This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This seems notable enough; on August 4th, 2010, it was featured on IMDb's homepage, described by the aforementioned as a "mysterious documentary" and "Sundance fave" that "everyone's talking about." I'm afraid I don't know much more as I only found this page after visiting IMDb to begin with! 68.82.231.59 ( talk) 03:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Does this page contain too many spoilers for a movie that isn't out yet? Should it be updated so that the Plot summary doesn't give away the twist ending? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.26.20 ( talk) 22:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow...should we tell the whole movie plotline BEFORE the movie's even out yet?
I'm very angry right now. I just saw the trailer for the movie and came to wikipedia to find out more about it. Before I realized it, I realized I had read the whole plot - spoilers and all. And the movie isn't even out yet. This is just a 3 paragraph slug and you spoiled the whole movie.
No spoiler warning or anything. Thanks. Thanks a lot.
ADDITIONAL:
I have read the wikipedia treatise on spoilers generously provided by WookieInHeat. (Thank you...I'm new to posting and I appreciate your patience)
However, this does not change the fact that this article - as written - is a blatant and intentional spoiler. To quote the very piece I was referred to, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information—articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance."
I humbly suggest that the level of detail of the plot description (and the associated spoilers) serves no encyclopedic purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongozap ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongozap ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
-I removed the line about a website mentioned in the film not existing: The source for that claim is a page that claims that the website, http://web.archive.org/web/20080225112354/http://www.charte.net/ that "Megan" mentioned in a chat doesn't actually exist. However, if you change the above url to charter.net, it is in fact the music sharing website from the film. So clearly it was just a typo when she IMed it to him. A pretty obvious error from the source page, as many in the page's comments have pointed it, but he hasn't redacted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.42.189 ( talk) 04:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Why would there be protection for this film as a hoax? It's been outed by many, though the film makers are still perpetrating the documentary status. At what point can it be reported as a hoax? When the film makers admit they have lied to the public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.70.94 ( talk) 23:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Does it make sense to call it a "possible" or "supposed" documentary? I would suggest that we need a reliable citation before we say for sure it's a documentary. Edmund6334 ( talk) 02:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
If there is a reliable source that explicitly states that the film is a hoax, then that's perfectly usable. If there are reliable sources that state that the film is a "documentary" or "not a hoax," then those, too, are usable. As far as I can tell from the article's history, no one has added any source stating that the film is a hoax. The closest we've come is the Movieline article cited in the "Reception" section, which states that the author of the article thinks it is a hoax. That's not the standard we need live up to to definitively state in our article that the film is a hoax; whether someone thinks it's a hoax has no bearing on the truth of whether it's a hoax or not.
To be able to state in our article that the film is a hoax or a mockumentary, we would need the equivalent of this article about the hoax film I'm still here, in which the moviemaker himself states to a venerable movie critic that the film was not real. If the New York Times writes an article stating that Catfish is a hoax (not that the article's author watched it and thinks it's full of shit, but that it IS a hoax), then that's good sourcing and can be used in our article. Does a reliable source stating that exist? If so, editors should feel free to let us know here on the talk page, or be bold and add it to the article as a citation for the word "hoax"/"mocumentary." If it doesn't or hasn't been found yet, then the most we can do is what we have done: state that reliable sources describe the film as a documentary, and also discuss that some people working for reliable sources think it's a hoax but it remains an open question.
As for YLee, though he/she may be getting fed up with dealing with the same issue over and over and may not be wording things in the most fluffy-bunny, kindly, explanatory way, i see no evidence that he/she has any particular bias, except against unsourced additions to controversial articles. Which is as it should be. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi ( talk) 15:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the film is a hoax. Apparently, no one took the time to actually look for sources about the film. Here are a few - and yes, i will be reveting back to the fact that the film is a mockumentary.
Anyone wishing to remove it again, might want to talk to an admin or seek 3O, as I am not about to feed the marketing machine for a picture by some bs claim that the film is real. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 19:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no "overwhelming amount of data" that shows that Catfish is a hoax; if there were you'd surely be able to come up with cites better than the three sorry ones you grabbed from a Google search. Said cites of yours do no more than speculate, with no corroborating evidence, and don't claim otherwise; they certainly don't say anything like "Catfish is a hoax, because of 1), 2), and 3)". Once again, in the absence of reliable sources that say otherwise, we must go with the reliable sources that 1) do call the film a documentary and 2) discuss it predicated on that claim.
PS -Upon doing further research I'm not sure Catfish, even if it is proven to be a hoax, would qualify as a mockumentary. From reading the article, the talk page, and the cited examples it seems that to qualify as a mockumentary the film has to be known before the fact as a hoax. It was well known that This is Spinal Tap was not a documentary about a real rock band, and everyone knew that Zelig was a Woody Allen role, not a real person. On the other hand, The Blair Witch Project—a film that, as the talk page discusses, is not listed as an example within the article—marketed itself as a real example of "found film", and the word "mockumentary" does not appear within the film's article itself (although it does appear in the associated template). If Catfish is proven/announced as a hoax tomorrow, we might have to follow Blair Witch's example and describe it as a "suspense film...presented as a documentary". I guess we'll cross that bridge if/when we need to. YLee ( talk) 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
But that's what we've been trying to explain to you, Jack. There AREN'T an equal number of sources stating that it's a hoax. In fact, we've yet to see even ONE. Your citations do not say what you are claiming they say, and if your reading comprehension is such that you are misunderstanding their contents, it may be that you should leave the sourcing to others. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi ( talk) 23:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Non-reply/comment: I disagree with the current phrasing "presented as a documentary", as it implies the film is not actually a documentary. There has been no reliable source provided to substantiate this claim. I decided against merely changing it, as that would have likely been met with confrontation. However, I do feel the article should be edited to reflect the current understood status of the film: documentary. Whether it is actually a documentary, or a "hoax", does not matter. Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not "truth". Currently, nothing exists but speculation. No reliable source has stated, irrevocably, that this film is not a documentary (let alone, has any reliable source proven such a claim). The film is "presented as a documentary"; therefore, we should treat it as such, until it is proven otherwise. To wit, we would not label a film as a "blockbuster", "tent-pole", or "box-office bomb" without proper, reliable verification. This entire crusade comes across as being a bit pointy, but I assume we're all just trying to edit the article to the best of our abilities. Chicken monkey 07:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and while we are at it, we should also remove any citations that question the veracity of the film's presentation. We can't have any silly references messing up the devoted belief that the film is utterly real. After all, it conforms to the very definition of 'documentary', right? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 17:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
One of the things frustrating about this conversation is that trying to debate Jack is very frustrating: We say "A", he responds with "7", and then answers "A" with "B" at some random later point.
His Blair House mention above is an example of this. I will copy-and-paste the same thing that I wrote earlier:
Something else different about Blair is its supernatural subject matter. I'm willing to bet that not a single WP:RS-qualifying article on the film in 1999 treated the film as a prima facie example of "found media", and even had one or two such articles existed, the burden of proof would still be on proving that it was real given the no doubt hundreds of articles that assumed from the start that it was a work of fiction. With Catfish the situation is entirely different. The film's story is much more plausible than "young filmmakers get eaten by monsters in the forest", so the burden of proof for the Catfish-is-real side is not high; a few reliable sources of the type that the article has provided for weeks are sufficient. The burden of proof is on the Catfish-is-fake side, to show that said reliable sources and the filmmakers' statements are false.
You hear that, Jack? The burden of proof on the "Reliable sources say Catfish is a documentary" side was met a while ago. The remaining burden of proof is on you. While we are glad that you are now implicitly admitting that the cites you opened this discussion with don't measure up, forgive us if we remain skeptical that you will finally, after all this foolishness, deliver on your promises. YLee ( talk) 20:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Even the lawsuits sound like a hoax. Part of the aura the filmakers want.and a great tax writeoff to say "will never make a profit"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 ( talk) 21:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
On Friday, Jack Sebastian added a statement to the article leded saying that "The film is presented as a documentary pieced together from amateur filmmaker footage, filmed in real time." IP 71.249.217.208 removed it shortly afterward, with the assertion that the statement was untrue. I then restored it, saying in my edit summary that I believed it was accurate based on our current sources, and the IP removed it again, saying that I and/or Jack should "prove it with a cite". So, let's examine the sources we have right now and see if we can reach an agreement about whether the statement is supportable.
To start, I think the IP may be interpreting "is presented" as saying something about the truth value of the words that follow it, so to them it implies the same thing that "the film is purported to be..." would. I don't think this is the case. "To be presented (as)", to me, is a pretty neutral way of saying "is said to be (by those who present it)." So if I'm not wrong in my interpretation of the word, and we can support the fact that the movie's creators describe it as a documentary, that part of the sentence ought to be fine. Doing a bit of checking, and ignoring for the moment all the secondary sources that refer to it as a matter-of-course as a documentary, we can find that it was entered into the 2010 Sundance Festival as a Documentary Feature. That seems pretty directly to be from the horse's mouth - the makers entered it into Sundance as a documentary, so the makers are presenting it as a documentary.
Ergo, we have support for the film being "presented as a documentary." The remainder of the contested sentence describes the film's documentary style. Can we find support for it being presented as "pieced together from amateur filmmaker footage, filmed in real time"? Well, we don't have a source using exactly those words. What we do have:
I tend to think that any of these quotes, and certainly all of them together, provides adequate sourcing for a statement about how the movie was filmed in realtime and pieced together afterward. But, of course, I'm not the only person working on this article, so let's have a discussion. What does everyone else think about whether these sources are able to support the re-addition of the statement, "The film is presented as a documentary pieced together from amateur filmmaker footage, filmed in real time"? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi ( talk) 15:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
While compiling a number of references (17) that say that the film certainly "looks" like a fake, I came across this article, from OregonLive. It looks like I might have been completely wrong in my assessment of this film as a fake. If it is indeed fake, it's covered its tracks with the skill of a Romulan. I apologize for my early intransigence; my bullshit detector must have been malfunctioning. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 02:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw this today and remember this discussion. (Google the news headline to get around the paywall if you run into one.) It especially discusses Catfish. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, take out most of the Plot section in the article, it's a complete spoiler, not even imdb does this kind of stuff. Just be reasonable about how much of the movie you describe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.126.131 ( talk) 00:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
For one thing, we don't shield plot summaries from spoilers here. See WP:SPOILER. For another, IMDB has complete plot summaries for some films (when someone bothers to write one or copies it from here). Millahnna ( talk) 03:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This page will ruin the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. Really bad. Glad I avoided this page before seeing it. -- BradTraylor ( talk) 17:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you did to, given that it is an encyclopedic description of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.215.26 ( talk) 13:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Editors please note: with Nev described as "a man... a young photographer" and Megan is "a veterinarian [etc.]" - she's properly described as a woman, not "a girl." This isn't a hardboiled, film noir period piece; please use appropriate contemporary language. -- Deborahjay ( talk) 16:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
i'm not familiar with this website and doubt its RS status; however, i thought it worth mentioning that someone pointed out in a comment to the cited article that the "nonexisting website" (charte.net) may have been a typo for "charter.net", where the full adress is a valid url. since they sorta cancel each other out, and aren't perfect sources to begin with, can we delete the part about the website not existing? k kisses 01:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Her name is mentioned in the plot summary, but that name is no where on the cast or crew list on IMDB. Who is she and why is her name there if that person didn't film the movie with the brother, Henry J. did?-- Sbwinter2 ( talk) 18:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
What was the budget of this film? 124.126.220.166 ( talk) 06:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Catfish (film). Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Catfish (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This seems notable enough; on August 4th, 2010, it was featured on IMDb's homepage, described by the aforementioned as a "mysterious documentary" and "Sundance fave" that "everyone's talking about." I'm afraid I don't know much more as I only found this page after visiting IMDb to begin with! 68.82.231.59 ( talk) 03:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Does this page contain too many spoilers for a movie that isn't out yet? Should it be updated so that the Plot summary doesn't give away the twist ending? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.26.20 ( talk) 22:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow...should we tell the whole movie plotline BEFORE the movie's even out yet?
