Talk:Paranormal Activity
 | Film Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Horror Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Comedy Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Paranormal Activity (film) is considered to be the scariest movies of all time. When Katie kills Micah after being fully possessed by the demon in the final few minutes of the movie, many viewers 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)
- 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.”
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)
Move?
 | The request to rename this article to Paranormal Activity has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag. |
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)