Talk:Oculus (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Enough sources?[edit]

Given that this film is coming out soon, there should be enough sources for a article on it? The redirect to the lead actor's page was made back in May, but it's out in the US in April and there must be sources from its showings at film festivals. 69.218.136.25 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities to "The Boogeyman (1980)"[edit]

There is a tendency from one particular Wiki user to try and deny the very obvious plot similarities to the 1980 film, even if properly referenced. I hereby invite him to discuss this in a civil manner rather than engage in a futile struggle of editions.

And could you please define what a "trivial" reference is, and why one of them is so according to you?

Also could this wiki user explain why he considers "Shock Till You Drop" or "Film School Rejects" non-trivial and reliable, unlike the sites referenced by me. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the film, so I am not attempting to deny anything. It just looks like original research. Of your cited sources the only one that is reliable is Complex and they only compare the glass shards to The Boogeyman, not the entire film. Shock Till You Drop or Film School Rejects were not cited for the content additions, just a couple low level blogs. STATic message me! 00:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the reason why Shock Till You Drop or Film School Rejects were cited, the fact of the matter is they are cited with verbatim sentences which are in and of themselves added content--they even make asseverations on the quality of acting or how weak the film gets or how it cheats the audience.

And since reliability and originality should be, in good faith, separate discussions, I don't see why the four sources cited by me are unreliable according to the link you wrote. The Toronto International Film Festival website is as reliable as the two low level blogs you seem to be OK with.

And finally, I believe you're making a guileful, if rather inept use of the concept of "original research". I challenge you to find me reliable sources stating that 3*16=48. If possible, making such fact the center of the article or a relevant part thereof. Same here, with the additional fact that it is the producers and distributors who decide a relevant part of the critics' response to a film--and this is not conspiracy theory, this is basic market dynamics. The plot for Oculus contains the same relevant points as the one for The Boogeyman:

* two siblings witness the death of their parents/mother's boyfriend at the hands of one of them, and the whole scene is preternaturally captured by a mirror

* this happens after one of the siblings had been chained/tied up in their bedroom by the victims, then freed by the other sibling

* years later the murderous sibling (in both cases the brother) is still psychologically scarred by the event

* and murders and unnatural phenomena arising from the ghost-catching mirror and its shards ensue.

Do I need sources to see a pattern? This is like calling the film a "horror film" without a source. Would you refrain from calling it so even if no source did? Would it be "original research"? Come on.

Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again Shock Till You Drop or Film School Rejects were not cited. I was not okay with the two low level blogs, you are turning everything I said around. Please see WP:OR, it is a policy and you must follow it if you want to edit here. Yes you do need reliable sources per WP:V and WP:NOR. 18:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Even more similarities (and more convincing ones, at that) are to be found in comparing this film with From Beyond the Grave (Amicus, 1974), an anthology film based on four of the works of Ronald Chetwynd-Hayes: the story The Gatecrasher bears numerous resemblances to Oculus, both superficial and more substantial.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack section[edit]

I have not seen a WP guideline regarding soundtrack listings; is there one? Considering the length of the soundtrack section, and that the soundtrack basically consists of film score, I was curious if track listings can be set to be collapsible. — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, per MOS:FILM, the tracklist shouldn't even be here. People seem to enjoy that trivia, though, so I usually leave it alone. But, yes, I always collapse these kinds of overly detailed minutiae whenever I find them. Feel free to remove the tracklist if you want. If someone reverts you, point them to the aforementioned MOS page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]