"The Conjuring 2" and fraud
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-06-2016, 05:58 AM
RE: "The Conjuring 2" and fraud
(20-06-2016 05:25 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(20-06-2016 05:19 AM)claywise Wrote:  (Ed's dead).
So he'll be in the next one?

Smartass

One can only hope. It would be fun to see a new ghoul in the guise of Ed. Or Ed in the guise of a new ghoul ... or something. And to see him terrorizing his lovely wife (in real life neither Warren was as attractive as their new movie counterparts, Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga).

God does not work in mysterious ways — he works in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.
Jesus had a pretty rough weekend for your sins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2016, 06:26 AM
RE: "The Conjuring 2" and fraud
The "skeptic" in that movie was the funniest part. He could have given an hour long talk about "ghosts" and the true-believers would have still heard what the writers put in his mouth. Selective listening.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2016, 09:50 PM
RE: "The Conjuring 2" and fraud
The average joe eats that "based on a true story" shit up. People actively want to believe in ghosts and demons. It nearly makes me ill.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2016, 10:57 PM
RE: "The Conjuring 2" and fraud
(19-06-2016 05:51 PM)claywise Wrote:  
(19-06-2016 05:48 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Because it's a scary movie and it adds to the scare factor.

Except it doesn't. I mean, William Peter Blatty talked about the bogus 1949 "possession" case that inspired him to write "The Exorcist," which he also scripted for the 1973 movie. But the movie didn't claim to be "based on a true story" - still plenty scary, no?

Your logic is retarded.
Last night I stood right infront of the bathroom door when I flatmate was inside, as soon as he opened to the door to leave he had to return because he basically shat himself I scared him so much. (true story)

Plenty scary, so why aren't all scary movies just a dude standing infront of a door and than someone opening the door?

That's following your logic.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 10:46 PM
RE: "The Conjuring 2" and fraud
The movie was a rip-off of the mini-show The Enfield Haunting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 01:09 AM
RE: "The Conjuring 2" and fraud
(19-06-2016 06:08 PM)KUSA Wrote:  Nobody can prove that it wasn't true.

According to the most recent owner, it's not true.


http://www.providencejournal.com/article.../304259904

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 04:18 AM
RE: "The Conjuring 2" and fraud
(19-06-2016 06:08 PM)KUSA Wrote:  Nobody can prove that it wasn't true.

And some people confuse that with "it has been proven true." Facepalm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 10:22 AM
RE: "The Conjuring 2" and fraud
(19-06-2016 06:08 PM)KUSA Wrote:  Nobody can prove that it wasn't true.

Well duh. If you can't prove it's not true, then the default position is that it is correct. What kind of quack epistemology are you using?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 07:59 PM
RE: "The Conjuring 2" and fraud
well, i just saw it. eh. i felt like i was being preached to the entire time. like they were trying to convince the audience the entire time that this bullshit was real, and that the church treated all of these "cases" as a matter of fact, and would only take action if it wasnt a hoax. id like to see the specific criteria that the church would use to determine that. its like the warrens are the church's own personal special forces team that they send in to deal with hauntings. i dont recall the first one being like this, but my memory may be fuzzy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 08:43 PM
RE: "The Conjuring 2" and fraud
(19-06-2016 05:46 PM)claywise Wrote:  I read somewhere that Seth Andrews was planning to see "The Conjuring 2," aficionado of horror movies that he is.

Like Seth, i thought the first "Conjuring" movie was pretty good, and an improvement on torture-porn and endless bad sequelitis in horror movies. I found "2" to also be entertaining, well-made and well-acted, though I couldn't help tallying plot holes.

But here's the goddamn thing: Why do these moviemakers persist in the ruse that their horror movies (ditto for authors/books) are "based on a true story"? Ed and Lorraine Warren — who, by the way, are identified (super briefly!) in the credits of "2" as "characters created by..." — are bona fide frauds, and their now-legion movie cases have all, without exception, been thoroughly debunked. At the end of "2" the producers even append a note reminding departing audiences that the case was "one of the most documented in paranormal history" blah-the-fuck-blah.

Why not just say, "Yo, we made a movie we hope you find spooky" and leave the fucking "true story" out of it?

Also, it seems that Lorraine Warren was a consultant on "2" (and perhaps the first one?), so I assume that in buying a ticket I put money in her fraudulent old-lady pocket.

Maybe I should have put this in the "rants" section.

Thankfully, I saw the four part mini-series The Enfield Haunting before I watched the second conjuring movie, because I preferred the mini-series over the movie.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: