Talk:Reality film

message: I've rewritten this article based on the two sources present in the article. I don't know if a student newspaper (Pace Press) or a headline really qualify as reliable sources. Editors should refrain from listing movies here unless they find a source that refers to a movie as a "reality film." This article needs some reliable sources or it should be nominated for deletion. --Pixelface 01:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was created in objection to the widely-held POV that Jackass is a documentary.  (The Oscars define documentary as any non-fiction film.)  I'd support a deletion. THF 03:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say that is a "widely-held POV", least of all in the film community, and the citations you provided were hardly "rock solid" or indicative of a widely-held POV.  Regardless, I think the article instead should be expanded - the concept itself is notable enough to merit an article, even a stub.  Additionally, the category "Reality film" had support on the WikiFilm Project.  --David Shankbone 03:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences isn't the film community? THF 04:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Academy classifies Jackass as a documentary?  --David Shankbone 04:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, they do.  As of the 78th annual Academy Awards, the Academy defines a documentary as any non-fiction film. (Unfiltered performances are excluded, but it's unclear what "unfiltered" means.) THF 04:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that doesn't seem conclusive at all, now does it?  Although it certainly shoots down "Eddie Murphy Raw", although many of your conservative comrades on the blogosphere balked at the inclusion of both of these films in your silly ranking.  Regardless, we can argue like lawyers all night Ted, but that's not the point of this Talk page.  --David Shankbone 04:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That didn't take long for WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to be breached.  This has nothing to do with my article.  I'm relaying how and why this page got created.  No one in the film community saw the need for this page before there was a concern that Jackass's documentary status would affect Sicko's ranking on the all-time documentary list, and a new page and a new category was created so that it could be argued that Jackass wasn't a documentary.  The second that battle was won, the resulting orphan page was ignored.  It's not an important enough issue for me to waste time resisting organized uncivil POV-pushing, so you can have the last word.  Whoever nominates the article for AFD, please let me know, I'm taking this page off my watchlist. THF 04:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You tried to have a listing of your own creation that included Jackass and Eddie Murphy Raw as documentaries inserted into 25 articles, a list nobody else uses or has even noticed, and you are now quoting policy?  You throw around NPA and CIVIL a good deal, Ted; perhaps that you are the one who needs to constantly remind people of these--erroneously, by the way--says more about the way you engage and edit than it does about the numerous people against whom you feel the need to cite them...?  Just food for thought.  --David Shankbone 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The article listed Jackass and then three cites claiming it's a documentary? I can't believe this dispute is still going on. Why does it matter if some people classify Jackass as a documentary? Cool Hand Luke 09:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a disagreement, and a widely held POV that it is not.  If THF is going to raise old arguments that are inherently misleading, they will be met with the same old counter-arguments.  It is that simple.  --David Shankbone 13:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it was an uninvolved third party who found it strange that the article would claim it as a reality film by citing three sources that it call it a documentary, baldly asserting that it's truly "reality film". A google search shows that many websites use this term as a simple synonym for documentary. I get that THF is wrong and evil for trying to mar 25 articles (somehow, although he only posted to the talk page of a handful of them), but I think this particular fight is a loosing battle. I suggest a redirect, or failing that, a deletion nomination under WP:NEO. Cool Hand Luke 14:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are mistaken.  It was I who provided the sources for Jackass, and they were the sources THF used.  I provided them at an effort at neutrality.  It's surprising you say he was "wrong and evil" now when you originally supported putting his OR in the articles (that was clearly against WP:WEIGHT, but I will assume good faith and that you aren't just being sarcastic.  Regardless, this article here can stand to be fleshed out since there are more than enough Googles that discuss the concept of a "Reality film" and with the advent of reality television (notice nobody calls it documentary television) making the leap to the big screen, is worthy of at the least a stub, as the genre continues to develop.  --David Shankbone 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the Jackass portion from the article because the three citations refer to Jackass Number Two as a documentary; the phrase "reality film" is not present in those references. The phrase "Some reality films, such as those spun off from the Jackass television series" needs a reliable sources that states explicitly that Jackass: The Movie and Jackass Number Two are each a "reality film." Also, I do not think that the reality film section in the reality television article was long enough to warrant it's own article. I wouldn't consider a student newspaper a reliable source, and the Evening Standard article doesn't use the phrase "reality film" -- the phrase "'reality' film" is used (with quotes around reality), and only in the headline. We need reliable sources that are ABOUT "reality film(s)", not just articles that use the phrase. --Pixelface 05:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your rewrite is supported by the sources, but it makes the article very anemic. Would you also support a redirect back to the subsection of reality television? Cool Hand Luke 06:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, we never put his "OR" into articles, but you've managed to categorize "Reality films" without even finding reliable sources that identify them. This article reaches conclusions not reached by the sources, which is actually OR. But at any rate, I think this is an absurd argument to still be having, and I really think that it would be better for wikipedia if me, you, THF, and anyone else involved in the original dispute agreed to leave this article and related disputes and let neutral parties from the Film Wikiproject handle it.Cool Hand Luke 07:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Mmmhmm. I should point out that a "no consensus" does not preclude a merge. Once the DRV is closed, we should just copy this material and move it back into the subsection of Reality TV, redirecting there.  Since it's a merge, the history would be retained here. Any additional trimming could then be fought over there. Edit wars are never helpful, but especially not when the page is under review. Cool Hand Luke 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any consensus for a merge at this point; since the topic is uncontroversial, there is no sense in warring over merges and give it some time to develop. It's already plenty sourced. --David Shankbone 04:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I count three editors on this talk page in favor of merge, and one opposed. The one editor who is actually a legitimate film contributer without any connection to the absurd Micheal Moore dispute favors a merge. But if you'd like to get broader comment, I'm fine with that. We are in full agreement that we shouldn't war over it. Cool Hand Luke 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you probably didn't realize I've been a member of WikiProject Films for awhile and have been active with the project for awhile.  --David Shankbone 04:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. It's just that you have "connection to the absurd Micheal Moore dispute." Cool Hand Luke 04:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rightn , but that really has no bearing on the discussion at this point - perhaps it's time to "let it go" and not edit as if everything that may come from that is forever tinged with attempts to have OR and WP:WEIGHT-violating articles spread into Wikipedia, and that this may flourish now outside of an unnotable documentary list.  Just a thought.  --David Shankbone 04:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have let it go. As THF did weeks ago when he closed his RFC with consensus to exclude. I for one would want this article deleted even if I had never heard of the dispute. It's a neologism, and the sources suck. There is no reliable coverage about the phenomena. In fact, there's hardly even any use of the word, and that usage is inconsistent. This is an OR and WEIGHT-violating article. But I realize that it's not convincing for me to say because of our history. That's why I find it significant that the one uninvolved party here agrees and wrote a beautiful analysis below. I think the DRV is meritless, but if pixelface had gotten involved earlier in the AfD I have no doubt it would have been deleted (note: please don't nominate it again. merging is probably the best solution anyway to preserve the history). I tend to think that neutral parties are more reliable judges. Cool Hand Luke 05:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not every article that comes from a dispute lacks merit; afterall, I'm sure you feel Ted Frank (businessman) is a splendid article dedicated to a very notable man.  Regardless, reasonable minds differ about the OR and weight-violating bit, as you saw from the AfD, but you're entitled to your WP:Crystal ball, even when used in a "what would have been..." scenario.  --David Shankbone 05:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: I found more sources calling it a documentary because the existing sources seemed somewhat unreliable.  I don't think a pol disparaging Michael Moore garners much credibility by labeling Jackass a movie. Remember how you wanted the equivalent of Roger Ebert calling it a documentary? I just added that source, but you deleted it in favor of Andrew Sullivan!
Of course, there are many more sources calling it a documentary than a "reality film", but only because the latter is a neologism. I agree that ordinary people see Jackass as very different from a documentary—I just wish that existing secondary sources were in the drivers seat. Cool Hand Luke 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: "Reality film" is a neologism which could have many different interpretations and I don't think the sources are non-trivial coverage of the genre/supposed genre. As far as I can tell, it's a slang term for films that come from reality TV shows and/or a gimmick created by New Line Cinema to promote The Real Cancun.
I'm still skeptical that this is an actual, notable film genre. What's the difference between a reality film and a documentary? We need to cite reliable sources that discuss the issue if this article is to be taken seriously. Some of the sources show people have USED the term "reality film", but it doesn't look like any of the sources contain in-depth coverage of the genre. Some critics say the term "reality TV" is a misnomer; what's reality film then? Is "reality film" a term used to describe a film that's LIKE a documentary, but is, ironically, LESS realistic?
I feel the article is poorly sourced. Three student newspapers are cited and I don't know if they qualify as reliable sources. The article by Faryl Ury is from a student newspaper at Harvard and uses the term "'reality' film" (note the quotes around the word reality): The creators of MTV’s The Real World and Road Rule auditioned 10,000 students from around the country, whittling 500 hours of film footage into a 90-minute feature film that could be the first of a new genre of movies—the “reality” film. Ury didn't say that The Real Cancun was a reality film, he/she said The Real Cancun *could* be the first of a new genre, and put quotes around the word reality. Another student newspaper that is cited, Pace Press, says Relity TV [sic] in the headline, and has an unknown author. Another student newspaper cited, The Daily Free Press, does not contain the term "reality film." Lindsay Hearne quotes the casting director for Bunim-Murray productions, Damon Furberg: "“This is the first time anyone has tried to take a reality concept to the theaters,” Furberg said. “Think of it as a reality version of a teen movie like American Pie.”" To turn that quote into the phrase "reality film" is synthesis. An applicant for The Real Cancun is quoted, "“Honestly, I didn’t even know it was a reality movie,” said Christos Magoufis, a theater arts major at University of Massachusetts Boston", but that is just *usage* of a related term. Joel Stein didn't call Jackass a reality film, he said Jackass proved there's an audience willing to pay money for something they can see for free on television (which has also been said about The Simpsons Movie). Stein said "a reality film is supercheap." That's a quotable usage of the term -- but his article is about The Real Cancun, not the genre as a whole. The full quote is "Like reality TV, a reality film is supercheap, and as Jackass proved, there's an audience willing to pay $9 for what it gets free on television." It's debatable whether Stein was calling Jackass a reality film or not. The Alexa Baracaia article says "reality" film in the headline (another instance of quotes around the word reality) and ""Andy Warhol's underground film is to blame for reality television," according to the Radio Times Guide to Film 2007, out today, a sentence more appropriate for the reality TV article. I thought the Tom Ryan article about the recent popularity of documentaries and filmmaker ethics was very interesting. He discusses cinema verite, non-fiction films, narrative documentaries, etc. The phrase "reality film" is in the title of the article (Reality film) but I don't think he's suggesting it's an actual genre. He talks of a surge of interest in documentaries and says spill-over from "reality TV" seems to be a factor. The term "reality film" is never used in the body of text, only in the headline. I don't think he's saying that "reality film" is a genre that encompasses all the movies he discusses, I think it's a play on words. The title of the article can be interpreted differently, but editors should not present their personal analysis of the article. The Brent Hallenbeck article uses the term in the headline ("Reality films rule"), but I don't think he was suggesting it's a new genre. The term "reality film" is used in the headline but never in the body of text, which is about documentaries. I haven't found the Gary Walker article online. I think the newspaper may be The Desert Sun; I've never heard of The Deseret Sun. There's a quote in the reference ("Not all 'reality' films are factual) and again, quotes are put around the word reality.
So far, the only references that contains the phrase "reality film" (without quotes around the word reality) in the text body is the article by Joel Stein. He said "reality films are supercheap." I don't think that one quote justifies the existence of this encyclopedia entry. There is not enough non-trivial coverage of the genre to warrant an article. We editors cannot introduce our own analysis or opinions or put unpublished arguments, statements or theories into articles.
I still don't know what a reality film *is* exactly. A film of reality? A film that attempts to document reality? Are those typically called documentaries? Is a reality film a film with no special effects in it? A film with no actors? A film that's realistic? Is it a documentary that contains bias or perhaps manipulation? Is it a movie that purports to be a documentary but is actually staged? A documenary that is less than genuine? A film that people watch and mistake for reality? A film that is unscripted? Films that contain no fabricated events? Films that do contain fabricated events? Films of people who don't know they're being filmed? Movies that contain improvisation? Films of people re-enacting events from their life AKA "playing themselves"? A film that contains reality? A film that contains representations of reality? Movies spun off from "reality TV" shows? Should those be called "reality TV films"? The article needs a clear definition. I don't think any of the sources contain a clear definition of "reality film." The term "documentary" existed before the term "reality TV" was coined. Many people disagree on what constitutes a "documentary" and I don't think this article helps clarify the issue. Perhaps a "reality film" is a movie that's LIKE a documentary, but it shows events that were staged. In The Story of the Weeping Camel, the nomads were asked to reconstruct events for the camera but the film is still classified as a documentary and was nominated for Best Documentary at the 77th Academy Awards. Since "reality film" is a neologism, different people will come up with different meanings for the term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
I know that the reality TV article has had a section Reality film for a while, but it looks as poor as this article. I do not think this topic has enough information to merit it's own article -- so it should be deleted. If this article is trimmed down to valid sources, I think the information could be merged into the reality TV article. I don't think the phrase "reality film" is common among the movie industry or among movie critics, but I welcome any sources that show it is. On another note, looking at IMDB, Reality Film appears to be a Hong Kong production company/distributor and Reality Films appears to be a Philippines distributor.
