LIST BLAIR WITCH PLOT HOLES - Possible Spoilers
PAK
> 1) If this was "found" footage, how did Heather and the boys edit the
> "local folk" interviews"?
Hexen Films bought the rights to all the footage and edited it into "The
Blair Witch Project"
> 2) Why didn't they just follow the stream?
Stupidity. Lack of common sense. Why did they go in the house?
> 3) If this is supposed to be real life, who has battery packs that
> last that long on cameras without being recharged?
This was answered at the beginning where Heather exaggerates "We've got
enough battery power to power the known universe." or something similar.
> 4) Why did Heather and Mike keep filming each other right up to the
> end, after they were desperate for their lives and agreed that they
> didn't care about the movie anymore and just wanted to get out of
> there?
Yes, yes. One major plot hole. I prefer the theory that they needed the
light from the cameras to see their way in the dark.
> 5) After they lost the map---or Mike threw away the map---why didn't
> they just rewind the tape in the camcorder and look at the map in any
> number of the shots they took of the map while they were studying it
> earlier?
Hell it was hard enough for me to see what was on the map and I was looking
at a sixty foot screen. Video is also pretty blurry at times.
> 6) Why didn't one of them climb a tall tree and look for the edge of
> the woods?
I think the point of their characters (sadly most in the horror genre are
the same) was that they were inexperienced kids. They fuck up at every
opportunity because they have never been in this situation.
I make poor choices everyday, fortunately they don't kill me.
PAK
Bob Greer
Beware the SPOILERS
Nimrod`` wrote:
> Since it's so much fun to listen to the true believers try to
> rationalize away the glaring plot holes in this overhyped film, me
> thinks we should begin a running tally of all the leaps of logic in
> THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, letting all who want to contribute further
> plot flaws do so as they occur to them. I want to thank Michelle317
> and James Blunt for their contributions to this starter list. Here
> goes:
>
> 1) If this was "found" footage, how did Heather and the boys edit the
> "local folk" interviews"?
>
Haxan Productions edited the local folk footage when they edited the rest
of the film.
>
> 2) Why didn't they just follow the stream?
>
Possibly the stream didn't lead to town, just meandered through the woods
for a hundred miles. Maybe it did lead back, but they didn't know which
way to go (they may be college students, but how bright do you have to be
to KEEP THE MAP, and follow a compass) If I had been Josh, it would have
been a shorter, much gorier film.
> 3) If this is supposed to be real life, who has battery packs that
> last that long on cameras without being recharged?
>
In the beginning of the film, Heather says "...we have enough batteries to
last a month...", given it's the Gilligan's Island defense (pack enough
for seven years even though you're only going on a three hour tour), but
it is an explanation.
>
> 4) Why did Heather and Mike keep filming each other right up to the
> end, after they were desperate for their lives and agreed that they
> didn't care about the movie anymore and just wanted to get out of
> there?
>
At night it was a light source. It was a journal of what happened to
them, by Heather apologizing to the families via video it demonstrated the
idea the video might make it back without them. Watching life through a
camera buffers one from the real world, it seems more like make-believe or
tv. If they didn't continue to tape, it wouldn't make much of a movie...
Although if it was me, screw the camera, I can run faster without it!
>
> 5) After they lost the map---or Mike threw away the map---why didn't
> they just rewind the tape in the camcorder and look at the map in any
> number of the shots they took of the map while they were studying it
> earlier?
>
I only saw the movie once, so I might be sketchy on this, but I don't
remember any good shots of the map. If there were, I probably wouldn't
have been in the frame of mind to think of that idea anyway. (I didn't
think of it, and no one is chasing me, plus I just ate...)
>
> 6) Why didn't one of them climb a tall tree and look for the edge of
> the woods?
Since they were traveling for several days, they probably would not have
seen anything anyway, unless it was a particularly tall tree. And try
climbing one of those without eating for a few days.
>
> 7) Why didn't they drown that irritating Heather in the tub back at
> the motel room and just save themselves the grief?
>
I think I would have done it if she had led me for 15 hours in one big
circle!
>
> Surely there are even more such gaffes. I ask you...
>
> Nimrod``
Trentz
----- Original Message -----
From: Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films,alt.movies,alt.cult-movies
Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 6:55 PM
Subject: LIST BLAIR WITCH PLOT HOLES - Possible Spoilers
>
> Since it's so much fun to listen to the true believers try to
> rationalize away the glaring plot holes in this overhyped film, me
> thinks we should begin a running tally of all the leaps of logic in
> THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, letting all who want to contribute further
> plot flaws do so as they occur to them. I want to thank Michelle317
> and James Blunt for their contributions to this starter list. Here
> goes:
>
Since you find it fun listening to us "so-called true believers" of this
whole fictional scenerio, I shall enlighten you with my logical answers to
your simplistic questions about this imaginative flick.
> 1) If this was "found" footage, how did Heather and the boys edit the
> "local folk" interviews"?
>
After the footage was declared inconclusive, authorities turned over the
footage to the families. The families then turned over the footage to Haxan
Films where THEY edited and examined the footage to piece together the
events on the film.
> 2) Why didn't they just follow the stream?
>
They did follow the stream, for awhile anyway. You can never know where a
body of water will lead. Maybe the creek just keeps going in circles. Or
maybe ends out of no-where. The most logical way of getting out of a
situation is just head in one direction and eventually you will hit
something.
> 3) If this is supposed to be real life, who has battery packs that
> last that long on cameras without being recharged?
>
At the beginning of the film Heather stated that they had enough battery
power to light a small city (or something to that manner).
> 4) Why did Heather and Mike keep filming each other right up to the
> end, after they were desperate for their lives and agreed that they
> didn't care about the movie anymore and just wanted to get out of
> there?
>
The camera had been with them throughout this whole ordeal. By the end of
the flick, the camera was acting like a security guard for them (sort of
like Linus and his blanket). Plus, Heather, being the obsessed, reality
scared, director that she is, need to be behind the camera to
psychologically convince herself that everything that was happening wasn't
real. She was basically scared and desperately tried to escape reality by
viewing it through a camera lens.
> 5) After they lost the map---or Mike threw away the map---why didn't
> they just rewind the tape in the camcorder and look at the map in any
> number of the shots they took of the map while they were studying it
> earlier?
>
Now, when they showed the map on the giant screen we all saw the movie on,
could you really read it? How can they see that through a tiny view-finder?
> 6) Why didn't one of them climb a tall tree and look for the edge of
> the woods?
>
Who's to say they didn't and it was just edited out of the film. Plus, the
only one who was capable of actually climbing a tree would have been Josh.
And Josh wasn't really there for that long. Mikey was to large and Heather
didn't seem that phyically fit. Either way, most trees didn't look that
stable.
> 7) Why didn't they drown that irritating Heather in the tub back at
> the motel room and just save themselves the grief?
>
Because no one can pridict the future. plus they were all drunk from the
alcohol to logically think things over.
--
--- Trentz
If you don't dig my words,
unclog your mind.
Instead of trying to uphold
the vision the world has of something,
do it your own free way.
When you do anything your own free creative way,
the happier you will be.
Remember, an art film should be seen in an art house.
Trentz
> The truth is, when people are scared witless and are desperate to save
> their own lives---they drop all extraneous bullshit and scramble like
> hell.
True, however in this situation, Heather already predicted that they weren't
gonna make it. Why else would she film her "apology"? They weren't desperate
to save their own lives. They were more into finding out what happened to
Josh.
Because they knew that if they find Josh, they would find an end to their
suffering. If you're in a situation where you know that death is certain and
you accept that, then what are you gonna do? Run away and continue to
suffer? Or "run towards the light"?
> Have you ever tried to even walk quickly while looking through
> a camera viewfinder without stumbling over your own feet? Trying to
> look through a viewfinder while trying to escape would slow you down
> to such a ridiculous degree you would be lucky not to step in a hole
> and break your leg, you would be so distracted.
>
Who's to say that they were running with the viewfinder up to their face? A
person can easily run while holding up a camera, and not even know that they
had anthing in their hand. When one is presented in a situation where they
are in some-sort of physical danger, the body naturally turns into what
experts call "fight mode". Fight mode is when your body gets a rush of
adrenaline. Your body becomes 8x more alert than in your normal state. Even
if she did fall and break her leg, the adrenaline would still cause her to
keep going. She probably wouldn't even know that anything was broken. On a
side note, being a student film-maker, I have run through the woods with a
giant camera on my shoulder. It's not as much of a distraction as you put
it.
> If there is one thing that anyone knows who has actually ever been
> lost in the woods, it is that you get hyper alert and don't bother
> with petty distractions; you focus on the world around you---with both
> eyes wide open. Most trails in the woods are already difficult enough
> to walk on without taking a misstep, muchless with a camera held to
> your eye---muchless in the dark of night. If you could actually stand
> on the sidelines and watch a person rushing down a trail or up a
> flight of stairs in a dark house, supposedly in abject terror, but
> with a camera held to their face while squinting through the
> viewfinder---you would realize how absurd and unrealistic that is.
>
>
It's not absurd or unrealistic. Like I said in my previous post, the cameras
acted as a security blanket for Mike and Heather. With them being in "fight
mode" and the fact that they had already accepted their own fate, it makes
the film pretty realistic.
--
--- Trentz
If you don't dig my words,
unclog your mind.
Instead of trying to uphold
the vision the world has of something,
do it your own free way.
When you do anything your own free creative way,
the happier you will be.
Remember, an art film should be seen in an art house.
tre...@garbage.com
Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37c7ffcb...@news.earthlink.net...
> On 20 Jul 1999 04:19:43 GMT, kan...@aol.comnothere (Kandyin) wrote:
>
> > 4) Why did Heather and Mike keep filming each other right up to the
> >>> end, after they were desperate for their lives and agreed that they
> >>> didn't care about the movie anymore and just wanted to get out of
> >>> there?
> >
> >I've read a couple of reviews of the movie and I kinda agreed with the
p.o.v.,
> >when Mike or was it Josh that pointed the camera at Heather and said
something
> >like "I can see why you like the camera so much; it's not quite reality."
Well,
> >it's looking like the reality they were in has became quite irrational,
it's
> >plausible Heather's still filming because the technology 's the only
connection
> >for them to the "rational" and sense of comfort?
> >
> >Kandy
>
> The truth is, when people are scared witless and are desperate to save
> their own lives---they drop all extraneous bullshit and scramble like
> hell. Have you ever tried to even walk quickly while looking through
> a camera viewfinder without stumbling over your own feet? Trying to
> look through a viewfinder while trying to escape would slow you down
> to such a ridiculous degree you would be lucky not to step in a hole
> and break your leg, you would be so distracted.
>
> If there is one thing that anyone knows who has actually ever been
> lost in the woods, it is that you get hyper alert and don't bother
> with petty distractions; you focus on the world around you---with both
> eyes wide open. Most trails in the woods are already difficult enough
> to walk on without taking a misstep, muchless with a camera held to
> your eye---muchless in the dark of night. If you could actually stand
> on the sidelines and watch a person rushing down a trail or up a
> flight of stairs in a dark house, supposedly in abject terror, but
> with a camera held to their face while squinting through the
> viewfinder---you would realize how absurd and unrealistic that is.
>
>
> N.
>
VM
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:21:43 -0700, "PAK" <the-...@primenet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 3) If this is supposed to be real life, who has battery packs that
> >> last that long on cameras without being recharged?
> >
> >This was answered at the beginning where Heather exaggerates "We've got
> >enough battery power to power the known universe." or something similar.
>
> Yeah, right. And I've got a bridge you might be interested in
> buying...
You know, it's pretty obvious that you don't like
the film and won't accept *any* explanation for
your supposed "plot holes" no matter how reasonable
they are. You're just becoming an anti-Blair Witch
troll now.
And they didn't follow the stream because they were
trying to find their way back to their car. They
were young, stupid and had one-track (find the car,
find the car, find the car) minds. Let me save you
the trouble...
Nimrod wrote:
> Yeah, right.
V
HBOMB
keep in touch with each other in case they got seperated or to phone someone
in case something happened?
9) Why not bring a bouie knife or some other kind of weapon, if not for
anything else, to cut firewood with? Hell, you're going into the woods to
investigate this sinister phenomenon where you just might encounter hermits
or hillbillies and it never occurs to you that maybe you should have a
little protection?
10) What audience is this "documentary" made for? The footage is
UNWATCHABLE. It's shot with all the skill and technique of your uncle's
video of last summer's 4th of July barbecue.
11) You're deep in the woods and you hear sounds in the distance that scare
the living hell out of you. Your first thought is to turn on the video
camera when it's pitch black dark and nothing is visible anyway?!! Come on!
12) Last time I checked the sun always sets in the west and rises in the
east. Knowing that, why do you even need a map? Just get your bearing
looking at the position of the sun.
Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37c0d411...@news.earthlink.net...
>
> Since it's so much fun to listen to the true believers try to
> rationalize away the glaring plot holes in this overhyped film, me
> thinks we should begin a running tally of all the leaps of logic in
> THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, letting all who want to contribute further
> plot flaws do so as they occur to them. I want to thank Michelle317
> and James Blunt for their contributions to this starter list. Here
> goes:
>
> 1) If this was "found" footage, how did Heather and the boys edit the
> "local folk" interviews"?
>
> 2) Why didn't they just follow the stream?
>
> 3) If this is supposed to be real life, who has battery packs that
> last that long on cameras without being recharged?
>
> 4) Why did Heather and Mike keep filming each other right up to the
> end, after they were desperate for their lives and agreed that they
> didn't care about the movie anymore and just wanted to get out of
> there?
>
> 5) After they lost the map---or Mike threw away the map---why didn't
> they just rewind the tape in the camcorder and look at the map in any
> number of the shots they took of the map while they were studying it
> earlier?
>
> 6) Why didn't one of them climb a tall tree and look for the edge of
> the woods?
>
> 7) Why didn't they drown that irritating Heather in the tub back at
> the motel room and just save themselves the grief?
>
>
You Die Joe
Trentz wrote in message <7n0n7h$faj$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>...
>> 2) Why didn't they just follow the stream?
>>
>They did follow the stream, for awhile anyway. You can never know where a
>body of water will lead. Maybe the creek just keeps going in circles.
Eh. Eh heh heh heh. I do hope you're joking. You sure don't sound like
you're joking. But I hope you're joking. "goes around in circles" indeed.
YDJ
MilMcGil
Larry McGillicuddy
http://members.xoom.com/lmcgill/movpage.htm
Nimrod wrote:
<<(Johnny Cochran would have loved you...)>>
Steve Ballantyne
<tre...@garbage.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net>
<snip>
> > 2) Why didn't they just follow the stream?
> >
> They did follow the stream, for awhile anyway. You can never know where a
> body of water will lead. Maybe the creek just keeps going in circles.
Mmm -- that would be _really_ spooky....
Heigh ho
--
Steve Ballantyne
Tymon
Exactly! I was gut-stabbed in a bar fight back in '85 and you wouldn't
believe all the "heros" that came out of the woodwork once I got out of
the hospital explaining to me what *they* would've done in the same
scenario. Made me sicker than being gut-stabbed! :>
As Forrest Gump says - shit happens!
tymon
VM wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Nimrod`` wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:21:43 -0700, "PAK" <the-...@primenet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 3) If this is supposed to be real life, who has battery packs that
> > >> last that long on cameras without being recharged?
> > >
> > >This was answered at the beginning where Heather exaggerates "We've got
> > >enough battery power to power the known universe." or something similar.
