Raise the titanic question

Dec 2, 2000
58,588
378
283
Easley South Carolina
Pray that the hulk didn't fall apart on me befor I moved it even so much as an inch. After that, I'm afraid it would just be a one way trip to the scrapyard. It's not as if the ship would ever be made safe enough for public inspection. Even if somebody could find a way to do it, what insurance company would be dumb enough to underwrite the liability policies the curators would have to carry?

Hell...what museum foundation could afford it?
 

Nick Rose

Member
Feb 4, 2006
47
0
76
scrapyard? would a scrapyard want 70+ year old metal that was at the bottom of the sea? i'd just put it where the public could gawk at it but not go inside.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,588
378
283
Easley South Carolina
The scrapyard wouldn't really care. Once the hull had been cut up into nice managable pieces, it would be a one way trip to the blast furnace to be melted down. There wouldn't be any issues with it's age.

As to the public gawking, gawk at what? A pile of metal barely recognizable as a ship that would be caving in on itself for want of any way to conserve it and prevent deterioration. I doubt anybody would be interested for long. (shrug)
 
Jul 11, 2001
547
1
146
Hi Nick. The movie premise was that the ship was in a well preserved condition, not the rusticle weakened state it currently is. So, working on that hypothosis let's assume it did survived the tow in to New York. I'm sure there would be much fan fare.

Afterwards, would the ship begin a rapid desintigration from the exposure to the air? Artifacts today are submerged into the water again to slow that process down till they are electromagnetically stabilized. Hmm, where could one submerge the ship and do this?

How about a giant aquarium with glass viewing windows all around it? 1000 feet long, 100 wide. The public could safely view the liner under water and perhaps historians could dive on the wreck to examine the interiors?

Fiction? oh yeah, but that is what dreams are made of. Can you imagine swimming through the halls and down into the cargo holds? Fascinating!

David =)
 

Dan Cherry

Active Member
Mar 3, 2000
775
1
0
Titanic wasn't salvagable as a hull since 2:30 a.m. on April 15, 1912. More than likely, the bow's keel was broken in at least one spot upon impact with the bottom...and as for the interiors? After the bulk of the woodwork was consumed in the coming months after the sinking, well...

I'm with the Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon on this one...
 

Nick Rose

Member
Feb 4, 2006
47
0
76
well anyway raise the titanic is an entertaining movie none the less. but if it were up to me id just leave it where it was. titanic was just fine sitting at the bottom. some things are just ment to be i guess.
 
Jan 28, 2003
2,524
5
168
Isn't that the over-budget movie about which the producer said it would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic?
happy.gif
 

John Clifford

Member
Nov 12, 2000
1,686
0
166
56
There was also the review of the film, where the comment was made "If they ever do 'Raise the Titanic', they should heave this film into the North Atlantic, to take its place".
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
533
16
148
It's unfortunate that such a great novel by Clive Cussler, the one that truly caused his Dirk Pitt franchise to take off (though it was not the first Pitt novel), had to get such a horrible treatment on film.

Still, the FX were decent for their time and did a good job of showing us something that we all wished to see in our dreams and can never see happen, the Titanic finishing her maiden voyage in New York, and John Barry's score was outstanding.

There's actually a website now devoted to this film and what went wrong, and it's worth a look.

http://www.raisethetitanic.com/home/index.html
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
533
16
148
That was my mistake. I'd botched the link initially and when I edited the message to put in the correct link I eliminated the code surrounding a URL entry.

I never realized such a big site existed out there for this movie, and it is impressive to see this kind of documentation. For the first time, we learn that having the first funnel intact instead of the second was the art department's doing because they felt the model would look more effective in the raising sequence if the first funnel were still there. They didn't count on us rivet counters knowing right away that couldn't have been true even in 1980!
happy.gif


The enigma is whether dramatic scenes of the 1912 opening sequences were shot. The site suggests no, but we know the FX footage was shot and reused in the "Voyagers" episode. It's odd they would have done that FX footage first without doing any dramatic sequences.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,588
378
283
Easley South Carolina
Hell, us rivet counters have known about the stack since 1912, but then the cinema has never been renowned for being particular about history. That didn't stop me from enjoying the flick despite it's weaknesses. I just file it away under "Cerebral Junk Food." and that helps keep me from expecting too much.

The musical score at least made up for a multitude of sins starting with the hatchet job done on the book.
 

Paul Rogers

Member
Nov 30, 2000
1,244
2
168
56
West Sussex, UK
Thanks to Eric for linking this site.

Raise the Titanic has to be one of my all time favourite books, so I was extremely chuffed to find so much information about it on the site.
 

Nick Rose

Member
Feb 4, 2006
47
0
76
"we learn that having the first funnel intact instead of the second was the art department's doing because they felt the model would look more effective in the raising sequence if the first funnel were still there. They didn't count on us rivet counters knowing right away that couldn't have been true even in 1980"

If they would have done it the books way there would be no funnels. I think that would have been better.
 
Nov 26, 2005
671
1
88
Honestly, I don't see what everyone's problem with this movie is. I remember when it came out that was the HOPE of all Titanic buffs. We wanted to see it rise from the ocean in one piece pretty much perfectly preserved. Which of course didn't happen. The fantasy aspect of it saves the movie. Plus I found the Cussler novel to be kinda boring actually. I personally liked how they rolled it all into a nutshell and forked it out as a story the way the movie did. It just didn't take the time to go into some of the detail that the book did. All in all, Raise the Titanic the movie is not so different from the book. Historically accurate, I give it about a 3 out of 5 just because of how well they did the model. The instrument finding was kinda stupid, since there wasn't a trumphet player on the Titanic. At least not in the first class orchestra. I guess it just depends on what you're looking for in RTT. I personally enjoy the film much more than the novel, but that's just my opinion. And we've all those!
happy.gif
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
533
16
148
I'm sorry but to say that the movie is "not so different from the book" is just not an accurate statement. You have all the suspense and drama taken out regarding the Russian spies in the salvage team, the hurricane and the Russians boarding the ship during it, and above all you have the different ending that is devoid of the "moral equivalence" handwringing about the impact of finding the byzanium. Plus, Cussler got his Titanic background information accurately, which the film was woefully deficient in.

The film's best parts are John Barry's score, and the FX are great too because they show us a visual representation of something we dreamed of seeing before 1985 but will never see. It's worth it for that, but as a film it was a tragic misfire.
 
Nov 26, 2005
671
1
88
Very true Eric. I forgot about the hurricane. The Russian part just never really kept me interested. But I was reading the booking going "Okay, when are we gonna get to the Titanic stuff". So like I said, it depends on what you're looking for in the book/film that helps form an opinion on the book and movie. BTW I agree with you 100% on the John Barry score. I just bought the soundtrack not too long ago and really enjoy listening to it as much as I can.
 
Feb 24, 2004
907
2
86
I thought the movie was kind of fun in the "'Wouldn't It Be Nice If ...' Department" until September 1, 1985. That's when we began to see the true state of things down there and a number of nagging old questions started getting answered. (I don't include the 2nd funnel or the cornet as "nagging old questions.")

As far as the actors, I watched it for Anne Archer, period. And even she had trouble with the "wormy on the hooky" line.

'-)