Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Blair Witch Project 3 Confirmed

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 of 45 OFFLINE   Brad_W



  • 1,361 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 18 2001

Posted January 08 2002 - 08:06 AM

Here is the link: BWP 3

Not that it says too much, but at least the original directors will be working on this one.

#2 of 45 OFFLINE   Nick Sievers

Nick Sievers


  • 3,481 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 01 2000

Posted January 08 2002 - 08:12 AM

How weird is this, I was just looking up Blair Witch on IMDB about 5mins ago to see if there was new one coming soon because I remembered they said there would be 3 of them. Still I think its a bad idea Posted Image Posted Image
Top 10 Film Lists: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
Film Lists: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005

#3 of 45 OFFLINE   JasenP



  • 1,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 21 1999

Posted January 08 2002 - 08:44 AM

If the film makers are listening: KEEP "BLAIR WITCH" OUT OF THE TITLE!! Ahem, Blair Witch 2 left a bad taste in everyone's mouth, avoid associating yourselves with it. Who knows, maybe it'll be watchable.
You know, Fred, if you keep your sense of humor like you do, you just might make it.

The Archive

#4 of 45 OFFLINE   BryanZ



  • 1,215 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 18 2000

Posted January 08 2002 - 08:58 AM

The horror! The horror! Some things you just should not do. Making this movie is one of them.

#5 of 45 OFFLINE   Terrell



  • 3,217 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001

Posted January 08 2002 - 09:00 AM

I watch films like this and Jason X being greenlighted, and I wonder just who in the h*ll is stupid enough to greenlight these kinds of dumb projects.

#6 of 45 OFFLINE   MickeS



  • 5,065 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 24 2000

Posted January 08 2002 - 09:34 AM

I liked "Blair With 2: Book of Shadows"... I'll see a third one. /Mike

#7 of 45 OFFLINE   Michael Hansen

Michael Hansen


  • 20 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 22 2001

Posted January 08 2002 - 09:49 AM

Terrel, I believe it's the simple classic story about the all-mighty dollar. If a project (in this case, a movie) can generate a profit, it is most likely to be greenlighted. And if the given movie happens to be a sequel to a movie that once way back in the past was a box-office succes, it is basically a sure-thing. As the case is with Jason X most of the people, who are going to watch it will be watching out of sentimentality and nostalgia. The 'resurrection' of the franchise will most likely die quickly since the shocker-horror-movie of today isn't at all what Jason made it to be in the late eighties. I am one of the few who absolutely hated the original Blair Witch movie, which is probably also the reason for me not haveing seen the sequal. And from what I hear and read, I haven't missed much the second time around. But I do remember when the hype surrounding the original BW-movie some talk about a sequal and a prequal, the latter to be made by the original producers and directors. How they expect it to be a succes, I don't know. Most of the succes of original was generated by a very well-organize media-hype-campaing, which only worked because it hadn't been done before. This time round: how will they 'suprise' us? Not that I care, but I am curious! /Michael

#8 of 45 OFFLINE   David Susilo

David Susilo


  • 1,199 posts
  • Join Date: May 08 1999

Posted January 08 2002 - 10:04 AM

Well, with me, I hated the first one, but at least I can stomach the second one. It is kinda freaky (the second one, I mean). One pass only though, never ever be a second viewing for any of those two.

#9 of 45 OFFLINE   Scott Weinberg

Scott Weinberg

    Lead Actor

  • 7,482 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2000

Posted January 08 2002 - 10:14 AM

Seeing as how MASSIVE the profits were for the original Blair Witch Project, I don't see how anyone could be surprised that they're making a Part 3.

Shit, they're still churning out Halloweens and Friday the 13ths! (Halloween came out in 1978, Friday the 13th in 1980, so use that as your gauge.)

As far as the actual movies, I loved the original BWP and absolutely LOATHED the sequel. I am filled with fresh hope for ANY new horror flick, no matter how many times I've been burned before. As my fellow gorehounds know very well, it's tough being a horror movie fan these days. Posted Image

#10 of 45 OFFLINE   Brian Lawrence

Brian Lawrence


  • 3,634 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 1998
  • Real Name:Brian

Posted January 08 2002 - 10:32 AM

I consider the original Blair Witch Project to be a true masterpiece, Perhaps even one of the 10 best films of the 90's. Almost as good as the film itself was the "Curse of the Blair Witch" program which aired on TV and is included on the dvd. While the second film did not compare, I still liked it. It was a hell of a lot better and more creative than most other recent horror films, but as with the first film it is not a film for everyone. It's a pretty whacked out movie to be sure. I have no idea what to expect from the next Blair Witch film, but I am certianly intrigued.

#11 of 45 OFFLINE   Terrell



  • 3,217 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001

Posted January 08 2002 - 10:50 AM

I understand their motivations for doing it. But sometimes you have to wonder do these people have any sense. When was the last time a Friday the 13th movie made any money. And even so, can't they find something better to make. the whole scenario for Jason X is preposterous. Oh well, that's Hollywood for ya. BTW, how much did the second Blair Witch make?

#12 of 45 OFFLINE   Jordan_E



  • 2,233 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 03 2002

Posted January 08 2002 - 11:06 AM

The director(s?) of BLAIR WITCH had nothing to do with part 2, so maybe they want to take back their 'franchise.' Besides, what the hell happened to that romantic comedy they were supposedly making? Disappeared like FREAKYLINKS? (I know, they dropped out of that series early on) And their redux of IN SEARCH OF?
And you believe, at heart, everyone's a killer...

#13 of 45 OFFLINE   Johnny V

Johnny V


  • 42 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 18 2001

Posted January 08 2002 - 11:07 AM

I absolutely loved the first one. It wasn't all that scarry, although the ending gave me chills, it was still a great/unique movie IMO. On the other hand I went to see the sequel even though it was trashed by critics and I can comfortably say it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It was related to the original in name only.

That being said, I can't wait for a third. If they do make it then atleast there is an option of seeing it. If people didn't like the series then don't go see the new one. But if some of you had their way there wouldn't be a new one, and hence, no option of seeing it.--That was poorly worded so...The moral of the story is if you're not interested then don't go see it.Posted Image

#14 of 45 OFFLINE   Scott Weinberg

Scott Weinberg

    Lead Actor

  • 7,482 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2000

Posted January 08 2002 - 11:09 AM

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 had a budget of about $16 million, and it struggled to make $14 million. Not a massive bomb, but Artisan was expecting a solid payday.

The original Blair Witch Project made almost $150 million bucks. Not bad for a flick that cost less than $40,000 to make (not including advertising).

Glad to see people will take any unrelated opportunity to trash Jason X, when it's HARDLY the first horror sequel to utilize the "In Space" scenario. Plus, calling Jason X a "dumb idea" is like calling Michael Jordan a "good ball player". You're not really going out on a massive limb with these statements. Posted Image

#15 of 45 OFFLINE   Terrell



  • 3,217 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001

Posted January 08 2002 - 11:20 AM

Well, what would you call greenlighting a 9th horror sequel, to a film franchise that hasn't made any money in long time? Also, taking what was essentially a slasher film set in the woods at a camp near a lake, and putting the villian in space a couple hundred years in the future as a Cyborg on a spaceship? Don't know about you, but that's even preposterous for Friday the 13th.

#16 of 45 OFFLINE   Scott Weinberg

Scott Weinberg

    Lead Actor

  • 7,482 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2000

Posted January 08 2002 - 11:29 AM

Is it more or less preposterous than Leprechaun In Space or Hellraiser In Space? The last Friday made over $15 million domestically, so after foreign markets and various subsidiary paydays, Jason Goes to Hell cut a tidy profit. Since horror movies can be made "on the cheap", a healthy domestic cash haul is not necessarily required for the film to be profitable. Quality and sense takes a back burner to "franchise name recognition" any day! PLUS, I've read more than a handful of really positive Jason X reviews from various horror sites. I am definitely enjoying our amicable debates, Terrell, but I'd rather have a Jason X than a Mummy 3 or American Pie 5. YES, I agree that the whole "outer space" concept is indeed wacky, but heck - Any Friday sequel at this point would automatically be stretching things, so why not go whole hog and do something totally out there?