> >
> > Yeah, right. And I've got a bridge you might be interested in
> > buying...
>
> You know, it's pretty obvious that you don't like
> the film and won't accept *any* explanation for
> your supposed "plot holes" no matter how reasonable
> they are. You're just becoming an anti-Blair Witch
> troll now.
>
> And they didn't follow the stream because they were
> trying to find their way back to their car. They
> were young, stupid and had one-track (find the car,
> find the car, find the car) minds. Let me save you
> the trouble...
>
> Nimrod wrote:
>
> > Yeah, right.
>
> V
--
"Some people like cupcakes exclusively while myself I say there is
naught nor ought there be nothing so exalted on the face of God's Grey
Earth as that prince of foods: The Muffin!"
- Frank Zappa
Charles Bell
: 8) Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie talkies to
: keep in touch with each other in case they got seperated or to phone someone
: in case something happened?
Did it occur to you that some of us do not own cell phones or walkie
talkies? I have gone hiking with my dad before many times and neither of
us own them.
: 9) Why not bring a bouie knife or some other kind of weapon, if not for
: anything else, to cut firewood with? Hell, you're going into the woods to
: investigate this sinister phenomenon where you just might encounter hermits
: or hillbillies and it never occurs to you that maybe you should have a
: little protection?
Actually Heather did bring a large knife with her for protection, she just
didn't have it ready at any time during the film.
: 10) What audience is this "documentary" made for? The footage is
: UNWATCHABLE. It's shot with all the skill and technique of your uncle's
: video of last summer's 4th of July barbecue.
Sorry, can't agree at all with you. I read that the footage is so jerky
and jumpy that it makes you feel sick. I tend to have problems with
motion sickness, but found the film quite easy to watch.
: 11) You're deep in the woods and you hear sounds in the distance that scare
: the living hell out of you. Your first thought is to turn on the video
: camera when it's pitch black dark and nothing is visible anyway?!! Come on!
Valid point although the entire point of the movie was to film everything.
Heather was simply looking for a "money" shot.
: 12) Last time I checked the sun always sets in the west and rises in the
: east. Knowing that, why do you even need a map? Just get your bearing
: looking at the position of the sun.
Have you ever been lost in the woods before? One of the first things that
happens is people lose their heads. During one of the trips that I took
with my dad, we became lost and started to panic. Trust me, getting out
of the woods is not as easy at looking at which way the sun is setting.
My only "plot hole" is that Mike decided to start filming toward the end
after he continually told Heather over and over to stop filming.
charles
-
http://www.und.edu/cbell
-
V-X
> HBOMB (removeJAL...@prodigy.net) wrote:
> : 8) Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie talkies to
> : keep in touch with each other in case they got seperated or to phone someone
> : in case something happened?
> Did it occur to you that some of us do not own cell phones or walkie
> talkies?
Yeah, but film school brats who can afford a Hi-8 cam, a 16mm cam and a
DAT recorder?
--Robert
--
The Control Voice--This Month's Feature: Rapture Movies
http://www.ungh.com/control/
mo...@my-deja.com
V-X <v...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
> In alt.cult-movies Charles Bell <chb...@plains.NoDak.edu> wrote:
> > HBOMB (removeJAL...@prodigy.net) wrote:
> > : 8) Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie
talkies to
> > : keep in touch with each other in case they got seperated or to
phone someone
> > : in case something happened?
>
> > Did it occur to you that some of us do not own cell phones or walkie
> > talkies?
>
> Yeah, but film school brats who can afford a Hi-8 cam, a 16mm cam and
a
> DAT recorder?
>
> --Robert
>
Hey, i'm a "film school brat" that uses better equipment than theirs,
but it all belongs to the school. I don't know a single film student
that actually owns their own 16mm film camera. Just because their in
film school doesn't mean their rich. I'm here 100% on loans and
schola
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Boadiccea
V-X <v...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
> In alt.cult-movies Charles Bell <chb...@plains.NoDak.edu> wrote:
> > HBOMB (removeJAL...@prodigy.net) wrote:
> > : 8) Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie
talkies to
> > : keep in touch with each other in case they got seperated or to
phone someone
> > : in case something happened?
>
> > Did it occur to you that some of us do not own cell phones or
walkie
> > talkies?
>
> Yeah, but film school brats who can afford a Hi-8 cam, a 16mm cam and
a
> DAT recorder?
>
> --Robert
>
It was my understanding that they borrowed the equipment from the
school...? (Josh kept talking about having to get the equipment back,
etc....)
B
--
"We're going to fight crime! That's what we *do*!
DUH." ~Powerpuff Girls
Brian
wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:28:56 -0700, "Trentz" <tre...@garbage.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net>
>>Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films,alt.movies,alt.cult-movies
>>Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 6:55 PM
>>Subject: LIST BLAIR WITCH PLOT HOLES - Possible Spoilers
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Since it's so much fun to listen to the true believers try to
>>> rationalize away the glaring plot holes in this overhyped film, me
>>> thinks we should begin a running tally of all the leaps of logic in
>>> THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, letting all who want to contribute further
>>> plot flaws do so as they occur to them. I want to thank Michelle317
>>> and James Blunt for their contributions to this starter list. Here
>>> goes:
>>>
>>
>>Since you find it fun listening to us "so-called true believers" of this
>>whole fictional scenerio, I shall enlighten you with my logical answers to
>>your simplistic questions about this imaginative flick.
>>
>>> 1) If this was "found" footage, how did Heather and the boys edit the
>>> "local folk" interviews"?
>>>
>>After the footage was declared inconclusive, authorities turned over the
>>footage to the families. The families then turned over the footage to Haxan
>>Films where THEY edited and examined the footage to piece together the
>>events on the film.
>
>Where did you get all this mumbo-jumbo from? It's not information
>included in the film.
Well if you took the time to download any of the film clips about the
movie or read any of the information about it they tell all out what
happen after the film was found
>>> 2) Why didn't they just follow the stream?
>>>
>>They did follow the stream, for awhile anyway. You can never know where a
>>body of water will lead. Maybe the creek just keeps going in circles. Or
>>maybe ends out of no-where. The most logical way of getting out of a
>>situation is just head in one direction and eventually you will hit
>>something.
>
>The day you find a creek that keeps going in circles, you let me
>know....that would be a wonder to behold. There's no such thing as a
>creek or a stream that goes nowhere.
I live in New Jersey and about 2 miles from where I had lived there
is a stream that goes alittle less than a mile and it turns left to
right back to the stream again. I don't know if it always did this or
it is just something that happens in the summer because it drys up.
but every summer it is like this.
>>> 3) If this is supposed to be real life, who has battery packs that
>>> last that long on cameras without being recharged?
>>>
>>At the beginning of the film Heather stated that they had enough battery
>>power to light a small city (or something to that manner).
>
>And you buy that? They would have to have the most amazing
>super-batteries imaginable---they would be weighted down with nothing
>but camera batteries in order for them to have power sufficient for
>running not only their camera motor---but also their camera lights at
>night---for the long duration of time we see them in the woods.
>Get real.
>
>Just because a character in a movie makes some lame disclaimer to try
>to cover for a plot absurdity, does not mean you have to be gullible
>enough to buy into it.
No way one battery could last that long but hate to break the news,
video camera batterys way only a pound each maybe alittle more so they
could carry more than one.
>>> 4) Why did Heather and Mike keep filming each other right up to the
>>> end, after they were desperate for their lives and agreed that they
>>> didn't care about the movie anymore and just wanted to get out of
>>> there?
>>>
>>The camera had been with them throughout this whole ordeal. By the end of
>>the flick, the camera was acting like a security guard for them (sort of
>>like Linus and his blanket). Plus, Heather, being the obsessed, reality
>>scared, director that she is, need to be behind the camera to
>>psychologically convince herself that everything that was happening wasn't
>>real. She was basically scared and desperately tried to escape reality by
>>viewing it through a camera lens.
>
>You're a hoot. This is just what I was talking about---people jumping
>through mental hoops, tricking up elaborate psychological pretexts,
>trying to rationalize a completely unbelievable situation. I already
>went into detail about this aspect with Kandy, so I'm just going to
>repeat my statements to her:
>
>The truth is, when people are scared witless and are desperate to save
>their own lives---they drop all extraneous bullshit and scramble like
>hell. Have you ever tried to even walk quickly while looking through
>a camera viewfinder without stumbling over your own feet? Trying to
>look through a viewfinder while trying to escape would slow you down
>to such a ridiculous degree you would be lucky not to step in a hole
>and break your leg, you would be so distracted.
>
>If there is one thing that anyone knows who has actually ever been
>lost in the woods, it is that you get hyper alert and don't bother
>with petty distractions; you focus on the world around you---with both
>eyes wide open. Most trails in the woods are already difficult enough
>to walk on without taking a misstep, muchless with a camera held to
>your eye---muchless in the dark of night. If you could actually stand
>on the sidelines and watch a person rushing down a trail or up a
>flight of stairs in a dark house, supposedly in abject terror, but
>with a camera held to their face while squinting through the
>viewfinder---you would realize how absurd and unrealistic that is.
>
>>> 5) After they lost the map---or Mike threw away the map---why didn't
>>> they just rewind the tape in the camcorder and look at the map in any
>>> number of the shots they took of the map while they were studying it
>>> earlier?
>>>
>>Now, when they showed the map on the giant screen we all saw the movie on,
>>could you really read it? How can they see that through a tiny view-finder?
My first video camera about 5 years ago didn't have a play back. you
sure theres did? Plus if i was scared in the woods i wouldn't think of
watching the video of the map I would be scared and keep looking for
it.
>As I recall, they got in pretty tight on the map a couple of times for
>the benefit of the audience---but I'm not going to quibble over this
>one.
>
>>> 6) Why didn't one of them climb a tall tree and look for the edge of
>>> the woods?
>>>
>>Who's to say they didn't and it was just edited out of the film.
>
>You could say that about nearly anything I guess. The only reality in
>any movie is that information which the film imparts to us from its
>first frame to its last. Suppositions about incidents never seen nor
>even referred to in a film are just folly, and those suppositions
>cannot be ascribed to the logic of the film.
>>Plus, the
>>only one who was capable of actually climbing a tree would have been Josh.
>>And Josh wasn't really there for that long. Mikey was to large and Heather
>>didn't seem that phyically fit. Either way, most trees didn't look that
>>stable.
>
>Most trees didn't look that stable?! Most trees didn't look that
>stable?!!!!!!! You know, for a minute there I thought I read where
>you said "most trees didn't look that stable".
>
>Most folks, even large folks, can climb a tree when they really want
>to---I've seen some mighty big folks up in trees, like my 275 pound
>cousin who is a helluva lot bigger than Mike. And let me assure you,
>I got a good look at those woods and they are chockful of some very
>stable trees. You wouldn't have to look far to find one quite sturdy.
>
>
>Me thinks you've never spent too much time in the woods or ever gotten
>lost in the woods, alone or with others. I have, and it puts a
>different perspective on this movie. The woods can be a very scary
>place in such a situation, especially when it's dark---but what
>happens in that situation is people get a hardcore reality check, they
>don't start stumbling along through unfamiliar territory with a camera
>glued to their face.
Does any one know if they had taped everything they had done during
there time in the woods. And again who would think to climb a tree.
They are stupid kids when they lost the map they sould have turned
right around and start to walk back.
Hey why didn't they fallow the north star? that is another question
>>> 7) Why didn't they drown that irritating Heather in the tub back at
>>> the motel room and just save themselves the grief?
>>>
>>Because no one can pridict the future. plus they were all drunk from the
>>alcohol to logically think things over.
>
>Then Josh and Mike should have run over her in the motel parking lot
>the next morning---after they sobered up and saw the cold, hard, grey
>light of dawn.
Shit yeah i would kill the dumb bitch the minute I found that the map
was gone.
here is some news I know some of you will laugh about. Someone at work
cam up to me and asked if i saw the scifi channel's show on the blair
witch. I told the guy no and asked what happen, he started to tell me
it is fake and they had the actors on saying how people are glad to
see them alive i was oh really i had my doubts but i was hoeping it
was real. So i went home and i had my girlfriend tape the curse of the
blair witch for me. Well guess what the actors weren't on the show.
Another lier he only said that shit because he thought i couldn't
check up on him. So the next day i told him i watched the show and
they weren't on it so he started to say i must have seen a different
one. ok yeah right
Does anyone know for a fact i mean know the people in it can show me
them with a news paper in front of them to see if they are alive.
Until i see that or some other proof i belive at least 85% that this a
strange true story.
Tim Masterson
>From: "HBOMB" removeJAL...@prodigy.net
>10) What audience is this "documentary" made for? The footage is
>UNWATCHABLE. It's shot with all the skill and technique of your uncle's
>video of last summer's 4th of July barbecue.
>
The documentary is a school project, I believe. If that's the case, man, is
that realistic or what! It was just as crappy as the others!
>11) You're deep in the woods and you hear sounds in the distance that scare
>the living hell out of you. Your first thought is to turn on the video
>camera when it's pitch black dark and nothing is visible anyway?!!
Umm.. yeah, that WOULD be the first thought of someone who was making a
documentary about sounds in the distance that scare the hell out of them.
>12) Last time I checked the sun always sets in the west and rises in the
>east. Knowing that, why do you even need a map? Just get your bearing
>looking at the position of the sun.
And that differs from going south all day how?
Tim
I will have two fillings.
ex account
: But I do think the film overhyped and grossly overrated, and it has
: major plot holes. I just thinks it's pretty funny listening to some
: of the zealots tie themselves in knots trying to rationalize them
: away---many of them showing their profound ignorance of the woods,
: technology, and human nature in the process.
You're the one telling us they should have used the footage of the map to
find their way around. What are they going to look at it on, their
27-inch sony? Would you really want to try and orient a map on a tiny-ass
2-inch monitor? I don't think the lines would even show up.
You're not even bothering to defend half of the original plot hole post.
The only one that I can agree with is the one about how they were still
filming up until the end. But if they didn't do it that way there
wouldn't have been a film, or anyway it would have been awfully
unsatisfying if it ended after showing Mike wandering off through the
woods talking about Cal Ripken, so I can deal. And the person who posted
the Mt. St. Helens cameraman example makes a good point. It's 80%
implausible, but not 100% implausible. As long as it's a question of
human nature, there's a lot of weird people out there.
: Must we live in a society that only believes in love it or hate it
: extremes, lest we be stoned for not ABSOLUTELY BLOODY LOVING THAT
: FUCKING THING YOU LOVE AS ABSOLUTELY BLOODY MUCH AS YOU BLOODY LOVE
: IT?!
People who love or hate a film always feel like the other side is
trying to invalidate their opinion. I'm seeing more "that film was crap,
you guys are suckers" posts than the other way around.
: It's that intolerance of nuance and shades of grey that hurts us
: not only as a society, but it is very damaging to the current state of
: movies. It's gotten to where, when faced with a lemming mentality
: like the one attached to this particular film, a person can't just
: like a movie yet stand back and clinically point out its
: flaws---because blind devotion is the only mode acceptable to the mob.
You don't seem to be having much trouble doing it. There's maybe one
idiot yelling at you incoherently, although I can't think of who it is
right now, and about fifteen people politely and rationally pointing out
the holes in your plot holes. It's just healthy film discussion. No
conspiracies here.
-s.
ex account
In rec.arts.movies.current-films HBOMB <removeJAL...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
: 8) Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie talkies
: to keep in touch with each other in case they got seperated or to phone
: someone in case something happened?
This is a common, but not universal safety practice. On all my camping
trips I've never had such a thing, and most of those were well-organized
boy scout outings; there's no way three random students are going to bring
the kitchen sink.
: 9) Why not bring a bouie knife or some other kind of weapon, if not for
: anything else, to cut firewood with? Hell, you're going into the woods
: to investigate this sinister phenomenon where you just might encounter
: hermits or hillbillies and it never occurs to you that maybe you should
: have a little protection?
Nobody "cuts" firewood, dude. Not if there's plenty of dry wood laying
around on the ground, and obviously there was no shortage where they were.
And I think I remember they showing heather packing a knife. But you saw
the movie; even if she'd had it in her hand the whole time, would it
really have helped? She'd probably just have fallen on it.
Sure, if they'd seen the "one year later, their footage was found" title
card before they packed, they would have had AK-47's out there, but as it
was they had no reason to expect trouble.
: 10) What audience is this "documentary" made for? The footage is
: UNWATCHABLE. It's shot with all the skill and technique of your uncle's
: video of last summer's 4th of July barbecue.
The shots intended for use in Heather's documentary (the townspeople,
the cemetary, Coffin Rock, and so on) seemed okay. All the jittery
walking around wasn't intended for the final cut.
: 11) You're deep in the woods and you hear sounds in the distance that
: scare the living hell out of you. Your first thought is to turn on the
: video camera when it's pitch black dark and nothing is visible anyway?!!
: Come on!
If you're shooting a documentary about scary shit in the woods, maybe you
wouldn't and maybe you would. I admit it would take an extreme sort of
character to shoot that much footage for as long as they did, but come on,
how else are you going to make a movie like this. Give them a _little_
bit of breathing room here. I'm all for critical thinking, but analyzing
everything all the time on strict real-life criteria must make it
difficult for you to enjoy movies.
: 12) Last time I checked the sun always sets in the west and rises in the
: east. Knowing that, why do you even need a map? Just get your bearing
: looking at the position of the sun.
They had a compass; they knew well enough where north, south, east and
west were. Your "bearing" is a lot more complicated than that. Where was
their car, "north" or "east"? Well... that depends on where they are on
the map, doesn't it.
-s.
Tymon
>
> But I do think the film overhyped and grossly overrated, and it has
> major plot holes. I just thinks it's pretty funny listening to some
> of the zealots tie themselves in knots trying to rationalize them
Better listening to a zealot than a cynic.
>--many of them showing their profound ignorance of the woods,
> technology, and human nature in the process.
You'd be surprised how many college kids have fucked in the poison ivy!
> It makes you realize how
> somebody like Johnny Cochran or some other slick lawyer in this day
> and age can make some of the most absurd theories fly if they can just
> get such people in their jury box.
So not only a cynic, but a racist? Obviously, you're skirting around
the Simpson case - which wasn't nearly so much Cochran's absurd
theories, inasmuch as a botched prosecution case. Does Marcia Clark
make you horny, babay? Granted, this movie is not near perfect - but
what is, these days? Eyes Wide Shut? Talk about plot holes!
tymon
Brian
<removeJAL...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>8) Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie talkies to
>keep in touch with each other in case they got seperated or to phone someone
>in case something happened?
In 94 kids didn't carry around cell phones even now many people don't
have them.
>9) Why not bring a bouie knife or some other kind of weapon, if not for
>anything else, to cut firewood with? Hell, you're going into the woods to
>investigate this sinister phenomenon where you just might encounter hermits
>or hillbillies and it never occurs to you that maybe you should have a
>little protection?
because they were going to the town to tape footage they lateron
desided to go out in the woods for a day. They didn't plan on staying
over night
>10) What audience is this "documentary" made for? The footage is
>UNWATCHABLE. It's shot with all the skill and technique of your uncle's
>video of last summer's 4th of July barbecue.
Well if you watch most of the footage in black and white in the
begining you notice it is nicely done later in the movie that is when
they become retarts and do a bad show.
>11) You're deep in the woods and you hear sounds in the distance that scare
>the living hell out of you. Your first thought is to turn on the video
>camera when it's pitch black dark and nothing is visible anyway?!! Come on!
shit yeah i would do it. it is kinda like aliens do you stop and look
or go get a camera to take a picture. no i don't believe in aliens but
if i saw something strange iw ould get a picture to prove i am not
crazy
>12) Last time I checked the sun always sets in the west and rises in the
>east. Knowing that, why do you even need a map? Just get your bearing
>looking at the position of the sun.
well do we know for a fact that they knew what direction the road was.
they could have easly fallowed the north star.
>Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:37c0d411...@news.earthlink.net...
>>
>> Since it's so much fun to listen to the true believers try to
>> rationalize away the glaring plot holes in this overhyped film, me
>> thinks we should begin a running tally of all the leaps of logic in
>> THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, letting all who want to contribute further
>> plot flaws do so as they occur to them. I want to thank Michelle317
>> and James Blunt for their contributions to this starter list. Here
>> goes:
>>
>> 1) If this was "found" footage, how did Heather and the boys edit the
>> "local folk" interviews"?
>>
>> 2) Why didn't they just follow the stream?
>>
>> 3) If this is supposed to be real life, who has battery packs that
>> last that long on cameras without being recharged?
>>
>> 4) Why did Heather and Mike keep filming each other right up to the
>> end, after they were desperate for their lives and agreed that they
>> didn't care about the movie anymore and just wanted to get out of
>> there?
>>
>> 5) After they lost the map---or Mike threw away the map---why didn't
>> they just rewind the tape in the camcorder and look at the map in any
>> number of the shots they took of the map while they were studying it
>> earlier?
>>
>> 6) Why didn't one of them climb a tall tree and look for the edge of
>> the woods?
>>
>> 7) Why didn't they drown that irritating Heather in the tub back at
>> the motel room and just save themselves the grief?
>>
>>
Chris Pierson
V-X <v...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
>In alt.cult-movies Charles Bell <chb...@plains.NoDak.edu> wrote:
>> : 8) Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie talkies to
>> : keep in touch with each other in case they got seperated or to phone someone
>> : in case something happened?
>
>> talkies?
>
>Yeah, but film school brats who can afford a Hi-8 cam, a 16mm cam and a
>DAT recorder?
So you missed the part of the movie where Josh and Mike stress out about
having to get back home so they can return the equipment, then. I
understand why -- they only mentioned it half a dozen times or so (even
implying, at the beginning of the film, that Josh didn't really have
permission to borrow the camera).
I've also never heard of people going camping with walkie talkies, and
it's perfectly believable that they wouldn't have cell phones. Very few of
my 20something friends -- particularly the ones who are students -- have
them.
Really, the only plot hole that bothers me is that they thought they could
do all their shooting in a couple of days. From my experiences at
journalism school, I'd have booked at least that much time for the
interviews in Burkittsville alone, never mind the woods. The only
explanation I can think of for this is that the equipment _was_ stolen,
and they wouldn't get another chance to do it again.
--
Chris Pierson ** "Now my body is in tumult. It is a colossal moment of joy.
** I would like to be Jupiter and kidnap everybody and lie
Author ** down in the firmament making love to everybody."
Game Designer ** -- Roberto Benigni, Best Actor & World's Most Exuberant Man
Tymon
> <snip> encounter hermits
> or hillbillies and it never occurs to you that maybe you should have a
> little protection?
>
> 10) What audience is this "documentary" made for? The footage is
> UNWATCHABLE. It's shot with all the skill and technique of your uncle's
> video of last summer's 4th of July barbecue.
Ever see "Man Bites Dog?"
> 11) You're deep in the woods and you hear sounds in the distance that scare
> the living hell out of you. Your first thought is to turn on the video
> camera when it's pitch black dark and nothing is visible anyway?!! Come on!
There's plenty of much more extremely scary film footage of fire-fights
in Vietnam. How do you explain that? Personally, screw this camera -
give me an M-60, brothers. But someone did it!
> 12) Last time I checked the sun always sets in the west and rises in the
> east. Knowing that, why do you even need a map? Just get your bearing
> looking at the position of the sun.
Yep! And moss grows on the north side of trees and if you use the
minute hand of your watch - just point that at the sun - you know, the
Gallipoli trick! Woops! Must've been those magic mushrooms the crew ate
which disoriented them - and digital watches! The Blair Witch is
reasonable - she just want's to get laid. :>
tymon (off to panama in search of the Loch Ness monster. Damn! - wrong
neck o' the woods!)
Brian
>In alt.cult-movies Charles Bell <chb...@plains.NoDak.edu> wrote:
>> HBOMB (removeJAL...@prodigy.net) wrote:
>> : 8) Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie talkies to
>> : keep in touch with each other in case they got seperated or to phone someone
>> : in case something happened?
>
>> Did it occur to you that some of us do not own cell phones or walkie
>> talkies?
>
>Yeah, but film school brats who can afford a Hi-8 cam, a 16mm cam and a
>DAT recorder?
>
>--Robert
sorry obert they barrowed the stuff from school it says it in the
opening part of the movie. and that is why the school ogt worried when
they didn't come back
ConnMoore
Run towards the light? They weren't desperate to save their own lives
at the end? Who are you trying to kid? You mean they've decided they
are headed for certain death, so that's your rationale for them
suspending all logic?
Well, you know what P.T. Barnum said...>>
<<I've run through the woods with a movie camera on my shoulder also,
and that's why I know you wouldn't do it incessantly unless you were
trying to get a specific shot. It's amazing how much you're willing
to bend over backwards to rationalize this...>>
<<
(Johnny Cochran would have loved you...)>>
Okay--after watching this thread for a couple of days here is what I have
concluded. First of all the only MAJOR plothgole is why did the kids still
carry the camera into the house? A couple of fairly interesting, if still
weak, explanations have been given. The second, and most fascinating, thing I
have learned from this thread is NIMROD is a JERK. He asks for explanations
from people for some inconsistancys in the plot, when some attempts are given
to give those explanations, instead of saying something like "Thanks...I dont
think that is right but... Or "WOW I never thought of that" He decides to
insult and deride the poster. Here is a clue for Nimrod. These people DID NOT
MAKE THE FILM!! Of your original post all but ONE of you querys has been
answered to seemingly full satisfaction. Of course that is not good enough for
you, you have to attempot to belittle and bully people to accept the movie the
same way that you do. If they do not they are sheep and PT Barnum examples.
Well if we are going to pigeonhole people then lets look at the insecure person
who has such a fear that people are going to disagree with him that he feels
the need to insult those that do. What would you thinnk of that person? Would
you value their opinion? Would you believe that they could EVER accept
ANYTHING anyone else might have to offer about a subject? Or would you feel
that they are so close minded and rigid that anything you have to say to them
is a waste of bandwidth.
You have issues with the film...good fine whatever. Express those issues and
move on. If the other people explanations don't satisfy you then try and
explain your reservations WITHOUT calling these people names or insulting
their ability to think. It shows a real lack of argumentative powers if you
have to resort to that level.
Michele317
over night>>
so they were buying success rice for an afternoon snack?
ConnMoore
them with a news paper in front of them to see if they are alive.
Until i see that or some other proof i belive at least 85% that this a
strange true story.
>>
Here is a CLUE for you. The ""Curse of the Blair Witthc" SOCUMENTARY" was on
the SCI FI CHANNEL> Not on ABC or CNBC. It was on an entertainment channel.
It is a fiction film. It is like Jaws or ET or Star Wars. Grab a map of any
time of Maryland. I defy you to find Blair anywhere. You know why? because
BLAIR NEVER EXISTED!!!! Here is a last important clue for all of you deciding
to join the 20th century...real witches dont exist. I know that is a tough
one... but it is true.
Barry...getting bored with this particular thread
Barry
Stephen Peters
> 8) Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie talkies to
> keep in touch with each other in case they got seperated or to phone someone
> in case something happened?
Walkie-talkies would be silly, since the plan was for the three of
them to stick together. As for cell phones, this is 1994 -- cell
phones weren't nearly as ubiquitous as they are today. I remember
shopping for cell phones in '94; very difficult to find a plan that
covers the area you work in, let alone one that will cover a random
section of woods.
> 9) Why not bring a bouie knife or some other kind of weapon, if not
> for anything else, to cut firewood with? Hell, you're going into
> the woods to investigate this sinister phenomenon where you just
> might encounter hermits or hillbillies and it never occurs to you
> that maybe you should have a little protection?
Who says they didn't? What, pray tell, would they have used it on?
(And if you subscribe to the theory that Josh went nuts, he got the
bloody tooth from somewhere...)
> 10) What audience is this "documentary" made for? The footage is
> UNWATCHABLE. It's shot with all the skill and technique of your
> uncle's video of last summer's 4th of July barbecue.
I found it quite watchable, actually. Watched the whole thing. :-)
Most likely it was a final project for their film school, and really
has that look. Note that the early 16mm scenes aren't that bad;
nothing to write home about, but pretty standard doc fare.
> 11) You're deep in the woods and you hear sounds in the distance
> that scare the living hell out of you. Your first thought is to
> turn on the video camera when it's pitch black dark and nothing is
> visible anyway?!! Come on!
I believe the black scenes are most likely instances where Mike
started the DAT rolling before Josh and Heather turned on the cameras.
> 12) Last time I checked the sun always sets in the west and rises in the
> east. Knowing that, why do you even need a map? Just get your bearing
> looking at the position of the sun.
Considering they had a compass, knowing which way they were going
clearly wasn't the problem.
> > 6) Why didn't one of them climb a tall tree and look for the edge of
> > the woods?
Has anyone ever tried this in reality? You drive a bit into the
woods, hike for an hour (let alone a day), and climb a tree to see
what you can see? From my experience, the view is pretty much other
trees, unless you're lucky enough to be on the top of a hill. If it
were night, they might be able to spot the lights of the town, but
pick three random people and see if they have enough confidence to
climb to the top of a tree in the middle of the night. In the
daytime, they'd only be able to spot nearby clearings. Which, of
course, would have led them straight to where they ended up.
--
Stephen L. Peters por...@ai.mit.edu
PGP fingerprint: BFA4 D0CF 8925 08AE 0CA5 CCDD 343D 6AC6
"Poodle: The other white meat." -- Sherman, Sherman's Lagoon
Mpls
> >> : keep in touch with each other in case they got seperated or to phone someone
> >> : in case something happened?
> >
> >> talkies?
>
> it's perfectly believable that they wouldn't have cell phones. Very few of
> my 20something friends -- particularly the ones who are students -- have
> them.
before the huge onslaught of kids having cellphones. I think pagers were
more the big thing then.
Robert Allen
+<<Does anyone know for a fact i mean know the people in it can show me
+them with a news paper in front of them to see if they are alive.
+Until i see that or some other proof i belive at least 85% that this a
+strange true story.
+>>
+
+
+Here is a CLUE for you. The ""Curse of the Blair Witthc" SOCUMENTARY" was on
+the SCI FI CHANNEL> Not on ABC or CNBC. It was on an entertainment channel.
+It is a fiction film. It is like Jaws or ET or Star Wars. Grab a map of any
+time of Maryland. I defy you to find Blair anywhere. You know why? because
+BLAIR NEVER EXISTED!!!! Here is a last important clue for all of you deciding
+to join the 20th century...real witches dont exist. I know that is a tough
+one... but it is true.
+
+Barry...getting bored with this particular thread
Oh I don't know, this whole thing has a high amount of entertainment value
for me :-). Now let's discuss bigfoot :-). Seriously. TWBP is very similar
to the old "Legend of Boggy Creek", which is actually based on a real legend.
I saw this flick (not "Return to Boggy Creek") in the theater as a kid and
it was creepy too.
