Talk:Dead Calm (film)

Plot Summary

"After having sex, Rae is staring downward, feeling guilty for betraying her husband, by allowing Hughie to please her, including having an orgasm." What the fuck? Where did that come from? 24.23.5.28 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hughie takes the opportunity to lure an emotionally vulnerable Rae into temptation. After a passionate coupling with Hughie, Rae must decide whether she has it within herself to go back to her husband. But can she reach John in time and come to forgive herself, or is Rae doomed to remain Hughie's lover?"

I don't know who's adding all this sexual innuendo, but it's cheesy. None of the inner conflict described above is apparent in the dialogue of the movie, or in Rae's actions. She clearly is trying to return to her husband. Whoever keeps editing this is a perv. 24.23.5.28 (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

How can you miss it? She sleeps with him right after she finds out that the boat her husband is on is sinking. She tells him that she will be there by sunset after he conveys that the boat will sink in 6 hours. She steels herself to seduce Hughie so that she can gain his confidence and control of the boat which is exactly what she does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:585:8382:5C00:B11C:89E6:7C22:95E0 (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The movie does include a graphic sex scene between the Rae and Hughie characters which is a pivotal moment in the plot for Rae Ingram. While there's very little dialogue in that scene the body language sets up what the characters are going through. Hughie believes she wants to have sex with him which is why he looks pleased, and Rae is conflicted between going through with sex and trying to take control of the ship which is why she goes for the shotgun while teasing Hughie with the notion of intercourse. We see that despite leading him on Rae wants to avoid sex with Hughie and rescue her husband. However because the dog draws attention to her when she goes for the gun Rae feels rushed and finds no other alternative than to go through with being Hughie's lover. When they finally do commit the deed Rae clearly displays a mixture of both pleasure and pain which leads to the conclusion of feeling guilt while being carnally satisfied. It's obvious Rae is using the seduction to her advantage, and afterward she still gives off facial expressions of guilt and annoyance when she sits up on her bed looking down. Most movie summaries on this site have more detail than this film which is oddly always being edited down to a premise. 70.6.27.75 (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's RAPE and there's no indication of "carnal satisfaction". Men commenting here are telling on themselves. She is a hostage and just because she does not say no to her captor is doesn't make it consensual. If you look at the context of the movie, she is a heavily traumatised woman (remember the horrific death of her son at the beginning) held hostage by a madman, worried about the love of her life (her husband) being left to drown in the ocean. Getting some is the last thing on her mind. She attempts to grab a shotgun moments before the "love scene"! If the Billy Zane character was played by a toothless fifty year old obese actor, you wouldn't contest the fact that it was rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.91.209 (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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.

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)

I took the liberty of trying to make this not have the "This plot description is too detailed compared to the rest of the article" warning at the top. Feel free to contact me if you think it was too much. Also, some of this still seems kind of jilted. If anyone is better than me at editing, please make this flow a little better. Jabberwockgee (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.28.4 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Http://images.celebritymoviearchive.com/members/thumbs/b/bM1603-NicoleKidman@DeadCalm.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foulmouthedjerkoff (talk • contribs) 06:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this article is not with the "lead section," as is claimed in the prefatory warning or complaint at the article's head. It is with the absurdly over-detailed, six-paragraph plot "summary," which is in fact a moment-by-moment recapping of apparently every single incident in the film, e.g., "The dog walks in to find Rae and Hughie having passionate sex and leaves them alone." This numbing narration includes glaringly needless spoilers as to every twist and turn of the storyline and indeed the entire outcome of the film. The purpose of a plot summary is to give the reader a grasp of the essentials, not to ruin a viewing of the film itself. Frankly, the brief plot summary given in the opening paragraph of this entry is sufficient. The endless six-paragraph recapitulation of every plot point should be cut entirely. NicholasNotabene (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dead Calm (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/20081207165539/http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/dead_calm/ to http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/dead_calm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)