Blair Witch revisited

[Boyd Ostroff]

Interesting article in Newsweek about the Blair Witch cast and production team 5 years later.

The biggest problem, oddly, was that no one who made the film got the credit for its triumph. Because it was shot by the actors on handheld video, and the dialogue was improvised from a plot-only screenplay, studio execs doubted that Myrick and Sanchez could direct a normal film. "A lot of people were saying, 'Do you guys even know how to write a script? Do you know how to shoot film?' " Sanchez says. Meanwhile, the actors found that much of Hollywood thought they had played themselves, reacting to the scary scenarios the directors threw in their path. "To this day I doubt they know we were acting," Williams says. "The story became all about the brilliant marketing, and we were overlooked"

[John Hudson]

Yeah, they got raped on that one.

[Joe Gioielli]

Perhaps the people who reviewed the film were more impressed with the marketing than the acting.

[Diane Bogosian]

The New York Times also did a piece on these guys: A SLUMP, OR THE CURSE OF THE BLAIR WITCH? (nyt., monday, jan 19, 2004)

A lot of lessons to be learned reading this article, and not all of them are BEWARE THE BIG BAD MOVIE MOGULS

One Quote:

"...Artisan was a litt,e well-respected company, known for its taste in small budget films like 'Pi.' After 'Blair Witch,' however, (the CEO) said that the company had become weighed down by a large staff and some questionable artistic decisionmaking.

"I think we thought we could do no wrong," he said. "....With the success and all that money money coming in, all the principles that had been engineered upfront were thrown out the window."

Another Quote:

[On the folding of the production company Haxan started by the people who produced "Blair Witch" with their credit cards] "it was a classic case of over-extension," said Mr Hale, who produced two unsuccessfull TV shows for Fox. "But none of us were businesspeople—we were independent filmmakers—so we just didn't know any better."

I find it hard to believe that Myrick and Snachez didn't get any credit. They were both the subject of these nspr/mag stories, right? They got a "$1.1 million payday" (nyt) They had options.

Fame is a curse.

[Rob Lohman]

I actually still have to go see that movie! Just too little time in
each day...

[John Hudson]

You're not missing anything. Although it was executed perfectly in terms of telling a story it really isnt worth the hype.

The marketing budget was about $7 Million and we all know what the film went on (still going) to gross that the filmakers will never see.

Worldwide Gross --- $248,300,000


It is a great scam pulled off by the MOGULS. HYPE HYPE HYPE.

[Rob Belics]

"... it was executed perfectly in terms of telling a story ..."

Yeah. Go see one of those other ones. :)

[Alex Taylor]

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : I actually still have to go see that movie! Just too little time in
each day... -->>>

I'm with you Rob! Haven't seen the first one, or any of the sequels, however many there may be..

[John Hudson]

Whoaaa

I didnt mean perectly executed in terms of it being a great story!

I meant it was well executed in that given the format, given the style and in the manner that they were trying to tell it (through so called found footage) it was well done.

:) Had to clarify.

I didnt like it. Again, hype.

[Rob Belics]

I saw it when it first came out and loved it. I forgot how it was made and almost fell for the "we found this" idea.

[Cosmin Rotaru]

It's a GREAT movie! The first one. Not the sequel...
It is interesting how the filmakers succed in scaring the viewer without showing vampires, monsters, killers... nothing! I don't remember if I saw blod in that movie! But it scared me BIG TIME! :)

[Shawn Mielke]

Made my stomach queasy.

Other than that, it was worthless drivel. :-]