"Blair Witch" question...*SPOILER*

Ok, I just saw this movie last night on Showtime
(I don’t get out much :slight_smile: )
Anyway, I heard last summer during the whole Blair Witch hype that it was incredibly frightening and also made tons of people sick, from the jiggly camera.
First off, I didn’t mind the shakey camera thing at all. Didn’t bother me.
Second, it wasn’t THAT scary. At least 3/4 through it wasn’t scary, just kinda dumb, at leats up till the very end, and even that wasn’t as scary as I thought it would be.

Couple questions…

  1. What did Heather find in that cloth thing in the bundle of sticks after Josh disappeared? Teeth? Was it wrapped in his shirt? The plaid material was from his shirt, maybe?

  2. What was the DAT (I think) that Josh kept saying he had to return? One of the cameras?

  3. The very end…Mike and Heather were running around in the house hearing Josh calling them,a nd Mike went down to the basement, he screams and then his camera dropped. Then Heather went down. You see a glimpse of someone (Mike, I think) standing in a corner, facing the wall, right before Heather drops her camera. Huh? I didn’t get that at all. Was it Mike or Josh? What was the point of seeing that? Was he dead, and the witch propped him there while she got Heather? Was he trying to hide? I don’t get it.

  4. Nit-pick or mistake? In the ads last summer, the print ads said the bit about 3 filmmakers disappearing and then their film was found. It showed a couple of those big, round, flat cans that movie-projecter film comes in, with straps around them. These kids were using cam-corders, and I would assume they had all the already-shot stuff in their packs, and Mike and Heather both dropped their cameras in the basement of the house. How would someone have found the film in those cans, if the camcorders were still in the house?

Thanks.
Guess I’m just disappointed because it didn’t live up to the hype.

Answers to your questions and more from an obscure source that no one on this board has heard of.

See if some of your questions are covered by the MAILBAG article: Is the Blair Witch true?

Think of how disappointed the filmmakers would be if they found out you waited to see it on Showtime, and then didn’t pay very close attention to what you were watching.

Given your attention span, maybe you should wait for ARMAGEDDON to come around on the premium channels again.

It was Josh’s tongue, wrapped in part of his shirt. (I’ve read somewhere that in folklore, a witch could cut someone’s tongue out and steal his voice- remember that they had heard Josh calling out the previous night.)

I believe it was the sound system, (Digital-Audio Tape?) which was recording the sound for the cameras.

In the early part of the movie, one of the locals tells the story of the child murderer- and when the murderer would kill a child, he would take two down to the basement, and make one of them stand in the corner while he killed the other.

Not sure; probably closer to ‘artistic license’ than anything else.

Excellent point Ike.

Too slow Dex.

I want to address the things you didn’t pose as questions,
but I’ll take a stab at the questions too.

You said the shaky camera didnt bother you, nor did you
find it scary. Me either - I watched it on my VCR. I think
in the theater the shaky camera would have been harder to
watch.

ALSO - I was aware I was getting near the end of the movie,
and you probably were too, watching it on TV. People in
the theater may not have been. I think it was a real
shocker when it just went down like that.

Your q’s:

  1. What did Heather find in that cloth thing in the bundle of sticks after Josh disappeared? Teeth? Was it wrapped in his shirt? The plaid material was from his shirt, maybe?

I’m pretty sure it was his shirt; I don’t know exactly what
was inside. Something pink and fleshy, as best I could tell.

  1. What was the DAT (I think) that Josh kept saying he had to return? One of the cameras?

I think so.

  1. The very end…Mike and Heather were running around in the house hearing Josh calling them,a nd Mike went down to the basement, he screams and then his camera dropped. Then Heather went down. You see a glimpse of someone (Mike, I think) standing in a corner, facing the wall, right before Heather drops her camera. Huh? I didn’t get that at all. Was it Mike or Josh? What was the point of seeing that? Was he dead, and the witch propped him there while she got Heather? Was he trying to hide? I don’t get it.

It was Mike, apparently under some kind of spell.

  1. Nit-pick or mistake? In the ads last summer, the print ads said the bit about 3 filmmakers disappearing and then their film was found. It showed a couple of those big, round, flat cans that movie-projecter film comes in, with straps around them. These kids were using cam-corders, and I would assume they had all the already-shot stuff in their packs, and Mike and Heather both dropped their cameras in the basement of the house. How would someone have found the film in those cans, if the camcorders were still in the house?

I thought they had both a video camera and a true film
camera.

The witch apparently put all the film and stuff in the
cans, and ‘got them’ (part of the hype was that an
archaeology class found the cans in an impossible place
under the house) magically where they were found.

The witch was apparently meticulous.

I though Blair Witch Project was pretty good. It certainly didn’t deserve the panning it got from the so-called movie critics (whom I rarely agree with anyway). I didn’t mind the jiggly camera at all; you certainly wouldn’t expect professional camera work from three weed-smoking film students, after all :p.

It’s been a little while since I saw that movie, but I’ll remember it as best as I can.

1)I couldn’t tell what it was either. I think it was Josh’s shirt.

2)I think (WAG alert!) that the DAT was a digital camera. Such things cost thousands of dollars, so the students would almost certainly have rented or borrowed it.

3)That was Mike standing in the corner. Remember the story of the serial killer? He would make his victims stand in the corner until he was ready to kill them. This was because he couldn’t stand the sight of the children’s eyes staring at him. Apparently the serial killer was just a pawn of the ‘witch.’

4)Nit-pick :slight_smile:

John Corrado is completely correct about the DAT being a Digital Audio Tape. It is the most common and preferred method of recording sound now.

I thought it was his tongue wrapped in part of Josh’s shirt. I went with the folklore that was mentioned earlier. I also thought I saw teeth in it on the big screen.

Your third point was why did he stand in the corner. In the beginning one of the local yokels told the story about how the witch would kill with one in the corner listening to the other die. Personally, I think Josh and Mike just killed Heather and jumped town. I wouldn’t want to be stuck in the woods hearing her loud mouth yakking constantly.
HUGS!
Sqrl

>>Your third point was why did he stand in the corner. In the beginning one of the local yokels told the story about how the witch would kill with one in the corner listening to the other die. Personally, I think Josh and Mike just killed Heather and jumped town. I wouldn’t want to be stuck in the woods hearing her loud mouth yakking constantly.
I know you’re being facetious, but I’d like to say
something.

The mailbag answer mentioned earlier also put out the
possibility that Josh did it. I don’t think that’s a
tenable position. The movie hype included the ‘missing’
posters (all three remained missing), as did the web site.

Particularly with this movie, I think the web site and
hype machine have to be considered part of the ‘official
canon’ of the story -

The website also included pictures of the abandoned car,
so nobody ever made it back to the car.

Ah, but if they had skipped town- especially after leaving behind evidence that Josh had faked his own death, and that Mike was in on the plot to off Heather- wouldn’t it behoove them to get new names and pretend that their old ‘personas’ had been killed as well?
As for the film reels- IIRC, there were two cameras being used in the filming: the color hand-camera, which was being used for the ‘behind the scenes’ shots, and the honking big Black and White camera, which the actual documentary was being shot upon (and requiring the DAT for recording sound- hand-cameras would record their own sound). While the hand-camera wouldn’t leave behind reels, the B&W thing might.

as has been explained, mike was the sound guy and the DAT was the digital audio tape. in an interesting bit of directing, you can hear heather’s voice go from being muffled and distant to clear and loud as she runs down the stairs and approaches the basement, even though the video at that moment is from her perspective.

Thanks for the link.

As for Mike standing in the corner, yes, I got the part about the earlier killer in the 40’s, but he wasn’t the Blair Witch from a century or so earlier, right? He was just some local nut. He (local nut) had the BW acting through him, so why would real BW make Mike stand in the corner? Wouldn’t Mike have put up a fight? Would he have stood there so passively?

As for it being fake, yes, I know it’s fake. I live in MD, on the other side of town from Patapsco State Park, where most of it was shot. Funny story…there was an article in the paper a while ago, about the county demolishing that house, because it’s in such bad shape now. They recieved tons of letters and emails from people who seem to think the county should make it into a memorial to the 3 kids who died there. The county had to write back and say basically, “Yeah, uh, it was JUST A MOVIE!!!”

>>Ah, but if they had skipped town- especially after leaving behind evidence that Josh had faked his own death, and that Mike was in on the plot to off Heather- wouldn’t it behoove them to get new names and pretend that their old ‘personas’ had been killed as well?

OK. But how about the anthro professor being baffled
as to how film reels could have gotten where they did?

http://archive.blairwitch.com/search6.html

I’ve forgotten about most of the plot points of this movie, but I can address the shaky-camera thing.

I didn’t get sick when I watched the movie at home, but I did get a little queasy at the theatre. I think the difference was the screen size; my 32" Sony is good sized, but it’s still not the same as sitting in front of a huge movie screen. I’d compare it to listening to Metallica on your home stereo, and then asking why people say the concerts are so loud…

About a year ago I had fallen asleep in front of the TV set only to wake up to a show concerning the Jersey Devil in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. The story was about two independent film makers who did a public access tv show concerning weird happenings. They hook up with a third guy who is really bizarre and the three of them end up looking for the Jersey Devil and filming for their public access tv show. The plot is very much like the Blair Witch Project and I was thoroughly convinced that this was the true story that the Blair Witch Project was based on. I asked my sister who lives in New Jersey, but, for once, she didn’t know. So I decided to look online to see what’s what. Well…

check out: http://www.voicenet.com/~lenzz/lastbroadcast/thefilm.htm

Has anyone else seen The Last Broadcast and Blair Witch? If so, which do you think is better? I kinda like Broadcast but probably because I saw it first and didn’t know what to make of it.

Okay, I didn’t read all of the posts, so I don’t know how much has been answered.

A DAT is a digital audio tape deck; not a camera.

They used a camcorder and also a 16mm camera, which IIRC was a CP-16. I thought it rather laughable that they would run the 16mm so much, considering how expensive the film is and that a 400’ load only lasts 11 minutes.

Saw The Last Broadcast. I thought it was better than Blair Witch up until the last 10 minutes, with really sucked!

Frankly I don’t remember the last 10 minutes because by that time my jaw was draggin on the floor and my eyes and eyebrows were wide up. You might be right.

What did you think about the film technique for The Last Broadcast? I was just reading the website in greater detail - especially about the technology they used. Interesting.

A good web site, apart from the Straight Dope link above is at:

http://tbwp.freeservers.com/spoiler.html

As far as film cannisters go, there were two ways of filming brought along: The video camera, which recorded in color on a video tape and the Super-8 camera (I think) which recorded on black and white film, which need to be stored in film canisters. Since the Super-8 camera can’t record sound, an external audio recorder had to be used: DAT (digital audio tape) was the solution.

-Scott

Thanks, Skott. :slight_smile:
That was a great site. Answered a lot of questions.
Thanks again,
Kinsey