> That's because with blairwitch.com, there was a small group of people who wanted to get everyone excited about the movie. The Eyes Wide Shut site probably had about 400 people involved including all the marketers, creators, and money-holders. EWS had to work with committees, Blair Witch had a group of people.

An interesting theory, but I highly doubt that was actually the case. When millions of dollars are at stake, movie studios are generally very good about making sure there are no kinks in the system with which their movies are marketed. No, in the case of "Eyes Wide Shut," I think it's more because of the overriding artistic choice, enabled by the fact that it is a Stanley Kubrick movie, who was given free reign, pretty much, about how the movie was made and handled. Details about the movie were kept in strict secrecy for a long time, and I was not the least bit surprised when I saw the trailers and discovered that they don't tell you anything about the movie either. I would have been shocked if a web site produced by the same company that produced the trailers actually did reveal plot details.

This is the way Kubrick wanted it, and with good reason. I am sick and tired of movie trailers telling me the whole story of whatever movies they're advertising. "The Negotiator," one of the best action movies in recent years, was almost ruined for me by that ridiculous trailer. The trailer for the upcoming "The Iron Giant" seems like the editors had a checklist of spoilers to make a point to reveal. It's absurd. I applaud Warner Brothers' marketing decisions on "Eyes Wide Shut," even if the non-spoiler marketing was due less to reasons of artistic integrity and more because the marketing department didn't know how to sell it. (I suspect the real reason is a generous helping of both.)

The folks at Blair Witch, on the other hand, are just going about business as usual with their marketing. Get them into the theater, and the heck with that happens afterward.