Are there any films about Exorcism/possession that are even remotely as good as this?

Why would I pass up the opportunity to humiliate you further?

You're replying just as much as I am, newfriend.

>I didn't say the movie was good I'm just an unbiased and impartial observer arguing that the movie was phenomenally successful and impactful for no particular reason! Honest!
How much is Gibson paying you?

I'm going to let you in on a little secret since you're so naive, impressionable and gullible. That kind of hype is always artificially generated. It was with Passion just like it was with Exorcist, it just so happens that Exorcist is actually good once you separate it from all the hype. Every time you hear that a movie is so effective, scary, powerful or whatever that people "fainted" and "had heart attacks" during screenings, it was people with pre-existing conditions who would have had the same heart attack at the same moment if they'd been watching a Pauly Shore movie at the time. When people faint in a movie theater, it's not because of the phenomenal power of a fricking movie. It's because the AC is broken. Clever marketing agencies use it to their advantage but anyone with a pulse can instantly see right through it. There's a ceiling on how effective a movie can be. It's just a movie.

I said it was artificially generated to begin with, you fricking cretin.

imagine acting like you can't just look up how well The Passion of the Christ did financially

>Liking the film has nothing to do with it.
Except this started because I said I didn't like it. That's all I said, that it was a silly film and that I thought it was stupid. It wasn't my decision to add comical splorch and splat sound effects right out of a B-movie when they drive the nails through his hands. I just call them like I see them. I'm not required to like it because it's about Jesus.

You then replied with a bunch of nonsense about how successful it was, which of course is completely irrelevant and beside the point to begin with since I don't base my opinions around popularity because I'm not an NPC.

>you can't just look up how well The Passion of the Christ did financially
I never alleged it didn't do well at the box office, because it did. You just keep moving the goalposts each time you get humiliated.

>yea i'm not reading all that
Wow, immediately conceding right at the beginning of your reply. And admitting to being illiterate to boot. A bold strategy.

>i know you'll just keep replying like a tard cause losing internet arguments literally makes you shake
Uh, pot meet kettle? It's usually not a good idea to act like someone is a huge loser for doing the exact same thing you are doing *while you're doing it*, anon. Lmfao.

>the statistics
I never said it didn't make money. Get that through your skull. What I said is that people having fainting spells isn't proof of some kind of awesome spiritual power the movie has or some moronic bullshit and is really just because a bunch of elderly people went and saw it. And yes, that was then parlayed into a bunch of artificial hype that made more people go see the movie. This was the point I was making to begin with, if you thought I was making some other point about objective box office sales, that's on you. But you don't actually think that, you're just moving the goalposts.

>the experience
Experiences are subjective. I don't have to like the movie just because morons like you flocked to it at the time. That's argumentum ad populum, it's a classic fallacy, argued by desperate morons such as yourself.

My point to begin with is that a good movie like The Exorcist shouldn't be lumped in with a bad movie like The Passion simply because they were both successful by the same weird, irrelevant metric. Did people legitimately think they were seeing a witch when they watched Blair Witch Project, another movie that was hyped to death when it came out? Or did they think they were seeing a fricking movie?

Handwringing about box office success because you're that assblasted by a stranger's opinion is totally immaterial. "Y-you're not allowed to not like it, it made a ton of money and people fainted and stuff!" You're such a fricking child it's insane.

That means I win. Thanks for playing.

>like is said, you're the type to keep replying because being proved wrong on here makes you shake
and like I said, you're doing the exact same shit. Pot meet kettle.
>see

yea i'm not reading all that, anyways, let me help you out real quick.

My OG post:
>People who went to see The Exorcist really thought they were seeing Devil, just as the people who went to see The Passion really thought they were seeing Jesus.

And then you go on to agree that they had the same "hype" therefore agreeing with me:
>That kind of hype is always artificially generated. It was with Passion just like it was with Exorcist

i know you'll just keep replying like a tard cause losing internet arguments literally makes you shake but i'll let you do it, you can pretend it wasn't a huge movie all you want, but the statistics are there, the experience is there too (if you were there of course, but you weren't, kek)
I already replied to that one. But you won't read my reply because the anal pain it would cause is simply too unbearable. That means you concede, and I win.
>or else you won't sleep tonight.
kek. I'm going to forget you even exist approximately ten seconds after I close the window.

>you've still oddly made no headway and are still arguing about something that was never said
I'm arguing the point I made. Not the point you made. That's how this works.
>my parallel still stands
As I said, people fainting in a movie theater doesn't mean said film has spiritual significance. That's stupid. It means a handful of elderly people saw it with low blood sugar, nothing more. The two films don't have anything else in common, so there is no parallel to be made that is of any consequence.
>but it happened in the same way it happens in televangelism
As in it's bullshit designed to part suckers from their cash. Glad we agree on something.
>real or not, it was showy, it was happening.
It doesn't matter because it's not real. Hell, even if it was real it wouldn't matter much to me. I don't base my opinions on the opinions of others. If you think it matters, I disagree. I think that it's stupid to care about something so silly and so obviously fake.
>nowhere did i compare the quality of both
I did. I happen to think quality matters a lot more than "buzz".
>but the effect and "buzz" they both had on society
Which doesn't matter, which was my entire argument.

>did you just choose to ignore when i mentioned televangislists?
I referenced it explicitly, you dingus.
>THIS is what my point was all about
And my point is that stuff is total bullshit cannibalized into a marketing machine and that it has nothing to do with whether the movie is good, relevant, important, or really even resonates in any real sense. People don't react that way when they're genuinely effected by a film. They only react that way when they either have some sort of mental illness or are desperately in need of attention, or both. Sure, it's convenient when it comes to selling the film, but that doesn't mean it makes the film "important". It's about the most childish and idiotic rubric for whether or not something is important that I can think of.
>sure, but you were replying to MY post about its effect and buzz on society which it had and you recognized that, and then just started arguing with yourself LOL, saying "it doesn't matter" is irrelevant.
I dunno anon. I'd say whether or not the effect means anything kinda does matter when you're talking about the importance of said effect. My argument is that shit don't matter, and I frankly don't really care whether you accept that or not. It seems like you can't distinguish between whether or not something *happened* and whether or not it's relevant or important. I acknowledged from the beginning that there was a bunch of buzz surrounding the film when it came out. Your argument seems to be that if I acknowledged that it existed, that means I'm also conceding that it was valid or relevant. I'm not, and it isn't. As I said, The Passion and The Exorcist aren't comparable in any way that matters apart from maybe the vaguest of "they're both about spiritual stuff" criteria, so focusing on the histrionic hooplah that surrounded both films because it's literally the only thing the two films have in common seems real stupid to me, and to say it's evident of the film's spiritual potency is even stupider.

>i would agree if it was just the marketing
Let me let you in on a little secret, child: the surge of theatrics WAS marketing. There's always some crazy person somewhere in America who wanders into a movie theater and yells things at the screen and has to be escorted out by security, that shit has been happening since they invented movies. It's only when the marketing machine for the film puts a lens on it and acts like it's some big deal to drum up publicity that you actually hear about it. It's a sleazy gimmick, nothing more. And boy did you fall for that shit hook line and sinker. That is my point. That has always been my point. If you don't think it was relevant to your point, I disagree. In fact I think that's just a defense mechanism on your part to avoid having to actually argue the issue itself so you turn it into some bizarre meta-argument where we're arguing about arguing. That was your doing, not mine. I've stayed relatively on point the entire time.
>quite frankly couldn't give less of a shit about whatever you're arguing about
I dunno, anon. Seems like you care a great deal what I'm arguing about since you screeched about it for an hour plus, took a twenty minute break to apply hemorrhoidal ointment, and then came right back to do it some more. Seems like you care an awful lot.
>You also keep sperging about whether i think the film had "spiritual potency" which i never mentioned
It's just a natural assumption I have to make when someone thinks a group of old ladies seeing Jesus or the devil in some celluloid is anything other than completely ridiculous.
>maybe your sperg out is something more personal with Christianity
You're the one who started off by arguing I must be israeli if I have anything bad to say about The Passion. As if it's impossible that I might just not like the movie. You've been grasping at straws since the jump.
>Reading your posts was like watching a car crash, i just couldnt help myself
what a load of
C O P E
O
P
E

You do realize that I can make points of my own, right? Like I'm allowed to do that? I don't have to exclusively refer to your points directly or otherwise I'm "veering off-topic". Like I said this is just some weird defense mechanism of yours. Usually how a debate, discussion or argument works is that both people make points. It's not that the first person to speak has some kind of mystical authority on where the conversation goes. If you didn't want to have the conversation I wanted to have, well I honestly don't know what to tell you anon. No one had a gun to your head. You probably should have just shut the frick up a long time ago.
>Do me a favor, re-read our entire thread
No
>i'm actually concerned for your health
Sweet of you to say, but I'm not particularly concerned for yours. I just think you're a bit of an idiot.
>the effect both had on society in terms of buzz and theatrics and how big both were,
And you pointed that out for no particular, reason, eh? You had no motive? You make a habit of wandering into threads and making completely unmotivated and impartial statements on objective facts? No, of course not. You don't bring up the buzz surrounding a film and emphasize it this much unless you think it was indicative of something that, in your opinion, matters. Stop playing these kid's games and just admit that. You think it's important. If you didn't, you wouldn't have argued it to begin with. And I disagree with you. That's the discussion. That's always been the discussion. Deal with it.
>which you agree with, artificial or not, clever marketing or not
Again, those distinctions make a big fricking difference and aren't irrelevant at all.
>well no i don't see the parallel you're making between the two films and their buzz on society upon release because i liked the exorcist better
I thought you said you were going to start reading my posts? Because that's not a remotely accurate approximation of any of what I said. So now who's making shit up?

>let's discuss golden retrievers and how great they are, shall we?
>golden retrievers and huskies are similar because they both have exactly three folds of skin on the underside of their right hind leg!
>okay, what? I mean they're not that similar if the only comparison you could find was something so arbitrary and stupid and honestly probably not even accurate...
>UM WHAT HOW IS THAT RELEVANT TO MY POINT YOU SPERG REEEEEEEEEE I'M LEAVING.
>OKAY I'M BACK NOW REEEEEEEEEEEEE
>wow man why are you upset you're writing literal PARAGRAPHS of text and only a herculean mental super genius would dare something so difficult WHY ARE MY MEME IMAGES NOT MAKING MY ARGUMENTS FOR ME REEEEEEEEEE
You were better off not reading my posts or trying to reply to them, yes. Agreed. Finally something we do agree on.

>So you admit to derailing KEK
I did no such thing. Stop saying random words in a string just for the sake of doing it.
>and as i said you're continually going nowhere
Having to constantly repeat myself and hold your hand through every little nuance of my argument because you're an idiot is your fault, not mine, thank you very much
>opting to discuss the films merit, spirtual potency or importance
All of which is far more relevant to its cultural, aesthetic or otherwise importance than some elderly people getting dizzy at a showing
>it's tiresome at this point quite frankly.
lmfao it's a little late for that shit
>If you re-read the thread
I understood it the first time, maybe you're the one who needs to brush up on some of the finer details.
>you'll see how you derailed the conversation after being proven wrong about how big The Passion was at the time
No, I pointed out how stupid what you said was and you moved the goalposts to box office receipts in a desperate attempt to save face and it didn't work
>and the way you pump out essays about nothing
Lol you keep saying that. They're like a paragraph or two, at best. All you're doing is elucidating what a fricking ADHD addled brainlet you are because only a child or a moron would find such a trivial amount of text so taxing to read. And even after reading it you still miss or totally misunderstand most of it.
>and your fixation on "winning" the argument or me "conceding" is proof of that
I haven't mentioned it once in approximately two hours. Yeah I sure am "obsessed". God, you are so bad at this. It's beyond belief.
>If you wanted to debate that? game, but you didn't
Yeah. I did. No one cares and you're an idiot for saying something so stupid, is the jist of it. Anyone who thought they were seeing anything other than a movie should either have their head examined or they aren't worth caring about, and you should be more wary about falling pray to transparent and obvious marketing gimmicks.