Talk:Paranormal Activity 4

Critical failure?

Under Sequel, is this line "On October 21st, Paramount confirmed plans for a fifth film in the series, scheduled for October 2013, despite the fourth film being a critical failure" Is this really accurate? The movie made over 24X it's budget. Most people would consider that blockbuster material. While I agree it doesn't match the performance of the previous films, I think the person who added that statement has injected some POV. The cited source says nothing of the sort, not to mention the review was written a month prior to release. I will leave it as is for the moment and wait for some input before rewording that para. Coradon (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Removing that statement as I noticed it was simply vandalism. Coradon (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"critical failure" refers to how the critics didn't like it, a movie could still be a critical failure and have a good box office. Charlr6 (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Question about plot

IP 90.192.42.63 added "When the mother is taken into hospital for unknown reasons, Alice's parents take Robbie in as he has no relatives. From here, the strange happenings escalate into something beyond the family's control". Where did you (or anyone who knows about that) get that information from? As there isn't actually any sources for the plot at the moment, so I'm not going to take it away, but where did you find that information out? Charlr6 (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the information because it did not have a source. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 17:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Added the plot.

Hey Wikipedians,

I saw the film today and wrote and added the plot. I missed out something though which User:Hypnometal put in, which is good as I knew I forgot something so I thank you. Charlr6 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This recent expansion was absurdly long. WP:MOSFILM says a plot summary should be 400-700 words, but the summary here was more than 1,200 words. I have restored the earlier, succinct version. The plot can be expanded, but should not be a heavily-detailed, blow-by-blow description of every single thing that happened in the film. It must be within the length guidelines of MOSFILM. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I added plot back in. Shortened it a lot. But still just over top. Doesn't look much on the page though. I tried cutting everything out that isn't essential to the plot or progresses the story. If you "The Old Jacobite, can see what else should be cut. Then feel free to. But went over it three times cutting stuff out. If you want to I can cut other stuff out of you don't want to. Just let me know and I'll do it. Other editors will come along though and feel that mostly everything in the plot has to be mentioned.

Oh and its 735 words now. Hope that is ok. Hopefully it will be. But if you want it on 700 words then we can cut something out. See what is currently there which isn't 100% necessary. Charlr6 (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't say what should be cut and what shouldn't, as I have never seen it. But, 735 is better than it was. If you can, cut it down some more just through rewording. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Post-Credits Scene

After the end credits of the movie, the Paramount logo appears. And then it appears again and a teaser trailer for the latino Spin-Off comes on. When Captain America: The First Avenger came out, at the end of the movie, after the credits a teaser for The Avengers came on. That wasn't part of the movie, it was simply a trailer. Shown after the movie instead of before. And if you look around on Google, websites mention the Latino Spin-Off 'teaser' at the end of PA4. Teaser, as in teaser trailer. A few articles have said the word 'teaser trailer' but most say 'Teaser'. I have deleted mention of the post-credits scene and in the edit comment explained why, but people, who are mostly IP addresses add it in, but with no explanation to why it should be mentioned. If online, it wasn't mentioned that it was a teaser for the Latino spin-off, then yes it could be in the article as it would be about the film. But there is enough proof to show its a teaser for a the latino spin-off. So it would be better to be suited on the Paranormal Activity (film series) page under the latino spin-off part. Charlr6 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I left the message yesterday, it has been added in, which I have then deleted, and then added back in again. Each time I removed the Post-Credits scene I mentioned why it was removed in an edit comment, but people adding it back in are just putting it back in without any edit comment. I have added a hidden message on the edit page which can be seen by editors, but not on the actual article. Charlr6 (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The end credits tease shows a man in Mexico, he walks into a store and looks around. After realizing and claiming that the store also sells witchcraft, he heads to the exit. He runs into an old, blank-faced woman who immediately states that "it's only the beginning" before the man leaves the store. The tease shows no title screen, release date or credits. Draco9904 (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

When I saw it, the Paramount logo appeared for the end of the movie, and then appeared again quickly and the scene was shown. And multiple sources online have said that it is a teaser for the latino spin-off, if it was just part of the movie, articles wouldn't mention it. I remember when Cloverfield was released, there were teasers before a film which showed a scene, and then the only thing mentioned was a release date, sometimes before that, there wasn't even a release date, just the clip and then went onto the next trailer. But there have been articles online explaining that it is a teaser for the Latino spin-off. If it was an actual scene for the movie, then articles wouldn't mention the latino spin-off, and just discuss rumours what it would possibly mean. Just like how there were rumours about who was the person in the post-credits scene for The Avengers, who later was revealed to be Thanos. But they knew it was a scene in the movie, and not some spin-off that would focus just on Thanos for example. Charlr6 (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

The following sentence is in the Box-Office Section Paranormal Activity 4 did not perform as better as Paranormal Activity 2 or Paranormal Activity 3 as it debuts with $4.8 million in midnight showings Yeah, I'm pretty sure that isn't grammaticaly correct, but the article is semi-protected so I can't edit it. Can somebody else fix it ? Carlandthegrit (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Done JCgirlandlegal (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Jacob Degloshi/PA5

Has anyone else read into this? There's a man named Jacob Degloshi on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram and YouTube who has been posting different things- but interestingly, they seem to be for viral marketing for Paranormal Activity 5. Such as, he just moved into a new home in Henderson, Nevada- the same location of the events in Paranormal Activity 4. Also, he posted a picture on Twitter of his daughter Sarah with the caption "Sarah and her friend when they were younger." The girl in the picture with Sarah is Alex from Paranormal Activity 4. Also, a video he posted on his YouTube account shows a swimming pool at his new home that looks exactly like Kristi's pool in Paranormal Activity 2, as well as the rest of the house. And most recently, he posted on Twitter that him and Sarah were unpacking and found a videotape, and stated that neither of them knew where it came from. He later posted a picture of the videotape, and there is, very clearly, a torn sticker on it with the coven symbol (the triangle with a circle in it). It looks like viral marketing for the next film has already begun, and I think it should be included on Paranormal Activity 4's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.234.126 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean these... [1], [2], [3].

And this is definatley Alex [4]

It's quite interesting Charlr6 (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 October 2012

There is currently new viral marketing going on for what is believed to be for the next Paranormal Activity movie, in the form a man named Jacob Degloshi. He is on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram, and he has been posting hints towards the next film each day, such as pictures of a mysterious tape that was found while unpacking which has a sticker with the coven symbol on it, as well as an older picture of his daughter Sarah with Alex from Paranormal Activity 4. It would be good information to have on the Paranormal Activity 4 page, as it is leading up to the next installment in the series. 173.14.234.126 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done. See WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Plot Clarification Advice?

I only know the PA films from reading about them. And in this article's plot section, I found it very difficult to understand who Robbie and Wyatt are. I did some internet searches and found that this confusion is, evidently, common among audiences and an acknowledged aspect of the film. After reading this interview [5], which I believe is a valid source, I would like to add the following to the article: "Wyatt is Hunter, while Robbie is a messenger for the coven. The circumstances of Hunter's adoption by the Nelsons are not explained." But I'm not sure of the best way to include it. Since the article has no "analysis" section or similar, my inclination at this point is to add these sentences as a footnote after the quoted line, "I'm not Hunter!". Does that seem acceptable? Or might there be a more organic way to include this information directly in the plot text? Again, I haven't seen the film, so I don't know if the actual film lays things out any clearer than the existing description. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)