Talk:Found footage (film technique)/Archive 1

Cloverfield 2 release date

Hello, I was reading the article and I just wanted to ask if the cloverfield 2 release date of 2011 should be removed. Just because the film is in development does not neccessarily mean it will come out in 2011. It may come out in 2012 for all we know. I suggest that until more info is found we remove the 2011 date.

Shouldn't "District 9" be a part of this article in some way? Just asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master1001 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release dates change and people understand that and editors are here to make corrections when needed. If there was no date, then it couldn't be considered firm enough to list in the first place. As for District 9 haven't seen it yet so can't comment but if it qualified I think an editor would have listed it by now. 5Q5 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Whisperer episode

I was read that a season 5 epsiode of the TV series Ghost Whisperer titled "Blood Money" has a found footage element to it, but I cannot confirm this as yet. Tossing this out there in case anyone can confirm. 5Q5 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Panther

Based upon the definition given in the article, isn't Trail of the Pink Panther a Found Footage film too? --79.193.57.163 (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be found footage, full stop. The "found footage" genre employs the tactic fictitiously, not in real life. Serendi ^pod ous 07:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found footage as a minor plot device

These episodes of the original Star Trek series included found footage briefly in the story: And the Children Shall Lead (October 11, 1968) and Wink of an Eye (November 29, 1968). I want to mention this in terms of timeline research. I wonder if there might be some old black-and-white spy, political, or blakmail -plot movie out there that has somebody finding a reel of film? 5Q5 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halo: Reach anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.72.4 (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the genre, not about the technique itself. Serendi ^pod ous 07:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions

Hey there,

I saw that Ghost Watch was put in, and then taken out. I put it back in again explaining that even though, like correctly said it is "mock-live", but there isn't a mock-live page. So I believe this should be one of the few exceptions. For example, [Rec] or Chronicle never had "this footage was found here and was believed to be authentic" or anything like The Blair Witch Project or Troll Hunter, but those films are still included on this page. I could take them out and say that as it isn't directly revealed on screen that it's footage that has been found, it shouldn't be included. But like I said, I believe Ghost Watch should be one of a few exceptions, it is completely a "mock-live", I agree with that. But I could class [Rec] as a mock-documentary (as it is supposed to be about or Chronicle as a mock-home video superhero film. I hope you can see my point.

But that's all I've got to say. Charlr6 (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be some kind of limit. If we included Ghostwatch we'd have to include the 1938 War of the Worlds broadcast. And if we're going to include mock-live, why not epistolary novels like Dracula? The issue of what constitutes found footage is pretty straightforward; if a movie is presented as an edit of previously recorded footage and is not a mocumentary, it is found footage; not every FF movie has to have the disclaimer in front of it. After all, just because it isn't disclaimed doesn't mean it wasn't found footage. [REC] features the lead reporter being dragged off into the darkness by a demon. I really doubt a mocumentary would have included that. Serendi ^pod ous 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but the radio drama was on the radio, and Dracula is a book. Ghostwatch however was a film, a television movie of sorts, even though not advertised and appears as one.

And like myself and you said, not every FF has to have a disclaimer (that was the word I wanted, but couldn't remember it, haha). Cloverfield for example at the beginning is designed as if it is from some DOD archives, it could actually be implied to be played in front of the DOD members or that it has been stolen. Similar to a film within a film, except we don't see the DOD members or workers.

A mockumentary is meant to be fictional documentary or spoof documentary of sorts. So it can have whatever it wants. Ghostwatch features presenters and people in high distress, and I doubt any TV channel in the world would keep the show on air. Most Haunted Live however, people expect to be scared and it isn't supposed to be all of a sudden like in Ghostwatch, and the audience know that there won't be extreme activity, such as in Ghostwatch. Charlr6 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mock-live is still categorically different from found footage; movies are not broadcast live, so that only applies to television and radio. I think if you're going to make a distinction between found footage and mockumentary, rather than ask "Does it have a disclaimer?" one should ask, "Does it have narration? Opening credits? Talking heads?" These are the things that separate a mockumentary from found footage. Serendi ^pod ous 07:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand more and why you mentioned the War of the Worlds radio broadcast. I was also thinking about the film "The Silent House", that is not in anyway meant to be like a "found footage" film, more like a one-shot horror movie. And I can see why The Silent House wouldn't be included in the list on the page because if anything that is probably more mock-live or mock-real time than 'found footage'. Charlr6 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unlinked films

