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.
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.
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.
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.
I think you and millions of others will also.
"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??
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)
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)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
(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.
"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.
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.