Talk:Ghost Ship (2002 film)

message: Is this a remake of anything??? 23:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think so, why do you ask? Kingpin1055 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remake?

message: There's one thing I've noticed in this particular movie; with the exception of the dance hall scene, there is very little gore, other than a few isolated spots of blood.  And I am sure more can be said about the movie, I just don't know if it should be revealed.--Vercalos 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gore

message: This section is written in the tone of a teenager telling their friend a scary story (e.g., "Yes, the wire had cut through over fifty dancers simultaneously and all are dead.") --Closedmouth 04:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Death Scene" 

message: After seeing the movie, then reading this Wiki article on it, I noticed that it didn't really have a lot on what actually happened. All it said was that the crew killed everone out of greed. I added a more detailed explanation on what happened- the poisoning, the part Francesca played, and how Ferriman was involved. WikiScott 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Detailed Plot

message: In the trivia section, we can read this; "Jack Ferriman's "Soul Collector" character is named for Charon the Ferryman, the Greek mythological spirit who collected souls from one side of the river Styx and ferried them across to Hades." And then; "citation needed". 
Why would anyoen need any citation to this obviously fact? Ferriman are on a ship, collecting sould he is supposed to bring with him. Just as Charon the Ferryman. This is a very clear reference, so I really don't see why there should be any need for citation. If every sentence in an article needs some documentation, then the whole citation concept has gone way too far. 193.217.193.55 14:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The complete trivia section is an almost exact copy of imdb I think. Is that allowed? Hfodf 23:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know if the thing with his name is right, but there is at least an other allusion to Charon. In the room with the swimming pool there is a painting on the wall depicting Charon collecting souls to bring them on his "ferry". The picture was painted by Gustave Doré and is an illustration from Dante's Divine Comedy. -- DanteRay (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "citation needed"

message: :Image:Ghost Ship 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 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.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ghost Ship poster.JPG

message: does anyone know if this film was inspired by the 1997 Si-Fi horror film Event Horizon? It bears some similarities to Event Horizon, such as the crew being killed, the ship found abandoned, and the rescue crew being terrorized by spirits. Joe311 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Event Horizon 

message: Aquitania (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antonia Graza 

message: While it's all nice that someone wants to write a thesis about what the movie meant to them & what they thought the movie meant, this isn't the place for it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not "Bob's Opinions in Thesis Format". You want to talk about the film, go to a site that encourages such types of discussions, such as IMDB. This is not the place for it. If it isn't a fact set in stone or voiced by the people who made the film, it isn't supposed to be on here. Besides, all of it was one person's opinion & like I said twice before, this isn't the place for one horror fan's opinion of Ghost Ship. MeekoFTW (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of texts normally published on films are either some kind analysis of them or advertisements to watch them. If you prefer the latter, I definitely have no time to argue with your views. From experience, this takes too much time to be worth and I have much more important things to do in Wikipedia. I from my point of view think that if you are right them majority of film and book articles bring Wikipedia very little more than a troubles on "fair use" cover publishing Audriusa (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

text: *Well, my particular point of stating this wasn't to discredit any existing books, blogs, opinions or shows out in the world. It was to state that personal research, especially unsourced research, doesn't belong on wikipedia. The person who added the stuff I deleted was adding things that weren't mentioned in the movie (theorizing that the gold was from a mob heist due to the Italian features of the crew or that it was part of a government plot) as well as posting what equates to personal opinions about who the movie should appeal to ("making the film more attractive for certain categories of people but maybe less attractive for groups that just want to be scared"). The only way I could imagine either part being notable enough to mention on the article is if either bit was voiced by a notable critic on his/her blog, article or show & we were able to get it cited. Even then, it would be listed under Reception rather than having it's own little section. Now if the director, writer, producer or actors were to state these opinions on a citable source then it would merit having it's own section in the article. The thing is that even though some of the theories posted by the guy do sort of make sense, if we allow one non-notable person to post their theories on wikipedia then we'll have to allow everyone. After a while the article would just be too dragged out & would be more of a fan page than an encylopedia. MeekoFTW (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And the main point is that wikipedia is supposed to be a factual website. We can't put in theories unless they can be backed up somehow, either by a quote from a notable critic or by someone notable who worked on the movie. I prefer to theorize when it comes to movies, but unless I can prove that this theory is correct, supported by a notable someone and/or is a popular theory held by enough people to be notable, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. I hold myself to that same idea- I have my theories & such about books, movies & tv series, but I'm not a notable person & sometimes that viewpoint isn't verifiable or believed by a large enough amount of people to warrant documenting. MeekoFTW (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed unsourced research

message: For some reason, people insist on deleting part of the end of the Plot. They are removing mention of the fact that the ghosts loading the ship at the end are in fact the film's stars who died previously in the film. IE: The ship's crew. This is most likely because the editors completely missed that crucial part of the ending, and thusly believe "If I didn't notice it, it didn't happen." It would be nice to get a final agreement on this. -- 4.153.86.115 (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I saw the notice above, but didn't think "liner/tugboat" was about this issue. I'm still not convinced, however. -- 4.153.86.115 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The dead crew includes Gabriel Byrne, Karl Urban, and Isaiah Washington. These are rather well known faces, and none of them are among the crew who brings the gold aboard the new ship. I've watched the final scene on DVD several times, and I'm 100% sure. It also would'n make sense in the context of the plot, as they were killed during Ferriman's previous harvest, and likely ascended to Heaven with all the others. -- Imladros (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called a "fact" despite being unsourced and based on an anon who think the characters look alike. As Imladros stated, it contradicts the plot point where all the innocent souls escape. It's also not mentioned in any recap: --73.75.213.228 (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring Deletion/Vandalism 

message: Anyone have a better recollection of the death of Karl Urban's character Munder in that movie since it is not mentioned in the plot summary. If so, do add it in the plot summary please. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl Urban's character 

message: The article says that this film “received largely negative reviews from critics”, and I was wondering if that should maybe include a source. --ChaserBerry (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review Sourcing 

message: A dispute has emerged regarding the necessity of including the weight of the gold bars in the Plot section, and if so, the best unit of conversion to include (if any). Until recently the article had listed the weight in ounces with a conversion to tonnes. Opinions are welcome! DonIago (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt there's any source stating the weight of the gold bars, which was probably added at some point as WP:OR based on a assumption of a standard weight. A quick search suggests event the number of bars in unclear so this stuff  is better just removed until there an RS, especially given that it seems to have no importance anyway. Having an incorrect conversion for an OR guess in a plot summary of a work of fiction is clearly ridiculous. Gugrak (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that if the weight is never stated in the film then it shouldn't be included, and that it's likely unimportant to understanding the plot in any case, but I'm curious as to your assertion that the conversion is incorrect, especially considering it was using a standard Wikipedia template? I suppose it's a moot point relative to the other two arguments, but it's still a point of curiosity for me. DonIago (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight of gold?