half the things in JCs movie are wrong as a scotsman i must defend William Murdoch he never shot anyone he like all the officers and crew was a hero its true.but i must admit an honest movie would be my kind of thing.
You said: "half the things in JCs movie are wrong" Personally, I'd defend the movie - I think James Cameron did a remarkable job.
I'd agree with you re Murdoch's "suicide." I also think that the Officers and Crew were professionals trying to do the best they could in a nightmare scenario. Maybe that makes them heroes? Not sure...
well the latest stories and evidence of course and a bit of the New York incident in Southhampton a bit of testimony would be interesting.the movies action was okay and does make you think what happened on those decks that night but have you seen the amount of mistakes made on it.no evence though
Yes, it would be nice to see the latest evidence incorporated into a film. The trouble is, the "evidence" keeps changing! For example, look at the number of theories currently on the go concerning the collision with the iceberg. Which one to pick?
It would also have been interesting to see more of the Californian, but I can understand why Cameron steered clear of that touchy subject! Too great an opportunity to offend...
I believe that Titanic '97 was pretty accurately based on accepted theories at that time. Regarding mistakes, I still don't think Cameron did a bad job. (Especially when compared to other attempts.)
This is interesting. I know that Rose is fiction, but I have always seen the Cameron movie as merely Older Rose's view on things and not depicting necessarily what actually happened. What if real passengers were brought into the picture and refuted what the older Rose stated (especially about gun shots and suicides, say arguments), but also more evidence of "mystery ship" testimony emerged, and a different view of the titanic crew, as we really did not get to know them. The responding ships. Mount Temple.
I admit it, I liked the movie because it helped me to begin questioning and it brought me here!
I've been thinking about Cameron's "mistakes" and I wonder how many actual errors there were - as opposed to "theories" used in the film.
For example, theories - as opposed to mistakes - could include:
- The discussion between Capt. Smith and J. Bruce Ismay concerning the speed of the ship.
- The Murdoch bribe and "suicide" (although the former was surely only there to demonstrate Cal's dependence upon money to achieve his goals).
- The "hard a starboard" collision. In fact, everything to do with the sighting of the iceberg and the damage suffered by the ship.
- The locking of gates to stop the 3rd class passengers reaching 1st class areas and the Boat Deck.
- The breakup scene (again, surely filmed that way solely for cinematic effect).
- The lighting of the film. (So that we could see what was going on!)
Amongst the list of alleged mistakes I'd include the following:
- Jack & Rose on the bow. (Artistic licence?)
- Jack & Rose in the boiler rooms - almost unchallenged.
- Jack & Rose getting access to the hold - unchallenged! (And the Renault car un-crated.)
- The gun owned by Lovejoy. (Surely too modern? Although I'm open to correction on this!)
- The Purser's Office (I think) where Jack was handcuffed to the pipe. I'm sure I read that this was not an outside cabin in reality. (But then Cameron couldn't have indulged in the shots of Jack looking out of the porthole as the sea covered it. Artistic licence again?)
- Jack having access to the Boat Deck to speak to Rose. (And later when he hid in the gymnasium.)
It seems to me that all the actual "mistakes" revolve around Jack & Rose, and are deliberately there to either move the story forward or add an "ahhhh!" factor to their relationship. Thus, they are artistic licence, which is acceptable, and not mistakes at all. Other so-called mistakes are actually down to Cameron's decision making process concerning which theories to go with.
I'm sure I've missed loads of other "mistakes" that others have spotted, and I'd be interested to see if they fit into the "theory" section, or the "Jack & Rose Artistic Licence" section. Once a list is compiled, then we can really start to see if Cameron truly made mistakes in his film, rather than deliberate decisions for artistic purposes.
It appears that Cameron's clear mistakes (as distinct from "theories") where Jack and Rose are *not* involved should also be split into two sections under the headings "Fair Enough" and "Slightly Pedantic - how bored are you?".
For example, the lunch scene where the "Freud" discussion takes place is inaccurate in that meals weren't served in the Verenadah Cafe, only snacks and after-dinner coffee. Also, Lowe and the crew of boat #14 did not have flashlights when searching for survivors in the water after the ship sank, but I suppose they had to light the scene somehow.
However, when we start to bemoan the presence of "Pacific" dolphins as opposed to the correct "Atlantic bottlenose" types in the bow scene we are straying dangerously into the latter catergory!
Thanks for the info on the Colt. I stand corrected! It just looked so wrong, if you know what I mean...
Ben - you cracked me up! I'd forgotten about the dolphins, 'though I remember someone mentioning it a while ago. I think I'd classify that error under the heading of: ""How much to film the Atlantic dolphins!? Stuff that - let's film the ones we've got here."
Interesting stuff about the Verandah Cafe and Lowe's flashlights; they seem to me to be "true" errors.
See you at the BTS Convention, I hope. Beer's on me.
Paul--Cameron didn't steer clear of the Californian controversy. He filmed quite a bit of footage for this portion of the story, but his emphasis was always the love story and it had to go to the cutting room floor. On his Titanic Explorer CDROM you can see the cut scene where the Californian turns off its wireless for the evening as well as a scene when EJ was directing people to row toward a light.
Cameron is making a new Titanic film...an IMAX film called "Ghosts of The Abyss" and it focuses all on the history and the ship and the real passengers. A friend of mine was cast as Margaret Brown.
Since we're discussing errors in the film Titanic, has anyone else picked up on the cabin assignments to the Hockley family? When boarding in Southampton Caledon's P.I. friend instructed the baggage-handler to deliver all the cases to B52, 54 and 56. B52, B54 and B56 were assigned to Bruce Ismay.
One of the mistakes I've noticed is when in the life boats, the seaman told Molly Brown he would throw her overboard if she didn't shut up. Everything I've read had it the other way around. She and the women rowed and were ready to 'toss' him.
Yes, you're quite right about the Californian footage you have quoted as being on the CD-Rom. However, I wasn't aware that he filmed the alleged* reactions of the Californian's crew to the alleged* rockets fired by Titanic. (I may be mistaken about this...) This, to me, is the crux of the Californian controversy - personal opinion.
(*I'm being careful not to offend anyone!
I don't know enough about Molly Brown's story to comment on that one. I thought Cameron's version looked likely, as compared to ANTR. Anyone know which is the more accurate portrayal?
I found the Titanic movie rather tedious, and at times laughable.It may be necessary to involve us in a story to keep us interested, but i found Titanic a slightly glamourised version of events.
And if the greatest Titanic movie of all time(reputadly)needs a star, try someone with acting skills.Of course i refer to that seasoned professional we have all come to admire for his stunning acting ability...Leonardo decrapio
I'm picturing myself a movie about the Senate course: it would be like "12 Angry Men" or something for the general audience, so.
But it could mix with images from what it really did happened aboard the Titanic, to give a little bit more of interest to the raw public.
These are all just guessings, but perhaps something could come up from all this ;p
I would say 'no more couple movies'. People wouldn't understand between reality and fiction. They wouldn't know if the recent couple displayed on screen were real characters, since Cameron and all of the filmmakers made their best effort to introduce their fictional characters as real people on the ship, so.
There's a book I would bring into a movie: Titanic: An illustrated story. It's the only book I got, though, but I find interesting that it tells the story about Titanic from the moment Mr. Ismay goes to visit with his wife at the Harland&Wolfe shipyard's owner and they come up with the idea of making some monumental ships to beat the competence's: The Cunard's. And the book covers the British and American inquiries, as well as the legacy and the discovery in the mid 80's.
I think a docu-drama like this could be very informative to the large audience and very stimulating for post-Titanic-paraphernalia fans
P.S. Oh, the book also shows some real stories from real passengers, so there you have the in-plot for the drama-line. They are not couples mostly, and even thought, you could use other real passenger's stories to add up or exchange with the ones in the book
The Californian controversy: I always learned that Californian's captain and crew saw the white-colored rockets fired from Titanic and they thought people there were just in a party, since emergency rockets had to be red-colored, so, that is why -I have learnt- people from the Californian did nothing to find out what was happening at the Titanic's fate.
Camerons movie was good .........i liked it because I always wondered what it was like for the the grand staircase to flood.......what the other landings on the grand staircase looked like..........the only thing I would have liked to see was a little more destruction......