I've decided to implement a policy of not allowing any films without a Wikipedia page to be listed. This may seem draconian but we cannot allow this page to become an advertising platform for every wannabe with a camera phone. In the absence of any kind of outside referencing or other means to determine notability, I can't think of another option. Serendi ^pod ous 21:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen on pages things like don't have an actual page. Like maybe a child actor for a film who isn't particularly famous, but I wouldn't see anyone deleting his name from the 'cast list', just because he doesn't have a page. Charlr6 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a list, there is little attempt to claim notability for these films. In the absence of citation, in-house links are the best option we have. Serendi ^pod ous 21:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see. I was going to include "Paranormal Activity 4" on the list, but that doesn't have a page, yet. I would create one, but people would argue there isn't enough information about it. I was going to write down some plot points I got from seeing the trailer, and then reference the trailer. But then people would say it was OR, even though its clear in the trailer. But thats besides the point.

In another way, I do agree with you removing the un-liked films, because, if they don't have a page, they can't be hugely famous can they? So no one would really care. Charlr6 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Allen Poe did this over a century ago with Gordon Pym

In literature, this is an age-old device. Read Poe's "Gordon Pym". His diary was found in a floating bottle. So Pym may or may not be dead, the moment the reader reads his diary. Just like in the modern horror films! The "diary in a bottle" plot device was long before "found footage" films! 93.219.142.144 (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Quest (1993)

I think a film Forbidden Quest (1993) should be added to this list. It's one of the early examples of found footage genre, made before the genre became popular. The film is a bit unusual in that it uses a lot of REAL documentary footage, but it also includes false documentary footage and the real footage is given a different interpretation.

Louisaparker1 (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be more of a collage film. Serendi ^pod ous 20:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found footage radio plays

This is actually a suprisingly vibrant style of radio drama. I'm adding a section on it, and will be updating it as I find more. I feel it's significant, since the early forms of these dramas are a link between the "found writing" genre ("Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym", "Message found in a Bottle," etc.) and the later films. Any tips on citing these would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.135.220 (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No! Radio cannot be "found footage"; there is no footage in radio! Serendi ^pod ous 18:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I freely admit that the term "footage" is problematic. On the other hand, where else would you categorize something where the majority of the presented material is claimed to be a recording of 1) something that actually happened. 2) unedited. 3) involved in some way in whatever happened. "Ghost hunt" mirrors the standard structure of found footage (general setup, investigation of aftermath, discovery of record, playing of record) so perfectly that excluding it seems arbitrary. Yes, "footage" is not the term generally applied to radio, but on the other hand, there isn't a "found reel" section. I fully realize that this is an argument over something minor, pointless, and ultimately dumb, but what else is the internet for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.135.220 (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is and is not found footage

I'm copy/pasting a comment on a user talkpage I made on this subject. We may as well have the discussion here.

Ghostwatch, like the 1938 War of the Worlds broadcast, is "mock live", for lack of a better term; it only really works for television and radio, since movies are not broadcast live. It is a different category from "found footage", which is primarily a film genre. I don't know if there's been any academic research on the subject, but the way I see it, different media do this trick in different ways. In literature, you have epistolary format- stories that present themselves as compilations of written manuscripts. Like found footage, it is often employed in horror (Both Dracula and Frankenstein are epistolary, as are many stories by Lovecraft). In theatre, you have the (rarely used) trick of involving the audience. Sarah Connor "breaking into" the T2 3D attraction at Universal Studios is the only one I can think of offhand. In broadcast media, you have mock live; in cinema, found footage. And in interactive media you have ARGs (Alternate Reality Games) that lead players through a maze of fake websites and news reports. Obviously all these genres are related, but I don't know if there's an overarching name that includes all of them. Serendi ^pod ous 18:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to stridently make the case for the inclusion of radio dramas in this section, because why not? First, a link to a relevant episode: [[http://relicradio.com/otr/2011/02/h292-ghost-hunt-by-suspense/}}. Now, the argument (I would beg you to listen to the link before engaging. It's only 30 minutes, and it's pretty terrific. Basically, yes, it's clearly linked to the "Found diary" stuff (which goes back at least to E. A. Poe's twin "A predicament" and "How to write a blackwood's article"). However, it appears obvious to me that is is linked to later found footage films (although proving that Ruggero Deodato or anyone else actually listened to these before filming is something I wouldn't care to tackle). Basically, as I've argued elsewhere, the possess the same style and quirks that define the found footage film genre. They follow the same structure (setup, discovery of aftermath, exploration of scene, discovery of footage, playback of footage, denoument) that most found footage films share. They present the discovered audio content (usually tapes) as unedited and conveying something horrible, generally including the death of the protagonist. In all particulars but those imposed by the medium, they are identical to the later found footage films. If someone wants to create a "found content" horror page, which includes epistolary and discovered text stories, discovered footage video games, movies, and tv series, and found content radio, I will be happy to stop arguing and shelve the radio plays there. Until that happens, I believe I will keep doing petty, self-important, and irritating edits to keep my content on this page. Also, the plays I have submitted are not mock live. In each case, the present a narrator or protagonist happening on recordings left by a predecessor that relate to something horrible that has happened. In other words, found footage (or found audio content).