Nope, I"m holding out for the wave of media coverage when people start to
go on investigations of coffin rock, or when some place in Maryland renames
itself to Blair, or when the first people commit suicide or murder because
of the Blair Witch. Mark my words, at least some of that's going to happen :-).
Mpls
> here is some news I know some of you will laugh about. Someone at work
> cam up to me and asked if i saw the scifi channel's show on the blair
> witch. I told the guy no and asked what happen, he started to tell me
> it is fake and they had the actors on saying how people are glad to
> see them alive i was oh really i had my doubts but i was hoeping it
> was real. So i went home and i had my girlfriend tape the curse of the
> blair witch for me. Well guess what the actors weren't on the show.
> Another lier he only said that shit because he thought i couldn't
> check up on him. So the next day i told him i watched the show and
> they weren't on it so he started to say i must have seen a different
> one. ok yeah right
> Does anyone know for a fact i mean know the people in it can show me
> them with a news paper in front of them to see if they are alive.
> Until i see that or some other proof i belive at least 85% that this a
> strange true story.
Well, you can go here...but DON'T GO HERE if you haven't seen the movie.
Major Spoilers in this article with the filmakers, Ed and Dan.
www.creativescreenwriting.com/interviews/myricksanchez6,27,99.html
V-X
> Hey, i'm a "film school brat" that uses better equipment than theirs,
> but it all belongs to the school. I don't know a single film student
> that actually owns their own 16mm film camera. Just because their in
> film school doesn't mean their rich. I'm here 100% on loans and
> schola
Don't be so frigging sensitive. I went to *art school,* for god's sake.
--Robert
--
V-X
> Nimrod`` wrote:
> >
> > But I do think the film overhyped and grossly overrated, and it has
> > major plot holes. I just thinks it's pretty funny listening to some
> > of the zealots tie themselves in knots trying to rationalize them
> > away-
> Better listening to a zealot than a cynic.
Jesus and Oprah would probably agree with you. Voltaire, Mark Twain and
Ambrose Bierce wouldn't. I know who I like better.
V-X
> Oh, so now you can't call Johnny Cochran a slick lawyer without being
> branded a "racist"?
Oh, didn't you know, Nimrod: black people can do no wrong. Also, they
invented everything. HTH.
ValJon
>My first video camera about 5 years ago didn't have a play back. you
>sure theres did?
You can do playback with all pro video cameras, which is what they
had.
vj
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V-X
> So you missed the part of the movie where Josh and Mike stress out about
> having to get back home so they can return the equipment, then. I
> understand why -- they only mentioned it half a dozen times or so (even
> implying, at the beginning of the film, that Josh didn't really have
> permission to borrow the camera).
Actually, I haven't seen it yet. I was just throwing that in.
Really, I think the whole "plot holes," discussion, which seems to be
focusing on the vanities necessary to move the movie along (roughly like
one of those Lovecraftesque stories that ends with something like "...as I
write this, I can hear it on the stairs...I...it comes! It comes! It--")
is kind of pointless.
The only real issue is "does it work, and to what extent?" From what
everybody's saying, it sounds like BWP works for most people. From what
Nimrod and a few other people I have reason to trust have said, it's a
gimmick movie, and it only works once.
Do try to consider how much of any strong opinions about the Blair Witch
Project as the greatest thing since sliced Marion Crane come solely from
the marketing hype. Think about it, true believer: six months ago, you'd
probably never even heard of the fucking movie, if you've seen it, it was
probably only one time. Is it really the greatest horror movie of all
time, or did you just hear that so many times this year you can't
disassociate from the hype?
--Robert, waitin' to see it
Rob West
To clear up some of the confusion about the battery. I work in a major
electronics superstore. JVC makes a camcorder that comes with a 4 hour
battery. However, you can purchase a 20 hour battery for the camcorder that
is around $199. Assuming that they maybe had 2-3 of these batteries, the
issue of battery life would be moot. You can run just the light on the
camcorder for 10-12 hours on a single charge. If you were filming and using
the light depending on how much you zoom in and out you would get close to
6-8 hours per charge. Just something to think about.
Stephen Peters
> Let's get this straight, once and for all---the only facts that apply
> in any movie are those imparted during the course of the film from its
> first frame to its last. [...]
[and re: batteries]
> They would have to have carried so many of them for it to have lasted
> that long, that it would have been totally unwieldy---and heavy as
> hell, to boot. They wouldn't have been able to have carried all the
> other gear they carried along with their batteries.
If you honestly believe that the only facts that apply in the movie
are those imparted in the movie itself, then the three students only
filmed 88 minutes of footage, less than a third of which were in
daylight and needed the lights on. You don't need much battery power
for that.
If, on the other hand, you believe that they shot more footage than
that, then I ask where you got that idea? Certainly wasn't a fact
shown in the film...
Dave
> them with a news paper in front of them to see if they are alive.
> Until i see that or some other proof i belive at least 85% that this a
> strange true story.
The events depicted in the movie are 100% fictional, as is the legend
of the Blair Witch. The actors and alive and well and have appeared
in film festivals showing the film. The best proof of this is to look
on the Haxan films Web site (http://www.haxan.com/) where the film
makers write about their experiences making and promoting the film.
They freely admit here and in many other interviews that the events of
the film never took place in reality. They even discuss some of their
other ideas for how the film should end.
Dave
(da...@pdh.com)
ex account
: Then you aren't reading the entire thread, and I'll be damned if I'm
: going to repost them all here again for your benefit.
You'll be damned anyway, because I'm sending you to hell with my evil
witch powers.
: As I already mentioned, I supplied 3 of the plot holes with the rest
: supplied by others, but I have already defended every one of them in
: other posted replies---
Maybe here and there when somebody responded to one of the dumb ones with
something even dumber - this is usenet, that sort of thing can't be
helped. But the prevailing pattern I've seen when you respond to sensible
people is that you stick to the "why were they still filming" question and
two or three others and let the rest of it slide.
And I know you didn't write all of them yourself, but as long as you're
reposting them it doesn't seem too unfair to associate you with them.
: As I already responded to the person with the Mt. St. Helens
: observation along with the one who cited the Jonestown cameraman
: incident----do I really have to point out that these were guys filming
: specific events of relatively short duration; not every waking moment
: day in and day while terrified, including stumbling through the woods
: and the dark, right up to the bitter end?
You've got a point.
: Oh, and it is a trend I've noticed in the movie ngs when it comes to
: films such as this---a trend that says if you are critical about
: anything in a film which hordes of folks are ga-ga about, then you're
: bashing the film. Which I hope both you and I know is far from the
: case.
It's not true by definition, but on the other hand, whenver a lot of
people like something there's a strong tendency for snide bastards to
start coming out of the woodwork. So people are understandably on their
guard. You've at least said that you liked it all right overall, so
you're not a classic snide bastard, but they're definitely out there.
Just off camera.
-s.
You Die Joe
This is why making films like this is so irresponsible. It's impossible to
overestimate the gullibility of the public.
YDJ
Brian wrote in message <377e57cd.1024797@news>...
timew...@my-deja.com
nim...@earthlink.net (Nimrod``) wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:21:43 -0700, "PAK" <the-...@primenet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> 4) Why did Heather and Mike keep filming each other right up to
the
> >> end, after they were desperate for their lives and agreed that they
> >> didn't care about the movie anymore and just wanted to get out of
> >> there?
> >
needed the
> >light from the cameras to see their way in the dark.
> >
>
> But if that had been the reason, they would have only used the camera
> lights---and not been running the camera motor, which would just sap
> those amazing superduper batteries of theirs even faster.
>
My personal opinion is that being lost in the woods, the cameras were
there link to the "real world." The cameras acted as a security
blanket in that manner. As long as they kept filming, they had some
degree of control of things and detachment; they were observers, not
the story.
---
H. Thomas Leonard III
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
epro...@my-deja.com
nim...@earthlink.net (Nimrod``) wrote:
> Through email to me, Jon Ridge has been kind enough to contribute an
> additional salient question regarding TBWP:
>
> 8) Since their footage was uncovered a year after the events we
> witness unfolding---why wouldn't whoever or whatever it was that
> killed the students destroy their footage as well? Why would they
> bury it, just so the evidence could be uncovered a year later?
>
> (And don't say it was to lure others to the house because obviously
> somebody supposedly went there, dug up the house's foundation for some
> unknown reason, and brought back this footage without being killed
> themselves. Otherwise we wouldn't be watching it.)
>
> N.
Well, actually, if you check out the Sci-Fi channel's "Mockumentary" on
BWP, you'll see that many of these backstory questions were, in fact,
filled in by the film's authors. The footage was actually "found"
elsewhere in the woods, under a creepy, undisturbed pile of rocks and
wood. It was "found" all together as well, the DATs, 16mm and video--all
in Heather's backpack.
that mockumentary's site is pretty good:
http://www.scifi.com/blairwitch
-E
ex account
: I said this already, but it bears repeating: It's like saying CITIZEN
: KANE is a great movie, but you have to see this documentary about the
: making of it and go get info off the CITIZEN KANE website in order to
: understand it and why it's so great.
I don't think the additional information is necessary for the BWP to work.
It's necessary to _explain_ a lot of things in the film, and about the
film, but I'd argue that it's just as good - better, perhaps - if you
leave them unexplained. I enjoy and can live with a little mystery - I
saw the film without having seen the documentary or the website, all I
knew ahead of time was the opening text (from the trailer) and the fact
that "it's not a classic horror movie, it's all psychological" from some
online review somewhere. It still worked. I think that I knew exactly
enough going in to put me in a proper frame of mind, which may have
contributed to my liking it so much.
Not knowing "who edited the footage" just isn't a flaw.
-s.
V-X
> >Actually, I haven't seen it yet. I was just throwing that in.
> >
> Robert, if you keep reading these threads, the whole movie is going to
> be ruined for you....
It really couldn't be any more ruined. Don't worry.
synthuser
> Oh, and it is a trend I've noticed in the movie ngs when it comes to
> films such as this---a trend that says if you are critical about
> anything in a film which hordes of folks are ga-ga about, then you're
> bashing the film. Which I hope both you and I know is far from the
> case.
I've read quite a few of your TBWP posts, and then I remembered you
were the idiot who went postal cause you couldn't get your DVD player
to work cause you didn't bother to read your manual.
Enough said.
john schwalm
>
>Nope, I"m holding out for the wave of media coverage when people start to
>go on investigations of coffin rock, or when some place in Maryland renames
>itself to Blair, or when the first people commit suicide or murder because
>of the Blair Witch. Mark my words, at least some of that's going to happen
:-).
Actually, Burkittsville is holding it's annual Ruritan Festival this week.
Having just recently heard about the Blair Witch, they decided to create a new
ham sandwich called the "Bur-Witch." Apparently there have been some sightseers
asking about the witch, and being quite disappointed to find out there never
was any. And if they search for Coffin Rock around there they might end up
getting really lost, because those scenes were filmed at least thirty miles to
the south.
john schwalm
>However, many of the so-called background "facts" being spouted by so
>many about events in the film are only available in the documentary
>and on the website. Do you seriously contend that it is artistically
>honest and sufficient to say, "well you've got to go to other outside
>sources to really understand this movie"?
I don't think you need the outside sources to understand the movie. But look at
it this way - if somebody was nitpicking over plot holes in a movie that's
based largely on historical events, like "Titanic," would we not be able to
consult history to either defend or refute those points? With BWP, there is no
real history to consult, other than the "history" that was presented on the
webpage and the "mockumentary." If one accepts those bits to be canonical to
the BWP, then they are relevant.
>I said this already, but it bears repeating: It's like saying CITIZEN
>KANE is a great movie, but you have to see this documentary about the
>making of it and go get info off the CITIZEN KANE website in order to
>understand it and why it's so great.
Two hugely different movies. Welles never intended to make Citizen Kane in such
a way that it might blur the line before fantasy and reality - movie goers knew
they were watching a fictional drama. If you want to compare BWP to an Orson
Welles production, I suggest you compare it to his radio adaptation of "War of
the Worlds."
>If you buy into that approach, it means that filmmakers can now be
>amateurish and sloppy then just cover their asses after the fact,
>claiming that you have to see supplemental materials to fully grasp
>and appreciate their film.
The movie stands on its own. There's a difference between needing to see the
supplemental material to understand the movie, and making use of outside
material to enhance the movie for those so inclined to do so. But if you miss
the sci-fi special and have no access to the web, you'd still understand the
flick.
Justin Deal
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:02:07 GMT, epro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>In article <37d01df9...@news.earthlink.net>,
>> nim...@earthlink.net (Nimrod``) wrote:
>>
>>> Through email to me, Jon Ridge has been kind enough to contribute an
>>> additional salient question regarding TBWP:
>>>
>>> 8) Since their footage was uncovered a year after the events we
>>> witness unfolding---why wouldn't whoever or whatever it was that
>>> killed the students destroy their footage as well? Why would they
>>> bury it, just so the evidence could be uncovered a year later?
>>>
>>> (And don't say it was to lure others to the house because obviously
>>> somebody supposedly went there, dug up the house's foundation for some
>>> unknown reason, and brought back this footage without being killed
>>> themselves. Otherwise we wouldn't be watching it.)
>>>
>>> N.
>>
>>Well, actually, if you check out the Sci-Fi channel's "Mockumentary" on
>>BWP, you'll see that many of these backstory questions were, in fact,
>>filled in by the film's authors. The footage was actually "found"
>>elsewhere in the woods, under a creepy, undisturbed pile of rocks and
>>wood. It was "found" all together as well, the DATs, 16mm and video--all
>>in Heather's backpack.
>>
>
>Yes, yes, yes, we've heard all this over and over. Once again, you
>should not have to go to an outside source to fill in the blanks in a
>movie......
Um, you are aware we are about to enter the 21st century, right? Is
there some law that says movies can't become more multimedia-oriented?
Combining a new movie with alternate media sources, such as the
Internet, is more likely than not going to become the norm in coming
years. It wouldn't surprise me if a paradigm shift is on its way.
Justin
Dylan Bryan Dolman
a) it's basically a religious movie about panic
b) however, a pretty obvious rationalist interpretation is that the whole
thing is a trick played on Heather by both guys and a few of their buddies,
just to take her down a peg or two. Question remains -- do they kill her?
Dylan
=dbd=
nig
wrote:
what does that have to do with whether there are flaws in TBWP you
moron? i remember that post your talking about and nim immediately
apologized explaining that he just gave away one dvd player and the
second had the default aspect ratio set incorrectly. several people
even said it shouln't have had that aspect ratio setting as default.
it was the company was part ot blame. it wasn't that his dvd player
didn't work you liar. the picture image setting was wrong and he
never had that problem with the first machine. some people just look
for any tiny excuse to invalidate opinion they don't like and you are
one of those lame stupid people.
nig
(o)---^--(o)
Chris Pierson
Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:38:32 -0700 (PDT), TwoCent...@webtv.net
>(Phil R.) wrote:
>
>>Nimrod typed:
>>
>><snipped funny observations>
>>
>>That is why this idea fell flat. The editing question was not only with
>>the town folk, but with the back and forth of the real 'color' cam, to
>>the black and white cam. That bothered me. I just told myself, whoever
>>found the footage, edited for movie reasons. I think straight raw
>>footage from a camera, no matter what content inside it, would be really
>>boring to watch.
>>
>>Phil
>
>You kind of have to deduce that your explanation is what happened,
>though it isn't really explained in the film.
Well, yes, of course you have to deduce it. It doesn't exactly waste a lot
of brain cells to make that deduction, however. Sure, it could have been
covered by tacking "... And we done made it into a MOVIE!" onto the
opening spiel at the beginning of the film (and who added _that_, I
wonder? That's never overtly explained either!), but that would just be
stating the blindingly obvious.
--
Chris Pierson ** "We have studied the portrayal of Canadians in [South Park]
** closely, and we're f*cking dismayed it portrays Canadians
Author ** as foul-mouthed and offensive."
Game Designer ** -- Kevin O'Shea, Canadian Consulate of New York
CarlosBob
Dylan Bryan Dolman wrote:
Yes, I often take people out in the woods, get us lost for days till we run out
of food, and drag my friends out to chase us in the dark. You know, for
kicks...
CarlosBob
ghmndnxv wrote:
> That was you? You f*cking bastard! I barely managed to get out of there -
> and I dropped my f*cking camera!
>
> Re: the rest of this thread - it's only a goddam horror flick, people, and
> one that has more internal consistency than 99% of the others out there,
> at that!!!!
>
> - ali assa seen
LOL!!!
There are more people slamming this movie than Taco Bell has Jar-Jar merchadise! I
don't get it, if you don't think the movie lived up to the hype, get over it. Most
movies now don't reach the audiences expectations, given the Hollywood hype
machine. To me this is the best horror movie in a long time, maybe since the early
70's (Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw). If you want realism, see a real documentary
(Streetwise and Thin Blue Line are great!).
TOM REICHENBACH
wrote:
snip
>>>Yes, yes, yes, we've heard all this over and over. Once again, you
>>>should not have to go to an outside source to fill in the blanks in a
>>>movie......
>>
>That doesn't change the fact that the marketability of a film is going
>to be severely limited if a viewer doesn't feel like they're going to
>get the full artistic experience from that film on its own, without
>outside references and supplemental aids to fill in the gaps.
For what it's worth, I had to go to an outside source to understand
the end of 2001, Clarke's novelization. I expect this wasn't
Kubrick's intent, though.
JAT
Tracky : )
You Die Joe wrote in message
<7n2ie4$f...@journal.concentric.net>...
>OH MY GOD... you really believe it was TRUE, don't you?
>
>This is why making films like this is so irresponsible. It's
impossible to
>overestimate the gullibility of the public.
>
>YDJ
Man, I've gotten more entertainment from those people thinking
TBWP is real!! I've even talked with an engineer who was certain
that all the BW stuff really happened...this guy was dead damn
serious!! These kids (Heather, Josh & Mike) may not be Orson
Welles, but they've sure been able to invoke that group
reaction!!
Tracky : )
jack-bob-jimmy
unconvincing, especially the two guys. Even when they were being trailed
by the witch, the kids didn't display any sense of urgency - if they
were really being followed, they would have really tried to put a decent
plan together (like how about FOLLOWING THE RIVER, for starters) rather
than panicking and bickering.
Tracky : ) wrote:
>
> You Die Joe wrote in message
> <7n2ie4$f...@journal.concentric.net>...
> >OH MY GOD... you really believe it was TRUE, don't you?
> >
> >This is why making films like this is so irresponsible. It's
> impossible to
> >overestimate the gullibility of the public.
> >
> >YDJ
>
Ian Kezsbom
the woods (using the sun as a guide would have helped too), but I got the
impression that the characters were not all that bright to begin with, so
I was able to forgive them for their stupidty...
Ian
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, jack-bob-jimmy wrote:
> Highly overrated movie (sorry, just IMO). The acting was completely
> unconvincing, especially the two guys. Even when they were being trailed
> by the witch, the kids didn't display any sense of urgency - if they
> were really being followed, they would have really tried to put a decent
> plan together (like how about FOLLOWING THE RIVER, for starters) rather
> than panicking and bickering.
>
>
>
> Tracky : ) wrote:
> >
> > You Die Joe wrote in message
> > <7n2ie4$f...@journal.concentric.net>...
> > >OH MY GOD... you really believe it was TRUE, don't you?
> > >
> > >This is why making films like this is so irresponsible. It's
> > impossible to
> > >overestimate the gullibility of the public.
> > >
> > >YDJ
> >
Larax
>the woods (using the sun as a guide would have helped too), but I got the
>impression that the characters were not all that bright to begin with, so
>I was able to forgive them for their stupidty...
They were using a freaking COMPASS. Direction was not a problem- the fact that
they mysteriously ended up at the same spot was. The point is, it wouldn't
matter what they used. They walked in the same direction all day and ended up
at the same point- using a compass. There's something strange going on when
something like that happens.
-Lar...@aol.com
"Hosie Cow - It shoots water out of it's tail. Ya know, just like a real cow!"
Chris Pierson
Ian Kezsbom <ikez...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
>I agree the characters sure could have done a better job getting out of
>the woods (using the sun as a guide would have helped too), but I got the
>impression that the characters were not all that bright to begin with, so
>I was able to forgive them for their stupidty...
Don't forget, too, that they were tired, cold, hungry, scared, and angry.
Any one of these has a tendency to sap one's spirit and cloud one's
judgment. Together, they only confound the characters' naivete and
semi-stupidity.
What I'd like to see is for the people who pick at the characters'
inability to think with pseudo-Vulcan logic to try getting thoroughly lost
in the woods for DAYS, without adequate food, in the cold and rain, while
something stalks them, wakes them up at night, and terrifies them. I'm
sure _they'd_ be perfectly rational too.
Oh, and as for using the sun as a guide -- wasn't it overcast pretty much
all the time in the movie?
jack-bob-jimmy
>
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.05.9907231547510.22441-100000@allegro>,
> Ian Kezsbom <ikez...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
> >I agree the characters sure could have done a better job getting out of
> >the woods (using the sun as a guide would have helped too), but I got the
> >impression that the characters were not all that bright to begin with, so
> >I was able to forgive them for their stupidty...
>
> Don't forget, too, that they were tired, cold, hungry, scared, and angry.
> Any one of these has a tendency to sap one's spirit and cloud one's
> judgment. Together, they only confound the characters' naivete and
> semi-stupidity.
>
> What I'd like to see is for the people who pick at the characters'
> inability to think with pseudo-Vulcan logic to try getting thoroughly lost
> in the woods for DAYS, without adequate food, in the cold and rain, while
> something stalks them, wakes them up at night, and terrifies them. I'm
> sure _they'd_ be perfectly rational too.
Ok, but do these kind of conditions induce not only stupid behaviour,
but self-destructive behaviour as well, like throwing away the map? And
if they were so petrified and exhausted, why did they insist on
continuing to film during this period?
>
> Oh, and as for using the sun as a guide -- wasn't it overcast pretty much
> all the time in the movie?
Much of the time - NOT all of the time.
Dylan Bryan-Dolman
>
> Dylan Bryan Dolman wrote:
>
> > a pretty obvious rationalist interpretation is that the whole
> > thing is a trick played on Heather by both guys and a few of their
buddies,
> > just to take her down a peg or two. Question remains -- do they kill
her?
>
run out
> of food, and drag my friends out to chase us in the dark. You know, for
> kicks...
Well, since that's what the movie actually was, it doesn't seem too
far-fetched that that's what it was supposed to be.
Dylan
=dbd=
Chris Seamans
jack-bob-jimmy wrote in message <37991F...@gracias.net>...
>Ok, but do these kind of conditions induce not only stupid behaviour,
>but self-destructive behaviour as well, like throwing away the map? And
>if they were so petrified and exhausted, why did they insist on
>continuing to film during this period?
Are you sure that Mike threw away the map under his own free will?
jack-bob-jimmy
>
> I love your nic, jack-bob-jimmy. I also think your observations
> pertaining to TBWP are right on the money.
Thanks for the kind words, N. Seriously, is this the biggest summer of
let-downs you have ever seen? So far, the only to movies that to have
lived up to the hype were "Election" and "South Park" (though in
fairness I haven't seen EWS yet).
>
> N>
odunGL
>> last that long on cameras without being recharged?
>
>enough battery power to power the known universe." or something similar.
>
It's funny that they get that much batteries, may be they perpared to
get themself lost in the begining.
King Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock!
schwalm) sez:
¢¢ Two hugely different movies. Welles never intended to make Citizen Kane
in such
¢¢ a way that it might blur the line before fantasy and reality - movie
goers knew
¢¢ they were watching a fictional drama. If you want to compare BWP to an Orson
¢¢ Welles production, I suggest you compare it to his radio adaptation of
"War of
¢¢ the Worlds."
...or F FOR FAKE...
--
King Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock! (opinions expressed solely his)
heard in Chicago-Milwaukee-Lake Geneva-Whitewater
ultim...@eudoramail.com http://come.to/ultimajock
"If I've offended you in any way, you needed it." ROBIN TYLER
Chris Pierson
It's not really that funny. When I was in j-school, we _always_ brought
more batteries for the camera than we needed. Better that than to have
the camera go fzzt, with no more power, just when you're trying to catch a
crucial shot or interview. True, we never took as much as the BWP crew,
but then, we'd only go out shooting for a couple hours, rather than days.
Vic Wang
> >>>> the woods?
> >>>>
> >>>Who's to say they didn't and it was just edited out of the film.
>
I thought they should have just started the hugest raging forest fire they could
possibly make, fueling it and fueling it until entire trees are just engulfed in
flames, then just wait until the fire department or park rangers come and rescue
them. It was sure as hell worth a try. ;-)
Vic Wang
> : observation along with the one who cited the Jonestown cameraman
> : incident----do I really have to point out that these were guys filming
> : specific events of relatively short duration; not every waking moment
> : day in and day while terrified, including stumbling through the woods
> : and the dark, right up to the bitter end?
In addition to discussing the Mt. St. Helens camera man (who was caught in a
hot, choking, almost pitch-black ash cloud for over 8 hours, and actually
filmed it while he walked miles to safety even though he could have died) my
geography professor also showed us a photo taken by a geologist near the
volcano when it exploded, who KNEW he was going to die but actually took the
photo and then sealed the camera in his bag so it could be preserved after his
death.
Dave Gates
I thought of this! Maybe they could lay low in the stream while the
fire burned the woods around them. (Would that work?)
A nice argument against anything intelligent they could have done is
that the witch put a wee spell on all of them that prevented them from
acting intelligently. (It would sure explain throwing the map away!)
--
Dave Gates
dave...@primenet.com
Chris Seamans
Dave Gates wrote in message <379C01A4...@primenet.com>...
SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
>I thought of this! Maybe they could lay low in the stream while the
>fire burned the woods around them. (Would that work?)
It might, but it's likely that the lack of oxygen from being stuck in the
center of such a massive fire would kill them.
>A nice argument against anything intelligent they could have done is
>that the witch put a wee spell on all of them that prevented them from
>acting intelligently. (It would sure explain throwing the map away!)
Of course, you could always figure that the Blair Witch controlled Mike to
throw the map away or you could assume that he was stupid enough to do it
himself or that he was enraged by Heather's bullshit enough to do it.
Chris Pierson
Or the most likely possibility, which is that, what with all the hunger,
cold, fear, anger, and so forth makes all three of them erratic and
illogical, just as your average person would be in such a situation.
Chris Pierson
Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 26 Jul 1999 11:42:37 GMT, cpie...@tiac.net (Chris Pierson) wrote:
>
>
>>Or the most likely possibility, which is that, what with all the hunger,
>>cold, fear, anger, and so forth makes all three of them erratic and
>>illogical, just as your average person would be in such a situation.
>
>
I _am_ speaking for myself, Nim. And for just about everyone I know,
including many otherwise level-headed people. Sadly, we can't all be from
the planet Vulcan like you.
Chris Pierson
Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 26 Jul 1999 14:02:41 GMT, cpie...@tiac.net (Chris Pierson) wrote:
>
>>In article <37c76b8f....@news.earthlink.net>,
>>Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>On 26 Jul 1999 11:42:37 GMT, cpie...@tiac.net (Chris Pierson) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Or the most likely possibility, which is that, what with all the hunger,
>>>>cold, fear, anger, and so forth makes all three of them erratic and
>>>>illogical, just as your average person would be in such a situation.
>>>
>>>
>>>Speak for yourself, Chris...
>>
>>I _am_ speaking for myself, Nim. And for just about everyone I know,
>>including many otherwise level-headed people. Sadly, we can't all be from
>>the planet Vulcan like you.
>
>
Sorry, folks -- in a moment of weakness, I broke a cardinal rule: never
get into an argument with a pedant. Apologies for the wasted bandwidth.
Mollybloom
Nimrod`` wrote:
>
> On 26 Jul 1999 14:02:41 GMT, cpie...@tiac.net (Chris Pierson) wrote:
>
> >In article <37c76b8f....@news.earthlink.net>,
> >Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>On 26 Jul 1999 11:42:37 GMT, cpie...@tiac.net (Chris Pierson) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Or the most likely possibility, which is that, what with all the hunger,
> >>>cold, fear, anger, and so forth makes all three of them erratic and
> >>>illogical, just as your average person would be in such a situation.
> >>
> >>
> >>Speak for yourself, Chris...
> >
> >I _am_ speaking for myself, Nim. And for just about everyone I know,
> >including many otherwise level-headed people. Sadly, we can't all be from
> >the planet Vulcan like you.
>
> So everyone you know nominated you to speak for them?
>
> Nimrod``
>
> (Live long and prosper...)
Is this necessary? Can't we just assume that many people would behave
erratically and that you would not?
--FSL
********************************
Elvis and I fry up Demerol tablets and bacon grease-- "Elvis & I"
---Denis Leary
Chris Seamans
Chris Pierson wrote in message <7ni425$a...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>Sorry, folks -- in a moment of weakness, I broke a cardinal rule: never
>get into an argument with a pedant. Apologies for the wasted bandwidth.
It's alright Chris, you've got a point. People get surprisingly erratic when
deprived of sleep, cigarettes and food. All of us understand this. Anyone
who's ever given up any one of them for any length of time will understand
this. I wouldn't give all of them up at the same time myself ;)
Stephen Thompson
Some thoughts on The Blair Witch Project's alleged plot flaws, which various
people have suggested throughout the thread. Many of these points have been
made by others, but I thought I'd summarize and add my own comments...
* If this was "found" footage, how did Heather and the boys edit the "local
folk" interviews"?
They didn't. It's pretty obvious that the editing was done later. Part of the
clear premise of the film is that this edited footage is now being released by
a film company. Thus, it's not hard to figure out that (within the fiction of
the movie) the film company edited the footage for release.
If I understand correctly, the objection was that one has to "deduce" this,
and some folks considered this an unreasonable expectation. In much the same
way, we also have to "deduce" that Heather was not really a 6'2" Navy Seal in
disguise, and that the movie isn't set on a large asteroid orbiting Saturn.
Some things are just so obvious that to call them "deductions" is almost an
embarrassment.
* Since their footage was uncovered a year after the events we witness
unfolding---why wouldn't whoever or whatever it was that killed the students
destroy their footage as well? Why would they bury it, just so the evidence
could be uncovered a year later?
Why would a supernatural being worry about the footage being found? What's
going to happen, the FBI's going to come arrest it and use the footage at
trial?
As for the film being buried, who says it was? All the movie says is that the
footage was found a year later. The movie says nothing about it being buried.
Yes, I know, I know. The web site or the Sci-Fi special or something says it
was buried. However, the same person who posted this question (although it
wasn't his own) also says that we shouldn't have to go to an outside source to
"fill in the blanks". I agree. However, it seems a bit unreasonable to then go
to an outside source to create the blanks in the first place.
In any case, accepting that the film was buried, heck if I know why. Maybe
this murderous spirit-being was cleaning house, and the place the footage was
buried is the local spirit realm garbage dump. Maybe it considered the
students' belongings a trophy and put them in its trophy case. Who knows? Who
cares? How is this a plot flaw? If someone would like to explain what
motivates supernatural beings, and how burying the film is somehow at odds
with how they normally behave, I'd be fascinated to hear it.
* If this is supposed to be real life, who has battery packs that last that
long on cameras without being recharged?
How long is "that long"? How many battery packs did they bring? And how much
footage did they shoot? We only see somewhere around 70-75 minutes of woods
footage. Presumably they shot more, maybe even a lot more, but there's no
reason to think they were shooting constantly.
I really have no idea what the objection is here. It's mentioned early in the
movie that they've brought a whole lot of batteries. Some folks apparently
can't accept that they would bring a whole lot of batteries, but I haven't
seen anyone explain why not. Batteries are pretty essential to what these
students are doing, and most people would probably rather bring too many than
not enough. At most, they're being overcautious about their project, which is
well within the bounds of normal human behavior.
(As a side note, several gratuitous insults have been tossed at those who
accept the premise that they brought a lot of batteries, which I find odd.
Specifically, suggestions that if you accept this, you're gullible to the
point of stupidity... "I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying..."
and so forth. Not the worst insults ever, but they just make no sense without
an explanation of what's so absurd about the premise.)
* Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie talkies to keep
in touch with each other in case they got separated or to phone someone in
case something happened?
The obvious explanation is that they didn't have access to cell phones or
walkie talkies. There's nothing odd about this. They were film students, so
it's not as though they had a whole lot of money. Cell phones were a lot more
expensive and less common in 1994 than they are now. Also, experienced campers
have posted to say that they don't bring these items with them when they go
camping, and there's no indication that the students were even experienced
campers.
* Why not bring a bowie knife or some other kind of weapon, if not for
anything else, to cut firewood with? Hell, you're going into the woods to
investigate this sinister phenomenon where you just might encounter hermits
or hillbillies and it never occurs to you that maybe you should have a
little protection?
I can't remember for sure if Heather brought a knife, but at least two people
have posted that they believe she did. If so, she just didn't think to pull it
out later. It's not like it would have helped.
Even if they didn't bring one, it's still not a plot flaw. As mentioned, they
weren't exactly experienced woodsmen. They may not have thought about it. They
were enthusiastic, somewhat reckless kids, charging off into the woods to do
their film project. So they didn't stop to think about weapons and cell
phones. I don't know what's so hard to believe about that.
* Why didn't they just follow the stream?
* Hey why didn't they fallow the north star?
* Last time I checked the sun always sets in the west and rises in the east.
Knowing that, why do you even need a map? Just get your bearing looking at
the position of the sun.
They simply didn't need to bother with any of these tricks. As far as they
knew, they didn't need any tricks to get their bearings or travel in a
straight line. Why? Because they had a magical device called a "compass".
Later, they discovered that they had traveled in a circle, EVEN THOUGH they
had followed the compass. The obvious implication was that someone or
something was interfering with their efforts to find their way out. At this
point, they had no reason to think that any of these other methods would have
worked any better. Besides, by then they were obviously plenty freaked and
panicky, so judging their behavior by rational standards is pointless.
* Why didn't one of them climb a tall tree and look for the edge of the woods?
As someone else pointed out, you can't climb to the very top of a tree, since
the branches get too narrow and weak at the top to support your weight. Thus,
when you're at the highest point you can reach, all you can see are the upper
parts of all the trees around you. Not exactly helpful.
* After they lost the map---or Mike threw away the map---why didn't they just
rewind the tape in the camcorder and look at the map in any number of the
shots they took of the map while they were studying it earlier?
This one is simply inane. There's just no way anyone could read a map on a
paused video through a camcorder's viewfinder. Presumably, that's why this one
was so quickly dropped, even if no one could admit that it wasn't actually a
plot flaw as was claimed. Still, I don't know how anyone could have seriously
suggested it in the first place.
* What audience is this "documentary" made for? The footage is UNWATCHABLE.
It's shot with all the skill and technique of your uncle's video of last
summer's 4th of July barbecue.
Much of the VIDEO footage is shaky, but that footage wasn't meant to be part
of the documentary at all. The FILM footage they shot for the documentary was
pretty smooth. It got shaky later on when they were terrified and/or running,
of course, but there's nothing strange about that.
* You're deep in the woods and you hear sounds in the distance that scare the
living hell out of you. Your first thought is to turn on the video camera
when it's pitch black dark and nothing is visible anyway?!! Come on!
* Why did Heather and Mike keep filming each other right up to the end, after
they were desperate for their lives and agreed that they didn't care about
the movie anymore and just wanted to get out of there?
* My only "plot hole" is that Mike decided to start filming toward the end
after he continually told Heather over and over to stop filming.
These points have merit, in my opinion. I think the severity of this flaw has
been exaggerated, but I also think it's pointless to try to explain it away
completely. Obviously, the real reason is that otherwise we wouldn't have the
movie.
It's pretty easy for me to forgive this flaw, since there's simply no way to
avoid it given the film's premise. It's not like the filmmakers just stupidly
missed something. They did make an effort to explain this behavior, especially
in Heather's case, and I think they did about as good a job with that as was
possible.
After reading much of the thread, it seems reasonable to expect a few
accusations. So, let me clear up a few things in advance...
1. I do not work for Haxan or Artisan, and I do not have any relation to the
filmmakers.
2. I enjoyed the movie, but I do not worship it or consider it perfect. I
found it creepy and engaging, but I didn't get the sheer terror thing that
many people got.
So why am I bothering here? I love spotting and reading about movie flaws,
including for movies I enjoyed. That's why I started reading this thread. To
my disappointment, I found most of these claimed flaws to be glaringly lacking
in thought and attention, as well as poorly defended. So, since I can't enjoy
the intelligent list of BWP flaws I was hoping for, at least I can get some
amusement from trashing the lame ones I actually found.
Besides, I'm a little cranky because I thought that Mystery Men would be out
this weekend, and I just found out I had the date wrong. Damn.
HBOMB
Stephen Thompson <th...@cableaz.com> wrote in message
news:37a0a623...@news.cableaz.com...
> [Definite Spoilers]
> * Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie talkies to
keep
> in touch with each other in case they got separated or to phone someone
in case something happened?
>
> The obvious explanation is that they didn't have access to cell phones or
> walkie talkies. There's nothing odd about this. They were film students,
so
> it's not as though they had a whole lot of money. Cell phones were a lot
more
> expensive and less common in 1994 than they are now. Also, experienced
campers
> have posted to say that they don't bring these items with them when they
go
> camping, and there's no indication that the students were even experienced
> campers.
It's "obvious" that they didn't have access to cell phones or walkie
talkies? Excuse me? I don't think so. If they didn't want to get a walkie
talkie for each of them then they could have pooled their money for one cell
phone. If they're inexperienced campers, that's all the more reason to get
some kind of radio communication.
> * Why didn't they just follow the stream?
> * Hey why didn't they fallow the north star?
> * Last time I checked the sun always sets in the west and rises in the
east.
> Knowing that, why do you even need a map? Just get your bearing looking
at the position of the sun.
>
> They simply didn't need to bother with any of these tricks. As far as they
> knew, they didn't need any tricks to get their bearings or travel in a
> straight line. Why? Because they had a magical device called a "compass".
It sure worked well didn't it?
> Later, they discovered that they had traveled in a circle, EVEN THOUGH
they
> had followed the compass. The obvious implication was that someone or
> something was interfering with their efforts to find their way out. At
this
> point, they had no reason to think that any of these other methods would
have
> worked any better.
Oh come on. I don;t buy that at all. Magnetic distortion is one thing but
moving the position of the sun? Give me a break!
Besides, by then they were obviously plenty freaked and
> panicky, so judging their behavior by rational standards is pointless.
>
> * Why didn't one of them climb a tall tree and look for the edge of the
woods?
>
> As someone else pointed out, you can't climb to the very top of a tree,
since
> the branches get too narrow and weak at the top to support your weight.
Thus,
> when you're at the highest point you can reach, all you can see are the
upper
> parts of all the trees around you. Not exactly helpful.
No, you can get an idea of the border of the forest.
> * What audience is this "documentary" made for? The footage is
UNWATCHABLE.
> It's shot with all the skill and technique of your uncle's video of last
> summer's 4th of July barbecue.
>
> Much of the VIDEO footage is shaky, but that footage wasn't meant to be
part
> of the documentary at all. The FILM footage they shot for the documentary
was
> pretty smooth. It got shaky later on when they were terrified and/or
running,
> of course, but there's nothing strange about that.
And you know it wasn't meant for the documentary based on what?
Stephen Thompson
"HBOMB" <removeJAL...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Stephen Thompson <th...@cableaz.com> wrote...
>>* Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie talkies to
>> keep in touch with each other in case they got separated or to phone
>> someone in case something happened?
>>
>>The obvious explanation is that they didn't have access to cell phones or
>>walkie talkies. There's nothing odd about this. They were film students,
>>so it's not as though they had a whole lot of money. Cell phones were a lot
>>more expensive and less common in 1994 than they are now. Also, experienced
>>campers have posted to say that they don't bring these items with them when
>>they go camping, and there's no indication that the students were even
>>experienced campers.
>It's "obvious" that they didn't have access to cell phones or walkie
>talkies? Excuse me? I don't think so. If they didn't want to get a walkie
>talkie for each of them then they could have pooled their money for one cell
>phone. If they're inexperienced campers, that's all the more reason to get
>some kind of radio communication.
That's all the more reason that it would have been a good idea, but all the
LESS reason for them to have thought of it. We're talking about whether what
they did is realistic, which is a totally different question from whether it
was smart.
And I didn't mean that it would have been completely impossible for them to
get a cell phone. OBVIOUSLY they could have gotten one if they'd really tried,
and if they really wanted to blow a significant chunk of their limited
college-student money on something they didn't think they'd even need.
What I meant was that none of them owned one or had immediate access to one.
To understand the difference, I *could* have a pool installed in my backyard,
but I wouldn't currently describe myself as "having access" to a pool. If one
of them had owned a cell phone, they no doubt would have brought it.
But why is it so unrealistic that they didn't go out of their way to get one?
The fact is that people go camping without cell phones ALL THE TIME. Even
these days, with cell phones a lot more common than five years ago. Why is it
so hard to accept that these three were just like all those people who go
camping without cell phones? What is it you think is so different about these
three?
>>* Why didn't they just follow the stream?
>>* Hey why didn't they fallow the north star?
>>* Last time I checked the sun always sets in the west and rises in the
>> east. Knowing that, why do you even need a map? Just get your bearing
>> looking at the position of the sun.
>>
>>They simply didn't need to bother with any of these tricks. As far as they
>>knew, they didn't need any tricks to get their bearings or travel in a
>>straight line. Why? Because they had a magical device called a "compass".
>It sure worked well didn't it?
Not especially. What's your point? Should they have known in advance that it
wouldn't work, and tried one of these other methods instead? Do you consider
it a plot flaw that they couldn't see into the future?
>>Later, they discovered that they had traveled in a circle, EVEN THOUGH they
>>had followed the compass. The obvious implication was that someone or
>>something was interfering with their efforts to find their way out. At this
>>point, they had no reason to think that any of these other methods would
>>have worked any better. Besides, by then they were obviously plenty freaked
>>and panicky, so judging their behavior by rational standards is pointless.
>Oh come on. I don;t buy that at all. Magnetic distortion is one thing but
>moving the position of the sun? Give me a break!
You seem to need one, as you're imagining things. I didn't say anything about
magnetic distortion or moving the sun. Mental influence seems a much better
explanation, and it would work no matter how they tried to find their way out.
Anyway, as I mentioned, at the point where one of them *might* have thought of
one of these clever direction-finding tricks, they were already freaked and
panicky.
The entire basis for most of your alleged "flaws" seems to be that they didn't
do exactly what you consider the best and smartest thing at all times. Even if
your idea really *were* the best thing to do, why is it a flaw that they
didn't do it? People often screw up and make dumb mistakes. These kids had
inexperience, fear, anger, disorientation, hunger, fatigue, and a murderous
witch all working against them, and you can't believe that they might not make
exactly the smartest choices at every turn? What do you think they were,
robots?
>>* Why didn't one of them climb a tall tree and look for the edge of the
>> woods?
>>
>>As someone else pointed out, you can't climb to the very top of a tree,
>>since the branches get too narrow and weak at the top to support your
>>weight. Thus, when you're at the highest point you can reach, all you can
>>see are the upper parts of all the trees around you. Not exactly helpful.
>No, you can get an idea of the border of the forest.
How? You climb as high as you can and you're still surrounded by trees. How
exactly would you see through the trees around you? X-ray vision? Sorry, but
your claim just defies common sense.
Even if it were true -- and it isn't -- this would just be another item on
your list of things that are easy to think of with the perfect clarity and
hindsight they didn't have.
>>* What audience is this "documentary" made for? The footage is UNWATCHABLE.
>> It's shot with all the skill and technique of your uncle's video of last
>> summer's 4th of July barbecue.
>>
>>Much of the VIDEO footage is shaky, but that footage wasn't meant to be
>>part of the documentary at all. The FILM footage they shot for the
>>documentary was pretty smooth. It got shaky later on when they were
>>terrified and/or running, of course, but there's nothing strange about
>>that.
>And you know it wasn't meant for the documentary based on what?
Based on watching the movie. Heather had the camcorder to chronicle their trip
and -- as we learn later -- because she felt more secure having it.
You could tell when they were intentionally shooting footage for the doc,
because they discussed it. They used film every time. At one point, Heather
was already shooting something with the camcorder, but made a point to tell
Josh to get it on film. (I think it was the first time they found the stick
totems.) If the camcorder footage was meant for the doc, she wouldn't need
Josh to get it on film as well. In fact, if they were going to use camcorder
footage for the documentary, there wouldn't be any reason to sneak the other
camera out for the weekend in the first place.
Chris Seamans
Stephen Thompson wrote in message <37a502cf...@news.cableaz.com>...
>[Definite Spoilers]
%
%
%
%
%
%
SPOILER SPACE
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
<concerning cell phones and walkie talkies>
>And I didn't mean that it would have been completely impossible for them to
>get a cell phone. OBVIOUSLY they could have gotten one if they'd really
tried,
>and if they really wanted to blow a significant chunk of their limited
>college-student money on something they didn't think they'd even need.
Keep in mind that cell phone coverage in the time this film was set (1994)
was significantly less than it is today. It's possible (actually, it's
probable) that a small town like the one in the film wouldn't have any cell
phone service at all.
As for the lack of walkie talkies being a plot hole, I don't buy it. What
good would walkie talkies have been in the film? For most of the movie,
Heather, Mike and Josh were within spitting distance of each other. What
would have been changed in the film, exactly?
The only time a walkie talkie would have been useful is when Josh
disappears. However, if Josh went insane, as some folks are saying, I doubt
he would have wanted Mikey and Heather to get in touch with him. If the
Blair Witch, insane killers or evil demonic entities abducted him, would
they have left him able to access his walkie talkie?
If someone can think of a reason how walkie talkies would have helped them,
I'd be glad to see it.
<concerning the following the sun, the north star, or a stream>
>>It sure worked well didn't it?
>
>Not especially. What's your point? Should they have known in advance that
it
>wouldn't work, and tried one of these other methods instead? Do you
consider
>it a plot flaw that they couldn't see into the future?
