After months of Internet-fueled marketing (a rare PR route at the time), which torqued the film as a “real” document, the film went on to earn $248-million (U.S.) worldwide off a budget of just $60,000.ĭaniel Myrick (co-director, The Blair Witch Project): We intentionally drew upon a lot of common folklore, especially in that area that we shot. Rookie filmmakers Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez brought their faux-documentary about three hikers getting lost in the woods to Sundance in 1999 – and suddenly, the horror genre was never the same.
The Blair Witch Project, 1999Ī scene from Blair Witch Project, 1999. In an easy-access age where every tiny detail of a film’s life is dissected online, it was a genuine shock to discover that a sequel to one of the most controversial films of all time was being produced right under everyone’s noses.īut why did it take 17 long years since the original film shocked audiences for a new iteration to get off the ground – especially when both the horror genre and the industry at large seem constantly on the hunt for easy franchise opportunities? Was it because of the original film’s polarizing reaction? The first sequel’s disastrous reception? Or an exhaustion with the found-footage genre that Blair Witch sparked? To avoid taking wild stabs in the dark – never a good idea when discussing a horror flick – The Globe and Mail talked with the creative teams behind the series, and discovered that some brands are just too bewitching to let go. Which is why, when it was revealed this past July that Lionsgate’s new horror film The Woods was actually a covert Blair Witch sequel, it was tempting to award the studio a lifetime pass. Jump scares, third-act twists, blood seeping from unexpected orifices – terror is often found in the places you least expect.
The horror genre lives and dies on its surprises.
0 kommentar(er)
