|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:At the very end the guy sitting next to me said "are you loving serious?", as if it could end any other way. Uh, as other posters have detailed, the back to back "Fake out the characters to turn around before immediately killing them" working on two people who were standing by side by was loving stupid. It would have been so much more compelling if the entity tried to get the other person to turn around but it didn't work. What would happen then? Ending with them both getting tricked by the same exact thing WAS a huge "Oh are you loving serious?" moment. It was yet another example of the movie dangling interesting scenarios in front of you and then taking the most boring/unsatisfying route possible. Trash Trick fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Sep 25, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Lil Mama, have you seen Paranormal Entity?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
a cop posted:Uh, as other posters have detailed, the back to back "Fake out the characters to turn around before immediately killing them" working on two people who were standing by side by was loving stupid. It would have been so much more compelling if the entity tried to get the other person to turn around but it didn't work. What would happen then? How is she supposed to back out of the house? As soon as there's enough room between her and the wall the witch can just stand in front of her and that camcorder isn't going to be able to completely block her field of vision. It's a Medusa situation. Though, she could've just walked along the wall facing it the whole time? The rules of the Blair Witch's universe create themselves as the characters make them up. No one before the house that was killed had to look at the witch in order to die. And, to me, she fell for the trick precisely because it had just happened to the other dude. She was in a panicky, adrenaline charged state and did not put 2 and 2 together about it because she didn't hear the voice that dude did. She was completely full of fear and not processing what was going on around her. I also think it's interesting that it was an audio playback from a recording that she heard, not necessarily the witch mimicking the dude (sorry I'm not good with character names). HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Lil Mama, have you seen Paranormal Entity? No, but is that the one where the ghost is kinda creepy in a sexual way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Yeah, I think you'd get a big kick out of it. It's at worst the third best PA movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yeah, I think you'd get a big kick out of it. It's at worst the third best PA movie. Okay, sold. Gonna try to find it on streaming rn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
a cop posted:Uh, as other posters have detailed, the back to back "Fake out the characters to turn around before immediately killing them" working on two people who were standing by side by was loving stupid. It would have been so much more compelling if the entity tried to get the other person to turn around but it didn't work. What would happen then? You're mistaken; they aren't tricked into being killed. James turns around and sees his sister, so he calls Lisa over - to check out this weird YouTube clip on his computer. They are both yanked back into the opening scene, memories erased, doomed to reenact these events forever. This is why the Paul character talks about being part of the previous search party, despite seemingly being far too young. The problem is not that they die, but that they cannot die.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:INothing supernatural begins happening until A) the one dude pranks them by hanging up all the stick figures while they're asleep The Witch screws up time before that by not letting them wake up until 2pm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The Witch screws up time before that by not letting them wake up until 2pm. Right, but that happens while they're spending the night in the woods, which earlier that day they talked about. It's also still not beyond the scope of possibility at that point that they were drugged by the goony dude so they wouldn't wake up while he was hanging up all that poo poo. Lil Mama Im Sorry fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Sep 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yeah, I think you'd get a big kick out of it. It's at worst the third best PA movie. Yo, I'm like 15 mins in and I already feel kinda dirty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
I'm a bit late to the party, but I saw it this afternoon, and I enjoyed it. I just wish it would have been about 15 minutes longer and several scenes had been more of a slow burn. It goes from "Oh we're here in the woods and it's out first night setting up camp and holy poo poo everything flies off the rails right away" to "all the ancillary characters have been picked off in record time and now here's the third act and the movie is over" rather quickly. It's not an entirely bad thing. It's a lot less boring than the first movie, but the dread doesn't ever feel like it's building to a crescendo. Bizarro time fuckery and the twig people and then voodoo deaths start almost immediately. However, the design of the house and the witch itself was top notch, and that scene with the muddy tunnel was one of the more claustrophobic things i've seen in a movie in a long, long time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
I watched this film last night, and it made me want to go back and watched the original (which I saw when I was way too young - probably six or seven, when my older sister showed it to me). Rewatching the 1999 film is weird in that it simultaneously makes me appreciate this film and what Wingard + Barrett have done more AND less. I think this new film did actually have okay characters and dynamic, but it is just nowhere near as believable as the dynamic between the three characters in the original. Watching their relationship deteriorate, and the kinds of arguments they have, I think are actually pretty convincing (at least in comparison to the more Hollywoodised dialogue in this new film). The final sequence in the original film is also loving TERRIFYING in its own right. Like, less happens in that house, but it's such a great end. But, of course in this new one, while everyone's giving it the 'soft reboot' label, it is highly dependent on the fact that there has been an earlier film for it to work, and the 'Heather' character is very important to the story and ending. If anything, I think this film should have just gone further away from the original in terms of following the 'same beats': these guys had a great ideas to expand the mythology, and that's what there should have been more of. The ending in this new movie is cool - I really felt for Lisa in that tunnel, and like Lane going crazy but also brings home the biggest difference - the original Blair Witch Project is a scary, unsettling, minimalist film. The new one is a hyped-up funhouse ride - more thrilling, more fun, but less uncomfortable or disconcerting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
If nothing else I've been thinking about this ever since I saw it, to the point where I'm gonna go again with my wife, who was only 6 when the original came out. It'll be interesting to see what her take on it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
I'm curious, was the Lane that was murderstabbed at the end supposed to be notably older than the "You have to do what she tells you!" version? Both happen so fast that I couldn't really tell, but the reactions of people around me made me think it was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
He's stuck inside his own nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Soooo... Barrett said on twitter that the slenderwoman we see in the movie isn't the Blair Witch. That doesn't really do much for me but maybe that excites someone itt? idk
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Only if it's an Alien. Other wise no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
I mean, if there were going to be a sequel I guess that might be relevant information.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
I just saw a kind of terrible YouTube video that explains the read where nothing supernatural happens in the first movie. It makes more sense than most crackpot YouTube videos, the premise is that the two guys conspire to murder Heather, using a local legend to both throw off suspicion and explain their own disappearance. It seems to make sense, except for some obvious problems ("Let's go into hiding... By starring in a movie!") and the host is an insufferable ADD YouTube personality, but it was still an interesting concept. https://youtu.be/YASj8IuQ_Yw
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
Someone needs to do a found footage movie the same way they did Alien Abduction Incident in Lake County. It aired on TV without the credits or anything indicating it was a movie plus before and after commercials it had UFO experts discussing the footage and how real it was. Somewhere we still have a grainy VHS copy recorded off TV with all those and I used to watch it all the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Bit of a spoiler here if you haven't seen it, but Barrett says what you see isn't exactly what you think. http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/191494/simon-barrett-teases-massive-blair-witch-shocker/
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Huh. So that was either Heather, or future Lisa or Ashley because there are literally no other female characters in the franchise who aren't confirmed dead. E: Oh, duh it's Elly and he's just saying she wasn't the witch either. moths fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Len posted:Someone needs to do a found footage movie the same way they did Alien Abduction Incident in Lake County. It aired on TV without the credits or anything indicating it was a movie plus before and after commercials it had UFO experts discussing the footage and how real it was. Somewhere we still have a grainy VHS copy recorded off TV with all those and I used to watch it all the time. I would pay cash money for a copy of that VHS. That's an extremely rare film that you should digitize or something. Also, what you're talking about has been done, recently, with hoax documentaries like Megalodon, Mermaids, and Wrath Of Submarine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I would pay cash money for a copy of that VHS. That's an extremely rare film that you should digitize or something. I'd have to find it the thing is in a storage box at my parents somewhere probably even grainier by now which would add to it a bit I imagine. Are any of those worth watching?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Len posted:I'd have to find it the thing is in a storage box at my parents somewhere probably even grainier by now which would add to it a bit I imagine. Mermaids owns, and SMG left out The Cannibal in the Jungle and a personal favorite of mine, The Execution of Gary Glitter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
"You guys its totally NOT the Blair Witch, even though that was one of the few interesting things about this movie, we want you to keep thinking about this and make it really convoluted even though it's not supposed to be" I'm sure they just said this in hopes that nerds will keep discussing and debating the vague lore the franchise has instead of the film being forgotten in a month.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Yeah that's a really lame way to drum up speculation and publicity. Oh OK, the monster witch lady wasn't the witch even though nothing in the movie suggests that isn't the case. Whatever. It's like JK Rowling adding that dumbledore was gay after the books were over even though nothing ever suggests this in books. Ooh ya got me person who wrote this fictional work. I'm a loving rube for assuming that the witch monster thing was the witch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Stan Taylor posted:Yeah that's a really lame way to drum up speculation and publicity. Oh OK, the monster witch lady wasn't the witch even though nothing in the movie suggests that isn't the case. Whatever. It's like JK Rowling adding that dumbledore was gay after the books were over even though nothing ever suggests this in books. Ooh ya got me person who wrote this fictional work. I'm a loving rube for assuming that the witch monster thing was the witch. Er... no, the monster is Elly Kedward, who we had assumed to be the Blair Witch before. Wingard's just saying she's not the real Big Bad Thing in the woods, just an agent of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
All of the lore both in the films and viral marketing says that Elly was the "witch", there can be an evil presence in the woods controlling her but she's still "the witch". Saying that the thing you saw in the movie that you had every right to assume was the witch wasn't the witch is a really stupid way to drum up publicity and only hurts this movie overall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
If it's supposed to be Elly and not "the witch," that would be like having Rustin Parr show up and and then saying, actually you didn't see the child murderer! You made up another secret character, owning everyone who watched the movie. Good job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Im sorry you got owned
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
sweetmercifulcrap posted:All of the lore both in the films and viral marketing says that Elly was the "witch", there can be an evil presence in the woods controlling her but she's still "the witch". Saying that the thing you saw in the movie that you had every right to assume was the witch wasn't the witch is a really stupid way to drum up publicity and only hurts this movie overall. Up to (and including) this Blair Witch 2 The Woods, the point of the franchise experiment was to create an urban legend out of nothing by creating a series of equally-unreliable and mutually incompatible documents that all express various individuals' belief in 'something'. Instead of making a series about Bigfoot, they effectively made a series about belief in Bigfoot. The more you research the Elly Kedward backstory, the more ridiculous and unsubstantiated the claims become. In the context of the entire Blair Witch series, Blair Witch 2 The Woods is diegetically Adam Wingard making a purely (science-)fictional horror film about a 'real' offscreen phenomenon. Wingard and the others are character in the story, trying to explain where belief comes from. And that's what you see in the film: Elly Kedward appears because the kids are told about Elly Kedward, and then thrown into this hallucinatory environment where their imaginations run rampant. The villain really is "something evil in the woods", but that "something" is directly analogous to the black goo in Prometheus. It's this unsymbolizable Thing that cannot be captured through objective documentation. If you were to take a step back, you would find only some boring animals and trees. But these kids took a step forward, into the darkness. In other words, when Elly Kedward originally vanished in the woods, she was the first person to be taken by the Thing. Literally: something happened to her body. The fact that we don't know what the thing is is what makes it a thing. Did she escape to safety, eventually freeze to death, or become consumed by animals? Some versions of the story have her crucified on a tree, while others show her strapped to a cart. In some, she's simply exiled from the town. Did people actually go back to look for her body, or is that a narrative embellishment inspired by the biblical story of Christ vanishing from his tomb? The witch is made out of these gaps in the narrative. The drone had to fall because, if it were to actually fly all the way up, it would reveal nothing extraordinary. The feeling that you're being denied some crazy supernatural reveal, when it breaks, is deliberate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Stan Taylor posted:Whatever. It's like JK Rowling adding that dumbledore was gay after the books were over even though nothing ever suggests this in books. And saying "that wasn't the wtich" lends credence to the theory that the woods will show you whatever fear you have about them, which would explain why the powers the "witch" has are different between movies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
The Blair Witch series is about subjectivity and objectivity collapsing. It's the definition of a "self-fulfilling prophecy". Elly Kedward is the "witch" that is referred to in a lot of the legends but she's not the real, unseen malevolent force that is actually behind everything. Simon Barrett's tweet that she is not the witch deliberately vague, but not nonsensical or inconsistent with his own film or the first. The approach the film takes is that the "witch" is something with the ability to manipulate time and space, and that its power to harm stems from the fear and beliefs of those within the woods. That is to say, the real threat of the Blair Witch is the legend itself. In the original film, the witch manipulates space as well (the characters cross a log, head south, and then happen to cross the same log again). The witch makes them become more lost, because getting lost is the very thing they're afraid of happening. They come across piles of stones - and Heather sees Mike standing facing the corner - not because these are random events that would happen independent of their own beliefs. These are legends that they are told about at the start of the film; they become true not because they objectively "are" true but because the characters begin to believe that they might be possible. This is the case in this sequel. Most obviously; the ending, where the characters hear the voices of those they want to still be alive and this is what leads to their own deaths. It's the same case for Ashley's foot injury - her fears and discomfort about the injury lead to it becoming worse than it really is. Similarly, the 'witch' only freaks them out with the stick figures after they've already been freaked out by ones that she didn't put there at all. Her capacity and ability to harm the characters is exactly proportionate to how fearful they are. It's why, despite being able to manipulate time and space, she's not all-powerful; she's not unlimited, or she would kill them, or lead them to the house, the moment they entered the woods. This is why the events are so much more monstrous and loud this time around. Talia and Lane really believe in the witch and all the legends, 100%. James believes something strange is going on and that somehow his sister could still be alive. A good example of how to "fight" the witch is Lisa's tunnel sequence at the end. When she is claustrophobically stuck and freaking out, she has not ability to get through - but when she uses the breathing exercise and calms down, she is miraculously able to get right through. Whether or not the Blair Witch is 'real' is the core of the series. But what this film does is collapse the distinction between real or not; belief becomes truth in these woods. Wingard has said this is his most 'straightforward' horror film, and this is true and untrue: the film is extremely self-referential in its barebones, obvious point, that horror is as effective as it leads you to experience it as reality. edit: another, perhaps inverse way to think about this, is to not think about the camera as objective truth just because it's a found-footage movie. the found-footage shows what the characters believe is happening BOAT SHOWBOAT fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
That's kind of a wag-the-dog reading though. Once you accept the premise that it shows people their fears, we have to assume what we are being shown is more than disconnected, unrelated witch-theme crap thrown on-screen. There's absolutely nothing to indicate anyone was afraid of the wiggly-witch before her appearance. And that monster's "don't look at me" nonsense was attributed to both the witch and Rustin. Everything about the attic sequence suggests creepypasta over thematically consistency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Who edited the footage??
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:Bit of a spoiler here if you haven't seen it, but Barrett says what you see isn't exactly what you think. I'm frustrated because I really want to see this film as I'll probably like bits of it but by buying a ticket I'm saying 'please keep making this garbage' and I don't want to do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
toiletbrush posted:LOL he's literally pulling a No Mans Sky. 'no no no this movie totally isnt paper thin, it's really deep and interesting! I can't tell you why cos it would ruin it but trust me guys!' So, you haven't seen the movie but you've already decided it's value for you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
toiletbrush posted:LOL he's literally pulling a No Mans Sky. 'no no no this movie totally isnt paper thin, it's really deep and interesting! I can't tell you why cos it would ruin it but trust me guys!' I, too, am very mad there wasn't any real multiplayer in the new Blair Witch movie
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
toiletbrush posted:LOL he's literally pulling a No Mans Sky. 'no no no this movie totally isnt paper thin, it's really deep and interesting! I can't tell you why cos it would ruin it but trust me guys!' More like no man's witch am I right, right guys, yeah, right
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Videogames really do make any discussion worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 14:35
|
|