Blair Witch....5 years later
01-20-04, 01:31 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not surprising at all. Blair Witch was one of the 2nd worst movie I ever saw. The only blessing was that it was barely over an hour long so I didnt have to endure it too long. It was unique for the time it occurred. If anyone tried that today, the myths would be debunked in short time.
It was easily the worst movie I ever saw for a few years but I made the mistake of watching Pool Hall Junkies last year and I fear no movie will ever be worse than that.
It was easily the worst movie I ever saw for a few years but I made the mistake of watching Pool Hall Junkies last year and I fear no movie will ever be worse than that.
01-20-04, 01:53 PM
#27
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These people did very well of this film. Remember, 240 million does not equal 240 million in profit for Artisan. Not to mention the fact that this film did really cost around 10-15 million dollars once you take into consideration the actual purchase and the advertising (which was 10 million dollars). The filmmakers were very lucky. I know many think that the artist deserves all the cash, but let's get real. The distributor was very much a part of the success this film had. Without them, these guys would have made nothing. And the five million dollar payout to each of the five pricipals is pretty good considering that most directors don't even make that much.
Yes, I'd say they turned out pretty well. They made an interesting movie and they made a lot of money off of it. They squandered their opportunity (seriously, they really should have taken a horror movie...that would have been the smart career path. if they didn't want to and are happy with that, cool beans).
So no pity here...I say more power to them and their 5 million dollars.
Yes, I'd say they turned out pretty well. They made an interesting movie and they made a lot of money off of it. They squandered their opportunity (seriously, they really should have taken a horror movie...that would have been the smart career path. if they didn't want to and are happy with that, cool beans).
So no pity here...I say more power to them and their 5 million dollars.
01-20-04, 02:04 PM
#28
DVD Talk Legend
I don't understand all the talk of the filmmakers "getting hosed".
As the previous poster mentioned, $240 million gross does not equal $240 million net. The studio gets roughly 50% of the gross, which leaves $120 million. Of that $120 million, $50 million went to Haxan -- that's nearly fifty percent. The five Haxan partners got $10 million each which, after taxes, agents, and lawyers, came out to $5 million.
Artisan got more than half, but hell, they put up $$$ for distribution and marketed the hell out of the movie.
So Haxan ended up with a nice chunk of change -- nearly half of the net. And the stars got $1 mill apiece after taxes? Shit, I should be so "hosed" in my lifetime.
And no, I don't feel sorry for any of them. Fame and show biz is a fickle, capricious thing. Striking hard and fading fast sure beats toiling in obscurity for a lifetime.
As the previous poster mentioned, $240 million gross does not equal $240 million net. The studio gets roughly 50% of the gross, which leaves $120 million. Of that $120 million, $50 million went to Haxan -- that's nearly fifty percent. The five Haxan partners got $10 million each which, after taxes, agents, and lawyers, came out to $5 million.
Artisan got more than half, but hell, they put up $$$ for distribution and marketed the hell out of the movie.
So Haxan ended up with a nice chunk of change -- nearly half of the net. And the stars got $1 mill apiece after taxes? Shit, I should be so "hosed" in my lifetime.
And no, I don't feel sorry for any of them. Fame and show biz is a fickle, capricious thing. Striking hard and fading fast sure beats toiling in obscurity for a lifetime.
01-20-04, 02:05 PM
#29
DVD Talk Limited Edition
What is it that everybody dislikes? I here a lot of "it's the worst movie", but nobody saying why they didn't like it. I thought that they did a good job and I'll put my money where my mouth is and say why . . . I thought that:
1) The approach was fresh and inovative,
2) The cinematography was raw, but that it really added to the atmosphere to the film,
3) The suspense/horror feeling was accomplished very effectively,
4) For the most part, the reactions of the actors were very believable and realistic (it helps that half the time they didn't know what was coming up next), and
5) The marketing was brillant . . . I know people who were talking for weeks before they were able to confirm that it was not a true story. While some may say that it does not have anything to do with the film itself, I think that it was integral to the feel and mystique of the film and was certainly taken into consideration whan the film was made.
1) The approach was fresh and inovative,
2) The cinematography was raw, but that it really added to the atmosphere to the film,
3) The suspense/horror feeling was accomplished very effectively,
4) For the most part, the reactions of the actors were very believable and realistic (it helps that half the time they didn't know what was coming up next), and
5) The marketing was brillant . . . I know people who were talking for weeks before they were able to confirm that it was not a true story. While some may say that it does not have anything to do with the film itself, I think that it was integral to the feel and mystique of the film and was certainly taken into consideration whan the film was made.
01-20-04, 05:01 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: harpers ferry, wv
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here is why i didn't like it:
-the hype
-while the style of the cinematography may have been "fresh" or "innovative", it was nothing that i haven't seen NYPD BLUE accomplish many time over, before blair witch
- i couldn't find one thing scary about the whole experience, well it was pretty scary how quickly and silently my 6 bucks disappeared from my wallet
-it was boring
-and, the hype
-the hype
-while the style of the cinematography may have been "fresh" or "innovative", it was nothing that i haven't seen NYPD BLUE accomplish many time over, before blair witch
- i couldn't find one thing scary about the whole experience, well it was pretty scary how quickly and silently my 6 bucks disappeared from my wallet
-it was boring
-and, the hype
01-20-04, 06:04 PM
#34
Originally posted by talemyn
What is it that everybody dislikes? I here a lot of "it's the worst movie", but nobody saying why they didn't like it. I thought that they did a good job and I'll put my money where my mouth is and say why . . . I thought that:
1) The approach was fresh and inovative,
2) The cinematography was raw, but that it really added to the atmosphere to the film,
3) The suspense/horror feeling was accomplished very effectively,
4) For the most part, the reactions of the actors were very believable and realistic (it helps that half the time they didn't know what was coming up next), and
5) The marketing was brillant . . . I know people who were talking for weeks before they were able to confirm that it was not a true story. While some may say that it does not have anything to do with the film itself, I think that it was integral to the feel and mystique of the film and was certainly taken into consideration whan the film was made.
What is it that everybody dislikes? I here a lot of "it's the worst movie", but nobody saying why they didn't like it. I thought that they did a good job and I'll put my money where my mouth is and say why . . . I thought that:
1) The approach was fresh and inovative,
2) The cinematography was raw, but that it really added to the atmosphere to the film,
3) The suspense/horror feeling was accomplished very effectively,
4) For the most part, the reactions of the actors were very believable and realistic (it helps that half the time they didn't know what was coming up next), and
5) The marketing was brillant . . . I know people who were talking for weeks before they were able to confirm that it was not a true story. While some may say that it does not have anything to do with the film itself, I think that it was integral to the feel and mystique of the film and was certainly taken into consideration whan the film was made.
01-20-04, 06:12 PM
#35
DVD Talk Limited Edition
What I like is how a thread about how the directors, actors and cast fared after the release of a huge hit movie has turned into a "Blair Witch sucks" thread.
I mean, I hated the movie myself, found it gimmicky and seasickness-inducing, but come on, if you don't have anything more to contribute than "worst movie ever" you aren't trying. I find it fascinating myself considering all the hype and money this movie earned that five years on they basically lost it all. It's an interesting cautionary tale and a look at how backlashes work. Even though I think the movie was terrible, I find that story interesting.
I mean, I hated the movie myself, found it gimmicky and seasickness-inducing, but come on, if you don't have anything more to contribute than "worst movie ever" you aren't trying. I find it fascinating myself considering all the hype and money this movie earned that five years on they basically lost it all. It's an interesting cautionary tale and a look at how backlashes work. Even though I think the movie was terrible, I find that story interesting.
01-20-04, 07:59 PM
#37
I never understand a lot of the complaints about "hype". What are you refering to? The ads? The 'Scariest movie ever' quotes? Most movies I go to see, anything I've heard or read about them I know I should take with a grain a salt. At the end of the day, it's my own opinion that matters most to me. As much as I love movies, you have to admit that when they are released, they have become products. Not much different than a car or a can of Coke. If I drink a can of Coke, swedish bikini teams and wild parties don't errupt all around me, yet I don't feel cheated by the marketing 'hype' around the product.
Also, how could someone be pissed when they 'found out it wasn't real'? I'm a pretty gullible guy (I listen to Art Bell and get scared of ghosts some times), but I have trouble believing that swarms of people really thought what they were seeing was genuine. The movie does an outstanding job of looking authentic, but it was clearly a movie.
Also, how could someone be pissed when they 'found out it wasn't real'? I'm a pretty gullible guy (I listen to Art Bell and get scared of ghosts some times), but I have trouble believing that swarms of people really thought what they were seeing was genuine. The movie does an outstanding job of looking authentic, but it was clearly a movie.
01-20-04, 09:20 PM
#38
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: A little bit here and a little bit there.
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a good little scary movie. But 5 years later, it doesn't have much of an impact anymore. It was a product of it's time. A well excised marketing ploy. They made money off of it. And that is nice. Now bring on the real horror movies!
01-20-04, 09:39 PM
#39
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 6,259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was the only movie that left me feeling sick for hours afterwards. I liked the movie very much but the motion cameras were too much to take. I can however sit through it on dvd.
Quite a few people did believe the hype. I remember countless radio dj's saying if this really happened, all the major networks would have covered it more.
Quite a few people did believe the hype. I remember countless radio dj's saying if this really happened, all the major networks would have covered it more.
01-20-04, 11:26 PM
#41
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by Grouch094820 & 5/17
Let's look at what this film did do for its participants: it opened a lot of doors that normally would not be open. When this opportunity arises, whether you be a director, an actor, or whatever...it's up to you to take advantage before it slams shut.
Let's look at what this film did do for its participants: it opened a lot of doors that normally would not be open. When this opportunity arises, whether you be a director, an actor, or whatever...it's up to you to take advantage before it slams shut.
: You always have something bright and witty to say, Groucho.Oh, wait... *wallows in self pity*
01-21-04, 12:07 AM
#42
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Odd that you mentioned this...I was just reading at upcominghorrormovies.com (think that is the URL) that Artisan / Lion's Gate is in discussion about finally going ahead with the final script for 'Blair Witch 3' which is a prequel. So, all won't be lost, as the directors will still get some cash out of the lisence.
01-21-04, 12:26 AM
#43
Banned
Blair Witch is a good movie. Not great, but good. Enjoyable. Unfortunatley, it was exceedingly popular around the time of it's release. People won't admit to liking "popular" movies. Therefore, Blair Witch gets s**t on, even by people who enjoyed watching it at the time of it's release.
01-21-04, 02:17 AM
#44
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Rivero... Almost everyone in the world swore by it when it first came out. Then it got so popular it became popular to hate the movie. Thus the backlash came..
As for the sequel - well, it sucked.
As for the sequel - well, it sucked.
01-21-04, 03:00 AM
#45
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally posted by talemyn
What is it that everybody dislikes? I here a lot of "it's the worst movie", but nobody saying why they didn't like it. I thought that they did a good job and I'll put my money where my mouth is and say why . . . I thought that:
1) The approach was fresh and inovative,
2) The cinematography was raw, but that it really added to the atmosphere to the film,
3) The suspense/horror feeling was accomplished very effectively,
4) For the most part, the reactions of the actors were very believable and realistic (it helps that half the time they didn't know what was coming up next), and
5) The marketing was brillant . . . I know people who were talking for weeks before they were able to confirm that it was not a true story. While some may say that it does not have anything to do with the film itself, I think that it was integral to the feel and mystique of the film and was certainly taken into consideration whan the film was made.
What is it that everybody dislikes? I here a lot of "it's the worst movie", but nobody saying why they didn't like it. I thought that they did a good job and I'll put my money where my mouth is and say why . . . I thought that:
1) The approach was fresh and inovative,
2) The cinematography was raw, but that it really added to the atmosphere to the film,
3) The suspense/horror feeling was accomplished very effectively,
4) For the most part, the reactions of the actors were very believable and realistic (it helps that half the time they didn't know what was coming up next), and
5) The marketing was brillant . . . I know people who were talking for weeks before they were able to confirm that it was not a true story. While some may say that it does not have anything to do with the film itself, I think that it was integral to the feel and mystique of the film and was certainly taken into consideration whan the film was made.
I hardly pay attention to ads and marketing because, as everyone knows, they have little to do with the filmmaking. It is mostly an entirely seperate entity with little to no involvement of most filmmakers, especially unestablished ones. They did a terrific job a getting a different audience drawn to the movie and more so its tie-ins but that means nothing to me when it comes to the movie itself.
Personally I think this is a classic horror film, and film in general, and that most of the dislike for it is based on the hype and the typical horror audience expectations for the genre. Perhaps my opinion reflects my general dislike for most horror films and my feeling that it has more in common with The Shining, Rosemary's Baby, etc. then it does with stuff like Thirteen Ghosts, Freddy Vs Jason, etc.
To me, it took a simple, effective idea (which is why everyone got caught up in the hype because something struck a cord much like what happened with Jaws) and executed it in an equally simple, straightforward approach. Outside of the marketing, the movie itself didn't rely on gimmicks or "typical" horror cliches and tricks. The shaky camera was reflective of the story not a gimmick and wasn't supposed to be accomplished or stylized.
It is not scary in the sense that a lot of the hype and peoples expectations were probably going into it. No cheap quick camera shots to illicit scares, no music cues to get you to jump, etc. There a ton of quality films that if you go into with a certain expectation that their approach will leave you disappointed (dry, dark comedy, etc).
Maybe my enjoyment of it was influenced by my usual dislike for horror movies, that I thought the hype was silly and overbearing but saw the movie a couple years after it ended, just stumbled upon it on a whim on pay tv, and went into it blind with no expectations or that it wasn't something I would respond to.
I wonder what the initial reaction was at the time of The Shining, 2001, Rosemary's Baby, Dr. Strangelove etc was?
Including a couple reviews solely in case anyone wants to give it another chance..
James Berardinelli
Ebert
David Edelstein
01-21-04, 03:02 AM
#46
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 1,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect a lot of people just can't handle a 'horror movie' that doesn't feature a guy in a latex mask swinging a machete. How sad.
Personally I enjoyed the film a lot.
OTOH I don't feel too sad for the creators. I wonder how many 'Independent filmakers' there are out there who never get that big break and spend most of their lives working in convenience stores or waiting tables? At least these guys got their 15 minutes.
Personally I enjoyed the film a lot.
OTOH I don't feel too sad for the creators. I wonder how many 'Independent filmakers' there are out there who never get that big break and spend most of their lives working in convenience stores or waiting tables? At least these guys got their 15 minutes.
01-21-04, 03:57 AM
#47
Originally posted by abintra
Personally I think this is a classic horror film, and film in general, and that most of the dislike for it is based on the hype and the typical horror audience expectations for the genre. Perhaps my opinion reflects my general dislike for most horror films and my feeling that it has more in common with The Shining, Rosemary's Baby, etc. then it does with stuff like Thirteen Ghosts, Freddy Vs Jason, etc.
To me, it took a simple, effective idea (which is why everyone got caught up in the hype because something struck a cord much like what happened with Jaws) and executed it in an equally simple, straightforward approach. Outside of the marketing, the movie itself didn't rely on gimmicks or "typical" horror cliches and tricks. The shaky camera was reflective of the story not a gimmick and wasn't supposed to be accomplished or stylized.
It is not scary in the sense that a lot of the hype and peoples expectations were probably going into it. No cheap quick camera shots to illicit scares, no music cues to get you to jump, etc. There a ton of quality films that if you go into with a certain expectation that their approach will leave you disappointed (dry, dark comedy, etc).
Personally I think this is a classic horror film, and film in general, and that most of the dislike for it is based on the hype and the typical horror audience expectations for the genre. Perhaps my opinion reflects my general dislike for most horror films and my feeling that it has more in common with The Shining, Rosemary's Baby, etc. then it does with stuff like Thirteen Ghosts, Freddy Vs Jason, etc.
To me, it took a simple, effective idea (which is why everyone got caught up in the hype because something struck a cord much like what happened with Jaws) and executed it in an equally simple, straightforward approach. Outside of the marketing, the movie itself didn't rely on gimmicks or "typical" horror cliches and tricks. The shaky camera was reflective of the story not a gimmick and wasn't supposed to be accomplished or stylized.
It is not scary in the sense that a lot of the hype and peoples expectations were probably going into it. No cheap quick camera shots to illicit scares, no music cues to get you to jump, etc. There a ton of quality films that if you go into with a certain expectation that their approach will leave you disappointed (dry, dark comedy, etc).
01-21-04, 07:08 AM
#48
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
I loved the Blair With Project when it came out in theaters, and I love it now.
As for the sequel, for what it's worth, isn't as bad as it's made out to be. In fact, I think it's actually good. There's a really thick sense of melancholy and dread throughout the whole movie that made me personally uncomfortable, and I think that was the intention of the film. I enjoyed it a lot
As for the sequel, for what it's worth, isn't as bad as it's made out to be. In fact, I think it's actually good. There's a really thick sense of melancholy and dread throughout the whole movie that made me personally uncomfortable, and I think that was the intention of the film. I enjoyed it a lot
01-21-04, 07:47 AM
#49
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 2,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They turned down the chance to direct any number of studio horror movies, including "The Exorcist 4" and "Freddy Vs. Jason," opting to make an off-beat comedy of their own, "Heart of Love." The financing later fell apart and the project was junked.
It seems like everyone made exactly how they "should" have. They had a better chance than most people receive and it doesn't sound like they put forth the effort to follow through a la Kevin Smith.
BWP is one of those movies which I could only enjoy the first time. Once the initial suspense is gone, there isn't much left (coughSignscough).
01-21-04, 10:59 AM
#50
Senior Member
Come on guys, I feel that BWP is very important to the horror genre, but not only that, but more importantly it was and is most important to inspiring indie film makers. It tells us little guys that, yeah we do have a chance to make something more people will watch than our close family and co-workers. It is a great underdog story, much like Halloween was at it's time. Sure it does not have the impact it did when it came to theaters, but I find it still quite an effective film.
I would love it if they would come up with another DVD release and really go into the idea the director(s) had going into this, and you could probably do a whole second disc just on the marketing and promo's for this film. I would be all over that, an in depth education in marketing 101.
Anyway, those who hate this film should just move on to the latest and greatest. We all have to admit that we were at least intrigued by what was going on surrounding this film upon it's initial release, right?
I would love it if they would come up with another DVD release and really go into the idea the director(s) had going into this, and you could probably do a whole second disc just on the marketing and promo's for this film. I would be all over that, an in depth education in marketing 101.
Anyway, those who hate this film should just move on to the latest and greatest. We all have to admit that we were at least intrigued by what was going on surrounding this film upon it's initial release, right?