On the movie websites typically referred to on Wikipedia, the term "reality film" is not used when referring to the films that have been mentioned in the Wikipedia article.
On IMDB, Jackass: The Movie is classified as Action and Comedy. On Metacritic, Jackass: The Movie is classified as Comedy.. On Rotten Tomatoes, Jackass: The Movie is classified as Television. The synopsis on Rotten Tomatoes says "JACKASS: THE MOVIE is slapstick entertainment for the 21st Century, incorporating the modern world's fascination with reality television and obsession with disaster into a raucuous, electrifying spectacle." That sounds like marketing-speak to me. It mentions reality television but it doesn't say it's a reality film. On Box Office Mojo, Jackass: The Movie is classified as Comedy. On All Movie Guide, Jackass: The Movie has the category of Documentary and the Genres listed are Comedy, Bloopers & Candid Camera, and Extreme Sports.
Jackass Number Two is classified as Comedy and Documentary on IMDB. On Metacritic, Jackass Number Two is classified as Comedy. On Rotten Tomatoes, Jackass Number Two is classified as Comedy. On Box Office Mojo, Jackass Number Two is classified as Comedy. On All Movie Guide, Jackass Number Two has the category of Feature and Documentary and the Genre is Comedy, Extreme Sports, and Bloopers & Candid Camera.
The Real Cancun is classified as Documentary on IMDB. On Metacritic, The Real Cancun is classified as Documentary. On Metacritic, there is a blurb by New Line Cinema "It's fun and sexy, unscripted and uncensored. It's The Real Cancun, the world's first reality feature film. Produced by the creators of "The Real World" and "Road Rules," this film brings together 16 people for eight days in a beachfront Mexican villa for the ultimate Spring Break vacation." Was the term "reality film" coined by the marketing department for The Real Cancun? Was that the film's gimmick? I really don't think the New Line Cinema marketing department is a reliable source. On Rotten Tomatoes, The Real Cancun has the genres Television, Comedies, Drugs, Teenage, Documentary, Erotic, Reality-Based (TV), Theatrical Release, Sex, Teenage Fantasy Adventure, and Spring Break. The production notes on that page contain the sentence "With the rise of reality television, a reality feature film is the natural next phase in satisfying audiences' curiosity for what goes on behind closed doors." The author is unknown, but it sounds like ad-speak to me. On Box Office Mojo, The Real Cancun is classified as Documentary. On All Movie Guide, The Real Cancun has the category Documentary and the Genre of Culture & Society, Biography, and Holidays.
On IMDB, Chelsea Girls is classified as Drama. On Rotten Tomatoes, Chelsea Girls is classified as Drama. Chelsea Girls is not listed on Metacritic as of August 24, 2007. Chelsea Girls is not listed on Box Office Mojo as of August 24, 2007. On All Movie Guide, Chelsea Girls has the category Feature and the genres Avant-garde, Experimental, and Trash film. Roger Ebert gave the film one star in 1967 and said "The following persons play themselves:" and mentions improvisation.
Dirty Sanchez: The Movie is classified as Comedy on IMDB. On Metacritic, Dirty Sanchez: The Movie is not listed as of August 24, 2007. On Rotten Tomatoes, Dirty Sanchez: The Movie is classified as Comedy. On Box Office Mojo, Dirty Sanchez: The Movie is not listed as of August 24, 2007. On All Movie Guide, Dirty Sanchez: The Movie has the category Feature and the genres Comedy, Extreme Sports, Bloopers & Candid Camera.
What Do You Say to a Naked Lady? is classified as Comedy on IMDB with the keyword Candid Camera. On Metacritic, What Do You Say To A Naked Lady? is not listed as of August 24, 2007. On Rotten Tomatoes, What Do You Say To A Naked Lady? is classified as Comedy. On Box Office Mojo, What Do You Say To A Naked Lady? is not listed as of August 24, 2007. On All Movie Guide, What Do You Say To A Naked Lady? has the category Documentary and the Genres Culture & Society, Adult, Bloopers & Candid Camera, Adult Entertainment and mentions Cinéma Vérité. The review of the movie from TIME magazine in 1970 mentions the term "candid camera."
