
I've been laughing to myself about this the whole day, but I do believe they'll be smarter than that... I hope. Have a new character be the exorcist, and tell us Chris MacNeil lived a happy life, free from evil. But the fact that it's gonna be a whole trilogy is supremely baffling.