Talk:Paranormal Activity/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * What the anonymous editor at the top of this discussion is writing is not so much a “review” as plot details, what one might call spoilers. The spoiler policy at Wikipedia (WP) is exactly the opposite of what one might think. The policy at WP:SPOILER is clear that spoilers are considered an acceptable part of the plot outline/discussion of wikiarticles on movies, television shows, novels, etc. It is understood that someone looking up such an article will expect to find plot details. To quote WP:SPOILER: “It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.” Moreover, spoiler alerts are not allowed. Again, to quote WP:SPOILER: “Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary.” I have to admit that while I expected that WP would allow spoilers, I was suprised to discover that spoiler alerts were not permitted. However, a solution that I and other editors have used on other wikiarticles is to make sure that the plot discussion is in a separate section — not the introduction (lede) — clearly labelled Plot Synopsis. Thus, editors are correct to remove such plot details from the introduction (lede), because that is the incorrect place for them. However, editors would be in violation of Wikipedia’s spoiler policy to remove plot details from a properly labelled, plot synopsis section. I hope this clarifies things regarding spoilers. —  SpikeToronto  20:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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


 * I don’t disagree with you, Tabascoman, about this particular editor’s edits. If you go to his/her (anonymous) talk page, you will see that I left him/her a note explaining why his/her edits were continually being reverted from the article page and how s/he should correctly input them. Of course, I did it after s/he put the “stuff” above on the talk page, which wikirules do not permit anyone but her/himself to remove. Plot synopses for novels only require the novel itself as a verifiable reference/citation for the plot outline. Good luck finding a verifiable reference/citation for an outline/synopsis of a film plot! Are there script respositories on the web? Are there publications that synopsize film plots? Man, I surely hope so! Gee, if you have to have a source other than the film itself, you may have set yourself an insurmountable task. The reason that WP permits spoilers is that an encyclopedia article should be complete. And, an integral part of completeness for an encyclopedic entry on a work of fiction is a plot summary/synopsis/outline. If the film itself cannot suffice as the source, then the encyclopedia article may never be complete, and thus be deficient. — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don’t work on film plots in wikiarticles, but for anyone wanting to write one for this movie, the following might be useful: WP:PLOT, WP:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), 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! Thanks for clarifying. — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

Move?

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

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

Paranormal Activity (film) → Paranormal Activity &mdash; Unnecessary dab, latter redirects to former. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To most people, Paranormal Activity is paranormal activity. Keep the disambiguator. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Anthony, also paranormal activity doesn't point here, it points to Paranormal. So Paranormal Activity should be retargetted to Paranormal. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose and agree with the above. * Oh dear. Another case of different pages being served according to capitalisation.  "Paranormal Activity" and "Paranormal activity" should lead to the same place, whatever that is.  Logically it should be the concept not the film.  The hatnote on Paranormal does the job fine. Sussexonian (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Change the status quo I honestly don't much care where Paranormal Activity goes, although I would prefer it to be this article about the film. Either way, it makes no sense for it to redirect to an unnecessary disambiguation, so please redirect it to Paranormal or move. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Can you provide a pointer to the MOS section in question? To me, if somebody types "Paranormal Activity" in caps, it would seem obvious (or at least much more likely) that they're looking for the movie as opposed to any old paranormal activity in general. Jpatokal (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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


 * Why didn't you just do it?

--79.97.100.169 (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * Well, I did laugh at a few points during the movie. Just sayin'. Lots42 (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably referring to the acting skills of the actors, I lol'd too. 79.97.100.169 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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

The Plot Section
The plot section should be broken down into more paragraphs for ease of reading. I'd do it myself right now but it's still dark and quiet in my house and frankly, even reading the synopsis is creepy (the movie itself scared me a lot). 09:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen, brother. Having practically built the page on my own, I edited this mostly at work because I didn't wanna do it at night when I was done doing everything else. Speaks volumes for the priorities I have at my job. LOL... :) TabascoMan77 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

How can a movie premiere twice? The latter date should be removed. --Jensamoller (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Premier as in the first time it was shown at that venue. If its the first time on television, they'd list that as a premier, even if its been at theaters before hand.   D r e a m Focus  23:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm going to reword part of the Alternate Versions section. I will change the part that says "...but she keeps coming towards them and eventually gets shot down when one of the policemen is startled..." I feel it is poorly worded. Generally when a scene such as this is described, somebody is not "eventually" shot, and they are shot, not "shot down." I am currently watching the movie and will be able to give a better wording soon. I just realized that was the non-Paramount ending. I was watching the DVD. Anyway, I reworded it as best I could without rewording the whole section. Hr.Vanker TalkContrib 01:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The original ending was incorrect on a few points so made the following changes: '' Katie is shot dead by the police. As the camera continues to roll pointed at Katie on the floor, two loud noises are heard, one of which is the sound of the policeman's gun and the other of which is the attic room's door slamming shut.''

To

 Following a heated confrontation, the door to the bedroom behind the officers slams shut startling them into shooting Katie, presumably killing her.

It's clearly not the attic door that slams, it's the back bedroom. Also, the door slams and THEN they fire. During this, the camera does not move, thus is not pointed at Katie on the ground as the previous description would have you believe. Coradon (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the epilogue about Micah's being found and Katie's whereabouts really on the original? We are watching the action of Micha's being discovered and she's lying in the hallway (although there is no reconciliation for this ending and the alternate about how she's alive in the ending scene of Paranormal Activity 2) Mauricev (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * Can you believe this? I just changed it back to 2007, after someone had put it as being a "2009 American horror film", and then someone afterwards put it as being a "2011 American horror film". Even thought the final cut ending was probably filmed in 2008/9 as suggested by Spielberg I believe, the rest of the film was made in 2007. For the Extended Editions of Lord of the Rings there were some new scenes shot after the final film had been released and earned Best Picture, but we wouldn't change the entire films page to be released in "2004" just because of the new scenes in the extended edition.
 * But this film was made in 2007 and it's stupid how it gets changed to 2009. Charlr6 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please sign your posts. In addition, I will require a source for this information before I change it.  Intelligent  sium  22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The ratio of gross to budget for Blair Witch, according to the article, is 248,639,099:750,000, or :1. By contrast, the ratio for Paranormal Activity is 48,076,518:15,000, or :1. Even if we take the low estimate for Blair Witch, 500,000, we still get :1.  Intelligent  sium  22:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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


 * That is your own experience of the movie and probably can't be used in a Wikipedia article as it wouldn't apply to most people. 123dylan456 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The alternate ending is missing some details.
Under 'Alternate Versions' 2nd paragraph 4th sentence says:

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


 * Last night I watched the version with the original (cops coming upstairs) ending on the internet (no harm done I've already paid for a ticket to see it in theaters). :) Anyway...the OP is correct. The door at the other end of the hallway does slam shut, alarming the cops. I wrote the version of the "alternate endings" section to which the OP is referring using a source which has since been deleted, and never mentioned the door slamming shut. And Spielberg suggested the "demon Katie throws Micah at the camera" ending that's playing in theaters. This was supported by a legitimate source, but has also been removed from the article entirely. Don't know why. Someone can use this info to improve the section...if it's not done soon I'll get to it later. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've been lollygaggling...glad to see someone did a good job in fixing this. The source doesn't mention the "original ending" in this same detail but I think it's fair to say that we can rely on the primary source (the film itself) for these details and rely on the secondary source in explaining that there was an "original ending" (with the cops) to begin with.
 * Now, just to clear things up...I've seen several posts and threads where people swear the "exorcism on the internet" scene is also in the theatrical version. This contradicts the source and how it's presented in the article. I've seen both the theatrical version and the original version on the internet, so it's hard for me to remember. Can we settle this once and for all? Is the "exorcism footage" scene in the version currently being shown in theaters? If so, some better sources need to be found and the article needs to be fixed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The theatrical version shows the girl on the internet, but not the video that was in the original cut.--149.169.53.120 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Original Version vs. Current Version
Errors in article relating to the different film edits. "Alternate Versions" see the separate discussion above. I deleted the incorrect information, but it was added back in by Gordonrox24 without explanation. Also, the "Cast" section has "(Original Version)" next to many of the names. I think what is considered the "Original Version" needs to be discussed. In the version I saw a few nights ago, Ashley Palmer was in the movie so that tag needs to be removed (again, see alternate version for more discussion on this). Also, Randy McDowell and Tim Piper were not in the version I saw, so they should most likely have the "Original Version" tag added to them.--Austinrh (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all getting confusing. I believe Ashley Palmer is the actress who plays the girl in the "exorcism video" Micah and Katie watch. The secondary article used as a source in the "Alternate versions" section states that in the version that began showing in wide release in theaters, this scene was removed and the "broken picture frame/demon breathing on Katie's hair" scene was added. I've seen people swear left and right that both of these scenes appear in the movie they saw in theaters. Surely enough people can confirm this here, and we can begin looking into fixing the article. The only information I've found so far has been in forums, and even on those there is conflicting accounts. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

stripper
Michah was not a stripper, he was a day trader. I'm not even sure how the two can be confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.1.82 (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The first line of the plot section and the header talk about a lesbian couple, Ashley and Katie, which makes me think that we've had some vandalism? Not having seen the movie, I'm hesitant to make a change, but thought that this should be brought up. Bo-Lingua (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, vandalism removed. Requesting page protection once more. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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


 * I don't know about "P/paranormal activity", but "P/paranormal Activity" with the word "Activity" capitalized should definitely redirect here. Similarly "Moon Phase" with a capital P redirects to the anime, while "Moon phase" with a lowercase p redirects to lunar phase. --Keith111 (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

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


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


 * Well then technically no film or TV show or games Wiki page isn't allowed. Might as well reference it to a link to a cinema times or to it on Amazon.com. A movie or games or TV shows plot shouldn't' be cited/referenced as like UKER said, it's the movie itself. Unless you want to copy the entire plot from another website and then link and reference that. Charlr6 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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


 * I think the November 27th part is referring to the original release which was in 2007. It just got a wider release in 2009. 123dylan456 (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Devin Martin - look this movie was rated by devolopers who were partnered with the group and it by their honest reviews about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.41.167 (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wording is confusing, and can have two different meanings
They screened the movie in 2007 at the Screamfest Horror Film Festival and, as a result, began to give away DVDs to anybody who would be willing to distribute it. It did not see a spotlight until 2007 when Miramax Films Senior Executive Jason Blum and his producing partner, Steven Schneider, viewed the movie for themselves. Reads kind of awkward. Did they view it at Screamfest? And how is spotlight used here? Perhaps a month can be mentioned if they saw it later on. Perhaps saying, later that year, it was seen by Miramax Films Senior Executive Jason Blum and his producing partner, Steven Schneider.  D r e a m Focus  23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed
"...footage of a possessed girl (whose story was read by Micah on the internet)..." Should that read: "footage of a possessed girl (whose story on the internet was read by Micah)"? EdX20 (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Austin de Rossi (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted back to previous version... some valid edits may have been lost
So I reverted back to an older version of the article removing about 20 intermediate edits. There has been excessive vandalism in the last few days and it would have been too difficult to go through every edit individualy. Sorry if a valid revision was inadvertently deleted. Please make your revision again. I requested that they page be semi-protected, so hopefully this won't happen again. Thanks! --Austin de Rossi (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been semi-protected for a week. We'll request it again if vandalism continues. --Austin de Rossi (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should request again. UGH, it's bad! (Deftonesderrick (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


 * BTW I replaced the 3 sources with 3 others that seem better quality and also discuss the methodology. However, numbers for previous movies differ wildly based on the source (http://blog.knowyourmoney.co.uk/index.php/2009/06/10-movies-you-should-have-invested-in-the-most-profitable-films-ever-made/). Some say "Deep Throat" was the most profitable, but no way to confirm since it was financed by the mob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.78.108.211 (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The film's status as "most profitable" under some methodology, if established, is clearly important, and should therefore be noted in the introduction. Naturally, the methodology should be stated, and any significant disagreement between sources discussed. Jennifer500 (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"most profitable"

 * film is considered the most profitable ever made

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

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

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

is it real???
is whatever shown in video clip of paranormal activity real????...or this is just shown to prove that yes....ghost is present...its not only imaginary..??

is this real or just like film??

that couple is alive or really she killed to her husband and theen police kill to her???

is really that small girl was there and she killed them???

i m confused about it....please tell me the truth.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.171.169 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a forum, so this discussion is not appropriate here. In any case, no, it's not real. --uKER (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot?
"Katie slowly walks into view, her clothing soaked with blood, crouching over Micah's body. She then slowly looks at the camera with an evil smile and suddenly lunges toward it, with her face adopting a demonic appearance right before the screen cuts to black. An ending title card states that Micah's body was discovered a few days later by the police, and Katie's whereabouts remain unknown."

What?! That's not what happens, it is? I just finished watching the movie, and it ends with the police coming in the house, discovering Micah's body and they end up killing Katie. Micah's body has never been seen on camera.. Grashoofd (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Three endings were made for the film, the ending listed on the page (with Micah's body being thrown at the camera) is the one that's universally shown on the DVD & video releases, the police ending is one I have yet to see in its entirety anywhere. Where did you manage to see that one?Ladycplum (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably an illegal download of the movie. Angryapathy (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted material
I particularly have a problem with the deletion of the fact that her face morphs at the end. Not only that scene constitutes an escalation from what the movie had been up to tha point (in terms of verosimilitude), but it also holds special relevance in making noticed that for the theatrical release they felt they needed a VFX scene in which a demon was made explicit, which obviously doesn't happen in the two other endings. About the reiteration of her being possessed, that was not me. I don't find it necessary to state the obvious in the text since the movie does it for itself. In any case, about the film not making a statement about her being posessed, what do you suggest they meant to convey with that ending? That her face just morphed into that of the Cloverfield monster out of nothing? --uKER (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, it's not clear if she is actually possessed, influenced, or just plain insane at the end. Nothing is explicitly stated, therefore stating that she IS possessed would constitute OR. We can draw the conclusion that she is possessed until the cows come home, but she could just as easily have been influenced and not possessed. With that, nothing is ever stated in the actual film about her being possessed, so, it can't be included unless a citation can be found for it. As for her face, due to my last statement, if it is absolutely necessary to include it, then it shouldn't say anything like "demonic" or "now possessed". I think if it said, "She crouches over Micah's body then smiles malevolently at the camera before she lunges toward it," then it would fit better without sounding like any original conclusions are drawn from it. (Deftonesderrick 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Now it's made clear you probably saw the film only once, quite long ago. That, and that you're not paying attention to what I said. The ending is a VFX shot with her face morphing into a demon, black eyes, fangs and everything. --uKER (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've seen it over a dozen times, thanks for the shot at my intelligence. Nevertheless, a VFX shot isn't enough to warrant a conclusion of her being outright possessed. I understood what you said.(Deftonesderrick 04:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC))


 * I don't see how the amount of times you have seen the movie relates to your intelligence. I also don't see how you can imply that the ending doesn't reveal something out of the ordinary. I mean, are you suggesting she mutated into a monster by natural causes or something? I repeat, I don't need the word "posessed" to be mentioned. I just intend the article to reflect that the ending goes out of line from the otherwise plausible happenings in the movie up to that point. It's not just a person grinning at the camera. It wouldn't have needed VFX if it was. --uKER (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I get that you're dodging how you word things to save yourself, so let's just keep the personal stuff to a minimum here, I saw the movie and so did you. We both get how movies are made, released, written, etc. We're both capable of extending this argument indefinetly, so let's come up with a solution. Fine? Good.

What I'm saying is that if it does need to be mentioned, then we need to be careful HOW IT'S WORDED. What you're doing is drawing conclusions based on what you observed, you think she "mutated into a monster", I think the VFX was to emphasize the demon's influence, someone else might think something else. What I am trying to say is that since the movie does not EXPLICITLY state anything, we just need to come up with the best way to say it so everyone can be happy with it. I understand the implications of what that VFX shot could mean, but that's just it, it's what it COULD mean, not what it ACTUALLY means. The wording, that's all I care about. (Deftonesderrick 16:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Save myself? From what? LOL! What are you turning this into? Now, this is getting boring, so fact is: they used CG to open her mouth to an impossible size, added fangs and made her eyes black. How do you suggest we reflect that in the article? --uKER (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Usually plot summaries (which are written based on what is observed by the reviewer) aren't challenged.  Obviously that's not true in this case, so I would suggest if a source can be found saying she "morphed" into a demon, then use that. People may have different perceptive on what a "demon" is.  If no source can be found, just write what is seen, without mentioning morphing into a demon. —  Mike   Allen   01:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course nobody knows what a demon looks like, but it's common sense Vs technical accuracy. I consider beyond ridiculous describing the scene as "her eyes become black, she grows huge fangs and she lunges towards the camera with her mouth open impossibly wide", but maybe it's just me. Again, my urge is to describe this aspect of the ending (devised by Paramount) to mark it as a departure from Peli's original intention of believability and austerity already cited in the article. --uKER (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could word it something like this, "Katie looks at the camera and smiles. She then lunges towards towards with an exaggerated evil look on her face." Just a thought. (Deftonesderrick 07:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Now how does that reflect that they thought necessary to have a VFX shot with a gaping fang-filled mouth and (which I was forgetting) a shriek, and not simply have the actress put on "an exaggerated evil look on her face". --uKER (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose if we just say it "looks demonic" or "appears to be demonic" then that would work. What would you say? I haven't heard a suggestion yet. (Deftonesderrick 16:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC))


 * So maybe it can read like this. "Katie slowly looks at the camera with an evil smile. She then lunges towards it, with what appears to be a demonic look about her face, as she bites at the camera." I think this sounds neutral enough. It touches on the fact her face is changed without implying she is possessed, influenced, etc. (Deftonesderrick 17:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC))


 * I'd rather not cover the facial expression in the plot summary. I'd rather just mention how she lunges, "She crouches over Micah's body then lunges at the camera, and the screen cuts to black."  We're supposed to convey a very basic description of the film; the attack on Micah and the camera do not need detailed mentions. Erik (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What Erik said is what I've been trying to get at, and the reason I delete those mentions when editors add them. However, there will be some people who question its exclusion, so maybe the sentence I came up with above, or some variant, could be used? It doesn't bloat the ending, and it touches on the VFX without being overly descriptive. (Deftonesderrick 21:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC))


 * If an average Joe read the description Erik gave, then saw the movie, when the end came, they'd think "WTF? Wikipedia didn't say she turned into a monster at the end." Does that make my concern any clearer? I don't have a problem with what you suggest about it "looking demonic" or whatever. I just want the article to reflect that it's not just a regular girl lunging at the camera. --uKER (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I think it's safe to say that: due to the many ways the ending can be interpreted, and that no outright explanation is given, no statements of possesion or influence should be mentioned. However, since Katie's face changes in the final scene so drastically, it needs to be included in the plot section with special mention to how it changed. I am currently adding the new sentence to the summary, let's see how it goes. (Deftonesderrick 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC))


 * The average Joe will probably not be turning to Wikipedia to read different endings, until after they watched the film. —  Mike   Allen   23:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

actually i read this to prove to someone that the movie did not depict true events ;) Killemall22 (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mike, you do get the point, don't you? --uKER (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can agree with what Derrick did. I just tried to give it some more less indecisive tone. I also removed the bit about her "biting" the camera, since from reading that, you don't get the idea of what really happens. See what you think. --uKER (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it! I say it should stay. (Deftonesderrick 05:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

Move? (2)

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

The result of the move request was: Move to Paranormal Activity. Consensus. Unnecessary disambiguation; already redirects to this article. Born2cycle (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Paranormal Activity (film) → Paranormal Activity —
 * Unnecessary dab, latter redirects to former. Alternately, redirect Paranormal Activity to Paranormal and put it on the hatnote. It makes no sense to have it immediately redirect like this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * object it should redirect to paranormal. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Object. Paranormal Activity is paranormal activity, which (allegedly) has been happening through the ages. The film's fame will likely fade away as quickly as the fame of most routine fiction films. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Paranormal Activity is Paranormal Activity. Paranormal activity is Paranormal activity. PC78 (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRECISION. This move is well within policy, no matter how much people would seem to think otherwise. PC78 (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRECISION as well. See panic room and Panic Room, or iron maiden and Iron Maiden. This is about what readers are most likely looking for when they search for title case, and the general term "paranormal activity" is not in title case in normal use. A hatnote at the film article can close the gap by pointing to the general term's article. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRECISION +1 --uKER (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support The vast majority of people using the search term "paranormal activity" are not looking for the phenomenom, but the movie itself. Angryapathy (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given how frequently articles are incorrectly capitalized, I don't think this is adequate dabbing. The film is hardly notable, the general topic primary. — kwami (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the film getting 1000% more hits than the phenomenom doesn't really factor into being "hardly notable". Angryapathy (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, stuff being done incorrectly elsewhere doesn't qualify as a reason to do things incorrectly here. In any case, out of curiosity, I'd like Kwamikagami to mention a single established article with incorrect capitalization in its title. --uKER (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The amount of hits that the film gets will fade away as the film's fame fades away, as with the fame of most films. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per User:Erik - most who capitalize "Paranormal Activity" will be looking for the film, while a hatnote can point any others in the right direction.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support move. If, as Anthony Appleyard predicts, the most likely target for the search term "Paranormal Activity" changes as the film becomes old news, there's nothing stopping us from moving the article then to better help our readers find what they are looking for. Right now, though, I think it's clear that the film is the most likely target for that search term. Jafeluv (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

prequel not Sequel
Paranormal Activity 2 was a prequel. --MR.HJH (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternate endings
In the past months, I have lost count of how many times I've reverted the same changes to the "Plot"/"Alternate endings" sections over and over. The article appropriately presents the film as an independent film made in 2007, which later got acquired by Paramount, having its ending remade for the theatrical presentation, with an extra ending being made but not used. The article is therefore supposed to reflect this. The ending described in the plot section is to be the original one (the police showing up and shooting Katie), with the "Alternate endings" section describing the two endings Paramount made after the acquisition (her throwing Micah at the camera, and her slitting her own throat). I encourage people watching the article to help enforce this. --uKER (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems I'm the only one looking after the article. --uKER (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the Plot section should reflect the original version instead of Paramount's. Films screened at festivals are often changed before they're released.  Paramount acquired it and changed it before it was released, so the article should reflect Paramount's version.  If a compromise is needed, consider incorporating both endings into the Plot section similar to how Clue (film) handles its multiple endings.  OzW (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a case where a film was pre-released at a festival. The film was originally made as an independent film that was later acquired by Paramount and modified. As the lead says, this article is about that original film (thus the 2007 dating instead of 2009), therefore, Paramount's modifications should appear in a separate section, and not as part of the main film's description. --uKER (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

