u/lautaromassimino

Well, actually, I just want to share my thoughts on the recasting of Judy for the fourth movie. Honestly... I don't get it. I mean, Idk—maybe there was a production reason behind it, or perhaps the directors just needed an actress capable of portraying a new side of Judy in this film. But knowing about the recast beforehand and quickly looking up the reason why... the excuse that "they needed an older actress to portray an older version of Judy" makes no sense to me. Especially since, right at the start of the movie, they state that Judy was born in 1964.

Now, I know the real Judy Warren was actually born in 1946, and I understand the birth year was changed because we had an 8-year-old Judy in the first Conjuring movie, which was set in 1971. But the point is: out of all the years they could have chosen, this specific movie decided to make Judy's birth year 1964 and set this new story in 1986. In other words, they are explicitly telling us that Judy is 22 years old in this film, whereas in real life, Sterling Jerins was 21 when the movie premiered. Also, Sterling played Judy in The Devil Made Me Do It, which takes place in 1981. That movie came out four years before Last Rites and is set five years earlier. So, I mean, Sterling was actually the perfect age to keep playing Judy. While I eventually accepted the recast in Annabelle Comes Home—simply because McKenna is such a charming actress—I honestly also feel there was no need to set that story in the past. They could easily have set it during Judy’s teenage years (say, 1979 instead of 72, that is, between The Conjuring 2 and 3), and the story would have worked perfectly well; in fact, it might have made even more sense, because when Judy saw Valak in Conjuring 2, that scene was clearly framed as her first time ever seeing a "spirit". It certainly didn't look like something that had already been happening for five years.

It just seems unfair to me that the directors decided to swap actresses for the two films where Judy played a major role. Don't get me wrong—I'm not one of those people who is generally against recasting. Sometimes there’s just no other choice, you know? And like I said, McKenna was adorable as Judy, and from what I’ve seen of The Last Rites, the new Judy is doing a good job too. The problem is that, unlike in Annabelle Comes Home, the timeline here doesn't justify the recast; it feels unnecessary and pulls me out of the story a bit. I think the fact that I only started watching these movies a week and a half ago plays a part in my attachment to Sterling as Judy—her face is already familiar and memorized, and it hasn't been years since I saw her in the role.

Anyway, sorry. Once again, this post turned out longer than I intended. After my last post about The Nun II, someone told me to stop taking the timeline so seriously, since hardly anyone in this franchise cares about narrative consistency. But as someone watching these movies back-to-back for the first time, it’s very hard not to, so I'm sorry about that.

The original video is from Instagram, but Im not sure if Reddit allow links from that app. If it does, tell me and I leave it for u in the comments.

So, in both Nun movies, Valak is defeated after coming into contact with the Blood of Christ, right? In the second movie, Irene literally turns an entire wine cellar into Blood and causes it to explode, drenching the demon.

How is it that this isn't enough to make Valak leave Frenchie's body and return to hell, yet Lorraine's words in The Conjuring 2 are?

I get that the justification in TC2 was based on Lorraine using the demon's name, which gave her power over it. But in The Nun, Burke also literally learns Valak's name. So, how is it that that—plus the Blood—weren't enough to banish him "completely", allowing Valak to possess Maurice's mind and then use him to obtain the Eyes of Saint Lucy?

This is a question I've had since the first movie, but I hadn't asked it before because I wanted to wait and see if it was answered in the sequel. I'm glad the movie continued with Frenchie's storyline; it would have really bothered me if they had decided to ignore it and focus on something else. But even so, I'm still not clear on things. What was the deal with the ending of Nun 2? I don't mean "that ending sucked"—no. What I mean is: why does everything suddenly seem fine now, when we know Maurice remains possessed by Valak until Ed's exorcism in '71, while The Nun 2 takes place in 1956? What happened during those 15 years he remained possessed?

I want to clarify that I'm not saying I didn't like the movie. Overall, tho I do think I’d rate it slightly lower than the first one, I still feel it was a solid sequel. The storyline really worked, imo. ALTHOUGH, if we ever get a Nun 3 in the future, I’d like to see either a shift away from Valak—where the title "The Nun" refers to Irene instead, perhaps as she hones her skills as a medium dealing with different kinds of cases (an idea I read in the last post I made, that I really liked)—or, if we *do* focus on Valak again, for it to take place closer to the Conjuring timeline. That is, at least the late 60s, if not 1970 itself. A final showdown with Valak that leads directly into Frenchie’s ultimate exorcism that we saw in the very first film of this universe would be a great way to wrap up that arc, seeing the actual exorcism on screen at the end, instead of just a video of it, though we’d need a time jump for that to work. That said, I think Taissa is still the right age to keep playing Irene, especially considering I don’t see a new Nun sequel happening for at least another two or three years.

Anyway, that was my question/analysis regarding this movie. Sorry for going on longer than necessary. Now I just have The Conjuring 4 left to finish this journey! For now, at least. It’s been interesting, to say the least. It definitely pushed me out of my comfort zone, given that I’m someone who never really watched this type of horror before. But I’m glad I watched these movies. I’ll probably do a more general post discussing all of them once I’ve seen the last one!

I know they aren't perfect—except for a few I’m actually proud of, like Nova, Ray, and Izzy. To be honest, I find it harder to get the overlays right for the male characters than for the females; that’s probably why some of them look a bit odd, since most of them are male. But I’m open to suggestions!

Furthermore, many people seem not to grasp that a woman voicing a lion doesn't mean the lion itself is female. First of all, let’s start with the basic fact that LIONS DON’T TALK as humans does, so there is nothing to suggest their voices would sound just like human ones.

Secondly, keep in mind that the role of Aslan—regardless of who plays it—is a voice-acting role. The fact that most international productions throughout history (shows, movies, musicals, etc) originated in English-speaking countries/lenguages might explain why many people aren't accustomed to how voice acting works. At the very least, a significant number of male characters are frequently voiced by women. This is nothing new, really.

Like, this man is a DI. VA.

At the same time, I feel that the sets we actually had for the school interior could easily have been adapted to look like the Manor interiors. I mean, many old sets were reused in Legacies, like the gym, which was originally used as Jackson's apartment in The Originals.

On the other hand, it's also true that TVD Season 2 would have taken place in 2010, and I believe Legacies is set between 2028 and 2030. So, practically speaking, I suppose a mansion like that, abandoned for twenty years, would have passed into the hands of the state or something.

The one they use to put Fluffy to sleep in the book!