MovieChat Forums > Blair Witch (2016) Discussion > Decent, but one thing that sort of ruine...

Decent, but one thing that sort of ruined this movie

posted 8 years ago by MandrasAndPelagia
28 replies | jump to latest

..was that they revealed too much. Granted, they didn't reveal a whole lot, but what they DID reveal was too much. But I understand why they had to do it, otherwise it'd be a carbon copy of the first.

What made the first so groundbreaking is that nothing is revealed of the supposed "villain." All of the scares are based on the subjective experiences of the characters. There is never even real objective evidence of a supernatural being. It was one of the first horror movies (if not the first) to essentially have no villain.

But here, the Blair Witch is revealed, even though it's only for a split-second shot. And then we see more of the witch's house - we see that it's going in circles and character's are back where they started, and doors are locking behind them. This is still too much, because it's an obvious sign something supernatural is going on and not a subjective experience of the characters. The mystery is gone.

And this is supposed to be a "found footage" film, but if it were a real found footage film, it wouldn't have been edited the way it was. When 2 characters are having a conversation, the camera perspectives switch back-and-forth between them. The editor who put this together within the film universe wouldn't so be so concerned with top-quality editing. And then when someone with a working camera is running and is in obvious trouble, the camera switches to someone else's - in real life, editors would've kept the other cameras rolling.

You're never fully dressed without a smile.

[–] Livevil9912 8 years ago

For what its worth, Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett have said that figure we saw WAS NOT the witch. Some have speculate it was heather.

[–] r_jayy_dylan 8 years ago

Yet another person believing what the makers said, they are BACKTRACKING. That was the witch.

[–] Livevil9912 8 years ago

I guess you didnt really read my reply. "For what its worth" doesnt mean I take them at their word or not. I was just relaying the message.

I understand full well Adam and Simon are angling for a sequel by not giving up straight answers.

[–] rlmartinez9-713-547259 8 years ago

on the commentary they have said there is no sequel but they seemed to almost be playing around with that. they also mention they never intended to show the blair witch or give any answers. I got the impressing that the creature is actually Eileen Treacle. the girl that drowned. it almost seemed like they were implying that. they jokingly talked about Eileen early in the commentary track about how they didn't bring her into the story much. yet later they mention her several more times.