It's established in the film that it becomes overcast. Tricks such as
following the north star or the sun were not an option.
Again, I can't see how this is a "plot hole" unless their use of these
tricks would have resulted in a significantly different film.
>Anyway, as I mentioned, at the point where one of them *might* have thought
of
>one of these clever direction-finding tricks, they were already freaked and
>panicky.
People seem to be forgetting that these folks appear to be three urban or
suburban film students, not seasoned scouts and trackers.
Stephen Thompson
"Chris Seamans" <se...@pil.net> wrote:
>Stephen Thompson wrote...
>
>%
>%
>%
>%
>%
>%
>SPOILER SPACE
>%
>%
>%
>%
>%
>%
>%
>
><concerning cell phones and walkie talkies>
>
>Keep in mind that cell phone coverage in the time this film was set (1994)
>was significantly less than it is today. It's possible (actually, it's
>probable) that a small town like the one in the film wouldn't have any cell
>phone service at all.
That's a really good point, and I feel a bit stupid for missing it. Now that
you bring it up, it seems so obvious. In fact, I'd be a bit surprised if the
woods themselves are covered even now. It's possible, but certainly not five
years ago.
>As for the lack of walkie talkies being a plot hole, I don't buy it. What
>good would walkie talkies have been in the film? For most of the movie,
>Heather, Mike and Josh were within spitting distance of each other. What
>would have been changed in the film, exactly?
You're right, nothing would have. I suppose in a way I could sort of agree
that it was a flaw if it was a ridiculously unrealistic choice for them not to
bring walkie talkies, even if they never ended up needing or using them. It
just wasn't an unrealistic choice for them to make.
><concerning the following the sun, the north star, or a stream>
>It's established in the film that it becomes overcast. Tricks such as
>following the north star or the sun were not an option.
I know, but someone tried to argue earlier that it wasn't overcast all the
time. Rather than argue about how often they could see the sun, which I don't
entirely remember anyway, it seemed more effective to point out that they had
no reason whatsoever to bother with any of these other methods in the first
place. (Also, they could see the stream even though it was overcast.)
>People seem to be forgetting that these folks appear to be three urban or
>suburban film students, not seasoned scouts and trackers.
Exactly. That seems to be the basis for many of these so-called plot holes.
They didn't do exactly the right thing at every turn, but their mistakes were
ones that normal people would make. Personally, I think that made it more
realistic, not less.
ensign paris
you mean to tell me there are people who believe this was a movie based on a
"found" videotape?
I guess that would totally blow the article I read at USA Today who
interviewed the actors and discussed how the movie was made.
Oh well, I guess you can't believe anything you see or read anymore.
Dawn
Dave
[Many good explanations for alleged plot holes deleted]
>> And you know it wasn't meant for the documentary based on what?
> Based on watching the movie. Heather had the camcorder to chronicle their trip
> and -- as we learn later -- because she felt more secure having it.
>
> You could tell when they were intentionally shooting footage for the doc,
> because they discussed it. They used film every time. At one point, Heather
> was already shooting something with the camcorder, but made a point to tell
> Josh to get it on film. (I think it was the first time they found the stick
> totems.) If the camcorder footage was meant for the doc, she wouldn't need
> Josh to get it on film as well. In fact, if they were going to use camcorder
> footage for the documentary, there wouldn't be any reason to sneak the other
> camera out for the weekend in the first place.
When film students make films they use -- guess what? -- *film*! The
video camera was meant to chronicle the making of the documentary. On
my film shoots it was typical to have a video camera to make
behind-the-scenes footage and to tape rehearsals and test blocking.
Since film is so expensive, it is reserved for "real" takes. The
documentary itself was always intended to be shot entirely on film.
Heather once says, "If we get this, I want to get it on 16", meaning
that she would prefer to make her documentary entirely from film
footage. Mixing video tape and film footage in one documentary is
typically bad form. Obviously it was a necessity that "Blair", the
documentary of the failed documentary, mix film and video footage.
Dave
(da...@pdh.com)
Stephen Thompson
Well, there *are* people who don't realize it's fiction, but not the guy
you're asking about. I think you're referring to the question I quoted that
begins "If this was 'found' footage, how did...". He knew it wasn't really
found footage. He just meant "If, in the movie, this is supposed to be 'found'
footage..."
Everything I heard about the film before seeing it made clear that it was
fiction. I was surprised to learn that some folks actually believe it's real
footage and a true story. Some have posted apparently serious questions about
it here, and others have reported overheard theater conversations by people
who obviously believe it.
I guess if folks have only seen the Sci-Fi "Curse" special first, they may be
unsure. Artisan Films does seem to be promoting the ambiguity as a marketing
strategy. However, the filmmakers themselves have been straightforward about
the movie's fictional nature. (They want the credit for having created it,
after all.)
stud service to approved bitches
>Oh come on. I don;t buy that at all. Magnetic distortion is one thing but
>moving the position of the sun? Give me a break!
it's not hard to end up going in circles in the woods, even if you think
you are following a compass or the sun. you can't walk in a straight
line in the woods-- there are obstacles, and if, say, you're
right-handed, then you may tend to veer to the right to get around them.
you won't notice the effects of this immediately, but after walking all
day, you might very well complete a circle.
following the stream would have been more foolproof, but they had no way
of knowing that it wouldn't just take them closer to the witch or
whatever. i guess.
ll
John Heck
HBOMB wrote:
>
> It's "obvious" that they didn't have access to cell phones or walkie
> talkies? Excuse me? I don't think so. If they didn't want to get a walkie
> talkie for each of them then they could have pooled their money for one cell
> phone. If they're inexperienced campers, that's all the more reason to get
> some kind of radio communication.
>
I think the point is not that they didn't have access to phones or WTs, it is
that they did not bring them. I wouldn't call these items essential equipment
like boots or a tent. I have gone camping and back packing on dozens of
occasions and never brought any of these things. We never thought we would
need them. In fact, I do not even own a cell phone. Is this a plot hole for
my real life?
I think they didn't bring them because they didn't anticipate needing them.
John H
HBOMB
even if it is unlikely to happen just in case? Their inexperience made
it all the more likely something could go wrong. And of course it did.
--
"This one time in band camp I stuck a flute up my pussy!" - Alyson Hannigan,
'American Pie'
John Heck <jh...@astutetech.com> wrote in message
news:37A0D0D3...@astutetech.com...
HBOMB
Chris Seamans <se...@pil.net> wrote in message
news:4l_n3.969$061....@monger.newsread.com...
>
> Stephen Thompson wrote in message <37a502cf...@news.cableaz.com>...
> >[Definite Spoilers]
>
> %
> %
> %
> %
> %
> %
> SPOILER SPACE
> %
> %
> %
> %
> %
> %
> %
>
> <concerning cell phones and walkie talkies>
>
> >And I didn't mean that it would have been completely impossible for them
to
> >get a cell phone. OBVIOUSLY they could have gotten one if they'd really
> tried,
> >and if they really wanted to blow a significant chunk of their limited
> >college-student money on something they didn't think they'd even need.
It's called PREPARATION. We are living in the 20th century, aren't we? The
idea that they would venture into the dense woods completely inexperienced
investigating this sinister phenomenon without some kind of link to the
outside world just in case something went wrong is dumb. Just plain dumb.
I don't care how much it costs. This is your safety you're talking about.
The same applies to walkie talkies. It's a basic safety issue.
> The only time a walkie talkie would have been useful is when Josh
> disappears. However, if Josh went insane, as some folks are saying, I
doubt he would have wanted Mikey and Heather to get in touch with him.
Huh? He "wouldn't want Mike and Heather to get in touch with him?" Boy,
you are really pulling out all the stops to justify this, aren't you? All
of what you said is pure speculation and much of that speculation could have
been resolved if they had walkie talkies. To reiterate what I said above
it's about taking precautions.
If the Blair Witch, insane killers or evil demonic entities abducted him,
would
> they have left him able to access his walkie talkie?
Fine, then have a scene where the 2 other characters are calling him on the
wt and he doesn't respond but to not even have it in the first place?
Stupid. Why? See above.
> <concerning the following the sun, the north star, or a stream>
>
> >>It sure worked well didn't it?
> >
> >Not especially. What's your point? Should they have known in advance that
> it
> >wouldn't work, and tried one of these other methods instead? Do you
> consider
> >it a plot flaw that they couldn't see into the future?
No, I consider it a plot flaw that they didn't try something else after
seeing it didn't work like climbing a tree to see how far the forest went or
using the sun or whatever. Even if it didn't work, even if they started to
climb but fell because one of the limbs gave I could have said to myself,
"Ok, at least they're thinking a little. They're not entirely stupid
characters," but as it was their stupidity and whining just got on my
nerves.
Stephen Thompson
>"John Heck" <jh...@astutetech.com> wrote:
>>I think the point is not that they didn't have access to phones or WTs, it
>>is that they did not bring them. I wouldn't call these items essential
>>equipment like boots or a tent. I have gone camping and back packing on
>>dozens of occasions and never brought any of these things. We never
>>thought we would need them. In fact, I do not even own a cell phone. Is
>>this a plot hole for my real life?
>>
>>I think they didn't bring them because they didn't anticipate needing them.
>Didn't anticipate needing them? Why not prepare for the worst case scenario
>even if it is unlikely to happen just in case?
Oh, for God's sake. Why not? Why not? He just told you friggin' why not! Read
carefully: BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T ANTICIPATE NEEDING THEM. And why didn't they
anticipate needing them? At least partly BECAUSE THEY WERE INEXPERIENCED.
See, that's how inexperience works. It doesn't matter how helpful cell phones
or walkie talkies would have been. The whole point of inexperience is that it
often keeps people from having really fabulous super-duper good ideas that
would have been really helpful. The more they might have needed a cell phone
because of their inexperience, the more likely they wouldn't think to bring
one, also because of their inexperience. It's sort of a Catch-22.
Of course, in the case of cell phones, this is all moot. It's been pointed out
that the woods almost certainly had no cell phone coverage. That means that a
cell phone would have been COMPLETELY USELESS to them. And you still think
it's a plot flaw that they didn't bring one? Hell, they didn't bring a cheese
grater, either. Plot flaw! And where was their stapler? And their lamp shade?
Why didn't they bring a garden hose? Wow, look at all the plot flaws.
>Their inexperience made it all the more likely something could go wrong.
>And of course it did.
My God, you've stumbled over the point without realizing it. Think very
carefully about what you've written here. Now, think about this: Not thinking
of something they might need EQUALS "something going wrong". Now, put those
concepts together, using *your* own sentence as a model:
"Their inexperience made it all the more likely that they wouldn't think of
everything they might need. And of course they didn't."
Can you see how much sense it makes, now that you're the one who (almost) said
it?
It's been pointed out to you several times that REAL PEOPLE, in REAL LIFE do
exactly the same thing. Mr. Heck told you that he doesn't take a cell phone or
walkie talkies camping. Neither do I. Other people have posted the same thing.
All across the country, all the time, people go camping without cell phones or
walkie talkies. Some of these people know what they're doing. Some are totally
inexperienced. Despite all this, you insist it's totally unrealistic that
these characters behaved exactly like real people behave all the time.
I don't know how much more clearly this can be explained. This discussion has
become almost surreal, but at least it's absurd enough to be hilarious. (To
me, anyway, but I'm weird. Sorry if this is tedious for everyone else.)
ConnMoore
>Didn't anticipate needing them? Why not prepare for the worst case scenario
>it all the more likely something could go wrong. And of course it did.
>
>
exactly what worst case scenario are we talking about her? If they were REALLY
expecting to run into a Witch they should have brought a spell book. if they
were going to run into a mad killer. (Who, it might be added would have had to
have been at least 70 or 80 years old if he killed those kids in the '40's)
The they should have brought a gun. They were not going to the wilds of
Alaska, they were going into a Maryland forest. They would not need a cell
phone, and like someone pointed out, if this was a rural area in 11994, they
would not even HAVE cell phone service.
here is my question to you..do you camp out in the woods? If you do how much
stuff for emergancys do you bring? Do you bring a gun or cell phone? Do you
bring a book of spells to use on supernatural beings. Do you bring walkie
talkies? If you plan on being in the woods for one, maybe two nights. Do you
really feel you NEED all this stuff?
This whole Cell Phone walkie talkie crap is jst ludicrus.
Barry
Stephen Thompson
"HBOMB" <removeJAL...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>Stephen Thompson wrote...
>>>And I didn't mean that it would have been completely impossible for them
>>>to get a cell phone. OBVIOUSLY they could have gotten one if they'd really
>>>tried, and if they really wanted to blow a significant chunk of their
>>>limited college-student money on something they didn't think they'd even
>>>need.
>It's called PREPARATION. We are living in the 20th century, aren't we?
Yes, and here in the 20th century, people still go camping without cell phones
and walkie talkies. All the time. Thus, no matter how stupid you may think it
is, it's still totally realistic to depict people going camping without call
phones or walkie talkies.
And, again, no cell phone coverage in the woods, remember? Can you grasp that?
Do you understand that this makes a cell phone a useless hunk of plastic and
metal? Do you generally take useless hunks of plastic and metal camping with
you? Would you consider that good preparation, here in the 20th century?
>The idea that they would venture into the dense woods completely
>inexperienced investigating this sinister phenomenon without some kind of
>link to the outside world just in case something went wrong is dumb. Just
>plain dumb.
Of course it's dumb! That's the damn point. People without experience DO DUMB
THINGS. I mean, what the hell do you think inexperience MEANS? Hell, even
people WITH experience do dumb things sometimes.
Are you really incapable of grasping that some reckless, inexperienced kids
might just possibly show more enthusiasm than sense, and blunder off into the
woods without thinking it through as well as they should? Even though kids do
that sort of thing all the time?
>No, I consider it a plot flaw that they didn't try something else after
>seeing it didn't work like climbing a tree to see how far the forest went or
>using the sun or whatever. Even if it didn't work, even if they started to
>climb but fell because one of the limbs gave I could have said to myself,
>"Ok, at least they're thinking a little. They're not entirely stupid
>characters," but as it was their stupidity and whining just got on my
>nerves.
Hey, now wait a minute. Make up your mind. Either you think that the way the
acted was actually unrealistic (plot flaw), or it just made you not like them
(unsympathetic characters). Which is it? Wait, don't answer that. It really
doesn't matter.
The way they behaved at that point was totally realistic and sympathetic for
kids dealing with fear, anger, inexperience, disorientation, hunger, fatigue,
and a murderous witch. If you want to ignore all that and say it was just
stupidity, then fine. I really don't know why you think they would be coherent
enough by then to come up with your Daniel Boone woodsman tricks.
If you want a movie about someone who always knows exactly the right thing to
do in the woods, no matter how bad things get, I recommend Rambo: First Blood.
This movie was about regular kids, so oddly enough they acted like regular
kids. I'm sorry if that's not what you were looking for, but I think it was
much better that way.
Twc6
idea that they would venture into the dense woods completely inexperienced
investigating this sinister phenomenon without some kind of link to the
outside world just in case something went wrong is dumb. Just plain dumb.
The same applies to walkie talkies. It's a basic safety issue.>>
I really don't understand the whole walkie talkie issue. What possible use
could they have had? If you are planning on going into the woods with some
people and never planning on leaving each other's side, why would you need
them?
Heather says, after Josh can't be found -- we are never out of earshot.
Obviously, walkie talkies would have been redundant. And you say, oh, then they
could have contacted Josh after he disappeared... He disappeared in the middle
of the night, why would he necessarily have his walkie talkie on him?
