| Comments
Sorry about the wait, I had a few things to take care of with school. However, I was able to rewatch this film (thanks Netflix), so there's a plus.
Plot
- Although everything in this section is correct, it does seem a bit too overdetailed. There are a few words, and sometimes entire sentences, that have no real importance to the plot, and can be removed. For example:
- They travel to Burkittsville, Maryland, formerly Blair, and interview residents about the legend. We don't need to know that the city was formerly Blair.
- Locals tell them of Rustin Parr, a hermit who lived in the woods and kidnapped eight children in the 1940s. He took the children down to his basement in pairs and made one stand in the corner while he killed the other. After turning himself in to the police, Parr claimed that the spirit of Elly Kedward, a woman executed for witchcraft in the 18th century, forced him to commit the murders. The students then interview Mary Brown, a Burkittsville resident deemed insane by the public. She claims to have encountered the Blair Witch in person, describing her as a hairy half-human, half-animal beast. I don't think you need to include every detail about what the residents said. I guess the stuff about the hermit is fine, since the stuff about standing in a corner comes up later in the film, but part about Mary Brown seems unimportant. The witch is never even seen in the film, and Brown doesn't appear in the film afterwards.
- Josh accidentally disturbs a cairn and Heather hastily repairs it. I don't remember this happening. I'm sure I just didn't notice it, but even so, this is unimportant.
- The second paragraph begins with On their second day.... The third paragraph then begins with The next day they move deeper into the woods..., which contradicts the next paragraph, which begins with On day three...
- Also, could you combine the fourth paragraph with another one. It's only has three sentences that are really short.
- Removed superfluous details, and fixed inconsistencies in paragraphs. Bluesphere 16:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
- Is a cast section even necessary? The three main actors in the film are just playing themselve (albeit fictionalized versions), but I don't think you need an entire section for that. Perhaps just a simple mention that the actors played fictionalized versions of themselves in the casting section.
Production
- The Blair Witch Project was developed during 1993[5] by the filmmakers. Development of The Blair Witch Project began in 1993.
- This has nothing to do with the review, but I must say the anagrams part gave me a laugh. I find it funny that Rasputin of all people was somehow connected to this film.
- This documentary, originally called The Blair Witch Project: The Story of Black Hills Disappearances was produced by Haxan Films. Unsourced
- Not really sure where this came from, but this title doesn't appear elsewhere nor did the directors ever mention it. Probably OR, so I deleted it. Bluesphere 15:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The picture of the cemetery doesn't seem important. I'd just remove it.
- I've heard a rumor that the witch was originally supposed to be seen in the film, if only for a few seconds when the three characters run away from the tent at night. I'm not sure if this is real, but if it is, that might be something you'll want to add.
- Added as scope of the Filming subsection. Bluesphere 04:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Release
- From a cursory glance, everything seems fine. I'll do a more detailed look on my second run through of the article.
Marketing
- Shouldn't the marketing section go before or in the release section? Marketing is usually done before the film is released
- Merged before the Release section. Bluesphere 15:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You do a good job telling the reader just how famous the marketing for this film was, but I feel that adding this picture would really show just how far they went to market the events in this film as real events.
- I uploaded a better quality of that photo since the one you gave me becomes pixelated when downgraded to a lower resolution; I had to comply with the non-free rationale after all. Nonetheless, it's in the article. Bluesphere 16:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soundtrack
- Honestly, I'd just remove this entire section. As you state in the section, none of the songs actually appear in the film. In fact, the film is notable for not including music at all. The one review isn't expanded upon, and by the looks of it, there aren't enough references to justify a section dedicated to the soundtrack.
I'll look at the rest of the article tomorrow, but for now this should be a good starting point. Famous Hobo (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Famous Hobo: Hi, not to sound too nagging, but while I'm fully aware that you're pretty busy irl, perhaps you could devote just 20-30mins of your time to continue the review? :) Bluesphere 16:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
