MOVIES

The Blair Witch Project Theory That Makes The Movie Twice As Creepy

Shortly after “The Blair Witch Project” took the cinematic landscape by storm, it spawned its first direct sequel, 2000’s “Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.” Unlike its predecessor, this feature was torn apart by critics and general moviegoers alike. Over a decade and a half later came 2016’s maligned “Blair Witch,” which serves as a cross between a sequel and a soft reboot. But what if the franchise focused on the idea of Josh Leonard and Mike Williams being a serial killer duo and the ones behind Heather Donahue’s death?

“The sequel would be the sadistic tale about Joshua Leonard and Michael C. Williams, documenting themselves (as they documented) how they did all of this to Heather – the planning-stage tape…and their other victims,” wrote u/CartelKingpin. This pitch prompted other fans to praise and build on this idea. For instance, u/McFry_ voiced their support for the sequel concept, while u/RantSpider would’ve liked to see “The Blair Witch Project” get the trilogy treatment in this regard, with the truth of Josh and Mike’s crimes being exposed over multiple films.

In May 2023, reports surfaced that a new “Blair Witch” film was allegedly in development. If the franchise returns, it will be fascinating to see which type of frightful route it takes. While it likely won’t explore the Josh and Mike as murderers theory, one can hope it comes close to recreating the terrifying magic of the original.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button

GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX