Another Night To Remember


May 5, 2001
406
5
183
Think of it.....

A Remake of "A Night To Remember" using the original script and the technology available today (Ala Cameron's TITANIC).

No Extra Fluff....
No Extra Love Stories....
No Jack Or Rose....

What a flick that would be eh?

Regards,
Bill
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,615
734
563
Easley South Carolina
I'd buy a ticket!
wink.gif


Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Adam McGuirk

Member
May 19, 2002
567
1
183
Be a better movie than Camerons but you have to admit, it wouldn't make near the money his did. If i made a Titanic movie, as much as I would want it to be just historical with great effects I would almost have to put a love story in thier because thats what alot of people want to see.
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
568
45
193
A new ANTR could be made, and in the hands of a decent scriptwriter could be made to show far more excitement and tension than Cameron ever created. If there must be love stories, then you have plenty of real stories and real people to draw from.

But above all, if there ever was a new movie then depict these first and foremost.

1-For the first time ever, depict the near collision with the New York.

2-Depict the Californian incident in full.
 

Joshua Gulch

Member
Mar 31, 2001
604
4
183
Well, remember that even ANTR had its fictional love story. Remember Rob and Liz "We'll save ourselves!" Lucas? Though not a significant role by any stretch, they were still there.

Josh.
 
May 5, 2001
406
5
183
Josh,
Yeah I thought of that when I wrote the thread but you know?, that was like such a mundane story (more like a composite) of those two, it really didn't do much to effect the overall feeling the movie gave.

Eric,
I stated in my original post above.....NO FLUFF and NO LOVE STORIES, trust me, you do a remake of "A Night To Remember" with Cameron's FX and follow the original storyline of the first ANTR, you'll have a hit regardless because thanks to Cameron, there is a new generation of peoplke interested enough in The Titanic to make it a hit, perhaps not as BIG as TITANIC but it will make for a respectable showing.

Michael,
I think you and millions of others will also.

Regards,
Bill
 

Matthew Lips

Member
Mar 8, 2001
304
11
183
Eric.
"Depict the Californian incident in full." Mmm, which version would you suggest? How far away would you put the Californian? Would you don a crash helmet before you ventured back to this board??
Only kidding...
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
568
45
193
The exact mileage would be irrelevant, just as it is in terms of the question of Captain Lord's negligence. For full depiction one merely shows the same scenes that were depicted in ANTR and in this instance we could also cut away from Stone and Gibson on the bridge to Gill on the deck noticing the rockets as well (to add something new that hasn't been shown before)
 

Matthew Lips

Member
Mar 8, 2001
304
11
183
Eric.
The point is, the view you take regarding Capt. Lord's negligence, or absence thereof, is what can get you shot down in flames on this board.

Whatever you do with the Californian, you will p**s some people off big time. You can take that to the bank!
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
568
45
193
Why? You can't get anyone ticked off if you just depict exactly what Stone and Gibson said and what Captain Lord did (and did not do), and the documentary record to that effect is nine miles deep and then some. The only people I think who could get ticked off would be those who for some strange reason have an obsession with justifying the unjustifiable on Captain Lord's part (arguing over distances and how many people might have been saved is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Captain Lord was negligent in not responding to distress rockets his crew saw)
 

Adam Leet

Member
May 18, 2001
346
5
183
"What is relevant is that Captain Lord was negligent in not responding to distress rockets his crew saw)"

Exactly the point people will argue with you about.


Adam
 
May 5, 2001
406
5
183
Gentlemen,

I didn't start this thread to sell tickets to a pier 6er.....however, if this is friendly bantor back and forth about the Californian's neglect or whatever it has been deemed, let me be quick to point out that we have had this discussion raised elsewhere and it was determined, if memory served correctly that even with the field ice, the Californian could not have made it to the Titanic site in time regardless but the sheer fact that NO action was taken AT ALL puts Lord in a very unfavorable light no matter WHAT the circumstances were.

According to what I have read also, if those rockets had been red instead of white, perhaps it would have made a difference because I believe RED was the actual color for distress back then...PLEASE, if I am wrong, will someone correct me but I don't believe I am.

Regards,
Bill

Carry on Gents...
happy.gif
but fight nice..
happy.gif
 

Adam McGuirk

Member
May 19, 2002
567
1
183
I have to agree with Eric on this. Usually Im disagreeing with him but I think hes right on this one. Some people just cannot admit that Lord did do wrong that night. The facts are Lord did ignore rockets. I know red was the actual color but I would find it hard to believe they would shot flares up for no apparent reason.Tahts my opionion.
Adam
 
Nov 2, 2000
309
4
263
55
William and Adam, everything I've ever read said distress signals at that time were to be white and fired up at equal intervals. Where did you see they were supposed to be red?

Thanks,

Michael Koch
 

Matthew Lips

Member
Mar 8, 2001
304
11
183
Now do you see what I mean? Mention the Californian in Titanic circles and the results are guaranteed to match an explosion in a fireworks factory. It never fails.

I am not taking either a pro- or anti-Lordite approach here. This isn't the right thread for that. All I am saying that if anybody thinks they can accurately and fully portray what happened on Californian that night will have achieved what countless historians never have. And in reality never will.

Sorry, Eric, but until somebody invents backwards time travel we will never know for sure exactly where the Californian was in relation to Titanic, and what happened aboard her that night. Whatever version you happen to choose will not and will never receive universal agreement. That is my point, and as you can see we have already started a bunfight of sorts in this thread!
Cheers.
Matthew L.
 

Adam McGuirk

Member
May 19, 2002
567
1
183
Matthew,
Eric said that arguing over distances is irrevelant. What isn't irrevelant though is that we know Lord knew about Titanic's rockets but did not go to her rescue. He was awakened and knew there was a ship. What Eric is posting is the facts.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,615
734
563
Easley South Carolina
In Titanic circles, the Californian is always good for a knockdown dragout fight no matter what side you take, (or even no side at all.) But to John Q.Public, I really don't think they would care one way or another so long as the movie entertained them.

Adam, as a purely objective aside...and I'm not going to get into it with the Californian, the following is the law on distress signals at sea as published verbatim in the report from the U.S. Senate Inquiry;

IN THE DAYTIME.

(1.) A gun or other explosive signal fired intervals of about a minute.
(2.) The international code signal of distress indicated by NC.
(3.) The distant signal, consisting of square flag, having either above or below it a ball or anything resembling a ball.” 
(4.) The distant signal, consisting of a cone, point upward, having either above it or below it a ball or anything resembling a ball.
(5.) A continuous sounding with any fog-signal apparatus.
”  - This is purely a code signal, and is not one of the signals of distress given in the Rules of the Road, the needless exhibition of which entails penalties upon the master of the vessel displaying it.


AT NIGHT.

(1.) A gun or other explosive signal fired at intervals of about a minute.
(2.) Flames on the vessel (as from a burning tar barrel, oil barrel, etc.).
(3.) Rockets or shells, throwing stars of any color or description,[emphisis mine] fired one at a time at short intervals.
(4.) A continuous sounding with any fog-signal apparatus.

I hope this clears things up.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
568
45
193
"Sorry, Eric, but until somebody invents backwards time travel we will never know for sure exactly where the Californian was in relation to Titanic, and what happened aboard her that night"

Dramatizing what Stone and Gibson said and did and then told Captain Lord, need only come from their actual statements that they gave to Captain Lord just after the disaster. That does tell us what happened that night and quite thoroughly.
 

Tracy Smith

Member
Nov 5, 2000
1,646
8
313
South Carolina USA
I think Matthew has made the best point here; either way it would be done, there would be controversy.

And what Stone and Gibson said after that night may or may not have been what they thought or believed that night while things were happening. It's quite possible that what they learned the next day affected how they wrote their statements. Also, these statements only present a part of what went on aboard Californian that night, but there isn't any way now to know everything that went on. Sometimes what is left out is as important as what is included and sometimes what appears to be so on the surface, isn't necessary what is so. It's much more interesting to dig deeper and not just accept what seems so at face value.

And, Adam, what Eric is posting is his opinion, not necessarily the facts. If this issue were that cut and dried, good people on both sides wouldn't still be debating it 90 years later.
 

Adam McGuirk

Member
May 19, 2002
567
1
183
No Tracy I am afrad part of what he was posting was the fact. We know that the officers awakened Lord and told him that rockets were being fired.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads