|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 26, 2017 22:15:16 GMT -6
I think the runes were just as misused as Erica's chants. Kind of like a, 'hey, these look good, throw 'em in the movie!'
As far as @ghostprints theory... well... To me, the owl was possessed by the evil, as a way for it to have a physical appearance, or warning, to the group. When it switched hosts (not to Tristen, but to the baby developing inside of her) and overtook both bodies, the owl died and that's why we see Tristen dancing with it as if it was part of a sacrifice (cause, in a way, it was). After releasing its hold on the baby, the baby dies (miscarriage). The reappearance of the owl (a different owl, as far as I'm concerned) in the window at Jeff's is once again the evil showing a physical form to let them know they are being watched over and toyed with. Once it's done with it, it flies the owl through the window (I'm not sold that the children threw the owl through the window because it feels like such a stretch, something that isn't even hinted at, and Kim eating the owl is only witnessed by Jeff, quickly replaced with an image of Kim eating the leftover chicken. I have always been on the fence about if that was a trick from the evil or if it was Jeff's schizophrenia kicking in). And, as I've said before, that tree started messing with the group well before Erica's strange widdershins chant.
There are so many more questions about what we witnessed on the tapes from that night. Where did all of those candles come from? Who brought the bag full of machetes and knives (to be fair, it kinda looked like Kim's duffel bag, but that brings on a whole slew of other questions)? What else was in that bag? (as just the four weapons we're shown are not heavy enough to give Tristen that much trouble lifting it. Perhaps the rope used to tied the other tourists up, but what else?). Where did that skull come from (is it the same one from the cemetery scene)? Why do I overthink everything with this movie?
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 21, 2017 18:53:17 GMT -6
I meant seeking help from Persephone to bring back a natural balance. Let's face it, to Erica Nature is paramount. And whatever is happening to all of them is not a part of natural Nature. So pleading for help to restore that natural balance doesn't seem so terribly strange to me. Interesting perspective, honestly. I had written a little counter, but no need to, really. We already established this part of the story was written poorly due to bad communication with the Wiccan consultant, so I won't keep dragging it out.
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 20, 2017 22:55:23 GMT -6
And the reason she was chanting or praying to Persephone was because the wiccan who was consulted for the film wrote the chant for that scene but was not completely aware of the full context of the situation when she wrote it. I know this because I read an article about it once where the film's wiccan consultant admitted that. Ah, yes. Now that you mention it, I, too, remember reading something like this. Only, I likely read it on this message board, haha. While we have differing viewpoints on why Erica was chanting at the house, I still find it inexhaustibly enjoyable to have these types of discussions. Consultant aside, and going with what we got, Persephone still seems like a rather odd choice (especially considering Erica must have come to the conclusion that it wasn't nature doing this to them by that point, especially when she reasoned that the ancient pagan alphabet appearing on their bodies meant they'd been touched by a witch). Regardless, I commend you (and kgt) on your efforts to rationalize it within the story.
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 20, 2017 16:30:50 GMT -6
I agree with a lot of your viewpoints, but others I don't and never will. Sorry. No need to apologize. I have fun defending/explaining my viewpoints on certain things (not in a malicious way, obviously), so even if you don't see eye to eye with me on some of them, I'm just glad to get a good back and forth going so different ideas can be tossed around.
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 20, 2017 16:18:17 GMT -6
As for Kim, her psychic abilities also seemed kind of fake to me (at least until they experience the blackout in the Parr foundation). Kim was probably discriminated a lot because of her goth looks (the scene at the store and the hallucination with the rednecks kind of reinforce that) and needed to feel special somehow. Interestingly, the dossier seems to concur that Kim had some sort of psychic ability (with documentation of her getting into fights/beat up over it when she was as young as 15. she even went as far as to disclose personal details about a camp counselor that they believed could only have been obtained through misappropriation of camp records). I believe she was discriminated against because she had this gift and drifted towards the goth lifestyle later in life because it fit more with who she felt she was and, perhaps, she felt that goths would be more open-minded towards her unique ability. While I totally agree that the redneck teens were catcalling her based on her goth appearance, I also have no doubt they would have done the same to Erica (sans Morticia/Elvira namecalling) because men (teens especially) can be assholes like that.
