Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Talk:The Blair Witch Project

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by You've gone incognito (talk | contribs) at 11:50, 10 February 2017 (External links modified). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 7 years ago by Bluesphere in topic GA Review
WikiProject iconFilm: American C‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconHorror C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

about "The Last Broadcast"

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

about "The Scooby Doo Project"

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

Pangea's The Unofficial Interactive Companion CD-ROM

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

Budget

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 (talkcontrib) 15:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

That couldn't be their budget

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

Remake (an opinion)

"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

camcorders

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

Backlash?

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

Minor change

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

Concerning the claim "causing Donahue to suffer eczema"

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

Fiction!

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

The Devil and Tom Walker

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

Aftermath

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

Dates of the Film

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

widely acclaimed by critics?

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

Rewriting most of the plot

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


Illogical plot

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:

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 IITalk 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:

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

check 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 IITalk 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:

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

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

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.

First pass
Comments
  • There are a decent amount of dead refs or refs that redirect to different links. Please fix.
  • The Blair Witch Project is a 1999 American found footage supernatural psychological horror film written, directed and edited by Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez. Supernatural is not a film genre. Also, you mention the "recovered footage" at the end of the paragraph, which also links to found footage. Either remove found footage from the first sentence, or delink the second instance of found footage.
  • There is no mention of the film's production in the lead. There needs to be at least some mention of how the film was made.
  • You devote two paragraphs to the sequels, which is very unnecessary. This article is about the first film, that needs to be what the lead is primarily about. You should mention how the film spawned a franchise, but that should really only be one sentence toward the end of the lead, not two entire paragraphs.

Will be back for more later.Famous Hobo (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Second pass
Comments

Sorry about the wait, I had a few things to take care of with school. However, I was able to rewatch this film (thanks Netflix), so there's a plus.

Plot

  • Although everything in this section is correct, it does seem a bit too overdetailed. There are a few words, and sometimes entire sentences, that have no real importance to the plot, and can be removed. For example:
    • They travel to Burkittsville, Maryland, formerly Blair, and interview residents about the legend. We don't need to know that the city was formerly Blair.
    • Locals tell them of Rustin Parr, a hermit who lived in the woods and kidnapped eight children in the 1940s. He took the children down to his basement in pairs and made one stand in the corner while he killed the other. After turning himself in to the police, Parr claimed that the spirit of Elly Kedward, a woman executed for witchcraft in the 18th century, forced him to commit the murders. The students then interview Mary Brown, a Burkittsville resident deemed insane by the public. She claims to have encountered the Blair Witch in person, describing her as a hairy half-human, half-animal beast. I don't think you need to include every detail about what the residents said. I guess the stuff about the hermit is fine, since the stuff about standing in a corner comes up later in the film, but part about Mary Brown seems unimportant. The witch is never even seen in the film, and Brown doesn't appear in the film afterwards.
    • Josh accidentally disturbs a cairn and Heather hastily repairs it. I don't remember this happening. I'm sure I just didn't notice it, but even so, this is unimportant.
  • The second paragraph begins with On their second day.... The third paragraph then begins with The next day they move deeper into the woods..., which contradicts the next paragraph, which begins with On day three...
  • Also, could you combine the fourth paragraph with another one. It's only has three sentences that are really short.

Cast

  • Is a cast section even necessary? The three main actors in the film are just playing themselve (albeit fictionalized versions), but I don't think you need an entire section for that. Perhaps just a simple mention that the actors played fictionalized versions of themselves in the casting section.

Production

  • The Blair Witch Project was developed during 1993[5] by the filmmakers. Development of The Blair Witch Project began in 1993.
  • This has nothing to do with the review, but I must say the anagrams part gave me a laugh. I find it funny that Rasputin of all people was somehow connected to this film.
  • This documentary, originally called The Blair Witch Project: The Story of Black Hills Disappearances was produced by Haxan Films. Unsourced
  • The picture of the cemetery doesn't seem important. I'd just remove it.
  • I've heard a rumor that the witch was originally supposed to be seen in the film, if only for a few seconds when the three characters run away from the tent at night. I'm not sure if this is real, but if it is, that might be something you'll want to add.

Release

  • From a cursory glance, everything seems fine. I'll do a more detailed look on my second run through of the article.

