Cameron's Titanic Vs Pearl Harbor


C

Cátia Lamy

Guest
Hi!!

Sorry for being away for so long but I have been quite busy!!

Somewhile ago, when Pearl Harbor was released in Portugal I went to watch that movie. It's great and everything but I saw myself on cameron's titanic for a bunch of time (the story hitself - a love story with a truth history background; after the attack when they go search for survivors... exactly the same image that we have on cameron's titanic...).
Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie but I believe that the producer made some mistakes showing some images... too much "titanical". Off course the story of the movie couldn't be very changed and it is acceptable but what about the rest?

Did anyone of you notice this similarity between the two movies??

Bye!
Catia Lamy, Portugal
 
K

Karin Kasper

Guest
Honestly, the only parts of "Pearl Harbor" that grabbed me were the actual battle scenes. I cried my eyes out during those. Cuba Gooding jr was too underutilized, IMHO. I thought the love story completely stunk. However, I am a huge JC "Titanic" fan- I can't watch that movie often enough!
 
J

Jemma Hyder

Guest
Hi Karin,

I agree with you totally. The battle scenes were shot brilliantly and Cuba Gooding Jr was superb, but the only relationship the audience would ever value is the one between Danny and Rafe because they were like brothers, that and the side show between Betty and her man. The difference with Titanic was that Rose clearly wanted to be with Jack, not Cal who was a "Baddie". It meant the audience got involved. With Pearl Harbour you were supposed to like all three and ended up disliking Evelyn and not caring what happens because she cant make up her mind who she wants to be with, and ends up wrecking the one valued relationship in the film.

happy.gif


Jemma
 
N

NICOLA HURDEN

Guest
I AGREE WITH YOU GEMMA, I DONT ACTUALLY THINK THERE WAS ANY NEED FOR THE LOVE STORY IN PEARL HARBOUR, I THINK THE DIRECTOR WAS IN SOME WAYS TRYING TO ACHIEVE THE SAME THING THAT CAMERON DID WITH TITANIC AND TRIED TO PUT THE AUDIENCE IN THE CHARACTORS PLACE BUT IT DIDNT WORK, YOU DO NOT FEEL SORRY FOR EVELYN BY THE END OF THE FILM ALTHOUGH THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DANNY AND RAFE WAS SHOWN QUITE WELL. NEVERTHELESS THE FILM WAS VERY GOOD AND I THINK GOT THE AUDIENCE WITH THE VERY REALISTIC PICTURES OF THE WOUNDED AFTER THE FIRST ATTACK AND THE PART WITH THE HANDS POKING UP THROUGH THE SINKING SHIP WAS PROBABLY THE BEST MOMENT WHERE YOU REALLY FEEL FOR THE PEOPLE. FROM NICOLA HURDEN
 
J

Jemma Hyder

Guest
Nicola,

The battle scenes were great, and had some truly original and imaginative camera work, but did anyone else notice de ja whatever qith Ben using a lot of the lines he did in Michael Bay's Armageddon? The dead stick one was def there lol

happy.gif


Jemma
 

John Lynott

Member
Apr 2, 2002
78
1
138
62
Addingham, Yorkshire
Both Titanic and Pearl Harbor are excellent films on the technical level, but both are let down by abysmal screenplay. Cameron wanted to dominate Titanic totally so he recruited the only screenwriter suitable - himself - and refused to let the story tell itself, so we have the crass Rose-Jack plot. Randall Wallace's screenplay for Pearl Harbor is even worse, passable for a late '40s flagwaver only. Both films make you realise what fine writing went into A Night to Remember and Tora, Tora, Tora. And while I'm on the subject of Cameron, he uses the lame US tactic of portraying British officers as buck-teethed no-brains (Lightoller come across as something from Mutiny on the Bounty 1935 when in fact he had a strong west Lancashire accent - so much for Cameron's much vaunted accuracies)and other ranks such as Fleet, Lee, Hitchens as '80s-style footie (sorry...soccer) hooligans. The Irish characters come straight from Hollywood's Oirish section - I should know, my whole family is Irish. PS congrats on such a fantastic site.
 

Mary Hamric

Member
Apr 10, 2001
138
0
146
I liked PH...I saw it twice in the theaters but I felt that the raid at the end could have been cut and the story could have been a bit shorter. I felt that after the attack...which was my favorite part of the film, I was losing interest in the characters. Overall it was well done and I bought a copy of it on DVD.

I am a fan of Cameron's film...unabashed, passionate fan of the film. And I disagree that Cameron presented British officers as no brains...look at Lowe...he is presented as a hero. And despite the controversy of the Murdoch suicide...I think Murdoch came off extremely well and solid.
 
J

John Meeks

Guest
This is a harder one than I first thought!

Couldn't wait to see PH - I'm an aviation buff and aviation artist, and I don't think the movie deserved all the bad critiques that it did. I thought that some of the computer assisted flying and attack scenes were a little TOO "3D animation" and I feel that the Doolittle raid really belonged in a separate film! The shots of 'Kates' flying in over the kids baseball game were gorgeous, though!

Cameron's movie also "has my jury out". I thought the special effects were much more convincing than those in PH, and the scene of the ship breaking in two and going down was alarmingly effective.

With regard to the storylines - sorry - but I found Kate and Leo to be just a tad 'theatrical'. (Boy! I bet I get some response to that!) Strangely - I think PH wins on that one.

Overall, though, (...here we go...!)
.....I prefer "Tora, Tora, Tora!" and ANTR
 
B

brendan kilmartin

Guest
both historically and factually inaccurate...and seriously over the top!
 
May 3, 2002
800
24
148
58
Wellington, New Zealand
Hey John (Meeks),

Did you see the Japanese Kate pilot hand signalling the the baseball kids to get down (take cover)? Or did I imagine it.

The CGI stuff was great however I would have done some serious editing as the love triangle thing detracted from the overall film in a way that Jack and Rose didn't in TITANIC.

The QUEEN MARY scene was a nice touch however although by that time Nov 1941 I think she was in battle colours and any kind of incursion would have been seen by any posted security cordon.

One last ? How is water meant to be pouring down the decks of the capsizing OKLAHOLMA? And she capsizes TOWARD another ship!

Martin
 
May 5, 2001
406
0
146
Martin Owen Cahill Said:
Did you see the Japanese Kate pilot hand signalling the the baseball kids to get down (take cover)? Or did I imagine it.

No you were not imagining it Martin, I suspect that was put in there to show that at least not all Japanese involved in the attack that day were cold hearted, although whether or not this actually happened in the real attack?, another kettle of fish like they say.

Regards,
Bill
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
536
18
148
Last week I revisited Cameron for the first time since I was left angry on the night it opened and a day later I watched Pearl Harbor for the first time. My opinion is that both films suffer from a stupid premise that the fictional love story is more important than history.

I will admit that of the two fictional romances, Pearl Harbor's offended me less than Titanic's. Pearl Harbor's romance story is just silly but I find Cameron's offensive in the extreme. In Pearl Harbor the fictional characters are not believable but they're likable. I have never found Jack or Rose likable in the least bit. To me (and this is my opinion), Jack is a loser-drifter in life who can only offer Rose dreams that would come crashing down to earth in a negative way if they were ever together for any meaningful length of time in the real world. Jack comes across as the working class version of the Gaylord Ravenal character from the musical Show Boat, someone who sweeps the heroine of the story off her feet with romance and visions of happiness that come crashing down in a harsh reality after they've been married (If on the other hand, Jack had been a typical steerage immigrant with plans for himself in America, that would have been something I could have accepted). Likewise, Rose comes across as self-centered in the extreme, especially in her post-Titanic behavior where she is willing to out of spiteful revenge let her mother think she's dead, and who ultimately we find would prefer to spend eternity with a man she had a three day fling with than the husband she was married to for 60 years. It also doesn't help that Jack and Rose are given the worst, and I mean the worst dialogue I have ever heard in a movie that received a Best Picture award.

But there is one area where Titanic beats Pearl Harbor hands down and that is background authenticity (and I stress *background* because Rose and Jack are not authentic 1912 type characters). I look at the ambience of Cameron's film and it is 1912 whenever the fictional characters are not around. But in "Pearl Harbor" I never have the feeling that it's 1941 even when I see the real characters. Franklin Roosevelt never called attention to his handicap and would not have done something as silly as get out of his wheelchair to his feet. And also, FDR *never* had a meeting without smoking a cigarette from a holder that was his trademark. But in this instance, the producers refused to show anyone smoking for reasons of 2001 PC standards rather than authentically depict the way people were in 1941. The inability to provide coherent context to the events of the outside world was also abysmal (worst of all the closing speech by Kate Beckinsale who says after the Dolittle Raid the Japanese pulled back. Hello???? What about the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway?) So in that respect, Pearl Harbor has the slightly better fictional story (which isn't saying much ultimately) while Cameron at least gives the impression of understanding the real story of his movie even if I feel he didn't do it ultimate justice.

Just my two cents on this matter. Like everyone, these opinions are all viewed through a subjective lens.
 

Adam McGuirk

Member
May 19, 2002
567
1
146
eric,
You have made the point to us that you don't like the love story of Camerons Titanic. You don't have to tell us that every day.
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
536
18
148
I do not believe I am the only person in this forum who has expressed his or her view about a particular Titanic related topic more than once. That happens to go with the territory of a discussion and a back and forth, and I don't think *anyone* should feel compelled to post no more than once on something regardless of his feelings on that subject (be it Cameron or Californian).

Furthermore, I have *not* posted on this subject every day, I merely chose to put in my two cents on a particular thread that compares two different movies.

You would do your side a lot better if you chose to have a dialogue on the matter rather than complain about the number of times I post on a subject. By using the term "us" you assume a very arrogant posture of yourself speaking for every other member of this forum, when in fact you are only speaking for yourself and you are certainly not speaking as the moderator of this message board imposing restrictions on what can and cannot be discussed.
 

Adam McGuirk

Member
May 19, 2002
567
1
146
Ok, I will put my two cents in. I thought Camerons Titanic was great. If you don't like you don't have to see it. when you say Jack and Rose were unlikeable I say I don't think James Cameron really wanted them to be "likeable". All the movie is is combining fact with fiction which he did a good job of when he was having his fictional characters interact with real ones. if he didn't have the lovestory then it wouldn't have been the enourmous box office it that it was. Cameron movie bad or good brought in a whole new generation of Titanic fans that wouldn't care about Titanic if it weren't for the movie. No ones ever gonna come up with a love story that everyone all ways likes. Theres allways gonna be someone that dislikes it lije you do.
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
536
18
148
"If you don't like you don't have to see it."

If I hadn't "seen it" then I would not be able to voice my own opinions of it. See it I did, and then after five years I decided to see if maybe there were some things I had not been fair about, and hence the reasons for posting my current impressions when there are threads that invite comment on it.

But just for the record, the subject of this thread is comparing "Titanic" with "Pearl Harbor" and I'm a bit amused that you don't choose to deal with the reason why the thread began but instead merely want to offer just a knee-jerk defense of Cameron's work.
 
J

John Meeks

Guest
Martin....

Sorry - been 'tied up' for a coupla days.

Re. the 'Kate pilot' - yes, I'm still checking the identity of the guy, but at least one Japanese survivor claimed that he couldn't resist waving as depicted in the film! So - it probably did happen - I don't see why not. I have several Japanese friends - not one of them has two heads or fangs!

If you want an idea of what Japanese military life was like at the time, there are one or two good books out there - probably the best being that of Saburo Sakai, the Japanese Navy 'ace' of WWII. He comes over as being quite a 'laid back' guy!

I accepted the scene as it was, with no reservations - but with, perhaps, a sad smile.

Eric, I agree absolutely with your comments on Jack, Rose, The Coral Sea and most certainly Midway!

I don't wish to detract from Jimmy Doolittle at all - but I don't think the Japanese were that affected by his raid - any more than he did!

It's true value, in my opinion, lay in its effect on American morale. In that respect, it was priceless, and set the whole tone of the following three years.

Regards,

John M
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
536
18
148
Quite true John that the Doolittle Raid was done more for American morale in the end, and it was desperately needed in the wake of one setback after another in the Pacific (which the film does not do a good job of communicating).

There was one effect the raid did have on Japanese thinking, and that was that the raid was what tilted Japanese strategists into going along with Yammamoto's proposal for a Midway strike. The raid did spook many Japanese about the threat to the Emperor's safety and gave them a reminder of what they had failed to do at Pearl, which was knock out the carriers. Thus, instead of focusing on a strategic plan that might have won them the war, such as sweeping towards India and the Middle East for possible linkage with German forces, they turned their attention to Midway which ultimately became the true turning point of the war.
 

Similar threads