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 20, 2017 15:49:46 GMT -6
See, this is a great reason to be here. Discuss different theories and compare how they may go against other ones. She desired something supernaturally positive for herself to happen, but later realized she had awoken some kind of evil and was very fearful and sorry for it. Communing with Elly would have been supernatural, and possibly positive for her, so I will give you that, but I don't think she woke anything or caused what happened to the group in any way. Before she even begins her widdershins ritual (which is the only time we are shown she could have woken anything, really), things are already going a little sideways. The huge oak appeared in the middle of the foundation when they first arrived, well before Erica's chant. Furthermore, she does not apologize in any manner, but shows/feels fear for what she perceives they all did ("we brought something back with us"). Now, her chants (both in the forest and at Jeff's house) are something else entirely. They simply make no sense when you think about it. The wording, invoking Persephone, etc. I have read kgt's threads (and wish she was still around so I could further discuss some things with her, but it looks like she left the site), but even she is questioning some of what Erica may have meant. Honestly, I think the chants were created based off of lazy writing or someone misunderstanding certain things. As for Munnsville, Illinois. ... It was probably meant to be a real place. She was probably really from there. I don't believe she lied to everyone about it. No doubt that Munnsville, IL was meant to be a real place within the BoS world. I mean, they tried to contact Minister Geerson in his Episcopal church in Munnsville, so that verified the town was real. What I believe was fake was the address in Munnsville that Erica listed when she applied to participate in the tour. And when they called her father and were only able to speak to her father's assistant, that proves nothing. Because it didn't really happen that way. It's just what they remember happening. So the assistant's information is false. See this is where the back and forth can get interesting, because there is no way to really know if they were suffering from history or hysteria. Like I said, the movie almost makes it look like it is clearly one, but there are a lot of hints that that may not be the case at all. We don't know if it really happened that way or not. Many like to quote Jeff when he is talking to Kim and states, 'Video never lies, Kim. Film does, though,' meaning that what we were witnessing outside of the video footage was a lie, and the only truth was on those tapes. However, that entirely ignores the counter statement that Tristen made during her back and forth with Stephen. 'Because if people believe something enough, isn't it real? Perception is reality.' Now that brings an interesting angle to the tale: what version of perception is reality here? The side we see with the group or the side the world is shown to make them all look insane? If you believe there truly was an evil out there, there's no denying that it could manipulate perception to make it reality.
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 20, 2017 3:25:47 GMT -6
Well, to be fair, I never said I wasn't a fan... just that what brought me here (from a lurker to an active poster) was more due to my want to research (and contribute my observations and theories) than to bask in the movies. Then why even bother when the deepest truths have already been discovered by real fans ? That's the thing - have they? For every theory and speculation there is a rebuke or counter out there somewhere that makes just as much sense. That's part of the mystery, part of the draw to the movies and a large part of the fun of being involved in the discussions. Let me start off on the right foot here (or not, depending on my answers). As far as the BW moives go, I find them an interestingly mixed bag. No matter what you do, you simply can't write off TBWP, either for its impact on the horror genre in general or its personal impact on you. Personally, I liked the idea, the way the story became more chaotic, twisted and generally unclear as we neared the end. While I'm not always a fan of movies relying on viewers using their own imagination for the vast majority of it (and there's no denying that TBWP relied heavily on that), I think it worked for this film overall. If nothing else, it generated a ton of conversation, theories and the like that we are all still discussing and evolving today. That being said, the fact that it was also the ultimate (horror) movie where nothing happened also kind of ecliped all the good for me. The opening was great and interesting, it pulled you in and made you want to solve this mystery our protagonists were attempting to unravel. By the time they got into the woods though, it just turned into a screaming fest (and not the good kind). Constant in-fighting, antagonization, stupid choices (even if they were losing it out there), loss of any character likability and the shake/jump/rapid movement of the camera was really too much most of the time. All of that combined didn't ruin the movie for me, but it certainly knocked it down a whole lotta notches on the enjoyment meter. BoS:BW2 was, by all accounts, a failure in the eyes of TBWP fans at the time of its release. Interestingly enough, I believe not being a huge TBWP fan is really what helped me appreciate BoS much more than its predecessor. Sure, it didn't have huge scares, superb acting (not bad in most parts, certainly better than the first for me), flashy FX and the interference in the director's vision from Artisan Entertainment certainly left a wound on the overall picture, but the premise was simply amazing as far as I'm concerned. While it is pretty evident that TBWP was just a movie in this film, it would seem that all the lore that created it does in fact exist there. Elly Kedward, Rustin Parr & house, Coffin Rock, Tappy East Creek, etc. The only thing that didn't actually happen was the group of documentary makers being inflicted with a curse... until our group of fans, either consumed by history or hysteria, find themselves in a fracturing reality as soon as they set foot in the foundation. It never lets up from that point and you find yourself continually wondering if (and how) they are all sharing the same delusion or if there is a supernatural power at work behind it all. I loved it. I absolutely loved it and it quickly became one of my favorite movies. The third one was... well, it built on the mythology at least (and quite marvelously, might I add. Sadly, that is all I have to add for the film).
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 20, 2017 3:19:11 GMT -6
Are you going to address Erica's background as well? Did she or didn't she lie about her origins? I do have a good (or at least I think it's good) idea for how to handle Erica's backstory. Honestly, right now I'm still just working on the layout for the fic, but new ideas keep popping into my head. I've read the thread about Erica speculation on this board and it really is quite interesting. While some ponder that she may have been expecting something supernatural to occur with her desire to commune with Elly, I don't think that was the case. She seemed too surprised and frightened about everything they were experiencing to be expecting anything even remotely like it. I do think she has some kind of a dark past that made her sketchy with her details, but not an ominous or supernatural dark past, just one that anyone can find themselves in with a few bad choices in life. Her line about shedding her mortal coil piqued my interest in just what she may have been hiding. Most would take the statement as meaning she is ready to die, to leave this plane of existence and join Elly, but, again, with how she reacts to what is happening to them and how she could die (the scene where she is talking to Kim about the forming runes on their bodies), I'm not so sure she means that. There is another meaning for mortal coil, 'the troubles of daily life and the strife and suffering of the world. It is used in the sense of a burden to be carried or abandoned...' and that one strikes far more true to what she may mean when wishing to commune with Elly. Something is bothering her, a part of her past is eating away at her every day and she thinks that somehow connecting with Elly would relieve that suffering, that hurt. That is what I want to try to explore in my background for her. The dossier doesn't go into any kind of background on Erica except that the mailing address she gave Jeff was non-existent and there was a rather strange chat room session between the two where, despite others being in the chat with them, no one witnessed her enter the room or chat with Jeff and she made an eerie reference to his past with the kidnapping of a child (I'm still debating whether to include that bit from the dossier or not, because it makes Erica look like she has some kind of supernatural ability about her when nothing of the like is shown in the movie. thankfully, the things in the dossier can be explained away when I give some thought to it).
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 19, 2017 16:41:44 GMT -6
09/19/2017 Night of the Living Dead (1990). I've always liked this one, and found it to be superior to the original in many areas. Not taking anything away from the original, as that is the main reason why we have the zombie genre we do today (RIP Mr. Romero), but Tom Savini did one hell of a job of not only capturing the feel of the 1968 film, but also greatly improving upon it.
09/20/2017 Evil Ed (1995) Sometimes it is best just to let those childhood curiosities stay a curiosity. I remember reading about 'Evil Ed' in an issue of Fangoria when I was about 12 or so, but never being able to actually find it anywhere. Upon finally getting to watch it, having it continue to be inaccessible may have been for the best. It's a tongue-in-cheek horror film, but not one that works exceptionally well. The first half is interesting and it was a nice touch to see a different twist on how someone can fall into madness, but the second half just falls apart and overall the film feels like it runs on for far too long with the hospital/psych ward scenes.
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 14, 2017 17:23:05 GMT -6
I never saw the original so I have nothing to compare it to. Maybe that's a good thing? I have not seen the remake yet, but the original was actually really, really faithful to the book. There were a few changes here and there, but nothing astronomical and certainly nothing that hurt by comparison (the subplots that were dropped were not pivotal, and some were dropped for the same reason they didn't make it into the theatrical version: extremely underage sex, even if it was used to represent a transition from childhood to adulthood). They had to shave a lot off because it was a.) a 1,000+ page book being made into a two-part, four-hour miniseries (originally planned for a four-part, eight-hour run, but that was nixed) and b.) it aired on ABC... in 1990. Even the ABC of 2017 cannot showcase the full aspect of what King had penned in those pages. That being said, a large majority of the characters, plot and feel remain true to the the book in transition to the screen, and I really, really don't think Bill SkarsgÄrd will be able to outshine Tim Curry as Pennywise. It really was an iconic performance, especially considering it was made-for-TV. Without commercials, it is about 190 minutes for both parts and, I would recommend at least watching the first part (around 90 mins.), as they both (1990 Pt. 1 and the movie) only center around the Losers Club when they were children and first encountered It.
