Talk:Curse of the Blair Witch

I do not believe this should be merged with Blair Witch Project, as though related, it is still seperate, and independently notable thanks to being a seperate film that was aired on SciFi. This film was obviously done, while still in a documentary style, in a vastly different manner/approach. Blair Witch is supposed to be composed of the footage the missing film student characters captured on their camcorders; Curse of the Blair Witch, on the other hand, takes the approach of not "actual footage taken from the event" style storytelling but the "interviews with people" method. Further, it convinced some people that Blair Witch was real. Marketing? Of course. But it was a unique and uniquely effective bit of marketing, and also still a seperate film.

To illustrate my point a bit better - each film in any given hit film series would get its own article and, take a gander at the article for R. Tam sessions. The R. Tam sessions were also marketing, but due to their unique nature/approach, they were considered notable enough to have their own seperate article - which was voted "keep" as I recall. While they used different methods and approaches, the R. Tam sessions and Curse of the Blair Witch share something in common - they were both unusual ways of marketing a film, marketing methods that additionally, had had little to no precedent in media previous to their release. If R. Tam sessions deserves its own article for being an unusual form of marketing (and I do believe it does), I'm of the firm opinion that this one does too. This also, additionally, started a precedent with SciFi Channel - see: "The Buried Secret of M. Night Shymalan", another, later faux documentary created to build hype for an upcoming film. Hence, it is the seminal example of a particular network trend as well as a relatively unique marketing method.

Also, it can be considered a spin-off. ;)

HOWEVER: I also think it should be rewritten. As it is now, it's not entirely NPOV. In several places it says things like the film being "believable", which is silly, because some people might not have actually believed it. IF you have a few sources from mainstream media that state that they were totally taken in by it, by all means, quote them and reference them. But don't simply refer to something as "believable". Plenty of things are "believable" without being logical, for instance, some people find the Flat Earth Theory believable, too. ;) So, say who found it to be believable, not that it "is" beleivable. Runa27 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)