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. Erik (talk &#124; 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? - Sum mer PhD 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. - Sum mer PhD 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 &#124; 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. - Sum mer PhD 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)

Genre again
The film genre was described as "supernatural" but the source of this single genre was not clear. An editor changed the genre to romance fantasy drama, without bothering to provide any explanation whatsoever. Another editor later pointed to the BBFC and TIFf as sources for these genres. It isn't unreasonable and at least a source was eventually provided but it is generally better to list a primary genre and maybe a secondary genre, three genres seem unnecessary and indulgent. I tend to agree with the suggestion above, fantasy romance per Variety magazine. -- 109.77.195.51 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Three genres added again but at least this time with an edit summary saying it was based on the BFI. Still seems excessive. -- 109.79.172.81 (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2021 (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)
 * I get it, Del Toro directed both projects and it makes sense that people some people would make that connection, but they both owe their origins to the much older Creature from the Black Lagoon which the article already noted. -- 109.76.137.4 (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2020 (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. &mdash;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 |The_Shape_of_Water_(film)|The_Shape_of_Water_(novel). - 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. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  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_Shape_of_Water_(film) 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 · [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/?username=PhilipTerryGraham&project=en.wikipedia.org 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  ( &#9993; ) 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 &#124; 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 &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 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 · [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/?username=PhilipTerryGraham&project=en.wikipedia.org 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, 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). 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. &mdash;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 &#124; 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)


 * , 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 &#124; 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. - Sum mer PhD 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)
 * I get that this is an important theme but does it need to be mentioned in the Plot summary, the Cast section, and again in Casting? Octavia Spencer herself pointing out the significance in the Casting section is great, not sure the other two cases are entirely necessary. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Likewise, in the character of Giles, dealing with his sexual orientation as hinted at in the film, especially in the diner when he touched the racist counter guy's arm and the counter guy reacted like he was bitten by a snake and threw Giles out. Also, his stated loneliness, calling Eliza his only friend (presumably attached to his orientation). Do any sources explore this aspect of the film? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think mentioning these details about the characters in the Casting section is fine. I'm not convinced any more than that is necessary. -- 109.77.219.141 (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Cast descriptions
I feel something has been lost by reducing the Cast section to only the names. I suppose some of the descriptive text could still be mentioned elsewhere such as the casting section. For example, if you look at the past discussions above some people felt it was very important to (repeatedly) highlight that Zelda is African American.

The GA reviewer said: "Don't quote me on this, but I think that whether or not a cast has to be cited depends on whether there's elaboration given beyond the names"

Before a film is released any cast information must be based on reliable sources to avoid speculation, see WP:CRYSTAL.

After a film has been released the film itself serves as the source for the cast members, the actors and the character names. Reference can be removed after a film has been released but they are often left there anyway. Additional details or descriptions beyond what can easily be proven based on the film itself and the film credits, may still require references.

I posted this separately because sometimes people get annoyed if I add directly to the GA Review discussions and it's easier to start a new section. -- 109.76.144.63 (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The baby has been thrown out with the bathwater... the explanation that Richard Jenkins character Giles was gay were removed and after that the LGBT categories have been removed too. I understand that categories are supposed to be verifiable and not added indiscriminately but again I think something has been lost here, and that casual readers would benefit if the brief character descriptions were restored. -- 109.76.137.229 (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Without digging deep into the article history the Casting subsection of the Production section is much better and more descriptive than I remember it being before, not as much has been lost as I previously thought. The LGBT categories should probably be restored though (i.e. revert this diff). -- 109.76.137.229 (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism section
I've included a bit about "The Space Between Us" in this section. The students nor the NFA ever really accused del Toro of plagiarism, but the similarities were mentioned relatively frequently by outlets while covering the people who did make such accusations. Outlets covering this wrote "did he plagiarize these students" type of headlines, so it's one of the films associated with the claims surrounding the movie, even if the creators absolved him of any guilt. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Genres
the genres for the shape of water are: Historical fiction (takes elements from the 60s--the cold war [soviet union and the U.S.]) Romantic fantasy (romance between main character and the Amphibian Man) Drama (drama film)

There is no horror in the film. There is no thriller part. It is a historical romantic fantasy drama. can there please be some agreement? 135.180.198.103 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Genres on Wikipedia come from published reviews. All genres must be supported by reliable sources. The only agreement to be settled here is whether too much or too little emphasis is placed on a particular genre, and folks here would typically point to various sources to make their case. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)