Talk:The Exorcism of Emily Rose

From what line is this quote? I can't seem to find it in the Bible...

-->>Philippians 2:12

The article was way too long and corny, some of it read like those RL Stein kiddy horror books and the trivia section was mind numbing. we don't need long explanations of who Nero, Cain etc are when the article already links to their individual pages. By the way, discussion pages are to discuss the article itself, not the film. Join a movie forum for that. Daigo 14:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The link from Legion should be directed towards the article on that instance of demonic possession in the New Testament, not the Roman military unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.233.201 (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Somewhere in this move, don't remember where exactly but I think it was after the attempted exorcism where the existance of two sets of vocal cords is mentioned, I checked the "vocal cords" article here on wikkipedia but there was no mention of it, so I ask: Does humans really have two sets of vocal cords? 81.228.148.16 13:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is, but they are usually called the ventricular cords. To my knowledge they have no effect on speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.5.129 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes. And it's quite possible to completely alter your voice, to imitate other ages and genders. Just ask transsexuals. The convincing ones that is. 92.12.200.162 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

From the infobox and categories I have deleted all descriptions of this film as being anything but English-language. A few lines of dialogue - in any film - spoken in a language other than the primary one used do not qualify it to be categorized in the other languages. IMHO, to say this film is Greek-language or Aramic-language or Latin-language or Hebrew-language when they are heard only briefly is ludicrous and not in keeping with the purpose of defining a film by language. MovieMadness (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Any claim that the film is based on a true story is POV. Its also unsourced. If anyone can quote a source that compares both the film and the facts of Anneliese Michel's case please do. Anything comming from the marketing department does not count.

Compare this link http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/emilyrose.php on the real victim, Anneliese Michel; with that of the film. The only resemblances to the fictional and real deceased is they were young, female, had mental illness and died during exorcism.

The film in contrast focuses on a fictional lawyers overwhelmingly private experiences, that lead her to believing in spiritual warfare. I infer from this as a real motives of the production of the film; evangelisim and controversy fueled patronage of the film. The inference re: evangelisim is strengthened based on learning that the Director is a graduate from the Evangelical Biola University La Mirada, CA. Also note the emphasis on the private experiences is impossible to refute short of calling someone a liar.

I propose the following edit. In stark contrast to the claims of the films marketing, it is not based on a true story. It is a work of fiction about an athiest lawyer's overwhelmingly private experiences, that lead her to sharing the defendants belief in spiritual warfare and a christian God. Proposed edit end —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantaluman (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well its been over a fortnight since I posted, and having no response whatsoever Im going ahead with this.

Final edits include: 1st Paragraph 2nd sentance changing from the film is based on a true story to that it is claimed to be based on a true story and added 2 sentances after the 5th "In stark contrast to the claims of the films marketing, it is not based on a true story. [1] It is a work of fiction portraying a fictional, previously non-believing defence lawyer's overwhelmingly private experiences, that lead her to sharing the defendants belief in spiritual warfare and a christian God.

NB the reference. I have added a link that duplicates the reference, I dont know what I should do here. sorry folks, im a Wiki newbie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantaluman (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There was an edit done based on the correct observation that "Based on..." is extremely broad, therefore some partial edit of my edit, was done. I have thought about this and concluded: that a site, wikipedia, that is about facts should be vary cautious about using any term that is vague. Certainly an uncritical parroting of the marketing posters and any source not providing justification for such extrodinary claims should in no way be relied on in writing the article. Whilst I accept that companies will start off the articles on their own products with the company line, we as wikipedians shouldnt take it lying down.

In general, the issue of "Based on a true story..." maybe should be not be in the intro. The article is about a film, and this unsubstantiated marketing claim certainly needs to be challenged. Im wondering though about how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantaluman (talk • contribs) 19:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There has been NO discussion on the issue of "Based on..." claim short of my contribution, let alone refutation of the points I have raised regarding this. Where sources merely parrot the marketing department, they are NOT reliable sources. The Chasing the Frog source, is thoroughly sourced and specific. The current intro claim "It is generally accepted..." is by its very nature is non-factual and totally misleading statement. It is demonstrably not based on fact when compared to the Chasing the Frog article. Im fixing the previous vandalism. Tantaluman

Yet again the "based on..." has been put back in. The acceptance of the marketing meme is indeed widespread. But what about the claim itself? Is there a single shred of evidence cited that the film was in fact based on fact? YES or NO? My edits are based on facts not POV, what is the dominant meme based on? The marketing department it seems.

Can you put your changes on the edit page please like we are supposed to do please?

As the Wikipedia is supposed to be about sourced facts, as opposed to unsubstantiated rumor on the one hand and original research on the other. How does a baseless claim by the marketing department make it into the intro. The "based on a true story" meme needs to be addressed due to its dominance, not legitimized and reinforced via reproduction and a de-facto Argumentum ad populum. The meme itself is POV and uncritically citing it let alone using the image of posters including the "Based on..." is also POV. The Defence Lawyer character is fictional, all her experiences are fictional, the film is based heavily on her experience, thus far from based on a true story, the film is fictional. Readers (and viewers) have a right to know this information. Further, at the end of the film, not only does it state its based on a true story, it has an epilogue regarding the defence lawyer. It is irrefutable that the film is not a reliable source of information. Any claim made in the film must attract an exceptional degree of skepticism. Citing the film itself as a source is something we wikipedians should be rising above.

I giving this a week before I try nutting out how to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantaluman (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

People say that they have seen the ghost of Emily Rose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.202.166 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, which is a lie. A flat out lie. Because Emily Rose, a girl who never existed, was never posessed. 203.171.196.136 (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Sutter CaneReply

[Exorcism] --63.3.2.129 (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

J. R. Bourne as Dr. Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.96.137 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

What childish person did this, among many other silly edits, apparently done by different people but I suspect by the same person. Whoever you are I'm on your case. Jodosma (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Someone recently hacked the plot down to a single paragraph. I restored it and tried myself to bring it to a more sensible length and level of detail. --uKER (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117102530/http://www.filmspotting.net/top100.htm to http://www.filmspotting.net/top100.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply