Talk:The Blair Witch Project

The Blair Witch Project has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 31, 2017.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Cinema C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: American C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Horror C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Blair Witch Project was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: January 24, 2007.

Archives

October, 2002 - January, 2007 January, 2007 - November 2008

I've removed the following sentence:

It is unclear whether The Blair Witch Project was inspired by The Last Broadcast, or if they were conceived separately in isolation.

because it plainly contradicts what the page of The Last Broadcast (film) says:

The makers of The Blair Witch Project admitted to seeing The Last Broadcast before making their film during a 1999 interview with Diane Sawyer. Avalos and Weiler have said in interviews that they only wish their film to be judged on its own merits.

to Arcayne: you wrote "care to discuss" in the edit comments without even bothering to have a look at the discussions? wtf? --Lo'oris (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look more closely; the "cited" reference for this article is active, whilst the ones at Last Broadcast are either dead links or non-representative of the statements attributed to them.

And when I suggest that discussion might be in order, there are two things which tend to make that more difficult to accomplish: the first is to actually revert without actual discussion, and the other is to suggest that I made the edit I did willy-nilly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Doo is at least as culturally relevant as some Showtime spoof no one saw. It's neutral and verifiable. Deleting the information because the verification is on YouTube makes no sense at all: where else would you expect a ten-year-old video from a cable channel to be hosted? 76.104.42.78 (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but the "Showtime spoof", as you called it, has citations connecting it to Blair Witch. Do you have connecting citation for the Scoobies? If so, we might be able to include it. If not, we cannot. That is not my rule, it's Wikipedia's. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section that claims Pangea Software produced an "Unofficial Interactive Companion CD-ROM" because there is no evidence to support this claim, and it does not fit in with the software Pangea Software (a company essentially run by one person) usually produces. Plus, a Google search reveals that the only place this CD-ROM is mentioned is on a Bebo profile, which I don't think qualifies as a reliable source.

If this CD-ROM does exist and someone can provide verification for its existence, please feel free to reinstate the information into the article. Immortal Wowbagger (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation states that the film was completed on a budget of $20,000 - $25,000 and then later touched up, bringing the total money spent to $500,000 - $750,000. Bignole responded that because more money was put into it later, that all money spent comes to one accumulative budget (note that although Artisan did have them shoot some more stuff, it wasn't used - see citation). I agree with Bignole's statement, however, being that this is an online encyclopedia, by not stating how much of the filmmaker's own money was spent we are not in on all details. Knowing that the film was completed with an initial investment of $20,000 - $25,000 gives the readers more insight to the filmmakers and the film.

The Clerks. wiki page does this as well. It states that the original investment was made up with Kevin's own money (meaning he was making a sacrifice for what he wanted to do - gives the readers more insight to the director and his passion/aspirations). It then states the budget after post production, showing that Mirimax had enough faith in the movie to invest a little more into it by purchasing musical rights so that the films could feel more like a film.

For example, I have seen other wiki articles for films divide information like this before as well (such as the box office during original release and then the box office during a re-release for example). Yes, all tickets sold in general makes up one lump sum, however it gives us more insight to the film's popularity (showing that it was popular enough to make X amount of money on a second release).

Unless there's a policy stating that such information should not be divided then it looks to me as though Bignole is editing based on opinion, which is against wiki policy since all articles are to be written based on fact and not opinion. It is fact that there are two different budgets to Blair Witch. The filmmaker's budget for the original cut and then the studio's budget for the sound mix and prints. If there is a policy concerning this however, please provide it and maybe insert a link to it as in invisible note in the page's edit page to avoid further changes to the budget.

RyanGFilm (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read production budget and Film budgeting, then go back and read the source. Some of the additional costs were music changes and re-shoots. Reshooting scenes IS part of the budget. Music costs IS part of the budget. That's what made it grow. "Budget" is not "what we started with", it's what they finished with. Clerks needs to be changed. The director himself clearly says in the source:

Well, the original budget to get the film in the can was probably between $20,000 and $25,000. Then, once we got to Sundance to make a print and do a sound mix, we were probably more in the neighborhood of $100,000. And then once Artisan Entertainment bought the film, they put another half-million dollars into it. They did a new sound mix, and they had us re-shoot some stuff. They didn't like the original ending with Mike standing in the corner. They asked us to shoot some new endings — Mike hanging by his neck; Mike crucified on a big stick figure; Mike with his shirt ripped open and all bloodied. We shot them but ended up staying with our original ending. So the budget of what you saw in the theaters was probably $500,000 to $750,000.