All this is great, but it is original research. It's not Wikipedia's job to decide what is and is not found footage, or anything else. We currently have sources describing found footage as a filmmaking genre, and that is how it should remain. If you want to expand the genre outside filmmaking, or find a term for the overarching genre that includes literature, radio and film, then we would need to find a source explaining it for us. We can't make such determinations for ourselves, we can only follow the sources. Serendi ^pod ous 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Release instead of Alphabetical?

Hey,

I was looking at the list and noticed that the films are in alphabetical order, and even saw that there is a comment about it too. Does it actually have to be in alphabetical order per year? Because it kind of looks like the films have just been shoved onto the list. Do you think we could change it so that the films in each year can be listed in their release date instead? Instead of alphabetical? So it's a list of 'found-footage' genres movies in, not just year release, but actual date release order? It doesn't have to mention the date, the could all just be listed in release date order per year.

What does everyone else think? I personally think it would look neater and more organised than having random films all over the place for each year, which it does seem like this (even though it is alphabetical). Charlr6 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is what is a release? Video on demand? DVD? Opening in one country, but not in others? What if a film was released on video in one country, but then released in theatres somewhere else? Do we only count the country it's made in? What if it was made by several countries? What if it was released overseas before the home market? One thing to be said about alphabetising; it's simple. Serendi ^pod ous 23:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with the release date. Whatever films are on the list, we can simply click onto their pages or search in Google their FIRST release date. And if it's an American made film, then like what happens on actual film pages, we would list the American release date for the film. But the country it's made in isn't relevant to the release date. I never said anything about listing them in their country order. Or overseas before home market. Just their release date. As you are one of the main editors on the page, I can see how you would want to keep it to your way, as you are one of the main editors, but then you wouldn't be letting other editors edit the page too. It's not going to be vandalising the page.

And I know that like I said, if it's an American made film it should have the American release date. I know this because of reading guidelines and rules on Wiki and from what other big Wiki editors have said. As I once added a release date because it was earlier (by a day) than the American release date, as that was it's first release. But then the editor informed me that it should be and the Wiki rules are for it to be the country of origin and the premiere release dates only.

We can easily changed it so there is a table instead possibly and lists the films in release date order in each year. Film director's pages or screenwriters, when it lists their filmography it doesn't have them in an alphabetical list, it has them in a release date order. That can be the case here too.

I'd like you to at least take it into consideration, just because you are one of the main editors on this page doesn't mean you have the over-all control. Your first reply back did seem like you were taking the possible change a bit too seriously, when it simply has to be release date order instead, either as it currently is, or in a table. Please don't reply back, back-stabbing me or anything. As this is just supposed to be a short quick discussion. Thanks. Charlr6 (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You sure are drawing a lot of assumptions from what I said. As a matter of fact, I had nothing to do with the decision to list the page alphachronologically. However, it is simpler than trying to determine exactly what constitutes a release date. Does it mean wide release? First festival release? If the film premiered on DVD but was then released in cinemas, do we list the DVD release or the cinema release first? If, like The Avengers a film is released in other countries before its country of origin, do we list the overseas release or the country of origin release? If you want to create a list in release order, particularly for films on the fringes like many on this list, which may not have conventional release schedules, you will have to come to some decision about this. I'm merely asking for information; I'm not rushing to any barricades. Serendi ^pod ous 13:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you weren't drawing a lot more things up from what I said originally? And my bad then, but you do seem like one of the main editors on this page.

The Avengers was released in other countries first a week early, but the Wiki page still lists the premiere date and American release date. But if you want more information then its release date in the main country of origin. So when it comes to the [Rec] films on the list, it is with the original Spanish release date, when it comes to Paranormal Activity, it goes with the American release date. The Descent Part 2 (I know it isn't on the list but using it as an example) is a British horror film and that was released in the UK first with a theatrical release. But in America straight-to-DVD I believe. So that is kind of like when you said 'premiered on DVD first and then released in cinemas, which do we list first?'

We list it in the country of origin release date. If we can't find a release date for one of the lesser known films (such as maybe some of those films that are red links) then as long as we know the year of release we can list that instead, but keep it at the end of the 'year'. We don't need to actually list the films release dates, just list them in order.

Hows that? Country of origin release date, films where we can't find a release date or possibly haven't had a release date yet (future films) then we list those last in their respectable 'year'. Charlr6 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "respective". OK, but what about festival releases? Paranormal Activity was wide-released in 2009, but it had its first festival release in 2007. Do we count first festival releases? What if first festival release was in another country? Serendi ^pod ous 15:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the like is like Paranormal Activity, then we list the date it was released publicly , and as Paranormal Activity is American-made, we list the American release date. So the 2009 release date. Charlr6 (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you want to do this it's fine with me; just seems like a lot of unnecessary work. Serendi ^pod ous 15:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we could change it into a table or just leave it as it is but put it in date order? What do you think would be better? I don't mind either, although I'm not sure how to make a table. Charlr6 (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A table might be pretty long, since it would have to be one per row, but if we could include more information it might be worth it. Serendi ^pod ous 15:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could find more information about the films. Possibly director and a few of the main actors? Three or four main actors on average maybe? A 'note' section if there is anything important about the film? Like for Paranormal Activity we could make a small note about it's original 2007 release.

What do you think if we included director and main actors? Anything else you think would be relevant? Do you know how to create a table? If you do you could possibly set up the table and create the respectable columns for which film and then I'll find out the information for each film? Charlr6 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Director yes, main actors, no. Production company maybe. In the case of found footage, alterting the reader to the fact that an FF is an Asylum ripoff would be more useful than listing which of the director's drinking buddies ended up in the cast. Serendi ^pod ous 19:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Good idea. We can list director and production company instead. Do you know how to create a table? Because if you do like I said you could possibly create that and then I'll add information such as release date, director and production company and then a note if its a Asylum ripoff saying "film created to cash-in on the success of Paranormal Activity". Charlr6 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent]You can use this table as a template. Just put it in your sandbox and swap out the info. Serendi ^pod ous 19:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooo, thank you. I'll do that soon. Charlr6 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm currently doing the box on my sandbox and there are some films that I am taking out, such as the 909 Experiement as I can't find good enough information about it. Charlr6 (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. But keep in mind that others will attempt to add it back, so if you want to raise the bar for inclusion you will have to police this article. Serendi ^pod ous 13:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if they add them back in. If they do I'll take longer to try and find the information, but if I can't find it in the end I'll get rid of it and say there isn't sufficient information. But I'll keep my eye on the box when its up. Should be done by tonight. If you want to have a look at the box so far look here if you are interested User:Charlr6/sandbox. I think I've gotten all of the production companies correct, if not then I might have accident put in distributor instead by mistake. If I have I can find and put in the actual company. Charlr6 (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished and added the box in. Charlr6 (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've removed quite a few valid examples from the list. Can you elaborate? Serendi ^pod ous 12:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were some films I couldn't find information for and others didn't have information on them like an exact release date. But feel free to add them back in. Charlr6 (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify on the criteria you used, take The St Francisville Experiment. Did you decide to exclude direct to video release dates? Serendi ^pod ous 14:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put that film in because it isn't one of the 'bigger' found footage films. But with release dates, I chose the 'wide' release date where the film was available for more people. Or if the film has only had festival releases, I chose the one closest to or the festival release date to the country of origin. Most release dates however I took off Wikipedia itself if the film has a page and a release date on it. Charlr6 (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: since this policy was adopted, people have altered the release date to reflect the festival release on the wikipage. As a result, the list was disordered. So basically exactly what I said would happen happened. I am thinking of restoring the original alphachronological order. Serendi ^pod ous 14:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian found footage bodysnatcher

Few years after Blair Witch Project came this scandinavian found footage movie with a group of young adult going to forest with caravans. They find a weird organic thing in the forest that starts to capture their minds one by one. Back then I thought it was pretty decent but I haven't been able to found out the title afterwards. It wasn't none of the listed on this page nor none of the ones in found footage category. There might not be a wikipedia article about it but I thought it was worth while to ask if anyone here knows the movie? I would be willing to write an article about it if I just knew what the title was. --Custoo (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243465/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH979RpN5aU --Custoo (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current preferred rule on this article is to link only to films that have Wikipedia articles of their own, thus allowing the article not to have to individually claim notability for every single new addition. Serendi ^pod ous 06:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is getting insane

I'm pondering ways of reining it in. In other lists I monitor, I established a "no redlinks rule", on the assumption that if something wasn't notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, it probably wasn't notable enough for inclusion on the list. Should I do so for this one too? Serendi ^pod ous 20:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shouldn't. Some articles simply aren't there yet because too many people are too lazy to make the article. "No article yet" does not equal "non notable." Because the entire list is unsourced, a "higher up" Wikipedia admin would be very likely to just delete the whole list. Until then, if it's at least notable enough to be on IMDB, then you should let it be on the list. - Artificial Silence (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough for IMDB? Any film ever released is notable enough for IMDB! The big fear (for me at least) is people using this list as an advertising platform for their three-dollar, camcorder-shot backward wonders. When I had an all-inclusive policy, that was certainly happening, as people were providing "citations" to their own websites. And since I have no interest in individually proving the notability of every single new entry, this is the best option available. Serendi ^pod ous 15:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh So once again, we have a rabid Wiki vandal with no life disguised as a legitimate user that keeps a hawk's eye on a page and reverts any useful information they deem unworthy of the article, citing their own made up rules and other ridiculous B.S. Face it, you don't want to improve or help the article, you only get enjoyment out of reverting edits and bullying other users. I hope you are proud of yourself. - Artificial Silence (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is notability. You either establish notability yourself, or you let another article do it for you. Unless you want to track down multiple independent reliable sources demonstrating the notability of your addition, it cannot be included. Serendi ^pod ous 14:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the abusive comments left on my personal Talk page. Your accusation that I myself have anything to do with the film is laughable and proves the total disconnect Wikipedia editors like yourself have from reality. Your "I will win" statement you left also proves you are a typical Wikipedia bully. You mostly disagree with the addition because you yourself didn't add it, and you know it. Based on your claim of Wikipedia's notability rules, at least two thirds of the films (probably more) should be removed, as it isn't even a definitive list, but an "example" list. I am done with it, you win, you can have "your" article. You seem proud of yourself; good for you. - Artificial Silence (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, explain to me how most all of the movies listed in the article for The Asylum meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia. Just because someone made Wikipedia articles for all of their movies? How do any of those films meet Wikipedia's notability criteria any more than the one I tried to add here? Note also that that list itself has two movies listed in it that have no Wikipedia articles. Perhaps you can set your sites on that article as well and go about deleting and removing articles and links, for everyone's good of course. - Artificial Silence (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any list on Wikipedia needs clear selection criteria. The criteria for The Asylum's list is "all films produced by The Asylum", whether or not they have articles. The criteria for this found footage article is unclear, but the common one of "every entry meets the notability criteria" (i.e. has its own article) seems like a good one to reach for. --McGeddon (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Footage

I'm re-adding this film to the list. While it's not exactly found footage along the lines of the Blair Witch Project, it is a found footage movie and has been described as such in multiple media outlets. ([1], [2], [3], [4] ) Even the film website itself refers to it as found footage. ([5]) I think it deserves a mention in the page. It's not exactly a Hollywood blockbuster ala Iron Man, but it got more than enough coverage to where I could create an article about it, which is one of the biggest criteria for inclusion here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what I reverted. I reverted your deletion of "The Marked Ones" and duplication of Paranormal Activity 5", You want to add Upper Footage? fine. Don't screw around with other entries. Serendi ^pod ous 08:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre?

