CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 64 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ReganMacNeilfan said:
“Great info, some I never knew about.”
On the next occasion, don't forget to mention who you are actually thanking. Not being a big thing I just hate it when someone tries to steal the trophy from someone else.
Sorry, Beelzebub, but the format in which you posted – some thirteen separate replies – makes it virtually impossible for me to answer each one (what a confusing mess that would be), nor do I wish to. But I’m “getting from you” an arrogance and smugness which is not strictly limited to your defense of Heretic– e.g., you’re always capitalizing “Granville” when you type my name (what an odd thing to be doing), as well as a superior, condescending tone to me personally, and not just to my views on Boorman and his film. These practices indicate a smugness unbecoming a newbie who has recently stated he knows he’s a newbie and doesn’t want a flame war. You see what I’m saying, BEELZEBUB.
Are you by chance, BBELZEBUB, a scientific materialist? Some of your remarks seem to indicate such, and they’re part of the smugness I perceive. For example, you take on a condescending lecturer’s tone when you attempt to dismiss religion, falsely insisting as unquestionable the proposition that the “real” world is matter and that the non-real world “where angels exist” is the opposite, which you erroneously term “anti-matter”. You seem unaware that anti-matter is not supernatural, and no scientist claims that it contains supernatural entities. In the case under discussion – demonic possession, exorcism, theological concepts in general – the opposite of matter is not anti-matter, but Spirit. You mix apples and oranges in an undisciplined and incorrect manner, and that skews your conclusions. Nor are your attempts to disgrace and discard the spiritual at all scientific. Rather, they are a mere surmise, an ideology, for the simple reason that materialism is not a given, scientific or otherwise: it’s a philosophy.
Worse, every time you are presented with eyewitness testimony to anomalies in “Robby’s” case, your immediate and consistent – “knee-jerk” – response is that all these witnesses are “lying” and “liars”. It’s as if you break out in hives when the supernatural or even the paranormal is discussed, to the extent that you insist that all such reported phenomena – and those who disagree with you must be lying or deluded. Apparently, in your universe, there are the Materialists (the Brights) and then there are the rest of us (the Dims). Sorry, but I am not responsible for your hyper-allergic reactions to religion, and I won’t be condescended to by a Fundamentalist Materialist.
All this is summed up in your self-aggrandizing chest-thump:
“I did an extensive research throughout many years. Learning everything there is to know about possession.”
Even experts on possession don’t take that arrogant line, any more than do scientists studying in a particular field. Apparently, you are in a class of your own. Moreover, that you did not learn “everything there is to know about possession” is revealed by the list of possession question points you posted for me, GRANVILLE, to answer. They are obviously derived from a parochial study of Catholic definitions. Not one of them is indicative of non-Catholic, non-Christian forms of possession. Moreover, you missed a an essential key point in Catholic exorcism that Boorman ran right over in his “I Hate The Exorcist” tank, namely, that knowing the demon’s name gives the exorcist power over the demon. In Boorman’s film, no sooner is Kokumo possessed than the demon stupidly blurts out to Merrin, “I am Pazuzu”, thus generously handing the name – and the game – directly into the priest’s hands. Your “deep research” completely missed Boorman’s colossal gaffe. Your claiimed “research”, based on the points you cited, presents itself as deeply flawed, inadequate, and incomplete.
Your habit of missing the target is again exemplified in your question, “did Father Merrin die of a heart attack or did Regan kill him? Again this is one of the many questions planted in the movie.”
As the film insists with the subtlety of a blow to the head with a truncheon: Merrin died of a heart attack. Regan had no reason to kill Merrin – she could have easily killed both priests had she wanted. Instead, she wanted to kill Regan, to possess her until “she lies stinking in the grave”. In that , the demon failed. You make a big deal of Regan’s hands being tied before Merrin’s death and untied after Merrin’s death. The film suggests that Merrin died of a bad heart. If the film “thought” Regan killed Merrin, Merrin’s corpse would be showing signs of a physical – Regan’s hands untied – attack … bruises, cuts, perhaps Merrin’s head turned backwards like Dennings’. No such signatures exist, nor are there any signs of a struggle. Moreover, when Karras is trying to revive Merrin, the demon is transfixed by the sight, eyes moving back and forth, mouth slightly ajar, in an indecisive manner, obviously waiting to see if Merrin had really died. Therefore even the demon didn’t know if Merrin was dead or not. This fact in turn indicates that Merrin surprised the demon by dropping dead, and that fact in turn indicates that the demon never tried to kill Merrin.
You wrote, “the movie was shot in an ambiguous style on purpose. And that the idea of leaving questions unanswered was also on purpose. He said Friedkin wanted the movie to have an “ambiguous†tone.”
Yeah, and then along comes “All-Thumbs Boorman” to destroy that beautiful ambiguous structure by supplanting it with comic book sci-fi, tinfoil hat theology, and a host of other insults to the intelligence. Good job, BEELZEBUB, you get The Golden Turkey Award for Bad Reviews.
In this post I’ve done my best to negotiate the Questions for GRANVILLE Minefield that you spread across the forum landscape. I can’t possibly reply to each individual item you posted, as you posted it. From now on, if you want my replies, please post one or two issues at a time in a single post so they can be addressed in a convenient and timely manner – one at at time, not en masse.
Thanks, Regan. I do concede some points to Beelzebub. They are somewhat trivial and I didn't include them in my reply, which I felt was lengthy enough to express my main objections. Maybe I can post some of my agreements with Beelzebub in a later post, however…
Wow. Approximately 15 minutes of languishing over these posts only to rediscover my original beliefs:
The tin foil wrapped 100-watt lightbulb “synchronizer machine” is still one of the most idiotic pieces of shit presented on film in effort to tie up “loose ends” that never existed in the first place.
Face it, WB wanted to cash in on its prize winner, but failed miserably despite enlisting the “dueling banjos” Boorman at the helm along with any other original cast members it could wrangle to get audiences excited into paying for another round of The Exorcist.
EPIC FAIL as box office receipts proved this point beyond any other indicator.
Father Bowdern
Agreed. Beelzebub greatly exaggerates the film's failure as due mainly to Blatty's completely justified scorn. The damn thing wasn't sea-worthy from the get-go…
Sorry, I don't know how to block. I can “Ignore” on the imdb film discussion forums, but I don't know how to block in Howdy…
It's easy to block someone on here … just ignore them. I do believe we are being plagued with The Witch of Endor under a different username …
Father B
ReganMacNeilfan said:
Great answers granville1. 🙂 Did I say the right thing beezlebub? Want to make sure now! Sheesh! 🙁
FANTASTIC! Very precise. That's how I like it. Formal and clear.
Hello GRANVILLE!
First of all I don't recall you returning my greeting which is very rude and which suggest an egocentric behavior.
Second. “Denial” and “digration” suggests that you are a person that tends to run away when things get too hot. Suggesting that you don't know what to answer or you are too weak to confront your oponent.
Third. I already apologized before hand that I have a tendency to be “peremptory” in my comments. Which is a sign of politeness.
Fourth. If I type your name or anyone elses name in capital letter it is only to make it easier to know to whom I am replying. Nothing more. It is nothing grave.
Fifth. I did not directly attack you and point out all of your defects like you did. That is not the way to treat a new member and especially a fan of “The Excorcist” franchise.
Sixth. It makes things much easier to follow when you make multiple posts, thus completely isolating every comment to the max. When condensing multiple comments in one post, it makes the reading long, boring, tedious and at times, confusing.
Seventh. I am not here to fight or bring someone else down. I am here to have fun and exchange views with other members in the world.
Eight. This is your thread. What is the point to start a thread if you are not going to defend it.
Finally. What do you say that we cut the crap and let two “pseudo-pedantic” individuals have fun?
 There are a lot of things out there that I don’t know. And I’m always greatfull when someone has something to teach. When you don’t know something GRANVILLE1, there is no shame in admitting it. Shame is not admitting it,
because instead of being a “sageâ€, you end up being a “clownâ€. Never forget these two wise proverbs…1- “One Should Learn Before One Teachesâ€
2- “He Who Answers Without Knowledge, He Is A Foolâ€.
Now, how about we shake hands and start all over. My name is BEELZEBUB, and you are?
granville1 said:
Are you by chance, BBELZEBUB, a scientific materialist?
Dude if my all time favorite horror movie is “THE EXCORCIST”, what does that tell you? I am mostly very religious. But unlike most religious persons, I am “open minded”. I like to read scientific books and magazine in order to acheive a better understanding of how the world of the demons and angels trully functions. Nothing wrong with that. What do you believe in GRANVILLE1?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.