Raise The Titanic

[Dave Hudson]

Richard and Adam,
Of course the bow couldn't be raised (much less the stern), but that's not the point. The movie would have to portray an intact Titanic with little or no corrosion. That's what Josh meant by "Even though it couldn't possibly be accurate..." Who would want to see a movie with a big lump of rusty steel in a giant freshwater tank being towed into Halifax? The coolest part of Raise the Titanic was that the ship was almost perfectly preserved. And yeah, some of the technology used to refloat her would have to be used, but this movie isn't meant to be plausible. That's the beauty of making a film who's subject alone is impossible-you can't be innacurate! Movies like SOS Titanic and the Cameron film are picked apart because the plot ALREADY occured and the films story is compared to what actually happened. A remade Raise the Titanic would only have to provide a nice backdrop (namely the Titanic), an exciting storyline, and decent effects. My point is that instead of mimicking history, we'd be writing our own, more ideal reality.

David

 

[Joshua Gulch]

If you recall in the novel, the raising operation wasn't the only thing going on. There were the Russians sneaking around, the Seagrams rocky relationship, and a hurricane all going on around trying to get this ship up. Something the movie seemed to forget. In any case, lots of stuff the work the film around with Titanic as a backdrop.

As for political correctness, I say to heck with it all. It take the fun out of everything. To quote John Adams in 1776, "We're going to have to offend somebody!"

Also, the Titanic in the remake would be intact and spiffy rather than a pile'o'rust. Read the section in the book titled "Regenesis," right after she's up at the tail end of Chapter 3.
Although, what to do about the raising? In the book she comes up stern first, but she looked so good coming up bow first! And what about May 1988 being the date of raising? (Yes, I've dragged my copy out for reference)

Josh

 

[richard chappell]

Adam, Josh
thank you for your comments, I wasn't inferring that you could remake the film with the only change being to the raising section. many other aspects would have to be changed,so many that you would end up without any form of viable script!
it was more a question of if the film was made today, set at the same time as the original but taking into account the known condition of the wreck, how would the script have to be changed regarding the lifting?
high density boyant foam at twelve and a half thousand feet would be nigh on impossible to use and as for strapping any thing onto the hull, forget it, the welds would have to be at such a high amperage that would more than likely burn holes in the hull and even a lash arrangement would be compromised due to hull integrity. No engineer would even want to touch a job such as this!. Remember that the steel used at this time was inherantly weak at manufacture and wasn't best blessed with the high torsional strength that modern steels have. It is not a question of the wreck breaking up but more than likely, it would shatter!
I watched "Raise the Titanic" again this after noon and concluded, along with others that the film was a one off, good for the time, not good fodder for a remake but very good material for a "what if........" discussion like we are having here!

Cheers

Rich

 

[William Ajello]

By Colleen Collier on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 06:55 am:

Today I watched this movie for the hundredth time, but for the first time, I actually realized the Titanic was slowly and hauntingly towed past the World Trade Center. Seeing the two together was moving beyond words.

Colleen, I'm not a betting man but I am willing to go for it this time that any future re-releases of RAISE THE TITANIC will NOT have the WTC in it anymore.

This country, in all of their stupidity, has decreed that filmakers should edit out any references to the WTC in any new films, thus sparing us the heartbreak of seeing them, but what they are REALLY trying to do is make us forget they ever existed in the first place by doing this and this is totally wrong.

Bill

 

[William Ajello]

By Joshua Gulch on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 08:27 am:

Just wondering here... If someone decided to remake "Raise the Titanic" based much more closely to the book, with murder mysteries, sneakier Russians, and a nuttier Gene, how many of you would object? Even though it couldn't possibly be accurate, who'd have a problem with it?

I wouldn't have a problem with that at all, as a matter of fact, I was very disappointed that there was not more action involving the Russians that there was just a putsy guy making threats......If they did make it again, you know the WTC would not be in it..........obviously, as I told Colleen, if they ever re-release the old one, bet your socks that they'll edit the trade center out of it.

Bill

>

 

[Colleen Collier]

Bill. I know what you mean. It sort of cheapens the existance of something to try to just erase it from view. Also makes a false frenzy of collectibility and price gouging. All the sudden MY copy is worth three times as much because it has all the WTC footage. Twenty years from now, they can re-release it with the old footage and sell it all over again.
Colleen

 

[William Ajello]

By Joshua Gulch on Sunday, October 28, 2001 - 07:50 pm:

If you recall in the novel, the raising operation wasn't the only thing going on. There were the Russians sneaking around, the Seagrams rocky relationship, and a hurricane all going on around trying to get this ship up. Something the movie seemed to forget. In any case, lots of stuff the work the film around with Titanic as a backdrop.

Josh, you left out the best thing about the dialogue:

PITT: "Where's the Carpenter going?" SANDECKER: "There's a distress call"

PITT: "We're in distress for christ sake, we need that ship!"

SANDECKER: "You can't ignore a distress call!"

PITT: "You wanna talk about distress?, we have the navy forecasting a force 12 storm, we have the russians breathing down our necks, we're on a ship that never learned how to do anything but sink....THAT'S DISTRESS!"

Details....details...details Josh......Actually, I threatened to put that dialogue directly off the movie on our answering machine once and the wife pitched a fit..

Regards, Bill

 

[Joshua Gulch]

Bill,
Sounds like your wife doesn't know good dialogue when she hears it.

Also, did it strike anyone else as being a bit off that Bigalow's Titanic collection is a rather rinky-dink assortment laid out on a table in a pub? That can't be the safest place for it...

Josh.

 

[Kyrila Scully]

My collection is MUCH better (and bigger) than Bigelow's.

Kyrila

 

[Joshua Gulch]

Don't be a show off, Kyrila. Surely your mum taught you better.

Besides, Bigalow seemed so proud of his collection. It's not the size, it's the emotional value.

Josh.

 

[Kyrila Scully]

Have you ever heard of Sigmund Freud, Mr. Gulch? His comments on the male preoccupation with size might be of interest to you.

>>hehehehehe<<

 

[Joshua Gulch]

Ooh, touch&eacute;, Madam Scully.

Always trouble... for shame.

Josh.

 

[Shelley Dziedzic]

I liked the buxom barmaid in that pub- she sure liked our Selby! But the BEST line must be Anne Archer-
"I just can't put the wormie on the hookie"-other than that it had some sterling moments!

 

[Dave Hudson]

I love it the barmaid goes, "Why the man's gone off!!!" Classic.

Bigelow's collection was more than decent considering that he had Titanic's house flag!!!

Actually, if you want to know the whole story, after his untimely passing, good old Mr. Bigelow willed his entire collection to me, his long-lost grandson (oh, didn't you know? "David Hudson" is just an alias. My real name is Deuce...)

Yours,

Deuce

 

[William Ajello]

By Joshua Gulch on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 - 12:57 am:

> Also, did it strike anyone else as being a bit off that > Bigalow's Titanic collection is a rather rinky-dink > assortment laid out on a table in a pub? That can't be the > safest place for it...

You didn't notice the hidden machine gun turrets behind the walls????

Actually, you're correct, a valued collection like that should be under lock and key.....

Bill

>