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. -- Beloved Freak  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.-- Beloved Freak  19:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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. --  tariq abjotu  04:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

– 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 &#124; contribs) 15:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Deep Blue Sea → Deep Blue Sea (1999 film)
 * Deep Blue Sea (disambiguation) → Deep Blue Sea


 * 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. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * , 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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. &mdash;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)
 * , 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 &#124; 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. &mdash;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 1 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 ).

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

Lead Dispute
No reason was given why my contributions were reverted by. 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)