Blair Witch - The Evil Dead 2 of the Franchise

Blair Witch - The Evil Dead 2 of the Franchise

Blair Witch is the Evil Dead 2 of its franchise.

Read Full Article

I'm that one crazy bastard that actually loved Book of Shadows for it's sweet, delicious cheese. :3

I haven't seen the reboot, but I'm going to have to disagree with a lot of what you said about the original. I'm a youngin, so I never saw the original in the theater, I had to watch it at home, but even after knowing it wasn't real, I'd say it still does an amazing job at atmosphere and also at world building too, and even though I found the characters to be stupid and annoying, they still did a decent job making it all feel believable. You could say nothing happened on camera, but coming from a generation where showing too much has been the biggest downfall of a majority of horror media, I'd argue not showing much happening was the better way to go. Now I can only imagine with you saying that the last 20 minutes were the pay off, I can only imagine it's similar to the original, and that I would say is the best part of the original is that the atmosphere built up to this big climax, basically like a nice long hand job as opposed to most horror movies that are trying to make you orgasm every second, but without the foreplay it just comes off as boring.

As with Evil Dead analogy, I'd say the fact that a fair amount of the same team went into Evil Dead 2 made it a lot more excusable, versus this which comes off a lot closer to a cash grab than people thinking this would be a legitimately good idea. I'd be more likely to excuse it if it was the same directors only a few years later over resurrecting an old franchise because they ran out of ideas. I'm not saying that automatically makes this a bad movie, I'm just saying reboots in my eyes are always bigger cash grabs than just continuing a series.

klaynexas3:
I haven't seen the remake, but I'm going to have to disagree with a lot of what you said about the original. I'm a youngin, so I never saw the original in the theater, I had to watch it at home, but even after knowing it wasn't real, I'd say it still does an amazing job at atmosphere and also at world building too, and even though I found the characters to be stupid and annoying, they still did a decent job making it all feel believable. You could say nothing happened on camera, but coming from a generation where showing too much has been the biggest downfall of a majority of horror media, I'd argue not showing much happening was the better way to go. Now I can only imagine with you saying that the last 20 minutes were the pay off, I can only imagine it's similar to the original, and that I would say is the best part of the original is that the atmosphere built up to this big climax, basically like a nice long hand job as opposed to most horror movies that are trying to make you orgasm every second, but without the foreplay it just comes off as boring.

As with Evil Dead analogy, I'd say the fact that a fair amount of the same team went into Evil Dead 2 made it a lot more excusable, versus this which comes off a lot closer to a cash grab than people thinking this would be a legitimately good idea. I'd be more likely to excuse it if it was the same directors only a few years later over resurrecting an old franchise because they ran out of ideas. I'm not saying that automatically makes this a bad movie, I'm just saying reboots in my eyes are always bigger cash grabs than just continuing a series.

Its a sequel, not a remake. From the trailers it seems they are looking for the people from the first, mainly the girl's brother looking for her.

Saelune:
snip

I meant to say reboot at the first part, I know it's supposed to be a sequel that was just an error on my part.

klaynexas3:

Saelune:
snip

I meant to say reboot at the first part, I know it's supposed to be a sequel that was just an error on my part.

Its not a reboot either. Not to harp on you or anything, but remake and reboot are misused alot and it confuses alot of people.

(Remake is re-telling the same story, reboot is starting over a new story that replaces the old, though usually has many elements from the original)

Saelune:

klaynexas3:

Saelune:
snip

I meant to say reboot at the first part, I know it's supposed to be a sequel that was just an error on my part.

Its not a reboot either. Not to harp on you or anything, but remake and reboot are misused alot and it confuses alot of people.

(Remake is re-telling the same story, reboot is starting over a new story that replaces the old, though usually has many elements from the original)

Fair enough, though there should be a word used to describe this practice of returning to a franchise many years after to try and breathe life back into it. Maybe reboot isn't the right term, but I feel there should be something to be able to sum it up, as it is a very common practice now for companies to do this.

klaynexas3:
Fair enough, though there should be a word used to describe this practice of returning to a franchise many years after to try and breathe life back into it. Maybe reboot isn't the right term, but I feel there should be something to be able to sum it up, as it is a very common practice now for companies to do this.

I like "too-late sequel," personally.

klaynexas3:
Fair enough, though there should be a word used to describe this practice of returning to a franchise many years after to try and breathe life back into it. Maybe reboot isn't the right term, but I feel there should be something to be able to sum it up, as it is a very common practice now for companies to do this.

How about "Sleepquel"? Bit of a mouthful but fits a series thats been dormant a while before finally dragging itself to a new movie

Dudes, enough. We got the name. Its a 'Member Berry. Slightly changed, but will those great memories we've come to remember.

Comparing Blair Witch at all to the campy horror fun that is Evil Dead? Dude, that's a Cinema Sin, right there.

His sister isn't tree mulch in the middle of nowhere, she is growing medical marijuana.

klaynexas3:

Saelune:

klaynexas3:

I meant to say reboot at the first part, I know it's supposed to be a sequel that was just an error on my part.

Its not a reboot either. Not to harp on you or anything, but remake and reboot are misused alot and it confuses alot of people.

(Remake is re-telling the same story, reboot is starting over a new story that replaces the old, though usually has many elements from the original)

Fair enough, though there should be a word used to describe this practice of returning to a franchise many years after to try and breathe life back into it. Maybe reboot isn't the right term, but I feel there should be something to be able to sum it up, as it is a very common practice now for companies to do this.

Revival perhaps? Its what stage shows call bringing back shows that have been gone awhile.

I gotta say, I only watch horror and action movies in theaters, so of course I was gonna see this, but this was a pretty fun horror movie. This movie is a genre film through and through, it isn't deconstructive or self-aware because that's not the purpose of this movie. If it was, it would be Blair Witch: Book of Shadows.

One of the things the review doesn't say, and I'll be... Vague, is that unlike the original (maybe?), this one does cool stuff with time and impossible locations. Like the review said here, the final 20-30 minutes of the movie were so intense because THAT'S when the movie went in another direction from the original and the "sequel".

If anything, this movie definitely made me excited for Resident Evil 7 ;)

Curious, Cecil hated it for good-articulated reasons. This movie at least definitely is polarizing.

Saw this a few days ago and comparing this to Evil Dead 2 is an insult. This movie is rubbish.

I'm sorry, we must have seen different movies. In my opinion, this was NOT better than the original.

... although I was entertained, and I do love found footage movies, this film didn't even feel like it was related to it's namesake.

klaynexas3:
I haven't seen the reboot, but I'm going to have to disagree with a lot of what you said about the original. I'm a youngin, so I never saw the original in the theater, I had to watch it at home, but even after knowing it wasn't real, I'd say it still does an amazing job at atmosphere and also at world building too, and even though I found the characters to be stupid and annoying, they still did a decent job making it all feel believable. You could say nothing happened on camera, but coming from a generation where showing too much has been the biggest downfall of a majority of horror media, I'd argue not showing much happening was the better way to go. Now I can only imagine with you saying that the last 20 minutes were the pay off, I can only imagine it's similar to the original, and that I would say is the best part of the original is that the atmosphere built up to this big climax, basically like a nice long hand job as opposed to most horror movies that are trying to make you orgasm every second, but without the foreplay it just comes off as boring.

I have to disagree. I saw the original in the theater with my girlfriend at the time and both of us came out of the theater regretting we had bothered to pay for the movie. There was no atmosphere or world building at all in the film, just a bunch of annoying people wandering through a forest swearing at each other. There were maybe three instances of creepiness in the entire film, but each one was just followed by the aforementioned people swearing at each other that any creepiness was lost and annoyance took its place. It didn't take long before you just wanted the characters to die horribly to end their bitching. That's not the feeling a horror movie should be evoking in its viewers. To go with your handjob analogy, the movie started jerking you off, then got tired after a few minutes and gave up before giving you any pleasure whatsoever.

Marter:
Basically, take everything that The Blair Witch Project did, make it better, and you've got Blair Witch. Similar stories and similar beats, but improved in basically every way. It's the Evil Dead 2 to the original's The Evil Dead.

This seems a pretty weird comparison to make. The Evil Dead 2 wasn't an improved sequel to the first film, it was a comedy remake; essentially a parody of both the first film and the genre in general. That doesn't seem to compare at all to Blair Witch, which is just a straight sequel that happens to have a slightly higher budget.

The only comparison one can make between this and The Evil Dead 2 is that they're both soft reboots [1] that diverge from the spirit of the original.

While The Evil Dead 2 did something interesting as mentioned above, Blair Witch just became a by the numbers horror film that mashes together concepts from other movies that used them better.

... which would be fine if the story or the characters were interesting but alas.

[1] same basic plot, but technically taking place after the events of the original

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here