Talk:The Blair Witch Project/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Strasberg

http://tbwp.freeservers.com/spoiler.html has really good explaination of bits of the story. obviously a spoiler

Who is Lee Strassberg? Method acting doesn't mention him. -- Tarquin 14:26 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)

Google says he is misspelled (should be only one S), and he appears to own or run an "acting studio", whatever one of those might be. How this ties into the article reference, I'm not sure. Maybe he coined the phrase "method acting", I don't know (I don't think Stanislavsky himself used that phrase). --Camembert

Correction: "owned" not "owns" - he died in 1982. There's a bio at [1]. --Camembert

Lee Strasberg also played the role of Hyman Roth in The Godfather Part II. -- Modemac

Saying "Lee Strasberg's method acting" is quite a strong statement -- either Method acting should agree & mention him, or this statement here should be changed. -- Tarquin

I left him in in case there was a particular link twixt him and Blair Witch, but Google has nothing on that, so I'll take him out. --Camembert

FYI Lee Strasberg was one of the most important acting teachers in the US and was instrumental in adapting and promoting Method Acting in the US. Along with Stella Adler he may be the most important "method" acting teacher in the US. Slrubenstein

So it should be "Lee Strasberg and Stella Adler's method acting"?  ;-) --KQ

If Lee Strasberg is important then Method acting should mention him. I wasn't questioning facts, I was pointing out a discrepancy between two articles. -- Tarquin

---

On a different note, if we use Man Bites Dog as an antecedent, shouldn't we mention Medium Cool? I don't want to put in in unilaterally because I do not know if this film influenced the directors of BWP. Then again, I do not know how much they were influenced by Man Bites Dog" or Dogme95... Slrubenstein

---

"This film was a huge success because its makers did heavy marketing via the Internet, spreading rumors and suggesting or allowing people to think that the material they shot was authentic and that the three protagonists really disappeared."

Maybe the film was a huge success because it was good and original? I think the material at the website was actually a worthy extension of the movie, not some cheap marketing gimmick.

I thought Bliar Witch was crap. quercus robur

Ditto. Two Halves

Text of previous Blair Witch

This is the original text of the page formerly at Blair Witch. It was a stub repeating alot of info from this page.

Blair Witch is a fictional character that centralizes a series of films known as Blair Witch. The first two films, The Blair Witch Project and Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 have been released; the third is in production. In the films, a series of mishaps occur to various groups of young adults, alledgedly prompted by actions from the ghost of said Witch, who allegedly tortured and killed children in the woods of Maryland. The first film was done on a very low budget, documentary-style, and as such many people believed that footage they watched (of the psychological torture and eventual deaths of three young adults trapped in the woods) was real. A web-site further provoked this belief.

I've merged some of this info into the ==story== section of the article, but some I wasn't sure about, and some was already in the article. Merge anything else you think is appropriate (; —siroχo 04:42, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

"The estimated production cost of the film was about $25,000. The movie grossed over $150 million at the box office, making it the most profitable motion picture of all time."

This is measuring profit proportional to costs, correct? (Perhaps an explanation is called for?) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 02:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Budget discrepancy

There's a discrepancy between the budget figure in the article ($25,000) and that on the right sidebar ($35,000). Why? What are the sources for these? Which is correct?

• I would also like to have some clearency in this. If you check IMDb they give that the budget was $35 000 (estimated). And then in the trivia section, "This film was in the Guinness Book Of World Records for "Top Budget:Box Office Ratio" (for a mainstream feature film). The film cost $22,000 to make and made back $240.5 million, a ratio of $1 spent for every $10,931 made." bbx 03:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Story

Have made the story section more detailed and encyclopedic with regard to the first film without giving too much away. I can't remember much of the plot of Book of Shadows -- perhaps someone else could do the same for that film? Barnabypage 21:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Bell Witch

Is there any general acceptance of the proposed Bell Witch influence on BWP? I hadn't heard of the Bell Witch before looking at the Wiki article, but she seems to have little in common with the Blair Witch. Barnabypage 00:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The Bell Witch is by far the most famous haunting in US history. It is unlikely that the Blair Witch creators could have avoided knowing about it. Centauri 02:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Knowing about it doesn't mean it's an influence. The film-makers probably knew about Macbeth and Bleak House too. The story of the Bell Witch doesn't bear much resemblance to that of the Blair Witch.

I see a fairly obvious influence in the name of the film itself. In addition to which both the Bell and Blair stories are concerned with invisible malevolent presences known as "witches" that originally haunted settlements that have since been abandoned. Centauri 03:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Those are pretty common features of haunting stories in general, though. The question as far as Wiki goes is - is the resemblance something that has been commented on by critics/scholars other than yourself? Barnabypage 14:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The creators of the film refer to the Bell Witch story in the DVD audio commentary.12.162.189.80 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Other related media

There was a book that was released (at least in the uk) prior to the films release; it relates the story of a private investigator who was hired by the families of the missing students to try and find out what exactly happened to them. It mainly involves correspondence from the investigator to various law enforcement officials (such as the FBI and the County Sheriff), and diary accounts written by the investigator as he eventually makes his way into the forest at Burkittsville with a spirit medium (I think, I have not read the book in some time!). It's presented in a similar way as the film, like a record of events. Should there be an article on the main page?

The short film, which I believe was called "Shadow of the Blair Witch", was aired in the United States many times on the Sci-Fi Channel around the times of the film's release and was also included on the DVD. I think it would be appropriate for the article to at least refer to it, and the book you mention as well. But I don't want to write it.12.162.189.80 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There was also a documentary that aired on Channel 4 (uk) very late one night, about a year or so after the movie release, that related to Rustin Parr. The story goes that he had killed a number of children in the town, then proceeded to confess all to the local sheriff. However, there was one survivor to tell the story. The bulk of the documentary included interviews with the survivors' parents, psychiatrist and other members of family and friends that knew him, and how it may have been possible that he had influenced/convinced Parr to commit the murders, and then went on to suggest that the child was in fact possesed by the spirit of the Blair Witch himself. What was an ironic event in the programme from the start, was a comment by the 'documentary' maker that the film "Blair Witch Project" was a complete fake, and that the three film students should be derided for their actions! It was not until the end of the programme, when the credit roll started, did it become apparent that it also was a 'fake' documentary. The credit roll included a full list of actors names that had appeared in the programme. Even the documentary maker himself had an entry.

That short film was made in conjunction with the release of the sequel "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" and was used to promote the film on television, much as the previous short film to which I referred above. It was released on home video in the United States.12.162.189.80 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Discuss!!

Dissonant Unity 17:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The blood packet

{{spoiler}}

What does it contain, exactly? It looks like a tounge, or a heart or sometihng.. Can someone speculate? (the packet Heather finds outside the tent the night after Josh/Blair Witch was screaming)

The filmmakers used teeth acquired from a local dentist. The scene is shot so as the contents of the bundle are ambiguous on screen, thus allowing the viewer's imagination to fill in the horrific details herself.12.162.189.80 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A few of Josh's teeth. Plus some gum tissue. Possibly a thumb? Dissonant Unity 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just teeth and tissue, I think - I haven't heard a thumb mentioned before, for sure. The interesting thing is that while Heather and we assume they're Josh's teeth, there's really no proof they are. I don't imagine she had dental charts with her. ;) Barnabypage 13:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

{{endspoiler}}

Page merge from Curse of the Blair Witch

Do we need another page about SciFi's mackumentry, Curse of the Blair Witch? N. Harmon 13:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If it was on the Sci Fi channel it is important enough to have it's own article.--Centauri 13:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Curse of the Blair Witch was designed as a stand-alone "documentary" meant to develop the fictional world in which the film was set. As it was such an unusal device, I believe it deserves its own page. ParticularlyEvil 06:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanations

I just removed some text which described a "most favoured" explanation of the final scene. I think we should either give a range of interpretations, or not attempt it at all. Barnabypage 15:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

