OK Now For the WORST Titanic Movie Votes Please


S

sharon rutman

Guest
Mike--I'm not anti-intellectual--far from it. (I'm finishing up a Master' Degree, for goodness sake next year). Come, come, these guys are also dreaming about updating their resumes and snagging hefty scientific research grants worth big bucks from multi-national corporations. Money talks and you know what walks. Just remember: Ka-ching! Ka-ching!
 
Feb 4, 2007
1,646
3
108
40
Denver, Colorado, United States
>>>>>Happily, it's already been done - by Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders in the UK.<<<<<

I love French and Saunders! Yes, in my opinion, this is probably the best Titanic spoof there possibly could be. Sharon, if you don't like James Cameron, you should check this spoof out. It's even on DVD now.
 
S

sharon rutman

Guest
Can I get it on ebay? Do you have a website where I can check it out?
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
35
208
quote:

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.
Which ones? Can you provide some specific examples? I'm sure we've seen the same documentaries, but I don't see a lot of scientists doing this.

As for those "hefty scientific research grants worth big bucks from multi-national corporations" - snort! No scientist is getting rich from their participation. I know some of the consultants who have worked on and appeared in these documentaries, and if anything it costs them - they are not heavily compensated for time away from their regular jobs and their families.

There are many misapprehensions about scientists and archaeologists appearing in the media, or about the popular edge they sometimes have to put on their work in order to make it accessible to the public and/or to obtain funding for their research. Those not professionally employed in the field of maritime history and oceanographic research but who have an interest in these areas sometimes assume that it is done out of either a desire for self-aggrandisement in the media, or to get great wads of cash. They can be strident in their criticism of the figures they see on TV. But while there is the odd media you-know-what, someone who is seeking publicity for the sake of the attention, and a few professionals for whom it is just another paycheck, the majority of participants who appear on camera in these documentaries have a passion for the subject every bit as great as the participants on this board. In fact, some are participants on ET and other online forums.

Sharon's sustained attack on scientists who have the temerity to participate in documentaries does indeed come across as anti-intellectual, anti-elitism - the continual references to participants with scientific credentials as snobby, pompous etc, and her attack on their use of terminology, really don't seem to me at all supported by actually watching the documentaries, and she hasn't offered any specific examples to support her allegations. On the contrary, the team that Cameron, for example, assembled struck me as enthusiastic, committed and very down-to-earth.

The idea of the treasure-hunting marine archeologist has already been partially satirised - by none other than James Cameron himself, through the character of Brock Lovett. Recall the exchange between him and his off-sider at the beginning of the movie, in which it was clear that the overblown rhetoric about the "long fall from the world above" etc was pure showbiz that they didn't take remotely seriously.

The French and Saunders send-up was their usual brilliance! I particularly liked their poke at James Cameron's style of directing.

Monica, did you ever have the opportunity to watch the HTV Wales documentary on Harold Lowe? It was written and produced by a woman, who not only came up with the original concept, she worked for several years to have it green-lighted. She wasn't one to sit around and grizzle - she proactively put an idea forward, and went ahead and made the documentary.​
 
Feb 4, 2007
1,646
3
108
40
Denver, Colorado, United States
>>>>Can I get it on ebay? Do you have a website where I can check it out?<<<<<

Sure! The DVD is called, "French & Saunders On the Rocks" Check it out at Amazon.

I have also just seen several copies on eBay for around seven bucks-ish. Make sure it's in a DVD format compatible with your region unless you have a region-free DVD player. It helps if you are familiar with French & Saunders previous material, but I don't think it is entirely necessary - it's just a lot more fun if you are. It's worth it.

C'mon, two highly talented women making fun of Jack and Rose, James Cameron, and the whole movie making process, all in good fun - what's not to like? I love it!
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
418
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Mike--I'm not anti-intellectual--far from it. <<

You have a strange way of showing it. Especially when you sneer at scientists as being snooty and pompous. It's even more strange when you consider that the body of knowledge uncovered by scientific investigation has blown away literally thousands if not tens of thousands of years of culturally rooted superstitions which have served to keep women down. The reason you haven't spent a lifetime barefoot and pregnant (Unless at some point you wanted to be for your own good reasons) is because all those cultural superstitions have been shown to be utter bunk.

I would also point out that in those places where superstition still rules, women are still very much second class citizens if not a bit lower then chattle property. (Not a pretty picture in my opinion.)

We all benefit from science every day and in every way, from labour saving devices, to life saving medical technology, transportation which makes it possible for us to go anywhere in the world we want to in less then a day, food production, weather prediction, to the computers in front of us, the use and conveniece of which we take for granted.

None of these developments came from the shamans sacrificing virgins or prisoners of war to Og The Volcano God. They came from men and women exploring the real world to see what was possible and how it could be made to happen.

>>(I'm finishing up a Master' Degree, for goodness sake next year). <<

I'm glad to hear that.

>>Come, come, these guys are also dreaming about updating their resumes and snagging hefty scientific research grants worth big bucks from multi-national corporations.<<

Well now, that speaks more to an economic catch-22 more then anything else. People who get involved in scientific inquiry and exploration do so because of a profound and nearly insatiable thirst for knowladge and a desire to expand those frontiers. Unfortunately, you just don't do that without funding either from a university, the military, a corporation, or a combination of all the above. (They seldom ever get rich doing it either.Far from it.)

Scientists may not like making deals with any of those devils, but it's either that or they go nowhere and anything that a reasonable person might confuse for progress comes to a screeching halt.

As for the rest, you may want to be mindful of the points that Inger made. She knows what she's talking about.
 
Jan 28, 2003
2,525
5
168
i
quote:

Scientists may not like making deals with any of those devils, but it's either that or they go nowhere and anything that a reasonable person might confuse for progress comes to a screeching halt.
Mike's quite right on this one. My bro-in-law was a professor of children's dentistry and most of his life was spent chasing funding for his post-grads' PhDs. His main source of funding was Tate & Lyle, a sugar company. They didn't have any editorial control, it was what they called 'filing cabinet data' - they wanted to know what was going on re sugar and caries - probably so they could spin it where necessary. Martin knew that, but it was the price he had to pay. The ethics committee decided one day that this was rather scandalous, and told him to seek more suitable research funding from Ribena(a blackcurrant drink mothers give to babies in bottles) ... which Martin knew full well was far more responsible for baby teeth decaying than ordinary sugar! However, the ethics committee was deaf to reason, and only concerned with PR. As luck would have it, one of his students was just finishing a T & L funded thesis on Ribena, so the matter was dropped after a while, and Ribena were forced to take action due to dreadful publicity.

No, Inger, I didn't catch that documentary on Harold Lowe. I wish I had - when was it? Did the non-grizzling lady present it herself?​
 
S

sharon rutman

Guest
Wow, I guess I've got more chutzpah than I give than I thought in cutting down the new stereotype of scientist as either Superman or reckless cowboy down to size a bit.
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,114
15
198
Don't give yourself too much credit. You haven't cut them down. You've only succeeded in making yourself seem every bit elitist as those you claim to abhor, not to mention callow and surprisingly anti-intellectual for someone who claims to be going for an advanced degree.

>Which ones? Can you provide some specific examples? I'm sure we've seen the same documentaries, but I don't see a lot of scientists doing this.

Instead of waffling, please answer Inger's question of several days ago.

>and she hasn't offered any specific examples to support her allegations.

Does nothing to aid your position.

If you are serious in your pursuit of advanced education, then please lucidly answer Inger's question in the manner of a scholar. Not with rhetoric, or waffling, or self-justification~ just the facts for which she asked. I'M curious. Who are these strutting windbags? Be as specific as you like.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
418
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Wow, I guess I've got more chutzpah than I give than I thought in cutting down the new stereotype of scientist as either Superman or reckless cowboy down to size a bit.<<

Huh? Hate to say this, but you haven't cut down any stereotypes. Quite the opposite in fact. You've been doing the stereotyping. Rather a strange behaviour for somebody who has objections to that sort of thing.

A question...just curious mind you...but do you even know and understand how science works as it does? Can you accurately summerize scientific methodology in your own words?

Like I said, just curious.
 

John Clifford

Member
Mar 30, 1997
1,691
0
166
57
quote:

...but do you even know and understand how science works as it does? Can you accurately summerize scientific methodology in your own words?
Michael, I admit I am one of the many who had difficulty in Science.
Therefore I know it is always best to seek assistance from those who can offer it, not try to knock them down, as they would remind you "Don't wait until you're waist-deep in alligators before deciding it may be a good time to drain the swamp".

quote:

...Can you accurately summerize scientific methodology in your own words?
You, seriously don't want to see me try it; not quite the chemical mixtures gone awry, though my High School Chemistry teacher, Ruth, will never forget the many destroyed lab accessories.
I was one of the many who destroyed a glass funnel, some thing Ruth thought she could trust with the Juniors and Seniors. She admitted she was wrong.
wink.gif
grin.gif


Anyway, it is always easy to "sit on the sidelines and complain/critique".
Otherwise, if a question is raised to you, please don't complain about the person raising the question or try the tact of "The 'Best Defense' is a 'Good Offense'". Let us hear constructive suggestions, first.​
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
418
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Michael, I admit I am one of the many who had difficulty in Science. <<

It's not as tough as you think. Understanding much of the information it has to offer may well be difficult to grasp...I'll never be a nuclear physicist...but the methodology really isn't. I think that one of the reasons a lot of people aren't cozy with science is that it doesn't offer simplistic and pat "answers" to anything when simplistic and pat answers are all they want.

In any event, I'll hold off saying anything further until Sharon at least has an opportunity to respond to my question. I want to see if she genuinely understands what she's knocking.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
35
208
You'd have enjoyed the doco, Monica, although it did suffer a bit from the English to Welsh to English traslations (the script was written in Welsh using English language sources, then translated back to English and filmed in both languages). The writer/producer didn't appear on screen, although there were several female voice actors - it was narrated by Ioan Gruffudd. It aired a few years ago...2001 or 2002, and has been screened a few times since. One of the most interesting elements was an extract from an interview with Harold WG Lowe - the Lowe family had filmed HWGL responding to a series of questions that Kerri and I had written for him shortly before he passed away.

Regarding science - I had tremendous interest in biology, particularly bio chem, when I was in high school, but unfortunately not too much aptitude in physics.

I always nursed an interest in scientific exploration in various fields - at six I wanted to be a animal behaviouralist, at 11 I wanted to be an astronomer (again, lack of aptitude in physics and maths put a damper on that!). I'm the odd one out in my generation as a humanities student - my brother has degrees in physics and geomatic engineering (although he has pursued a different career direction) and my sister is working on obtaining a BS in Zoology. She works at one of the world's largest conservation agencies, and enjoys taking me to work functions so I can meet her scientific colleagues. These are brilliant men and women who could earn higher paychecks in private enterprise or in other career paths, but they love their particular fields of scientific endeavour, whether it be oceanography, marine biology, or herpatology (one of the most fascinating guests at her wedding was one of the world's foremost frog experts - he was absolutely enthralling).

I've always felt completely comfortable with these individuals - yes, sometimes boffins become so enthusiastic about their particular research fields that their language can become dense and verge on impenetrable. But ask them to explain, and they're in their element - show an intelligent interest, and they will adapt their discourse to their audience.

I've even become a bit better at physics - once I had to apply it to a practical application (getting my diving certs), Boyle's Law suddenly became a lot clearer. Learning about potential baratrauma injury has a wonderful impact on focussing the mind!

With the range of accessible popular science books available on many fields, it is easy for the layperson to nuture their interest in the subject. Although it does sometimes lead to the "instant expert" syndrome - some pysicists are a bit bemused to encounter folks all to willing to explain quantum physics to them. I remember being so excited by Schrödinger's cat that I felt the need to discuss it with all and sundry, no doubt to the entertainment or frustration of those who knew more about it than I did!
 
Jan 28, 2003
2,525
5
168
The translation process does sound slightly tortuous, Inger, but the result I trust was not as catastrophic as the magnificent English As She Is Spoke written with genuinely loving care in the 1800s by Pedro Carolino, who spoke no English himself, but manfully tackled the task via French, and felt he had done mankind a great service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_As_She_Is_Spoke

Schrodinger's Cat is, for me I'm afraid, just above my scientific glass ceiling. The same thing always happens. I decide to have another bash at understanding, re-read it, think "Yes! Got it this time!" and yet, inside a day or so, all understanding will have slipped away to blankness again. I can just about cope with relativity, thinking hard about trains and clocks. The Big Bang is, for me, out there somewhere along with God creating the Firmament, so I tend to still think there has to be something wrong with both theories somewhere, and have long since given up contemplating either.
 
Jan 28, 2003
2,525
5
168
Actually, looking at the Wikipedia reference to Pedro's great work (much loved by Mark Twain incidentally), I came across a very interesting link comparing Pedro's efforts against that unreliable on-line contemporary, Babelfish.
http://www.zompist.com/spoke.html

Please don't think I'm laughing at those whose first language is not English. I am full of admiration for them for mastering, as they generally do so well, one of the largest and least structured languages in the world, which just happens to have become the mandatory international one. It's just interesting to note that the more things change (on-line translating) the more they stay the same.
 
Jan 28, 2003
2,525
5
168
I'm now beginning to wonder how well Babelfish works in reverse? Maybe we should set up a Babelfish thread in reverse where we English-speakers comment on Titanic-related issues and get them translated into Spanish, French, Polish, Russian etc., and then our non-English members can enjoy our efforts? And reply in their own languages, which we can translate back etc. etc., to our own considerable bewilderment.

It'd be an interesting experiment. Best not to start with a tech subject, I think. Perhaps something like Mr. Ismay's conduct on board that night?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
418
283
Easley South Carolina
Well, if any of you want to get an overview of the Big Bang Theory, you can all click on http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/cosmo.html and http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/inflation.html The details may very well be difficult for the lay person to understand but the fundementals at least are not.

On the proposed Babelfish experiment, that might actually be a relevant and interesting subject for the General section. Not every record and source dealing with Titanic or the people assocciated with her is in the Queen's English after all. Understanding the difficulties of translation would also help explain some of the problems the people oriented researchers have in trying to make sense of local immigration and census records.

Since this thread has gone a looooonnnnggggg way away from the worst movie, anyone caring to hash over the candidates for the worst documentary would be well worth starting a thread of it's very own.
 
S

sharon rutman

Guest
What am I knocking, exactly? Wake up already, there's also a lot of self serving people out there who want to use the Titanic to advance their careers. That's not hard to figure out, is it? Anyhow, all of these Titanic documentaries look and sound pretty much the same after awhile.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
35
208
Oh, I've certainly met the odd researcher who is in it for self-aggrandisement, and a few shady figures dealing in memorabilia and merchandise. Even some exhibition organisers who have done some very odd things with objects entrusted to their care. But you were specifically attacking scientists who participate in Titanic documentaries, hurling a nice range of invective at them and suggesting that the phenomena was so widespread as to be worthy of satirisation.

But who *are* these people? Rather than just offering more vague rhetoric admonishing us to "wake up", why not do as requested - support your statement with specific examples. It's something that has clearly aroused great ire in you and let to a stream of posts about "snotty" scientists and their attitude, so I'm expecting quite an extensive list.

Monica, fortunately the translator for the documentary wasn't in the Babelfish school of language - her work was excellent and her English is as impeccable as I suspect her Welsh is. I think the problem was more in certain quotes retaining their accuracy as they made the transition from English to a second language and then back to English again. The meaning was generally retained but the precise words altered.

I'm a fan of the legendary Pedro! I found my own wonderful example of the joys of mistranslation. I'm a bit loathe to quote it at length, given the author's command of English is far superior to my command of their native languages. However, this was just too delicious - my favourite jewelery and clothing designer is an Israeli, and she makes the most exquisitely decorative accessories. The diary she issued for last year was so beautifully designed that I've kept it - not only was it filled with lovely illustrations of Edwardian women, it also had some gems of advice (spelling as in the original):

"Jogging - for women with intact health and weight, strong abdominal and firm body, jogging is considered to be the perfect choice. However, for over weight women it's not recommended, it can damage the skeleton especially the upper back bone and the neck. Also you have to remember that running can accelerate the decent of internal limbs (a process that occurs naturally in women's body)."

Some work colleagues have taken to solemnly reminding me that I'm running the risk of my internal limbs "decenting" when they see me heading out for a run at lunch.

There is a solution, however:

"Pilatis - the main advantage of pilatis is the fact that the exercises is done lying horizontally without putting any kind of pressure on the join or risking wearing them out. Also there is no risk of internal organs to drop."

Spinning is also recommended:

"By a supervised paddling you can get to a full stratch of the muscles. In order to paddle we have to use our abdominal and out back muscles."

Perhaps this is "paddling" and not the other kind is what certain politicians had in mind when caught by the papparazi?
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,114
15
198
>But who *are* these people? Rather than just offering more vague rhetoric admonishing us to "wake up", why not do as requested - support your statement with specific examples. It's something that has clearly aroused great ire in you and let to a stream of posts about "snotty" scientists and their attitude, so I'm expecting quite an extensive list.


Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Because, just as she could not explain what a "typical male perspective is" (Sharon- insert the words "black" "Jew" or " gay" in that phrase to see just what an ugly and stupid thing you said- and also to see why I am not letting the point drop) she is not going to be able to expand on the answer to your question, either. Because she is typical of people from the 1980s and 1990s who said garbage like that in a warm, fuzzy, mutually supportive environment of victims, none of whom ever challenged the sentiments voiced until speaking in loud generalizations became habitual. Can you imagine the gall of someone who refers to a woman with a degree, a job, and a position in an expedition as "Barbie" ever being surpassed? I can't. Particularly because the misogynist in this case is a WOMAN! I think we've seen a nadir, of sorts.
 

Similar threads