Linda Blair speaks out on 'Exorcist' curse

[UM-Bot]

The former child actress, who starred in the iconic horror film, suffered significant real-life injuries during filming.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/336007/linda-blair-speaks-out-on-the-exorcist-curse

[Seti42]

Here's the thing about luck (good, bad, blessings, curses): We only call it after the fact. In actuality bad and good things happen all the time, and it's mostly random.
Also, when things go wrong on a movie set for a movie that doesn't involve demons or ghosts (or anything supernatural) in the film's story, no one says the film is cursed. It's just an accident then.
Human minds try so hard to apply patterns and 'reasoning' to the randomness of the universe. This is how we get our beliefs. Everything from religion to synchronicity come from us imposing order on chaos.

[Festina]

Occupational hazards.  

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

You would think that given all the prayers and rites performed on film were genuine, it would be the LEAST cursed film set going.

[onlookerofmayhem]

9 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

You would think that given all the prayers and rites performed on film were genuine, it would be the LEAST cursed film set going.

[_Only]

On 4/2/2020 at 5:54 AM, Seti42 said:

Also, when things go wrong on a movie set for a movie that doesn't involve demons or ghosts (or anything supernatural) in the film's story, no one says the film is cursed. It's just an accident then.
 

That's not all that accurate as far as Hollywood goes: http://www.theoccultmuseum.com/haunted-hollywood-10-cursed-movies-time/

People thinking movie productions being cursed is a fairly equal opportunity setting. 

[Holt]

Re Seti42 above. Nature is not just chaos &  randomness. Otherwise science would be futile. Science itself is about finding patterns in nature. A lot of people jump to conclusions on pretty flimsy evidence but too many scientists only use reason to undermine reason. The universe is not meaningless. Read C.S.Lewis essay "De Futilitate" to see why a materialistic philosophy contradicts itself.

 

.

 

 

[spartan max2]

6 minutes ago, William holt said:

Re Seti42 above. Nature is not just chaos &  randomness. Otherwise science would be futile. Science itself is about finding patterns in nature. A lot of people jump to conclusions on pretty flimsy evidence but too many scientists only use reason to undermine reason. The universe is not meaningless. Read C.S.Lewis essay "De Futilitate" to see why a materialistic philosophy contradicts itself.

 

.

 

 

I read some of C.S Lewis stuff. None the book you mention though.

To me, if the universe is designed then it was a very poor design. Lots of pointless suffering and things having to consume each other to survive. 

[Holt]

If the universe is cruel & unfair where do we get  this idea from? What are we comparing it to? We have a basic idea of justice that science can't explain. If we were wholly the product of a meaningless universe we wouldn't have. So there must be more to it. The problem of evil remains but the alternative is a universe where nothing matters .

 

 

 

 

[spartan max2]

5 minutes ago, William holt said:

If the universe is cruel & unfair where do we get  this idea from? What are we comparing it to? We have a basic idea of justice that science can't explain. If we were wholly the product of a meaningless universe we wouldn't have. So there must be more to it. The problem of evil remains but the alternative is a universe where nothing matters .

 

 

 

 

(You can quote people by clicking the "quote" button at the bottom of each post, it then notifies them when you are responding to them. Just a friendly tip since I see you are new).

But I would argue that our sense of justice could be attributed to evolution, biology, and learned upbringing. 

[Holt]

I don't think animals have a sense of justice like we do even if they understand pain &  suffering. Justice is a moral sense and relies on abstract reasoning. We are free to flout it or ignore it as many do. Instinct is different. Sometimes justice can get you killed. Not very beneficial if it's all just survival of the fittest 

.

 

[spartan max2]

10 minutes ago, William holt said:

I don't think animals have a sense of justice like we do even if they understand pain &  suffering. Justice is a moral sense and relies on abstract reasoning. We are free to flout it or ignore it as many do. Instinct is different. Sometimes justice can get you killed. Not very beneficial if it's all just survival of the fittest 

.

 

Animals don't, but humans evolved a prefrontal cortex that animals haven't. 

And you can take most morals and see how evolutionary it makes sense.

For example, if you see a alone scared infant or kid most people have the natural impulse to help it out. 

It makes sense that we would evolve with the desire to do that because it helps out species survive. Our species probably would not survivor otherwise.

[Piney]

1 hour ago, William holt said:

Re Seti42 above. Nature is not just chaos &  randomness. Otherwise science would be futile. Science itself is about finding patterns in nature. A lot of people jump to conclusions on pretty flimsy evidence but too many scientists only use reason to undermine reason. The universe is not meaningless. Read C.S.Lewis essay "De Futilitate" to see why a materialistic philosophy contradicts itself.

The pattern is evolution is initiated by environmental stresses and takes the path of least resistance.  

[Holt]

Instinct and the moral law are not the same although many scientists like to make out that they are. We are not obliged to obey our instincts. We could ignore the child's distress if we were too busy to stop and help or if it involved putting ourselves in danger. Instincts can contradict each other. The moral law is what decides between them. We may choose to help even if we don't want to.

[the13bats]

On 4/2/2020 at 8:54 AM, Seti42 said:

Also, when things go wrong on a movie set for a movie that doesn't involve demons or ghosts (or anything supernatural) in the film's story, no one says the film is cursed. It's just an accident then

Yep, things go wrong on most films, the more complex the more goes wrong,

 

 

[The_Phantom_Stranger]

The room with the prayers actually was untouched:

Quote

When shooting began in 1972, a fire tore through the set of Regan MacNiel's home, causing extensive damage. In a peculiar twist, the room used for the actual exorcism scenes escaped unscathed.

This sounds bad:

Quote

One of those who suffered injury was Linda Blair herself who, during filming, had been strapped into a special contraption designed to flail her body around to make her appear possessed.

One day during filming the lacing that was designed to support her came loose, leaving her flailing around so violently that she fractured her lower spine and was left in agony.

It also says some of the actors died shortly after the filming and there was a motorcycle crash.

I recently just watched this movie, and it is a little boring compared to more modern films.

[the13bats]

8 hours ago, Green Wasp said:

The room with the prayers actually was untouched:

This sounds bad:

It also says some of the actors died shortly after the filming and there was a motorcycle crash.

I recently just watched this movie, and it is a little boring compared to more modern films.

I actually enjoy part 3 with brad Dourif best it had a odd feel like phantasm films which i like,

I was young when the first exorcist came out and it did for possession etc, what Jaws did for sharks, close encounters did for aliens etc, people did go nuts for a spell.

We have a guest room, that we call Regans room.