At the start of the movie, why did the bad guys tell Thorn that his baby had died? Why not present the newborn as if it were his son without any complication?
shareYou might want to explore the definition of “plot hole”.
As for the crux of your question, I haven’t watched the film in a long while, so I myself cannot conjecture. It’s got me thinking though as to how the story might have unfolded in that turn.
What would that have changed? You'd still have the priest telling him the child wasn't his, the investigation into the hospital and the cemetery all leading to getting the daggers. It wouldn't have fallen out any different.
shareNot really a plot hole. If Thorn were ignorant to the switch and suspicion came later (as it did), he might throw the kid out. Since he was complicit he went out of his way to protect Damian and keep the secret.
sharePrecisely. Thorn has to be complicit in the deception and compromised by this when coping with the events later in the film.
Maintaining the lie ultimately dooms his wife.
The point here is that Father Spiletto had to tell Thorn of the death of his own son in order to put Damien in place to "take over". That eternal sea as was mentioned in the prophecy. Telling him his child died and him knowing how if the priest had told Kathy her child died would have crushed her as she wanted children. They also needed this to advance the plot.
shareYes but the why even tell Thorn anything? Why not just hand him Damian and pretend it was his real son?
No plot hole. It would be impossible to present Damian as the spawn of the devil if the very undemonic Thorns were his parents.
shareExcellent point.
shareBecause there’s such a thing as paternity tests
share