Talk:The Fourth Kind

physics

I study physics at a major university. There is a reason why the science community wants to dispell any claim of alien encounter to our solar system, let alone earth. For intelligent life to reach our solar system would require travel at light spead and god forbid that technology be tangible. Galileo all over again. When science begins to close it's eyes to creative analysis our world is in some trouble.

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.204.123 (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Just because you studied physics doesn't mean you can shut down the possibility of some ancient civilization light years away that could have discovered technology far beyond our wildest imaginations. I'm not trying to be an asset all I'm saying is literally it is far more logical than to think that our intelligence is the set bar. I fully believe this movie is just trying to put some proof out there. Scary and movie in a phycolog8cal kind of way 8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.173.9 (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Time slows down at near-light speeds, so interstellar flight might only take a few minutes for those on board, even if centuries passed back on their home base. It's called Einstein's "Twin Paradox", and it makes me suspect that the original commenter hadn't got very far in physics when he/she wrote that erroneous opinion.77Mike77 (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

plot?

there is no plot section, like other pages on movies. Btw it should clearly state that this movie is dumb

RMC- I suggest that this page butwholwence to the Ancient Astronaut theory. Wile the movie is fictional, the ancient depictions of rockets and persons in space suits however, are real artifacts from Sumerian sites. Wikipedia has a responsibility to itself and the readers to be informative that there are factual elements in this film. Though the content of these artifacts are disputed, there are those who do see them as described above and in the film. So a reference or a link to something about the ancient astronaut theory or Zecharia Sitchin's interpretations of these artifacts should be contained within this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.183.124 (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A little neutrality here?

Is it possible that you can at least TRY to remain neutral in your "analysis"? Although I completely agree with your points, and unless I'm mistaken, there is still a degree of neutrality that should be maintained here.

SPOILERS

For the record, I completely stopped believing the movie when they hypnotized Dr. Tyler to recount the events of her abduction that took place three days before her daughter was abducted, yet she was acting as if the aliens had already taken her daughter (which by the time of the hypnosis they had, but not by the time of the events she was hypnotized to recall), even going as far as to scream things along the lines of 'I just want my daughter back. You took her from me.' Darth Zantetsuken (Grovel/Beg/Praise) 13:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's because she's not hypnotized there. She's actually talking to the alien but it's using her as a vessel to talk through. She's talking to herself really. I felt I need to clear that up even if the movie was not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.16.204 (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Can there be a prominent statement that this movie is fictional?

The cited Anchorage investigation blows this movie out of the water. Why the weak language in the article? From reading this entry I got the impression that there was a substantial probability that this movie depicted real events. The cited sources make it clear that it is 100% fictional. Please, please, please don't let Wikipedia become a place for guerrilla marketing. First paragraph should state that this movie is not based on actual events, in direct contradiction to the claims of the advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.182.224.155 (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont' agree

This would make the movie boring for someone who has read the article in Wikipedia before watching it.

200.140.231.27 (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why in Gods name would you read a Wiki article on a movie before watching? - Gunnanmon (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with those who don't agree

(i.e. PLEASE MARK THIS AS BEING FAKE, ASAP) I read this article because I wanted to know if the movie was based on any actual facts, after getting the scoop from my parents who were actually genuinely convinced by the "clouded/fictional non-fiction" marketing of this film. In any event, it should be wiki's duty to provide truthful information about the VALIDITY of the information purported by this film, even we don't immediately delve into the examination of the claims until a section deeper in the page. Add to that, I'm sitting in a dark room... and I read through the whole plot before I got to the part about truthfulness! (So PLEASE, someone put a light kind of *although the <makers of the film/company> claim that the film is based on true events, not one of the claims were ever validated/signed as being true. See _____ for details.*.

I can see how this is kind of a gray area because some people aren't interested in having the "this might be real" experience ruined for them... but I HIGHLY doubt someone who isn't genuinely interested in everything true of this movie, would actually GO to a wiki page! (be it plot, characters, production, or manufacturing, or just lies). It's only right that we try to put a nail in this controversy asap, with a clean non-biased statement right at the beginning of the article. 72.38.42.65 (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-verifiable content

There are ads out there right now that I feel clearly show the advertisers involved with the film haveing a extreme emphasis on the case studies. " The Fourth Kind. Based On Case Studies. In theaters Nov. 4. Click here to watch trailer.".

So.. given this clear motive an argument for a viral marketing campaign seems sound.. given THAT motive the activies on peer edited sites or blogs is just as clear. propaganda... im tired of people expecting us to be dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.231.88 (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone posted the movie's story plot on here! I'm a fan of the movie and I feel like this takes away from the movie by posting spoiler content. Moderators need to keep a close eye out on this page, there seems to be alot of non-believer haters writing very BIASED comments on the page that are NOT verifiable. (E.A. 16:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

I think the wikipost needs to be re-edited since there is no proof of viral marketing by the producers. Did anyone try to contact the producer? The article seems REALLY BIASED, written in an accusatory manner by people who think the movie is all viral marketing. The movie claimed to be "dramatization" of real events, and forums have controversial discussions about the truth of this movie, many of which support the validity of the movie. The movie claims to be based on a combination of case studies, not based on specific missing persons from Nome. And how is the location of where it is filmed an important matter or viral marketing? The producers admitted to not filming in Nome because of harsh weather conditions so it makes sense that they would choose a different location. E.A. 18:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find any actual events this creative work is based upon. I think the claim may be a Blair Witch Project-style Guerrilla Marketing campaign. Abe Froman (talk)

Just a thought, since the name of this movie is "Fourth Kind" as a reference to the classifications set forth by UFO researchers, could the "case studies" actually just be any of a number of UFO stories. In other words, the case studies might not be a "medical case studies". It would be very misleading, but it would give the movie studio an excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PuckSR (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I've changed the wording. Nevertheless, to call it a hoax, without any external sources to back this up, would constitute original research. As it is, the "based on actual events" thing is simply a claim made by the movie makers, and isn't anything we need to take a position on. Lampman (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I've added an external - reasonably reliable - source that comments on the story's alleged veracity. Lampman (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would think that any information garnered from Dermot Cole's blog at the newsminer.com could not be used in this page. He does nothing but list content from other sources (namely the movie synopsis and a list of "sightings" taken from the movie's promotional site), and follow it up with one or two lines of wild speculations that do not actually add anything to the argument. He lacks citations and credibility. Ageotas (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is obviously being tended by a Guerilla Marketer for the movie. The sources cited are media tie-in's to the movie. No Reliable Sources claim anything like what this astroturf does. I added the hoax tag as a result. Abe Froman (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I searched for Dr Abigail Tyler in the Alaskan database of professional licenses. If she exists, she is not licensed to practice medicine in Alaska. This leads me to believe the backstory attributed to her is a hoax. Abe Froman (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is not a hoax; see IMDb. If there are inaccurate elements in the article, feel free to remove them, and explain your removal(s) in your edit summary and on this talk page. The hoax tag does not apply to this article because this article is not a hoax. If there is questionable content in the article, {{Disputed}} or {{Disputed-section}} would be the correct template to use on the article. Finally, if you doubt this film's notability per Wikipedia:Notability (films), feel free to nominate it for deletion. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

He's referring to the back story about the purported Dr. Tyler, not the article itself. --YRG (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with user Abe above. Whoever is linking to websites that claim to have evidence supporting the real-world existence of Dr. Abigail, is linking to websites which do not support the assertion. While the hoax tag may not be accurate (since the article is about an actual movie, which does exist) the text of the article should be monitored so that statements of "facts" can be denoted as "claims" where necessary.

I've added details about the article from the the "rural alaska blog." The sentence that had preceded the reference footnote had made it seem like the article it referenced was neutral; I changed the word "addresses" to the world "assails," and have also added specifics from the referenced article which relate to its argument. My intention was only to ensure that this wikipedia article more accurately relate the nature of the referenced article and its arguments re: the validity of the movie's claims. Notowen (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There definitely seems to be something fishy going on here. Now the article reads that "a posting on the website for the Anchorage Daily News examined the validity of the film's premise". First of all it was not just some random "posting", it was an investigative article written by one of the newspaper's journalists, though in blog form. Secondly, "examined" is a weasel word to put it mildly; the article stops just short of calling the whole thing bullshit. I think Abe might be right that there's some sort of guerilla marketing going on here. I can't bother to go through the whole article history, but it might be worth doing at some point, including a check of IP addresses. Lampman (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a quick check confirmed that User:GravelStache has made two edits to the article, both removing material critical of the film's premise. The account was created on 30 September, and has no other edits. It would be good to hear from this editor, to confirm that there is no conflict of interest at play here. Lampman (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

All of my edits regarding this film were deleted, despite being thoroughly referenced and sourced. It does seem quite obvious that someone who is part of the films production is editing this page. It is absolutely valid to reference websites that have contributors who have done research regarding the veracity of the story.

Also, if you are from the movie company, I can be bought off for $1000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.208.141 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, my NPOV is up for sale too! By the way, User:Overworked85 falls into the same category as User:GravelStache above; account set up just to edit this page, edits made to preserve the film's premise. Be alert... Lampman (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And add User:Eccentrixa to that list; again, new account, only used to edit this article the way the studio would have wanted it. There are probably more. Lampman (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Like User:Dgneil. Lampman (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

These are "actual events" just like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Blair Witch are. I am almost insulted that they think everyone on the planet is a blithering idiot. Those clips of "actual footage" have an awful lot of trees in it for footage supposedly shot in a tundra. Oops. I can't wait to see it though, looks like a good flick.69.179.137.84 (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't logged in for some reason, but the last comment is from me.The Real Stucco (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I remove the section on so-called viral marketing since none of the links are valid: Alaska News Archive , Alaska Psychiatry Journal and North Pacific News Archive 76.187.246.201 (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Agios-Theseus

It says based on actual "case files/studies" or whatever, not based on actual events. Whether or not you believe the premise or events validity makes little difference. We should present this as neutral as possible. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, the room where the interview supposedly takes place does not exist at Chapman University. I would know; I'm a student there. --Fez2005 (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Universal Pictures has admitted that it conducted a deceptive marketing campaign to promote the movie. That campaign includes the news articles about Abigail Tyler and the disappearances. [1] Abe Froman (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One other person who might be part of the marketing campain: 86.171.183.92. He made 4 edits to the article and added a plot that acts as if the plot is real. Can someone edit his changes? 173.69.210.231 (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot

This edit by a one time contributor has not yet been verified. Should it be removed? - 76.250.164.246 (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary is kind of poorly worded. I've tagged it for cleanup. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 12:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Upon Reading this Article...

Upon Reading this Article, it looks to be the exact same wording used in the guerrilla marketing pitch that I've seen strewn about the internet. Can we get an NPOV in on this movie's production and concept? 72.73.99.23 (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Validity

Why was everything that discussed the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of the films claims removed? I think the readers have a right to know that this supposedly true account has no evidence to back up that any of the people in the film even existed. 75.152.151.66 (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because there are people – probably connected to the project – who keep editing the article so that it will fit in with their marketing campaign, that's why. It is hard to keep up with the spammers, I think it's time to request that the article be locked. Lampman (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As much as I might agree with you that they should not be able to get away with this, Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of paragraph. LostMK (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I watched this movie recently and I went to Wikipedia to help me figure out the validity of the claims in this film. I am now sadly disappointed that this Wikipedia article has let me down in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.170.224.13 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of Critical Paragraph

Since the article is locked, maybe the critical paragraph from oct 18th can be restored by an admin or someone else: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fourth_Kind&oldid=320348489 Let's not let Wikipedia be a vehicle for viral marketers.Awesomewithsauce (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As much as I might agree with you that they should not be able to get away with this, Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of paragraph. LostMK (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reception Update

The Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores need to be updated. Currently it is at 21% on Rotten Tomatoes and 34 on Metacritic. This will change throughout the weekend (probably) as more reviews are posted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredmhagemann (talk • contribs) 04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Filming Locations

Contrary to information provided on IMDB.com, a large percentage of the aerial shots are taken around Squamish, British Columbia. This is evident by shots of the Stawamus Chief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stawamus_Chief), a prominent granite monolith overlooking the town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xj newb (talk • contribs) 01:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Anunaki and the Jinn - Alaska, Nome

This movie was great, very innovative in its style and a great performance from Milla Jovovich. The phenomenon is not new as it can be compared with the legend of Rev Roberk Kirk of Aberfoyle author of the Seceret Commonwealth of Elves Fauns and Faries. His story can be found online and his book is still available written in old English. He disappeared eventually. I think the same beings are involved - it's obvious to me that those known as the Anunaki or Jinn or Fallen Angels are at work here. They are not ET, not from another galaxy - in fact they don't need spaceships. They can take any shape or form and can exist outside our perception of space time. Their energy can be compared to them being a car battery and us humans being the small circlur batteries used to power a watch. Hence when humans get overload they go mad, suicidal etc just as in the NOme examples - also this case is similar to the Mothman case at Pointpleasant - same and am sure there are lots of other similar cases around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincejapfran (talk • contribs) 14:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Except for the fact that the film was entirely made up. Also you may want to read up on Sleep Paralysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.139.114 (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the first guy. If you want to compare native stories with biblical accounts (markings included and all) it resembles possession and haunting. You can break it down, event by event, even the dark shade of negative light over the house, everything points to evil spirits of some kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 05:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the film is made up doesn't change the fact that thousands of people across the globe report encounters, and how many are out there that don't report encounters? Like myself...? I didn't expect the patients to explain my experience! up to a certain point, mine was not a 4th kind encounter, from what I recall. I think the question should be... if this was based on a true story, doc. footage and all, would you be able to accept the reality of it? Because you believing or not believing doesn't matter, they are already here. Until you meet one, you have no idea how quickly you're perspective changes. Hope you're well met.... ps stay away from the desert....they are most definitely watching. I would share my own story if this crowd wasn't so biased on this subject. ....peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.55.225 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I have had an alien abduction experience at 2 am two months ago, several UFO sightings before it, and I am 1,000,000% sure that the abduction was sleep paralysis mixed with halucinations(I was watching UFO Hunters on the History Channel). I am also sure that the UFOs that I saw(all triangles) were military aircraft, both secret and non-secret. If you have any arguments or discussion ideas, come to my talk page. Mammothmk2 (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Last night i got "abducted".. I know because this morning i woke up on someone elses couch and i had a splitting headache.. I felt very dizzy and frail for most of the morning... I think me and a couple buddies are gonna go out and get "abducted" again tonight.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.58.21 (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Found footage?

Would this qualify as a "found footage" horror film, or is it better described as a mockumentary? Serendi^podous 12:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more of a mockumentary.-WikiYoung27 (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems

The plot is currently almost 2,000 words (1,631 to be exact), it needs to be between 400-700 per WP:FILMPLOT. This could be considered a copyright violation and needs to be fixed ASAP (I have not watched the film, so I can not help). Also, where is the source that the production budget is $10 million? Thanks. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 04:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Real Dr Abigail Tyler" actress identified!

the actress Charlotte Milchard plays the dr in the films "actual footage". it irks me that imdb doesnt include her but it will in time. i do not have time tonight to update the article since im in the middle of watching the movie, so please edit to reflect the actresses name. here is her website: Charlotte Milchards official website M8gen (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Panned universally"

I removed this statement from the introduction. Don't make such a statement unless there is a cited source or fact confirming it. The Rotten Tomatoes ratings isn't 0% and the DVD release managed to find at least two positive reviews to quote. "Universal" means 100% negative and no film in history has ever accomplished this. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Damn, they got me good.

I watched this movie not knowing anything about it other than it was a documentary style film about alien abductions. I took the based on actual studies thing lightly. I've heard that before in a horror movie. But this one offered up "actual" dialogue and video footage. When it showed the footage... Words can not describe my horror. Glad I didn't read the article until after watching the flick because, my word, it was AMAZING! Necro-File (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur. [FetteK] — Preceding unsigned comment added by FetteK (talk • contribs) 16:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

New edits, regarding Abigail Tyler's body

I don't know if it's from random vandalism, or some sort of continuation of the viral marketing, but someone is trying add some nonsense about the Doctor dying of a stroke and her body disappearing from the morgue. If this sort of vandalism continues, maybe it really is time to look at locking the page. (At least for a while.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.131.14 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a link to the waybackmachine archive of the local newspaper obituarys for the aledged date of the triple homicide suicide and suprize suprize no such beast. http://web.archive.org/web/20010205045700/www.nomenugget.com/current/features.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.215.21.2 (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Paranormal vs Marketing scheme

So. It turns out that the "real" Dr (not mila jovovich) is an actress too. I guess that can explain the semi-hovering person in the "real" video, when abducted...as also not real at all.

Question reamins, What did the cop see? and if all 3 were supposedly abducted at the end. HOW did she break her neck? I found nothing on the matter. I'm disappointed by this deception.

Real vs. Fake

All the "original documentary footage" was shot by the filmmakers as part of the production. All the people in the "original documentary footage" were paid actors. The "real" Dr. Abigail Tyler is played by actress Charlotte Milchard.

This is a confused assumption that needs to be edited or removed. The movie sometimes has scenes made to look like real footage (like the Abigail Tyler interview), but it never actually claims that those scenes are real. It only actually says on the screen that something is real (on the bottom of the screen) a couple times, like the tape recording. Just because you're easily fooled by footage made to look real does not mean an encyclopedia article on the movie should be arguing against claims that the movie never actually makes. This article argues against a straw man. The movie never actually says that any Charlotte Milchard footage is real. This is really bad for an encyclopedia. Malkiyahu (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The text has been marked as "citation needed" for over a year now. I removed the text as it sounds more like someone has a personal problem with the movie. If someone can substantiate it, the text will still be here. TheNewKarl (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The movie does claim this via the DVD subtitles. Every time we are supposedly looking at real footage or listening to real recordings, the subtitles list the names of the characters preceded by the word "Real", as opposed to when say Milla Jovovich is talking in a scene, where the subtitles just list the character's name. 67.184.103.35 (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Zimabu Eter

I was curious about this phrase and see there was casual discussion of it at http://www.theparanormal.me/2011/10/what-does-zimabu-eter-mean-fourth-kind.html during 2011. I wonder if in the 5 years since then any Sumerian experts have commented on what it might mean so that e could source it for this article. --174.92.135.167 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

IP edits

An persistent IP has been removing sourced material and introducing credulous and unsourced nonsense. I've warned the IP on their Talk page, but more eyes are appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Utter nonsense indeed. Ramblings of someone who apparently thinks this was real. --Majora (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This editor is is now just engaging in vandalism. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've requested protection. Now just a matter of waiting. --Majora (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Last round of protection requested. Maybe time to ask again. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I just saw the movie

As the title say.. I made some search and i feels like the producer of the movie should be sued.. 100% of the movie is fiction. Maybe we should advertise on the wiki since it look like its saying the movie is real.. Am I wrong? 70.81.27.24 (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)