Californian is in Cameron's Titanic


Jan 8, 2001
309
2
171
55
The other day I saw somewhere where Cameron claimed the Californian was indeed in his movie. So, I watched every sinking scene and to my surprise she was there! You can see her foreword masthead light in two scenes on the port side of Titanic. You can only see her light for a second though. It's very fast. However, toward the end, Murdoch looks down the stairs on the boat deck to see water coming up fast. Right after that, you can see Californian's side lights very clearly for a few seconds just starboard of Titanic's bow. Did anyone else ever notice this? Another thing I never noticed til now is you can see Titanic morsing from the lifeboats a few times, and I never noticed that before either.

Michael.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
The only allusion I remember in re the Californian/mystery ship (Whatever) was a breif scene where Captain Smith looks at the lights of a ship which is not responding to the rockets. Smith's line in the movie was "God help you." and that was it.

Are you sure you're not seeing the aircraft anti-collision beacons that were on some nearby towers down where the movie was shot? Apparently, they forgot to edit them out of the final print.

Cordialy,
Michael H. Standart
 
Jan 8, 2001
309
2
171
55
Michael,

The "God Help You Part" was in ANTR. Cameron was quoted somewhere saying he included the Californian in a few scenes but did not mention it. Check out the scene I'm talking about if you have the movie, I'm about 95% sure it's a ship.

Michael Koch.
 
M

Mike Norton

Guest
You can see several cut scenes including a few Californian scenes on the 3 disc set that Cameron put out a while ago. It's called Titanic Explorer (I think). I HIGHLY recommend it.
 
Jan 8, 2001
309
2
171
55
Mike,

Yeah, I have that too. I did see several posts indicating at some point the director's cut would be released as well.

Michael.
 
Nov 30, 2000
397
3
171
Mike K.

A year ago this month, when I more or less "saw" the '97 "Titanic" (btw, it met the fate of the USS Bedford in this household, but I digress) I froze the film at the part where the camera pulls back for a panoramic view of the T. as a rocket explodes above her, walked over to the big screen TV, and said "Yoo hoo, Stanley Lord, are you there?" as I looked for the light on the horizon that was claimed to be in the film.
I THINK I might have seen a ship's light on the horizon, but I couldn't be sure.
If the C. was there, she was reduced to a mere scenic detail in the finished production.
Also, I understand only one part regarding the C. was even scripted, and that was the "Shut up, shut up." incident. Is that what's on that CD-ROM?

Richard (I wanna see the deleted scenes from "Saving Private Ryan"!) K.
 
N

Nienke B

Guest
somewhere i can remember i did saw the californian the first time i saw cameron's titanic! but i can be wrong. what i remember was a scene on the californian, and they saw the rockets but decided not to anwser. or something.... its been a while ago, and i didn't oay much attentiuon to it, so maybe i remember it wrong
does anyone recognize this?

Nienke
 
Jan 8, 2001
309
2
171
55
Richard,

That scene is the one on the CD-ROM as you say. I didn't see C. on the rocket scene, but that view would have been facing east and not shown very far north where the C. was. Check out the scene where Murdoch notices the water coming up the stairs only a few feet from the deck on the starboard. Right after he notices that, the camera scans just to the right of starboard and you can clearly see her side lights for a second or two.

Nienke,

You are thinking of the scene in "ANTR."

Regards,

Michael.
 
C

Carl Richard Warner

Guest
Sorry to but in - new person here. I thought you might be interested to know (if you didn't already) that a chap called Adam Barker has created a website based upon his role in the Cameron film "Titanic", as the Californian's Marconi operator. His site contains a shooting diary, photographs of the cast, and the script for his ultimately unused scene.



I happened to stumble upon it earlier this month. Apologies if you already knew this, but I thought it was quite pertinant to your discussion.

The address is



(that should be correct, I just pasted it from my address bar thing)

Yours,

Carl
script.jpg
 
N

Nienke B

Guest
to be honest, i've never heard about "ANTR". so what is is, i heard this name several times here... i don't know much about the titanic yet so that'll probably be the reason i never heard of it.
So that's not where i remember the scene from... i think i've remembered a scene wrong, and it was really a scene on the titanic itself. or something like that....

Nienke
 
Jan 8, 2001
309
2
171
55
Nienke,

"ANTR" is the 1958 Classic "A Night to Remember" which is believed by most of us to be the most historically accurate movie about the Titanic except for the fact that she went down in 2 or 3 pieces and not 1. There are more than 2 scenes on board the Californian, one of which includes the scene you mentioned.

Regards,

Michael.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
Michael K.; I'll have to reveiw the movie sometime when I get the chance. I may have seen it presented in an unused scene presented in a documentary, but I'm sure it was there. Or intended to be. As breif as it was, it would be easy to miss.

Tracy, I tend to think that Jim Carey is unsuited for ANY role, but that's just a matter of opinion on my part. I'm sure others differ and their welcome to it. I have nothing against the guy personally, but I just don't like his flicks.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
N

Nienke B

Guest
i can remember seeing that movie again... it was a mini serie too wasn't it? i do think that's the scene i remembered, you're right!
but i still don't understand why cameron didn't mention the californian. it was such an inportant issue.
by the way, jim carey is brilliant! although he would be suited for a serious role he was defenitily perfect for, for example, lier lier.
but ok please don't put him in a titanic movie.

Nienke
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
Nienke; Camaron may have wanted to avoid ruffling some feathers in regards to the Californian. It's clearly one of the thorniest issues debated in the Titanic community. But then he went ahead and put in that scene where Will Murdoch was presented as committing suicide as the ship foundered and ruffled some feathers anyway. (Shrug)

I suspect the real issue here was a press for time. The theatrical release of the film was over three and a half hours long so quite a bit of film ended up on the cutting room floor. At least 18 minutes or so I've been given to understand. Naturally, it was the historical material which got the axe. Hopefully, the much rumored Directors Cut will come out with the scenes restored...but I'll beleive it when I see it.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
C

Carl Warner

Guest
Just a thought (and you must tell me if I'm not welcome): Why is the Californian issue so thorny? From my (albeit brief) look at the subject, it seems quite clear that the Californian was the vessel in question. I've heard repeated mention of "Lordites", those who wish to exonerate Lord and redress his vilification, and I can somewhat understand the contemporary view - Lord was a serving mariner; it is easy to see why certain individuals would like to see his name cleared. But why now? Surely the only evidence we have to support claims that the Californian was not the ship in question came from a profoundly biased (though understandably so) corner. While revisionism is a healthy and necessary part of any historical study, I fail to see why, given all the available evidence, this matter still provokes such controversy. Although I wouldn't for one moment claim that I am a first class historian (as my Director of Studies would no doubt attest), it seems to me that the whole Californian issue is effectively dead. After all, doesn't Occam's Razor apply just as neatly to the Titanic-Californian case?

Once again, sorry for butting in; I really know far too little about the disaster, but I'd be really interested to know why the subject is still so hotly debated.

Yours (with apologies for my ham-fisted grammar)

Carl
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
Not to worry about wearing out your welcome, Carl. You'd have to do something way out of line to do that...like habitually flaming people.

And you asked a pretty decent question as to why it's an emotional issue. The best I can say is that it's always been an emotional issue. There has always been a sense among some that Captain Lord got a raw deal and it's natural for people to champion the cause of the underdog. In this case, redressing what is perceived by some to be an injustice that needs to be corrected. Sentiments like this die hard, and some of the ambiguity that surrounds this affair doesn't help in the least. That's why I expect this will be a thorn in the side of Titanic researchers for a long time to come.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Similar threads

Similar threads