About the car scene


Erin Smith

Member
Mar 15, 2005
26
0
141
okay, just now when i was watching titanic i noticed that when rose drags jack into the back of the car the little window thing (the glass rose slides down) is down, but when we return to that scene later it is UP and the windows are all foggy. would they really have gone to the trouble of pulling it back down when they were having so much fun? i don't think so! so do u think the windows could have fogged up with that bit of glass down? or is it a mistake . . .
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
Erin,

She pulled him over the front seat. There was opening between the front and the back seats. The fog built up on the back window of the cab. As for whether or not any lovemaking could get that hot, uh, errr, no! hehe. That seemed sort of tongue-in-cheek humor on JC's part. Still, there had to be something to catch the attention of the one steward who didn't find them. It just might as well have been Rose's claw marks down the fogged window.

Just a note from Reality: That scene wouldn't have happened. First, no one except crew was allowed in the cargo holds (as far as I know). Second, the car was in a crate, so no one would have been able to climb into it even if he/she had found a way into the cargo hold. And third, from what I've heard, the car was crated in pieces, not assembled, so that would make it difficult for anyone to get into the car, unless they brought their toolboxes and put the damn thing together before getting in and doing "it" in the back seat.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
That was my point, Jack, hehe, considering the unlikelihood of bringing tools to construct the thing. It seems a better presumption that they would have done it elsewhere.
 

Tim Brandsoy

Member
Feb 19, 2002
165
2
183
I've heard the hypothesis that the Renault was crated, but nothing has been proven. If it was new it could have been in "knock-down" form from the manufacturer. But it could have just as easily been purchased there, used and driven around Europe while they were visiting. It's also my understanding that large cargo had to be there several days in advance.

I've read there may have been over 30 cars on board. 5 of them new that were probably knocked down...and I would imagine a dealer's mechanic/crew would assemble them at the dock. But I'd doubt personal vehicles would be broken down for shipping and then reassembled by the owner.
It would be more like the Mark III in the "French Connection" that was unloaded and driven off.

As for the steamy scene, it was cold and there was no heat(?) in the cargo hold. So I could image them putting up the window. Two bodies in a confined cold space that had just run around all over a ship and were "exercising"...yeah I would think they could steam up the windows pretty quick!
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Tim, that author is wrong on a lot of points. Not the least of which being his claim that the manifest is no longer extant. It is. Jack Eaton and Charlie Haas put most if not all of it in Titanic, Triumph and Tragedy.

Further, the Illustration he uses which he says is specifically that of the Titanic is in fact no such thing. It's a publicity representation of both the Olympic and Titanic which is supposed to give a general idea of the ship's layout. The fact that it illustrates some autos doesn't mean they were *actually* there.

The following is his basis for his assumptions:
quote:

I am basing this assertion on the fact that there were some 350 first class passengers on board, which amounts to 125 men and heads of family, who could have owned an automobile. Extrapolating these numbers, we can assume that out of these 125 "men", a good twenty of them would have taken their car along with them on the ship (with their chauffeur). Add to this five new cars placed on board and intended for American customers, plus five others belonging to second class personages. These are very conservative numbers, indeed, because it is quite possible that, at this very moment, more than forty "new" cars from 1912 may be waiting for a liberation of 86 long years under the cold waters of the Atlantic.
In short, he's basing his numbers on a number of assumptions, most of which are non sequiters while ignoring a primary source which he claims does not exist and which he also misidentifies as a "cargo log book ."

I wouldn't trust anything that website has to say.​
 
Jan 31, 2001
1,190
22
233
The entire site read as though the author knew for a fact that those cars were there. I was especially amused when he stated that many photographs had been taken of the ship's interiors, including "the chapel." He then goes on to talk about the effects the sinking would have on the cars, where he says they would have floated around in the hold until the ship hit the bottom, then they would settle. He never mentioned the fact that they would have been crushed like tin cans, as the cargo hold would have been pure chaos, especially during the descent to the bottom.

I'm with Michael on this one!
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
In short: In reality, the Titanic only held one automobile in its hold, as far as we know and as far as the evidence suggests - that of William Carter.

As for "liberating" it, there wouldn't be anything left to "liberate" after 90 years, much less 86 years, since any automobile down there for that long would have been consumed, with the exception of a few pieces of metal and the engine block (and maybe the tires). It would be more like "recovering the remains for a proper burial."

Besides, the holds on Titanic were big, but not that big. With all the other luggage that had been fitted inside, there would have been no room for "over forty" automobiles, even in disassembled state.

Why are hacks like this allowed to build sites on the Internet? (This is a rhetorical question, Michael, so I'm not really asking. You know the point).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>(This is a rhetorical question, Michael, so I'm not really asking. You know the point).<<

Yeah. I do. Freedom of speech is the worst of all possible systems...except for all the others!

What was amusing about the claim that most of the Titanics interiors were photographed is that they weren't. Most of the extant photos are of the Olympic.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
You have to love the refund given to the third class passenger who was going to eat in the restaurant!

Now excuse me, while I put a new fuse in my BS detector!
 

Tim Brandsoy

Member
Feb 19, 2002
165
2
183
It does seem hard to believe that there was only ONE car on Titanic though, especially considering the coal strike, you'd *think* they'd need any available means to ship cars. Maybe Titanic's rates were just too expensive for commercial (and large) cargo?

Anyway, when I read "BODY: complete and restorable" I knew he didn't have a clue! Salt water and sheet metal do not mix ;-(
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Dec 12, 1999
393
7
263
48
"Yes. It belonged to William Carter"

And I really don't know if his car deserved that sort of defamation of character...poor car, what did it ever do to anyone? Really?

"i'm sure they would have just found somewhere else to do it"

Under one of the tables in the A La Carte...hey, why not the gym? ;)...honestly, they could have been a little more creative.
 
Jan 31, 2001
1,190
22
233
I guess seeing the characters do it in the back of a car gave the teenyboppers in the audience something they could relate to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Now excuse me, while I put a new fuse in my BS detector!<<

I'm surprised the whole bloody house didn't burn down!

>>Anyway, when I read "BODY: complete and restorable" I knew he didn't have a clue! Salt water and sheet metal do not mix ;-(<<

Mmmmmmmmmmm....unfortunately, they do mix...a little too well!

>>Maybe Titanic's rates were just too expensive for commercial (and large) cargo?<<

That's probably it in a nutshell. The express liners didn't have a whole lot of cargo space and as such, commanded the premium rates. It would be a lot cheaper to send a large number of vehicals over on a freighter. I would point out however that back then, cars were pretty damned costly in their own right. Even for the well-to-do, it would be lot cheaper to buy them at home.
 
J

Jack Coburn

Guest
If i'm not mistaken, didn't Rose tell Bodine that Jack was far too professional to "do it"? Did she forget about her time in the renault?
 

Thomas Kelly

Member
Jun 19, 2004
51
3
158
"If i'm not mistaken, didn't Rose tell Bodine that Jack was far too professional to "do it"? Did she forget about her time in the renault?"

After the drawing she said it was the most erotic moment of her life - up to then at least. So no, she didn't forget the renault;)
 

Similar threads

Similar threads