Talk:The Blair Witch Project

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

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

THE CENSORSHIP OF THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT FOTONOVEL INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE CENSORED FROM WIKIPEDIA. IT'S BASIC INFORMATION THAT SHOULD NOT OFFEND ANYONE, IT'S A LAUGHING STOCK THAT THIS INFORMATION ABOUT THE BOOK IS REMOVED FROM WIKIPEDIA Dickie birdie (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

BLAIR WITCH PROJECT The Fotonovel " ""

By Dave Kondroik on December 20, 1999

"I have been collecting the out of print Fotonovels since I was a child, and I must say that I'm ecstatic that a new series has arrived for a new generation. This Fotonovel is beautiful, except that the curse words are censored. If it wasn't for that, the book would have gotten 5 stars."

Is this information too hot for some people on Wikipedia? It does not matter if it's stupid information or intelligent information. That's irrelevant. It's information that should not be censored. Dickie birdie (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

There's a lot of information about The Blair Witch Project Movies and Mockumentaries missing from this Wikipedia article. Perhaps it would be a good idea to introduce this information. Dickie birdie (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Editor Mr Christiansen holds his opinion that it is wrong to put in this article that the Fotonovel is censored. It is a fact that the Fotonovel is censored. This information should not be withheld from this article if it is factual. Dickie birdie (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Obviously, not all information about the Fotonovel is included in the article. For instance, we omit trivia about the number of occurrences of the word "tree". The fact that curse words have been censored in the Fotonovel is also trivial. Moreover, if I read the above discussion correctly, the censorship claim is not tied to a reliable source, and so fails on that count as well.

Is there some reason that you believe this bit of information is essential to an article about The Blair Witch? I sure don't see it. Phiwum (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Censorship is wrong everywhere, not just in The Blair Witch Project Fotonovel - amd it should not extend into Wikipedia - it hasn't done before. Since the source is the Fotonovel itself, it cannot be a better source.; And what's more, the deletion of the fact from Wikipedia is being done without any reasonable and rational reason other than the editor in question commenting "I don't like it". Dickie birdie (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's not trivial to the editor who deems it very Important to censor the fact that the Fotonovel is censored, and wants to prevent that fact from appearing in the article Dickie birdie (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE OFFENDED BY THE CURSE WORDS APPEARING IN THE FOTONOVEL OF THE FILM. WHAT DO THOSE SAME PEOPLE DO WHEN THEY WATCH THE FILM. THEY OBVIOUSLY FORCE THEMSELVES TO TOLERATE THE CURSE WORDS WHEN WATCHING THE DVD OR THEY MOMENTARILY USE THE MUTE OPTION. Dickie birdie (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply