Talk:The Blair Witch Project

Who is Lee Strassberg? Method acting doesn't mention him. -- Tarquin 14:26 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)

Google says he is misspelled (should be only one S), and he appears to own or run an "acting studio", whatever one of those might be. How this ties into the article reference, I'm not sure. Maybe he coined the phrase "method acting", I don't know (I don't think Stanislavsky himself used that phrase). --Camembert

Correction: "owned" not "owns" - he died in 1982. There's a bio at [1] (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAstrasberg.htm). --Camembert

Lee Strasberg also played the role of Hyman Roth in The Godfather Part II. -- Modemac

Saying "Lee Strasberg's method acting" is quite a strong statement -- either Method acting should agree & mention him, or this statement here should be changed. -- Tarquin

I left him in in case there was a particular link twixt him and Blair Witch, but Google has nothing on that, so I'll take him out. --Camembert

FYI Lee Strasberg was one of the most important acting teachers in the US and was instrumental in adapting and promoting Method Acting in the US. Along with Stella Adler he may be the most important "method" acting teacher in the US. Slrubenstein

So it should be "Lee Strasberg and Stella Adler's method acting"?  ;-) --KQ

If Lee Strasberg is important then Method acting should mention him. I wasn't questioning facts, I was pointing out a discrepancy between two articles. -- Tarquin

---

On a different note, if we use Man Bites Dog as an antecedent, shouldn't we mention Medium Cool? I don't want to put in in unilaterally because I do not know if this film influenced the directors of BWP. Then again, I do not know how much they were influenced by Man Bites Dog" or Dogme95... Slrubenstein

---

"This film was a huge success because its makers did heavy marketing via the Internet, spreading rumors and suggesting or allowing people to think that the material they shot was authentic and that the three protagonists really disappeared."

Maybe the film was a huge success because it was good and original? I think the material at the website was actually a worthy extension of the movie, not some cheap marketing gimmick.

I thought Bliar Witch was crap. quercus robur

Ditto. Two Halves

Text of previous Blair Witch

This is the original text of the page formerly at Blair Witch. It was a stub repeating alot of info from this page.

The Blair Witch is a fictional character that centralizes a series of films known as The Blair Witch Project. The first two films, The Blair Witch Project and Book of Shadows 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?) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 02:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Budget discrepancy

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) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185937/business). 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 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185937/trivia) 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)