EXCLUSIVE! 1 AM UPDATE: I was just told that Brett Ratner is saying that he and Relativity’s Ryan Kavanaugh have made an offer for Catfish “with no need for test screenings”. This is getting interesting!
EXCLUSIVE! 8:30 PM: Catfish was the Sundance offering widely thought to have the most commercial potential of any of this year’s films even though it didn’t win any awards. But the documentary was a hit with audiences there, as Mike Fleming previously reported, and got a resounding ovation for the cyber romance that develops between a 24-year old photographer and the sister of a youth who takes an interest in his work. Now I’ve learned that major Paramount player JJ Abrams and up-and-coming Paramount player Jason Blum are both interested in having the studio release the film. No deal — yet.
But, towards that end, I’ve also confirmed that Paramount is having a test screening on the lot tomorrow to see how Catfish played before an audience. Kudos to two websites, FirstShowing.net and Cinematical.com who first found out about the test screening because of the Twitter buzz. According to FirstShowing, the invite “specifically mentions that attendees should have seen and enjoyed films like Cloverfield, Paranormal Activity, Slumdog Millionaire, or An Inconvenient Truth. Is it a coincidence that they just named three of Paramount’s biggest indie successes in the last few years?” You think? JJ was the producer on Cloverfield, and Blum on Paranormal Activity.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


Too bad Movieline reported this: http://www.movieline.com/2010/01/does-sundance-sensation-catfish-have-a-truth-problem.php
Kind of sheds a bad light on the film, eh?
the author of that article makes some strong points. I realize most people probably don’t care– we live in an era of reality television where most of the “reality” is fabricated, and people love it none the less. Still, IF it is really fictional, that’s too bad. And the way the filmmaker handled the guy in the audience questioning the film’s authenticity was kind of an additional turnoff for me. why so defensive? there’s like a dozen other ways that question could have been answered that would make that filmmaker look less guilty.
I saw it at Sundance, mark my words it will test well!
#1 Tim – I don’t fully believe that Movieline’s article is accurate. It’s an interesting theory but not yet proven to be true. But with that said, even if is true, it’s still an incredibly exhilarating film to watch. The experience alone makes up for it and if you didn’t know about that theory going in, you wouldn’t have ever thought that was the case. And that, to me, is extraordinary filmmaking.
SOME CATFISH SPOILERS AHEAD! Stop reading HERE if you aren’t interested.
It is pretty obvious that these two “documentary” filmmakers and the “innocent” Nev were aware of who (and what) they were dealing with before they ever struck out for Michigan. In other words, they lied, and lied big, and the people buying into these lies probably WANT to believe them, mostly because the narrative of CATFISH, if true (and it patently isn’t true) makes for one helluva story.
As the MOVIELINE article makes clear, the idea that three such tech-savvy New Yorkers would light out for Michigan without even bothering to Google Megan or her family after so many weeks is inconceivable. Not unlikely. Inconceivable.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Wait, Princess Bride, right? Fantastic! Yes, that word appears in that movie!!! Great catch!!!
Sorry, but no matter how well-made this film may be, it’s fabricated. These guys knew perfectly well that this family didn’t exist. A simple Google search would’ve confirmed it.
The filmmakers simply taking advantage of the James Frey approach of using fiction as truth. There are postings on Amazon from readers who even after they found out his ‘memoir’ was largely made up, it still “didn’t matter.” The guy is still rich and selling TV pitches.
Now you have gushing movie viewers who likely know “Catfish” is mostly invented and manipulated, but don’t care, thereby letting the filmmakers off the hook. They’ll run around bragging how it’s completely true but after they get confronted with evidence to the contrary, they’ll use some mealy excuse of saying it’s “true in spirit” or some such rationalization. I’m getting tired of how educated people keep buying into these things.
Either it’s true or it isn’t. And it clearly sounds like it isn’t.
I know it sounds crazy, but it’s true. The filmmakers are good friends of mine and I was privvy to the whole development of the relationship as it happened. Making judgements about timelines based on the final edited film discounts the hundreds of hours of footage that exist that confirm the truth of the story.
They’ll prove it on the DVD.
Yes, there was skepticism about what the truth was to the filmmakers, but that’s the whole point — it’s what propelled them to make the movie in the first place. “What is true? Let’s get to the bottom.” But I promise you, what they found in Michigan was totally unknown.
dude, it was made clear in some trailers that this movie wasn’t based on true events or people.
This IS interesting. Both studios have some major fire-power backing them with Abrams & Ratner. This should be fun to watch the bidding wars. It reminds me of the blind bidding wars in Season 4 of Entourage.
This faux movie is the equivalent of trying to suggest that Paranormal Activity is a documentary.
I saw a documentary called Tal Hot Blond (ironically which was bought by Paramount only
a month or two ago) which was almost the same concept and story as Catfish but had true
stakes, tension, sex and murder – the true foundations to build a Paranormal Activity-like phenomenon upon. After seeing Catfish at Sundance I can only wonder why Paramount is
spending even a second pursuing Catfish when they already own Tal Hot Blond which is
infinitely more marketable and involving