Heather's journal question
Dave
I was looking at the section at blairwitch.com on Heather's journal
(http://www.blairwitch.com/legacy.html); page 12, specifically.
OK, so maybe I'm a little spooked right now, but doesn't it look like the
water stains on the page create an image? Looks almost like a silhouettte
of a face engulfed in flames, if you look at it a certain way. It also
looks like a number 13 in the bottom left corner.
Just thought it was interesting.
gpmlab
the corner.
Interesting observation.
Jamie
Dave wrote in message ...
>Sorry if this has already been asked/observed; I just saw the movie tonight.
>
>I was looking at the section at blairwitch.com on Heather's journal
>(http://www.blairwitch.com/legacy.html); page 12, specifically.
>
>OK, so maybe I'm a little spooked right now, but doesn't it look like the
matthew ignoffo
If you're one who loves the sea
And likes to read mythology,
Then plunge into the depths with me.
DIVE HERE TO SWIM TO MY MERFOLK
WEBSITE.
TheBlai...@webtv.net
Heather's mom read it she thought the same thing. What exactly it is I
don't know. I agree with her, it looks like a witch. Also on page 14 in
the bottom rightish, there is a ghostly image of a skull.
Molly
Douglas Hathaway
>
> I was looking at the section at blairwitch.com on Heather's journal
> (http://www.blairwitch.com/legacy.html); page 12, specifically.
>
> OK, so maybe I'm a little spooked right now, but doesn't it look like the
> water stains on the page create an image?
I didn't notice it, but in the Dossier, among the psychic's
post-it comments on Heather's journal is one where she says that the water
stain on that page looks like an image she's seen of the Blair Witch.
--Doug
Dave
Douglas Hathaway wrote in message ...
Douglas Hathaway
> Please forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the Dossier?
"The Blair Witch Project Dossier" is supposed to be the reports,
emails, etc of the private investigators Heather's mother hired after the
police failed to find the students. I suspect it was written after the
movie and the Sci-Fi special were, but it adds lots of fascinating
backstory and grounds for speculation. It was available in bookstores on
August 10. I think the publisher's suggested retail is $12.95, but I got
it for $9.95 at Tower Books on Mercer in Seattle. I highly recommend it.
--Doug
Dave
Douglas Hathaway wrote in message ...
matthew ignoffo
AsylumGal
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 07:06:14 -0400 (EDT), mer...@webtv.net (matthew
ignoffo) wrote:
>The DOSSIER is actually the book called THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT -- it
>has the subtitle DOSSIER toward the bottom of the cover. You should be
>able to get it in bookstores, but if not, you can get it the way I did
>-- through amazon.com . It cost about $20 with shipping.
nobody
May I be frank for a second. I know from my own experiences at the theatre that
many wer not satisfied with the film. There are so many problem with this film
I don't know where to begin. I would like to intelligently discuss, what I feel
are the many flaws of this films story and setup.
I myself live and breathe The film industry. I live in sunny burbank, and have
worked on every major motion picturein the past 6 years that has been shot
locally.
Here are just a few of my pet peves of this film:
At the end just when it was getting interesting it Ends.. what was that.. it
sucked.
1) where was the 3rd party view of the story
2) whether it was a witch or a killer, Im sure he/it is just going to leave both
video and film evidence just lying around?
3) that house, that was apparently so far in the woods, how did some one(s) who
supposedly found the film and video, find the house and live?
4) find the film and video and live?
5) then make it back out to civilization alive?
6) wheres the parents story?
7) where the investigation of the missing time? Why only in the commercials.
8) what happend to the person(s) who discoverd the tape and film?
9) were they or him/her implicated in the disappearce?
10) and what was with the aspect ratio? Yes, the 16mm doesn't expand to fit a
giant screen but the video camera's ration will correctly expands to fill a 35mm
ratio.
11) who edited the two films together? Forensics Department of the local police?
FBI? those who found the footage? or maybe the killer(s)
12) was the film edited together by a process of elemination?
13) were scenes cantaining vital evidence seriptisioulsy removed during editing
as suggested by the small leaps in time in the final footoage?
all this and more should have been woven into the story..
Does anyone out there agree or disagree with any of the points I just made or is
it just me. These question have plaque me ever since.
I hope for some really intelligent replies.. Thank to one an all for letting me
get this out.
cornholio
AsylumGal wrote in message <37cb5f95...@news.earthlink.net>...
