Talk:Lady in the Water

message: The intro states “The film features the starring cast of…” and then lists the actors.  This is an odd and clunky sentence.  No film FEATURES a starring cast.  A film can feature an ensemble cast, but a starring role and a featured role (ie, supporting role) are mutually exclusive.  This should be changed to, “The film stars Paul Giamatti and Bryce Dallas Howard, and features Bob Balaban, etc. in supporting roles.  Someone please fix the intro.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.234.53 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clunky Intro 

message: I don't have time to properly format the Lady in the Water book section at the moment.
here's the book: Lady in the Water Book
--LuminousSpecter 15:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Version Clean-Up 

message: I've deleted the pre screening reveal as posted by Cigammagicwizard. I can't be sure but it looks like it has been lifted wholesale from the Ain't It Cool review that has since been removed. Even if it hasn't, reading previous edits from this user they have never edited before with anything like the ability shown here.
Also there are some bits that don't actually make sense, e.g. Awakening back in his home, sitting across from him is the beautiful Bryce Dallas Howard. Figuring out that she climbed out of the water and brought him inside mysterious Kim Novak from drowning and she awakens to reveal nothing of herself, slowly drawing Stewart in to the mystery of her existence.
(Pally01 10:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it again, as this user put it back on the page.--LuminousSpecter 04:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre Screening Reveal 

message: When I initially saw the preview, thought it was simply going to be a drama about a man's entirely normal(though possibly dramatic) life, until near the very end of the preview.--Vercalos 08:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You know... 

message: In the trivia section, it reads that this film does not have a twist ending or some revelation. The movie has not come out and won't be out till July 21, so how is this trivia accurate? Is there a link to a valid source that has seen this movie and can confirm this (i.e. a verifiable film critic). Otherwise I think that it is speculatory and shouldn't be there. Bignole 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This information has been floating around for a month now on the internet. I included one source I trusted (Yahoo Movies) and linked to their Summer Preview Page that includes "no twist ending" as confirmed by Shyamalan himself. -HurricaneJeanne 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just wanted to make sure that it was verified and not just someone's opinion, because I haven't heard anything about that before now. Also, what twist ending was there in Signs? Cause I don't recall a twist, which would make the part about this one being the "first" movie of his to not include one. Thanks. Bignole 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when does odd circumstances equal twist ending? There was nothing that made you think one thing but it turned out to be completely different. It wasn't like Sam Jackson turning out to be the one that caused all the havoc in search of a true hero; it wasn't like finding out that Willis had been dead since the beginning of the movie; it wasn't like finding out that The Village was actually set in modern time. It was simply a suspense movie about a family coming together. Bignole 01:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't being marketed as a horror film, that's a misconception because of the trailer. I don't know what citation you need, the rating can be found anywhere, and the trailers have stated the "based on a bedtime story.." line. It's fantasy. LOTR wasn't a light horror film and it had monsters and suspense. Frightening sequences is a broad term that isn't limited to horror films. Bignole 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Having the entire cast here is not necessary, especially people lIke "partgoer" and other non-notables.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BauerPower (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast

message: Added a reviews section, beginning with the Variety advance review, which is a reputable and well-thought of source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.66.136 (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Reviews Section

message: The above is helpful link for any film entry.  Real quick, here is the order in which sections should go:
* 6.1 Lead 
* 6.2 Plot
* 6.3 Background/Production
* 6.4 Cast
* 6.5 Reception
* 6.6 Notes and/or references
* 6.7 External links
* 7.1 Tagline (generally not included; only when of historical/cultural note, such as "In space, no one can here you scream")
* 7.2 Trivia
--69.22.254.111 13:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films]]

message: Sorry, but I was wondering: what is a "scrunt"? I'm not going to see the movie so I want to knowwhat it is. loulou 03:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A scrunt is a monster out to get the narfs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.138.20 (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the blue tinge given to the poster, I assumed she was a smurf.—Wasabe3543 06:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest you go see the movie, I thought it was very good. Scrunts are a wolf-like monster in the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.247.198.47 (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrunt 

