Talk:The Blair Witch Project/Archive 1

message: This is the original text of the page formerly at Blair Witch.  It was a stub repeating alot of info from this page.
Blair Witch is a fictional character that centralizes a series of films known as Blair Witch. The first two films, The Blair Witch Project and Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 have been released; the third is in production. In the films, a series of mishaps occur to various groups of young adults, alledgedly prompted by actions from the ghost of said Witch, who allegedly tortured and killed children in the woods of Maryland. The first film was done on a very low budget, documentary-style, and as such many people believed that footage they watched (of the psychological torture and eventual deaths of three young adults trapped in the woods) was real. A web-site further provoked this belief.
I've merged some of this info into the ==story== section of the article, but some I wasn't sure about, and some was already in the article.  Merge anything else you think is appropriate (;
 —siroχo 04:42, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
"The estimated production cost of the film was about $25,000. The movie grossed over $150 million at the box office, making it the most profitable motion picture of all time."
This is measuring profit proportional to costs, correct? (Perhaps an explanation is called for?) Aranel ("Sarah") 02:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text of previous Blair Witch 

message: There's a discrepancy between the budget figure in the article ($25,000) and that on the right sidebar ($35,000). Why? What are the sources for these? Which is correct?
*I would also like to have some clearency in this. If you check IMDb they give that the budget was $35 000 (estimated). And then in the trivia section, "This film was in the Guinness Book Of World Records for "Top Budget:Box Office Ratio" (for a mainstream feature film). The film cost $22,000 to make and made back $240.5 million, a ratio of $1 spent for every $10,931 made." bbx 03:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget discrepancy 

message: Have made the story section more detailed and encyclopedic with regard to the first film without giving too much away. I can't remember much of the plot of Book of Shadows -- perhaps someone else could do the same for that film? Barnabypage 21:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story 

message: There was a book that was released (at least in the uk) prior to the films release; it relates the story of a private investigator who was hired by the families of the missing students to try and find out what exactly happened to them.  It mainly involves correspondence from the investigator to various law enforcement officials (such as the FBI and the County Sheriff), and diary accounts written by the investigator as he eventually makes his way into the forest at Burkittsville with a spirit medium (I think, I have not read the book in some time!).  It's presented in a similar way as the film, like a record of events.  Should there be an article on the main page?
:The short film, which I believe was called "Shadow of the Blair Witch", was aired in the United States many times on the Sci-Fi Channel around the times of the film's release and was also included on the DVD. I think it would be appropriate for the article to at least refer to it, and the book you mention as well. But I don't want to write it.12.162.189.80 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That short film was made in conjunction with the release of the sequel "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" and was used to promote the film on television, much as the previous short film to which I referred above. It was released on home video in the United States.12.162.189.80 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other related media 

message: What does it contain, exactly? It looks like a tounge, or a heart or sometihng..
Can someone speculate? (the packet Heather finds outside the tent the night after Josh/Blair Witch was screaming)
:The filmmakers used teeth acquired from a local dentist. The scene is shot so as the contents of the bundle are ambiguous on screen, thus allowing the viewer's imagination to fill in the horrific details herself.12.162.189.80 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of Josh's teeth.  Plus some gum tissue.  Possibly a thumb? Dissonant Unity 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just teeth and tissue, I think - I haven't heard a thumb mentioned before, for sure. The interesting thing is that while Heather and we assume they're Josh's teeth, there's really no proof they are. I don't imagine she had dental charts with her. ;) Barnabypage 13:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The blood packet 

message: Do we need another page about SciFi's mackumentry, Curse of the Blair Witch? N. Harmon 13:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was on the Sci Fi channel it is important enough to have it's own article.--Centauri 13:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The Curse of the Blair Witch was designed as a stand-alone "documentary" meant to develop the fictional world in which the film was set.  As it was such an unusal device, I believe it deserves its own page. ParticularlyEvil 06:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page merge from [[Curse of the Blair Witch]] 

message: I just removed some text which described a "most favoured" explanation of the final scene. I think we should either give a range of interpretations, or not attempt it at all. Barnabypage 15:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanations 

message: Article is currently on hold for seven days only. Currently there is one part that is too short: The  #Cast paragraph. The actors name already appear on the infobox; the only piece of new information there is the techniques used by the directors and the amount of people who auditioned. I would highly recommened getting rid of the section and moving the two sentences to another section—not a trivia section, however. That is the only thing that appears to stop the GA. Let me know when this slight problem has been resolved. I also fixed the interwiki links. Iolakana|T 15:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the above has been cleared up, the article now hs GA status. Congratulations! It is now recommended to record major changes to the article, if required. Iolakana|T 16:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nom has passed

message: "The Blair Witch Project is a low budget American horror film released in 1999. Though the film is entirely fictional, the narrative is presented as a documentary pieced together from that footage."
What footage?
--AlanH 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it means the footage from the film. Iolakana|T 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Since the storyline isn't mentioned until the next paragraph, consider subsitituting the word "discovered" instead of "that"? -m13b 20:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just changed this to read "the narrative is presented as a documentary pieced together from amateur footage." This seems both clear and informative. -- 201.50.123.251 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good :) Judgesurreal777 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs clarification: First paragraph 

message: The article is begging for an estimate of how much money the actors made from their "small" profit participation.  The link cited in that sentence is a dead link.  Tempshill 04:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actors' income 

message: The Return of the King article claims that this movie was eclipsed in terms of profits.  The article states: 
"Compared to the profits of other films, The Return of the King is probably the most lucrative movie investment of all time. Including marketing costs, it made a 1408% profit over the original outlay from New Line Studios. Comparatively, The Blair Witch Project (including marketing costs of $25 million) made a profit of 992% and Titanic, the highest grossing film of all time, made a profit of 768% over production and marketing costs."
Does anyone know whether these numbers are incorrect?  If not, then this article should probably be updated to reflect this.
:The caveat of "including marketing costs" is not present in the claims made about the profitability of Blair Witch in the wikipedia article.  Perhaps that is where the discrepency is coming from?  Maybe if you subtract marketing costs from Return of the King's production cost and stack its cost/profit ratio against Blair Witch's (which is supposedly 10,000%, according the Guinness people), then Blair Witch comes out the victor?  Not sure, of course, but it seems entirely plausible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.69.160.1 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most profitable film? 

message: personally I don't really like film trivia in wikipedia... but, most films seem to have this section, so how about it?  For starters - 'the three leads all act under their own names', 'several of the towns folk interviewed are not actors but actual residents of burkitsville' etc  etc.  raining_girl 22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: trivia section?

message: and I mention the above because - looking at this article - it seems to me to be very, very good.  Maybe worth nominating for FA? What might push it over the edge? raining_girl 22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: terrific article

message: Two parts of the article need some working on. Feel free to talk about these concerns here. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]] 

message: Curse of the Blair Witch should be merged here because it is a stub article about an element of the production and promotion of The Blair Witch Project. Curse of the Blair Witch, a promotional TV film for the Sci-Fi Channel, is made from unused Blair Witch Project footage.
===Survey===
*Merge as nominator.--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge: Curse of the Blair Witch 

message: *Merge as nominator.--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: from Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 13
===The Blair Witch Project===
:result:Delist 3-1
Despite having adequate references, this article should be temporarily removed from the list. The "popular culture" section might need to go or be merged, and there is one  tag near the end of the article. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delist I wouldn't delist an article because it has a lone fact tag but this article has a pop culture section which reads like a trivia section. Tarret 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason why article was delisted as GA 

message: :result:Delist 3-1
Despite having adequate references, this article should be temporarily removed from the list. The "popular culture" section might need to go or be merged, and there is one  tag near the end of the article. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delist I wouldn't delist an article because it has a lone fact tag but this article has a pop culture section which reads like a trivia section. Tarret 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[The Blair Witch Project]]''