Let's talk about the original

wrong

put more effort

But, they do exactly that user. They also attempt traveling only south, which somehow ends in a loop, or did you not understand that there was some fuckery taking place?

Blair witch is solid because the actors make their characters mostly believable. I do have gripes that
1. Nobody just throws a map in the river, I mean nothing had really gone horribly wrong for him to be acting that irrational at that point.
2. Not sleeping in shifts and having 2 people on watch, or ringing your camp site with fire
3. Not making rudimentary weapons after someone fucked with your tent. Basic spears, something.

the best

where's the copy pasta of the expanded theories of the bw and how she manipulates people

and the freeze frame of the guy in the hood when they run in the woods

>burn down the forest

There is is again

It was unmitigated shit that only shart in marts liked

The scene with the talismans in the trees spooked me pretty hard

There are some hidden gems if you are into the genre.

Webcast is a good example

Fuck yeah, it's a classic. It changed the horror genre and film marketing strategies forever.

Also, the Blair Witch killed them ya moron. I didn't know people found this ambiguous...

it was the camera man

>I didn't know people found this ambiguous..

Well, nothing unambiguously supernatural happens in the movie. It's a movie about inexperienced college students going into the woods to make a documentary about something spooky, then getting lost. It's hinted that supernatural shit is happening, but it's all done through subtlety. Compare to the sequel where you see the witch actually pop into a room with the characters and try to kill them. In the original, nothing that clear happens, it's all hinted at. And that makes it interesting to speculate about the things that could have happened.

I watched it few years ago and liked it
can't possibly imagine how big it was when it was originally released and the whole found footage thing was a brand new concept

sorry, wrong
misconception

so much so that the writer came out and said it's not the witch at the end. so put your thinking cap on. who do you think it is?

It's complete shit
I find it laughable when people way this is one the best horror films ever

>Finally show the witch after all these years
>It's a generic looking female gollum

Bravo Wingard

>the writer came out and said it's not the witch
source on that?

Nah, it was the witch.

always just assumed the witch was real. explain the ripped bit of the guy's flannel that had his teeth in it

Every thread.

I liked the movie well enough, mostly in theory as obviously watching a bunch of annoying idiots screaming at each other isn't necessarily always fun to watch.

Also the witch did the killings.

It wasn't really being subtle though, we saw them follow the creek that just led back to the same spot and the sound of kids in the woods along with that guy's ripped out teeth/tongue though we hear him screaming later to lure them into the house.

she was supposed to be hairy like a horse goddammit

he went crazy and did it himself? He also killed the other two in the end.

>not the boom mic guy

how did he manage to get the other guy to stand in the corner? did he kill the sane guy and prop his body in the corner and then go hide again to kill the girl from behind, all in the time it took for her to run downstairs? for a regular dude gone mad he's pretty skilled at murder and evasion

I don't think someone could rip out his teeth, what could have been parts of his jaw and his tongue then tie it up in a little package and sneakily deliver it to their tent, then terrorize them for a few days and then kill two of them in a house while forcing one perfectly healthy man to stand in a corner and do nothing.

Not everything has to have a twist ending.

The fuck are you talking about!? It's the witch! Literally everyone who has ever seen this movie has never thought that it could be him. It's the fucking witch. This isn't up for debate.

There's a scene in the movie explaining the backstory of the witch, and it involves her being tied to a tree and stretched out with rocks. The thing that shows up at the end of the movie is lanky and stretched out. If it isn't the witch, who is it? And why even include that scene in the movie? It was obviously supposed to be the witch, the writer is just doing damage control because everyone thought it looked lame, and no one needed to see the witch anyway.

I just rewatched it yesterday for the first time in ten years.
It was not scary to me but it was probably one of the most interestingly mysterious movies I've ever seen.
There's so much more you want to know but you know that there's no answers... it's just the right amount of stuff left out vs left in.
Like at the end when Heather drops the camera... there's no way that anything would be captured on camera since we know that those two actors were the only ones in the house and we know she just dropped the camera and stayed quiet... but in the movie, it's like something happened.
I love it. I love this movie because it does what it strove to do perfectly.
I did notice that shit goes wrong right from the start, though.
Also, I noticed how little is said about the Blair Witch in the movie or how little the freaky stuff is addressed... in deleted scenes, they go on at length about the Blair Witch, Rustin Parr in the 40s, a Blair Witch cult in the 60s... what all this stuff could have been...

I also recently learned that the movie was supposed to be twice as long - the first part was going to be Heather's documentary (so the movie we got) and then the second half was going to be one of those Discovery or ID type documentaries about police officers and forensic anthropologists talking about finding the footage and stuff. Turns out, they cut that stuff and put all that stuff on the website for the movie a year before it came out to build hype.

And yeah it was the Witch that did the killings. A lot of people like to think that there was nothing supernatural involved, but there was. I think everyone knows this, but there's some magic stuff going on: never leaving the woods despite following the compass, Josh screaming after his teeth had been removed, the snapping all around them, and also the entity stalking them that Mike was suppose to catch on camera when Heather screams WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT? but he accidentally forgot... cont

>one of the camera guys did it xD
Except they are all in the tent when they start getting fucked with.

you guys need to pay more attention

my theory that it's the new witch, the dudes sister.

did you watch part 1? she should be hairy

also,
screenrant.com/blair-witch-2016-writer-reveal-explained/

There's also, on the website, the cops and people who found the footage said that it was found beneath the foundation of the RUBBLE of Parr's 100 year old house... and that the soil had been totally undisturbed for that time. So yeah there's clearly some supernatural stuff going on.

I saw the sequel too and it was garbage. It was like a mix of Grave Encounters and the original BWP and basically flanderized everything.

The original though is a masterpiece... just a happy accident. THere's so much more about the film and the whole mythos than just then 81 minutes of film alone.

You can't say it's wrong, the film is delibrately ambiguous.

You're speculating as much as he is.

you didn't read the original website and the back story?

so there's not even a glimpse of the witch in the first film? im usually too pumped up to check every frame going by, but in the final house scene is there any indication or nugget that can help prove it's the witch (which it is)?

Holy fuck you're dumb.

No, she is never seen.

The fact that a bunch of supernatural shit is happening is proof that it was the witch.

No, no glimpse of the witch at all. Funnily enough, the "what the fuck is that!?" scene was SUPPOSED to show the witch (or at least a glimpse of a blurry figure or some shit), but the camera man fucked up.

> people who read too "deeply" into movies and add shit or misinterpret endings to fit some retard fanfic impression of what happened in an otherwise simple movie with a simple premise
I absolutely fucking hate people like this.

maybe the witch was there, but she didn't do the physical killings

No. There was supposed to be. In one scene, HEATHER and the rest run out of their tent and she screams WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?? and behind them, one of the studio execs dressed up in something and was standing behind them... Mike was supposed to turn around and capture it on film but he didn't and thus we don't actually see anything.
The two actors are the only people in the house at the end too so although they die, there's no hope of even catching glimpses of anything since nobody or nothing else is actually there...

It is the Witch, though. The stuff on the old website helps. It was originally part of the movie.

Or maybe she did do the killings but wasn't physically there OHH MY GODDDDDD :O:O:O

interdasting

There's a scene in the movie explaining what the witch looks like (and that you shouldn't look at her). Later on, something looking exactly like that shows up, and the characters who look at it die. Who else is it supposed to be? And why does that scene even exist if the monster isn't supposed to be the witch? That's either really, really shitty writing, or backpedaling.

Also, that hairy description from the first movie is the only place that description is seen. It was always hinted at that the witch didn't really have a physical form, which is why Parr never saw who was giving him instructions.

it's the sister dude

the writer says it's not the witch and the DVD will explain

That last part isn't necessarily true. In the first movie, a couple different descriptions are given.

I also fucking hate the second movie for their assbackward understanding.
First, it was that Rustin Parr made one kid stand in the corner while he murdered the other - in the first movie, they just say that this was because he couldn't take one kid watching him do it. He could 'feel' their eyes.
Then, in the second Blair Witch, they fucking say somehow that the witch is so scary that looking at her will kill you out of fright (oh NO! D:) and then that somehow translates to "if you don't look at her, she can't kill you!" which is absolute fucking garbage 1 and 2 does not at all follow from what's established in either film.
It's honestly really, really fucking stupid.
Everything that made the first one subtle and creepy they took as ground rules for a run of the mill blair witch encounter... they flanderized the witch and it sucks now.

>make monster look exactly like movie's own description of witch
>it's really the sister, even though there's no reason she would look like that

Yeah, that's makes sense.

user, I didn't write it

but the writer says it's that way for a reason

...

I saw it in 2000 as a vhs rental, left cause it was boring to go to my room and see Event Horizon on tv. I finished it all completely when I was a couple years older but wasn't too spooked.

It's acted well, and goes for unease and tension rather than jump scares which is good.

Why isn't there more Lovecraftian films? That Spanish Dagon/Shadow Over Innsmouth had great parts, such as recreation of the hotel chase, being too blunt and moving it outside of the US was a mistake.

youtube.com/watch?v=UzZ2x5BRwkc

does anyone know what happened to this? confused the hell out of me, it just seemed to disappear even though shooting had started

The game is better

Never watched it

17 years and that's the design they came up with.
JUST

It's one of my favourite movies. It doesn't feel like a movie and it's steeped in weird lore and it preys on your primal fears while being mysterious and intriguing. The witch killed everybody and I'm coming on to the theory that the witch we see in TBW is not actually the witch. That's just heather or some other morbid spawn of the witch's reality bending.

I love the incredible subtlety of the original. Just some kids hearing distant sounds in the woods such as rocks dropping on other rocks. You COULD assume it's something harmless but it's just weird enough that you're very on edge. The stick figures are creepy, everything is creepy. You really feel like you're there experiencing these weird events.

10/10

Absolutely this. The first does NOT feel like a movie. It feels like genuine found footage. It's so great for that. It's a happy accident and cannot ever be replicated. They shouldn't try to expand on it.

They weren't killed by some serial killer. I don't know why people even see the movie as ambiguous. There is 100% a supernatural being fucking with them just because you see some halmarks of a the killer does not mean he is actually there all it means is that there is some history between the witch and the child killer.

>witch can bend time and reality
>can't make someone look like long limbs
lol, okay

The witch can't necessarily do those things for one, and two, the two are really not related. The witch can do exactly what the writers say she can do.
Those two things you mentioned have about as much to do with one another as driving a car and raising the dead.

>can do what the writer says
>the writer says the creature at the end isn't the blair witch
>nobody believes him

Blair Witch Project is 10/10 and in my top 5. I love that found footage shit though. Recommending Willow Creek and Lake Mungo for anyone who wants more.

Why are you quoting me as if I said any of that garbage about it not being the blair witch in the movie? I never said that. If the writer did not intend for that to be the blair witch in his movie, then it's not the fucking blair witch in his movie. Simple as that.
Wait for the DVD commentary.
What the writer did was stupid, yes.

Lake Mungo is all build up with no payoff unfortunately but it's a good movie if you just want to enjoy a creepy, atmospheric found footage movie... if you want that, then you get it.

I can't torrent here and all the download links I found where mp4. I thought I could find the avi. or mkv. This movie looks interesting.

Josh did the killings.

Think about it: He mentions hearing "cackling" before any of the rest of them hear anything at all, planting the idea in their heads. He recovers from Mike destroying the map suspiciously quickly. He vanishes overnight. It's his screams lead them to the house at the end.

Josh did it.

>we saw them follow the creek back
this.

Also at the end we follow the characters as the run around the house trying to find the source of Josh's calls. They distinctly hear him upstairs and when they go to check he's not there. Suddenly he's in the basement.

>b-but he could have j-jumped out the window

no.

>back story of the witch being tied up

Sure, the appearance the creature that might be the witch could be because of this limb stretching torture. The literal interpretation of what we see and are told is that the creature is the witch and she's lanky because of the way she was killed.

But think for a second: We know the witch did the killings in the first movie right? She had certain hallmarks of a possibly unrelated serial killer. We heard children laughing etc. Why would it be so difficult to theorize that the creature is not the actual witch but rather some reflection of the torture brought upon the woman accused of witchcraft? It doesn't seem far fetched to me to assume the witch does things that we as viewers might not understand the direct cause and effect of. And it also doesn't seem far fetched to assume that she is taking events that happened in the woods and using them as a sort of arsenal to fuck with the various kids in both movies.

In TBW we see the guy and the girl running through the non Euclidian house and they get a few quick visions of what appeared to be a ghost girl and some other things I think, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a LOT more going on than what meets the eye so falling for literal interpretations of you see and are told is kindof foolish regarding this franchise.

tldr I like theorizing about this shit.

is this legit?

the director or someone said that's not the witch

kind of annoying, i want to fucking see the cunt

not too surprising really, there's obviously some fucked up shit out in that forest other than the witch itself such as the thing living in that girls leg wound.

Yeah, he also got a bunch of people to attack the tent he was in at night and ripped out his own teeth and tongue and then screamed to lure them into the house, where he invisibly killed them all and forced a fully grown adult male to just stand there in a corner doing nothing.

Oh and he also set up a space/time loop too.

there's no way they would ever pull some shit like that.

Also it doesn't explain all the weird sounds like the kids laughing, walking south all day and ending up at the same place, etc. In the new movie it gets to night time on one of the days and the sun doesn't come up again for like 5 days.

>he also got a bunch of people to attack the tent he was in at night

Yes. This would be easy to orchestrate under the pretext of a prank or scene for their film.

>ripped out his own teeth and tongue

There's no reason to believe it's his teeth/tongue.

>where he invisibly killed them all

Being off camera does not make one invisible.

>forced a fully grown adult male to just stand there in a corner doing nothing

At gunpoint.

>Oh and he also set up a space/time loop too.

What you call a space/time loop, I call a woman with a map.

Explain how Josh and his merry group of prankers set up a space/time loop then.

Also yes, the scenes in the house would have required some supernatural forces, since the voice changed locations and there was no way he could have just moved from the top of the house to the bottom.

>looks exactly like

no it doesn't, they describe the witch as a hairy woman whose feet never touch the ground.

>Explain how Josh and his merry group of prankers set up a space/time loop then.

Sabotaged compass.

>Also yes, the scenes in the house would have required some supernatural forces, since the voice changed locations and there was no way he could have just moved from the top of the house to the bottom.

Hidden speakers, or other ways to move about the house. It was in terrible condition so there could have been all sorts of holes rotted through the floors.

Josh did it.

Why did people think his comment was so funny? If I was stuck in a forest with a fucking witch, assuming I could, I'd burn the forest to the ground. At the very least it'd be warm. Unless the witch put out the fire before it got big and awesome. I bet she'd be a party pooper.

You should have gone whole hog and included something about Josh making up the entire Blair witch story and getting all the townspeople in on it.

It's been over a decade since I first saw it and it still enters my mind every single fucking time I go hiking or camping. That's the mark of an effective horror film.

Lol, you're fucked, man.

they were just memeing, snowball effect

this is hilarious

>witch can't bend reality
>witch can do what writer says she can.
>we distinctly see her bending reality.

fucking what are you on about?

The spoopy scene was pretty spoopy tho

Don't forget he had a slew of babies following him around

I'm not joshing you, no pun intended.

Think about how Josh delivers the "cackling" story. It's laden with superfluous information about what could have been an owl and "regions of space." This is EXACTLY how sociopaths/psychopaths manage to convince people of outrageous claims. The central, seemingly ridiculous lie is told like almost as an afterthought and delivered with sincerity. Just another part of an extended dialogue.

Mike immediately dismisses the cackling part with a joke, but because of the way the story was told, the seed is planted.

Watch the film again and pay close attention to Josh, looking for signs that he might be a psychopath. He communicates effortlessly but superficially, and is constantly acting as a mediator (manipulator). When the weird slime gets on his gear, he makes sure the others know about it so they'll remember it when he goes missing. Reinforcing the idea that something has happened to him rather than simply he having left of his own accord.

Tell me about guy in hood? Cant find anything

it's me, I heard about it, I can't find it either

does this movie hold up today?

my favorite is iron man

Is the new one out yet?

could be her curse on the townsfolk

maybe Rustin's great-grandpappy was one of the ringleaders of the mob that strung her up, and so his family is getting it real bad?

You don't see a witch and nothing supernatural happens on camera.
Unless getting lost in the woods is a supernatural event.

yes

the lanky not-witch thing was spooky as fuck in motion, don't believe the circlejerk

spooky? nah

i must admit, i wish i could see a webm of when it stumbles out from behind the tree and chases them into the house again

who knows, maybe if i get a good look at it again i would change my mind, seeing as its on screen for maybe 3 seconds total in the whole film

I only recall it in the house? hm

oh mang, this was the one part that scared me in the movie. it was the same gaunt, lanky thing of course, but instead of being bent over and hunched it was straight backed, and possibly more photogenic in that scene, but i'm still waiting for a good still or a webm of it

maybe I didn't notice it! show me

Cloverfield was better

>who do you really think did the killings?
The witch of course, are you retarded? is this a meme?
The sequel even shows the witch.

it's not the witch. fucking plebs

ITT: people who don't pay attention to the lore