I can see how someone might call a film based on a reality TV show a "reality film." I'm not saying it's wrong for an editor to say that, but on Wikipedia, such a statment needs a citation from a reliable source. I think some topics that may be related to this one are: Documentary film, Kino-Pravda, Direct Cinema, Cinéma vérité, Gonzo, Gonzo journalism, and Mondo film. I think the best source in the article right now is the one by Tom Ryan but he doesn't mention The Real Cancun, the Jackass films, Chelsea Girls, Dirty Sanchez: The Movie, or What Do You Say to a Naked Lady?. I think Tom Ryan can be quoted in the reality TV article, but I think this particular article should be deleted. I also suggest that Category:Reality films be deleted as well. --Pixelface 12:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked up several of the supposed sources above. You'll notice that that few of these are even talking about the phenomena described in the main paragraph of this article. They are still mere usage of the term, and they are junk. If we included these, we would just be including discordant word usage in violation of WP:NEO. What we need is a reliable source that talks about the topic in general, not mere usage of the expression. Cool Hand Luke 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that those sources do not look applicable to this article -- unless someone is suggesting that this article be turned into a disambiguation page, listing all possible uses/meanings of the phrase. Frankly, I'm tired of researching a topic that was borne out of an argument over personal opinions. The fact that I'm on a wild goose chase looking for sources means that the article wasn't written from good sources to begin with. When a reliable source appears that uses the phrase "reality film is a genre" or "reality film is a new genre" or something along those lines and is an in-depth analysis of the genre (and how it's different than the documentary genre), then, and only then, do I think this article should exist. The mere existence of this article makes it likely that some blogger will read it, think it's a real genre, and other bloggers will paste it on their blogs and links will get submitted to aggregate sites and then some trendspotter for some magazine will write an article about it and suddenly you have a source -- all because a Wikipedia article was created about a neologism. --Pixelface 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Pixelface

message: #Pixelface: Joel Stein[4] didn't call Jackass a reality film, he said Jackass proved there's an audience willing to pay money for something they can see for free on television (which has also been said about The Simpsons Movie). Stein said "a reality film is supercheap." That's a quotable usage of the term -- but his article is about The Real Cancun, not the genre as a whole. The full quote is "Like reality TV, a reality film is supercheap, and as Jackass proved, there's an audience willing to pay $9 for what it gets free on television." It's debatable whether Stein was calling Jackass a reality film or not. 
*Response  Not really.  It seems your problem with the quote is that it doesn't say "a reality film is supercheap, and as Jackass, a reality film, proved, there's an audience willing to pay...."  In an article about The Real Cancun, talking about "reality films", it doesn't need to consistently say "Reality film" over and over again.  It's quite clear that he is talking about films that have sprung from reality television, and refers to them specifically as "reality films".  Your argument here falls flat.  It's only debateable because, as your edit warring, AfD, and RDV evidence, you don't like this article.  --David Shankbone 14:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are ascribing bad faith motivations for creating the article, and for keeping it.  Perhaps you shouldn't cast aspersions on long-standing editors and uphold guidelines and policies, instead of insulting.  On one hand, you assert, incorrectly, that this is all about opinions (when there is clear disagreement over that from the AfD and the RVD).  On the other hand, you assert your opinions.  Why don't you give this a break for a bit and allow time to discuss.  Your opinions aren't so clearly correct, in case you haven't noticed.  Lastly, I could care less what you think about why I do anything I do, because you haven't a clue: you don't know me, so don't talk as if you are an authority on anything that has to do with my thought process. --David Shankbone 15:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to Pixelfaces arguments

message: I think Pixelface hit on a good idea above. A disambiguation page would be more appropriate because the term has no clear dominant use. We could move the first paragraph of this article into a subheading of reality television, and also link to Documentary film and Television movie. Cool Hand Luke 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to work on the article and, once I've had an opportunity to do so, if you think it lacks merit then we can discuss.  --David Shankbone 15:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How much time do you want? Please be careful to avoid WP:SYN. Cool Hand Luke 15:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you come back in a month, which I think was one suggestion on the DRV.  --David Shankbone 15:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Please find reliable sources that discuss the phenomena rather than merely use the term. Cool Hand Luke 15:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation suggestion