The evidence for it being a genre is a little thin. One source is a blog and isn't a reliable source, the other is dead but the archived link [6] doesn't present any kind of argument or expert analysis to prove the point - it seems to be more of an attention-grabbing headline and it discusses it more as a trend. That second link is "via the Hollywood Reporter" and the archived link [7] only says "James Marsh, the director of the doc 'Man on Wire,' is jumping into the genre feature world and will direct "The Vatican Tapes," a supernatural thriller from Lionsgate and Lakeshore." where the "genre" it talks about is supernatural thriller, not found footage.

The most that can be said on the basis of the information presented here, is that it is a storytelling (or narrative) technique with some visual conventions (shaky camera, like 3D films usually include things whizzing at the screen), which has been used across genres, mainly horror and thrillers, and sub-genres, from supernatural to zombies. It could be seen as the cinematic equivalent of the epistolary novel or, as has been mentioned above, stories like The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket, MS. Found in a Bottle and A Strange Manuscript Found in a Copper Cylinder (Merritt's The Moon Pool, was also presented as a fake report that fooled a number of readers - kind of mockumentary style).

To prove it is a genre it'll need a lot more evidence than a blogger's opinion and a cheap headline. (Emperor (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You still need evidence to prove your case too. You're probably right, but it is still just your opinion. Serendi ^pod ous 10:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is really more of a storytelling technique than it is a genre of story. As "evidence" I'd present the fact that there are multiple distinct genres identified in the list of examples. The found-footage technique lends itself very well to horror stories and is usually used for that purpose, so the two are joined in people's minds (like animation is with children's stories, and CinemaScope with historical epics), but the technique can be used for other kinds of stories too (e.g. the sci-fi teen drama Project Almanac, or the comedy Babysitting). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not film specific

Very old plot device used in literature, notably I am thinking of Dr. Jekyll und Mr. Hyde where at least 2/3 of the books (and essentially the whole plot) is covered in the form of the diary of Dr Jekyll which is found after his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.223.42 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term you're looking for is epistolary novel. Serendi ^pod ous 18:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-found footage / Pseudo-found footage

Some of those listed films are not easy to be classified as found footage. A good example is The Pyramid. It's a found footage + shaky camera combo. It has scenes with regular camera. On those scenes actors have no cameras. The Pyramid's director used found footage elements, but the whole movie is a typical horror film. I know my opinion is personal, but I think Pyramid-like movies are not true found footage. --Zyma (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Established term?

Is there any established use of this term in acedemic or in other ways serious published works? The name found footage for this type of film seems to come from a misconception of the found footage genre, and the article is mainly sourced with the blog site Dread Central. If there is no proof for established use of the term outside of fan culture I propose that this article is merged with pseudo-documentary, cinéma vérité and other related articles where the content might fit in. Smetanahue (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searched for a bit and the best I found was a brief mention from David Bordwell where he complained about the (mis)use of the term. I added that to the lead. Smetanahue (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus - this original move request clearly has no consensus. Leaving the one below open from original name to a new proposed name. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found footage (pseudo-documentary) → Found Footage (film genre) – I find the page name, specificly the parenthetical to be somewhat awkwrd. The term Psuedo-Documentary, while certainly covering some of the films in the genre, would not necessarily fit with all movies in this genre. For instance several of the segments in V/H/S make no cliaim to be a documentary in anything other than the most loosest sense of the word. Blair Witch and Cannibal Holocaust were presented as fictional documentaries but the gnere has come to encapsulate much more since then. Furthermore I would state that the page's current name is something very few people would use. Deathawk (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

support; per op. Definitely a genre... Except should be "Found footage" EDIT: Oppose; reasonable arguments against it being a 'genre' and rather being a film technique. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere} 04:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment: that's what this page was originally called, but someone moved it on the grounds that it wasn't really a genre. Serendi ^pod ous 17:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure by what convention that user was using the word "genre". It certainly is, at least a subgenre.--Deathawk (talk) 17:24, 25February 2016 (UTC)

Support but lowercase "found footage". It is a more sensible disambiguation, and there appear to be multiple reliable sources discussing the topic as a film genre. A quick search engine conduct shows many such results. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, since it's not a genre, while there is an actual genre called found footage in modernist arthouse cinema. See the reference to David Bordwell in the article. The kind of "found footage" cinema this article is about is nothing but a subdivision of the pseudo-documentary gimmick. Let's try to make this clear instead of adding to the confusion already present in the article. Smetanahue (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what you're talking about is a Collage film? Is it not. We already have an article under that name for the genre. As you noted it is relatively small and it's much more likely someone looking for Found Footage will mean this genre. I already moved the page but I could add a disambig header to Collage Film. --Deathawk (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's sometimes a synonym to collage film, but it's also associated with particular filmmakers and their conventions (primarily covered in the "Renaissance" section in the collage film article). See for example A Dictionary of Film Studies and its name dropping. Basically, in academic film literature, "found footage" refers to this historical genre, while in fan culture, more or less semi-professional horror film websites etc. it refers to the narrative trope. I don't think the latter should be deemed irrelevant or anything, but we should do our best to avoid the confusion it creates when two distinct film concepts have the same name. The academic "found footage" film is definitely a genre, while the other "found footage" has been used by people to make horror films, comedies, and multiple other genres. Disambiguating the latter from the former by calling it a "genre" serves nobody. Maybe there is a better disambiguating word that "pseudo-documentary", although I don't really see how this in practice is anything else than a subsection of Pseudo-documentary, that just happens to be long enough to have its own article. Found footage (pseudo-documentary) and Found footage (collage film) would make sense to me as ways to tell the two apart. Smetanahue (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the very confused article Found footage (appropriation), which currently is a mix of the modernist genre and of stock footage, although if you look in the history it seems to originally have been about the collage thingy. Maybe I'll try to rework that article into something more comprehensible. Smetanahue (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's not a genre. It's a technique. Sure, a Google search will find people mistakenly talking about it as if it's a genre, but that is not something WP should support. Horror and comedy, both of which have used the technique, are genres. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Epistolary novel is defined as a genre, and it is basically the same as a found footage film. Serendi ^pod ous 09:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's debatable. And it's not putting the word genre in the article name. Found footage is not considered to be a genre by fim academics, and the article name should not make it sound like it is. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found several sources that define it as a "genre" 1 2 3 4 Furthermore a "genre" is defined on Wikipedia as "refers to the method of categorizing films based on similarities in the narrative elements from which films are constructed or the emotional responses they elicit." for which I believe it qualifies. --Deathawk (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The found footage aspect of films is not a 'narrative element', rather it is an element of the film's cinematography. InsertClever Phrase Here 03:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. That definition is a bit vague, and "narrative elements" refers to story elements, not technical ones. None of those links are for academic sources. The headline for a photo gallery is hardly a reliable source. Headline writers are too often fast and loose with the proper meaning of words. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean "genre" as a term is somewhat loose, it's just a way used to divide things for sorting. So you really couldn't really say factually somethings not a genre. But regardless I found this book in my search 1 which also can be found on Google Scholar. So that should satisfy that requirement, --Deathawk (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term genre is not in that book's title. Just in the Amazon description. That is not an academic source. Even if it were, that is just one book. I don't know why you're so determined to put a contested term in the page title, especially when there's now a better non-controversial title proposed below. If you're just interested in a way used to divide things for sorting, film technique should be quite good enough for that purpose. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to have to cry foul a bit on Deathawk, you moved the page, despite both being the one who nominated the move and also being a participant in the talk. Furthermore, you didn't mark this discussion as closed (which would have been inappropriate anyway as only uninvolved editors are supposed to make moves). I suggest self-reverting your move, so that we can discuss the article's title as there is clearly no consensus yet. and there is now a second and IMO more reasonable move request below. InsertClever Phrase Here 13:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Deathawk did not seem to be listening, I reverted the premature move. InsertClever Phrase Here 03:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 27 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move (non-admin closure). sst✈ 16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Found footage (film genre)~~ Found footage (pseudo-documentary) → Found footage (film technique) – Found footage is not considered to be a genre by fim academics, and the article name should not make it sound like it is. Horror and comedy, both of which have used the technique, are genres. "Film technique" is a term that is appropriate, and no one can call it inaccurate, even if they also consider the subject a genre. Gothicfilm (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support; seems reasonable. I agree with Deathawk that pseudo-documentary is wrong, however, genre isn't the right disambiguator (as it strictly speaking isn't a genre but a cinematography technique. I would also be fine with '(cinematography technique)' but the proposed change is also acceptable and is shorter. InsertClever Phrase Here 10:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment This page has been moved back from Found footage (film genre) to long-term title Found footage (pseudo-documentary) since this move request began, as it was moved without consensus last week. Gothicfilm's rationale for the move was written at a time when the article was called Found footage (film genre). — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I would to is to merge Found footage (appropriation), Collage film and Found footage (pseudo-documentary) into a single comprehensive article Found footage, and split the long list in this article to a List of found-footage feature films or fimilar [sic]. Scopes of the existing three articles are unclear and overlapping, and neither is particularly well developed. Barring that, I support the move as proposed, but it is only rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. No such user (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No sure if that is appropriate, as those other films actually do use found footage, while this film technique generally only pretends to in order to provide a thematic backdrop to the story. Merging the other two might work though. Splitting the list away also seems like a reasonable solution, although id simply put a show/hide button on it instead if it seems excessively large. InsertClever Phrase Here 12:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it deserves to be a separate topic just because it is faux found footage (I see just now that Vanity also referred to it as such). To me it looks like just another aspect of the same general topic, worth covering as a section in the main article. We could even treat it as a "sub-article" per summary style, but then we are back to the same naming problem we're facing here. And I'd really split that list, it does not really enhance reader's knowledge on the topic. No such user (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the article on Collage film again, it is really nothing like the found footage hollywood filming technique. I'll support the splitting of the list though. InsertClever Phrase Here 13:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes and no. To me, that article more reads like "list of art films referred to as 'collage film'" than a consistent story about a technique/genre. And most of them are at odds from the definition in reference #1 ([8]). But that would be a point for another debate... Anyway, we're somewhat wandering, which is seldom a productive course: Do you agree that we 1) split the list into an article named... how? and 2) Open a more structured debate about merging Found footage (pseudo-documentary) and Found footage (appropriation) (leaving Collage film aside for a while)? No such user (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1)If you want to, and "List of found footage films". as for 2) absolutely not, I was saying that you might have an argument for merging Collage film and Found footage (appropriation), this article doesn't belong with either of those, as the film technique rarely uses genuine found footage. InsertClever Phrase Here 18:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This seems reasonable and clear.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Straightforward and clear.Pincrete (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Would the movie 'Super 8' be considered part of the 'found footage' sub-genre? Tomada36 (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Almost every found footage film was added to the table. Isn't better to add only notable films? As we know, there are many found footage films, so Examples section and its table may become very large in the future. Compare Category:Found footage films with the current table. --Wario-Man (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually people complain that there aren't enough examples on this list. Serendi ^pod ous 20:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list is useful. Even I added some titles to it by myself. But every notable found footage title (old or new release) has a potential to appear on Wikipedia and editors may add that film to this list. The list is OK now, but I think if we want to keep all titles, we should create a new article in the future, e.g. "List of found footage films and media". --Wario-Man (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8MM

