Movie Mistakes


Matt Simons

Member
Mar 12, 2005
169
0
111
I might be being very picky here, but with the budget of Titanic these mistakes may seem to be very stupid.

1.) When the water is flooding the first class hallways it hits the doors and breaks them off, but if you look closley you can see that the doors lead to now where. It is just dark space.

2.) Did anyone else notice that the chandeliers (mainly in the Grand Staircase) did not suspend from bases. The real lights did. This mistake could not be because of a lack of info, there's plenty of pictues of these lights. And weren't the D-deck landing lights glass bowls. Beaded lights were also not used in the staterooms, as seen in Andrew's completley wrong designed stateroom.

3.) Didn't the smoking room not get destroyed during the accutual break up but afterwards. When Cameron shows an ariel view of the break up, you can see the Aft Grand Staircase dome not destroyed, yet he shows the smoking room being destroyed during the break up when the room is farther aft then the Aft GSC.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about anything. I want to hear other's insights on these mistakes. And want to know if anyone discovered other mistakes that are not mentioned anywhere else. Thanks!
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
2
161
.) Didn't the smoking room not get destroyed during the actual break up but afterwards. >>When Cameron shows an ariel view of the break up, you can see the Aft Grand Staircase dome not destroyed, yet he shows the smoking room being destroyed during the break up when the room is farther aft then the Aft GSC.<<

Matt,

The 1st-class smoking room was not destroyed in the actual break, but it was destroyed as a result of it. There is evidence of this. And, yes, you're right, the smoking room was aft of the aft grand staircase. I don't have the script, but I presume the room being destroyed in the movie may have been, since the 1st-class lounge and dining room were already under water (remember the floating girl?). In that regard, an error was made, but probably for the sake of dramatic license. That, however, doesn't been that some of the stress from the break hadn't affected the 1st-class smoke room. The break itself was isolated, but its effects were far-reaching, extending stress impulses several hundred feet fore and aft of the separation, so it's conceivable that there may have been some structural disturbance within the 1st-class smoke room at the time of, or a few seconds after, the break.

Please also remember that, despite the movie, the actual break itself was gradual, from bottom to top, and most likely transpired over a period of time. By the time the upper part of the ship broke, it is possible that everything aft of the breaking point was initially intact until the stern section itself began to sink. I have reason to believe that the destruction of the aft boat deck (loosened by the break), the aft grand staircase, and the 1st-class smoke room occurred as the stern went under the surface.
 

Matt Simons

Member
Mar 12, 2005
169
0
111
Mark,
I had a feeling that's why Cameron shows the smoking room getting destroyed. I thought it was because the lounge would seem to be to far away from the accutual break up and people would question this (I guess the smoking room is probably just as far). I never once thought about the Dinning Saloon, and I thought the Cafe Perisien, A La Carte Resturant, and Resturant Reception Room would not be reconized by viewers.

There was another mistake I noticed, and it may well not be a mistake, but when Cameron shows a first class stateroom, the furniture in the room is moving the wrong direction. If you look closley at the doors that connected all the rooms, you would reconize that the furniture would of moved towards or away from the doors. It is moving starboard or port in the movie.

I don't know what it is called, but one of the things on the stern that you put anchor chains around seems to be rubber. A person hits it and it bounces like rubber. I can understand this is for saftey reasons.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
2
161
>>I don't know what it is called, but one of the things on the stern that you put anchor chains around seems to be rubber. A person hits it and it bounces like rubber. I can understand this is for saftey reasons.<<

The large round features are called ballasts, and they weren't really used for the anchors. Those in the movie were actually made of rubber, and many of the passengers used in the falling sequences were actually properly and strategically placed dummies. Not only did the use of dummies reduce the number of extras needed for such dangerous segments, but they also were intended to provide cushioning for the stunt people who really fell and/or tumbled down the deck.
 

Paul Rogers

Member
Nov 30, 2000
1,244
2
223
57
West Sussex, UK
quote:

The large round features are called ballasts...
Mmm, news to me, although I'm willing to be corrected.

According to the maritime dictionary, ballast is: "Any weight in solid or liquid form taken on a ship to increase draught." I think Mark is thinking of bitts, or am I just talking bollards?

(Edited 11:39pm BST because I can't spell "dictionary".)​
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
2
161
>>I thought it was because the lounge would seem to be to far away from the actual break up and people would question this (I guess the smoking room is probably just as far)<<

Actually, Matt, the lounge was closer to the break than was the 1st-class smoking room, only forward of the break. The forward end of the actual break area is just about even with the front of the third funnel base/casing, which lies directly behind the 1st-class lounge. The third-funnel casing served as the back wall of said lounge. Considering this, the lounge no doubt had been effected by the break, where the 1st-class smoke room, as said, was not, both because it was aft of and because it was farther away from the break.

By the way, the room seen shattering in the movie could have been the restaurant reception room, which would have been directly in line with the break on B-Deck. The only thing is that we do not see the staircase, which was right at the forward end of the restaurant reception area. Also, that particular area did not extend to the hull as did the 1st-class reception room forward. Further, 1st-class suites B-94 through B-98, with the fish and larder compartments for the restaurant galley just aft, were between the hull and the restaurant reception room on the port side, and 1st-class suites B-93 through B-97, with the forward part of the Cafe Parisian just aft, were between the hull and the restaurant reception area on the starboard side. Besides, the room which cracked in the movie was long and had windows, whereas the restaurant reception room had about the same dimensions as the boat deck foyer at the forward grand staircase and was walled off, except for three doors on either side of the staircase leading forward (two on the port, one on starboard), and an aft exit on the starboard side extending through a hallway to the restaurant. Due to these inconsistencies to what we see, the "cracking" room couldn't have been the restaurant reception room. At quick glance, though, that room we see appears to be the smoke room, despite the inaccurate placement and the mysteriously missing Andrews and Stead, who were believed to have been in and met their deaths there.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
2
161
>>According to the maritime dictionary, ballast is: "Any weight in solid or liquid form taken on a ship to increase draught." I think Mark is thinking of bitts, or am I just talking bollards?<<

It's neither, Paul. They're called capstans (unless capstans are also called either bitts and/or bollards). It's my mistake. Thanks for double-checking for me.


By the way, you spelled "dictionary" correct the first time, unless you thought the correct spelling was an incorrect spelling.
 

Matt Simons

Member
Mar 12, 2005
169
0
111
Mark,

The room shattering is no doubt the first class smoking room, this room shattering during the break up and it being so aft of the break up is what threw me off. That is why I made a post of where the break up is. I guess that movies can't always be trusted for accuracy.
 

Matt Simons

Member
Mar 12, 2005
169
0
111
Hey All,

I feel like the mistake police, but i found another stupid factual error.

The paneling from the lounge that rose climbs onto in the water and the real paneling from the lounge, recovered by the Minia, are different.
The real panneling was split at about 3 quarters of the instrument design while the movie panneling was complete all the way to the end.

In other words the real panneling and the movie panneling have differnt area where they broke free.

This must be because Cameron wanted rose to fit entirely on the panneling, to replicate the real panneling exactly it would be too short.
 

David Wheeler

Member
Mar 27, 2005
9
0
71
New guy here with his first post, and his two cents. ;-)

I just watched the room breakup scene in question, and I think that it is the first class lounge. Freezing it through dvd, you can see the leaded glass-paneled windows, the wall sconce to the right of the fireplace(as well as barely see the right hand edge of the fireplace), and the double doors that lead out the hall. Compare it to pic on page 171 of Ballard's book "Discovery of the Titanic", and I think that you will agree.
 

Matt Simons

Member
Mar 12, 2005
169
0
111
I can assure you it is the Smoking Room. If you look at the ceiling panneling and ceiling fixtures, the windows, pillars and floor you can tell it is exactly the same as the smoking room.
As Mark said earlier at this point the lounge was already underwater.

"At quick glance, though, that room we see appears to be the smoke room, despite the inaccurate placement and the mysteriously missing Andrews and Stead, who were believed to have been in and met their deaths there."

The shot of the splitting smoking room never showed the fireplace where Andrew's was standing. I don't know who Stead is. This may clear up some confusion.
 

David Wheeler

Member
Mar 27, 2005
9
0
71
I wish that I had screen capture capabilities from my dvd. I reviewed the breakup scene a second time, and I still come to the same conclusion. I whole heartedly agree with you Matt the the room should have been underwater at that time, but the column design, light fixture placement, and chair design is consistent with the front portion of the lounge. If you watch the scene in slow motion, right as the room begins to break up, then you can see the double doors, that were glassed in, explode into the room. Take a close look at the top of the columns, because they have a unique design on them. Each side has an exaggerated pilaster jutting out along the ceiling line, which the lounge had, but the Smoking room did not. Also, I studied the ceiling design, and the collapsing room's design matches the lounge as well. The lounge ceiling, has a large oval in the center of the room (actually recessed at least on the olympic) from which a large chandelier hanged. The model room, has the same oval, but it is not recessed, nor is the chandelier as big. Also, having just watched it for a third time (god are we all titanic geeks, hahaha) the total number of columns spanning the room from front to back are two, which the lounge had, but the smoking room didn't. The smoking room only had one row of columns in between the number 4 funnel casing, and the fireplace. The number of columns alone, definately rules out the smoking room.

Just a Titanic Geek, offering his humble opinion. Definately not going to save the world by giving it. lol
 

David Wheeler

Member
Mar 27, 2005
9
0
71
Also, just noticed that the beam placement in the two rooms are different. The beams in the lounge, ran off of each side of every column, creating a coffered ceiling look. The beams in the smoke room, only ran parallel to each other. The model room has the coffered ceiling design.
 

Matt Simons

Member
Mar 12, 2005
169
0
111
David,
I forgot to say welcome to ET.

I deleted my recent post after reviewing the movie and figuring out that you are indeed correct. The room is the lounge. The light fixtures led me to believe it was the smoking room, but after reviewing some White Swan hotel pictures I found that the lounge used these lights also.
The ceiling panneling was more simple in the smoking room, I don't have any pictures that show the panneling of the lounge ceilling so I overlooked this. I also overlooked the pillar tops which are in fact the lounges.
Before I realized this I did wonder why the stained glass windows had oval window shapes above them and this led me to review the movie with pictures of the rooms.
I might be an expert on the first class interiors but there were many things I forgot and did not know about these rooms. I will have to study them further.
 

David Wheeler

Member
Mar 27, 2005
9
0
71
I noticed the light with the floating girl, which tripped me up, because it is not in the lounge when it is breaking up. Go figure.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
2
161
Also, keep in mind, that centered in the lounge was chandelier with an rounded, stylish, oblong cover set in a wide, oval-shaped recess situated directly under the compass platform above. This can be seen in the shot with the floating girl. Next time, while viewing the segment of the splitting room, see if that oblong light is centered in the ceiling. If it's there, it's the lounge; if not, it's not the lounge. The lounge is the only room which featured this style light.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
2
161
I have pictures of the lounge, and I know the room style as distinct from the smoke room. Believe me when I say that this chandelier was, in fact, featured in the lounge. This is one of the showcases of this particular room.

The girl was floating in the lounge. Maybe she entered the room and drowned there after the "cracking" scene, but it was the lounge.
 

Matt Simons

Member
Mar 12, 2005
169
0
111
Mark,
The room is no doubt the Lounge. I did not see the elctrolier but that doesn't mean it's not somewhere else, not seen in the shot. Look closley at the room, you can tell it is the Lounge. This does however contradict with the Lounge underwater scene.
 

Matt Simons

Member
Mar 12, 2005
169
0
111
I just posted my post exactly when you posted yours mark. Ignor what I said, I was reffering to the other post you made.
 

Similar threads