Talk:Paranormal Activity

hoax

Removing the reference to the film being a hoax, which is not actually what the editor meant. Identityshift (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC) What did I meant?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't word that well. Your edit read:

Paranormal Activity is a 2007 American independent horror film, although it's a actually hoax.

If this film had been presented very strongly (via true viral marketing, et cetera like Blair Witch) as true found footage, the spirit of what you said would be true. The grammar would still be incorrect, though. The word 'although' is modifying 'American independent horror film' -- none of which classify it is a hoax. Your edit asserts that the film is neither American, independent, horror, or a film. It is all of these things, so I can only assume that you meant the idea that the film is true found footage is the part that's a hoax.

It still doesn't qualify, because besides the brief blurb in the credits, there was no real effort to 'pull one over' on anyone with this movie, regardless of whether you think it's scary or not. Identityshift (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

SPOILERS

okay i have a question if it is such a low budget movie how could they do all the effects because they would spend quite a bit of money on the programs for the computers or what ever else so that they could do the footprints and being pulled out of bed and when she throws micah so how is it possible to be such a low budget movie because the effects are actually prettty good it pretty much unnoticible unless you do a play by playon the dvd a few times then you can see the fishness begin ??? -Ashley Allender dont make fun i dont know what i am doing i was wondering though does anyone know where i can find information on this movie like if its based on a true story if you have any can you please send it to aeamhabjc4ever@yahoo.com thank you highly apprecitaed -ashley allender the movie is taken of a real story in the U.S.A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensenxs (talk • contribs) 09:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC) When Katie kills Micah after being fully possessed by the demon in the final few minutes of the movie, many visssss ewers were left dissapointed by this ending. The last act of the movie involves her smiling into the camera and letting out a yell then lunging towards it. There were a total of 3 alternate endings for this film, one of which included Katie first killing Micah then coming up the stairs and slitting her throat in front of the camera while not looking at it. Yet another ending involves her killing Micah then sitting in her rocking chair for four full days with a butchers knife until the police arrive and shoot her dead as her possessed body lunges at them. The movie centers around a young couple, Katie and Micah, who are haunted by a demonic presence in their home. The movie is presented through the cameras set up by the couple to capture the ghost activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.94.121.92 (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Enough is enough. We get that you want to keep writing this one thing over and over. Even the talk page isn't the place for movie reviews. Could you please keep this kind of thing to IMDB's forums or something? Thanks.TabascoMan77 (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

---

What the anonymous editor at the top of this discussion is writing is not so much a “review” as plot details, what one might call spoilers. The spoiler policy at Wikipedia (WP) is exactly the opposite of what one might think. The policy at WP:SPOILER is clear that spoilers are considered an acceptable part of the plot outline/discussion of wikiarticles on movies, television shows, novels, etc. It is understood that someone looking up such an article will expect to find plot details. To quote WP:SPOILER: “It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.”

Moreover, spoiler alerts are not allowed. Again, to quote WP:SPOILER: “Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary.”  I have to admit that while I expected that WP would allow spoilers, I was suprised to discover that spoiler alerts were not permitted. However, a solution that I and other editors have used on other wikiarticles is to make sure that the plot discussion is in a separate section — not the introduction (lede) — clearly labelled Plot Synopsis.

Thus, editors are correct to remove such plot details from the introduction (lede), because that is the incorrect place for them. However, editors would be in violation of Wikipedia’s spoiler policy to remove plot details from a properly labelled, plot synopsis section. I hope this clarifies things regarding spoilers. —  SpikeToronto  20:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Right, except this user has posted this anywhere and everywhere he has gotten the chance. On top of this, there really is no point to posting this in the "Talk" section at all. It doesn't contribute to anything since part of it is POV and the user is just rattling off on his frustrations with the film. I would like to incorporate part of what he said, but there are no sources. TabascoMan77 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don’t disagree with you, Tabascoman, about this particular editor’s edits. If you go to his/her (anonymous) talk page, you will see that I left him/her a note explaining why his/her edits were continually being reverted from the article page and how s/he should correctly input them. Of course, I did it after s/he put the “stuff” above on the talk page, which wikirules do not permit anyone but her/himself to remove.

Plot synopses for novels only require the novel itself as a verifiable reference/citation for the plot outline. Good luck finding a verifiable reference/citation for an outline/synopsis of a film plot! Are there script respositories on the web? Are there publications that synopsize film plots? Man, I surely hope so! Gee, if you have to have a source other than the film itself, you may have set yourself an insurmountable task. The reason that WP permits spoilers is that an encyclopedia article should be complete. And, an integral part of completeness for an encyclopedic entry on a work of fiction is a plot summary/synopsis/outline. If the film itself cannot suffice as the source, then the encyclopedia article may never be complete, and thus be deficient. — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don’t work on film plots in wikiarticles, but for anyone wanting to write one for this movie, the following might be useful: WP:PLOT, WP:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries, WP:PLOTONLY, WP:PLOTSUM, WP:FILM, and perhaps most importantly, WP:FILMPLOT. — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Note this from WP:FILMPLOT: “Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary’s section is not necessary.” — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Spike, the issue isn't having a source for the detail of the ending of the film - as you have noted, the film itself serves as the source. The issue is the IPs assertion that they filmed three endings, and audiences were disappointed by the ending which was eventually used. Both of those statements need sources before they can be included. Hope this clarifies things. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It does! <blush> Thanks for clarifying. — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually know for a fact that there were endings filmed because of eyewitness accounts on blogs but I need better verification. :( - TabascoMan77 (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, here’s a review from the Tucson Citizen that mentions two different endings. Here’s one from Fangoria that mentions a change in ending. That’s two that might get you started. I used the following as my Google search string: "Paranormal Activity" +(movie OR film) ending. Happy hunting! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Spike. Thanks for the info. Yeah, I know the two endings and they're close to what is being written repeatedly by our favorite vandal but the two articles you found only reference the fact that there are mulitple endings and don't actually describe them. I wish a major media source would list the endings so we can put them on here. :( Really kinda hinders a good article. :( TabascoMan77 (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

everyone says that the movie is based off of a real story but at the same time many are saying that it wasnt that it was all made up i want to know the truth and if it was real where i can find the actual recorded story like a news article or something -thank you ashley allender —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.194.11 (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not done.  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Paranormal Activity (film) → Paranormal Activity — Unnecessary dab, latter redirects to former. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• To most people, Paranormal Activity is paranormal activity. Keep the disambiguator. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Anthony, also paranormal activity doesn't point here, it points to Paranormal. So Paranormal Activity should be retargetted to Paranormal. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose and agree with the above. * Oh dear. Another case of different pages being served according to capitalisation. "Paranormal Activity" and "Paranormal activity" should lead to the same place, whatever that is. Logically it should be the concept not the film. The hatnote on Paranormal does the job fine. Sussexonian (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Change the status quo I honestly don't much care where Paranormal Activity goes, although I would prefer it to be this article about the film. Either way, it makes no sense for it to redirect to an unnecessary disambiguation, so please redirect it to Paranormal or move. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As per Sussexionion, the capitalisation should not make a difference per MOS. I have redirected Paranormal Activity (with caps) to Paranormal, where it now matches the hatnote, which points to here as the other usage of the term. A one-shot IP reverted me a short while ago, but I have reverted back as it seemed random vandalism. There seems no consensus to rename this article, but there is no intent to subvert the discussion here, and the article can still be moved if required. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can you provide a pointer to the MOS section in question? To me, if somebody types "Paranormal Activity" in caps, it would seem obvious (or at least much more likely) that they're looking for the movie as opposed to any old paranormal activity in general. Jpatokal (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

over punctuation

There is no reason to surround mockumentary with quotation marks. Mockumentary is a word and has been for at least 25 years. Remove the punctuation please.

67.247.2.34 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Doug

One million "demands"

I didn't want to add this to the main article because I have no notable citation for it, but I wanted to let you folks know that "million demands" deal from Paramount was just total PR wash. The "counter" on the web site they set up to tally the demands (which in actuality consisted of you signing up to receive a bunch of e-mail solicitations, if you wanted to "vote") was really just a Flash file that would increase at regular intervals; if you watched it long enough, you could figure out what the number sequence was, and if you happened to idle on the page for a few minutes, the counter would actually reload and adopt a different one to keep up the appearance of randomness. I was watching at the time; when the counter hit one million, it stopped increasing and (upon refreshing the page) provided a link to another site--within seconds!--where you could find showings of Paranormal Activity in your local area, something that had obviously been set up well in advance.

Be wary of advertising campaigns that promise you the consumer the ability to influence or "change" anything. Remember that 99% of the time, what you see is what they want you to see. 173.80.109.181 (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The above is indeed a true. An IT student at the local community college saw the same thing, that it was a flash file that seemed to increase in "random" intervals. After breaking it down and looking at the coding, it had the same pattern of numerical increase regardless of when you looked at it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.102.28 (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

?????

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Comedy? What am I missing?J jessica J (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did laugh at a few points during the movie. Just sayin'. Lots42 (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"Thia is a real life story"

At the end of the Alternate Endings subsection, there is a line that says "Thia is a real life story". No references. I'm going to remove it, this is a prank. EDIT: Or not, someone beat me to it. :) Sailorknightwing (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Plot Section

The plot section should be broken down into more paragraphs for ease of reading. I'd do it myself right now but it's still dark and quiet in my house and frankly, even reading the synopsis is creepy (the movie itself scared me a lot). 09:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Amen, brother. Having practically built the page on my own, I edited this mostly at work because I didn't wanna do it at night when I was done doing everything else. Speaks volumes for the priorities I have at my job. LOL... :) TabascoMan77 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it considering I did the big rewrite both as this username and IP 173.11.54.241 and have been trying to help maintain the plot section on a daily basis. deftonesderrick (talk) 19 October 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

I propose that a conclusion is made on the final plot analysis. A lot of people keep adding to the 700 word version, ballooning it to over 1000 to 1200 words. Maybe we should put a hidden section on the page like what has been done about the 2007/2009 problem? Suggestions? (Deftonesderrick (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

I've only been watching the article for about a week or so and noticed it being bloated by a handful of editors over this recent weekend. But if it has been a major issue with this article over the recent weeks and months, it wouldn't hurt to leave a hidden message. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been editing this section for the past few weeks and it's become quite a chore to maintain. More and more people are seeing it, getting excited, then they see not every little detail is in the Plot Section and they wish to expand it. You're version, I believe, best complies with the standards of Plots and Synopsis sections. I've taken the liberty of adding a hidden message to the Plot Section. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Premiere

One of the first lines reads: The movie premiered at the Screamfest Film Festival in US on October 14, 2007, and at the Slamdance Film Festival on January 18, 2008.

How can a movie premiere twice? The latter date should be removed. --Jensamoller (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Premier as in the first time it was shown at that venue. If its the first time on television, they'd list that as a premier, even if its been at theaters before hand. Dream Focus 23:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternate versions

It's odd that this part of the description notes the scenes involving a broken picture replace the part with Micah investigating the Ouija board stuff, as what I saw at 12:01 am on October 23rd had both. Does this mean it was edited yet again? It's almost crazy the number of variations this film has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.69.98 (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I agree with "It's almost crazy the number of variations this film has." I've just watched this film and I didn't see either of the endings mentiond here. That is she neither cut her own throat nor did she go sit in a rocking chair. As nobody as yet seems to dispute that the first two stated endings are indeed genuine alternative endings then I would suggest that there are a minimum of three at the moment.--80.47.155.52 (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC) This is correct and it needs to be changed. The theatrical version I saw showed both the broken picture AND the sceane with Micah investigating the Ouija board. This needs to be addressed in the "Alternate Versions" section. I suggest that the first two paragraphs be completely rewritten. The second paragraph sill refers to the movie only being shown in limited release. --Austinrh (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I had some time, so I removed the first paragraph that is completely erroneous, and took out "limited release" from the second paragraph as the movie is now considered a wide release. I think there could still be some discussion about different versions of the film and scenes being replaced or edited, but we need some more clarification as to what editions related to what releases.--Austinrh (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does the third alternate ending say it 'apparently' has her slit her throat etc? It is unmitigated fact (just saw it myself) that is backed up by references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.24.51 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I just bought this on blu ray and the so called "original version" ends with Katie throwing Micah in the room and him slamming into the camera then she bites him 3 or 4 times then she looks at the camera and growls like a demon. Also the "alternate"ending shows her coming back to the room with a knife in her hand, she smiles then slits her throat and falls dead. Jonathanmbarnes (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

2007 vs 2009

Why do people keep changing the date of this movie to 2009? If it hadn't had a wide release, and had just played at two festivals in 2007 and 2008, what would the date say then? Would it not be a movie? The movie first screened in 2007, so why on earth would it be listed as being a '2009' movie, just because it later had a wider realease. Generica (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. It's a 2007 film that after a small number of screenings at festivals and strong buzz was purchased by Dreamworks who then had all future screenings pulled (it was listed as showing at the San Francisco Independent Film Festival in 2007, but was canceled with less than a week's notice as a result). As stated in the article the intent was then to produce a remake, but that and other issues lead the film to being out of distribution until it was eventually given a wide release in 2009. The only reason it could have to be a 2009 film is that the distributor prevented it from being shown for two years. 67.169.74.129 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As per IMDB and other refs I have corrected it to say 2007. I've also put a hidden comment instructing people to NOT change it unless they can provide a justifying ref. (Box Office mojo is not a valid ref on this specific point, as by their own rules they only include theatrical release dates and ignore festival release dates.) Manning (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)As far as they are concerned.

Incorrect information

{{editsemiprotected}}

someone has added that this movie "It has the highest gross-to-budget ratio of all time, with over 2,500:1, taking the record from the Blair Witch Project." which is grossly untrue. Blair Witch is at 354,614:1, for every $1 spent on the movie it made $354,614. Please upend this page and take that information down.

Please sign your posts. In addition, I will require a source for this information before I change it. Intelligentsium 22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done The ratio of gross to budget for Blair Witch, according to the article, is 248,639,099:750,000, or 331.51879866667:1. By contrast, the ratio for Paranormal Activity is 48,076,518:15,000, or 3205.1012:1. Even if we take the low estimate for Blair Witch, 500,000, we still get 497.278198:1. Intelligentsium 22:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the claim as it was unsourced. Also according to Box Office Mojo the budget for Blair Witch is 60,000, not $750,000 which on the $48,076,518 figures for PA still gives TBWP a healthy lead. Regardless, when new PA figures are released (probably today) I expect this film will take the title based on the available estimates. Manning (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Under "Critical Reception," There is a statement that "AOL reports that viewers left the screening mid-film not because they were dissatisfied, but because the film was so frightening." This may be true, however, I went to see the film last night and could not watch the film because I was getting motion sickness from all of the overdone handheld scenes. I had to go out into the lobby for a while and when I returned, I covered my eyes whenever they were doing handheld shots. I have had the same experience with Woody Allen's "Husbands and Wives" and "Jackass." I believe that people may have left the theater because they were getting sick from the poor photography. (darthclutch) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthclutch (talk • contribs) 15:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The alternate ending is missing some details.

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under 'Alternate Versions' 2nd paragraph 4th sentence says:

When two police officers arrive, Katie comes out of her catatonic state and approaches them. The officers instruct her to drop the knife and shoot her after a confused Katie fails to do so.

This is sort of in-correct. The detail left out was before the cops came upstairs, the back spare room light was turned on and then off to signify that the entity was in that room. When the police shun their lights on Khatie, it brought her out of her trance and she started to walk with disorientation towards the police. What you will see before the shooting was that the back spare room's door slamming, that caused the officer nearest the stairs to open fire on her from being startled by the slamming of the door. You will hear it in that order as well in the movie. The door slams then the police officer fires.

After the police called 'shots fired' they went to investigate why the door slammed and cleared the room after finding nothing. Then they head back into the main bedroom to find the camera still active.

When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here.

Is the existing text wrong? ie, she doesn't drop a knife, and they shoot her? Please remember, this is a very short summary, and doesn't need too much detail.

If you do think that the sentence needs replacing, please reinstate this request, and give a clear, short sentence to use, not a discussion of it.  Chzz  ►  12:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done

I was completely confused when reading the alternate endings. How many endings are there? What ending did Steven Spielberg suggest? Mantion (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Last night I watched the version with the original (cops coming upstairs) ending on the internet (no harm done I've already paid for a ticket to see it in theaters). :) Anyway...the OP is correct. The door at the other end of the hallway does slam shut, alarming the cops. I wrote the version of the "alternate endings" section to which the OP is referring using a source which has since been deleted, and never mentioned the door slamming shut. And Spielberg suggested the "demon Katie throws Micah at the camera" ending that's playing in theaters. This was supported by a legitimate source, but has also been removed from the article entirely. Don't know why. Someone can use this info to improve the section...if it's not done soon I'll get to it later. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I've been lollygaggling...glad to see someone did a good job in fixing this. The source doesn't mention the "original ending" in this same detail but I think it's fair to say that we can rely on the primary source (the film itself) for these details and rely on the secondary source in explaining that there was an "original ending" (with the cops) to begin with.

Now, just to clear things up...I've seen several posts and threads where people swear the "exorcism on the internet" scene is also in the theatrical version. This contradicts the source and how it's presented in the article. I've seen both the theatrical version and the original version on the internet, so it's hard for me to remember. Can we settle this once and for all? Is the "exorcism footage" scene in the version currently being shown in theaters? If so, some better sources need to be found and the article needs to be fixed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The theatrical version shows the girl on the internet, but not the video that was in the original cut.--149.169.53.120 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mockumentary?

I've noticed some minor edit warring over whether this film should be described in the lead as a "mockumentary". The style in which the film is portrayed is definitely a gimmick, but I'm not totally convinced if it should be called a "mockumentary" film, though I don't strong opinion either way. A case can be made that the film is indeed a "mockumentary" in the true sense of the word. I'm simply starting this thread in the hopes of generating a discussion to better help prevent the same type of potential discussion through edit summaries of reverts. Thoughts? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, until I read the entry for Mockumentary, and now I think it probably fits that description. Also note that Paranormal Activity is listed here. -Generica (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• As a clarification, the film appears to have been removed from that list, and from being described as a mockumentary. IMHO, it can't be considered a proper mockumentary, which is a fictional film done in the style of a documentary. Just because it features hand-held cameras ala cinema vérité isn't enough of a qualification-- there is no actual "documentarian" involved as an observer, nor is there any attempt to provide context or other elements of documentaries. This is an example of fictionalized "found film" such as Cloverfield which no one has claimed as a mockumentary. --HidariMigi (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, hasn't been removed from the list, not sure where you got that idea. Oh, and Cloverfield is on that list too :) I agree with you that there needs to be a distinction between a 'found footage' movie and a 'mockumentary' although clearly the two characters in Paranormal Activity were attempting to document their activities via film. It's a grey area at best. -Generica (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, you're correct -- I didn't scroll down far enough. I do think that List of Mockumentaries has quite a bit of Original Research. The best print source of calling Cloverfield a mockumentary I came across was from an article in the college newspaper of Midwestern State University in Wichita, KS. A list from About.com calls them "POV horror films." While the characters in Paranormal Activity were recording themselves, it wasn't ever clear that the intention was to create an actual "documentary" to a degree greater than any other home movies might be.--HidariMigi (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg as uncredited producer?

I have found no sources whatsoever to confirm this. Does anyone know if we could find a strong source? - Cartoon Boy (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% positive on what warrants you being credited as a "producer", but from what I read in the article and elsewhere, Spielberg simply agreed to finance a re-shoot of the movie through DreamWorks. Don't know if this makes him a "producer", but you're right, there is nothing on the web that classifies him as a producer of the film. I've removed his name from the producer field in the infobox, for now. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spielberg did agree to be a producer of the re-shoot, but not the original. Since the studio decided to use the original and not re-shoot the movie I don't think he would be credited as a producer. --Austinrh (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Micah and Katie were guests on The Jay Leno Show last night (Nov. 3, 2009) and Micah said Spielberg rewrote the original ending. Supposedly episodes of this show can be viewed in their entirety on NBC's site, if you'd like to check it out yourselves. --anon. 162.83.151.249 (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Original Version vs. Current Version

Errors in article relating to the different film edits. "Alternate Versions" see the separate discussion above. I deleted the incorrect information, but it was added back in by Gordonrox24 without explanation. Also, the "Cast" section has "(Original Version)" next to many of the names. I think what is considered the "Original Version" needs to be discussed. In the version I saw a few nights ago, Ashley Palmer was in the movie so that tag needs to be removed (again, see alternate version for more discussion on this). Also, Randy McDowell and Tim Piper were not in the version I saw, so they should most likely have the "Original Version" tag added to them.--Austinrh (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all getting confusing. I believe Ashley Palmer is the actress who plays the girl in the "exorcism video" Micah and Katie watch. The secondary article used as a source in the "Alternate versions" section states that in the version that began showing in wide release in theaters, this scene was removed and the "broken picture frame/demon breathing on Katie's hair" scene was added. I've seen people swear left and right that both of these scenes appear in the movie they saw in theaters. Surely enough people can confirm this here, and we can begin looking into fixing the article. The only information I've found so far has been in forums, and even on those there is conflicting accounts. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

stripper

Michah was not a stripper, he was a day trader. I'm not even sure how the two can be confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.1.82 (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The first line of the plot section and the header talk about a lesbian couple, Ashley and Katie, which makes me think that we've had some vandalism? Not having seen the movie, I'm hesitant to make a change, but thought that this should be brought up. Bo-Lingua (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, vandalism removed. Requesting page protection once more. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

dvd screener leaked

does anyone know about the dvd screener leaked on pirate bay? DO NOT REMOVE THIS FROM DISCUSSION.

71.9.18.122 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article here. It's been floating around on the internet for at least a year. Friginator (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by the mention of the film floating around on the internet for a year. My fellow paranormal nerds and I searched intensely for it right up until the film's release. Can we clarify in the article that it was shared through private portals/trackers or something, because that seems like it was the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.240.246 (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is something that should not be included in a wikipedia article and is unsorted. I've deleted it before but it was added back in. I'm going to remove it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinrh (talk • contribs) 04:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect?

Shouldn't "paranormal activity" redirect here first instead of "the paranormal"? It seems less likely that someone would type in the entire "paranormal activity" in looking for the paranormal. Angryapathy (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The plot isn't cited

techinically this would not be allowed as its not cited —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punisher88 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The plot's source is the movie itself. See this. --uKER (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Two Things

1. Article states November 27th for British release, but it's currently showing in cinema's here right now.

2. "Experts on the paranormal, Ghost videos, photos and experiences BadGhosts called this film 0 Stars. 0%, worst film of the year. Comparing the type of action to Spoofed TV show Most Haunted. [32]" I'm not against bad reviews, but this surely isn't a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.161.39 (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wording is confusing, and can have two different meanings

“ They screened the movie in 2007 at the Screamfest Horror Film Festival and, as a result, began to give away DVDs to anybody who would be willing to distribute it. It did not see a spotlight until 2007 when Miramax Films Senior Executive Jason Blum and his producing partner, Steven Schneider, viewed the movie for themselves. ”

Reads kind of awkward. Did they view it at Screamfest? And how is spotlight used here? Perhaps a month can be mentioned if they saw it later on. Perhaps saying, later that year, it was seen by Miramax Films Senior Executive Jason Blum and his producing partner, Steven Schneider. Dream Focus 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

"...footage of a possessed girl (whose story was read by Micah on the internet)..." Should that read: "footage of a possessed girl (whose story on the internet was read by Micah)"? EdX20 (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Austin de Rossi (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted back to previous version... some valid edits may have been lost

So I reverted back to an older version of the article removing about 20 intermediate edits. There has been excessive vandalism in the last few days and it would have been too difficult to go through every edit individualy. Sorry if a valid revision was inadvertently deleted. Please make your revision again. I requested that they page be semi-protected, so hopefully this won't happen again. Thanks! --Austin de Rossi (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for a week. We'll request it again if vandalism continues. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should request again. UGH, it's bad! (Deftonesderrick (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

Incorrect information persists

{{editsemiprotected}}

This unsourced claim still remains in the introduction: "It has set the record as the most profitable independent film ever made having earned over $100 million with a production budget of $15,000."

If you look at the figures for the Blair Witch Project, it is clear this claim is false.

Previously, I saw this claim citing a number of unreliable sources (PR webpages).

Please remove the claim if there is no reliable source to support it. I can't do it because it is protected. Otherwise the article risks being an {advert}. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.216.24 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim is not false. It is the most profitable independent film of all time, that does not mean it made more money then Blair Witch, but when considering the cost to profit ratio it is most profitable. PA=433,900% return vs BW=414,233% return. The source is http://www.thewrap.com/article/paranormal-now-most-profitable-film-ever-9335, and you are right, it should be sourced at the introduction... not just in the box office section. I'll add it now. Thank you, Austin de Rossi (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have included below several sources and will add any to the page if it's agreed that they back the claim that it is the most profitable film of all time, not just independent film.

• www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1625095/story.jhtml
• www.thefirstpost.co.uk/55417,news-comment,entertainment,paranormal-activity-is-the-most-profitable-film-ever
• www.cnbc.com/id/33898066
• www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_17449.html

I'll stop there since all you have to do is type "paranormal activity most profitable film of all time" into google and 17,000 hits come up. I believe the page should reflect this as people keep insisting it's just the most profitable independent film. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deftonesderrick (Deftonesderrick (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Great! Go ahead and make the edit and include the sources! --Austin de Rossi (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay! I chose one that we already had on here and 2 more, I think that should be enough. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia editors should know how to do more than just Google. They should also ask whether these are reliable sources. For example, the source listed here is PR NEWSWIRE and PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION (http://www.cnbc.com/id/33898066).

So you are in posession of proof that CNBC is not a reliable souce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.249.134 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There really should be a qualifier in here for two reasons. First, as one article points out, these calculations exclude marketing and distribution costs (http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2009/10/30/paranormal-activity-the-most-profitable-movie-ever.html). So the methodology is a little suspect. Second, I'm not sure any of these websites fulfill the criteria of "reliable source" according to WP:RELIABLE. These are entertainment websites that do not really have a reputation for reliability or fact-checking. Yes, there are lots of Google hits, but they are mostly citing the same story by www.thewrap.com, a source I have never heard of. My concern is that this information is based on a corporate press release, has been picked up by a few websites and is being reflected in the "echo chamber" that is the internet.

I think the claim should not be stated in the introduction until it is verified by a RELIABLE SOURCE. Or at the least it should include a qualifier such as: "According to some sources/calculations..." or ending with "...although this excludes marketing costs." If you read the comments on the web pages, there are several voices who dispute this methodology. 92.78.108.211 (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and I'll invite you, like I do other people who offer suggestions, to go ahead and do the research to verify/support what you want to do instead of just saying it should be done. And because you may not have heard of some sources or you have concerns about some press release that may or may not exist does not mean that they are necessarily true. Again, I invite you to back up your claims with RELIABLE SOURCES and we'll discuss it further if it should be changed again. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for your comments. Two replies. First, you are asking me to cite reliable sources to support my assertion that entertainment websites are not necessarily reliable sources. That kind of puts the cart before the horse. I think one needs to consider the sources cited here on their own merit and decide whether they meet the standards in WP:RELIABLE. I also think if the claim were true it would have been picked up by a more reliable source such as a news website (as that would be big news). Second, if we accept these sites as reliable, I did cite one which clarifies the methodology used (http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2009/10/30/paranormal-activity-the-most-profitable-movie-ever.html). It states, "That's without marketing costs figured in, and of course, that would significantly hamper Paranormal's ROI as well, because almost any advertising at all would cost more than the movie itself." The % return-on-investment methodology, excluding marketing costs, is not intuitive which is why I think the claim needs some kind of qualification. It is not clear to the reader how this film is "the most profitable ever" even though the Blair Witch Project netted $107 million more. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising (WP:NOTADVERTISING) and huge claims like this should withstand scrutiny.

I would add a qualification myself but the article is semi-protected. Perhaps we could open this discussion up to a third party or mediation and get some other views? I have never done that before and I don't know how. Let me add that I have never seen this movie and I have no axe to grind. I just don't think WP should be used as a forum for dubious marketing claims. 92.78.108.211 (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also you wrote I had concerns "about some press release that may or may not exist". The original source for this is PR NEWSWIRE and PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION (http://www.cnbc.com/id/33898066). PR Newswire is a forum for corporate press releases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PR_Newswire). It has been picked up by some entertainment websites with no reputation for fact-checking, but not by any reliable news sites so far (WP:RELIABLE). 92.78.108.211 (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC).

 Already done. The semiprotection has ended and someone else has removed the statement, so I have untranscluded the template again. There is clearly some truth on both sides of the argument which should be captured in the article. Good luck reaching a balance. Celestra (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC: "Most profitable film ever" - clarify methodology?

Proposal to preface "most profitable film ever" clarifying methodology.92.78.108.211 (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Lists of "most profitable films" generally distinguish between absolute profit and return on investment (e.g. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php). So I think one needs to make clear the methodology being used for this claim. (Note also the caveat: "Budget numbers for movies can be both difficult to find and unreliable. Studios often try to keep the information secret and will use accounting tricks to inflate or reduce announced budgets.")

Proposal: Preface this claim with "In terms of return on investment..." it is the most profitable.

The question remaining is does this belong in the introduction or under "Box Office Performance"? I think the latter until the claim is picked up by more verifiable sources than just entertainment sites. What do others think? Some editors are insisting on the introduction through reverts without explaining why.92.78.108.211 (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW I replaced the 3 sources with 3 others that seem better quality and also discuss the methodology. However, numbers for previous movies differ wildly based on the source (http://blog.knowyourmoney.co.uk/index.php/2009/06/10-movies-you-should-have-invested-in-the-most-profitable-films-ever-made/). Some say "Deep Throat" was the most profitable, but no way to confirm since it was financed by the mob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.78.108.211 (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The film's status as "most profitable" under some methodology, if established, is clearly important, and should therefore be noted in the introduction. Naturally, the methodology should be stated, and any significant disagreement between sources discussed. Jennifer500 (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"most profitable"

film is considered the most profitable ever made

I deleted this because "profitable" is subject to interpretation, which should be left to the reader. Profitability can be considered in absolute terms, in which case plenty of films have made more than Paranormal Activity's $100m. The cited sources are misleading by using the term "most profitable ever," a typical eyecatching statement made by online news sources. That type of sensational qualifying statement should definitely not be adopted by an encyclopedia (I'd argue further that encyclopedias shouldn't reference all but a handful of newspapers in the world, but that's for another rant). 74.100.178.116 (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I re-added the most proftable with the qualifier (and wiki-link) to return on investment. Many sources cite the movie as being the most profitable based on Rate of Return, and since our job is to relate what sources say, I think it is important to include what is said in reliable source. Angryapathy (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WTF? Unicorn girl in the alternate endings section

Obvious vandalism but I'm a poor editor and don't want to do it myself and accidently undo a legitimate edit. Please fix it somebody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.85.167 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Meeeka?

Are there people out there that actually pronounce the name like that?