Talk:The Shape of Water

Missing Information

This article is incomplete and is missing important information on the film's release and box office gross which needs to be added to the article via sections. The box office section can be added as a sub-section into the reception section while information on the film's release can be added in its own section under the sub section theatrical release. I would do it myself but I have so many other obligations for other article I still need to get done so if someone is able y=to do this it would be very much appreciated.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Asset vs. amphibian man in the plot summary

The summary currently refers to the creature as the Asset, while in the credits he is named the amphibian man. It seems to me that amphibian man is the more neutral name; only the antagonists refer to him as the asset while the protagonists don't name him at all as far as I remember. The NYT review does call him the Asset while other NYT articles about the production (Doug Jones bio, poster artist interview) refers to is as creature, merman, or other things, but not Asset. 2600:1700:F9C0:50E0:3816:A016:BDD5:34C2 (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and have changed most occurrences of "asset" to "amphibian man". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

To the cascading IP addresses reverting due to "spoilers"

Please read WP:LEAD and WP:SPOILER. The function of the lead is to give an overview of the article. Since the bulk of many film pages is the plot (and it's always a substantial portion), it is not acceptable to say, "x is a 2017 movie about a man with a truck." You have to give an overview of the plot, not the most barebones premise conceivable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I support conveying just the premise in the lead section as emphasized by reliable sources. There is a similar discussion regarding Three Billboards, where I explain why: WT:FILM#Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

?Rip-off of Dutch 2015 CGI film "the space between us'

The 'shape of water' appears to be a direct rip-off of a Dutch computer-generated film called 'the space between us' from 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.214.31.17 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this or is it your opinion? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEIpzBPUjEo ... and numerous other links you can have by googling 'the shape of water' is a rip-off of 'the space between us' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.214.31.17 (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

To be able to add anything to the article, we would need a reliable source discussing the issue. Comments from various youtube viewers would not be a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

'and numerous other links, etc, etc..' obiter dictum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.214.31.17 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I would support a section that summarizes the coverage from reliable sources. This is a particularly comprehensive recap about The Space Between Us and now Let Me Hear You Whisper. A search engine test turns up additional sources reporting on these. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Mute actor?

I came here expecting to see a discussion about use of a non-mute actor to play a mute character (although I know she sings at one point). I know that's been controversial related to other disabilities. I guess it's not been a cause of concern - quick google didn't report any boycotting etc --Mortice (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It is very rare for an otherwise healthy young adult with normal hearing to be mute. There is no pool of mute actors to draw on, although there are many deaf actors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Rarer still: Mute actors who can sing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of change in plot summary

We don't know enough to say that Amphibian Man transforms Elisa's scars into gills. Those "scars" may be the remnants of gill slits, and he merely opens them. That is, Elisa may always have had gills. There are suggestions that she shares some ancestry with him: she was found next to a river, her name is Spanish (birthplace not stated, and South America is possible), she lacks the anatomy for human speech, she has an unusual affinity for water. If she's a hybrid, it also helps to explain her attraction to him. Cognita (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Many reliable reviews of the film say that the scars are transformed into gills. I am unaware of any reviews in reliable sources that interpret the film as you have done. You are entitled to your personal theory but it does not belong in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The theory as stated by Cognita seems to be widely held in online discussion of the film to the point of consensus. The details provided do support the theory, while there seems no contravening evidence shown in the film that would serve to conflict with it. While I've yet to see Del Toro acknowledge it in interviews, I've also yet to see him being asked about it. As it stands, the scale would still tip to the side of the theory holding water (pun intended) until he refutes it. --68.233.191.250 (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We do not report the evaluations of random online fan commentators. Please provide an actual reliable source that reports this consensus, or even a professional film critic who advances the theory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

In this Talk page, I summarized what I've read elsewhere, not to advance a theory, but only to explain why I changed the article text to make it more conservative (i.e., safer) in the sense of not going beyond what's actually seen on the screen. I thought the previous version in the article presented an interpretation of what's shown. That interpretation doesn't belong, because it may or may not be what del Toro intended. We see only that Amphibian Man does something at Elisa's neck and she starts breathing. In my opinion, plot summaries should stick to what the viewer can observe. Please note that in the article itself I didn't mention the idea that Elisa isn't fully human.