BTW Ryan, the section on the budget DOES say how much they initially spent. But, if you put that number in the infobox then it's misleading to readers and makes them assume that that was the final budget of the film. It clearly wasn't. But putting the real number there, which is an accurate reflection of the final product (which is what Wikipedia should do), you have readers go read the section titled "Budget" to learn why the film they thought was only made for 20k, was actually made for more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the infobox figure should reflect all money spent to bring the film to the screen. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The movie alone should only cost at most 30 grand did they spend the rest on advertising? i'm always confused about a movies budget does it include advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.155.211 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i didnt see the budget thread it should be the first one in the discussion page66.159.155.211 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In late 2009, film director Stacy Hopkins was scheduled to start the shooting of the Scottish remake The Blair Witch.[39]"

To be honest, until more is known about what this 'remake' actually is, I'd lose this bit. Based on the reference there's fairly little information available, except that it's a remake that probably/might/might not be an actual remake, more a 'faux' remake (whatever that might be); and in any case it's a bit misleading for the article to suggest it's a straightforward 'Scottish remake'. - Nivensis (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This part needs to go unless there has been some kind of information by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.55.214 (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory paragraph says

The viewer is told that the three were never found, although their video and sound equipment (along with most of the footage they shot) was discovered a year later. This is the only movie to be filmed using camcorders. This "recovered footage" is presented as the film the viewer is watching. [1]

Millions of movies are filmed using camcorders (youtube). I think the article should remove the sentence or better define what a movie is.

--TO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.113.119 (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it says Donahue has stated that there was a considerable backlash against her because of her association with the film, which she claims led to her having threatening encounters and difficulty obtaining employment.. However, I couldn't figure why there would be backlash? I completely ignored the whole thing when it came out and have no idea what it's talking about. --mboverload@ 03:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled by that as well. The film was generally well-received and the interview that discusses the so-called "backlash" never explains why it occurred. 71.62.24.97 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed a critical backlash against the overhyped and uncritical initial reception of the movie. Audiences themselves were reportedly becoming increasingly disappointed in the product experienced in the theatre as opposed to the work of genius they had read about. (Personally, I thought the film stank.) In fact many started questioning whether the entire project hadn't been a giant cynical rip off by the producers from the start. The article should reflect something of this clouded legacy. Orthotox (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did they? I don't recall anyone talking about a "giant cynical rip-off", though I agree audience reaction was sharply divided between those who loved it and those who hated it - very few fell in the middle. What did the alleged rip-off constitute? Barnabypage (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed part of the article that said "the witch was not seen for most of the film" to say that the witch was NEVER seen in the film, which is correct as far as I am aware.

Cpl attari (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims in the filming section that...

The directors rationed the food of the cast, causing Donahue to suffer eczema outbreaks as filming progressed. "

But the eczema link says...

The hygiene hypothesis postulates that the cause of... eczema..., and other allergic diseases is an unusually clean environment.