message: Story is a wavy-haired redhead in most of the movie, but when she is near death, she is straight-haired blonde. Only after Heep heals her wounds, does she turn back into a redhead. Since Story lives underwater, she is pale, which may be her natural complexion, but when she is recovering and still blonde her look is different enough that I had doubts she was the same person. Did anyone else have the same problem? --Ancheta Wis 11:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was confused at first, too, until I realized that the only reason her hair was lighter was because it's the first time we see her hair dry in the movie.  Hair gets darker when it's wet.  That section in the "trivia" should be removed. --69.242.24.196 03:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Story's hair turns blonde because when the scrunt scratched her it made her ill.  Also, It is because of the state she's in. She is not used to it.  Oh and whoever said that that's the first time we see her with dry hair is entirely wrong.  When Mr. Heep woke up after she saved him,her hair was dry.Nosebutton (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redhead to Blonde 

message: The actions of Shyamalan over the last year have led many people on both coasts to wonder, openly, about his mental health.  According to a close friend, "Shyamalan has been acting more and more bizarre and we are all wondering if some type of substance abuse may be to blame."
-This quote has no source and doesn't name the close friend.  Until both are submitted I feel that it's slander.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.21.95.74 (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from Article

message: I just deleted the section "Possible goofs" (discussing Howard's changing hair color).  In fact, the change is quite consistent (and was, I thought, one of the nice touches of the movie).  Throughout the movie, when Howard's character (Story) is injured and/or feels the need to return to water, using first Heep's, then the Rans' shower for the purpose.  In these scenes, the tips of her hair have lightened—it is as if the color and life are draining out of her.  Thus, after her injuries toward the end of the movie, when her hair has gone completely blonde (almost white), this change is entirely consistent with previous scenes, and is, as the original paragraph noted, accompanied by a similar change in skin tone.  —Ryan McDaniel 13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the "Goofs" section it mentions the story as having a Korean origin and that it would almost impossible to pronouce "Narf" and "Scrunt" in Korean as they are. Where did this come from? No where did they say in the movie that it was a Korean origin. The fact that the old woman that relays the story to Cleveland is Korean has nothing to do with it's origin. I think this is someone's opinion and should be removed. Bignole 03:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another section removed: "Possible goofs" 

message: Does anyone have the actual Jon Stewart quote?  The word "fucking" was changed to "****ing", which seems almost unpronounceable to me. (One asterisk is hard enough...) Michael Slone (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jon Stewart quote in trivia section

message: It should be mentioned that the non-critic reviewers at rottentomatoes gave LitW a 74%, much higher than the ratings of the village.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.30.157 (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE NOTE---> Wikipedia views giving an "on the other hand" citation as biased opinion,  based on the policy that edits should not have Undue weight WP:NPOV. I have made an edit pointing out that the source (Rottentomatoes "Viewer rating") is not a reliable reference since it is a biased statistical sample based on Self-selection. The Viewer Rating entry should probably be deleted on such grounds but I have left it in since it may, in it's current state, be informative. Fans may want to refrain from making such edits in the future. Halfblue 15:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is Rottentomatoes "Viewer rating" not a reliable source, so is "IMdb User Rating" and "Yahoo! Users". They are all non-representative opinion polls since they are not a statistical sample of moviegoers; they are a popularity vote by moviegoers. The high number of "10" and "A+" votes seems to point out a spin campaign going on by Shyamalan fans to purposely skew the rating and support "their guy". 69.72.7.81 13:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? This is my first Shyamalan movie, and I liked it enough to give it a 10 on IMDB. I don't think I'm part of a spin campaign, it's just that this is the kind of movie that some people really like and others really hate. Borisblue 04:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The validity of your view is not in question--- the point is IMdb User Rating is not Scientific, i.e. it is not a random pole of individuals. A Scientific pole is random and blind. The "individuals" in the IMdb pole chose to vote and therefore skew the sample one way or the other. That is why WikiProject Films asks that you NOT use User Ratings--- since it does not meet the criteria for a valid source. 69.72.93.193 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Viewer Rating