GA nom has passed

Article is currently on hold for seven days only. Currently there is one part that is too short: The #Cast paragraph. The actors name already appear on the infobox; the only piece of new information there is the techniques used by the directors and the amount of people who auditioned. I would highly recommened getting rid of the section and moving the two sentences to another section—not a trivia section, however. That is the only thing that appears to stop the GA. Let me know when this slight problem has been resolved. I also fixed the interwiki links. Iolakana|^T 15:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that the above has been cleared up, the article now hs GA status. Congratulations! It is now recommended to record major changes to the article, if required. Iolakana|^T 16:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs clarification: First paragraph

"The Blair Witch Project is a low budget American horror film released in 1999. Though the film is entirely fictional, the narrative is presented as a documentary pieced together from that footage." What footage? --AlanH 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume it means the footage from the film. Iolakana|^T 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Since the storyline isn't mentioned until the next paragraph, consider subsitituting the word "discovered" instead of "that"? -m13b 20:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I just changed this to read "the narrative is presented as a documentary pieced together from amateur footage." This seems both clear and informative. -- 201.50.123.251 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good :) Judgesurreal777 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actors' income

The article is begging for an estimate of how much money the actors made from their "small" profit participation. The link cited in that sentence is a dead link. Tempshill 04:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Most profitable film?

The Return of the King article claims that this movie was eclipsed in terms of profits. The article states:

"Compared to the profits of other films, The Return of the King is probably the most lucrative movie investment of all time. Including marketing costs, it made a 1408% profit over the original outlay from New Line Studios. Comparatively, The Blair Witch Project (including marketing costs of $25 million) made a profit of 992% and Titanic, the highest grossing film of all time, made a profit of 768% over production and marketing costs."

Does anyone know whether these numbers are incorrect? If not, then this article should probably be updated to reflect this.

The caveat of "including marketing costs" is not present in the claims made about the profitability of Blair Witch in the wikipedia article. Perhaps that is where the discrepency is coming from? Maybe if you subtract marketing costs from Return of the King's production cost and stack its cost/profit ratio against Blair Witch's (which is supposedly 10,000%, according the Guinness people), then Blair Witch comes out the victor? Not sure, of course, but it seems entirely plausible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.69.160.1 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

trivia section?

personally I don't really like film trivia in wikipedia... but, most films seem to have this section, so how about it? For starters - 'the three leads all act under their own names', 'several of the towns folk interviewed are not actors but actual residents of burkitsville' etc etc. raining_girl 22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

terrific article

and I mention the above because - looking at this article - it seems to me to be very, very good. Maybe worth nominating for FA? What might push it over the edge? raining_girl 22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review

Two parts of the article need some working on. Feel free to talk about these concerns here. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

merge: Curse of the Blair Witch

Curse of the Blair Witch should be merged here because it is a stub article about an element of the production and promotion of The Blair Witch Project. Curse of the Blair Witch, a promotional TV film for the Sci-Fi Channel, is made from unused Blair Witch Project footage.

Survey

• Merge as nominator.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Judgesurreal777 02:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - its notability derives directly from BWP's notability. Barnabypage 08:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

ok. done. now what?

Reason why article was delisted as GA

from Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 13

The Blair Witch Project

result:Delist 3-1

Despite having adequate references, this article should be temporarily removed from the list. The "popular culture" section might need to go or be merged, and there is one {{fact}} tag near the end of the article. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delist I wouldn't delist an article because it has a lone fact tag but this article has a pop culture section which reads like a trivia section. Tarret 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• delistrefs don't go in the middle of a sentence either. Pop Culture needs fixed or removed.Rlevse 14:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• I removed the pop culture section Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep GA Status - the article is acceptable as a GA article, though only just. Work is needed, but so far good progress. Delisting would not be appropiate. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist The DVD section section is careless. "Does not exploit..." Does one review really deserve such emphasis? What about what the DVD does have? What are these extras? I'm not convinced about Image:Blairwitchcast.jpg either. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the consensus to delist. Diez2 12:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)