[–] haunt_freak 8 years ago

It was Elly Kedward, whom the Blair Witch mythology started with if you follow the mythos.

~~~
"I'm not used to being out in months that don't begin with 'O'."
-The Ringmaster, Dark Harbor

[–] raidersedge 8 years ago

I think it was the Witch too and the filmmakers regretted it for whatever reason and on the bluray said it's not.

[–] GoodRed 8 years ago

They're not backtracking. There are numerous hints in the film that the creature is Heather. More often than not, the witch kills through proxies like Rustin Parr and Eileen Treacle.

[–] Kimbooley 8 years ago

Just out of curiosity, where were all the "numerous" hints that the creature shown was Heather? The only other one (besides the mirror) I've seen people talk about is the flash of a woman who appears in front of James at the end of the movie - but even then it's been argued that was one of the witch's other victims.

Apathy on the rise; no one cares.

[–] GoodRed 8 years ago

The mirror, the woman, and the fact that the monster spoke to James, which though we couldn't hear it, he seemed to truly believe was Heather.

It is of course entirely possible that it WAS one of the witch's other victims or the witch herself, since she certainly has tremendous supernatural power. That said, I fail to see why the monster being Heather is really so unbelievable when you consider the above. Some people are so adamantly against it, it boggles the mind.

[–] Kimbooley 8 years ago

Yeah, that does make sense now that you say it. I thought you meant there were smaller, more subtle clues in the movie, since Adam and Simon say on the commentary track that there are hidden clues to give you a hint of what's actually going on.

Just watching the movie I was never entirely convinced that the woman in the mirror was Heather; to me it looks like a woman with a bloody face who could be just about anyone - even the witch herself, I thought. I assumed the witch had spoken to James in Heather's voice to make him turn around so that she could kill him, but it's entirely plausible that it could just be her spirit.

I don't get why people think Adam and Simon are backtracking about the creature not being the witch though, since they mention it on the special features on the Blu Ray before the movie was released and the backlash even happened.

Apathy on the rise; no one cares.

[–] meakin8898 8 years ago

Just watching the movie I was never entirely convinced that the woman in the mirror was Heather; to me it looks like a woman with a bloody face who could be just about anyone - even the witch herself, I thought. I assumed the witch had spoken to James in Heather's voice to make him turn around so that she could kill him, but it's entirely plausible that it could just be her spirit.

The woman in the mirror definitely wasn't Heather, it was Lisa.

[–] lostn 8 years ago

It is of course entirely possible that it WAS one of the witch's other victims or the witch herself, since she certainly has tremendous supernatural power. That said, I fail to see why the monster being Heather is really so unbelievable when you consider the above. Some people are so adamantly against it, it boggles the mind.

The monster made him hallucinate Heather's voice, just as it made the film student with him hallucinate his voice.

That was not Heather.

The Blair Witch, whatever this thing is has supernatural powers and can mess with your mind.

[–] chet19 8 years ago

Yes, and the liars (I mean writers) who created LOST also told us for 5 years that the characters were all alive, and there was no limbo/purgatory, etc. And then guess what they did to us next?

[–] rypie-16852 8 years ago

There was no purgatory in LOST, aside from the flash forwards in the final season.

[–] deadbodieseverywhere17 8 years ago

The characters in Lost were alive.

There are maybe five beings I hope I never have to fight and J'onn Jonzz is one of them. - Superman

[–] chet19 8 years ago

really? Then where did they all meet up at the end?

[–] kame-1 8 years ago

After all these years and still people don't get it? The characters were all alive until the moments of their respective deaths... Even Jack father says that to him "Some died long after you"

The last episode was just that, a reunion of all the characters post mortem. That's it

[–] chet19 8 years ago

"They were alive until the moments of their deaths."
Aren't we all?

[–] DendelionBlu 8 years ago

Are you serious??

The only bit where they're not alive is the final season where we think they're in an alternate time line

That's limbo

The entire series on the island is real

What's difficult to understand about that?

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

This is still too much, because it's an obvious sign something supernatural is going on and not a subjective experience of the characters. The mystery is gone.

The first movie has evidence that something supernatural is going on, this was nothing new.

[–] MandrasAndPelagia 8 years ago

Very different kinds of reveals though. The first one was not actual evidence to warrant proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We see signs of things such as the witch's symbols, but this is done offscreen - we don't see the witch doing it. It's the idea of the unknown, what's happening offscreen, that gives the film its scares. We know as much as the characters know.

Now if there were a deleted scene that shows the Blair Witch putting up the symbols while the characters were sleeping, it'd be a very different film. We'd no longer be scared in the same way.

But here they actually reveal the Blair Witch, or as some say "Heather," either way, it's no longer offscreen, but a monster-type villain is shown as existing.

It's similar to spending the night in a house that's said to be haunted by a girl who died decades ago. Most people would be scared to spend the night alone in it, even though there's no proof of a ghost existing inside. Every object that moves on its own would freak us out. Of course our rational minds tell us that ghosts do not exist, but we'd be scared anyway, as it's the fear of the unknown that gets us.

You're never fully dressed without a smile.

[–] Dan_Garten 8 years ago

Oh.

[–] divisionbell-2 8 years ago

The fact that revealing too much was the only thing that kept it from being a carbon copy is exactly why this movie was awful.

[–] jwelker 8 years ago

And this is supposed to be a "found footage" film, but if it were a real found footage film, it wouldn't have been edited the way it was. When 2 characters are having a conversation, the camera perspectives switch back-and-forth between them. The editor who put this together within the film universe wouldn't so be so concerned with top-quality editing. And then when someone with a working camera is running and is in obvious trouble, the camera switches to someone else's - in real life, editors would've kept the other cameras rolling.

There is not "real" way to present a FF film (except that there has to be "found" footage of some sort). Almost all FF films are unrealistic at least in some ways in keeping the footage rolling throughout the whole film. The viewer has to have at least some suspension of disbelief.

[–] Prelauncher 8 years ago

I agree, it does require some suspension of disbelief to enjoy the ff movies. However I felt like this movie was way too edited and had way to many cameras in it.
Usually we just see through the perspective of one or two cameras but in this movie we kept jumping between cameras left and right which makes no sense if it's to be "found footage". It really took me out of the experience because it ruins the illusion of found footage.

[–] DriftRS-1 8 years ago

You do realise the editing takes place after you collect all the footage? Its not like the characters sit there every night editing the days footage.

All the characters had a mini camera over thier ears. They aĺl die. Footage is found. Someone sits in a room editing it for a month. Whats the problem?

[–] Prelauncher 8 years ago

Of course the editing takes place after the footage is "found", however if this footage was real (which is an illusion these movies want to achieve, hence "found footage") no editor would edit the footage to the extent that this movie does. We're constantly jumping between cameras all over the place and it ruins the illusion of FF by making it more movie-like. To me that ruined the immersion because it removed the, in lack of a better word, claustrophobia of having my perspective limited.

I feel like this movie had way too many cameras, too many perspectives. Being tied to one or two cameras like the original Blair Witch, or first Paranormal Activity or Cloverfield makes for much better FF in my opinion.

[–] northernlad 8 years ago

This one just doesn't have the magic or charm that the original had. There was something pretty special about that first film and the entire time period it was filmed. It was basically introducing the world to found footage...I know it wasn't the first FF movie...but it was the first to really make a decent mark. Plus the fact that as you said, the first one was careful to not reveal so much and that's why it works.

That said, this one got somewhat decent when they finally got to the house. The stuff beforehand was pretty bland and uninteresting...and kind of stupid.

American Horror Story Season 7: Donald Trump