MovieChat Forums > Blair Witch (2016) Discussion > Give me a break Hollywood...

Give me a break Hollywood...


...the whole 'let's milk every possible franchise we have for every drop of milk we can squeeze' is getting so boring that even I, Mr Cinema, who once went to see every film religiously, am now going to the cinema once a year.

Come up with something new and you'll draw me back. Else my tastes will become less mainstream and more avant-garde, because at least the artsy-fartsy film-makers are trying to be original - you lot don't even have that.

I mean Christ, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel with trying to resurrect this franchise, which already failed once as a franchise.

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

reply

There were talks about the third movie being made for years, it's not like they decided to make it just now.

A page called "Blair Witch Project 3" was here for a long time on IMDb (before it was recently removed).

reply

that is not relevant or make it somehow acceptable because even if a movie was being planned years ago because ever since 2007 a blair witch movie is not good because as of 2007 no one cared about anything related to the blair witch. it's kind of like making a psycho movie now or something. you have to know your audience and no one and I mean no one cares about a blair witch movie anymore.

reply

Psycho was made in 1960 while the sequel was made in 1983. It had a budget of 5 million and earned 34 million. Then it got more sequels. I think people cared.

We'll see how right you are when it comes out. You were obviously wrong about Psycho.

reply

I meant the psycho remake not the sequel. so, actually I was right about that. it all comes down to interest and how novel of an idea the original is how they can take that idea and make a movie years later and what more can be made about the blair witch legend? and how can anyone, anyone still care? it was a fad, a gimmick, a novelty idea which had it's time which ran out 10 years ago.

reply

plus psycho is a great and classic film that people loved and deserved a sequel whereas this movie is not deserving as it's too late and what could possibly be added to the original film? the first blair witch wasn't anywhere near as good as psycho. that is where the difference lies.

reply

There's plenty of people who like Blair Witch.

Many would disagree with you about Psycho needing a sequel.

what could possibly be added to the original film?


I can ask the same thing about Psycho.

the first blair witch wasn't anywhere near as good as psycho. that is where the difference lies.


Your logic makes no sense.


Also, there's lots of movies which got sequels many years after the last sequel was amde, wether those movies were good or bad.

reply

fuc# you.

reply

It is terrible but the funniest thing about it is that people are to blame

They keep on remaking and rebooting because masses of stupid people pay to see these cray movies...

reply

The problem is not with Hollywood, it's with movie-goers. First, movie-goers ask for original ideas. Then, when someone comes up with one, everyone complains that they "could've done so much better" or that "this is similar to *insert movie here*". Then, Hollywood is like, okay, let's make more movies from a franchise, that's more safe and it'll reduce the risk of us losing money. Which then, people freak out again. If you have such a problem with sequels and remakes then what's even the point of going to the movies? Movies are supposed to be fun. Mindless, entertaining fun. They shouldn't all have to be fantastic original Oscar-worthy ideas.

reply

wait what? what are you talking about? no, no, movies shouldn't be sequel after sequel or remake after remake. movies are about original ideas and doing things we haven't seen before. I mean when you first watch a movie the experience is new and that is one of the best things about movies, watching something that is new to you. and being new is a part of making a movie that is an original movie, i.e. not a sequel or a remake. yeah sequels and remakes can be great but not when they are uncalled for or unwanted like a freaking blair witch. that fad ended about 10 years ago.

reply

Hear hear!

You speak with my voice my friend.

I grew up in the 80s, back when films generally had enough integrity to try and give you something different each time. Yes we had the odd sequel or two (although it was more of a low budget fad since each successive sequel had a 'smaller' budget) but studios actually relied on creative people coming to them with ideas.

Nowadays they just think, 'What franchise is ripe for milking today?' and they milk it. They hire in staff directors, who may have little or no passion for what they're making, we all rush out to see it just so our complaints are valid a lot of the time when we're arguing on social media. It is no longer necessary for a film to be good for it to make a lot of money, it just has to be talked about incessantly on social media, in fact the worse it is, the more people talk about it, so that is often an advantage.

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

reply

the court is in order! lol.

yes, yes!!! finally someone on here, anyone on here agrees with me on this trend which in nature is killing all creative integrity and need to be creative with movies.