Marketing

  • Shouldn't the marketing section go before or in the release section? Marketing is usually done before the film is released
  • You do a good job telling the reader just how famous the marketing for this film was, but I feel that adding this picture would really show just how far they went to market the events in this film as real events.
    • I uploaded a better quality of that photo since the one you gave me becomes pixelated when downgraded to a lower resolution; I had to comply with the non-free rationale after all. Nonetheless, it's in the article. Bluesphere 16:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Soundtrack

  • Honestly, I'd just remove this entire section. As you state in the section, none of the songs actually appear in the film. In fact, the film is notable for not including music at all. The one review isn't expanded upon, and by the looks of it, there aren't enough references to justify a section dedicated to the soundtrack.

I'll look at the rest of the article tomorrow, but for now this should be a good starting point. Famous Hobo (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Famous Hobo: Hi, not to sound too nagging, but while I'm fully aware that you're pretty busy irl, perhaps you could devote just 20-30mins of your time to continue the review? :) Bluesphere 16:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Third pass
Well I'm a terrible person. Sorry to keep you waiting for over a month, let's continue.

Lead

  • The Blair Witch Project directors Myrick and Sánchez conceived the idea of a fictional legend of the Blair Witch in 1993. You already mentioned that Myrick and Sánchez directed the film in the first paragraph. Remove "The Blair Witch Project directors".   Done
  • I don't think it's necessary to mention the exact release dates of the two sequel films, just the year should be good enough. Using exact dates for the The Blair Witch Project is fine, but for the other films, leave the exact dates for their respective articles.   Done

Plot

  • They realize they have walked in a circle, despite having traveled south all day, and once again make camp, completely demoralized at having wasted an entire day, their sixth. Bit of a run on sentence with a few too many commas. Try "They realize they have walked in a circle, and once again make camp, demoralized at having wasted an entire day." Walking south all day is a bit superfluous, and I think the reader can figure out that it was their sixth day. This leads into my next concern...  Done
  • Five out of the seven plot paragraphs begin with "On the X day", which gets very repetitive. Try to reword some of the paragraph openings.   Done
  • Hobo, the plot currently clocks at 783 words, and I'm stumped as to what to cut down here. Thoughts?

Production

  • After graduation, Myrick and Sánchez, along with Gregg Hale, Robin Cowie, and Michael Monello started the production company Haxan Films, derived from Benjamin Christensen's 1922 Swedish silent documentary horror film Häxan, which is titled Witchcraft Through the Ages in English. Part of me wants to say that the last part about the English translation is unimportant, but part of me also believes that it's important to mention that the documentary is about witches, which obviously has relevance to this film. It's your call if you want to leave it or get rid of it. — I would just leave it there.
  • Although I assumed Haxan produced the film, it's not explicitly stated in the production section what the company's purpose was. Haxan is mentioned one more time in the article, and that's talking about a lawsuit. As it stands right now, Myrick and Sánchez co-founded Haxan after college for no real reason.
  • Dunno about this one – The only thing I gathered about Haxan was that it was founded to produce the film...
  • Donahue confided before audiences during the 1999 San Diego Comic-Con on August 14, that the white figure was Ricardo Moreno, the film's art director. We don't need the exact day, just leave it at 1999 San Diego Comic-Con.
  • Woah, I got rid of this one long time ago. Did you want me to restore it?
  • Filming commenced on Halloween. For what? Filming for the final scene? If that's the case, then it should be mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph.   DoneI actually meant "concluded". I'm embarrassed by this typo, sorry.

Marketing

  • All good. yay

Release

  • Andrew Sarris of The Observer said, "Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez's The Blair Witch Project represents the ultimate triumph of the Sundance scam... You already linked Myrick and Sánchez.   Done

Legacy

  • We don't need to know the names of the eight young adult books, you can just get rid of that list.   Done
  • In the video games section, "Each game, developed by a different team, focused on different aspects of the Blair Witch mythology: Rustin Parr, Coffin Rock, and Elly Kedward, respectively" is unsourced.   Done I just removed it.

Sequels

  • In January 2015, Eduardo Sánchez revealed that he was still planning Blair Witch 3 and that he considered the film "inevitable", but added that there was nothing to officially announce at that time.[101] This line doesn't seem necessary, especially since the entire next paragraph is talking about how a third film was actually made and released the following year.   Done Famous Hobo (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Famous Hobo: — I have some concerns written above, coloured in red typeface. See you in another month or two, lol. Bluesphere 07:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Famous Hobo: Hello? Please come back if you're not that busy... Bluesphere 05:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
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