Lack of marketing? The studios overestimating how many people are aware of the Blair Witch franchise?
shareStill trying to figure it out but I'm confident BW underperforming has a lot to do with why Rings got pushed back.
shareWell, I think people are finally starting to get sick of found footage. Since Paranormal Activity was so hugely successful we've been bombarded with 10,000 found footage movies and people have had enough. It's how I imagine they must've felt in the '80s with the dozens and dozens of slasher films released each year. I feel the found footage trend is finally dying down and they're trying new things out to see what's next. All it takes is one huge hit to decide.
Also, as much as I enjoy it there is still an enormous backlash against the first film. To this day many people still feel cheated because they think it was something different than what they were led to believe. They see it as "nothing more than three people screaming at each other and motion sickness inducing shaky cam." Many people are also angry it wasn't real. They believed it was actual footage because of the way it was marketed so they left the movie feeling they were deceived. 50% of people hate the first film so it makes since they wouldn't want to see a sequel.
Then you have the bad reviews this film got. It had everything working against it.
Fans of the original are among those complaining the loudest.
It's not a very well-made movie, especially as a sequel. It doesn't stand on its own well either, but it's closer to complete without all the BWP storyline.
They change too much and seemingly expect viewers to be knowledgeable of all the Blair Witch stuff fans of the film never heard of or don't consider canon. Your average fan has maybe seen some of the faux documentaries that were presented along side it. Maybe. This thing seems to require someone to have seen/read interviews/comics/video games, etc. Your average fan went into this thinking Elly was the Blair Witch, who floated and had horse hair and the writer is all "oh, you didn't know she wasn't?"
Quick answer: Lack of interest for a variety of reasons, most of which having nothing to do with the quality or lack thereof, because to know if it was poorly made or if it was just a retread of the original, you would have actually had to have seen it. I saw it, didn't like it, but the marketing didn't make it look any different from every other movie that it looks like, which are really hit or miss in terms of box office. I swear I saw three trailers before it that looked like they were all the same movie, yet one will open to 30 million while one of the other ones goes completely ignored.
Child of the Eighties.
Man of the Nineties.
Man-Child of the Twenty-First Century.
because to know if it was poorly made or if it was just a retread of the original, you would have actually had to have seen it.
Definitely not a success when compared to the original, but it will still make a decent profit.
shareWHat pisses me off about this movie is that like people have said its bad but there were promising bits that start later on in the movie after so much boring hard to get through cliche crap that you feel a little voice saying "ok cool this is what I was here to see" and then poof its gone and they move on to a camera being whipped around on the end of a lasso with people running and screaming.
I did not like this movie at all when I watched it and it IS really bad especially because the first is a favorite film of mine but after letting my disappointment die down a bit I will say the end in the house does have a real nightmare quality to it, the art direction of the house is the shining star of the entire movie. The endless rotting corridors and shadows and even the dizzying rushing camera work actually plays well during this part and I will say I didn't want to and still wish they didn't show the witch and its not scary but it definitely was a bit surprising and eerie that first time she comes sort of crawling out all hunched over like that, I just didn't think that should be in a blair witch movie but I kind of want to see just that end part again in the house.
It also when if finally starts to get pretty good during that part just suddenly ends with a huge whimper like a grand finale firework you just lit but the fuse goes out right at the end and your like "WTF thats it?" All that earth shattering stomping around the woods needed to go and so did all the crappy repetitive stuff, I could of watched alot more of them being trapped in that house and they went through the trouble to build that elaborate set so why not use more of it. I also think they maybe should of first revealed the witch during the tunnel scene, to have her come in clawing her way behind her as shes trapped in that suffocating space would of really been a double whammy. The tunnel scene was claustrophobic and seems to get all the praise but the fact that nothing happened in that tunnel was kind of redundant as because we've seen the same thing in The Descent and As Above So Below so it was more like "oh he just borrowed a scene from other movies not very original and just lazy"
I agree that the trailers didn't make it seem unique or interesting. They just made it seem like been there, done that. And I also agree about the trailers before the movie. They were all demon/possession type films that were interchangeable. Definitely trying to cash in off of The Conjuring success.
