Talk:Dead Calm (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Creeps
I'm not sure who creeps me out more, Hughie, or Rae for having slept with him. VanishingUser 03:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Rae in my opinion. It's one thing if Hughie is interested in having sex with her. It's another when Rae willingly and seductively goes along with it. Heck she didn't need to waste time with the gun anyways if there was a harpoon right below her. Still I feel kinda bad for her character though considering she lost her child and now this. But the article brings up an interesting point: What if Rae did get pregnant with Hughie's kid?
Then wouldn't this be the creepiest thriller of the 80s...
71.83.112.144 02:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- rae goes along with him because for a woman, on a boat with a psycho who is male, the odds are he's gonna wanna have sex with you at some point and it's better if it's "consensual" rather than not. i would have thought that was obvious. she wasn't truly into it. there may have been flashes of carnal lust as they were doing it, but she was only doing it because it was inevitably going to happen anyway and by her being 'into' it, it allowed for sex but not violence on top of the that (or even murder)24.91.233.228 03:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh it's obvious that Rae didn't want to be with Hughie (which is why she loads the shotgun half-way into the scene), but that doesn't change the fact that she was into the sex which is why it's creepy to me. Despite it being from faking it and/or carnally enjoying it (both appear to be the case here from various points of view), the idea is that she consented and even advanced on him with her own kisses and rubs all over his body (which was pointed out in the longer article). I do agree that from a woman's perspective carnal lust can be uncontrollable and that things could have turned out worse if she refused him on the spot. Still, she had other means to stop him besides trying to turn the boat off and eventually giving herself to him. There was the spear gun as previously mentioned and she could have been seductive enough to delay the sex for later so she would have had time to come up with a better plan. I'm sure her mind wasn't thinking straight anyways given the situation, but it's not like she had no way out. 71.83.116.206 07:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] We could use some more pictures on this movie:
If anyone can upload some more photos to follow along with the plot summary then it would be greatly appreciated. Here are some editied photos from a website:
http://www.hotflick.net/celebs/nicole_kidman_46.html http://www.hotflick.net/celebs/nicole_kidman_47.html http://www.hotflick.net/celebs/nicole_kidman_48.html http://www.hotflick.net/celebs/nicole_kidman_49.html http://www.hotflick.net/celebs/nicole_kidman_50.html http://www.hotflick.net/celebs/nicole_kidman_51.html http://www.hotflick.net/celebs/nicole_kidman_52.html http://www.hotflick.net/celebs/nicole_kidman_53.html http://www.hotflick.net/celebs/nicole_kidman_54.html
[edit] Excessively sexually-oriented plot summary...?
It seems to me that the plot summary is making a lot of speculation on Rae's feelings, and also is concentrating on the sex scenes a lot. They are described in great and unnecessary detail, and the fact that Rae is wearing "nothing but a robe" is made abundantly clear over and over. Perhaps this should be changed... does anyone agree? Joe 042293 20:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Read through it. Seems kinda kinky to me ;) Random Guy 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't mind the plot summary since I agree with most of it. However it does seem repetative with certain things such as "her wearing the robe" and "her wearing her wedding ring" which seem unnecessary to add. Other than some trimming here and there, the sex scene was a crucial and equally disturbing part of the movie that doesn't need to be removed from the plot synopsis. Most of Rae's characterization is built between the death of her son and the sex scene. These things were never in the book yet the writers and director added this to expand Rae's journey from a troubled victim to a seductive warrior. Personally this is the most controversial scene in the movie because the audience is taken in shock at the decisions and consequences Rae is making by choosing to sleep with Hughie. Oldboy88 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: I trimmed the repetative stuff as well as took out the obvious info (which is that they are aving unprotected sex). So far as I can tell the rest of the plot matches what was in the movie Oldboy88 05:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The sex scene happened so it should be included but some of those descriptions aren't necessary, especially with the made up details. Why do I feel like I'm reading erotica. Itsmeiam 03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to waste time in a discussion about what's in the article if you want other people to make the changes for you. 71.83.124.251 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- As I understand it, its a big deal to revert an article and you should wait for some agreement/consensus before making a major edit like that. I don't want to change it, if most people think its fine. And I can discuss anything I please, who are you, the king of wikipedia? You don't like what I have to say so you delete my comments. In what way does that help? Itsmeiam 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
All I'm pointing out is that you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with wanting to change the article and yet you're doing nothing about it. From the comments I've noticed so far it seems like you and Joe 042293 want a change. Why don't you stop wasting time making useless discussion topics about a change and actually do something about it. Or you can contact Oldboy88 since he edited things out that bothered Joe 042293. 71.83.124.251 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're obsessed with the thought I am obsessed. Everytime I write anything, you have to come in here and comment. My comments are not all adressed to you, and you shouldn't be worrying so much about what I'm doing. You have no interest in editing the article. Your only purpose on this page is to delete my comments and speak out of turn. Why are you here? You seem to be the obsessive one. If you care so much, why don't you get a username and sign your posts. I will do as I please and continue to post whatever I like. Have a good day. Don't contact me again.
Sorry it bothers you so much but I'm not the one constantly begging for the article to be changed. That is why I'm doing nothing about it. Rather than take my comments as an attack, you should be thinking of them as advice and help. You don't need to make a similar topic on the issue and all your defenses can be adressed in this one with others who seem interested. Don't act immature about this.71.83.124.251 07:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- The plot summary is very good, but is way too long and needs to be trimmed down to about 1/4 of its current size. 202.156.12.11 12:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
the plot summary is ridiculously extensive and detailed with the sex scene. it's silly. i think it definitely needs to be slimmed wayyy down.24.91.233.228 18:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dead calm.jpg
Image:Dead calm.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
[edit] Excessive plot description
Um....what color were the flairs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)