Since whatever transformation occurs is very quick and the viewer doesn't actually see the scars turning into gills, it seems to me that the statement that they do is the one that would need a source cited.Cognita (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Others speculate that Elisa could be an amphibian-woman who is attracted to a creature from her own background. Here is one example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2018/03/05/theres-something-important-you-probably-missed-in-the-shape-of-water/#532b32461aa7. I agree that a plot summary should only describe what the movie itself shows, but since there are many hints that Elisa COULD be at least partly non-human, perhaps those hints should be included in the summary? I think its an interesting speculation which should have a place in the Wiki article. DaringDonna (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Zindel plagiarism controversy

I've recently started an article for the Paul Zindel play Let Me Hear You Whisper (play) that is claimed to be inspiration for the Shape of Water by Zindel's son. Any help with the article and information would be appreciated. Thank you Thriley (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

here, the Times should work? It also goes a bit into the similarities to a 2015 dutch student film, "the space between us" http://time.com/5170613/shape-of-water-plagiarism-controversy/ 2A02:8109:13C0:39D0:7143:8613:A63A:B086 (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Science fiction?

Because HuffPost and TIME magazine describe it as such. Is there a mistake in any of these articles? Or has The Shape of Water become the first sci-fi film to win the Oscar for Best Picture? ----Kailash29792 (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"sci-fi/fantasy romance" is how Variety described it. It's very difficult to pigeonhole this into one genre, but IMO fantasy romance describes it best. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

this being Wikipedia, you probably need to find a verifiable source to label this film as Science Fiction. but it is fiction, and much of it takes place in a government science lab, with one of the major characters being a scientist. There is philosophical debate within the dialog as to the nature of science, with the government scientist (the communist mole) arguing for undirected research and the military types arguing for applied science. And the very premise of an amphibian man is a scientific speculation, with many details in the story fleshing out how such an imagined organism would live. Very fantastic type of science fiction, but most aliens or androids seen in more conventional sci-fi films are no more credible than what we see here. The debate about the purpose of science is more than we get from most sci-fi.

J Edward Malone (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with Hellboy

The similarity between the main character here and "Blue" from Hellboy is surely worth mentioning. I don't know enough about these movies to write it myself, though. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The Shape of Water (film) → The Shape of Water – WP:TWODABS. Unreal7 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – There is a novel of the same name and this is a pure case of WP:RECENTISM after the film's big win last night. JE98 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Not Completely Sure – I apologize for the quick somewhat negative response, because now that I look at "The Shape of Water (novel)", it turns out the novel is actually called "La forma dell'acqua", so if there is consensus to move the novel to its official Italian title, I would support this move. JE98 (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. After the Best Picture win, the film's fame greatly exceeds that of the book. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC notability wise._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The dab page is getting over 500 hits per day (more than the novel) and literally 99% of those readers are seeking the film [1]. - Station1 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Best Picture winner, and the novel is both not technically called "The Shape of Water," and is essentially completely obscure. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Interest in a film that won the Oscar for Best Picture will overwhelm searches for an article about an obscure novel for many decades to come. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as above. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen328, who exactly expressed my identical sentiments above. Best Picture-winning films have often performed well in terms of viewers and readers over the years. The Pageviews Analysis tool shows that The Shape of Water (film) vastly outperforms The Shape of Water (novel) by an average ratio of 100:1 on daily viewcount over the past 90 days. This is a solid ground for a claim to a primary topic for the name "The Shape of Water" on Wikipedia. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 08:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly the primary topic, per above.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Notability wise, I reckon to move the page to The Shape of Water as the current disambiguation page can be moved to the The Shape of Water (disambiguation). Abishe (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Definitely more primary than the novel owing to the recent Oscar winning. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, the novel of the same name is a) completely unsourced, b) mostly a plot summary, c) overall pretty unnotable. The film here, WP:RECENTISM aside, is extremely notable, winning multiple awards in the world's possibly largest film-centric award show. It has immense amout of press coverage making it generally more notable than other topic by that name presently on Wikipedia; clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It also makes good for WP:TWODABS, so moving the page is actually not just preferred, but also useful. Lordtobi (✉) 15:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support since a search engine test (especially in Google Books) of the 1994 novel by Andrea Camilleri shows no content that supports long-term significance to put it on par with the 2017 film. The novel may even be non-notable by Wikipedia's standards. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  I should note that there do seem to be results under the novel's Italian title. If the novel is indeed notable, then it should be under the Italian title with the film article having a hatnote saying something like, "For the 1994 Italian novel whose title translates to "The Shape of Water", see La forma dell'acqua." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Erik: I was hoping to start a move request for that novel and the other novels in the series, but I would rather wait until the deletion request dies out. JE98 (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Man-from-Mars reaction: the (film) and (novel) designations imply to the average user that there is a tie between the two, and in this case there is no such tie Susie Brooke (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:TWODABS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Erik. Disambiguation page is unnecessary when a hatnote would serve the same purpose. Sock (tock talk) 20:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I think we’ve reached a certain amount of time elapsed and a certain amount of shown support, and lack of any discernible opposition, for this discussion to be closed on the basis of the Snowball clause. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 00:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support – I fully support now, despite my previous comments. With the overwhelming amount of support, I say move the page now. JE98 (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – If anyone is interested, despite my previous reply to @Erik:, I have changed my mind after looking at the deletion request and now have created a move discussion at Talk:The Shape of Water (novel)#Requested move 7 March 2018. JE98 (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Definitely seems like the movie is more popular and more likely to be the intended article people were going for if they typed the name in directly. – numbermaniac 07:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose In addition to the italian novel of the same name there also is a novelization of the movie written by Guillermo del Toro Karl Kraus that could become a Wikipedia entry in the future. So I think the (Movie) specification could be useful. —herzogx 12:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  I would think that the novelization of this film would have to first prove that it is notable for Wikipedia, and I doubt it will do so in a way that makes the film not the primary topic. If a stand-alone article is warranted for the novelization, we would simply disambiguate the two novels' Wikipedia articles from each other. But it seems more likely to me that the novelization can be mentioned on the film's article, either in its own section, or at the very minimum, in a "Further reading" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The film is obviously the primary topic. Jko831 (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support as with everyone else and the argument of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Codyorb (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why change it?

I oppose the proposed change as needless. It is a film, no? AgentCachet (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

AgentCachet, on Wikipedia, we sometimes try to establish the primary topic that requires no disambiguation term added to the article title. In this case, readers who search for "The Shape of Water" have to land at a disambiguation page where it is much more likely that they are looking for the 2017 film than the 1994 novel. Essentially, it saves them a step and gets them where they want more directly. If there is a small chance they are looking for the 1994 novel's article, the 2017 film's article will have a hatnote pointing them the right way. It's really a matter of convenience, and the film's article being under The Shape of Water is not going to be surprising to the vast majority of the readership. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

O_o

isn't this the color of water the book in 1995?75.171.10.90 (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The Color of Water is not related to this film. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Stating that Zelda is African-American

Zelda's African-American-ness is an important subtext in the plot. Both she and Eliza are seen by the dominant whites running the project as almost subhumans, cleaning up the "piss" etc. In part because of their job, and in part because Eliza is mute and Zelda is African-American. This would be an important context in 1962, especially in a marginally southern city such as Baltimore was then. Note the little scene where another well-dressed African-American couple are refused service at a luncheonette. The marginality of the two women feeds into the dismissal by the authorities of their incapacity to help the Amphibian escape. The racial and social class subtexts of the movie are fascinating--more than just a fantasy romance. (Just as in del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth, Spanish fascism supplied the context.) Bellagio99 (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)