>Walmart has it for 9 bux.
>
. . . .God forbid
Douglas Hathaway
the kinds of shows you see on Discovery or TLC about aliens, the Loch Ness
monster, etc. Excerpts of the forest footage the actors took would be
spliced in with interviews with the folks who found the film, etc. After
the actors spent 8 days in the woods, and the film makers viewed their
footage, they decided to keep the actors' footage intact, and make it into
a feature film in its own right. They thought that the fake documentary
stuff would diminish the emotional impact.
At least some of the other things they originally planned to
include went into "The Curse of the Blair Witch," an hour-long
"mockumentary" which aired several times on the Sci-Fi channel. You can
order it from www.blairwitchdirect.com for $15 US. I suspect the Dossier
was written after the producers realized that the movie was going to be a
hit, but it's still interesting, and costs $9-$13 at various bookstores.
Both of these sources address most of your questions, although they don't
always provide conclusive answers. You can also look on the archives of
this site (deja vu?) for sites where interviews with the film makers and
actors have been posted.
To some extent, it's like the X-Files. A lot of what makes it
more than just another summer horror movie about teenagers is the
ambiguity. It wouldn't be nearly as much fun to discuss if they showed us
Freddy Krueger at the end.
--Doug
Negative Creep
shipping. The book is well worth every penny!
Negative Creep™: Now available in original "Fuming" and new "Extra
Pissed"!
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8928
David E. Loewen
> 1) where was the 3rd party view of the story
For the concept of the movie, a 3rd party view would have ruined it.
> 2) whether it was a witch or a killer, Im sure he/it is just going to
leave both
> video and film evidence just lying around?
Watch the Sci-Fi channel's mockumentary. It wasn't just "lying around". It
was buried under the foundation of an old house. It was found by accident by
an archaeology class. (If I remember correctly...)
> 3) that house, that was apparently so far in the woods, how did some
one(s) who
> supposedly found the film and video, find the house and live?
> 4) find the film and video and live?
> 5) then make it back out to civilization alive?
I can throw these three together by saying that the Witch is probably very
selective. Not everyone who has gone into the area has had "supernatural"
experiences. From the Sci-Fi channel mockumentary (again), the occurrences
happen roughly every 60 years. By the time the film was found, the 60 year
cycle had ended and was waiting for 2054 to start again.
> 6) wheres the parents story?
> 7) where the investigation of the missing time? Why only in the
commercials.
Both covered in the mockumentary. I know, it may sound like a cheap out, but
that's the best answer I can give right now.
> 8) what happend to the person(s) who discoverd the tape and film?
> 9) were they or him/her implicated in the disappearce?
Not found by one person, but and entire archaeology class.
> 10) and what was with the aspect ratio? Yes, the 16mm doesn't expand to
fit a
> giant screen but the video camera's ration will correctly expands to fill
a 35mm
> ratio.
Couldn't tell you that one.
> 11) who edited the two films together? Forensics Department of the local
police?
> FBI? those who found the footage? or maybe the killer(s)
Haxan films "bought" the footage and edited it together.
> 12) was the film edited together by a process of elemination?
> 13) were scenes cantaining vital evidence seriptisioulsy removed during
editing
> as suggested by the small leaps in time in the final footoage?
Again, that I don't have an answer for. To me, it's not important to the
movie.
> all this and more should have been woven into the story..
That, I think, is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think for what the
movie was supposed to be, putting alot of the extraneous information (ie the
police investigation, the comments from friends and family) worked better
put into the mockumentary, not the movie.
> Does anyone out there agree or disagree with any of the points I just made
or is
> it just me. These question have plaque me ever since.
> I hope for some really intelligent replies.. Thank to one an all for
letting me
> get this out.
You're most welcome to make any intelligent comments you wish, which I find
you have. Some very well thought-out questions. I hope you find my reply to
be equally intelligent. Again, any answers I provided are strictly my own
p.o.v. and not necessarily those of this network... uh... newsgroup... :)
--
David Loewen
ICQ# 870070
nite...@uniserve.com or
isawa_...@yahoo.com
http://users.uniserve.com/~nitehawk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The more things change, the more they stay insane.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cliff Evans
I'm thinking this is a joke, but just in case it isn't...
nobody wrote:
>
> Hi there:
>
> May I be frank for a second. I know from my own experiences at the theatre that
> many wer not satisfied with the film.
Well, in my own experience, I heard maybe one or two people say
something negative, and that's after seeing it four times in three
different theaters in three different parts of town. So unless you took
an exit poll...
> There are so many problem with this film
> I don't know where to begin. I would like to intelligently discuss, what I feel
> are the many flaws of this films story and setup.
I'll be the judge of that.
> I myself live and breathe The film industry. I live in sunny burbank, and have
> worked on every major motion picturein the past 6 years that has been shot
> locally.
Well, people always need coffee, that's for sure...
> Here are just a few of my pet peves of this film:
> At the end just when it was getting interesting it Ends.. what was that.. it
> sucked.
It ended because the students were no longer in a position to keep
filming. This was supposed to be strictly what they filmed, nothing more.
> 1) where was the 3rd party view of the story
Did you read the title card *at all?* This movie was a bunch of found
footage. There was no third party view because the medium didn't permit it.
And when I say "medium", I don't mean I didn't want the super combo for
a quarter more.
> 2) whether it was a witch or a killer, Im sure he/it is just going to leave both
> video and film evidence just lying around?
I'd hardly call buried beneath a houses' foundation "just lying around."
>
> 3) that house, that was apparently so far in the woods, how did some one(s) who
> supposedly found the film and video, find the house and live?
It was a group of anthropology students who were doing a supervised,
scouted-out dig around an old houses' foundation. This isn't "Friday The
13th", where everyone goes into the woods and nobody comes out.
> 5) then make it back out to civilization alive?
By car, I believe.
> 6) wheres the parents story?
I think they're saving that for the DVD.
> 7) where the investigation of the missing time? Why only in the commercials.
ibid.
> 8) what happend to the person(s) who discoverd the tape and film?
Probably got an A for the semester.
> 9) were they or him/her implicated in the disappearce?
Uh, no.
> 10) and what was with the aspect ratio? Yes, the 16mm doesn't expand to fit a
> giant screen but the video camera's ration will correctly expands to fill a 35mm
> ratio.
Did it occur to you that having the framing flash back and forth might
be even more nausea-inducing than the hand-held camera work? Or did you
just need an reason to use the term "aspect ratio"?
> 11) who edited the two films together? Forensics Department of the local police?
> FBI? those who found the footage? or maybe the killer(s)
No, it was Haxan Films. This isn't contained in the movie, per se, but
it's on the website and not hard to come by.
> 12) was the film edited together by a process of elemination?
No, it was assembled from all the raw shot footage the students did
while they were still accounted for.
> 13) were scenes cantaining vital evidence seriptisioulsy removed during editing
> as suggested by the small leaps in time in the final footoage?
They weren't filming continuously...nobody would have. Stuff happened
off-camera, but we aren't talking the Nixon tapes here.
> all this and more should have been woven into the story..
Some of it was, most of it has no place in the story, belonging instead
in yet another cruddy slasher flick.
> These question have plaque me ever since.
Then brush and floss regularly.
--
Cliff Evans
<boz...@earthlink.net>
----------------------------------------------------------
"I find myself merely taking potshots at chaos, and being
congratulated when the results aren't *too* appalling."
- Garth Ennis, "Preacher."
----------------------------------------------------------
disappointed By Hype
Douglas Hathaway wrote:
> The actual film makers were originally going to make a take-off on
> the kinds of shows you see on Discovery or TLC about aliens, the Loch Ness
> monster, etc. Excerpts of the forest footage the actors took would be
> spliced in with interviews with the folks who found the film, etc. After
> the actors spent 8 days in the woods, and the film makers viewed their
> footage, they decided to keep the actors' footage intact, and make it into
> a feature film in its own right. They thought that the fake documentary
> stuff would diminish the emotional impact.
>
Wow, Cool answer that was something. I did'nt know. But know we will never
know which would have been better. The interviews are exactly the third person
perspective I was talking about. And yes, I agree if you cut the tension
between the group with intervies you do loose some sense of the emotional tie.
But it not much of a trade off, looks like they started out making a
documentary with interviews from ther POV, then decide to turn 360 and make it
a phycological horror film instead.
> At least some of the other things they originally planned to
> include went into "The Curse of the Blair Witch," an hour-long
> "mockumentary" which aired several times on the Sci-Fi channel.
Yeah, but as I have stated in other posted. Not everyone hase cable or the
Sci-Fi channel. Why have we gotten to the point where we need to do research
to watch a movie. A movie is supposed to be 1:45m - 2 hours of emersion
entertainment to suck us into another world and have fun with the story
regardless of the genre. I was only emersed in bordom.
> You can
> order it from www.blairwitchdirect.com for $15 US. I suspect the Dossier
> was written after the producers realized that the movie was going to be a
> hit, but it's still interesting, and costs $9-$13 at various bookstores.
> Both of these sources address most of your questions, although they don't
> always provide conclusive answers. You can also look on the archives of
> this site (deja vu?) for sites where interviews with the film makers and
> actors have been posted.
>
But all this extraneous information comes after the fact. My question are
realy not to gain answer to the questions. Mainly to ask where or why wasn't
was this info in the film. All films need exposition. Some go overboard, some
to sparse and stil some get it just right.
> To some extent, it's like the X-Files. A lot of what makes it
> more than just another summer horror movie about teenagers is the
> ambiguity. It wouldn't be nearly as much fun to discuss if they showed us
> Freddy Krueger at the end.
>
> --Doug
Thanks Doug A mostly thought out reply. Leaving plot and story points to
third party dispersion ie: www, cable etc...assumes alot on the part of the
general movie going public to fillin in the holes.
thanks again
dbH
disappointed By Hype
I already answered your other post because i read those post first. And now I'd like
to reply to the post which made me chuckle.
Cliff Evans wrote:
> I'm thinking this is a joke, but just in case it isn't...
>
NJope not a joke as explained in other post.
> nobody wrote:
> >
> > Hi there:
> >
> > May I be frank for a second. I know from my own experiences at the theatre that
> > many wer not satisfied with the film.
>
> Well, in my own experience, I heard maybe one or two people say
> something negative, and that's after seeing it four times in three
> different theaters in three different parts of town. So unless you took
> an exit poll...
>
Actually you could call it tthat. I am one of theose people who like to sit till the
last credit has rolled by and the lites come on. and if the music isnt to laud, you
can haer alot of talking about what people thought of the film as they leave.
> > There are so many problem with this film
> > I don't know where to begin. I would like to intelligently discuss, what I feel
> > are the many flaws of this films story and setup.
>
> I'll be the judge of that.
>
Feel free.
> > I myself live and breathe The film industry. I live in sunny burbank, and have
> > worked on every major motion picturein the past 6 years that has been shot
> > locally.
>
> Well, people always need coffee, that's for sure...
>
hahaha hah Your funny, but i don't drink coffee.
> > Here are just a few of my pet peves of this film:
> > At the end just when it was getting interesting it Ends.. what was that.. it
> > sucked.
>
> It ended because the students were no longer in a position to keep
> filming. This was supposed to be strictly what they filmed, nothing more.
>
You know that was not what was ment by the question. There could have been an ending
card or something
>
> > 1) where was the 3rd party view of the story
>
> Did you read the title card *at all?* This movie was a bunch of found
> footage. There was no third party view because the medium didn't permit it.
> And when I say "medium", I don't mean I didn't want the super combo for
> a quarter more.
>
Again with the funny reply, Could I add cheese to that combo for .30 cents. You should
read the reply to this question by Doug Hataway, who explains they actully intended to
use third party interviews ans the like.
> > 2) whether it was a witch or a killer, Im sure he/it is just going to leave both
> > video and film evidence just lying around?
>
> I'd hardly call buried beneath a houses' foundation "just lying around."
>
>
I don't remember anything in the film saying it was buried. Do you? No I didn't
think so. Oh wait you must be referring to the mockumentary on cable. Did it ever
occur to you that not everyone has CABLE! or the SCI-FI channel. of course not and
neither did the makers of this film.
> >
> > 3) that house, that was apparently so far in the woods, how did some one(s) who
> > supposedly found the film and video, find the house and live?
>
> It was a group of anthropology students who were doing a supervised,
> scouted-out dig around an old houses' foundation. This isn't "Friday The
> 13th", where everyone goes into the woods and nobody comes out.
>
And how did you learn this information, Oh yeah the mocumentary not everyone saw!
> > 5) then make it back out to civilization alive?
>
> By car, I believe.
Man, you just a laugh riot. you should do stand-up.
>
>
> > 6) wheres the parents story?
>
> I think they're saving that for the DVD.
>
Cool they are finally adding the commerials to the film, a little late dont you think.
> > 7) where the investigation of the missing time? Why only in the commercials.
>
> ibid.
Huh?
>
>
> > 8) what happend to the person(s) who discoverd the tape and film?
>
> Probably got an A for the semester.
>
ROTFLOL, stop you killing me.
> > 9) were they or him/her implicated in the disappearce?
>
> Uh, no.
Well gee now you tell me, AFTER THE FACT, must be because of theoh so informative
mockumentary. not everyone saw.
>
>
> > 10) and what was with the aspect ratio? Yes, the 16mm doesn't expand to fit a
> > giant screen but the video camera's ration will correctly expands to fill a 35mm
> > ratio.
>
> Did it occur to you that having the framing flash back and forth might
> be even more nausea-inducing than the hand-held camera work?
What you never seen a little film called Saving Private Ryan, now there is some
nausea.
> Or did you
> just need an reason to use the term "aspect ratio"?
>
I always can use another comedy writer, wanna job? Your hired..
> > 11) who edited the two films together? Forensics Department of the local police?
> > FBI? those who found the footage? or maybe the killer(s)
>
> No, it was Haxan Films. This isn't contained in the movie, per se, but
> it's on the website and not hard to come by.
>
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. The website, that not everyone can see. Really good
marketing strategy, Disperse vital information that you need to know in order to watch
the film through media not readily availilble to the general public. SMART!!
> > 12) was the film edited together by a process of elemination?
>
> No, it was assembled from all the raw shot footage the students did
> while they were still accounted for.
>
Huh?
> > 13) were scenes cantaining vital evidence seriptisioulsy removed during editing
> > as suggested by the small leaps in time in the final footoage?
>
> They weren't filming continuously...nobody would have. Stuff happened
> off-camera, but we aren't talking the Nixon tapes here.
>
No ont nixon just a little bang for the buck, someting to make it worth $8.50
> > all this and more should have been woven into the story..
>
> Some of it was, most of it has no place in the story, belonging instead
> in yet another cruddy slasher flick.
>
Well i didnt say that, it doesnt need y to be a jason/freddy movie. but something,
anything would have help.
> > These question have plaque me ever since.
>
> Then brush and floss regularly.
>
Let's give a big hand for Sinbad. clap, clap,,clapclap, clap,,clapclap, clap,,clap
> --
> Cliff Evans
> <boz...@earthlink.net>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> "I find myself merely taking potshots at chaos, and being
> congratulated when the results aren't *too* appalling."
>
> - Garth Ennis, "Preacher."
> ----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your replies, and although most seemed not to be to serious. you did make
a kinda decent effort, although you relied alot on the website and mocumentary
tosupport your postion.
dbH
Mollybloom
disappointed By Hype wrote:
>
>Cliff posted:
> > ibid.
>
> Huh?
There you go, no further explanation needed for this.
--FSL
********************************
Elvis and I fry up Demerol tablets and bacon grease-- "Elvis & I"
---Denis Leary
James J. Lippard
>Oh yeah, I forgot about that. The website, that not everyone can see. Really good
>marketing strategy, Disperse vital information that you need to know in order to watch
>the film through media not readily availilble to the general public. SMART!!
Yeah, those marketing guys at Artisan are just a bunch of fucking idiots.
I'll be surprised if they make dollar one off of this film. They clearly
don't know what the hell they're doing.
--
Jim Lippard lip...@discord.org http://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Cliff Evans
>
> Hi Cliff
>
> I already answered your other post because i read those post first. And now I'd like
> to reply to the post which made me chuckle.
Bright colors and blinking lights have that effect, do they?
> Cliff Evans wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking this is a joke, but just in case it isn't...
> >
>
> NJope not a joke as explained in other post.
I must admit, I am truly amazed.
> > > May I be frank for a second. I know from my own experiences at the theatre that
> > > many wer not satisfied with the film.
> > Well, in my own experience, I heard maybe one or two people say
> > something negative, and that's after seeing it four times in three
> > different theaters in three different parts of town. So unless you took
> > an exit poll...
> Actually you could call it tthat. I am one of theose people who like to sit till the
> last credit has rolled by and the lites come on. and if the music isnt to laud, you
> can haer alot of talking about what people thought of the film as they leave.
Yes, you can. So I take it you heard a lot of people saying "boy, I am
not satisfied with this movie." Were you able to take a follow-up sample
a week or so later? Did you get reasons? Or did you just figure that
since the world only extends as far as your immediate perception, that
if people in your theater didn't like it, then *nobody* liked it?
> > > I myself live and breathe The film industry. I live in sunny burbank, and have
> > > worked on every major motion picturein the past 6 years that has been shot
> > > locally.
> >
> > Well, people always need coffee, that's for sure...
> hahaha hah Your funny, but i don't drink coffee.
No, but I bet you fetch it for people with brains and talent.
Actually, between this yahoo and Molly Stanton, I don't know why I'm so
skeptical about their involvement in the film business. There are
complete idiots at the top, we have ample evidence of that, why not at
the bottom, too?
> > > Here are just a few of my pet peves of this film:
> > > At the end just when it was getting interesting it Ends.. what was that.. it
> > > sucked.
> > It ended because the students were no longer in a position to keep
> > filming. This was supposed to be strictly what they filmed, nothing more.
> You know that was not what was ment by the question. There could have been an ending
> card or something
You needed to read the intro title card again. They *vanished.* Were
never seen again. This film is supposed to represent their final
testament, an account of their last days. If they'd known what happened
to them, they wouldn't have vanished without a trace, would they?
> > > 1) where was the 3rd party view of the story
> >
> > Did you read the title card *at all?* This movie was a bunch of found
> > footage. There was no third party view because the medium didn't permit it.
> > And when I say "medium", I don't mean I didn't want the super combo for
> > a quarter more.
> Again with the funny reply, Could I add cheese to that combo for .30 cents.
Well, you certainly won't need the pennies for your thoughts...
> You should
> read the reply to this question by Doug Hataway, who explains they actully intended to
> use third party interviews ans the like.
I know, I know about the Phase II footage. They decided against using it
because it seemed cheesy, and they thought the raw footage made a
compelling enough narrative. If you accept the premise of the movie,
which was that this was found film and nothing else, you couldn't
convincingly have a third-party perspective and I think it's better for
it. They also wanted Josh to be Heather's love interest, and it didn't
work, and I think the movie's better for that too.
> > > 2) whether it was a witch or a killer, Im sure he/it is just going to leave both
> > > video and film evidence just lying around?
> >
> > I'd hardly call buried beneath a houses' foundation "just lying around."
> I don't remember anything in the film saying it was buried. Do you? No I didn't
> think so. Oh wait you must be referring to the mockumentary on cable. Did it ever
> occur to you that not everyone has CABLE! or the SCI-FI channel. of course not and
> neither did the makers of this film.
I've seen it both with people who did and didn't see the cable special
or read the website. The person who didn't access either was actually
more freaked out than the one who had more backstory. So the issue is
not amount of information offered, but rather one of what you do with
the information you're given. They accepted the film's premise, you sat
there and ticked off things you found fault with.
> > > 3) that house, that was apparently so far in the woods, how did some one(s) who
> > > supposedly found the film and video, find the house and live?
> >
> > It was a group of anthropology students who were doing a supervised,
> > scouted-out dig around an old houses' foundation. This isn't "Friday The
> > 13th", where everyone goes into the woods and nobody comes out.
> And how did you learn this information, Oh yeah the mocumentary not everyone saw!
I'm sorry you're so bitter about your lack of cable television.
> > > 5) then make it back out to civilization alive?
> >
> > By car, I believe.
>
> Man, you just a laugh riot. you should do stand-up.
No thanks. I'd have you as my audience.
If you want to nitpick, you also see two men fishing downstream in the
same woods at the beginning...they're certainly not dead. Mary Brown,
crazy as she is, isn't dead. It's apparently possible to live in the
area and not be killed by the witch. There's a panoply of reasons
bandied about as to why these kids got fragged, besides the obvious
"otherwise there'd be no movie." They poked their nose where it didn't
belong and were ill-prepared for the consequences. More people going in
in broad daylight fared a little better. Simple as that.
> > > 6) wheres the parents story?
> >
> > I think they're saving that for the DVD.
> Cool they are finally adding the commerials to the film, a little late dont you think.
Uh, no, I actually think it'll lengthen the films' legs some. There are
people out there who liked the movie and will welcome the additional
footage, and will give people who didn't plan on buying the movie a
reason to do so.
> > > 7) where the investigation of the missing time? Why only in the commercials.
> >
> > ibid.
>
> Huh?
Trans: (see above.)
> > > 8) what happend to the person(s) who discoverd the tape and film?
> >
> > Probably got an A for the semester.
> >
>
> ROTFLOL, stop you killing me.
Well, they lived, genius. Otherwise, the footage would still be missing.
> > > 9) were they or him/her implicated in the disappearce?
> >
> > Uh, no.
>
> Well gee now you tell me, AFTER THE FACT, must be because of theoh so informative
> mockumentary. not everyone saw.
No, this was courtesy of the book. Which came out after the movie.
Nevertheless, knowing the extent of the investigation *doesn't affect
the plausibility or content of the movie proper.* It's finally saying
"Kids are missing: Here's what they were filming before they vanished."
You fill in the blanks.
> > > 10) and what was with the aspect ratio? Yes, the 16mm doesn't expand to fit a
> > > giant screen but the video camera's ration will correctly expands to fill a 35mm
> > > ratio.
> >
> > Did it occur to you that having the framing flash back and forth might
> > be even more nausea-inducing than the hand-held camera work?
>
> What you never seen a little film called Saving Private Ryan, now there is some
> nausea.
Whether or not SPR was nauseating has not a lick to do with the
reasoning above... it was already bad enough to deal with shaky
handheld camera shots constantly filling your field of vision without
switching the scope of that field of vision as well. It would go from
slightly distracting to totally unwatchable. I still think you just
wanted to show off some of the technical film stuff you got off the back
of a DVD box.
> > Or did you
> > just need an reason to use the term "aspect ratio"?
> I always can use another comedy writer, wanna job? Your hired..
You could certainly use someone with a measure of literacy, that's for sure.
> > > 11) who edited the two films together? Forensics Department of the local police?
> > > FBI? those who found the footage? or maybe the killer(s)
> >
> > No, it was Haxan Films. This isn't contained in the movie, per se, but
> > it's on the website and not hard to come by.
> Oh yeah, I forgot about that. The website, that not everyone can see. Really good
> marketing strategy, Disperse vital information that you need to know in order to watch
> the film through media not readily availilble to the general public. SMART!!
Time, Newsweek and various film magazines, all hailing Haxan's use of
the Internet for marketing, seem to think so. It's being called
revolutionary, as a matter of fact. I mean, 100+million for an initial
investment of about $60,000, wall-to-wall sellout shows in almost every
city before the TV commercials aired...I'd say it worked just fine.
Actually, your ignorance of this is a pretty convincing argument for
putting you in charge of a studio. You'd fit right in.
> > > 12) was the film edited together by a process of elemination?
> >
> > No, it was assembled from all the raw shot footage the students did
> > while they were still accounted for.
> Huh?
Once more, slowly:
The...movie...is...supposed...to...be...everything...they...shot. In...something...like...the...order...it...happened.
> > > 13) were scenes cantaining vital evidence seriptisioulsy removed during editing
> > > as suggested by the small leaps in time in the final footoage?
> >
> > They weren't filming continuously...nobody would have. Stuff happened
> > off-camera, but we aren't talking the Nixon tapes here.
> No ont nixon just a little bang for the buck, someting to make it worth $8.50
Oh yeah, I guess utter dearth of imagination would necessitate flashing
lights and hovering apparitions and Rustin Parr in a hockey mask.
> > > all this and more should have been woven into the story..
> >
> > Some of it was, most of it has no place in the story, belonging instead
> > in yet another cruddy slasher flick.
> >
>
> Well i didnt say that, it doesnt need y to be a jason/freddy movie. but something,
> anything would have help.
Help what? Make the movie an utterly conventional horror film? A
cookie-cutter ghost story easily digested by people weaned on Freddy
Kreuger? Sorry you had to think about it, buddy boy.
> Thanks for your replies, and although most seemed not to be to serious. you did make
> a kinda decent effort, although you relied alot on the website and mocumentary
> tosupport your postion.
Thanks, Mister Debate Coach, I'm sure I can improve on that C+ if I just
buckle down and study more. Which I will do just as soon as you're
finished kissing my ass. Now get licking, Sparky.
johnp
> May I be frank for a second.
No! YOU were Frank yesterday! You said *I* could be Frank today...
dammit.
In response to the rest of your ramblings... I think You think too much
over too little. The movie would have been cool if they'd have lied to
us until some time after the movie. Knowing it was all fake made it into
nothing.
The original Amityville Horror came out in book form and was claimed to
be completely true. Then the movie came out & it was still claimed to be
100% true. Maybe you didn't believe it as you were reading or
watching... but it was that much more scary because of the idea that it
just *might* really be true. It wasn't until Amityville Horror II came
out that it was admitted to be a work of fiction.
Angie & Dave
|nobody wrote:
|
|> May I be frank for a second.
|
Uhm - that's going to cause a bit of confusion around here. Mind if we call you Bruce?
Bruce
disappointed By Hype
Now that was a decent well thought out reply. Hope there is no ill will. But you have a vey funny wit about you.. You
answered every question with out being to smart-assed, and added a touch of sacasted wit to boot. That made reading each
responce both intelligent and enjoyable.
Why didn'y you just reply this way the first time, And avoided all the confrontation by assuming the worse. As for being
the head of a studio, well your closer than you think.
Nothing personal understand, just my opinion. I like you, you make me smile. Your going to go far in what ever you do,
if you just keep your snap judgements to a bare minium and look at all the facts before judgment.
Nice to have met you, but I asked my question got some answers. Not what I was looking for but that was the gamble. I am
pleased with the ferw that put aside there personal differences and just answered the questions to the best of the ability
without geeting to rieled up.
Good luck, Be well, Peace...
dbH
disappointed By Hype
Again, You've blown me away, with a simple but humorous and consise reply. I
wish the others here, who have been so critical of my thread, were as
intelligent and wity as yourself. You opened with a joke, to break the
ice,, Very funny then said your mind in a short two sentences, with out
being crude or vindictive about a contrary opinion to BWP
You Da Man!, IMHO, "Keep mak'em laugh, it's much better than making them
cry"
dbH
johnp wrote:
> nobody wrote:
>
> > May I be frank for a second.
>
Peggy MacPhie
> the head of a studio, well your closer than you think.
>
If his name is Alec Baldwin, I saw him first!
disappointed By Hype
Its such a pleasure to read you replies. Not alex, but how's about an
Al? Ever consider dating a shoe salesmen from chicago with 2 kids,
Kelly and Bud... ;-) lol.
have i nice day
dbH
Peggy MacPhie wrote:
> As for being
> > the head of a studio, well your closer than you think.
> >
>
disappointed By Hype
How bout dinner and a Movie if you'll excise the pun.
dbH
Peggy MacPhie wrote:
> That would mean I'd have to break off my affair with Homer, the Nuclear
> Power Plant Safety inspector with three kids, and a school-teacher from
> South Park, Colorodo who likes to play kinky games with a puppet!
>
> disappointed By Hype <d...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:37CC6EB1...@nowhere.com...
> > Hey Peg,
> > Its such a pleasure to read you replies. Not alex, but how's about an
> > Al? Ever consider dating a shoe salesmen from chicago with 2 kids,
> > Kelly and Bud... ;-) lol.
> >
> > have i nice day
> > dbH
> >
> >
> > Peggy MacPhie wrote:
> >
> > > As for being
> > > > the head of a studio, well your closer than you think.
> > > >
> > >
Peggy MacPhie
Power Plant Safety inspector with three kids, and a school-teacher from
South Park, Colorodo who likes to play kinky games with a puppet!
disappointed By Hype <d...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:37CC6EB1...@nowhere.com...
> Hey Peg,
> Its such a pleasure to read you replies. Not alex, but how's about an
> Al? Ever consider dating a shoe salesmen from chicago with 2 kids,
> Kelly and Bud... ;-) lol.
>
> have i nice day
> dbH
>
>
> Peggy MacPhie wrote:
>
> > As for being
> > > the head of a studio, well your closer than you think.
> > >
> >
johnp
> Again, You've blown me away, with a simple but humorous and consise
You can join the JohnP fan club by mailing me & the other 5 people on
the list $5 each, scratching off my name & adding yours to the bottom.
:-)
> I wish the others here, who have been so critical of my thread, were
> as intelligent and wity as yourself.
Remember who you're talking to here. Critisism only has merit when given
by someone whom you have reason to respect.
johnp
> hahaha hah Your funny, but i don't drink coffee.
You are a sick puppy. Coffee is the elixir of the gods!