Talk:Blind Side (1993 film)

Untitled

I had the opportunity to work on this set as an electrical specialist. I was also the one who repaired all the plumbing in the house. When they installed the jacuzzi outside it was not hooked to any electrical, and the house had no power to support the 220V 50 amp system. The set electricians planned to hook it to there distribution set but they had no idea how to do it,,,so I did it. Also the installers mounted the mechanicals above the water line where it couldn't get prime. That's why they were having trouble heating it on that particular night's shoot. I figured a way to make it get going and the AD had me put on the payroll til the end of the shoot. The shoot was in a block of our house, so I was watching dailies. The furniture scene was right next to our print shop so I watched that too. Magi Media 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Fair use rationale for Image:Blind Side.jpg

Image:Blind Side.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) 19:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material

The following is unsourced information:

• Rebecca DeMornay was chauffeured to the location daily. Ron Silver drove himself to the site. Rutger Hauer came on his motorcycle.
• The mansion had six bathrooms in the house, none of which worked. After a little repair, the location manager was able to cancel the rental of the "honeywagon," a movie locations port-a-potty, which is quite an expensive piece of equipment.
• The movie consisted of a scene by an outdoor jacuzzi which was not part of the original property. It was custom installed for the movie and sold for pennies on the dollar afterwards to a crew member. On the first night of filming in the jacuzzi's electric heating mechanism could not be started. Ms. DeMornay refused to get into the cold water, she could see her stand-in was starting to shiver. Until technical assistance could arrive to remedy the problem, the location manager had his crew run around to all the local neighbors collecting (unused) trash cans full of hot water to fill the tub. The action saved the evening's shoot.
• The movie was shot during August 1993 when daytime temperatures were ranging from high nineties into the hundreds. The filming sequences moved from daytime shoots into nighttime shoots, but even early morning temperatures were still in the eighties. The old mansion had no air conditioning, so large outdoor units were brought to the set with "worm tubes" that conducted cool air into the house between shoots only. The noisy machines had to be shut off just before rolling the film.
• After the burn sequence the house catches on fire. The entire back porch, lanai-style area was boarded up with drywall so that the flames, driven from long gas pipes with pinholes in them, could pour out from under the overhang. Drywall can provide six hours of resistance to flame.
• The day after the last day of shooting in Altadena, the cast and crew went to Mexico to film the opening sequence of the movie.

While this is interesting, we can't use it unless you provide a source. Also, none of this is really trivia, as trivia by its definition is "unimportant information" - it therefore shouldn't be in a trivia section but instead the information should be incorporated into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 22 August 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 19:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Blind Side (1993 film) → Blind Side (film) – Proposed main title header would be analogous to the header form of the other two similarly named films — Blindside (film) and The Blind Side (film). As an alternative option, I would also support the disambiguation of all three films via years of production — Blindside (film) → Blindside (1986 film), the existing Blind Side (1993 film) and The Blind Side (film) → The Blind Side (2009 film). The incomplete disambiguations Blindside (film), Blind Side (film) and The Blind Side (film) would then all redirect to the Blindside dab page. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposed per WP:CONCISE. This just eliminates unnecessary overprecision and moves that article back to its original title. And move The Blind Side (film) to The Blind Side as the overwhelming WP:primary topic for that title (see pageviews). Oppose the alternative option presented as unnecessary for non-identical titles per WP:SMALLDIFFS; hatnotes are more helpful to the minority of readers who mistakenly land on the wrong article. Station1 (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - this addition of ambiguity adds nothing to the readers' or editors' experience, and in fact hinders it. These small differences in such similar and easily confused titles are bolstered by the addition of the years. -- Netoholic @ 13:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Presence or absence of "The" isn't generally enough to be a disambiguator; year is much more helpful. SnowFire (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Another RM discussion that likewise centers upon WP:SMALLDIFFS disambiguation by year of related film titles is currently active at Talk:Gentlemen's agreement (disambiguation)#Requested move 27 August 2023. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Our only aim in article titling should be the ease of navigation by our users. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.