message: Tartutics are described in the article as enforcing justice in this world, while the article in wikipedia focusing just on tartutics (see link at end of the article) says they enforce justice in the Blue world. Which is it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.1.162 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reggie didn't die because he was the gaurdian.(Also maybe they were too busy with the scrunt!Ha HA)Nosebutton (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tartutic and Justice 

message: An alternate interpretation and correction: the significance of Story's changing hair color signifies purity and strength. Story is on a quest to fulfill her destiny and can only accomplish this through the help of (human) others. As she prepares to return to her world as the Madam, her hair changes to pure gold, signifying her complete transformation.
If this is the editor's interpretation then it is POV. If it is something else (like a direct quote from the writer in an interview) then it should have a reference citing that specific source. Trivia entrees (and almost any addition to Wikipedia for that matter) need a source. Wikipedia is not the place to post opinion or original research (WP:NOT). 69.72.7.19 21:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: When you read the "reception" section, it talks about how the movie was panned by critics who didn't like Shyamalan's rejection of the standard union-mandated way of doing things in Hollywood.  It talks about how the critics hated his jokes about critics, hated that he didn't use a statistically viable focus group, and hated that he cast himself in the movie.  Anyone who thinks outside of the industry box is likely to read that and say "What?  Who cares about any of those things?"  So, I suggest, that we put in something about what the audience thought about the movie (not just how many tickets sold)--there are people above who don't want a imdb user vote--whatever, find something else then.  And, if the critics were the only reason this movie lost money, then it counts as a legit blackballing (akin to Gilliam's Brazil in 1985), and said soft-campaign should be mentioned also.  --Mrcolj 01:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can do that somewhere (like a fan site), but it is very hard to do on Wikipedia. When you say Shyamalan was panned for "thinking outside the box" and rejecting "the standard union-mandated way of doing things in Hollywood" and "critics were the only reason this movie lost money", you are putting some kind of interpretation on what went wrong with this movie. Interpreting it that way violates Wikipediada's NPOV. What would be your source of "what the audience thought about the movie"? Citing fan poles like IMdb and Yahoo Movies is considered an invalid source re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films guidelines. Wikipedia is not the place for people’s interpretations or for supporting your favorite director. If you think there is some part of that section that is not balanced and you can site a Wikipedia guideline or source that meet's Wikipedia's guidelines to fix it, go right ahead.  69.72.2.72 23:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My request for balance is inherently NPOV.  The only question is how to present the movie and its reception more accurately without violating the bureaucracy of "NPOV."  I still recommend someone attempt it, because it is a major thing the movie is memorable for.  Just find a review from someone other than me saying the movie was blackballed, or something academic questioning why the audience review didn't translate into dollars, etc.  --Mrcolj 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can We Have a More Balanced Reception Section?

message: One has to wonder about the film's setting being Philadelphia. The direct evidence is that an animal control officer explicitly states they are in Philly, but several other aspects of the film seem to contradict this:
* Heep tells Farber that Young-Soon Choi is a "student at the university", as though this were a small town with just one university, rather than dozens of colleges and universities. Even if the apartment building were close to one particular university, it would not nessesarily follow that an out-of-towner like Farber would know which university was meant.
* Farber tells Heep that he has been hired to be "the local film and book critic for the paper", as though this were a small town with one newspaper. Philly does indeed have just one paper that is larger and more notable than the others, The Philadelphia Inquirer, but its very notability seems to make the notion that Farber is both book and film critic somewhat silly, as major papers hire critics who specialize in one or the other.
* The entire setting doesn't look like any apartment building you would find in Philly. The building looks like an overly tall motel like one might see down at the shore in New Jersey somewhere...or perhaps like somewhere in southern California. The whole atmosphere is very "beach-like", including how people like Reggie and the "smoking guild" dress.
* With regards to being more Californian than Philadelphian, I would also point out that the Torres sisters are more clearly Mexican than either Puerto Rican or caribbean.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.144.161 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philadelphia? 

