|
Post by mrtnflmngak on Aug 7, 2011 16:29:31 GMT -6
Well, I really do like BW2 but I do hate how they messed with the mythology. I love the film but really is better to view it as an unofficial sequel or spin-off.
|
|
TravisBW
crosser of fallen logs
Posts: 30
|
Post by TravisBW on Aug 8, 2011 11:50:38 GMT -6
Honestly, I really like the way they went about the sequel. The phenomenon of fans invading Burkittsville was definitely worth covering and acknowledging TBWP to be just a film was a very interesting idea. Obviously, we all know the film flopped in box office, and I will never fully understand why, but I am glad they tried what they did because I feel it was a creative risk and that's what filmmaking should be. A sequel to the TBWP was damned if you do, damned if you don't. I applaud the forward thinking of the sequel, and for that I will always be a big fan of it.
|
|
|
Post by darktruth on Aug 14, 2011 16:29:19 GMT -6
Why did they have to step outside the universe of BW1 with Book of Shadows?
I don't like this. BW2 says BW1 was just a movie with actors who are alive and well, yet the mythology itself turns out to be real.
Did anyone actually find this to be a cool concept?
I think it sucks. It is not implied that the events of BW1 did not really happen. The tourist groups in BW2 are there because of the mythology and the film. They are in the same position that many others were in after seeing the film. The question in their heads was: Dude, is this real?Both tourist groups found out the hard way. The two films occurred in the same universe.
|
|
|
Post by Sz on Aug 16, 2011 8:31:45 GMT -6
I'd rather they didn't call it Blair Witch 2 and made it clear it was just a spin-off
|
|
|
Post by darktruth on Aug 16, 2011 10:48:14 GMT -6
Can't be.
"Shadow of the Blair Witch" has footage of the BW1 actors actually being interviewed... and "Shadow" is definitely canon to "Book of Shadows". You're right -- I hadn't watched Shadow of the Blair Witch Project in awhile. I agree -- that is a major screw-up. It would have been much better if it happened within the universe of Blair Witch 1. It would also make all the more sense for it to be, being that the ending of Blair Witch 2 implies that the woods really are cursed.
|
|
TravisBW
crosser of fallen logs
Posts: 30
|
Post by TravisBW on Aug 20, 2011 17:20:12 GMT -6
It actually makes far more sense for the audience to read between the lines. The Blair Witch Project is considered a work of fiction within the film, which really has no bearing on the plot of Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2. I still believe that they are implying that the legend is at least supposedly true, as true as any legend I mean and it helps bend reality to what is real and what isn't. The film is really up to the audience on how they view it on whether the woods is cursed or it is group hysteria. It brings up a very interesting discussion regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Anarchist86ed on Aug 20, 2011 19:38:46 GMT -6
I re-edited this movie into a comedy once. But I lost the files. It was brilliant. It really did work better as a parody.
|
|
stranger
crosser of fallen logs
Posts: 36
|
Post by stranger on Nov 10, 2011 6:33:15 GMT -6
Can't be.
"Shadow of the Blair Witch" has footage of the BW1 actors actually being interviewed... and "Shadow" is definitely canon to "Book of Shadows". You're right -- I hadn't watched Shadow of the Blair Witch Project in awhile. I agree -- that is a major screw-up. It would have been much better if it happened within the universe of Blair Witch 1. It would also make all the more sense for it to be, being that the ending of Blair Witch 2 implies that the woods really are cursed. okay here is the thing. Twana if you are refering to the Shadow of the Blair Witch that are posted on youtube, then you're wrong. What's uploaded onto youtube is a fanedit of Shadow of the Blair Witch now called "The Black Hills Killings" (wish I had named it Black Hills Murders in honor to the "Book of Shadows dossier", which features "news articles" about the events in Bw2, called Black Hills Murders. Not Killings) Anyway, regarding how the sequel Bw2 wasn't in the same universe as bw1, here is how it went down: Joe Berlinger (director of bw2) wanted to do a commentary about the hysteria surrounding the release of bw1. so by doing that he needed to brake the mythology and step outside the movie bw1. Meanwhile the studio (Artisan) thought about a great way to market the sequel just as with bw1. Ao they created this "it's real"-thing all over again. But Berlinger didn't dig it, his sequel was a comment about the danger about blurring the line between fiction and reality. He didn't want to done all over again. So the marketing and the movie didn't match and with that they reshot thing to make the movie work more for the marketing rather than doing the more obvious which is the other way around. In "Shadow of the Blair Witch" (which was released before the movie, as part of the marketing campaign) we find out that Jeff was in a mental hospital for having kidnapped a neighbors daughter and taken her out in the woods. We also learn that along with Jeff, two other individuals are standing trial for the "Black Hills Murders" (i.e.the murders on the Blair Witch Walk tour group) which these other two individuals are, we don't know. We will have to watch the movie for that one. So the marketing people set it up so people knew when going in to the sequel that there was going to be murders. And that the killers would turn on themselves resulting in two more murders (but who who gets it, we don't know) so if you had followed the marketing campaign in 2000 the mental hospital footage and the gore footage kind-of made sense. But for the rest of the audience that hadn't geek-outed on the sequel, there was just confusion and it all seemed like the makers didn't know what the hell they were doing, giving the ending away like that. I believe that a movie has to stand on it's on in order to work and that is exactly what bw1 did. The marketing for that movie was just that, marketing. It's not like you had to watch the mockumentary "curse of the Blair Witch" and read "Blair Witch Project: a Dossier" to understand bw1. but with bw2, watching "Shadow of the Blair Witch" and reading "Book of Shadows: a Dossier" made you understand Jeff's past and why the hell bw2 played out as it did. Here is how I think they should have done it (if it now needed to be done to begin with) Joe Berlinger announces that he is going to make the sequel to the Blair Witch Project and he and his team are going out to Burkittsville to interview people for "research". So bw2 opens like it with the tv footage but when it make the jump to Burkittsville and the whole mockumentary-mixed-with-real-interviews starts, it's goes into more behind the scenes footage about Berlinger and crew talking among each other. Thinnk Paradise Lost - Metallica some kind of monster - Brother's Keeper. And they travel into the woods to see the real ruins of the Parr house and crazie stuff happens etc. and add some really cool ending and maybe Berlinger needs to be in hiding when the movie comes out to make it all seem like, "holy shit it's real", just like bw1. I know that the Berlinger would have never agreed to this cause his a "real" documentary film maker and he is all about telling the truth. Not keeping people in the dark by saying, "this is real," when it isn't. I just think he doesn't know when to relax and just have a good time. It's a movie! anyway, I like bw2 but it's not without its flaws. And sure, you need to see it as a stand-alone spin-off to make it work.
|
|
voz
crosser of fallen logs
Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth.
Posts: 18
|
Post by voz on Nov 24, 2011 20:42:07 GMT -6
I have to admit, there were parts of BW2 that freaked me out a little, and it definitely has some good moments, but I don't consider it to be an actual chapter in the Blair Witch chronology/mythology. Since it was written and directed by different people (i.e. not Sanchez and Myrick), I feel like it's more of a fanfiction instead of an actual addition to the story.
The only thing that really bugged me about the movie is that the characters seemed like stereotypes instead of flesh-and-blood human beings. The stereotypical goth, the stereotypical wiccan, the stereotypical Blair Witch fan. If you know what I mean...
But other parts of it were really creative, such as the ending, which still kind of freaks me out.
|
|
|
Post by darktruth on Apr 21, 2012 22:59:56 GMT -6
You're right -- I hadn't watched Shadow of the Blair Witch Project in awhile. I agree -- that is a major screw-up. It would have been much better if it happened within the universe of Blair Witch 1. It would also make all the more sense for it to be, being that the ending of Blair Witch 2 implies that the woods really are cursed. Okay I was wrong after all. The actor's interview footage in "Shadow" of Josh, Mike and Heather is not present in the original "Shadow" mocumentary, and were only added in by the YouTube poster ... I was mis-lead. See my thread --"Shadow" is canon, "Book" is not-- Glad to find out that the youtube documentary was a fan edit. This makes my preferred timeline for all of this a bit more plausible.
|
|
|
Post by Heather, taking a piss. on Nov 9, 2012 19:02:21 GMT -6
Just rewatched BW2 after... 10 years? With Berlinger's audio commentary throughout the entire movie.
God, those money pigs really fucked up what could've been a maybe not very succesful, but cult thriller.
I don't hate it, but listening to his complains, I feel his vision was the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by twana on Aug 24, 2014 15:39:16 GMT -6
People need to finally understand this: the "sequel" to the first movie is "Shadow of the Blair Witch" - Book of Shadows is only a re-enactment of Shadow of the Blair Witch where the filmmakers glorified the legend. Most likely Jeff was simply a lunatic murderer obsessed with the legend - no supernatural occurences involved at all. the legend only strikes every 50 to 60 years, which means the next thing wouldn't happen until between 2035 to 2055.
|
|