I removed the claim. 65.92.115.200 (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article implies that this is a documentary film, not a work of fiction. It was made to look like a documentary as part of the creative process, but it is FICTION. Unless someone objects, I will change the article to make this clear –Shoaler (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the scene where Josh's tongue and teeth (or whatever) were found in a bundle bound by material from his shirt outside of the tent was an allusion to the short story The Devil and Tom Walker by Washington Irving. In that story, the protagonist finds his wife's apron containing her heart and liver in the woods after she goes missing looking for Old Scratch. Should this be listed in the allusions section of the article? MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section I believe is marketing material or backstory for the movie; see http://www.blairwitch.com/mythology.html (already an external link, listed as the official website). As such, it is extended content of the film itself and should probably be removed. I added a fiction tag, for lack of finding any other more appropriate tag. – Mark K Adams (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article says that movie opened on July 30, 1999. So how does this sentence jive with that fact "During 2008, Entertainment Weekly named The Blair Witch Project one of "the 100 best films from 1983 to 2008", ranking it at #99. Thanks Meishern (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the discrepancy here? – Mark K Adams (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually give online, regular joe reviewers more consideration than "professional" critics, Rotten Tomatoes being my most revered...and I see you're right but...WHAT? Never mind the fact that I hated the movie, I'm a jerkoff with odd opinions. For instance...I like Casino more than Goodfellas which is like blasphemy to cinesnobs. But how is it critically acclaimed when it won awards for worst this and that? And not only that, and I realize word on the street or among certain circles that isn't written down can't be sourced, but am I the only one remembering practically everyone who saw this movie shitting all over it. No, correction, spraying hot, neon orange diarrhea all over it? I mean, I heard less criticism of Star Wars episode I, and we all know what kind of backlash that movie got. 184.99.128.92 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are right. We went to see it after seeing footage of a critic stumbling out of a showing at the Cannes Film Festival mumbling "Oh God!" and generally looking as though she'd been hit over the head with a board. At the conclusion of the showing the bloke in front of us stood up and shouted "BOLLOCKS!", for which he received a standing ovation. "Why" asked the then Mrs Larrington, "did they not, when lost, just follow the stream until they came to a road?" Mr Larrington (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd like to do some rewriting for the plot. Even with just the opening it reveals too much that's not even in the official film. Yes, it's entirely accurate, it all appears in Curse of the Blair Witch, and in the movie itself Rustin Parr is explained to an extent and a few stories of Elly Kedward. But never is it explained (in the movie) that the police released the film because they viewed it as a prank. --Matt723star (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For arguments sake, witches exist. We can also argue that people can be haunted. So a person can be haunted by a dead witch, as the hermit claimed. That sounds a plausible local legend. But to say that the "students explore the woods in north Burkittsville to look for evidence that the Blair Witch exists" makes no sense. One does not trek through forest to find evidence of a haunting, nor was there any reason to say that the witch "exist" still. Did the film really follow that poor logic, or is this just the summary?Royalcourtier (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Blair Witch Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100201002701/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i7c23ccda60974aa20677ac607d102241 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i7c23ccda60974aa20677ac607d102241
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://theenvelope.latimes.com/extras/lostmind/year/1999/1999st.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on The Blair Witch Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070303170002/http://www.villagevoice.com:80/news/9928,kaufman,7024,1.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9928,kaufman,7024,1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071204214220/http://www.villagevoice.com:80/news/9928,lim,7025,1.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9928,lim,7025,1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090807093230/http://www.ew.com:80/ew/article/0,,20207076_20207387_20207063,00.html to http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20207076_20207387_20207063,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207020654/http://www.randomhouse.com:80/features/blairwitch/home.html to http://www.randomhouse.com/features/blairwitch/home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The Blair Witch Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120220134033/http://www.globalfilmcritics.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=35 to http://www.globalfilmcritics.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=35
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100817012232/http://bestbuy.shoplocal.com:80/bestbuy/Default.aspx?action=entryflash& to http://bestbuy.shoplocal.com/bestbuy/default.aspx?action=entryflash&
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160124205048/http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/03335372-25-2-305 to http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/03335372-25-2-305

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Blair Witch Project/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Famous Hobo (talk · contribs) 20:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take up this review. Found footage films have always had a special place in my heart, and this film was basically the granddaddy of them all. I'm a bit busy today, so right now, I'll give you a few notes to begin with.

Alright, time to end this review. I've been god awful for letting this sit so long, and I sincerely apologize for making you wait. Rereading this article, it still has some issues, but for the most part, it's well written, well sourced, and well researched. It talks about this film's importance to the found footage genre, but portrays it from an academic standpoint, and does not feel biased. With that said, here is the long awaited and coveted GA promotion. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Hobo, you could've just told me what the remaining issues are before your pass this to GA. Bluesphere 04:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]