MovieChat Forums > Catfish (2010) Discussion > Don't embarrass yourself by saying this ...

Don't embarrass yourself by saying this is real... More PROOF.

posted 14 years ago by Breakout_Hitter
84 replies | jump to latest

1. When they go to the beach, there are numerous shots taken with an underwater camera. Fairly specialized theatrical equipment not typically found in a doc filmakers gear, unless you happen to Jaque Cousteau. In this case, our New York DANCE filmakers travel from NY to Vail to the midwest, so why would they have underwater gear handy? Seriously?

2. Funding provided by Ryan Kavenaugh's (RK) Relativity Media. They have funded 108 films including this one. ALL 107 of the others are scripted FICTION entertainment. So its just a coincidence that RK decided to take a chance and fund a story that didn't exist? If you know Ryan and how Relativity works you would know they would NOT do anything that isn't guaranteed to get their money back, which would be impssible in the "lets see if there is a story here..." approach they say they took.
3. Exec producer Brent Rattner??? He has NEVER been within 50 miles of a doc. This is the guy who DIRECTED Rush Hour and X-men for god's sake. What could he possibly bring to this project??? One answer only, STORY guidance.

FAKE, FAKE, FAKE. Period.

Which is not to say its not without any value at all, but lets be real its actually VERY mediocre as far as the FAKE genre goes and the story is just a fleshing out of the internet dating cliche.

[–] Breakout_Hitter 14 years ago

I know some people "want to believe" but seriously, this is just well done MTV style scripted reality.

[–] dontbelievethehype-2 14 years ago

it's not even close to being real.

The whole "we started documenting Nev's friendship with eight year old Abby" is *beep*

[–] brian-tipton 13 years ago

Umm... wtf? "want to believe"? It's a documentary. Several dozen good ones are made every year. Why would someone take the time to put together something as mundane and borderline exploitive of the handicapped as this, as a work of fiction? The story isn't THAT compelling, in fact, it's basically the same as Tallhotblond, an extremely similar documentary that is absolutely real.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to doubt the credibility of this film. You people needs hobbies... err.. other hobbies.

[–] lukn4frnz 12 years ago

Doubted it's credibility when they meet Angela, she was way too relaxed with the camera in her face.

If you knock on my door, and there's a guy holdling a camera filming me and my home, I'm going to be bringing that up in conversation right off! She didn't, just glanced at it and said nothing about it.

[–] sosa1412 12 years ago

I'm not sure if this is real or not, but to your point..

She was an obvious attention whore, and knew that they were filmmakers, making a documentary about her daughter to begin with. Why would she be surprised?

[–] ManicMuse 14 years ago

1- my personal hd underwater video camera cost me less than 300 bucks and fits in my pocket. it's a 2 second shot not blue lagoon or waterworld.

2&3- I'm fairly certain that producers usually put their names on projects that are already made or at least well into the process. I'm also curious about the points in the story that were reminiscent of Rush Hour and X-men.

not convinced. your explanation doesn't explain how they found and hired angela & her family. or the stellar acting job by nev (who deserves a best actor oscar nomination if it's fake... seriously).

nope, not convinced it's fake. And If it's mediocre as far as the 'fake genre' goes, what's the last movie that you had to post about multiple times on imdb in order to convince people that it's obviously not real?

"WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW, huh?! WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW!"

[–] sharad-3 14 years ago

Also, people like the film distributor and Brett Ratner likely funded the distribution of the film and reformatting it for pro exibition after seeing it at a festival. I have a few friends that have had independent movies they made later be bought for distribution, and that's when the sound and color and a pro transfer is made, and some big names are also added on to the credits along with a new logo at the beginning. I'm not saying I know this is for real or not, but the names like Brett Ratner are not proof it's not.

[–] Breakout_Hitter 14 years ago

So a Dance doc specialist from NYC just happened to have an underwater camera handy? Hey we're going to Vail and you can never have too much luggage. Better bring the underwater camera, just in case. Ya, that's likely.

I don't have time to debate, but appreciate your thoughts. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[–] ManicMuse 14 years ago

i carry my underwater camera DAILY in my bag. i am not even around water most of the time. that's reality, not sarcasm folks.

you guys looking for "proof" that it is fake are trying waaay to hard and are coming up with nothing really convincing. i guess we all need something to do.

"WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW, huh?! WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW!"

[–] Breakout_Hitter 14 years ago

So let me get this straight.

You carry an underwater camera with you daily because:
1. you bought a camera that just happened to be underwater capable. Or;
2. you carry a regular camera in your bag but ALWAYS carry a 2nd underwater capable camera daily, just in case an interesting underwater filming opportunity arises.

If its the first one, your example is kind of a weak defense, if its number 2, you are kinda weird. I don't care if you believe or not, its cool.

BTW, did you like The X-Files? Those were all true too.

[–] ManicMuse 14 years ago

as far as i know, cameras that work underwater don't stop working when the hit dry land. obviously it's #2. If you even have a hobby as a photographer or filmmaker you are very likely to carry a camera on you at all times. A lot of Youtube's success is based on exactly that. If those guys consider themselves filmmakers by trade they would probably always carry more than one camera (expecially if they are small like the ones shown in the film). being "weird" is relative.

maybe you've watched one x-files episode too many. some things are what they seem.

"WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW, huh?! WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW!"

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brian-tipton 13 years ago

I'm a photographer myself, and I know several other cinematographers/cameramen that have an underwater kit that accompanies them whenever they're shooting anywhere.

[–] liseylovely 13 years ago

They're probably carrying around an underwater camera because THEY'RE FILMING A FU*KING DOCUMENTARY. Filmmakers tend to have more than 1 camera, especially when they're in the midst of shooting a documentary. Underwater cameras are not some super expensive futuristic technology that only NASA has access to. Didn't polaroid come out with an underwater camera at some point? Are you one of the twin brothers from the movie?

[–] LennyneroAU 12 years ago

The film makers were clearly acting, that is clear to anyone with a brain and common sense, but the lying family seemed genuine, especially Angela, she did not seem to be acting, so i think it was a contrived but real doco.

[–] fookhar 14 years ago

If you don't have time to debate, then don't post a thread on a DISCUSSION board with supposed proof.

[–] shoupart 12 years ago

There's plenty of amphibious cameras out there that are water-resistant to shallow depths (less than 10 feet). Olympus makes some, Sea & Sea, etc. AND they can shoot video. Even a small underwater housing, like the ones made by Canon for their cameras, is like $200-ish and not a big bulky thing that would be taken to pack.

Moreso, these housings are very useful in nasty weather... say, Vail, if you want to shoot shots around the snow or rain.

These guys are film geeks- these are the sort of people who love camera toys and are always filming. It doesn't feel out of character for them to be shooting on a consumer-grade compact camera that can do video, that's always mildly waterproof.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bsharporflat 14 years ago

Then why did you waste your time posting on the net about this movie? You don't know if it is fake or real. You pretend you are sure because you want people on the internet to respect you and look up to you and admire your deep-seeing wisdom.

Is your real name Angela, by chance?

[–] Breakout_Hitter 14 years ago

Bwaaaahaaaahaaaa!

Next time break the Prozac in half!

[–] TS15210 14 years ago

They reshot some of it, to be sure, prolly the underwater shots were an afterthought, and probably when they discovered how she was faking songs was not done at the time of the filming, so what. It's a great story.

[–] trippycheez 14 years ago

None of your "proof" is actually proof. The film was likely made with no (or very little) outside funding, then picked up by Universal for distribution. At that point the producers got on board to provide funding for marketing, post-production, etc.

Underwater cameras actually aren't that big of a deal. The filmakers probably have standard gear which they bring everywhere for their shoots, including a mini-camera which could work under water. (Like this one: http://www.buy.com/prod/sanyo-dual-camera-xacti-wh1-720p-hd-underwater-camcorder-30x-optical/q/loc/111/210790651.html)

The only thing which (to me) seemed a little fake was Nev's lack of suspicion at the very beginning. The mom's and Megan's voices sounded almost exactly alike. Plus, who is buying an 8-yr-old's paintings for $7,000? And how does the mom look so young if she has a 19-yr-old daughter? (She and "Megan" looked like they were almost the same age.) A whole family of rich, prodigy artists like these could not exist outside a Wes Anderson film. I wondered if they edited out some of Nev's suspicions to make a better story. But that doesn't mean what we're seeing isn't real footage, taken spontaneously. I don't find it hard to believe that a frustrated person with a sad life decided to invent a fantasy world online, and that someone else got duped it, at least for a little while.

[–] Holy-Fire 13 years ago

Just want to shed some light on the naivety of Nev at the beginning. As most internet fantasies go many people want to believe, sometimes even know they are fake. Or, he could just be a really big opportunist and went along with it. They could have even fished around for someone like Angela for a while, which is why at times people think it's fake because I think the filmmakers chased the story (quite literally too).
And perhaps lucked out that it unravelled the way it did.

The other shots; like the underwater shots? when filming documentaries, you have cut-away shots e.g. prison documentaries; you might get a cut-away of bars, the entrance, etc. It's plausible that it was always planned to do the underwater shots; it's plausible that being filmmakers they experiment with underwater shots separately and added them to the movie. As I know filmmakers and photographers are always experimenting!

Fake, or not. Nothing inside them 94 minutes should trouble you or the life you lead.
It's not the Kennedy assassination.

[–] EddieAdamsFromTorrance 14 years ago

My mom knows them, it IS real.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Breakout_Hitter 14 years ago

Bwaaaahaaaahaaaaa.

[–] daveygravy 13 years ago

Hahaha amazing post!!

[–] TheBrownBunny66 14 years ago

The underwater photography looked crap, which means it was shot on the little stills camera, which is probably waterproof. They show the bloody camera in the film and its water resistant.

As for Brett Ratner getting an exec producer credit. It simply means he signed on for either post or more likely marketting and distribution. Tarantino does it all the time for small asian cinema films after they've been made.

Your points are moot.

If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? That's his first mistake. That and the talking snake

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Breakout_Hitter 14 years ago

Can't be bothered with insignificant BS. You act like your expert on photography but clearly know nothing about doing blowups/prints for theatrical release. As I said many times, I could be wrong, but not likely. Candidly, I don't care if you believe in the Wizard of Oz. Enjoy.

[–] brian-tipton 13 years ago

It's the kind of name that would belong to a loser hanging out on IMDB trying to disprove that documentaries are real. I think that's less believable than the validity of the film in question.