Talk:Deep Blue Sea (1999 film)

Jaws' Sharks' deaths

Hate to burst someone's bubble, but the shark in Jaws III is not blown up in a gas explosion, but with a grenade. RoyBatty42 09:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, but the third shark in this movie died via a black powder, salvaged from the flares, explosion, similar to a grenade. It was the first shark that died in the gas explosion in this movie, the least similar to the Jaws series Sharks' deaths in that this was a firery explosion, not an exploding air tank.

Budget

I'm very curious about the budget of the film. Does anybody know? Or where I can find it?--Danieller 213 13:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Biggest "WTF?!?!" Moment

Who elses agrees that when you first saw this movie, seeing Samuel Jackson get eaten after that rousing speech was one of the biggest "WTF?!?!" moments you've ever seen in a movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.251.227 (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

AFTER the rousing speech?? Try DURING the rousing speech. I laughed so hard I spurted Mountain Dew out my nose. Schoop (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, I watched the scene while eating and sprayed garberated cookie all over the TV... The Wurm-70.78.26.87 (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Rules"

I remember back when this movie first came out there was a lot of talk about this movie breaking all the horror movie "rules". The drunk teens at the start of the movie got saved, the biggest star dies, the main female dies, a black guy survives etc While these details are pretty much covered in the plot section I would like to see some more real world context about how this movie mixed it up to be different. Thoughts? Rekija (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot removed

It was pretty much a copy/paste from just about everywhere. Since I just discovered I have no idea how to properly may a copy vio report, I've removed it. I'm dropping a note over on the WP:FILM page so hopefully we can get a real plot in here. Millahnna (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As notet at WT:FILM, I've reported this to WP:CP, although I suspect it may be a reverse infringement. --BelovedFreak 21:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Beloved on this one. It's fairly common for websites to copy summaries of Wikipedia - It would explain why the text, in its exact formatting and prose, appears on multiple other random websites. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

yeah I think this one is going to turn out to be fine after all. I swore that the opening paragraph in particular was nearly verbatim to some of the press materials (and possibly the DVD blurb) but I finally found the DVD and that's not the case. I couldn't find anything in the earlier dated search hits that was all that official so I'm assuming I had it all wrong. On the plus side, I've learned lot about how NOT to deal with possible copy vio this week. SOrry for the hassle all. Millahnna (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Better to be safe than sorry. :) I added to the mess by jumping to the conclusion that the other webiste was copied from IMDb and hence that our article was too. I think it's going to be ok, but would feel more comfortable from a WP:CP regular saying so.--BelovedFreak 19:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the finding of reverse infringement. :) Tellingly, our article was launched with the following sentence:

One of them, Dr. Susan McCallister (Played by Burrows), violated the code of ethics, and genetically engineers several mako sharks, making them smarter, faster, and more dangerous.

This was altered a little over an hour later by the creator of the article to the Wikipedia standard present tense of "violates". I get multiple hits for the latter, but none at all for the former. This makes it considerably less likely that the content was pasted from someplace else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for digging allt eh way back, Moonriddengirl. I official accept all trouts thrown my way. Arg. Millahnna (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Die, bitch!"

Okay, I've watched the commentary and deleted scenes from the DVD and nowhere does Mr. Harlin mention that McAlester was supposed to survive the movie and that the ending was reshot. So unless someone finds a source for that, I'm removing it from the article. --TheHande (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing the Citation tag!

Since I don't see anything on the page that would warrant the Citation tag, I'm removing it. --TheHande (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Length of the biggest shark

In the movie Thomas Jane says, that the biggest Gen 2 shark is 45 foot in length. But I always doubted that. I do my research with the DVD player and guess what - the biggest shark at the end is just 28 feet long - 8,6 meters! Which means that the giant shark at the end is only three feet longer than Spielbergs Original Bruce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.172.213 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: move. I also found the idea that "Deep Blue Sea" and "The Deep Blue Sea" are wholly separate terms unconvincing. -- tariqabjotu 04:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

---

• Deep Blue Sea → Deep Blue Sea (1999 film)
• Deep Blue Sea (disambiguation) → Deep Blue Sea

– I suggest this move because I do not think the 1999 film needs to be established as the primary topic under this term. The primary-topic slot is best reserved for the core meaning of the given term, and obviously, this film did not coin this term. It derives its title from a term that has been in circulation for much longer. (EDIT: This shows that to be the case.) I do not think this will much affect navigation because many readers find their way to these articles without the disambiguation page, such as in search engine results or in Wikipedia's drop-down list of suggestions when searching for the term. It would actually define this specific topic better because in the general sense, "Deep Blue Sea" is not immediately connected to this film. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support it should be a disambiguation page -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support If this film had been a huge hit with critical acclaim or something, I'd argue that more readers would likely be heading for the film page over anything else. Since that isn't the case, disambig seems to way to go. Also, Hi Erik! Millahnna (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The film is the primary topic. The only other ambiguous terms are a soundtrack derived from this film's name, a low traffic article for a hat, and a red-linked song article. I also oppose the recent merging of The Deep Blue Sea (disambiguation), which is a separate term and shouldn't be merged together just for the sake of it. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  Xezbeth, I assume you are applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in being primary in regards to usage. This is understandable, but the guideline also says "there are no absolute rules". What I am suggesting here is that because the term is one that has been commonly used with various items for decades, it is awfully temporal to establish this film as the topic that should show up when the term is searched. What I am saying is that we don't need to force a primary topic to be had here, and I've said that it does not impact navigation anyway. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  To elaborate about the core meaning of the term "deep blue sea", the Encyclopedia of Microbiology says, "The world ocean covers 71% of Earth's surface with the deep blue sea (regions seaward of the continental shelf) accounting for more than 60% of the total." Something like that represents the term at its core, not this science fiction film. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  We do not usually make dicdefs the primary topic. In this particular instance, the phrase isn't even ambiguous with the film, as it would be at Deep blue sea which can exist alongside this article. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as there is no actual article on the phrase "deep blue sea," making this the primary topic for the term. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  Hot Stop, for what it's worth, Big used to be where the film article was. There was a discussion that concluded in it moving to Big (film) because it did not make sense for a film to claim primacy to a preexisting term. In this same case, the term "big" does not have an article either. I think that is precedent that can apply here. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - there are many other films also called Deep Blue Sea. Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  There is only one film with the title. "The Deep Blue Sea" is a separate term and I will unmerge it regardless of the outcome of this RM. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2013 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deep Blue Sea (1999 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150507203717/http://www.thevine.com.au:80/entertainment/top10/top-ten-surprise-movie-deaths-20110412-261046 to http://www.thevine.com.au/entertainment/top10/top-ten-surprise-movie-deaths-20110412-261046

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deep Blue Sea (1999 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Slightlymad (talk · contribs) 04:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This one is mine! Deep Blue Sea is an F-U-N watch and I am elated to give the damn thing a review. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are a couple of nitpicks after a thorough reading:

• Infobox: The runtime is unsourced. Just repeat the source from Variety to support this.

Added Variety ref

• Lede: Get rid of this clause ...and written by Duncan Kennedy, Donna Powers, and Wayne Powers as these screenwriters don't have their own articles in the main space, thus they are not independently notable.

Done. I added another notable member of the cast list, though.

• Cast: I would just drop this section entirely and add the actors' names beside their roles in the Plot section instead. A bare-bone list this short isn't long enough to justify its own section. See WP:FILMCAST

I personally don't think it's a good idea to mix fictional elements (plot) with real-world material (cast). In my opinion, the plot section should be as simple as possible. Is this really an issue? The guideline does not actually forbid it and some FAs like Boys Don't Cry and The Getaway use this format. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well it was me who brought The Getaway to FA, and the reason I opted adding a cast section was because adding them in the Plot would expand its 694-word length, which violates WP:FILMPLOT in regards to length. And if I were to bring examples of FAs that don't have their cast sections, it'd be Eraserhead and Manhunter, or GAs such as Zombi 2 and Nightcrawler. Since this article does not provide context on the actors (even in a dedicated "Casting" section), integrating the cast into the plot would have been the right thing to do. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

While I appreciate your helpful comments and interest in the article, I still think having a cast list is more appropriate because it improves the readability of the plot section a lot. For example, the second paragraph of the plot section introduces 3 characters in its first sentence; if we integrate the cast then that sentence will unnecessarily become longer and more difficult to read. A cast list also offers a better presentation of the film's notable actors and does not force readers to read an entire plot section to know who appears in the film. No guideline actually forbids the use of a bare cast list, and even if they did, common sense must be applied in their interpretation. Also, the development section does provide context on the actors. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Development:

• Although Warner Bros. (WB) bought the script in late 1994, "WB" is unnecessary.

Removed

• When Renny Harlin was chosen to direct the film, Kennedy's screenplay, which had already been re-written by several writers at WB Does the source name the persons who did the rewrites? Are they uncredited even? Also, I wouldn't shorten Warner Bros. to WB.

Sadly, the source does not specify names

• Filming:

• Most of film was shot at Fox Baja Studios in Rosarito, Mexico, grammar.

Fixed

• Originally, Burrows' character... It's Burrows's

Fixed

• ...disapproved the ending because she was behind the shark experiments and was seen as the film's villain. It's "disapproved of".

Fixed

• As a result, the production team did a one-day reshoot in the Universal Studios tank and did some computer generated work on the sharks to "fix" it. quoting 'fix' is unnecessary and may imply doubt. Either reword or remove quotes.

Replaced it with "changed it"

• Theatrical run: Stephen Sommers' -> Sommers's

Fixed

• Critical response:

• Deep Blue Sea received generally mixed reviews from critics. Supply this with an independent, reliable source instead of citing Metacritic since the site doesn't have a sample of all the reviews.

Supported with Wired ref

• I feel like Roger Ebert's comments is excessively quoted, could you convert that into prose somehow?

Managed to paraphrase the last bit

• Create a "Home media" section for the DVD/Blu-ray release of the movie and support with it reliable sources; it should be placed under the critical response subsection. See MOS:FILM#Home_media for more about what to include.

Added a Home media section under Release, as it fits better there.

I would add the dates and the distributor of the DVD/Blu-ray, as "[A]fter its theatrical release" seems vague. AllMovie has the exact dates—the DVD was released on December 7, 1999 while the Blu-ray was released on October 12, 2010, courtesy of Warner Home Video. Please add. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Done

• Kindly double check the prose if it observes proper logical quotation.
• Legacy: these sources—[1][2][3][4]—include the movie as one the best shark movies of all time, something you'd want to be included in this section.

I managed to add a second paragraph using those sources. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Niwi3, these concerns can be fixed in no time. Putting this on hold. SLIGHTLY^mad 12:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: Thank you for your review, really appreciated. I think I have addressed all the issues you brought up. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Niwi3, see my replies. I also brought a new concern about the Legacy section. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: Thanks for those sources. I expanded both sections and left a comment above about the cast list. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Niwi3: Alright, I managed to fix typos you leave behind, as well as clean the prose for textual flow and logical quotation. One last thing, I think the sequel should be mentioned somewhere in the lede, perhaps as the last sentence of third paragraph. But that can be done right away, so I'm delighted to declare that the article can now attain the much-coveted Good Article status. It is well written, broad, free from plagiarism (except for uses of direct quotes) and OR, doesn't stray from topic, supported with inline citations to otherwise sub-par references, and images have suitable captions and supported with non-free use rationale. Well done! SLIGHTLY^mad 04:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead Dispute

No reason was given why my contributions were reverted by @Niwi3:. Per WP:FILMLEAD, the lead is suppose to be a brief summary of the body's key aspects. The "represented a test for Harlin" sentence is already covered in the body word for word, so there's no need to repeat it in the lead. "Released in theaters during the summer season" is unnecessary. Readers can deduce that the film was released in theaters during the summer with my edit, "was theatrically released on July 28, 1999" and the production budget can be noted when measuring it against its box office gross. With that said, what was wrong with my edit? Armegon (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no need to repeat the release date in the third paragraph because the opening sentence of the first paragraph already says it's a 1999 film. Indeed, the lead is a summary of the article's body, so there is nothing wrong with repeating the fact that the film represented a test for Harlin, and I was not sure why that sentence was removed without an explanation. Lastly, mentioning the budget in the second paragraph makes more sense because the second paragraph is about the film's production, while the third one is about the release and reception. --Niwi3 (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)