Talk:Poseidon (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by David Rush, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 25 July 2010. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Nelson: Bisexual?/Gay?[edit]

just s, the only confirmed partner Nelson had was his ex-boyfriend, so where does the bisexual bit come from? now, I don't deny that his behaviour toward the girl can be interpreted as sexual advances, but...--little Alex 09:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I just watched the film, and as Litalex stated above, the film very clearly portrays Nelson as gay, not straight. His partner was his ex-boyfriend. I therefore made two minor wording changes to reflect this. 75.17.114.230

The person he was pining over was certainly a man, but nothing confirms that Nelson was specifically gay. Any interpretation of his sexual label is purely POV. --gbambino 18:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Facts Not in Evidence[edit]

The first paragraph of the Storyline section mentions the height, number of decks, and number of cabins on the ship. I saw the film last night (after a few drinks, mind you) and I do not recall any mention of these facts and figures. Any sources outside the film itself are inadmissible. --Nelson Ricardo 18:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Settle down, armchair lawyer. "Any sources outside the film itself are inadmissible" - that gave me my biggest laugh today. As long as a credible source exist, the "facts" are fair game. I would have to assume there was mention of this on the official website or such. If not, it can be removed per wikipedia's sourcing policies. RoyBatty42 22:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:BritanniaRestaurant2.jpg[edit]

It should be possible for someone to create a freely licensed replacement for Image:BritanniaRestaurant2.jpg. Surely there are Wikipedians who have been on board this ship and who have photos of this restaurant. —Bkell (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the rightside-up version of the nightclub, wherein the gentlemen were seated gambling early in the film, was actually one of the Staples Center lounges. Be easy enough to find a PD picture of that, I would think. And it hasn't been torn down, unlike the rest of the meat.

The movie's opening was very unfortunately timed - it wasn't just MI3, there was also the DaVinci Code thing on that weekend -Dan 15:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis[edit]

The plot section was ridiculously long (took as long to read as it would to watch the dang movie) so I cut it to about 300 words. This is more than enough for a film of this type. Anyone who wants more detail can read the script. Davey1107 (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a stab this morning at cutting some of the plot down, but much MUCH more needs to be jettisoned. At the moment, it's not a synopsis, it's a treatment. Worse, much of it is wrong (just watched it again last night). A good synopsis should only be about 3 paragraphs or so long. RoyBatty42 22:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Christ, someone is already trying to re-expand it. It's too long as it is. Here is the official policy on plot synopsis for wikipedia (taken from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, which I urge everyone who works on film articles to bookmark):

Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reasons such as a complicated plot.

RoyBatty42 00:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this thankless bit of work, Roy. I will take a look at this and try to edit it myself. I hope you reverted the wretch who tried to expand it further. The tag is not on that section for nothing. My personal feeling is that the plot can be summarized in 2 or three sentences, not paragraphs: "At midnight on New Year's Eve, the S.S. Poseidon was capsized by a rogue wave. A handful of passengers left the ballroom and attempted to make their way to the hull, which was now the topmost portion of the ship. Several died along the way, before a half dozen made it out of the ship and to a life raft, where they were rescued". Even that gives too much away for me. I am not a fan of plot summaries. Jeffpw 08:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to have gone from one extreme to the other, now its too short. "I am not a fan of plot summaries" Be that as it may, they are still in line with official wiki policy. To cut that much out is also high-handed and discouraging to newcomers. Together with the "Brief Plot Summary" tag (which is not standard - either "plot" or "synopsis" is used elsewhere) this could be seen to those who worked on the page as poke in the eye. RoyBatty42 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to poke anybody's eye, Roy, and it is certainly not a dig at a film which I consider one of the best of 2006. If you feel it needs to be re-expanded, please feel free. I sincerely think it reads better this way. My only regret is the loss of image content, though I feel the images were there simply to decorate a fluffy article, which fair use does not really allow. Jeffpw 21:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
back to square one. Does anyone really think the addition of Ramsey asking his daughter to button her dress (a 30 second exchange, tops) is necessary for a synopsis of the plot? Pretty soon the synopsis will take longer to read than the film took to watch. Jeffpw 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what I was afraid of. By pretty much blanking out the section, negating all of a contributor's work, it was akin to throwing down a gauntlet of "All or nothing." I was trying to simply cull all the extraneous material from the existing synopsis until it reached a proper length and we could reach a middle ground on this. RoyBatty42 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

The last point of trivia claims that it is an error that the wave breaks over the ship. However, this is reported behavior of rogue waves, so it should not be listed as an error. Thus, I have removed it. User:anonymous 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

B.O. Success?[edit]

I corrected the reference to Poseidon being a financial success. It had a $160 million budget and made only $180 million worldwide (including foreign and domestic). Since the advertising budget is not included in the budget number, and since the investors only get half of the total gross, the film release was actually quite disastrous. The studio probably only made $90 million out of its original $160+ million investment. Jordinho 16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting a line about the box office losses. Smells like vandalism to me.

Fair use rationale for Image:Poseidon (2006) film poster.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Poseidon (2006) film poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cast[edit]

The "Cast" sections says of Elena, "... She dies when she gets trapped underwater and punctures her head." I've not seen how she died (I got bored and went to a bar :-), but surely there is a description using better English. 87.114.136.55 15:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of trivia from opening paragraph[edit]

I removed the following from the opening paragraph:

Many members of the cast and crew came down with minor infections due to being in dirty water for so many hours a day.

Carol Lynley, Red Buttons and Pamela Sue Martin, three stars of the original film, attended the premiere in May, 2006.

The ship on the official promotional material (posters and website) is P&O's Arcadia taken while the vessel was in the shipyard. The "Poseidon" was parodied by an episode of The Simpsons as The Neptune in the 2006 episode "The Wettest Stories Ever Told".

Richard Dreyfuss's character was just Nelson, although Nelson was his last name. His character's first name was never revealed. Yet it is mentioned in the credits that Nelson's first name is Richard.


If any of this information is worthy of being included in the article, please feel free to incorporate it in a better and less prominent location. Also, the info about Dreyfuss' character's name is poorly worded.Msheskin 12:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Technical incompetence[edit]

The stupidities of this film -A big wave, yet none of the APRA equipment warned of impending doom on the bridge? -In the disco- water evrywhere and live wires, yet all but the heroine gets electrocuted -The part where the navy bloke jumps into the upturned atrium in the pool of water with burning oil- oil would flow more evenly over the water. -The bow thrusters show air rushing in- no. One would suk the air in and one would suck it out. Having 2 fans (one each side) pulling the air in- what would be the point of it? Why was it running- OK I can see a short circuit would have started it. See below -Where was the power coming from to run 3 thrusters at probably 1,000 HP each? -Very sceptical about the ship righting itself before it sinks.

My point- this film is so technically inaccurate that it really deserves to have failed. Watch the poseidon adventure- it's much more realistic. I think the inaccuracies in this film need documenting here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.22.17 (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The film's main protagonist and the age of the characters in the movie[edit]

Do you have any idea on who's the film's main protagonist, and the exact age of Jennifer Ramsey, Emmy Rossum's character? Starkiller88 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: Although Dylan Johns is the ultimate protagonist, Jennifer Ramsey seems to be the main protagonist, because she is not the damsel in distress, she is proactive in all situations[1]. Do you think so that she is the heroine of the film? 60.48.119.124 (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like you've watched the same film as me. In the one I saw Jennifer isn't even close to being the main protagonist, in fact she's not much more than a bit part (the fact she survives is the only reason she isn't just a bit part). She's just there to make up the numbers so that at least some of the cast are alive at the end. $DEITY help us from Rossum fanboys. As regards her age, if it's not explicitly stated in the film, and it isn't, then it's just conjecture which has no place in an encyclopaedia article. --WebHamster 08:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened?[edit]

What happened to the rest of the plot? It used to be a lot more detailed than this. It's fine at the beginning, but the rest of the plot was pretty much all deleted. It used to say stuff about what happened to "Lucky Joe," or whatever his name was. C Teng (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary ambiguity[edit]

The new cut-down plot summary mentions that the survivors make their way to the bow where they escape "through the propeller tube". To anyone who hasn't seen the movie, surely that is misleading, as normally a propeller tube (shaft) is at the stern of a ship? I haven't seen this movie and so was thus confused myself. I assume the survivors exited through a bow thruster, since bow thruster inconsistencies are discussed in the Technical Incompetence section above, but this is unclear from the summary. Since I am not entirely certain about the issue either way, I have raised the query here in the hopes someone else can resolve it. Peter Inns (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. What kind of ship is this? Most ships have their propellers at the stern. I haven't seen the film, but this wording in the Plot section looks suspicious. —QuicksilverT @ 06:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Score[edit]

The "soundtrack" section lists "The Poseidon" as track five. In my set, however, it is track four. Why? RadicalTwo (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

lol you failll cuz u can change this site
Rather than posting a reply that not only makes you look ignorant and immature, try a rational response. RadicalTwo (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)