Talk:Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Television  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

edit[edit]

Removed "Another peculiarity is that the crew has naval type ranks and uniforms, but the submarine is privately owned (a ridiculous expenditure for any corporation or non-profit agency)." as privately owned ships do have "naval type ranks and uniforms" and "ridiculous expenditure" is unwarranted.

Relevance to Operation Argus / Starfish Prime tests[edit]

I was born in 1960 so I grew up in a deluge of information that I had to make sense of. One I particularly remember is (a) seeing this movie and (b) hearing about tests (look up "Operation Argus" and "Starfish Prime" here on WikiPedia) where they really *did* detonate an H-bomb in the upper atmosphere. So I was stuck trying to make sense of whether the movie really happened, and if these tests were really supposed to have saved the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.159.105 (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. However, note that the Starfish Prime tests did not occur until 1962 - even the expiration of the Russian three-year moratorium did not occur until August 1961, the month after the film was released. It is therefore very tempting to draw the conclusion that the film was designed very intentionally as propaganda, in which the atmospheric nuclear test in disregard of international opinion is presented as a way to save the world (rather than, say, knocking a third of the satellites out of the sky, blowing out equipment 900 miles away, and contaminating a launch pad with debris of an unexploded nuclear bomb...). However, we need to find a source for this. Wnt (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Edit[edit]

There is NO 'Dr Danger' or actor 'Robert Boyd' in the film. Reviews of the DVD and the IMDb for the film cast, character's name, and actor's name reveal no such person/character in the movie Voyage . . ..

1961 Cover of Theodore Sturgeon's novelization[edit]

"The original 1961 cover of Sturgeon's book shows a submarine meeting a fanged sea serpent." Does anyone have both a scanner and a copy of that 1st printing of Mr. Sturgeon's book? If so, it would make a good addition to the article. Thank you.Ftfrk61 (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed "army unifroms"[edit]

I removed the line about Seaview's crew in Sturgeon's novel wearing Army uniforms. On page 16 of the book, Seaman Jimmy Smith is describede as wearing a T-shirt and "fatigues". All of the other uniforms mentioned are Navy dress blues and dress whites.SWMSEMFEM (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Corrected headings[edit]

I corrected the headings of the 2 previous entries, including my entry of 18 August 2009.Ftfrk61 (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Details![edit]

Hi! Ahem. The divers had to fight with an octopus, which by the way, happened after spearing a sawfish. It was the Seaview that had to fight off the giant squid, and it did so much like the Nautilus did, by shocking it with electricity emitted from the hull.

Aboard a ship, they aren't "windows", but are instead, "portholes", if I recall right. "Floors" become "decks" and "walls" become "bulkheads".

I just saw the movie yesterday. I wondered why the little dog didn't seem to be harmed by the heat while the man had been during his exposure. In the long shot, did it show the dog as being protected somehow?

The Commodore mentions "sharks", but we only ever see Bessie. When the woman falls in, splashes about while screaming, you'd think she was being attacked then, but we can tell that Bessie is a short distance away, though swimming towards her. Then Bessie appears to swim under the splashing, rather than swim through it. I couldn't detect other shark shapes there. Did anybody else see any?

That's all for now. LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the summary shows little regard for Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. The presence of minor details that are mistaken suggests to me not that they should be corrected, but that they should be deleted. Jim.henderson (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)