OK Now For the WORST Titanic Movie Votes Please


S

sharon rutman

Guest
Well, I am mad at the film makers. That's the whole point of this problem. Yes, Marlene,that's a very distinct possibility that while her work has merit, it was chopped out of the final cut of the documentary for, well, any number of reasons. (Don't get mad at me but maybe, maybe Cameron thought rust was boring too). After all in the special anniversary version of Titanic, there's a whole disc devoted to scenes that had to be cut out in the final editing process.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
34
208
For the record, I was responding specifically to the comment that:
quote:

Do any of these people really care about the Titanic for true scientific and research purposes or are they interesting in using the wreck to further their own career and up date their resumes.
Knowing some of the consultants involved, my answer is unequivocably that yes, they do care. As much if not more so as the individual who made this suggestion.

I should have guessed, however, that yesterday's entry into this thread was just a method for Sharon to get in under the arm of the umpire when the other thread was closed down.

I anticipate that we'll see more derogative comments directed at a female professional in her field from a critic who has declared she finds the scientific angle "boring". Finding it dull is fine and anyone's prerogative (as long as they don't assume everyone else, particularly those of the same gender, share that position) - what is not okay is the wider denigration of scientists who have the temerity, the unmitigated gall, to work on the Titanic and appear on film - you know, the ones castigated as "snotty" etc.

Note: Edited because I realise that I'm in danger of side-stepping a moderated thread.​
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
383
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Bu the way, bashing me is very counterproductive<<

And you're not being bashed personally. You're being rebutted and challanged. That's a chance we all take. You pays yer money and you takes yer chances the same as the rest of us.

Dr. Johnston may not have recieved a lot of airtime, but she was hardly a token anything. Her research, as well as the work of others involved in these projects speaks for itself. As has been stated numerous times, if the science doesn't appeal to you, that's fine. It's not for everybody and that's fine as well. Unless I'm misreading the tea leaves here (Always a possibilty) your interests lie with the general history as well as the cultural aspects and there's nothing wrong with that either. It's the sort of work that matters just as much as the science does so why not do something with that?

You did a commendable job with "The Idiot's Guide To Titanic" and I can't think of any reason why you shouldn't carry on with that work.
 
Jan 28, 2003
2,525
5
168
Maybe Sharon could tell us why she always seems so cross on the Board? I realize this could probably take some time, but it might be worth it. There are many women on the Board - Inger, me, Marlene, and I could go on for ages because there are so many - who are content enough to prove our own worth in various fields which don't always chime with others' particular interests. We really don't need an angry woman making life more difficult.

Rusticles are important, if you are interested in the Titanic wreck.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Dec 3, 2000
8,240
6
198
Niagara Falls, Ontario
quote:

Bu the way, bashing me is very counterproductive
Rubbish. No one is bashing you, Sharon, so don't take it personally. When anyone of us posts here or in another public forum, we run the risk of our posts being challenged and requests for evidence by others; that's what is happening here. You're not the first member to be rebutted and you certainly won't be the last.

I too enjoyed your book that you co-authored with Jay Stevenson, so you should build on that.​
 
May 3, 2005
2,278
179
133
Quote:>>Rubbish. No one is bashing you, Sharon, so don't take it personally. When anyone of us posts here or in another public forum, we run the risk of our posts being challenged and requests for evidence by others; that's what is happening here. You're not the first member to be rebutted and you certainly won't be the last.<<

I certainly hope that's true. I recently received a letter from an author (name withheld) who complained that he, his wife and all the members of his family had been, quote, "greatly insulted and offended " et cetera, et cetera and so forth in great detail by an entry (not mine) on another website mentioning him as "snobbish" and demanded that "it be removed immediately" and asked that I intervene and do so, which I see has been done.
 
S

sashka pozzetti

Guest
Someone made a really ridiculous attack on me that made no sense at all when you read back over their own posts. So I just ignored it, despite being rather amazed. Sometimes it is best to leave it, especially when someone moves from a debate in which people simply have very different points of view and battle it out(interesting) into hysterical rambling ( embarrassing) :)
 
S

sharon rutman

Guest
Maybe I come across as irritable and cross because I don't take things at face value. What was the point of having a female scientist this
documentary if she's then completely cut out of the action? (Maybe Cameron thought rust was boring too and for lack of time and space, her stuff got edited out on the cutting room floor). My question is did Cameron just use her for window dressing to deflect possible criticism over the lack of women involved in researching the wreck of the Titanic? If that sounds cross, well so be it. It's a very valid point, I think. Never take anything at face value.

I know what I saw and this Dr. Johnston didn't do much of anything in Ghosts of the Abyss.

Thanks Jason, that was very nice! Glad you liked the book.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Dec 3, 2000
8,240
6
198
Niagara Falls, Ontario
quote:

My question is did Cameron just use her for window dressing to deflect possible criticism over the lack of women involved in researching the wreck of the Titanic?
Well, I can't speak for James Cameron, but I very much doubt that was the reason Dr. Johnston was featured in GOTA. She was there to examine the wreck as far the rusticles go and to do further study on them. As already mentioned by Jason Schleisman in the now closed thread, it may not have showed her doing important work, but that doesn't mean she wasn't. A lot of scenes end up on the cutting room floor for various reasons.

quote:

Thanks Jason, that was very nice! Glad you liked the book.
You're welcome, Sharon. But I wasn't the only one who complimented on it; Mike did as well.​
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
383
283
Easley South Carolina
>>My question is did Cameron just use her for window dressing to deflect possible criticism over the lack of women involved in researching the wreck of the Titanic?<<

I strongly doubt that the thought ever occurred to him. Bear in mind that while he led the expedition, his was not the final word on every single detail over the final edit. I would point out also that Mr. Cameron bought a lot of experts with him and they didn't individually get a lot of airtime either.

That doesn't mean they didn't have important contributions to make. They did. Same with Dr. Johnston.

>>Never take anything at face value.<<

Even Sigmund Freud admitted that sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. In other words, don't overthink the problem!!!

While it's unwise to take everything at face value, it's just as unwise if not more so, to look for ulterior motives where none exist and where there's no reason for them to. James Cameron had a full plate organizing all of this and there were people he would have loved to bring along with him on the trip who he had to leave on the beach. There was only so much space available so he had to make some tough choices. That he brought Dr. Johnston at all says quite a bit about how seriously he took her research.
 
Jan 28, 2003
2,525
5
168
Sharon, I know I'm not the one you were referring to about 'bashing' you on the Board, but maybe I owe you a bit of an explanation. My remark about your often seeming cross was quite genuine - I am puzzled. Despite my previous remarks about women contributing, I wouldn't actually expect to see them as numerically well represented in Titanic research as the men. No reason, except a hunch and some experience.

But Dr. Johnston isn't the only woman on the TV dives - there's a very polymathic Russian scientist and a pottery expert, so far as I recall, even if they are outnumbered. I think, as others have commented, that the problem arises from having to make the programmes 'accessible' to non-Titaniacs - so you get quite a lot of 'life' bits; the weather threatening to trash the expedition, various people doing ethnic things (singing etc.), blokes balancing on surfacing submersibles - and so forth. But there's also quite a bit of good stuff too.

I was part of the 1970s feminist generation, and was fairly trenchant in my views back then, but I've mellowed and learned to give people (particularly men) the benefit of the doubt since then. Because feminists aren't always right, and men aren't always wrong.

So I do wonder why this sort of thing seems to bother you so much, when really, women are making (sometimes disproportionate) progress in the world, and will probably end up in charge during the next 50 years. I won't live to see it, and you might not either, and frankly, I do worry about my sons' position in the future.

Should have had girls!
 
S

sharon rutman

Guest
Wouldn't it be great if Mel Brooks did one of his scathing spoofs on something like this? The Old West Campfire scene in all those John Wayne movies was never the same after Blazing Saddles. Ditto his spoof of Star Wars in Spaceballs! Imagine what Brooks could do with a bunch of pompous scientists getting ready to explore the wreck! The mind boggles!
 
Jan 28, 2003
2,525
5
168
Well, yes, it was great stuff, and I do love Mel Brooks. Except it was sheer fiction. The guy was more celebrating bizarre USA stories than reality.
 
Feb 4, 2007
1,646
3
108
40
Denver, Colorado, United States
>>>>>>Wouldn't it be great if Mel Brooks did one of his scathing spoofs on something like this?<<<<

I think I can see where you're coming from with this, and secretly, I think it might be kinda funny. However, I think the vast majority might feel that this sort of treatment of the Titanic would be quite irreverent and uncalled for. It could be likened to doing similar with the 9/11 debris or something. Perhaps a better spoof movie would be something more removed from our times like a spoof about archaeologists working on an ancient Roman or Egyptian site or something.
 
S

sharon rutman

Guest
I don't want to make fun of the Titanic--I just want to stick it to self-serving fools who strut around with their own self-exaggerated sense of importance and who are using the Titanic as part of this ego trip to the bottom of the sea. The more dangerous the assignment, the bigger the research grant, the bigger the book deal and so forth
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
383
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Wouldn't it be great if Mel Brooks did one of his scathing spoofs on something like this?<<

Mel Brooks is quite the talant. He's about the only one I know of who could turn something as horrifying as the Spanish Inquisition into a Vaudville act.

>>Imagine what Brooks could do with a bunch of pompous scientists getting ready to explore the wreck! The mind boggles!<<

Especially since the scientists in the real world Titanic research were a lot of things, but pompous and arrogant isn't one of them. That's quite the anti-intellectual streak you're showing here. Why is that?
 
Feb 21, 2003
89
0
76
I can see where this is going. Try this suggestion, Mel Brooks not spoofing Titanic as much as spoofing the 'Jack and Rose take the leaky love boat' angle. Now that would be more humorous and less offensive then an actual spoof of our great lady Titanic.
 
S

sharon rutman

Guest
A really good spoof is Thumbtanic! And also remember that Mad magazine also spoofed Titanic after it came out way back in the day.

I would love a satire based on the modern stereotype of those devil may care macho scientist-explorers who sneer in the face of danger as they prepare to tackle the elements to go down 2 1/2 miles to the bottom of the sea to explore the wreck. (Of course, their real motivation is based on pure greed--fame, fortune, book, TV and movie tie-ins, guest shots on the View, Oprah, Larry King, National Geographic TV, etc). The director of all of this hyped up science fair is dreaming that his next speech begins .......And I'd like to thank the Academy .......
 

Similar threads