Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Emissary666
Sep 6, 2010

Just saw Blair Witch. I get up from my seat going, "That was great!" and by the time I leave the building I'm thinking "That was horribly disappointing." I am not a big fan of The Blair Witch Project, but I respect it for what it did for the horror and found footage genres, and Blair Witch feels like Wingard completely missed the point of what made the first movie a hit. The mystery and ambiguity of the first film are absent. It is a good horror movie, but a horrible sequel to the original film; Book of Shadows had a better understanding of the first film, for all its flaws, it kept some degree of ambiguity as to just how much supernatural stuff was going on as well as not featuring The Rake/Slenderman.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Emissary666
Sep 6, 2010

Kin posted:

You can go into the first one 100% sceptical and come out thinking something loving creepy was going on but not supernatural. Someone, not something was messing with them.

This is an accurate description of the making of the first film. The actors had no idea what was going to happen or when and all the stuff that happened was the result of the filmmakers just going out in the middle of the night to mess with them.

Emissary666
Sep 6, 2010

As I live at home, can't drive, and have parents who think an anxiety condition can be solved by leaving the house, I had to see the movie with my mother. The only thing she keeps bringing up is Ashley (the black girl) and her foot/leg wound and how she thinks it went nowhere. She really wants to know what other people thought about it (probably because it was the only thing she kept her eyes even slightly open for)

Emissary666
Sep 6, 2010

Maybe I didn't get a good enough look, but I thought she pulled a giant centipede out of her leg. It's kind of funny how the thing that seems to have the most interpretations in the movie is something that can be objectively verified just by rewatching a single scene.

Emissary666
Sep 6, 2010

mary had a little clam posted:

As for what I didn't like? The "shaky running through woods" lasted a little too long and the fake video artifacting/glitching was a little overdone. It actually makes me accept the found footage aspect LESS. Like, I can commit to the POV style and the contrivance of found footage just fine, but for some reason the glitchy bits remind me it's "fake".

I was introduced to Wingard through the V/H/S series, which made the mishandling of the found footage aspect of Blair Witch particularly jarring. Part of the reason I went to see the film was "That guy from V/H/S is doing the Blair Witch sequel!"

Emissary666
Sep 6, 2010

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The film is a hybrid of pseudo-documentary films like Blair Witch and 'immersive' POV films like Maniac. The supernatural events appear exclusively on the footage from the bluetooth headset cameras. Other cameras - the drone, the handheld cameras, the trail cams - pick up absolutely nothing unusual. This is on the surface: different types of footage stand for different things.

The 'objective' documentary footage (there is nothing supernatural, they are just being scared by animal sounds and whatever) is in collision with the subjective fiction (the character is hunted by her literalized nightmare of a witch that appears onscreen). The film expresses this concept through the fictional conceit that these specific headset cams can record hallucinations. Much is made of the headcams' 'sci-fi' properties, like that they are all connected to central hub via GPS - information that has no bearing on the plot.

Important question: have you gone through the movie and checked to ensure that the headcams are only getting supernatural stuff and the handhelds aren't? Based on your previous analyses, I am inclined to believe that you are not the type to make objectively false statements to fit your interpretation, but far too often I have encountered people who do just that.

Emissary666
Sep 6, 2010

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

There is no conspiracy against you. I saw the film in theaters, and paid close attention. If someone would like to go shot-by-shot to confirm what I've written, then by all means.

If I've somehow missed one or two counterexamples, then what I've written still holds for the vast majority of shots in the film. And, as it stands, neither you nor I can think of a single such counterexample.

On the other side, we have the masses of textual evidence that support what I've written: like the scene where the medical professional examines a 'magical' wound and finds nothing unusual. Or the entire ending scene where the witch explicitly does not appear in the viewfinder of the handheld camera. Objective versus subjective.

Fair enough. If I ever rent the movie for the commentary, I'll be sure have a watch through to confirm your theory.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Emissary666
Sep 6, 2010

Rubiks Pubes posted:

Finally bothered to watch this last night. I don't get all the hate. I thought it was great and very tense. Agreed that some of the ending could use some further explanation.

A lot of the hate does not come from the movie itself as it does from its relation with its predecessors. If it were a stand-alone film, it would be received more warmly, but the many stylistic divergences do not seem to be welcomed by those who appreciate the original Blair Witch Project.

  • Locked thread