MovieChat Forums > Blair Witch (2016) Discussion > It wasn't the witch

It wasn't the witch

posted 8 years ago by amensatan
13 replies | jump to latest

It was not the witch. I actually think the emaciated thing they saw in the forest was not Elly herself, but rather how she chose to appear to these kids in order to scare them and get them where she wanted. She could've chosen any other form to lure them (a beautiful young woman, an animal) but opted for the slenderman-like thing. Remember how in The Witch" the witch could take any form to lure her victima? It's what happened here, just think abiut it.

We've been waiting for you, Caroline...Waiting for you to believe.

[–] Spike_the_Cactus 8 years ago

Nah. You're over thinking it.

It was the witch. She matched the description that was spoon fed into the script, and there was literally nothing else to suggest it was a manifestation, a disguise, or some temporary form.

I know one of the writers is now saying it wasn't the witch, but frankly it just comes across as sloppy writing and a desperate attempt to backtrack.

I really wouldn't compare it to The Witch either. That was an intelligent film steeped in historical accuracy. Blair Witch is a dumbed down cash grab.

[–] zachengel-93444 8 years ago

No, this could very well be a "disguise" because James saw the witch inside the house and she looked completely different to him.

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

He said we didn't see the witch period.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

So the witch disguised itself as a witch? lol
Surely the whole point of a witch using glamor is to disguise itself as something normal like a normal human being or an animal.

Why would the witch disguise itself as something that literally looks like a ****ed up witch with stretched arms n legs?

[–] cgsofwa 8 years ago

The director already said that it wasn't the witch. Personally, I think it was Heather.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

Your limbs don't actually stretch. The fact that she looked like that just suggests what we see in the film is some kind of manifestation rather than the witch herself. She looks like that because of what Lane said, so the witch changed someone into having that appearance.

I still say it's Ashley.

She gets the weird root thing. She gets sick. Her tent is marked--after it blows up in the air, when James looks at it, the poles are arranged in the witch totem sign--her body is dragged off after she falls out of the tree.

Perhaps it's giving Barrett too much credit, but I fail to believe any writer drop that many clues and have all of them mean nothing.

[–] Spike_the_Cactus 8 years ago

That's the problem though. If it's Ashley it's far too ambiguous (as if a couple of establishing scenes were cut). Based on the film itself everything points to it being the witch. The writer said it wasn't the witch, but then they previously said she is in it, so it comes across as backtracking.

I like the idea of it being Ashley, or even Heather, but there's not enough content in the film to arrive at that conclusion. At best it would be a bit of fan speculation.

The problem is that on one hand there's all the stuff happening to Ashley that seems to be going somewhere, and on the other hand we have the stretched limbs conversation which seems to be there purely to set up the appearance of the witch at the end. It would have been interesting if the stretched limbs conversation had been about the witch's victims instead, but I can imagine there was studio pressure to feature the witch.

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

Oh, I agree. If I were just looking at it from the author is dead perspective, I'd say it was supposed to be the witch.

If Barrett is telling the truth, my guess is Ashley. It's putting a lot of store in Barrett's competency though. He could very well be that bad of a writer.

I just look at the film and it's what you say. It feels like there is about 30 minutes missing. I'd like to get my hands on the script...

[–] Spike_the_Cactus 8 years ago

Maybe some deleted scenes might turn up at some point. I can imagine this, like a lot of recent films, being re-worked in editing to tell a different story to the intended one.

Based purely on the film, I interpreted it as being the witch, and Ashley's story simply being a bit of thoughtless gore. It could easily turn out to be the way you describe, but we'd need extra scenes to tie it together. If the writer meant it to be hinting at the monster being Ashley, they and/or someone else did a poor job as it leaves the viewer having to do all the work to make that plot feasible.

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

That might explain the shifting comments about seeing/not seeing the witch. Maybe originally we were supposed to, but it got edited out.

I can see this being reworked to a simpler evil woods movie from a longer flick. Studios always try to get their horrors to around 90 minutes.

If the DVD is a director's cut, I'll check it out.

[–] anonymosaur 8 years ago

I was thinking the same thing. When people say, "Of course it's the witch! She looked exactly like they described her earlier in the movie what with the stretchy limbs and all!", that's why she looked like that. That's what they were expected. In the comic, Robin Weaver sees her as just a cloaked figure holding a doll... Then Robin starts speaking to herself in a different voice, but that's neither here nor there. Had the trio from the first movie seen her, she probably would've been covered with horse hair since that was how Mary Brown described her to them. (Then again, they heard that description before entering the woods, so they may have been out of, er, earshot for the whatever's in the woods to hear and decide what form to take.)

Furthermore, I don't think it's Elly. I think there's an entity in the woods that has been around for just oodles of centuries, and now it takes a Witchy form because that's what people believe it is.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

So, it wasn't the witch.....But it was the witch in disguise as......a witch LOL.
NO! It was the witch! Hence why it looked like......A FREAKING WITCH!