Criticism by Seneca
If this rule "when a movie of an event is made, the event can safely be considered fake" is taken seriously it could be seen as a result of a logical fallacy.
For example if it is seen as the outcome of the following examples of faulty reasoning:
- All events that have been proven to be fake are made into a movie -> when a movie of an event is made, the event can safely be considered fake
- Many events that are made into a movie have been proven to be fake -> when a movie of an event is made, the event can safely be considered fake
Another problem is that the terms of the rules are not well defined:
- There are many different kinds of "movies", "Hollywood-movies" being only one of them. The examples here also include animated series and sitcoms.
- "Documentaries" is also a broad term, which also includes Youtube documentaries that everybody can make. It is absurd to think that nobody can make a Youtube movie/documentary about a real event.
- "can safely be considered fake" is a very vague term. When would it be "unsafe" to consider an event fake? As we know, it is hard or even impossible to prove for 100% an event is fake.
All this makes it impossible to falsify the stated rules.
Still this leads to interesting questions: when an independent movie maker makes a movie/documentary about a fake event while thinking that it is real, would the people that invented the hoax sue him for copyright infringement? This could be the reason behind some Youtube censorship and it could be in fact legitimate. You can't just make a movie about superman either without buying the rights. It could be an explanation of why only certain people can make movies about certain fake events. originally added to the article page here
- Seneca, I moved your comment to the talk page as the proper place to discuss this idea.
- First I would say that the term "rule" is more like a rule-of-thumb (funnily enough the English speakers don't call it rule-of-fist, like in Dutch). It is not a law (legal or scientific). As a rule of thumb it works pretty well, but the Zal rule of thumb doesn't mouth so well...
- I think the kind of movie is important to refine in a better description. Like the subsets Wallace rule and Jet rule do specifically; about the In Search of..." and Air Crash Investigation documentaries respectively. Mainstream documentaries is meant, not some YouTube video made by someone on the internet.
- Some optional rewordings:
- major movie
- popular movie
- famous movie
- or similar terms. Yes, these are also "vague" (how do you define "major", "popular" or "famous"), but Hollywood is not a good one I would say. There are many European, Asian, South American movies too made of staged or probably staged events.
- The term "fake" is a horrible one imho. That should be rewritten into something better. Obviously the many movies made of wars (many examples), natural disasters (Lo imposible about the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami), political changes (No about the resignation of Pinochet in Chile), etc. are not about fake, yet staged/scripted events, but to rehearse political propaganda, or the money scam, etc. Those changes and wars and disasters obviously happened. So "fake" is the wrong word.
- Indeed there is something too vague about 'can safely be considered
fakestaged'. What would you propose as a better alternative wording? Some ideas:
- "If a major movie is made of a historical event, probably the event was scripted too"
- "In case a popular movie is made based on a story appearing in history books, the original event was probably/likely staged/contrived/scripted"
- "When a mainstream producer makes a movie about an event or series of events, claiming 'based on a true story', that 'true story' was probably indeed just a story"
- Or something along those lines.
- Note that the Zal rule is the most quoted part of the whole Fakeopedia, a term used at Fakeologist, Piece of Mindful and AAMorris uses it a lot in his Proper Gander podcasts too.
- It's great you joined and review these things, because I agree, we should be as clear as possible in the definition of these rules-of-thumb. Look forward to your suggestions, Gaia 12:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Comments 27/4/18 Seneca
Yes I see now this the right place to discuss this. Great that you are open to my points and want to refresh the page. I seem to agree with all your points. My main concern is how this comes across to people new to media-fakery, that is a personal choice. That is why I would like to see a definition that is both clear and scientifically valid and also clarifies how this is rule of thumb should be used in actual fakery research. As far as I can tell it is used 4 times on Piece of Mindful and is most of the time referred to as "the Zal Rule* at Fakeopedia". They print a definition that is a bit different "If there is a major motion picture of a “real” event, you can be certain the event is a hoax- ". This definition is more clear but not necessary better. But my point is, when you look how it is used there, it is a different story then the definition would suggest. It is always used only as a clue that it is possibly faked, along with other clues. This is also the way in which this is used on Cluesforum, although it is not named that way. On Fakeologist it seems to be only in the Fakeopedia that it is sometimes used as the only clue (which doesn't seem to be the norm), for example here: http://fakeologist.com/fakeopedia/index.php/OPEC_Siege
So I would prefer a definition that goes something like this: "If a big-budget movie is made of a historical event, this is an indication/clue that the event was a psyop or at least scripted". I use the term psyops because it is used in the list of psyops, and I assume there is a good reason for that. As for the term to describe the kind of movies "big budget (how big?)", I think we can base this on the facts. Let's look at what kind of movies are mentioned in the list of psyops (and perhaps ignore the ones that have only references from MSM). So far I have found only 1 TV-movie. Note that not all the movies you mention under 1) are not included in the definition just like in the old one. I was wondering, can we change this without asking Zal? Perhaps we should call it Gaia's rule of thumb or Seneca's :-)
- Jet rule - could become "If a plane crash appears in documentaries like Mayday, Air Crash Investigation, Seconds from Disaster or similar shows, this is an indication/clue that the event was a psyop"
- Wallace rule - could perhaps become "If an event appears in documentaries like the In Search Of... show running from 1977 to 1982, this is an indication/clue that the event was a psyop"
to be continued
Comments 28/4/18 Seneca
So I looked at the references to Zal's rule on the list of psyops:
- there are obviously a lot of psyops for which there is no reference to Zal's rule. So according to the rule we still have a lot of work to do here and/or there are still a lot of movies to be expected. (or they are not psyops)
- almost all of the movies referenced were at least partly from the United States. I found only 4 from other countries (Spain 1, Colombia 2, Germany 1). Maybe I overlooked some. Probably the Fakeopedia is a bit biased, with more psyops and more movies from U.S. Still I think it is significant but not necessarily relevant for the definition of the rule.
- only 3 of about 50 movies were TV movies ("The North Hollywood Shoot-Out", "The Alps Murders", "The legend of Lizzie Borden"). Again possible bias but this seems significant. (Maybe the hoaxers like to go to the theater and see how the movie is recepted?) A movie that is not a TV movie is called a "theatrical movie". But I don't know if most people actually know that term.(I didn't as a non native speaker
- some have had Oscars. Probably not relevant until we can show that the majority of Oscar-winning movies are about psyops.
- I didn't find the budget for all movies on IMDB. The cheapest was "Buddy Holly story (1978)" for $1.200.000, I don't really believe that. Found an article on rollingstone where the executive producer told 2 million, still "a very low budget film". For other movies the number 40 million came up a lot.
So I would just leave out the term "big budget"
Coincidentally, yesterday on Discord, Zal saw me and Faye talking about the rule. He asked me what it was about so I provided him the link to this page. I doubt he read it completely because his reaction was so fast. His first reaction was "Semantics". He explained what he meant by giving 2 recent examples about Brevic. I have added them to the list of psyops. He said the rule wasn't absolute and also that he had been quoted out of context. I didn't ask if he agreed to change it, by then we had moved on to other interesting subjects with other people. It was a good conversation.
I would like to talk to you on discord about this and other things like Tychos. My Discord username is"seneca#8782". Is this enough to contact me as I am new to Discord? I have time today, tomorrow.. Seneca (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)