--- The end of the original ending says "An epilogue text states that Micah's body was discovered by police on October 11, 2006, and Katie's whereabouts remain unknown." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.106.41 (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been many films that have had original endings that have been changed or replaced by a new one because of either a test audience not liking it or the director or studio simply decided to make a new ending. They changed the ending of this by suggestion of Steven Spielberg I believe and that ending is the theatrically released one and the one on home video. This is the 'final version'. I don't see on other films pages where the ending has changed, and the original ending is in the main plot while the new ending is in an 'alternate ending' section. So as those films don't have this, then it shouldn't list the original ending unless you want to go round every page and change it to the original ending. And it doesn't matter that the very first ending was the original ending that was seen, that version will never be seen again by the public unless they want to view it online illegally or unless the studio wants to make a new dvd release featuring the original ending on. Charlr6 (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll say it one more time. This isn't like Paramount made the film, made a test screening and then changed the ending. The film was released independently in 2007, featuring the "police" ending, and screened in Screamfest. Paramount people attended that screening, liked it and decided to acquire it, modify it, including the ending, and release it theatrically in 2009. If the plot section was to describe the Paramount ending, it would mean the article is about the Paramount release and not the independent one, and you should change the date to the date when Paramount released it (2009), and not when Oren Peli released it (2007), but I don't think you'll get much backing for that move. --uKER (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Independant first original version will not be seen by the public unless they watch it online illegally or unless Paramount release a DVD version of it. There are differences between the theatrical release version and the original one apparently, like some dialogue changes and scene changes. So then if we are going to keep it to the very first original ending then we should find out what those situations are and add them in, so then the 'plot' features the plot for the very first original version, even though there won't be many differences. And then the 'alternate endings' section can not only just contain the different endings but the few differences between the very first original version and then the theatrical one. I will be happy with this page if it features the very first original version plot (even though like I said there won't be many differences) and then in another section it lists some of the differences. Charlr6 (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad to see we're coming to terms. Given that the article talks about a 2007 release, it's clear that it's not meant to describe the version people could see in theaters. Wikipedia has numerous articles on indie and experimental films that never got a commercial release (neither theatrical or home media) so I don't see why we should ignore the indie release and describe the theatrical one. I lean towards describing the original film, with Paramount's intervention being described later, which better reflects how things actually happened. I'd even go as far as making an "Acquisition by Paramount" section that described the modifications and re-release, but if you like we can ask in Wikiproject Film and see what their take is. --uKER (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's all fine then. But should we list the theatrical plot or just the differences between the 2007 version and the 2009 theatrically released version? Even if it's just a paragraph, or even a box showing the differences and what was changed in a certain scene? Charlr6 (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Aren't you overlooking the fact that everything in the Home release, Reception (Reviews, Box office, Accolades) and Related media sections are all talking about the 2009 release? This article is, in fact, on the Paramount version. And most everyone coming to this page will expect to read about that version.  The original version should be covered in its own section, but its ending should not be the principal one in the plot section.  Putting 2007 in the lead is inconsistent, and it should be immediately explained its general release was in 2009  (Now it's in the second paragraph.) - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's more or less the original point I was trying to make and it was how the plot should be for the 2009 one and the 2007 version that no one will probably ever see again (unless illegally online or a new DVD release featuring it). I just also remembered. In the original plot wasn't Katie supposed to have been shot and killed by the police? So then for the readers who think its the 2009 version they would get confused as she was at the end of the second film killing her sister and brother-in-law and taking the baby, Hunter and this scene was based soon after this movie. But like I said above I would be happy if the 'plot' kept in plot elements and situations (even if there were only a few) to the very first original version and then it would be able to keep the original ending. And the new 2009 version could have a comparison box. But now I'm starting to think there have been movies that have been shown at film festivals, test screenings etc that aren't the final product. So the first original version, even though not the final theatrical version was going to be changed into the theatrically released, home video version. And only a hand-full of people would have seen the original version over the millions who saw the theatrical version. So it should have that plot in. (So I'm changing my mind about the plot featuring elements and situations from the first cut and a comparison box between the original and theatrical. It should be the plot of the new one) Charlr6 (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gothicfilm is right. This article is about the film that was released in 2009, not the film "released" in 2007 ("screened" would be a better term). The plot summary should reflect that. A plot summary of the original film should either be included in an article strictly about the original version shown at a festival (without all the box office, critical reaction, etc, relating to the 2009 version) or the "alternate ending" stuff should be incorporated here in a separate section about the original version, as "alternate" more properly refers to the original rather than the 2009 film. I think it's more appropriate to focus on the theatrical release most people will be familiar with in the PS rather than the festival version. The way it is now would only be confusing to the reader. Shirt waist &#9742; 11:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be the 2009 version, but like I said earlier, if the 'plot' should feature the 2007 ending, then it should feature a 2007 synopsis, even if there are a few different plot points. That would be the only way for it to be acceptable to have the 2007 'ending', if the plot is the 2007 version too. Most people wouldn't know that there was a 2007 version, if anything they might just think it took two years to be released Charlr6 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to have to agree that this article should cover the 2009 release as the main release of the movie. While the movie did get some buzz during early screenings and festivals, the wide release of the movie that the majority of viewers have seen is the ending of the 2009 wide release. Additionally, as a previous editor has stated, Paranormal Activity 2's plot is based on the 2009 release ending, so the franchise is considering that ending to be canon. I believe we should reflect that in the article. Angryapathy (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Paranormal Activity 4: The Director's Cut
The fourth installment will be a 3D film called Paranormal Activity 4: The Director's Cut SOURCE http://www.velvetbooks.com/post/2011/12/24/Paranormal-Activity.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.6.163 (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no such film. This guy likes to create his own YouTube and Facebook pages (which the above link leads to), title them after well known films and then announce them on WP. When someone reverts his "contributions", he usually doesn't hesitate to revert it back. Click on his history here: Special:Contributions/72.178.6.163 -- Gothicfilm (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Main "franchise page"
Hello guys,

I was just thinking about the series and I had the thought of a page covering all of the films and their box offices, budget, reviews, who is in each film etc. The normal stuff on a page about a film series like James Bond or The Bourne films (which have one had three same as this one).

But what do you guys think? I don't mind trying to do it (I haven't done one before but I could try) or someone else could, but how about a main page for the franchise as a whole just like the Twilight film series or Harry Potter or James Bond has and like I mentioned the Bourne Film series (which have three films like PA do).

--Charlr6 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to create it myself. But it needs a lot of work and support as I'm not too sure on how to do certain things and I'm sure there is someone who would be able to do it quickly in thirty minutes to an hour probably

Here is the link Paranormal Activity (film series) Charlr6 (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, we have a navigable Template:Paranormal Activity, so the series article is redundant in my opinion. Brand meister  t   01:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are 'templates' for a lot of things. Like Star Wars, Twilight, James Bond, Family Guy, Jason Bourne, Uncharted etc. But they still have main pages for the individual movie/TV show/game and a page then for the over-all thing. And a 'template' page doesn't tell you the over-all gross of the film series, over-all critical reception, which characters are in each film or only one etc. That's why there are 'main pages' to show this. If the page gets good enough work into it, it will be as good and informative as other 'main' pages. Charlr6 (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Parodies
The section on parodies could include the 2013 movie "A Haunted House", which is a comedy specifically intended to spoof Paranormal Activity (amongst other horrors, but mainly PA). I'm surprised it isn't mentioned here- I would edit it in myself, except I don't know how to reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.162.250 (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you've got any links to reliable sources about that one, I can do it for you.  What you're describing sounds reasonable (and should be fairly easy) but I'd have to look at the sources. WP:CITE is the page that I think will help you if you're looking to learn how to do references.  Millahnna (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a link to the trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J50vA5VLR6k) and a review of the movie by Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_haunted_house/), which describes it as a parody of PA. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.162.250 (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. Gimme a couple of days.  I might do it in a drive by edit today but I'm a little all over the place at home (I work from home, many meetings today).  But if no one beats me to it I'll swing through and see what I can do.  Probably won't use the trailer (we don't usually for this sort of stuff) but I can probably use one or two of the reviews as a ref.  Millahnna (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Mispronounciation Of "Micah"
Is it worth noting in the article that although the secondary character is named "Micah", his name is mispronounced throughout the entire film as "Meek-Kah" instead of "My-Kah", as americans would normally use this name? Micah is not presented as being eastern european, or the child of immigrants from the only area of the world who would talk that way. ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 16:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess if the actors pronounced it that way, it means the film director allowed it (or instructed it should be pronounced that way, perhaps to distinguish it in speech from similarly sounding "Michael". Brandmeistertalk  16:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)