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 14, 2017 0:21:33 GMT -6
The truth of the ending to Book of Shadows is this: It was history, not hysteria. Everything shown on video was the truth. But the way they remember everything happening was false. Sorry, I should have explained better. I meant history meaning the Blair Witch/Evil having a direct hand in all of the events once they arrived at the foundation vs. hysteria meaning they were all committing these acts of their own accord while living in a shared delusion that we (the viewer) went on with them. Either way, I get what you mean, but I guess it depends on if you view the film as having happened in chronological order. That being that some of the odd events (like everyone seeing the huge oak as soon as they set foot on the foundation and not at all having any sense of fear or paranoia set in to kickstart the hysteria or when Kim found the folders, filled with information and pictures for each tour member sans Jeff. Even if the police somehow put those together after the fact, how were they able to acquire old family photos and the like so quickly?) having happened as we saw them and not as recollected by the accused. By the way, I apologize for thread hijacking with this back and forth, I just enjoy sharing my views on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 13, 2017 23:54:48 GMT -6
You have a very valid point, but I think it's situational. Whereas mystery is the very essence of TBWP experience, I don't feel it applies to BoS the same way. By and large, the mystery is explained (even without the needless gore scenes) by the group uncovering their lost footage and the interrogation scenes, with the only remaining question being the one that Tristen and Stephen were fighting over for their book title: was this a case of history or hysteria? While we are lead to believe it is hysteria, there are many things that happen that persuade the viewer to second guess that conclusion. I honestly love that part of the movie, that idea behind the story, and that is something I only plan on enhancing through a majority of it, not exactly tackling one way or the other until the end. Delving deeper into some of the mysteries the film presents (and a few of the legends) is something I can't help but get excited about. Thanks for posting all the details from the dossier. I'd love to read that book as I'm a big BoS fan but wasn't able to find it anywhere. I'd be very interested in reading your fan story. Does it cover more info about the other characters too? My pleasure. I was lucky to snag it up for a buck online about a year ago. It does, or will, I should say. I want to give a healthy piece of time to each character in this, even if some are more irritating to cover than others (damn you, Stephen!)
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 13, 2017 23:19:59 GMT -6
I like to not know what I don't know. Haha, I don't think you would be a fan of the BoS story I'm working on then, as I try to go into a lot of detail about things where there was a severe lack of it.
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 13, 2017 22:54:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 13, 2017 22:45:28 GMT -6
According to the 'Shelter Glen' documents and various news clippings in the dossier, Jeff was diagnosed as a schizophrenic, possibly paranoid. In documented sessions, mainly the first one after he was admitted, the psychiatrists asked why Jeff kidnapped the baby and his response is, "The younger the child, the sweeter the flesh" Another session talks of Jeff's dog when he was younger and (towards the end of the dossier) we get a few pages of a book Jeff drew as a child, one titled 'How to do majik' and explaining that his dog, Rusty, got sick and was going to die, until Jeff used the magic spell book with an important note regarding its usage: 'you have to do blood on the stone or it won't work' In the drawings, we see Jeff standing on a large rock with some unidentified man standing next to him (remember, this is a book drawn by a child, so everyone is a stick figure and you can't really get any idea of who it is. It does appear that one leg is drawn much larger than the other on the mystery man, almost like a prosthetic of some sort. Is there a man with a peg leg in the Blair history or anything?) When asked about these drawings in therapy, specifically the man, Jeff mumbles something unintelligible and refuses to speak on it any further. In a later session, a nurse had reported that Jeff had a nightmare about blood on the rock. As the prodding continues, it is revealed that the rock in the nightmare may have been Coffin Rock. When asked whose blood it was, Jeff replied that he didn't know but it may have been the baby's blood. He continues on, stating it was 'supposed to be a trade. That's what I was supposed to do. For the magic to work. The way it did with Rusty. But I didn't give him the blood. So it's all my fault. The blood on the rock now-that's my fault!" (Now, this session was recorded on October 26, 1994, and if I recall correctly, the events of TBWP also took place in October of 1994. It seems as if Jeff is blaming himself for the possible deaths of the three documentary makers, but that doesn't make sense within the world of BoS because TBWP is viewed as merely a movie in that universe and not 'real' It yet another session, Jeff is asked to talk about an accident that happened with his father. He was only nine years old at the time and the two were camping in the Black Hills when his father slipped and hit his head on a rock, causing massive head trauma and putting him into a coma he never came out of. It is hours before the two are found by other campers and Jeff was trying to care for his father the entire night. From what I can understand, Jeff reported that he saw something in the woods, a monster of some sort. It may have been the 'witch' or something else entirely. It never goes into detail. Of course his vision was blamed on hallucinations and fear from what had happened to him that night. Years later, there is a newspaper article highlighting the Patterson family's routine on the father's birthday. He's being cared for at home, still in a coma, but Jeff and his mother never give up hope that he will wake up one day. Jeff even comments, "My mom and I, we'll never give up hope. You just have to believe. All we need is a little bit of magic to go our way." Other things to note: Jeff's parents have an interesting history. His father was a painter who had a rough start and, after trying to make it outside of Burkittsville, he ultimately had to move back and ended up as a hermit, living in the woods for years and only returning to town every so often to buy groceries and painting supplies (very reminiscent of Rustin Parr). His mother was part of the Blair Witch Cult and the two ended up meeting in the woods at some point. Before having Jeff, the couple suffered two miscarriages. One of the nurses/aides mentioned in the sessions a few times is named "Erica" and the name alone may explain a bit more of Jeff's attraction to the Wiccan (and her looks, of course). The name of Jeff's dog, Rusty, may be another reference to Rustin Parr, as I imagine Rusty is a common nickname for a Rustin.
