|
Witches don't exist, silly.
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
Emissary666 posted: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. The funny thing is that there are no stylistic divergences from The Blair Witch Project. Blair Witch is just better shot. The perceived differences all come from superficial narrative gimmickry, which isn't really a matter of 'style' as it is the filmmakers rather cleverly building upon seemingly insignificant events from the original and using it as the basis for making a fusion horror and time travel sci-fi movie.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I think it's a bit of a balancing act. Mimic the original film too closely, and audiences will say "why bother? The original did it first and/or better". Stray too far, and you get fans of the original saying "it doesn't feel like a Blair Witch movie, it's just coasting on name recognition". I think some of the new stuff it brought to the table worked pretty well (the earpiece-cams), some of it didn't (the body-horror felt out of place), and some had potential but felt under-utilized (the RC drone was a neat way to modernize things, but it wasn't really used in a way that was scary or had an interesting payoff). This is what I mean about the difference between superficial narrative gimmickry and style, and the importance of that. The RC drone is not there to modernize things, it's characterization. The characterization is that indie prosumer filmmakers buy a bunch of 'light-weight, easy-travel' crap that doesn't make their "documentary" more visually compelling. The joke is that the drone is used twice, and fails in its utility half the time. It was stupid to bring it out in the first place - with such dense foliage not only its mobility, but its very ability to convey basic visual information is sabotaged. The characters didn't bring it because it was motivated - the characters brought it because they're addicted to the pretense of modern convenience without actually calculating what it's supposed to help them achieve functionally or aesthetically, what they're going to learn and discover through the project of documenting this absurd mission to solve the mundane mystery of how rear end in a top hat's sister got lost in the woods. That the drone is only used twice is proof of its superfluousness, and that the second time it's not even to get a shot, but simply to scout an escape route, does the job of reinforcing the relationship between character and dramatic tension. In this sense, the use of the RC drone is exactly as well-motivated and sufficiently utilized as the Hi-8 camcorder and 16 mm camera. Just as with the RC drone, the characters are not using this technology because it's 'modern.' They are using it because they have no money for sufficient film stock, or professional/union crew, and are, more generally, part of an aspirational 'creative class' of prosumer, hack filmmakers. The RC drone is an elaboration on a phenomenon which is even more relevant in 2016 than it was in the mid-to-late '90s.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 16:32
|
|