William Girdler and American International Pictures made no secret that Abby was designed to capitalize on the phenomenon surrounding The Exorcist, which had become one of the defining horror sensations of the early 1970s. Girdler reportedly told the Louisville Courier-Journal, "Sure, we made Abby to come in on the shirttail of The Exorcist." The low-budget film changed the religious framework from Catholic demonology to a Yoruba-inspired supernatural story involving a supposed spirit of Eshu, but Warner Bros. argued that the similarities in premise and execution went too far. The studio filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against AIP, and Warner ultimately won. Abby had already become a remarkable commercial success for its modest budget, reportedly taking in nearly $4 million in only a month, but the legal victory led to the film being pulled from theaters and disappearing from circulation for years. Its later home-video history remained murky because ownership of the original elements and the continuing status of the injunction were uncertain, leaving surviving releases dependent on visibly damaged 16mm prints rather than a clean original copy.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 1970s
Warner Bros. Brings Down Abby After Its $4 Million Exorcist Copycat Run
Abby / 1970s
William Girdler and American International Pictures made no secret that Abby was designed to capitalize on the phenomenon surrounding The Exorcist, which had become one of the defining horror sensations of the early 1970s. Girdler reportedly told the Louisville Courier-Journal, "Sure, we made Abby to come in on the shirttail of The Exorcist." The low-budget film changed the religious framework from Catholic demonology to a Yoruba-inspired supernatural story involving a supposed spirit of Eshu, but Warner Bros. argued that the similarities in premise and execution went too far. The studio filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against AIP, and Warner ultimately won. Abby had already become a remarkable commercial success for its modest budget, reportedly taking in nearly $4 million in only a month, but the legal victory led to the film being pulled from theaters and disappearing from circulation for years. Its later home-video history remained murky because ownership of the original elements and the continuing status of the injunction were uncertain, leaving surviving releases dependent on visibly damaged 16mm prints rather than a clean original copy.
The daily feature is taking an intermission. There’s still an entire archive to explore.