#17 of 45 OFFLINE   Terrell



  • 3,217 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001

Posted January 08 2002 - 11:33 AM

No! I'm not saying it's more preposterous. I'm just saying it's preposterous. Some franchises should come to an end. LOTR, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and numerous other great franchises have come to and end, or will come to an end. And those franchises are 100 times better and more worthy than Friday the 13th, some of which I have enjoyed. However, it's time for someone to put a fork in this one. Halloween also, even though I'd put it far above Friday the 13th.

The point I'm making is that someone should have looked at this idea and said no way. This franchise is dead.

But that's just my opinion.Posted Image

As for which sequels I'd rather have, at this point, anything other than friday the 13th. But I've never liked American Pie. But I did thoroughly enjoy The Mummy and The Mummy Returns. And for me personally, I'd sit through The Mummy 5 before I'd sit through Jason X.

Don't you agree though Scott, that there are dozens of better projects that could be made than Jason X?

#18 of 45 OFFLINE   LarryDavenport



  • 2,980 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 1999

Posted January 08 2002 - 11:41 AM

I'm part of the minority who liked the second one, but mainly I like what it could have been, after listening to the DVD commentary. Had Artisan not insisted on the director having to rededit it to make it more of a horror film, I think we might be talking about how cool it was. I'll probably rent the third one unless it gets great word of mouth.

#19 of 45 OFFLINE   Scott Weinberg

Scott Weinberg

    Lead Actor

  • 7,482 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2000

Posted January 08 2002 - 11:44 AM


This franchise is dead, and rightfully so.


At this point, I think you're letting your personal (and very legit) dislike for F13 overshadow common sense.

The franchise is NOT dead. If it were, we'd have no Jason X to argue about! What I think you mean is that you WANT the franchise to be dead. While I respect your opinion, opinions are not fact.

Regarding the "other" franchises, you claim that they're "all dead or will be dead". Hmph. That covers a lot of ground. Star Wars still has two movies left to go, plus all the nonstop tinkinering Lucas will do once the new trilogy is complete. That series may not be "dead" until long after Lucas is.

Indiana Jones? They've been discussing this one for years, and it probably WILL happen. Why? Well, for the same reason Jason X is being made: Studios want to MAKE MONEY, and a "known commodity" is nearly a sure thing at the box office.

LOTR? Still two movies left to go, and then I GUARANTEE someone will come along (maybe P. Jackson, maybe someone else) and direct The Hobbit or The Silmarillion for New Line. Why? Because there's boatloads of CASH to be made.

When the studio execs gather around and decide which movies they're going to start production on, and someone mentions a Part 4 or Part 8, the reaction is NOT going to be "Sheesh, that again???" The reaction will be "How profitable will it be??" You think the F13 series should die out now. That's your opinion, and several million people probably agree with you.

But the bottom line is simply this:

No series will truly DIE until the films become unprofitable.

You're up, T! Posted Image

#20 of 45 OFFLINE   Terrell



  • 3,217 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001

Posted January 08 2002 - 11:53 AM

Well, let's change the wording from dead to end, or unprofitable. The fact is, after the prequel films, the Star Wars saga comes to an end. By end, I mean no more films. Same with LOTR. Same with Indiana Jones. Note, I said has ended or will come to and end.

But let's be honest Scott, this franchise hasn't been all that profitable at all. yes, you can make a film like this cheap. But Jason Goes to Hell making 15 million dollars is not what I call profitable. It's a sign that the series is toast. You can't make a film today, even one like Jason X for 15 million dollars. The last one probably lost money. You can certainly bet it cost at least 15 million dollars, and probably more.

As for the other films to those franhcises, they're all but guaranteed to make big money. Jason X is all but guaranteed to tank in my opinion. There are far better things to make in Hollywood than this type of crap. Whatever the case, I hope the people that pay to see this enjoy it. For me, I'll run screaming from wherever this plays.

Thanks for the replies.Posted Image

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users