I know I'm right about this because there is only one way to make movies which is making them good and creative and original and imaginative and striving as hard as you can to not repeat or copy something that has already been done in a movie before.

it's after all an art form and it's after all, all about giving people original and creative ideas and innovations because it is an art form. all of this cannot be disproven about movies.

me too, I also grew up in the '80s and the farther we get from it the worse movies get and the more different and bad things get in movies. remember back when movies had integrity and weren't just cash grabs and cheap, pointless, and value less clones of other movies or generic, just ok movies?

movies used to mean something, they used to give you goose bumps and really excite you and give you things and experiences, emotions, and memories that were so special and unique and changed your life, nowadays we almost never get movies that do any of these things.

the closest that we get are films like ex machina, laid to rest, under the skin, and stitches, although with the exception of stiches all of these films are perfect films that are classic and are going to be legendary films in 10 years.

yeah, lol, back in the '80s, "when films generally had enough integrity to try and give you something different each time," imagine that(said sarcastically), when movies actually had enough integrity to try and give you something different each time. I mean, shouldn't we as audiences always get this? shouldn't this be required for movies?

the thing is this when it comes to movies and music and tv shows and everything in the '80s, it was always memorable and unique. films were unique back in the '80s and that made them special to you and to the masses. they connected with people and people's emotions and sensibilities and intellect and imaginations.

we shouldn't see movies to validate our complaints or bad views or concerns. we should have a positive movie expectation every time we see a movie.

not just because that is how it should be when seeing a movie and the value of a movie but also because we are paying money to see a movie and putting in our time to watch a movie and are putting our energy into a movie.

so we should be happy and excited to watch a movie every time and we should get good movies that are worthy of our time and money and energy.

also, of course, just because a movie makes a lot of money, that doesn't make it a good movie. there are *beep* loads of crappy movies that make a lot of money and have no value whatsoever, like the twilight series.

when you mentioned hiring directors with little or no passion for what movie they are directing were you talking about the guy who directed the reimagining of Friday the 13th?

reply

Superhero movies are scraping the barrel...creating a fresh sequel of a very, very original movie after 17 years is not scraping the barrel....it's an important development...

reply

what you just said is wrong. after 17 years no one cares anymore and no one has cared about seeing another blair witch movie since about 10 years ago. it was a fad and it ended long ago.

reply

[deleted]

well, the main question I have about this is why now? I mean if this was 2003 or even 2006 maybe, but now now. that whole fad time for the blair witch was so long ago that by now, no one and I mean no one cares about the blair witch or any blair witch thing. this is beyond stupid and pointless. I mean, if you can bring back the blair witch you can bring back anything. this is embarrassing to movies.

reply

Well for one thing, saying that because you don't care no one else does is completely wrong. I know a ton of people including myself who are really excited for this movie. I am, my family is, and many of my friends are. So no, it's not true that no one cares. YOU don't care.

reply

the only thing that matters is you can't add anything to it. it's a stand alone movie. so it's pointless to do a remake or a sequel especially at this point in time, it was a fad a phase, a trend, a gimmick, a novelty. it had it's time and that time ended 10 years ago.

reply

And that's your opinion, but a lot of people don't feel that way. It's time is obviously not up if people are still excited for it. I know people who are excited for it who haven't even seen the original, and they're so excited that they went and watched the original just to know what to expect for this one. So it's obviously doing what it intends to do. Which is get people excited about the franchise's revival.

reply

And that's your opinion, but a lot of people don't feel that way. It's time is obviously not up if people are still excited for it. I know people who are excited for it who haven't even seen the original, and they're so excited that they went and watched the original just to know what to expect for this one. So it's obviously doing what it intends to do. Which is get people excited about the franchise's revival.


This. They're doing a new Saw, a new Nightmare on Elm Street and a couple other reboots, this here is a continuation much like 10 Cloverfield Lane was a continuation (in some ways)of what happened in Cloverfield, which came out 8 years ago.

"I'm the ultimate badass,you do NOT wanna f-ck wit me!"Hudson,Aliens😬

reply

Then don't bother watching it? What the hell is so hard about that concept?

reply

$140 million on a $60,000 budget is hardly a failure.

Utah! Get me two.

reply

Not every movie is a "Hollywood" movie, Mr. Cinema. LOL. Mr. Cinema. You knob.

++++++
Love means never having to say you're ugly. - The Abominable Dr. Phibes

reply