Perhaps 8MM https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/8mm_(film)

should be added to the examples? --Patbahn (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not presented as an edit. Only tiny fractions of the movie are FF. Serendi ^pod ous 03:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Purge

Why is the Purge on here? The Purge is not a found footage movie. Rickraptor707 (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found Phone as a successor to Found Footage in video gaming?

A Normal Lost Phone and its sequel, the Simulacra/SAra trilogy... can they be considered a subtype or successor to Found Footage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.173.12.68 (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 7500

As a found footage aficionado, I'm slightly insulted that Flight 7500 on here as found footage movie. It should be removed. There is only ONE 10-20 second scene where a hipster clowns around with his phone, filming a dead guy while he steals his wristwatch, that's remotely related to the genre in question. The rest of the movie is straight up b-horror (with a decent but old, and formula 1A-presented, premise). Filmed like any other, no POV scenes, no secondary material presented. Not even a black box dialogue or anything (OT, men apropå black box: wouldn't a found audio tape horror be nice? 90% audio and only still photos to go with it, see if that can create the kind of meta-real, suggestive, four-dimensional and heartbreaking darkness good found footage/mockumentary horror conjure up. Lake Mungo, the best ff/m horror movie in recent years, had a tentacle in that direction with interviews narrating most of the gritty filmed material). SOrry btw for just writing this comment in klartext, I've edited a few wiki pages close to my heart and did it by the book but never got into the whole tag system when commenting, this is just a comment or a suggestion, not an edit so I hope its ok. /IHS-J

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

960 cannibal holocaust blu-ray 6o.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]