Raise The Titanic

Nov 30, 2000
397
0
146
How come the removed all the action/adventure from the script? I will never understand that. Oh well, at least RTTT isn't terrible, just a tad slow with Pitt only engaging in his sluething and exploring and not also his kicking bad guy butt, but it's still allright, and was released the same year Jack Grimm tried for the first time to find the Titanic, William H. Tantum the IV left us ( :-( )...and I was born. :)
I do have high hopes for the film version of "Sahara" due out next month (IIRC), although Clive is sueing the makers of that one claiming his right to approve the script in the contract between him and the movie makers was violated. Hmmmm...

Richard
 

Jon Hollis

Member
Jan 23, 2004
598
0
0
> [Hi Ricahard, A coupkle of the reasons was change of directors and running time Theaters hate long films as they like to get as many showings a day as possible for the $$$$ and popcorn sales. Certain persons from Marble Arch thought the love tryst was more important than action scenes. So much stiff was shot and in the screening version I saw before it was completlyl scored that you would die if you saw what was cut. Somewhere in the dark dank depths of Universal Studios Film Vaults the original master might be in repose alpng the cut segments on a seperate master reel . Note Cameron did the same thing but at least he did not put the"Wormie On The Hookie (twice). Cheers Jon]
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
379
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Note Cameron did the same thing but at least he did not put the"Wormie On The Hookie (twice). Cheers Jon]<<

Ouch! That had to be one of the lowest of the low points in the whole flick. I have to admit that for escapist story telling, I enjoyed it as well, but that line still makes me cringe and I wouldn't be surprised if Anne Archer would prefer to forget it as well. The musical scoring made up for a lot IMO.
 

Michael lowe

Member
Apr 2, 2006
61
0
76
Hi people, i am new here and i have never actually seen Raise The Titanic, but i would like to and i would just like to ask: Jon hollis, is that first pic u put there from the actual film coz it looks so fake!!!

Mike
 

Luke Owens

Member
Jan 18, 2007
87
0
76
Well, it COULD have been worse. The following scene (from the shooting script) never appeared in the film:

CAPTAIN
Now, Mr. Pitt, this is our engineering officer, Bugs. Bugs, this is Dirk Pitt.

PITT
How do you do, Bugs?

BUGS
(Chomping on a carrot) Ennnh...what's up, Dirk?

Luke <gd&r>
 
Apr 21, 2007
61
0
76
Here's the top scenes I think would have made the movie good:
-the sinking scenes w/ A. Brewster
-the hurricane
-fighting with the Russians
-the plating and the foam would've been pretty good too.
Just a quick question: Is there any possible way the deleted scenes can be viewed?
 
Nov 15, 2006
131
0
86
Only a small handfull of deleated scenes made it. The mock-umentary "Titanic: The Last Great Human Adventure" which was a publicity docu made prior to the release of RTT showed a few of the deleated scenes such as the plates falling to the seafloor, crews working on the foam pipes.

A small amount of the sinking scenes for the original start of the film made it into the U.S 1983 sci-fi series "Voyagers" (see other thread in the RTT section of this board for some screencaps or more info. The actuall full openeing is now owned by one of the Titanic historians. The rest of the deleated scenes have long gone. When I was working on the "special features" section for the UK dvd release in 2007, I tried to track down any of the deleated scenes to find they have been destroyed by ITC during the networks take over.
 
Apr 21, 2007
61
0
76
Thanks John. I found a copy of Voyagers and I saw the episode. They also used a lot from "Titanic" 1953. They used the iceberg scene, and the final plunge. They also used the Queen Mary for a couple of shots. They were countless number of errors in it.
"I believe you may get your headline, Mr. Ismay."
 
Nov 15, 2006
131
0
86
The region 2 (of which I assisted with) does contains extras, such as huge photo galleries, with hundreds of images, most of which have not been published before (until now) and all from my collection. You also see promotional material, cast bio's (in DVD-Rom form) and the trailor. Sadly no deleated scenes. Both myself or the owners of the film have any deleated scens. Most of them (if not all, except the original sinking footage) have long gone.

Some purchasers with very little imagination have had slight digs at the small amount of extra's, but what they don't realise is that all that is in the "special features" section came from one source (me) and copied/formatted/sent/ via email in the space of 3 days. The dvd publisher only contacted me a week before it was to be printed off. . . . Talk about cutting it fine.

The region 2 release was only going to consist of just the film.

The film is in full widescreen and taken from the original film. The picture quality is indeed very good. The best release so far.

I have been approached to help with a blue-ray version with a much larger "special features" section. But this will not be until a couple of years time.
 
I'm not trying to be obstinate or difficult, Jonathan. Is it anamorphic?

The reason that I'm asking is that my Swedish release (titled 'Lyft Titanic') is widescreen but not anamorphic. Therefore it doesn't fill my widescreen television. It's a lonely little rectangle in a mass of black
sad.gif


Amazon doesn't say. But if it IS anamorphic, I'm going to have to jump on there and snag me a copy.
 
Nov 15, 2006
131
0
86
I think it may be anamorphic. The cover says "2.35:1" and Network informed me at the time that the film was taken directly without formating from the original theatrical release. The U.K 'Carlton' release in 2003 on dvd was in 16:9 widescreen. The 2007 release is at a much wider ration when viewed on my screen, revealing more than the 16:9.
 

Will C. White

Member
Apr 18, 2007
267
0
86
Anamorphic is actually a type of lens system used during production. What you're looking at is ratio, and there are so many, that it can make one crazy in short order. 16:9 is much more square than 2.35:1, so the only real way to get the picture big enough to be enjoyable is to get a monster set; still, it's better than the old "square". WILL