message: All the subtitles in the movie use the spelling "Eatlon".  So does the soundtrack title listed in the article.--131.107.0.73 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Great Eaglon" is spelled wrong 

message: Believe it or not, the film was named one of the year's best by Cahiers du Cinema. I shit you not, fucking Cahiers du Cinema. No. 6 in a 3-way tie  {at http://www.cahiersducinema.com/article959.html}  24.24.211.239 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey hey hey!  Why do you have to use those words.  There is absolutley no reason to use those discracful assortments of diplorable rubbish!!!!  Please do not use those words here or anywhere else on wikipedia!  Nosebutton (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Named one of the best of the year

message: :Image:Ladybedtime.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 ensure 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) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ladybedtime.jpg

message: "A boy in the Midwest of this land will grow up in a home where your book will be on the shelf and spoken of often. He will grow up with these ideas in his head. He will grow into a great orator. He will speak and his words will be heard throughout this land and throughout the world. This boy will become leader of this country and begin a movement of great change. He will speak of you and your words. Your book will be the seeds of many of his great thoughts. It will be the seeds of change..."
Who does that remind you of? A great orator from the Midwest who becomes the leader of the US and begins a movement of great change? When Shyamalan wrote this, Barack Obama was a mere blip on the horizon.
Has Mr. Shyamalan commented at all on this? Maybe he believes he can channel messages from the future; maybe he can.
Miguelj 72.207.68.27 (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obama did not grow up in the Midwest. And he was fairly well known in 2006, at least in circles where the 2008 Presidential race was being discussed. He was fairly well known in such circles since his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eerily prophetic? 

message: I'm opening up a talk page section so that Eusebeus and I can discuss the plot summary.  My position is that this plot summary is long strictly because Shymalan's plots are deeply intricate, necessitating a lot of explanation.  I realize that Wikipedia tends more towards favoring brevity over length, but in some cases, overabbreviation can lead to disservice to the subject.  I think that would be the case here.
But regardless of the length, the "restored" plot summary was significantly insufficient for the subject -- that's why I replaced it.
I also don't want to make this personal, but this is a little bit hit-and-run.  I believe that the existing plot summary is of much greater quality than what was once there.
But.
If someone believes that a summary is overlong, then you don't hit-and-run revert, you edit it yourself to reduce its length.  That's a much more cooperative process than utterly blowing out all work done on the summary in one swift click while glibly deciding "too long."
One is easy -- hitting the appropriate link -- and one is much more difficult.  But one is truer to the original intent of wikis. MikeHarris (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't WP:OWN this plot summary, and while I agree with everything said in the comment above, I'll also take the point that the essay needs trimming.  I'm working on that now. MikeHarris (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Quite literally managed to reduce the plot summary by half. MikeHarris (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion Re: Plot Summary 

message: I don't remember them being called evil, deeply or not.  They seemed to be protectors.  Was the evil thing mentioned in the movie or did someone just put that in there since they were in the dark? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.85.58 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a serious business critique of the plot summary and I could not agree more with this. I have not seen the movie, and this line in the summary left me wondering what made them evil, particularly since everything they did seems to benefit Story, who, unless I'm seriously mistaken, appears to be the heroine. Verminjerky (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tartutics – a deeply evil simian trio that serve as the Blue World's peacekeepers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lady in the Water. 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/20061022081341/https://www.michaelmedved.com/pg/jsp/eot/review.jsp?pid=3013 to http://www.michaelmedved.com/pg/jsp/eot/review.jsp?pid=3013
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061217081342/http://www.idsnews.com/news/story1_modify.php?id=36677 to http://www.idsnews.com/news/story1_modify.php?id=36677
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified