Raise The Titanic

Kyrila Scully

Kyrila Scully

Member
As competitive as acting is, actors will accept most roles offered to them, especially as they start out. The more work you have in your portfolio, the more work you're offered. It's all about face recognition when it comes to casting. Casting directors choose actors who are recognizable for front card roles (roles where the actor's name gets to appear at the front of the film instead of just the end of the film credits.) Then you work your way up to title roles and starring roles. Anne is smart enough to be a working actor, and by the way, when one is offered a script, it offers no hint as to how the director or editors will use the film in the final cut. It is also not the final script, and by week eight, you might have several different colored pages representing various rewrites, which an actor will have no control over (unless he/she is the star and it's in their contract). I've viewed the "wormy on the hooky" scene and even though it's a corny line thirty years later, the context as I recall it was set in an age when Women's Lib was just getting a foothold and she was being sarcastic. And Sharon, unless you've done some acting yourself and know how the craft is created, I'd spare the criticism of those who are successful at it. Anne Archer is successful because she can actually make a decent living at it. That in itself is an achievement.

All the best,
Kyrila
 
John Clifford

John Clifford

Member
The comments about Anne Archer's role in "Raise the Titanic" remind me of the old "Elvira" movie host series: "Elvira" had a lot of fun criticizing the old horror movies, especially the ones starring the late Vincent Price.

In one film, Vincent Price's character is uttering a chant, in a made-up language. "Elvira" then claimed "we now have the benefit of subtitles, so we know what Vincent is saying". They then showed the same scene, with the subtitle reading "I know it's 'A Turkey', but it's paying the rent".

Many actors and actresses have taken roles in "Turkey Films"/"Dog Films" (per the old Siskel & Ebert show).

Anyway, let's now presume that we are able to convince Clive Cussler that we will make a proper remake of "Raise the Titanic", possibly as a 6-hour mini-series.
Who do you think you would cast in the various roles?

For starters, I'd have Gloria Stuart, Maggie Smith and Judi Dench portraying three survivors, standing on the Verazano Narrows bridge, watching the ship being escorted in to New York.

I would definitely find a role for Robert DeNiro.

Any other suggestions for the roles?

John Clifford
 
S

sharon rutman

Guest
Maybe I was wrong about poor anne. Let's give her a belated acadmey award. The movie is still a Titanic turkey.
 
M

Matthew Lips

Member
Time to revive (raise?) this ancient thread! I watched this movie the other day for the first time in many years.

Yes, I'm afraid it is still a turkey, although with some saving graces. The score must be one of the most evocative ever written for the screen, and goes a very long way towards giving the film a veneer of respectability.

And, of course, that scene where Titanic is towed past the World Trade Center has taken on a whole now poignancy since the movie was made. Talk about scenes we would like to see for real, and never will...

Yet, that "wormie on the hookie" line just about sums up a movie that made finding and raising the Titanic look about as difficult as lifting a sunken toy from the bottom of a swimming pool.

No prizes either for that line about the musician who worked "on a ship called Olympic for three years before joining Titanic." Three years?! It is unnecessarily sloppy especially as it adds nothing to the story.

Obviously, for the purposes of the story, Titanic had to be in one piece. Even in 1980, before the wreck was discovered, we knew she could never look as she does in the movie. No problems there. On the whole, though, I am not at all surprised that Clive Cussler refused to allow any of his other books to be made into movies.

This was a hatchet job, and could (given its mega budget for the day) have been so much better. The movie's poor showing at the box office was hardly helped by the fact that it appeared at a time when interest in matters Titanic was low, but it was not half the film it might have been.

Thank heavens for the music...!
 
S

Sahand Miraminy

Member
Hey All,
I saw this movie for the first time today. It was boring as crap. The only parts that were really cool though is when it was rasing and was out of the water. It looked so cool and the graphics were pretty good!

Sahand
 
D

Deborah Russes

Member
I haven't seen Raise the Titanic but I did read the book (I'm a Clive Cussler fan)...but based on the comments here, I think the story makes a better read.
 
B

Brian R Peterson

Guest
You are absolutely correct Deborah, the book has a much more detailed story than what you get watching the movie, someone described the movie as a "hatchet job" and thats exactly it too, I find the movie just about as exciting as watching paint dry
Lame


Best Regards,

Brian
 
D

Deborah Russes

Member
In my experience, when you compare a movie and the book from which it was made, the book is always better. It's hard to explain. When you see a movie you see one person's vision/interpretation of the book. And sometimes, you just can't put on film what can be put into words. Maybe it is because I enjoy reading so much and I have an active imagination.

Gone With The Wind was a great film but I liked the book better. I'm sure if they tried to put the entire book on film, the movie would have last about 10 hours.

With Raise the Titanic, I am sure that the quality of the film is one of the reasons Clive Cussler is very skeptical about putting any of his other books on film.
 
B

Brian R Peterson

Guest
Hi Deborah,

Mr. Cussler made no doubt that the poor translation of “Raise the Titanic” from his book to film was the sole reason none of his other books would be made into movies.

And while I know everyone's interpretation of a film is different, most agree that "Raise the Titanic" was like the Edsel, it was released at in the wrong market at the wrong time, when interest and knowledge in and of the Titanic was fickle at best and like its Ford counterpart, the film ultimately failed.

Best Regards,

Brian
 
K

Karin Kasper

Guest
This movie was just on Bravo yesterday, and, as I am home with the flu, I watched it for the first time. Very poignant to watch the ship go past the WTC (I still can't look at the skyline without feeling sad), and very cool to watch it rise out of the water, but, other than that, well, this one is a stinker.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
>>In my experience, when you compare a movie and the book from which it was made, the book is always better. It's hard to explain.<<

I agree, but it's not so hard to explain in my opinion. When you have the book in your hand, it goes into details that no movie can ever do any justice to, however diligent the effort. Anyone who's seen the DeLauratis production of Dune and who has read the books in the series (I have!) would know what I'm talking about.

IMO, if the producers wanted to come close to being faithful to the book, they would have to do a prolonged miniseries such as what the Sci Fi Channel did with Dune a couple of years ago.

Unfortunately, audience attention spans are rather short and keeping their interest is not the easiest thing to do. That leaves the producer a choice with doing something that is
a) faithful to the book...which could be seen as frightfully dull, or
b) Do a hatchet job which brings out the gripping highlights.

As going for option (b) is the way that sells the tickets at the box office whereas option (a) tends to drive people away since it puts them to sleep, figuring out the preferred choice of the producers and the backers isn't rocket science.
 
D

Deborah Russes

Member
Thank you, Michael, for finding the words I needed to explain my feelings. You are so right. I always used to wonder about people who chose to see a movie version of a book or read cliff notes and think they were getting the whole package. Still, I am sure there instances where a movie does do a book justice...at least to a point.

One thing about a book is that you don't have to read it all in one day thus avoiding the deletion of anything to crunch time...but a movie is seen all at one time so I guess that is why producers have to pick what they believe are the best and crucial parts of a book to make it into a movie.

But have you ever gone to see a film after reading the book only to find a part you like not in the movie?
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
>>But have you ever gone to see a film after reading the book only to find a part you like not in the movie?<<

Oh yeah. The screen adaptations of Tom Clancy's books were so dreadful that I couldn't see any resemblance to the written word. Patriot Games was especially bad. About all it had in common with the book was the name.
 
M

monica e. hall

Member
Ah, but on the other side of the coin, have you seen Brideshead Revisited, Pride & Prejudice, The Jewel in the Crown, and the Jane Eyre adaptation with George C. Scott? Most of them TV films, but each of them added something or more to the reading of the book. But no Hollywood backers, of course.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
Nope. Can't say as I have. I did see the adaptation of Shogun, and that was an impressive piece of work. Didn't even come close to touching the sheer depth of the book, but the producers sure gave it the good old collage try!!!
 
Top