It's not as if the three were shown going into the woods without a compass, a
map or tent. Sure, there's all sorts of stuff AFTER THE FACT that would have
been great to have, like a eas-to-assemble-helicopter or a motor boat, but they
were planning for a completely routine camp out in the woods, not to get lost,
separated and murdered
Jason Travis
> > %
> > %
> > %
> > %
> > %
> > SPOILER SPACE
> > %
> > %
> > %
> > %
> > %
> > %
> > %
> >
> > <concerning cell phones and walkie talkies>
The
> idea that they would venture into the dense woods completely inexperienced
> investigating this sinister phenomenon without some kind of link to the
> outside world just in case something went wrong is dumb. Just plain dumb.
> I don't care how much it costs. This is your safety you're talking about.
> The same applies to walkie talkies. It's a basic safety issue.
Dude. Heather thought she was invincible. Remember that little scene with
the flashlight and the eye and the knit cap and the snot and the tears where
she confesses being wrong about a lot of things?
It's fine to believe they are stupid, but it was a *plot point* that they
didn't have contact with the outside world.
> Huh? He "wouldn't want Mike and Heather to get in touch with him?" Boy,
> you are really pulling out all the stops to justify this, aren't you? All
> of what you said is pure speculation and much of that speculation could
have
> been resolved if they had walkie talkies. To reiterate what I said above
> it's about taking precautions.
Walkie talkies would have been useless for what they were trying to do.
They never had intended on splitting up. WT's don't really work to
communicate with anything but the other one.
> No, I consider it a plot flaw that they didn't try something else after
> seeing it didn't work like climbing a tree to see how far the forest went
or
> using the sun or whatever. Even if it didn't work, even if they started
to
> climb but fell because one of the limbs gave I could have said to myself,
> "Ok, at least they're thinking a little. They're not entirely stupid
By the time they realize the compass is useless, they had been wandering
more than a day. Even if they knew which direction they were going, they
had no idea where they were starting from, and which was the way out of the
forest. Remember they went south for a long time and that didn't work?
Without knowing where you are, compass directions aren't very useful except
to keep you going in the same (perhaps wrong) direction.
BrandonDale
(Nimrod``) wrote:
Yes, it's late, but I just saw the film today.
>
>1) If this was "found" footage, how did Heather and the boys edit the
>"local folk" interviews"?
The people who found the film edited it. Yes, I know it's fiction.
>2) Why didn't they just follow the stream?
To where? Where does the stream go? Remember they followed a compass south
for a day and ended up in the same place!
>3) If this is supposed to be real life, who has battery packs that
>last that long on cameras without being recharged?
Heather says something about having huge amounts of battery power in the
beginning. Does such power exist? I don't know, but it is an explanation.
>4) Why did Heather and Mike keep filming each other right up to the
>end, after they were desperate for their lives and agreed that they
>didn't care about the movie anymore and just wanted to get out of
>there?
It was something to do, to keep from going completely nuts. Heather pretty
says as much. Plus, it is fascinating.
>5) After they lost the map---or Mike threw away the map---why didn't
>they just rewind the tape in the camcorder and look at the map in any
>number of the shots they took of the map while they were studying it
>earlier?
Good point, but I chalk this one up to be being scared shitless and not
thinking rationally. Plus I don't think it would have helped. They went
South for a WHOLE DAY and ended up in the same spot, using a compass.
Something more was going on.
>6) Why didn't one of them climb a tall tree and look for the edge of
>the woods?
I've been in the woods where the film was made. It wouldn't have helped.
Since they were residents of the area, they probably realized that.
>7) Why didn't they drown that irritating Heather in the tub back at
>the motel room and just save themselves the grief?
She had a cute butt.
I can see people complaining about the kids just losing it and bickering a
lot, but that's the point. They thought they knew what they were up
against and when they found out they didn't have a fucking clue, they
slowly lost it.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
R.I.P. Mark Sandman, singer/bassist of Morphine, 1952-1999.
BrandonDale
<removeJAL...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>8) Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie talkies to
>keep in touch with each other in case they got seperated or to phone someone
>in case something happened?
Why? They weren't expecting to be seperated from each other.
>9) Why not bring a bouie knife or some other kind of weapon, if not for
>anything else, to cut firewood with? Hell, you're going into the woods to
>investigate this sinister phenomenon where you just might encounter hermits
>or hillbillies and it never occurs to you that maybe you should have a
>little protection?
They DIDN'T believe in it.
>10) What audience is this "documentary" made for? The footage is
>UNWATCHABLE. It's shot with all the skill and technique of your uncle's
>video of last summer's 4th of July barbecue.
which is the point. They were film students, not filmakers with years of
shooting documentaries.
>11) You're deep in the woods and you hear sounds in the distance that scare
>the living hell out of you. Your first thought is to turn on the video
>camera when it's pitch black dark and nothing is visible anyway?!! Come on!
How do real life photographers shoot in the middle of a war zone?
>12) Last time I checked the sun always sets in the west and rises in the
>east. Knowing that, why do you even need a map? Just get your bearing
>looking at the position of the sun.
They went south for a whole day, using a compass and ended up in the same
place. Something more was going.
BrandonDale
<v...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
>In alt.cult-movies Charles Bell <chb...@plains.NoDak.edu> wrote:
>> HBOMB (removeJAL...@prodigy.net) wrote:
>> : 8) Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie talkies to
>> : keep in touch with each other in case they got seperated or to phone
someone
>> : in case something happened?
>
>> Did it occur to you that some of us do not own cell phones or walkie
>> talkies?
>
>Yeah, but film school brats who can afford a Hi-8 cam, a 16mm cam and a
>DAT recorder?
And not much else! I go to school with film students, and they're
constantly bitching about the lack of money:)
And remember, they didn't own a lot of the stuff, they borrowed it from
the school. A major point of wanting to get back was that the equipment
was due back on a certain day.
BrandonDale
(Nimrod``) wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:53:20 GMT, Bria...@home.com (Brian) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 06:26:04 GMT, nim...@earthlink.net (Nimrod``)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:28:56 -0700, "Trentz" <tre...@garbage.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net>
>>>>Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films,alt.movies,alt.cult-movies
>>>>Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 6:55 PM
>>>>Subject: LIST BLAIR WITCH PLOT HOLES - Possible Spoilers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since it's so much fun to listen to the true believers try to
>>>>> rationalize away the glaring plot holes in this overhyped film, me
>>>>> thinks we should begin a running tally of all the leaps of logic in
>>>>> THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, letting all who want to contribute further
>>>>> plot flaws do so as they occur to them. I want to thank Michelle317
>>>>> and James Blunt for their contributions to this starter list. Here
>>>>> goes:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Since you find it fun listening to us "so-called true believers" of this
>>>>whole fictional scenerio, I shall enlighten you with my logical answers to
>>>>your simplistic questions about this imaginative flick.
>>>>
>>>>> 1) If this was "found" footage, how did Heather and the boys edit the
>>>>> "local folk" interviews"?
>>>>>
>>>>After the footage was declared inconclusive, authorities turned over the
>>>>footage to the families. The families then turned over the footage to Haxan
>>>>Films where THEY edited and examined the footage to piece together the
>>>>events on the film.
>>>
>>>Where did you get all this mumbo-jumbo from? It's not information
>>>included in the film.
>
>>Well if you took the time to download any of the film clips about the
>>movie or read any of the information about it they tell all out what
>>happen after the film was found
>
>Let's get this straight, once and for all---the only facts that apply
>in any movie are those imparted during the course of the film from its
>first frame to its last. All this nonsense about "well, you have to
>see the Sci-Fi channel documentary to get the full details" or "it's
>explained on Haxan's official website" just means that the film didn't
>adequately do its job. A film to be truly good has to stand or fall
>all on its own, with just the information as crafted in that film.
I agree with the above. The film could have done a better job of
explaining stuff, such as who and how was the film recovered if these
three were killed?
>>>>> 3) If this is supposed to be real life, who has battery packs that
>>>>> last that long on cameras without being recharged?
>>>>>
>>>>At the beginning of the film Heather stated that they had enough battery
>>>>power to light a small city (or something to that manner).
>>>
>>>And you buy that? They would have to have the most amazing
>>>super-batteries imaginable---they would be weighted down with nothing
>>>but camera batteries in order for them to have power sufficient for
>>>running not only their camera motor---but also their camera lights at
>>>night---for the long duration of time we see them in the woods.
>>>Get real.
>>>
>>>Just because a character in a movie makes some lame disclaimer to try
>>>to cover for a plot absurdity, does not mean you have to be gullible
>>>enough to buy into it.
>
>>No way one battery could last that long but hate to break the news,
>>video camera batterys way only a pound each maybe alittle more so they
>>could carry more than one.
>
>They would have to have carried so many of them for it to have lasted
>that long, that it would have been totally unwieldy---and heavy as
>hell, to boot. They wouldn't have been able to have carried all the
>other gear they carried along with their batteries.
They actually complained about the weight of the packs several times
through the film. Plus, they obviously weren't shooting every single
minute.
When it gets down to it, you didn't enjoy the film that much and some of
the weaker points stick out as implausible to you. Others enjoyed it a lot
and are willing to gloss over those weak points. Neither is right or
wrong, but the discussions are interesting.
>>>>> 4) Why did Heather and Mike keep filming each other right up to the
>>>>> end, after they were desperate for their lives and agreed that they
>>>>> didn't care about the movie anymore and just wanted to get out of
>>>>> there?
>>>>>
>>>>The camera had been with them throughout this whole ordeal. By the end of
>>>>the flick, the camera was acting like a security guard for them (sort of
>>>>like Linus and his blanket). Plus, Heather, being the obsessed, reality
>>>>scared, director that she is, need to be behind the camera to
>>>>psychologically convince herself that everything that was happening wasn't
>>>>real. She was basically scared and desperately tried to escape reality by
>>>>viewing it through a camera lens.
>>>
>>>You're a hoot. This is just what I was talking about---people jumping
>>>through mental hoops, tricking up elaborate psychological pretexts,
>>>trying to rationalize a completely unbelievable situation. I already
>>>went into detail about this aspect with Kandy, so I'm just going to
>>>repeat my statements to her:
>>>
>>>The truth is, when people are scared witless and are desperate to save
>>>their own lives---they drop all extraneous bullshit and scramble like
>>>hell. Have you ever tried to even walk quickly while looking through
>>>a camera viewfinder without stumbling over your own feet? Trying to
>>>look through a viewfinder while trying to escape would slow you down
>>>to such a ridiculous degree you would be lucky not to step in a hole
>>>and break your leg, you would be so distracted.
>>>If there is one thing that anyone knows who has actually ever been
>>>lost in the woods, it is that you get hyper alert and don't bother
>>>with petty distractions; you focus on the world around you---with both
>>>eyes wide open.
Not everyone reacts the same one as you. These were some young kids who
thought they knew what they were doing, found out they didn't and freaked
out.
>They were stupid kids alright, unrealistically stupid; but I'm not
>sure it was as easy as turning around and walking back after losing
>the map.
>
>>Hey why didn't they fallow the north star? that is another question
>
>Yup, that's another question....
they walked south using a compass and ended up in the same spot! Something
wasn't right.
BrandonDale
<v...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
>In alt.cult-movies Nimrod`` <nim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh, so now you can't call Johnny Cochran a slick lawyer without being
>> branded a "racist"?
>
>Oh, didn't you know, Nimrod: black people can do no wrong.
Yeah!
>Also, they
>invented everything.
I was drunk the night I programmed Nimrod. Sorry.
BrandonDale
<removeJAL...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Stephen Thompson <th...@cableaz.com> wrote in message
>news:37a0a623...@news.cableaz.com...
>> [Definite Spoilers]
>> * Why the hell didn't they bring along cell phones or walkie talkies to
>keep
>> in touch with each other in case they got separated or to phone someone
>in case something happened?
>>
>> The obvious explanation is that they didn't have access to cell phones or
>> walkie talkies. There's nothing odd about this. They were film students,
>so
>> it's not as though they had a whole lot of money. Cell phones were a lot
>more
>> expensive and less common in 1994 than they are now. Also, experienced
>campers
>> have posted to say that they don't bring these items with them when they
>go
>> camping, and there's no indication that the students were even experienced
>> campers.
>
>It's "obvious" that they didn't have access to cell phones or walkie
>talkies? Excuse me? I don't think so. If they didn't want to get a walkie
>talkie for each of them then they could have pooled their money for one cell
>phone. If they're inexperienced campers, that's all the more reason to get
>some kind of radio communication.
They're INEXPERIENCED. They don't think of these things.
>> * Why didn't they just follow the stream?
>> * Hey why didn't they fallow the north star?
>> * Last time I checked the sun always sets in the west and rises in the
>east.
>> Knowing that, why do you even need a map? Just get your bearing looking
>at the position of the sun.
>>
>> They simply didn't need to bother with any of these tricks. As far as they
>> knew, they didn't need any tricks to get their bearings or travel in a
>> straight line. Why? Because they had a magical device called a "compass".
>
>It sure worked well didn't it?
Considering that they followed it south all day and ended up in the same
place, something else was going on.
>> Later, they discovered that they had traveled in a circle, EVEN THOUGH
>they
>> had followed the compass. The obvious implication was that someone or
>> something was interfering with their efforts to find their way out. At
>this
>> point, they had no reason to think that any of these other methods would
>have
>> worked any better.
>
>Oh come on. I don;t buy that at all. Magnetic distortion is one thing but
>moving the position of the sun? Give me a break!
Much of the time, it was overcast, especailly by the time they realized
the compass wouldn't work.
> Besides, by then they were obviously plenty freaked and
>> panicky, so judging their behavior by rational standards is pointless.
>>
>> * Why didn't one of them climb a tall tree and look for the edge of the
>woods?
>>
>> As someone else pointed out, you can't climb to the very top of a tree,
>since
>> the branches get too narrow and weak at the top to support your weight.
>Thus,
>> when you're at the highest point you can reach, all you can see are the
>upper
>> parts of all the trees around you. Not exactly helpful.
>
>No, you can get an idea of the border of the forest.
The forest they were in is big. This may or may not have worked.
>> * What audience is this "documentary" made for? The footage is
>UNWATCHABLE.
>> It's shot with all the skill and technique of your uncle's video of last
>> summer's 4th of July barbecue.
>>
>> Much of the VIDEO footage is shaky, but that footage wasn't meant to be
>part
>> of the documentary at all. The FILM footage they shot for the documentary
>was
>> pretty smooth. It got shaky later on when they were terrified and/or
>running,
>> of course, but there's nothing strange about that.
>
>And you know it wasn't meant for the documentary based on what?
common sense?
Bill Holt
> Why would a supernatural being worry about the footage being found? What's
> going to happen, the FBI's going to come arrest it and use the footage at
> trial?
>
Why does it have to be a supernatural being? I think its much more creepy
to think it was some deranged wiccan freaks that killed them.
Medieval Knievel
Bill Holt <w...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:Faro3.3293$nB.4...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> Why does it have to be a supernatural being? I think its much more creepy
> to think it was some deranged wiccan freaks that killed them.
"deranged wiccan freaks?" Wiccan is a religion that states specifically "do
no harm." Of course, any deranged freak is as good as any other deranged
freaks. I'd say they were deranged Amish freaks.
--
Choosy Mothers Choose Medieval Knievel
remove NOSPAM from my e-mail address to reply
ICQ # 26667824 ULC Ordained Minister
a.a. #1552 cussard # 1...cuz I'm Ed's favorite!