"Notice how I ride side saddle, it proves I'm a lady of quality." Witch Hazel
"It's not a very well-made movie, especially as a sequel."
That is the simple, honest truth. Myself, I liked the film, it was good at best but I still felt let down overall.
Um... it was a piece of crap?
shareI think it's both of those. You can't say it bombed just because it's a bad/severely average movie (which it is), because plenty of truly dreadful movies make sh!tloads of money and get sh!tloads of awards. Today anticipation is key to getting that huge opening weekend gross, even when the critical word on a movie is not good (e.g., "Batman v Superman", which did pretty damn well at the box office because of anticipation, even though critics bashed it). This movie was only revealed for what it was like two months ago or something, so the interest didn't build up. Also, the original films were quite a long while ago, and younger kids don't remember them well. The lackluster reviews didn't make people curious enough to check it out, either.
shareI have never watched The Blair Witch Project until just recently and I decided to compile my super honest thoughts into a review.
I Finally Watched THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GUi-zTUQkU
Your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree please tell me why.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
it was terrible and they didnt go with the original director's idea for a prequel
shareI bet the original directors while having to say in public that they are ok with what adam wingard did with this movie probably behind close doors are thinking "can you believe this lazy garbage is what passes for a horror movie these days, we had to be innovative and put in a lot of effort and take risks and then these guys come along and THIS is what they do with our mythology". It actually makes me sick that people like the original directors who are honestly true artists and did something mind blowing and completely original get the shaft when it comes to making their prequel after what a success their first film was for the studio, instead its like "no no no we will let these untalented peons make a new version of blair witch and if that POS does well maybe we will throw you guys a few peanuts to make the prequel you wanted" its absolutely pathetic.
shareit made 4x it's budget, so it made money. Like most horror movies, the budgets are low and they turn a 5-8x profit the opening weekend. so they will keep churing them out with little regard to quality until the audience stops going
studios only get around half of box office, 16 mil means it earns 8 mil so far
marketing I heard was reported as $25-30 mark., which is common for a genre film released this widely. it could mean total cost was 35 mil. to break even it needs at least 50 mil.
or something like that.
with a marketing budget of 25 plus production of 5, 16 mil is a complete flop
50% is the average for global box office, domestic and foreign. Studios get upwards of 75% USA opening week and it goes down after that.
The fact that they yanked it after 2 weeks says it all.
The production budget was 5 million, do you really think they would spend 5-6 times that amount on marketing? Come on now people.
shareI don't know where the person got that number, but it's not that hard to believe. The production budget doesn't have much to do with it. It was a wide-release by a major studio. Airing the trailer, posters and crap isn't all that cheap. For example, in 2011, the average cost for a primetime 30-second spot was $110K. That was one airing back then.
shareI put it down to found footage fatigue, but probably more to do with Bridget Jones.
At my showing, the foyer/lobby was jam packed. Took ages to get a ticket. Got into the screening room and we were the only ones in there. Turned out everyone else was queuing to see Renee Zellweger and her weird face.
I'm going to guess that Bridget Jones had exactly nothing to do with this. For one, it had an even worse opening than Blair Witch, at least in the US, which, judging by your choice of words, might not be where you are. Even internationally though, Bridget Jones is making less than half of what the previous installments from 10-15 years ago made. It's not a hit. Second, and most importantly, there's probably no crossover of fanbases whatsoever, as most of the people at my theater that have come in for Bridget Jones seem to be the grandparents and mothers of anyone that might care about Blair Witch. It doesn't seem like anyone has had to make any difficult choices between seeing one or the other.
Child of the Eighties.
Man of the Nineties.
Man-Child of the Twenty-First Century.