Talk:Snuff film

	This Media related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Actually

Actually, "film" in the title takes a small f, since it's about snuff films, rather than a work entitled "Snuff Film" Flannan Isle (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. I can't remove the stray redirect left behind, for some reason. Slurm und Drang (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Sandflapjack if you're going to turn the entire premise of the article on its head, please discuss why you're doing so with rationale, thanks. Deku-shrub (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Im not edit warring, i reverted a huge chunk of the thing being cut out for no reason. you should be the one presenting reasoning for gutting it. Sandflapjack (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You're arguing Snuff films exist, the opposite premise of the article. Ext ordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My compromise was to have the definitions dispute area, what's yours? Deku-shrub (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

But they DO exist. There is a subreddit called "watch people die" thats snuff. Sandflapjack (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not a "snuff film", that's videos of people dying. Snuff films are movies of murders and suicides of actor(s) for the intention of sale; it's a commodity for an industry (that doesn't exist). For example, a video a robbery where a person dies is not a snuff film because the person is not an actor. The dying person being an actor is key. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The article should cover both phenomena. I doubt whether people who are into snuff & gore care that much whether it was intentionally created for their entertainment or not. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Modified the intro to be more accurate. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

A++ edit, I like a lot. I before was going to add an image from the movie Snuff Film with the caption "no were serious this time guys!" but the file wasnt working for some odd reason. Sandflapjack (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Weaseloid I see you removed my edit that contains links to websites regarding this type of content. I for one see the inclusion and naming of the websites to be for educational purposes and a means to provide proof to the users that said sites do in fact exist. Also the Reddit page already includes the name of the subreddit you edited out. I added some content back in (that you edited out for whatever reason) until we can get this resolved. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 00:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah..uh..lets not link them, for our reader's sake. AInt nobody go time for that. Sandflapjack (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

All three pages have a warning page for users who accidentally click. If everyone doesn't want the article linking to them, would it be okay to refer to them without linking? —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 02:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Crush films

Crush films are often described as animal snuff films and one can see where the market for these might lead some people down the slippery slope into believing snuff films are real, I think it's worth mentioning on this page rather than creating a page for crush films. [1] X-Factor (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Snuff does in fact exist: Daisy's Destruction

The page needs a makeover. Disturbingly and sadly enough Snuff films do exist and are produced for a paying audience. Google "Daisy's Destruction". 107.167.104.143 (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

But Daisy wasn't murdered on film, only allegedly tortured.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 15:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It seems that Peter Scully carried horrible acts against Daisy and that he filmed these acts. Apparently he did kill another child and this act may have been filmed. But that's not really enough to say that an entire film genre exists. Another fact-checking source Snopes also claims the genre does not exist. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The article still says "snuff films are non-existent", yet there exists at least one case, which received broad media coverage, so the article is wrong. 107.167.116.166 (talk)

Hypothetical scenario

If you staged an accident with the intention of filming it and selling the footage to a news channel (for profit), would that be a snuff movie? My instinct says not because it's not intended as entertainment, but I'm not entirely sure. I'm also not sure if that's ever happened in real life, although it's happened in various fictional media. If there was a lucrative market for video footage of people dying in gruesome ways, that might be different. Similarly if you're an arms company who films your weapons used in combat with the intention of promoting their kill power and hence making money, that's not a snuff film, because neither the killing nor the filming is for entertainment. --Gospatric (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Article says snuff films aren't common, but they are by the articles definition

theYNC and similar sites distribute IRL murder videos constantly, daily. The article states snuff films aren't common because snuff films require someone to make money off them. But that's not in the definition in the lede, a profit requirement for something to be 'snuff'. FallisBestSeason (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Going to specify 'for money' in the first sentence FallisBestSeason (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that "snuff films" are a moral panic/cultural myth mainly perpetuated in the 1980's due to concerns regarding "video nasties", documentaries like "traces of death", and pornography. Snuff films have always been characterized as commercial videos for sale where a murder was filmed for profit. The concern was that if things like pornography were accepted by society at large the slippery slope of consumer demand would lead to more and more extreme content; eventually leading to women being murdered on camera for profit. This was not an uncommon argument among anti-porn feminists, and the Christian right in the 1980's. Live leak accidents, Isis beheading videos, and 2 guys 1 ice pick-esque videos would not constitute "snuff films". They are not sold commercially and they are not produced for profit. Most NSFL content on the internet depicting a real murder are for intimidation or political propaganda. "Snuff films" are not only exceedingly rare, but practically non-existent. There isn't a sustainable market for videos like that. Most gore fetishist just look up car accident photos on the internet. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC).