Original Blair Witch cast issues statement asking for residuals and recognition
The cast and crew of the iconic 1999 found footage film say they weren't consulted on or made aware of the fact that there was another reboot in the works
Aux News Blair Witch
The cast and crew of 1999's game-changing The Blair Witch Project didn’t go out and get terrorized in the woods for nothing, even if that’s sort of how they’re being treated by Lionsgate and Blumhouse right now. Ever allergic to new ideas, the two major studios announced yet another reboot of the iconic found footage horror film earlier this month.
But Hollywood’s current creative famine actually isn’t the scariest part of this whole debacle. In response to the announcement, Joshua Leonard—one of the stars of the original film—said that the studios hadn’t even told him about the project, much less consulted him on the story that he and his co-stars, Heather Donahue and Michael C. Williams, had largely improvised. He also claimed that the three actors “never saw another dime” after their original $300,000 payout, despite the fact that Lionsgate has been trying (and failing) to make a franchise out of their ideas for over two decades now.
Now, Leonard, Donahue, and Williams are doubling down. In a jointly-signed statement posted on Leonard’s Facebook page this weekend, the three actors—self-described as “greyer, surlier, wiser, and with far fewer fucks to give when it comes to speaking up for their own rights and the rights of other artists who are being been put in similar compromised/extractive positions by a dehumanizing system at this very moment”—have made a list of (very reasonable, in this writer’s opinion) demands from Lionsgate.
First, the trio is asking for retroactive and future residual payments “equivalent to the sum that would’ve been allotted through SAG-AFTRA, had we had proper union or legal representation when the film was made.” In response to the surprise of the sequel, they are also asking for “meaningful consultation” on any future Blair Witch project (including toys, games, rides, and even escape rooms, which should cover the Willy Wonka disaster probability). “Note: Our film has now been rebooted twice, both times were a disappointment from a fan/box office/critical perspective. Neither of these films were made with significant creative input from the original team,” they write. “As the insiders who created the Blair Witch and have been listening to what fans love & want for 25 years, we’re your single greatest, yet thus-far unutilized secret-weapon!”
Finally, the actors are also paying it forward by asking for the creation of a “Blair Witch Grant,” a 60k fund (the budget of the original film) paid by Lionsgate “to an unknown/aspiring genre filmmaker to assist in making their first feature film.” “This is a GRANT, not a development fund, hence Lionsgate will not own any of the underlying rights to the project,” they knowingly specify.
Original film directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez, along with producers Gregg Hale, Robin Cowie and Michael Monello, have also chimed in with their own statement supporting Leonard, Donahue, and Williams:
As we near the 25th anniversary of The Blair Witch Project, our pride in the storyworld we created and the film we produced is reaffirmed by the recent announcement of a reboot by horror icons Jason Blum and James Wan.
While we, the original filmmakers, respect Lionsgate’s right to monetize the intellectual property as it sees fit, we must highlight the significant contributions of the original cast — Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, and Mike Williams. As the literal faces of what has become a franchise, their likenesses, voices, and real names are inseparably tied to The Blair Witch Project. Their unique contributions not only defined the film’s authenticity but continue to resonate with audiences around the world.
We celebrate our film’s legacy, and equally, we believe the actors deserve to be celebrated for their enduring association with the franchise.
You can read Leonard’s full post below:
63 Comments
The BWP was probably the last horror movie I really enjoyed.
I guess you never saw Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows
He said enjoyed 🙂
Whaat, that doesn’t sound right. Did you just stop watching them?
If you haven’t seen Skinamarink yet, you should give it a go. To me it was the most The Blair Witch Project feeling movie since The Blair Witch Project.
What an utterly bizarre comment. Have you not actually watched another horror movie since then, or do you just have exceptionally bad taste? Because there have been many, many horror movies since then that are far better than Blair Witch Project.EDIT: sees another comment where you call a Hootie and the Blowfish song “stunning,” confirms that you do indeed have exceptionally bad taste.
I don’t even like horror very much but I even I can admit that there have been some stellar productions since then. But you do you.
OH LOOK THERE’S A HOUSE LET’S GO IN IT!
MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKE!
Lionsgate’s excuse is that they didn’t give residuals because they thought all three died at the end of the first movie.
I mean they found his teeth!
Blair Witch remains the single greatest moviegoing experience of my life, full stop. It was the summer between high school and college and I went with my then-girlfriend on a rainy weeknight to catch a late showing on opening night. Apparently every graduating senior in town had the same idea and the auditorium was packed to the gills with friends, acquaintances, everyone from both my own school as well as the high school across town. So the whole affair had the energy of an impromptu graduation event, an extension of the going-away parties and festivities that accompany you before you’re sent off from your little corner of the world to go be a grown up. And in this nascent internet age, when things still travelled by word of mouth and you couldn’t rely on any common authority to debunk anything, a significant portion of the audience had bought into the marketing hype and believed this is real found footage of three people who had gone missing. Blair Witch was like nothing any of us had ever seen before, and that, amplified by the giddy excitement in the air rooted in the belief that this is real, sent a charge through every jump-scare and tense moment and eerie turn. Though Blair Witch is certainly groundbreaking, it’s difficult to say how well the original film stands up to the test of time. I don’t think I’ve watch it in full since that night in the theater in July of 1999. But for that moment in time, the audience lost its goddamn minds, and it is a special experience I cherish and don’t expect to ever really repeat again, given all the unique and magical factors in place. Anyway, Lions Gate, pay these goddamn people already.
I was older at the time, early 20s, but equally gullible and had a similar experience. I completely believed the hype, dragging my incredulous gf at the time on opening night. The theater was PACKED and rowdy, one of my top theater experiences ever.
I don’t think there’s any separating that marketing campaign from the experience of seeing the movie. Even if you knew it was bullshit, the anticipation it build up added to it massively. Long way of saying I don’t think catching it again today would have anywhere near the same impact.
It’ll be much better this time around because of all the TikToks and all the reaction videos that everyone will be asking for.
Yeah these days between how easy it is to find things on the internet and how much the studio PR teams seems to spoil a lot of stuff in trailers and press tours, there’s no way to ever emulate that kind of hype again, I think.
I think the closest there’s been in the 21st century is when the first Paranormal Activity and they released all those ads making it seem like the scariest movie in history and pushed people to demand the movie be shown in their local theaters. Like, they didn’t try to convince people it was real, but I think it was the most successful hype campaign for a horror movie since Blair Witch.
for what, exactly? how much should an original cast get for remakes?
Seems like an easy PR win to bring them on in some kind of consultancy basis. And the grant thing is a good idea. The unique nature of the project — no name actors who were expected to keep a low profile surrounding and even after the film was released (hampering their careers), their improv contributions, the difficult conditions of the shoot — the probably weren’t fairly compensated given how monumentally successful the film was and how much they put into it. I realize “it’ not fair” typically doesn’t fly in a court of law. But seems like Lionsgate can throw them some kind of bone and score some points in the court of public opinion.
Yeah I have a pretty good idea how this is going to turn out. Lionsgate may cut them into some advisory role on the new one purely as a goodwill/PR measure, but no company on the planet is going to say “Oh you regret that contract you signed 25 years ago and now want more money? Sure, here you go!”They turned $60k into $300k when they sold the rights, which isn’t nothing. They should have had an entertainment lawyer review the documents. I get the impulse here but this request is pretty dumb.
The problem with improvised films is giving credit to the people who shaped the story but didn’t get writer’s credits. They didn’t have a finished script to read. They shaped the story as it was filmed. So these actors had significant creative input that has not been paid for.
At the very least, they should be paid the residuals they should have gotten from the original movie. Had they been union, they’d have been paid for the millions of DVDs, TV airings etc.
They were already paid.
My manager at my job at the time was obsessed with the marketing about how it was real and almost everyone working at our store saw it the day before it premiered at the theater in our mall because we were friends with the manager there and he let everyone he liked working in the mall watch the test run(after they cut the film together) of any new big movie. I honestly was not impressed but I lied and said I did at the time I was because the girl I liked was with us and she loved it.
I saw it on a date, and the guy got laid because I was so scared afterwards I didn’t want him to go home #truestory
I was 26 when I saw it in the theater, I can’t remember if I’d yet found out that it was made up, but I was hyperventilating when the lights came up at the end. However, I can still here the voice of the person sitting right behind me who yelled “I WANT MY MONEY BACK!” To each their own, I suppose.
THANK YOU! So many people say it is overhyped but if you saw it in the theaters you get it. And yes, the beginning is boring and the characters are obnoxious but that’s the point., that’s the slow build. They are young, normal 20 year olds wanting to make a documentary and it all goes bad.
Seller’s remorse can be a bitch.
Blair Witch was a bad flick. Let’s do a remake of Let’s Scare Jessica to Death instead.
Or at least a remake of the Bare Wench project
Or The Bare Pimp Project, know what I’m sayin’?
Residuals? Absolutely. A charitable arts grant? Sounds great. Creative input on all future sequels, merch, or brand rights? Ummmmmmm good luck with that one, guys.
Agreed across the board. They should absolutely receive residuals, and I love the idea of their grant to help aspiring filmmakers. That’s something Lionsgate could do immediately and earn a lot of goodwill. But, yeah… while it was improvised, and they were the ones essentially creating the story as they went along, I feel like they’re gonna be hard-pressed to exert any actual IP ownership here.
I like the idea of the grant but I don’t believe they deserve residuals. If residuals weren’t part of the original deal then they had no reason to expect another single dime after their sale price. Acting surprised and outraged they never had a movie company voluntarily give them money they weren’t owed and didn’t ask for their help and permission on an IP they sold them decades ago just seems dumb.
If the movie had been a financial flop it isn’t like LionsGate gets to call them up and ask for the money back.
Strange. I love this movie, but for a variety of reasons, they don’t have much of a case. However, if they make themselves to sound like victims, maybe this will work?
What are some of the variety of reasons?
It depends on how contracts and compensation agreements were written/worded. College interns famously came up with the dorito shell taco but the agreement they signed with taco bell stated that anything they came up with was the property of taco bell, etc.I doubt a studio contract for actors doesn’t account for things like residuals but i guess we’ll see. Other than actively being defrauded it’s hard to see how someone can come back for more money “because something got big”, regardless of what agreement docs state
That’s my thoughts too. If residuals weren’t in the contract then either neither party thought it was going to be very successful or these guys were terrible negotiators along with attorneys/agents they had on their side.The only way these guys have a real gripe with LionsGate is if residuals were in the contract but LG was fudging the numbers to avoid paying them.The whining about how LG isn’t asking them for input on future projects really is too much for me, especially since if they had real talent for this they wouldn’t have been broke and working their old jobs again so quickly after the payday.
What are some of the variety of reasons?1) They signed a contract that was fulfilledEnd of list.
I wish them all the luck.Blair Witch was a chef’s kiss for the horror genre. Terrifyingly simple in story and spare in execution. Frequently scary and an ending that serves up all the finality of horror and dread that I require.Their meta game was wonderful. Mostly I remember the bumpers and the pseudo-documentary on Sci-Fi (now SyFy…grrr.); great stuff.
This seems kind of weird. First off they are asking for union equivalent residuals. Except if the original movie has been made under union rules the producers would have hired SAG/AFTRA (plus teamsters and crew ans others) members and they wouldn’t have been hired anyways. So it seems like at the time they were fine making a movie outside of union rules since it benefitted them, and now that they potentially lost out on a bunch of money they want it changed?Plus the actors asking for any kind of input on future movies seems ridiculous.
Seriously, this has “ex post facto” all over it. The argument is moral, pure and simple. And even if it’s moral, the original art was a product of its low wages.
I thought you had to act in a SAG/AFTRA (or affiliated) production prior to joining SAG/AFTRA? I don’t think you have to be a member prior to being cast.
Uh, that’s not how SAG works. The production was non-SAG, yes, but the only way you can get into SAG is to work in a SAG, or SAG affiliated production. So, it’s not that simple for indie productions to get any union backing. Bear in mind, this was bunch of people running around in the woods, on a non-existent budget, that ended up being nearly a billion dollar movie in today’s money. It’s pretty unheard of.
Man. The Blair Witch Project. I remember the day I saw it. The Angelika Film Center in NYC. I was 30 and was with friends and it was the age of being spoiler free. I’ve always loved horror films but this movie gave me goosebumps at certain points. It was so simple and clever. Something like this cannot be recreated or duplicated again especially in today’s lightning fast data culture we live in. The Blair Witch Project was my generations The Exorcist.
For the reboot of the movie, I am not sure how successful that would be. So much of the appeal of that movie, at least in my social circles was the marketing. Was it real? If it wasn’t real, what the fuck was it all about? The actors just shot it themselves? What is a “found footage” movie? This was also back in the days of the internet where word of mouth could travel fast, but there were not 1,001 blogs/youtube sites/news agencies spoiling it and ruining it. Before I saw it I thought it was going to be like an early version of what I now know is one of those ghost hunting shows. Like, there would be a lot of spooky stuff but no “here’s the monster!” moment. And watching it, that’s exactly what it was, before that kind of thing was commonplace.
They can ask, sure.I can ask, for what it’s worth. There’s a pretty good chance that Lionsgate will treat each request equally.
I genuinely don’t understand why the cast of a movie should get residuals from an idea they didn’t originate and movies they aren’t starring in. Is this a normal ask that other actors get nowadays?
Since they wrote the movie, they are entitled to a “created by” or “based on characters created by” writing credit that comes with a salary in every single use of the IP. Residuals aren’t necessarily overlapping, as I imagine they’re separately negotiated and not an entitlement.
They aren’t credited as the writers of the movie though and they didn’t create the story. I know they improvised the dialogue but the directors came up with the idea for the movie and wrote the screenplay and backstory.
This isn’t quite the same as an improv project like a Christopher Guest film, where there’s whole scenes mapped out and the actors just create the dialogue. There was no screenplay. There wasn’t even a director on set much of the time. They created damn near everything. Their characters and histories together. Drama and conflict. The director and crew leaves them notes and morsels to work with, but it was largely up to them what to do with it. It’s a fairly unprecedented way of working. So, yeah, they don’t have writing credits because they didn’t “write” things in the traditional sense and they were at the bleeding edge of a wave of technically unscripted drama that the world hadn’t figured out how to manage and classify yet. But under our modern understanding after 2+ decades of “unscripted” TV and various copycat productions we would consider them to have made a creative contribution equivalent to writing and they would get residuals for that.
There was a screenplay – it didn’t have any dialogue in it as the credited creators / writers (Myrick and Sanchez) had always planned for the actors to improv on it. There was a backstory to the Blair Witch legend that they created too. They also were the ones who came up with the idea to make the film as found footage. And like you said, they did give the actors notes every day on the story beats to follow.I agree that the actors were asked to improv more than usual and also to film the movie. But they were given guardrails and guidance and the actual story itself was conceived by Myrick and Sanchez. I don’t really see how anyone can say they created the idea behind Blair Witch when they plain didn’t. Maybe they still have a grievance for having so much creative input on their characters but it seems like it should be with the WGA / the credited writers and not receiving a writing credit.
They deserve nothing as punishment for coming up with the kicking the map into the creek bit.
There was a screenplay. What are you even talking about? There was 35 page screenplay for eight days of shooting that outlined the story and the actors were all given individual notes daily that outlined their characters actions and what they were supposed to improvise about. The characters’ backstories and relationships to each other were talked about extensively with the writer/directors before filming. The writer/directors also placed all the props and guided the actors to them, setup all the fake interviews, and were always off in the distance with camo and red headlamps observing the action. They also had to take 81 hours of film, mostly nonsense, and drill it down to less than 90 mins to make an actual movie. Even today, under current WGA rules the actors wouldn’t even have close to a writing credit, and they aren’t even asking for that. They are asking for SAG residuals which, without some very specific denominator in their initial contract, would still likely amount to near nothing these days. Base residuals are calculated on the current producers income from the property. The movie has changed hands a couple times and Artisan and Lionsgate have taken a bath on everything BWP related so there’s no money to divvy up, only losses. If you went full on retroactive and tried to parse historic DVD sales, TV broadcasts and streaming licenses it might end up to maybe $1ooK for each of them, not small potatoes obviously, but there’s no getting a big chunk of residuals.
I think by “the story” they just mean the Blair Witch itself.
Except they aren’t entitled to it legally. That would’ve have to have been before the film was sold, which they all agreed to $300K for (having no idea it was to turn into a massive film) and weren’t SAG. Contract done. Even if they were SAG at the time, they wouldn’t be entitled to any real residuals with the contract they signed when the film was bought. They would’ve maybe got one of those depressing $.01 checks a month. Residuals are negotiated (and notoriously murky) even with the current SAG contract, that they weren’t a party to to begin with.
Even on a union set, improving lines doesn’t entitle one to a writing credit. For instance, Christopher Guest’s movies are mostly improvised but he still gets the writing credit because he wrote the bones of the story and sets up the scenarios where the improvisation takes place and has to fit into. BWP was similar in that the bones of the scenario were already written and the actors got daily notes about the scenarios they were supposed to improvise. There is some counter intuitiveness when it comes to improv though, because if you are a WGA member, and you improv during a strike, it can be considered scabbing, though it’s debatable if it’s scabbing if you are not a credited writer on the project. If you are a credited writer, it’s definetely scabbing. Things like that created issues in the prior WGA strike for writer/directors like Apatow and McKay whose films have a decent amount of improv. Normally they’d prompt the actors in some way, shout out a new line or idea for the actors to riff on, but that’s considered writing if you are a credited writer on the project. It gets a bit murky there. As to getting a “written by” credit, you have to have had contributed at least 33% to the final screenplay. That’s the screenplay, not what actually ended up on screen, but the screenplay the project worked off of, even if it was significantly changed during filming.
I think they’re asking for residuals for the movie they were in. But, I barely skimmed over the thing, so I could be very wrong.
“Had we had proper legal representation.”So, ummmm…. is it dumb to ask WHY they didn’t have proper legal representation, or why that is anyone else’s fault but their own? They made $300k, so I’m pretty sure they could have afforded attorneys.And is it also dumb to ask why they should get paid for reboots of a movie that they didnt create, develop, or write? Because this seems like a stretch to me.
I have to believe even they know it’s a stretch, they’re just hoping playing the victim will get someone to give them some money. The fact they didn’t bother getting a good lawyer that specializes in that type of deal is on them. It would have cost a bit but A. It’s possible a lawyer with experience in the field could have gotten them a bigger payout and B. Said lawyer would probably have made sure to include things like residuals, since as they’re learning you can’t just ask for decades after the sale.
The tantrums over not being consulted with or told about a reboot is just ridiculous. As soon as that contract was signed BWP isn’t their film anymore it’s now LionsGate property to do with what they want and with who they want.
While I feel for them this makes no sense:
1. Retroactive + future residual payments to Heather, Michael and Josh for acting services rendered in the original BWP, equivalent to the sum that would’ve been allotted through SAG-AFTRA, had we had proper union or legal representation when the film was made.It was a non-union production (not unusual for an indie) and as far as I can see they’ve all acted since, and are SAG now, so they should now how this works. When Artisan bought the film they all agreed to a $300K flat fee for rights, not a small amount in ‘99 for a movie they made running around in the woods for 20 days. That’s over $500K today. That’s actually huge for a working actor today, let alone then. People have wildly distorted views on what working, recognizable actors (which they aren’t) make on TV or in movies. Even being in SAG at the time, or now, it wouldn’t have made any significant difference. The idea that some legal representation should’ve been there, when they didn’t seek any legal representation, is their own fault. They’re saying, had I know it would become a huge film, well, someone should’ve warned me about that and advised me about that nearly impossibility. Would it be nice for Lionsgate to throw them some dough? Sure. Though their ire should be more directed at Myrick and Sanchez, who actually screwed them.
Glad they finally found their motivation. More power to them.
If I recall Donahue spent years trying to escape the film. Wouldn’t talk about it in interviews, and directly bad mouthed the film when she did. Yeah, they should’ve been compensated more but… tough. All he talk of future involvement is just a cash grab, I guarantee they were asked to come back for those past sequels, at least Donahue.
I’ve never seen this film (I’m a scaredy cat), but can’t deny its cultural impact. Good luck to them.