I'm very angry right now. I just saw the trailer for the movie and came to wikipedia to find out more about it. Before I realized it, I realized I had read the whole plot - spoilers and all. And the movie isn't even out yet. This is just a 3 paragraph slug and you spoiled the whole movie.
No spoiler warning or anything. Thanks. Thanks a lot.
ADDITIONAL:
I have read the wikipedia treatise on spoilers generously provided by WookieInHeat. (Thank you...I'm new to posting and I appreciate your patience)
However, this does not change the fact that this article - as written - is a blatant and intentional spoiler. To quote the very piece I was referred to, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information—articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance."
I humbly suggest that the level of detail of the plot description (and the associated spoilers) serves no encyclopedic purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongozap ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongozap ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
-I removed the line about a website mentioned in the film not existing: The source for that claim is a page that claims that the website, http://web.archive.org/web/20080225112354/http://www.charte.net/ that "Megan" mentioned in a chat doesn't actually exist. However, if you change the above url to charter.net, it is in fact the music sharing website from the film. So clearly it was just a typo when she IMed it to him. A pretty obvious error from the source page, as many in the page's comments have pointed it, but he hasn't redacted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.42.189 ( talk) 04:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Why would there be protection for this film as a hoax? It's been outed by many, though the film makers are still perpetrating the documentary status. At what point can it be reported as a hoax? When the film makers admit they have lied to the public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.70.94 ( talk) 23:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Does it make sense to call it a "possible" or "supposed" documentary? I would suggest that we need a reliable citation before we say for sure it's a documentary. Edmund6334 ( talk) 02:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
If there is a reliable source that explicitly states that the film is a hoax, then that's perfectly usable. If there are reliable sources that state that the film is a "documentary" or "not a hoax," then those, too, are usable. As far as I can tell from the article's history, no one has added any source stating that the film is a hoax. The closest we've come is the Movieline article cited in the "Reception" section, which states that the author of the article thinks it is a hoax. That's not the standard we need live up to to definitively state in our article that the film is a hoax; whether someone thinks it's a hoax has no bearing on the truth of whether it's a hoax or not.
To be able to state in our article that the film is a hoax or a mockumentary, we would need the equivalent of this article about the hoax film I'm still here, in which the moviemaker himself states to a venerable movie critic that the film was not real. If the New York Times writes an article stating that Catfish is a hoax (not that the article's author watched it and thinks it's full of shit, but that it IS a hoax), then that's good sourcing and can be used in our article. Does a reliable source stating that exist? If so, editors should feel free to let us know here on the talk page, or be bold and add it to the article as a citation for the word "hoax"/"mocumentary." If it doesn't or hasn't been found yet, then the most we can do is what we have done: state that reliable sources describe the film as a documentary, and also discuss that some people working for reliable sources think it's a hoax but it remains an open question.
As for YLee, though he/she may be getting fed up with dealing with the same issue over and over and may not be wording things in the most fluffy-bunny, kindly, explanatory way, i see no evidence that he/she has any particular bias, except against unsourced additions to controversial articles. Which is as it should be. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi ( talk) 15:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the film is a hoax. Apparently, no one took the time to actually look for sources about the film. Here are a few - and yes, i will be reveting back to the fact that the film is a mockumentary.
Anyone wishing to remove it again, might want to talk to an admin or seek 3O, as I am not about to feed the marketing machine for a picture by some bs claim that the film is real. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 19:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no "overwhelming amount of data" that shows that Catfish is a hoax; if there were you'd surely be able to come up with cites better than the three sorry ones you grabbed from a Google search. Said cites of yours do no more than speculate, with no corroborating evidence, and don't claim otherwise; they certainly don't say anything like "Catfish is a hoax, because of 1), 2), and 3)". Once again, in the absence of reliable sources that say otherwise, we must go with the reliable sources that 1) do call the film a documentary and 2) discuss it predicated on that claim.
PS -Upon doing further research I'm not sure Catfish, even if it is proven to be a hoax, would qualify as a mockumentary. From reading the article, the talk page, and the cited examples it seems that to qualify as a mockumentary the film has to be known before the fact as a hoax. It was well known that This is Spinal Tap was not a documentary about a real rock band, and everyone knew that Zelig was a Woody Allen role, not a real person. On the other hand, The Blair Witch Project—a film that, as the talk page discusses, is not listed as an example within the article—marketed itself as a real example of "found film", and the word "mockumentary" does not appear within the film's article itself (although it does appear in the associated template). If Catfish is proven/announced as a hoax tomorrow, we might have to follow Blair Witch's example and describe it as a "suspense film...presented as a documentary". I guess we'll cross that bridge if/when we need to. YLee ( talk) 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
But that's what we've been trying to explain to you, Jack. There AREN'T an equal number of sources stating that it's a hoax. In fact, we've yet to see even ONE. Your citations do not say what you are claiming they say, and if your reading comprehension is such that you are misunderstanding their contents, it may be that you should leave the sourcing to others. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi ( talk) 23:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Non-reply/comment: I disagree with the current phrasing "presented as a documentary", as it implies the film is not actually a documentary. There has been no reliable source provided to substantiate this claim. I decided against merely changing it, as that would have likely been met with confrontation. However, I do feel the article should be edited to reflect the current understood status of the film: documentary. Whether it is actually a documentary, or a "hoax", does not matter. Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not "truth". Currently, nothing exists but speculation. No reliable source has stated, irrevocably, that this film is not a documentary (let alone, has any reliable source proven such a claim). The film is "presented as a documentary"; therefore, we should treat it as such, until it is proven otherwise. To wit, we would not label a film as a "blockbuster", "tent-pole", or "box-office bomb" without proper, reliable verification. This entire crusade comes across as being a bit pointy, but I assume we're all just trying to edit the article to the best of our abilities. Chicken monkey 07:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and while we are at it, we should also remove any citations that question the veracity of the film's presentation. We can't have any silly references messing up the devoted belief that the film is utterly real. After all, it conforms to the very definition of 'documentary', right? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 17:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
One of the things frustrating about this conversation is that trying to debate Jack is very frustrating: We say "A", he responds with "7", and then answers "A" with "B" at some random later point.
His Blair House mention above is an example of this. I will copy-and-paste the same thing that I wrote earlier:
Something else different about Blair is its supernatural subject matter. I'm willing to bet that not a single WP:RS-qualifying article on the film in 1999 treated the film as a prima facie example of "found media", and even had one or two such articles existed, the burden of proof would still be on proving that it was real given the no doubt hundreds of articles that assumed from the start that it was a work of fiction. With Catfish the situation is entirely different. The film's story is much more plausible than "young filmmakers get eaten by monsters in the forest", so the burden of proof for the Catfish-is-real side is not high; a few reliable sources of the type that the article has provided for weeks are sufficient. The burden of proof is on the Catfish-is-fake side, to show that said reliable sources and the filmmakers' statements are false.
You hear that, Jack? The burden of proof on the "Reliable sources say Catfish is a documentary" side was met a while ago. The remaining burden of proof is on you. While we are glad that you are now implicitly admitting that the cites you opened this discussion with don't measure up, forgive us if we remain skeptical that you will finally, after all this foolishness, deliver on your promises. YLee ( talk) 20:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Even the lawsuits sound like a hoax. Part of the aura the filmakers want.and a great tax writeoff to say "will never make a profit"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 ( talk) 21:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
On Friday, Jack Sebastian added a statement to the article leded saying that "The film is presented as a documentary pieced together from amateur filmmaker footage, filmed in real time." IP 71.249.217.208 removed it shortly afterward, with the assertion that the statement was untrue. I then restored it, saying in my edit summary that I believed it was accurate based on our current sources, and the IP removed it again, saying that I and/or Jack should "prove it with a cite". So, let's examine the sources we have right now and see if we can reach an agreement about whether the statement is supportable.
To start, I think the IP may be interpreting "is presented" as saying something about the truth value of the words that follow it, so to them it implies the same thing that "the film is purported to be..." would. I don't think this is the case. "To be presented (as)", to me, is a pretty neutral way of saying "is said to be (by those who present it)." So if I'm not wrong in my interpretation of the word, and we can support the fact that the movie's creators describe it as a documentary, that part of the sentence ought to be fine. Doing a bit of checking, and ignoring for the moment all the secondary sources that refer to it as a matter-of-course as a documentary, we can find that it was entered into the 2010 Sundance Festival as a Documentary Feature. That seems pretty directly to be from the horse's mouth - the makers entered it into Sundance as a documentary, so the makers are presenting it as a documentary.
Ergo, we have support for the film being "presented as a documentary." The remainder of the contested sentence describes the film's documentary style. Can we find support for it being presented as "pieced together from amateur filmmaker footage, filmed in real time"? Well, we don't have a source using exactly those words. What we do have:
I tend to think that any of these quotes, and certainly all of them together, provides adequate sourcing for a statement about how the movie was filmed in realtime and pieced together afterward. But, of course, I'm not the only person working on this article, so let's have a discussion. What does everyone else think about whether these sources are able to support the re-addition of the statement, "The film is presented as a documentary pieced together from amateur filmmaker footage, filmed in real time"? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi ( talk) 15:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
While compiling a number of references (17) that say that the film certainly "looks" like a fake, I came across this article, from OregonLive. It looks like I might have been completely wrong in my assessment of this film as a fake. If it is indeed fake, it's covered its tracks with the skill of a Romulan. I apologize for my early intransigence; my bullshit detector must have been malfunctioning. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 02:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw this today and remember this discussion. (Google the news headline to get around the paywall if you run into one.) It especially discusses Catfish. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, take out most of the Plot section in the article, it's a complete spoiler, not even imdb does this kind of stuff. Just be reasonable about how much of the movie you describe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.126.131 ( talk) 00:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
For one thing, we don't shield plot summaries from spoilers here. See WP:SPOILER. For another, IMDB has complete plot summaries for some films (when someone bothers to write one or copies it from here). Millahnna ( talk) 03:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This page will ruin the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. Really bad. Glad I avoided this page before seeing it. -- BradTraylor ( talk) 17:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you did to, given that it is an encyclopedic description of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.215.26 ( talk) 13:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Editors please note: with Nev described as "a man... a young photographer" and Megan is "a veterinarian [etc.]" - she's properly described as a woman, not "a girl." This isn't a hardboiled, film noir period piece; please use appropriate contemporary language. -- Deborahjay ( talk) 16:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
i'm not familiar with this website and doubt its RS status; however, i thought it worth mentioning that someone pointed out in a comment to the cited article that the "nonexisting website" (charte.net) may have been a typo for "charter.net", where the full adress is a valid url. since they sorta cancel each other out, and aren't perfect sources to begin with, can we delete the part about the website not existing? k kisses 01:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Her name is mentioned in the plot summary, but that name is no where on the cast or crew list on IMDB. Who is she and why is her name there if that person didn't film the movie with the brother, Henry J. did?-- Sbwinter2 ( talk) 18:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
What was the budget of this film? 124.126.220.166 ( talk) 06:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Catfish (film). Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Catfish (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)