How come every Titanic movie doesn't show the Titanic's near-collision with the New York?

Dec 23, 2017
1,126
636
123
Easy, its too much of a time killer for a 1-2 hour runtime, most films have a hard time just hitting the basics, there was a reason the 1997 film was 3 hours long
 
Nov 14, 2005
662
249
113
Yes, believe you are right about that. I've seen it covered in documentaries. Just with the knowledge some of the posters here have you would be hard pressed to fit it all in in a 12 hour documentary let alone a 2 hour movie.
 

Rancor

Member
Jun 23, 2017
258
149
53
Easy, its too much of a time killer for a 1-2 hour runtime, most films have a hard time just hitting the basics, there was a reason the 1997 film was 3 hours long
Objection your honour!

At one point on youtube someone had uploaded the 1997 movie but with all the Jack and Rose stuff cut out. Pretty sure the remaining film ran for about an hour. Plenty of time to add extra details like the New York if they wanted to.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The New York incident may have been been dramatic and put the audience on the edge of their seats as the two ships narrowly avoided a collision. Perhaps the film directors wanted to build up the suspense and they did not want anything to overshadow the iceberg collision as the audience's adrenaline slowly increased as the Titanic steamed closer towards the iceberg. Perhaps the directors believed a sudden unexpected dramatic scene near the beginning of the film would have gone largely unnoticed as the audience would still being getting comfortable in their seats and they would not have time to immerse themselves into the story yet. Also the audience would probably already know that nothing seriously bad happened at Southampton and it would not affect the story much, if at all. It would also undermine the 'grand departure' from Southampton and the sense that the Titanic was the safest ship in the world and that nothing could go wrong in these wonderous times of engineering until the iceberg collided much later in the film.

In the movie 'A Night Remember' the ship collides with the iceberg pretty early in the movie and I feel the timing just doesn't allow the audience to absorb what they are seeing and build up the suspense. I believe the New York incident would have suffered the same lack of suspense as it would have detracted the audience from the atmosphere of total safety aboard the Titanic as they lead up to the collision. Although a short reference to the incident (15 second scene maybe) might have been interesting to watch, but I guess unnessessary.


Just my two cents.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
689
107
53
Came to think about it, was this subject of the near collision with the New York Liner ever brought up in the inquires? If not why not?

Mike.
 

Brad Rousse

Member
Nov 27, 2002
170
34
158
34
Prague, Czech Rep.
Objection your honour!

At one point on youtube someone had uploaded the 1997 movie but with all the Jack and Rose stuff cut out. Pretty sure the remaining film ran for about an hour. Plenty of time to add extra details like the New York if they wanted to.
Except for the fact that Titanic would have been a Gods and Generals level flop...
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
689
107
53
Why should it? It has nothing to do with the collision and sinking of the Titanic.
Hi Ioannis,
I may be a newer member that you are, but I am learning fast Titanic is just full of unsolved mysteries.
You could argue had the captain got proper control of the ship and just going too fast?
Then again when looking at question 1 in the British inquiry. When the Titanic left Queenstown. What has that got to do with the collision and sinking? Why start from Queenstown? Titanic life started from Belfast! Was every thing in order at Belfast?

Mike.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Came to think about it, was this subject of the near collision with the New York Liner ever brought up in the inquires? If not why not?

Mike.

3rd officer Pitman mentioned the incident at the US Inquiry.

"Nothing exciting happened, with the exception of breaking the moorings of the New York, which was caused by the backwash from our starboard propeller. We managed to get clear of that and proceeded to Cherbourg."
Q - Was that a serious detention?
A - No, sir; about half an hour, sir; that is all.
Q - Did that occur immediately when you were ready to start?
A - We had already started. We were away from our berth.


Major Peuchen also testified and gave a lengthy description of the incident.

"Shortly after leaving our pier our wash or suction caused some trouble at the head of the pier that we were going around, at which there were two or three boats of the same company as our boat. There was considerable excitement on those boats on account of the snapping of their mooring lines, but there was no excitement on ours, the Titanic. There was also excitement on the wharves when the larger ship commenced to snap one or two of her moorings. But I do not think there was any accident. The smaller boat, I think, was the New York. She drifted away, not being under steam and having no control of herself. The result was that she was helpless. At first she drifted to our stern, and then afterwards she drifted along and got very near our bows. I think we stopped our boat and we were simply standing still. They got a tug or two to take hold of the New York and they moved her out of harm's way. I should think we were delayed probably three-quarters of an hour by this trouble. Then we moved out of the harbor. The weather up to the time of Sunday was pleasant. There was very little wind; it was quite calm."


.
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,103
174
223
Then again when looking at question 1 in the British inquiry. When the Titanic left Queenstown. ... Why start from Queenstown?
Because (a) it was at Queenstown where the exact number of those on board---which is what question #1 asked---was fixed and (b) Queenstown is where Titanic left British jurisdiction.
 

Rancor

Member
Jun 23, 2017
258
149
53
Except for the fact that Titanic would have been a Gods and Generals level flop...
Yes this is unfortunately probably true. A bit of a shame that the public at large doesn't find the accident and thousands of real stories of interest without a fake love story attached.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Spooner
Mar 18, 2008
2,272
563
183
Germany
You could argue had the captain got proper control of the ship and just going too fast?
The Inquiry's were about the circumstances which led to the sinking of the ship, the New York incident had nothing to do with it. Aside that pilot Bowyer was under control, the press already covered the incident in full and the heroic actions the tug Vulcan played.
It was a special situation as due to the coal strike and limited space the New York had been placed alongside the Oceanic.

[Was Pilot Bowyer or even Captain Smith to blame or the Southampton harbour authorities for not placing the New York at another empty dock which there were a few by April 10th. As not damage was caused, there was no inquiry dealing with such questions.]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael H. Standart

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
689
107
53
Because (a) it was at Queenstown where the exact number of those on board---which is what question #1 asked---was fixed and (b) Queenstown is where Titanic left British jurisdiction.
Thanks for the reply.
Queenstown is where Titanic left British jurisdiction! What typical legal statement! Only the Board of Trade could come with some thing like that! As far I can see the life of Titanic started in Belfast and that is were problems are starting to come up within the ship?
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,534
577
123
Don't forget though that Titanic was cleared to travel from Belfast by Captain Clarke of the Board of Trade who by Lightoller's account was very strict when it came to checking ships* saying of them that "He did his job...he did it thoroughly."

Back to Topic!


*There was the "fire", but it wasn't serious and a frequent problem on coal ships).

 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Spooner

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
689
107
53
Don't forget though that Titanic was cleared to travel from Belfast by Captain Clarke of the Board of Trade who by Lightoller's account was very strict when it came to checking ships* saying of them that "He did his job...he did it thoroughly."

Back to Topic!


*There was the "fire", but it wasn't serious and a frequent problem on coal ships).
Quite so what a joke it was!
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
689
107
53
I think the Titanic film was a bit of let down when ones has seen the, The Night to Remember film first. (1958). As that film was part base facts and a drama story with some careless mistakes. The time Titanic film come out I would of thought the facts should of been better researched by now. Yet there still were some pretty stupid's facts mistakes been made. In fact the film was more based on a fairy story between Jack and Rose. I personal think they used and abused the name Titanic to sell the film! As the near collision with the New York Liner in Southampton just didn't fit into the fairy story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rancor
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Titanic (1997) was great in set design and Hollywood sparkle, but pretty terrible at portraying everything else. To quote Hollywood director Robert Altman - "Titanic, I thought was the most dreadful piece of work I've ever seen in my entire life."

.