Talk:Chronicle (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similarities to earlier telekinesis movies[edit]

Perhaps there will be a reference news article, interview, or review someday that will allow any Wiki editor so inclined to add a new section to the Chronicle article that points out the similarities to earlier TK-related movies. It's possible that these are intentional tip-of-the-hat tributes and not just unoriginal filmmkaing. I noticed the following six similarities. Add yours to the list. 5Q5 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found footage[edit]

The lede claims the film is presented as a found footage film but this isn't true. It's filmed via non professional means but this is a style. The footage is not presented as a bunch of tape found by someone after the fact, certainly noone found the camera from the last part. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 'found footage' films don't literally always have to mean "movies that have been filmed where the footage has been found" it's the genre. It refers to any movie filmed in "hand-held". And just The director of the film has even said it is see here, here, and here
But just because at the beginning of the film, it doesn't say "this footage was found at this location" then it doesn't mean it's not a hand-held genre film. Hand-held is a genre now, not a style.
And found footage doesn't JUST mean "movies that have been filmed where the footage has been found" like I said, they don't JUST have to be viewed as things that have already happened. For example the television show 24 shows what is happening at the very moment (the different times doesn't matter) because of the real time. And the same can be said about found footage films, we could be viewing it as it happens but it only cuts to the next important stuff.
Found footage is ANY film, filmed with a hand-held camera and presented to obviously be filmed that way. Charlr6 (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Found footage (pseudo-documentary), its where "all or a substantial part of a film is presented as discovered film or video recordings, often left behind by missing or dead protagonists". None of the film is presented as that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to a Wikipedia page where it got its information by an article that is just actually an article, not a dictionary definition. I could write an article myself and then someone could reference it as if my article was absolute fact. It says 'often left behind', not 'always left behind'. So this time it's the part that isn't 'often'. The director of the film calls it found-footage, do you really want to argue with the director of the movie about his own movie? Charlr6 (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Found footage" leads the assumption that the footage (whether real life footage or manufactured) was found. When I read the article it made me believe that it was found later, ala The Blair Witch Project - It wasn't until seeing this discussion that I was informed that isn't the case. A first person video diary is just that, a video diary. If someone else finds that footage, of course it could be found footage as well. If it isn't ever stated as found, under what logic is it found footage? A director can claim something about their movie as much as they want, it doesn't mean it's true. --96.237.112.153 (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a genre though for "found footage" films that haven't been credited as being for example, "found on 14th May 2005 and now released to the public". Not all romantic films are full on romance, but they still would get put into the romance category. Found footage is the genre of any movie filmed via "hand held camera", do you want to create a genre called "Hand-Held" referring to the hand held camera. "The Silent House" is hand-held styled, but it is still in the 'found footage' genre. And actually, when a director says something about their movie, you can't go and say it's not true unless you are personally the director of the film whose changed their mind. What if Chronicle was more credited as a 'Documentary-styled film', would that be more expectable? Or Mockumentary as they are fictional documentaries. Even though documentaries don't go out of hand and turn into something trying to save their lives from being killed, found-footage do though. But that be more acceptable for this film? A "documentary-styled film"?Charlr6 (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hand held is a stylistic element, as is single take filming. A video diary can be a documentary. Horror is a genre, romance is a genre. Shaky camera/found footage is not a genre, although found footage carries thematic connotations that other presentations of film do not. A director can claim anything he wants about his film, but that doesn't give him an "artistic license" to false information. If a director insisted that his film was animation when it's clearly filmed, does it make it true? No, it makes him a jackass. Diluting the meaning of different techniques and stylizations does not make the new definitions true. --96.237.112.153 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Shaky camera/found footage is now a genre because of how many films are being made in the style, its been reported. But your comment about a director saying his film is animated when it clearly isn't is silly, because Chronicle is shaky camera/found footage and the director of the film said so. And you can't make a comment saying that the director of his own movie is false with what he is saying. And you can change techniques and stylisations to make a new genre, for example Space Western, the science fiction genre and western genre added together (Firefly), drama and comedy mixed together to make dramady (Scrubs). Charlr6 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's neither Shaky Cam (it's remarkably steady) nor is it found. It's presented through non-traditional means and found footage is an easy comparison because of style, but it isn't found footage and as the user says, it is misleading because it makes people reading the article believe that the film is presented that way, as something pieced together after the fact like all actual found footage films like Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity, and the DEvil Inside, and that is not what the film is. The visual style certainly needs describing, but the line that says "presented as found footage" must be removed as it is misleading. I would suggest perhaps "The film is visually presented from the perspective of various recording devices used by, or observing, the characters such as phones and security cameras. The story is primarily shown from the perspective of a camcorder used by Andrew to record events in his life." Something like that, perhaps not so long or wordy. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could be presented like that, or like you said not long and wordy so maybe "The film is presented visually as footage from various video recording devices, mainly from Andrew's hand-held camcorder to record events in his life." Charlr6 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is silly. There is no concrete defintion of what constitutes "found footage". Chronicle has been called "found footage" by innumerable media outlets. It has been described as the "first found footage superhero movie" loads of times. Just because there is no indication on screen as to how the footage was "found" doesn't mean it isn't found footage; after all, you are watching it, so it was found at some point. Serendipodous 13:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And like I said and now you have said too, there doesn't need to be an indication on screen that the footage has to be found. The director and like you have said media outlets have called it a found-footage film. Charlr6 (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
err no Senrendipodous, a key component of Found Footage is in the title, it's found, it's presented as found footage of a real event (see every found footage film ever). Calling this film Found Footage is an easy way to describe teh filming style instead of each reviewer saying "It is filmed by a hand held camera and then a cell phone and then this other thing", but it isn't a found footage film. It fails the basic necessity of being found or presented as found or even marketed as found footage. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're engaging in original research. It's not our job to define what is found footage and what is not. If sources describe a movie as found footage, it is found footage. Unless we can find a source that agrees with your point of view, then your point of view doesn't matter. Serendipodous 16:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If sources described it as porn, we'd call it porn? It fails to meet the definition of a found footage film, that isn't original research it's basic common sense. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a large plurality of sources described it as porn, yes. You may not agree that it is porn, but if the majority agree, then you have to back down. "Common sense" does not exist on Wikipedia. We only report what sources say, we don't make judgements on those sources. Serendipodous 16:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If sources called this film porn, we would call it a pornographic film. Sources are calling it found-footage, so it has to be found-footage.
The TV show Alias is a Spy-Fi show, BUT because the show started adding aspects of VERY VERY mild science fiction, its still more of a Spy-Fi Drama Action show, but that doesn't change the fact that there is Sci-Fi in it, even if it is VERY mild. Just because this film doesn't say "This footage was stolen by an unnamed man working in the DoD and has released it public" doesn't make it not be a found-footage film. Charlr6 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure there's a saying about the majority rewriting history. If the majority say the sun is blue, when it clearly isn't, we don't just start calling it blue, we question it. The majority render gay marriage illegal but people don't just accept that. People take things from IMDb as actual information but it is almost always inevitably proven wrong. Calling this Found Footage is an easy way to describe the visual effect but it clearly is failing the basic premise of being found. Being presented as filmed by the main character doesn't make it found its just a style. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're obviously not familiar with Wikipedia's guiding principles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a forum for the exchange of new ideas. If you want to do that, start a blog, join an activist website, in fact, go pretty much anywhere else on the internet. Wikipedia's job is to report, not to prescribe. If enough people hold a dissenting view, then that view would be notable enough for inclusion. As of right now, enough people believe the sun is yellow for those who believe it is blue not to merit mention on the Sun's main article. That could change. If it does, we'll be right behind it. Behind though, not in front. Serendipodous 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the problem remains that it doesn't actually meet the necessity of being a found footage movie. Being neither found nor presented as such, nor portrayed as a real event. It fails to meet any standard of found footage beyond being filmed in a non traditional way. So should we call it a documentary film? They're using it as a descriptor, they can call it found footage, blue, porn, or whatever they want, doesn't mean its an accurate use of the term. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are judging this movie based on your own interpretation of what a found footage movie should be. It's a bit like denying use of the term "over the top" unless it applied only to jumping out of WW1 trenches. Words and terms change and expand their meanings all the time. Find a source that agrees that "Chronicle" is not found footage and it can go in. Otherwise, stop. Serendipodous 18:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it a 'documentary film'? That is unsuitable as the film has an obvious style towards 'found footage'. The film "Submarine" is classed as a coming of age comedy drama film, but I personally find it to be more of a coming of age drama film, but I don't say that it doesn't meet the criteria of a comedy just because it doesn't feature tons of witty jokes and smart humour, which is the basic definition of a comedy film, to make people laugh. Just because Chronicle doesn't fit the EXACT criteria of found footage doesn't mean it isn't a found-footage film. Charlr6 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actor credit[edit]

Should a page be made for Alex Russell? Brauden (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 14 February 2012[edit]

In the very bottom of the article, it says the movie has made 36,000,000 when it has actually made 39,959,856 dollars.

24.251.207.137 (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It's made a lot more than that but I've updated it anyway.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing. This movie has only recently opened and already it has a Wikipedia entry to rivals some of the greatest films ever bad. Obviously, some people have FAR too much time on their hands. And then there is the slight fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference cite, not a fan site. Like all trendy SyFy movies, this entry has been captured by fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.96.131 (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 20 February 2012[edit]

Under the production section, please add that: 'Chronicle was shot in Cape Town with Film Afrika Worldwide, as well in Vancouver, Canada.' For references, you can check out http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706593/locations or http://www.filmcontact.com/south-africa/cape-town-stars-location-us-box-office-smash-hits. Thanks. Kevin Likes (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I left out the IMDB reference. IMDB, like Wikipedia, cannot be used as a reference since it is user editted. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filming dates for Chronicle[edit]

For some nerdy reason, I always love knowing when production actually begins and ends on a film and it was killing me that I couldn't find anything on Chronicle...until now. According to this article, Chronicle began filming in May 2011 and wrapped after about eighteen weeks which suggests filming ended in August 2011. I think it would be nice to stick it into the article as I believe this movie deserves more information to be spread about it. --Travy1991 (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's great. It's relevant to the production. You can add it in if you want, if not then I'll add it in. Good job for finding it. Your nerdiness was helpful. Charlr6 (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page is locked for me so I can't edit it. Could you please add it in? Many thanks. --87.198.116.106 (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Budget[edit]

The page says the budget of the movie was 15 million, however on Box Office Mojo [1] it says the budget is 12 Million. Unsure whether to fix it up or not. --Mjs1991 (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explanation for where BOM got that figure and they generally will show a budget after tax breaks have been removed, where we normally include the total budget that was set aside for the film, even if they got a rebate. At the moment I'm more inclined to trust The LA Times than BOM on that figure unless other reliable sources show up. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akira similarities[edit]

I think it should be noted somewhere in the article that some of the scenes are taken almost verbatim from the 1988 Japanese animation "Akira". In particular (spoilers:) the main character violently escaping from a hospital, and the shattering glass near the end of the film are very curious with respect to similar scenes in Akira. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.242.49.161 (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot (Ashley Hinshaw as Casey Letter)[edit]

Nothing is written about Casey Letter (played by Ashley Hinshaw) in the plot section. Zheek (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a plot word limit which it is already exceeding and ultimately she is not important whatsoever, nothing needs to be said about her to understand any other part of the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music?[edit]

Chronicle had no score. The Infobox said Music by Terry Wilson, but Wilson was credited as a music editor, not a composer. Should this information be removed (or altered to reflect the fact that Wilson wrote no music for this film)? -Rmaynardjr (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronicle_(film)&oldid=1206684625"