Now, my belief is that Jeff kidnapped the 11-month-old baby to sacrifice it at Coffin Rock in trade for his father's health, so his father would wake up and be fine. In the end though, Jeff just found that he couldn't do it. As far as who the mystery man is, the'he' Jeff is reluctant to talk about... that's a good mystery.
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 13, 2017 17:43:35 GMT -6
Yes I remember renting VHS tapes. Hell, I remember renting a tape at Blockbuster and buying a blank one as well, thinking I was sneaky. There was one cashier who always knew what was up. He would hold up my rental after scanning it and say, "(movie title)!" then hold up the new, blank VHS and state, "Soon-to-be (movie title)!" I miss those days (simply for nostalgia purposes. Now we even have to set foot out to get a movie).
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 13, 2017 17:33:14 GMT -6
Looks more dark brown. (Pic is from some Superbowl 2000 party, for context)
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 13, 2017 15:57:20 GMT -6
Yeah, the whole story about Jeff's past is very muddy with conflicting info all over the internet. Tell me about it. Hard trying to portray even minute facts such as age as accurate when there are X different versions of it out there and they all seem canon. I don't know what the dossier may or may not say. Dossier states, in one newspaper article, that Jeff (aged 17) was institutionalized for the kidnapping in 1992 (same year it took place), and spent four years at the Shelter Glen institution. So, we can see right off the bat that the dossier and the doc/mockumentary give different ages for Jeff (as well as institution names). 24/25 in the dossier and 27 in the doc. Unfortunately, the dossier also gives a lot of contradicting information in its own pages. There are times when the Black Hills murders happened in late September of '99, and others when it was late June. Regardless, it is a plethora of useful tidbits, as it covers all of the characters and does not primarily focus in just on Jeff (unlike the doc). Just as ghostprints stated, based upon wording from the doc, dossier and the movie, it seems very likely that Jeff was in and out of inpatient care from 1992 until late August 1999. Trying to guess the 'when' and 'why' honestly makes that part of his history very interesting to me.
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Sept 13, 2017 15:08:22 GMT -6
Hello! Glad to be aboard. I have been lurking here for about a year or so now. Truth be told, I'm not here so much as a fan of the Blair Witch franchise, but more as a fan of researching. I am in the early stages of planning out a BW story (fanfic) and while I familiar with my main focus, there are lots of other things I am going to be bringing into it that are far less known (if not completely unknown, as I am finding out) to me. There is so much beyond just the movies to learn from. Dossiers, documentary/mockumentary tie-ins, scripts, official website info, fan discoveries (some may not be canon, but with a universe as open as the BW one, it is sometimes truly hard to say 'no, that doesn't count'), and undoubtedly a treasure trove of other sources I am blanking on at the moment. Admittedly, my story may not be popular simply because I am choosing to focus it around the red-headed stepchild of the franchise (no offense to red-heads, stepchildren or red-headed stepchildren ) - Book of Shadows, but I really plan on going all in with it. I like to think of myself as a very attentive aspiring author, so research (detailed research) is always a must for me, no matter how fictional the world or characters I'm writing about. I have already found a ton of helpful things thanks solely to this message board and I truly thank all of the fans for simply being that: fans. Your discussions, theories and ability to put timelines together from a myriad of sources has never ceased to amaze me overall.
|
|