The Hidden Faces of Titanic


Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
Brandon,

Just a correction, and I say this because the lifeboats don't match: The man who says to the crying girls, "just for a little while..." couldn't have been Ben Hart. I thought it might have been at first, too, but this took place at Lifeboat #2. The Harts previous took refuge farther aft in LB #14. Besides, as far as I remember, Eva only had a brother, not a sister, although I may be wrong about that. I know from old Eva's testimony that Ben Hart did say "hold mommy's hand and be a good little girl," but that line could have been given to another person (it wouldn't have been the only time Cameron did this in the movie). If you have evidence that it was indeed Mr. Hart (and if it had been, it was erroneous), then please identify your source for me. Thanks.

--Mark
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
>>In Boat 14 Rose look

>>In Boat 14 Rose looks around and sees a A.B. Seaman waving his hands up and down. That is Joseph Scarrott.<<

No, Matt. Unless I am thinking of someone else, the officer waving his hands back and forth, with a torch in one hand, is 5th officer Lowe waving down the Carpathia. Is that the one to whom you are referring?
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
>>In Boat 14 Rose looks around and sees a A.B. Seaman waving his hands up and down. That is Joseph Scarrott.<<

No, Matt. Unless I am thinking of someone else, the officer waving his hands back and forth, with a torch in one hand, is 5th officer Lowe waving down the Carpathia. Is that the one to whom you are referring?
 

Ben Holme

Member
Feb 11, 2001
714
6
183
Hi Mark,

The scene in which


Hi Mark,

The scene in which Jack and Rose initially parted (as expounded upon above) took place at the loading and subsequent lowering of collapsible 'D' (not #2), which was the last of Titanic's lifeboats to be successfully launched.

In reality, no single individual can be tentatively identified as the aforemtioned "crying man" for the simple reason that no such parting took place at collapsible D. Fathers and sons were parted at this juncture, but not fathers and daughters.

Thus, it apears Cameron's man was an amalgamation of three individuals:

Benjamin Hart: Who purportedly told his daughter to "Hold mummy's hand..etc". Wrong boat.

Edwy Arthur West: Escorted his wife and young daughters to a waiting boat and subequently perished. Again, wrong boat.

Michel Navratil: Parted from his two *sons* at collpasible D (right boat).
 

Ben Holme

Member
Feb 11, 2001
714
6
183
Hi Mark,

The scene in which Jack and Rose initially parted (as expounded upon above) took place at the loading and subsequent lowering of collapsible 'D' (not #2), which was the last of Titanic's lifeboats to be successfully launched.

In reality, no single individual can be tentatively identified as the aforemtioned "crying man" for the simple reason that no such parting took place at collapsible D. Fathers and sons were parted at this juncture, but not fathers and daughters.

Thus, it apears Cameron's man was an amalgamation of three individuals:

Benjamin Hart: Who purportedly told his daughter to "Hold mummy's hand..etc". Wrong boat.

Edwy Arthur West: Escorted his wife and young daughters to a waiting boat and subequently perished. Again, wrong boat.

Michel Navratil: Parted from his two *sons* at collpasible D (right boat).
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
>>The scene in which J

>>The scene in which Jack and Rose initially parted (as expounded upon above) took place at the loading and subsequent lowering of collapsible 'D' (not #2), which was the last of Titanic's lifeboats to be successfully launched.<<

Ben,

I thought, too, that it was C. D, but Inger confirmed that it was, in fact LB #2. Please take that up with her. Check the posts above in this thread - I think it's this thread - when we are referring to Boxhall and Cal/Lovejoy passing through the bridge to catch Rose and Jack at the LB on the port side. It is LB #2, although Boxhall wasn't actually in the boat. All of that is explained above. It is also the place where the man addresses his two crying daughters (which "crying man" are you referring? I never mentioned anything about a "crying man"). If this was supposed to be Ben Hart, he was at the wrong boat. The Harts, in fact, disembarked on LB #14, farther aft.

How do I know it was LB #2 and not Collapsible D? Because Boxhall was still on the bridge firing the last rocket, with Rowe's help (Rowe, as well, went off at the same time to take charge of Collapsible. C on the starboard side. The event and its details are out of sync with reality a little bit, but that's what it was). As we all know, Boxhall commanded LB #2.

By the way, I do not mean to be rude, but please do not "correct" me on this, as it is something about which I know very well, and I know I'm right.

Yes, I know the nature of Collapsible D. and who departed on it, among them Hugh Woolner, Bjornstrom Stephenson, and Navatril boys, just to name a few.

And, yes - I said that it was the wrong boat for Ben Hart and his family. Again, they were at LB #14. Read again! I am not oblivious to that; that's actually one of my claims.

As for the amalgamation, that's conjecture. Do you have evidence? You all have been talking about which actual passengers are represented as extras. Why are you all doing this if the background characters are composed of composites anyway? That would make your attempts to identify all these people a futile endeavor (by the way, that was a rhetorical question - I was making a point with it).

Again, please let it lie. I have evidence to support my claims, I know this part rather well, and my evidence is presented above. As I said, take it to Inger and Bob Godfrey.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
>>The scene in which Jack and Rose initially parted (as expounded upon above) took place at the loading and subsequent lowering of collapsible 'D' (not #2), which was the last of Titanic's lifeboats to be successfully launched.<<

Ben,

I thought, too, that it was C. D, but Inger confirmed that it was, in fact LB #2. Please take that up with her. Check the posts above in this thread - I think it's this thread - when we are referring to Boxhall and Cal/Lovejoy passing through the bridge to catch Rose and Jack at the LB on the port side. It is LB #2, although Boxhall wasn't actually in the boat. All of that is explained above. It is also the place where the man addresses his two crying daughters (which "crying man" are you referring? I never mentioned anything about a "crying man"). If this was supposed to be Ben Hart, he was at the wrong boat. The Harts, in fact, disembarked on LB #14, farther aft.

How do I know it was LB #2 and not Collapsible D? Because Boxhall was still on the bridge firing the last rocket, with Rowe's help (Rowe, as well, went off at the same time to take charge of Collapsible. C on the starboard side. The event and its details are out of sync with reality a little bit, but that's what it was). As we all know, Boxhall commanded LB #2.

By the way, I do not mean to be rude, but please do not "correct" me on this, as it is something about which I know very well, and I know I'm right.

Yes, I know the nature of Collapsible D. and who departed on it, among them Hugh Woolner, Bjornstrom Stephenson, and Navatril boys, just to name a few.

And, yes - I said that it was the wrong boat for Ben Hart and his family. Again, they were at LB #14. Read again! I am not oblivious to that; that's actually one of my claims.

As for the amalgamation, that's conjecture. Do you have evidence? You all have been talking about which actual passengers are represented as extras. Why are you all doing this if the background characters are composed of composites anyway? That would make your attempts to identify all these people a futile endeavor (by the way, that was a rhetorical question - I was making a point with it).

Again, please let it lie. I have evidence to support my claims, I know this part rather well, and my evidence is presented above. As I said, take it to Inger and Bob Godfrey.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
>>INGER:


Dodgy bi


>>INGER:


Dodgy bit of timing there on Cameron's part, I suspect (oh, the joys of the lifeboat time-line!). Here's what we have in the script:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Any one else, then?

Cal looks longingly at his boat... his moment has arrived.

CAL

God damn it to hell! Come on.

He and Lovejoy head for the port side, taking a short-cut through the bridge.

Bruce Ismay, seeing his opportunity, steps quickly into Collapsible C. He stares straight ahead, not meeting Murdoch's eyes.

MURDOCH

(staring at Ismay)

Take them down.

CUT TO:

221 EXT. BOAT DECK / PORT SIDE - NIGHT

ON THE PORT SIDE Lightoller is getting people into Boat 2. He keeps his pistol in his hand at this point. Twenty feet below them the sea is pouring into the doors and windows of B deck staterooms. They can hear the roar of water cascading into the ship.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So the cut-through the bridge takes place while Boat 2 is being loaded. The 'Sir, you can't go through here!' is intended to be Boxhall, I believe. IIRC, isn't he still working on the distress rockets with the QM at that point in the movie? I haven't seen it for a long time.


Bob Godfrey
Member
Username: bobgod1

Post Number: 1822
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Tuesday, 9 November, 2004 - 12:52 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is indeed that the real launch sequence and the Cameron launch sequence do not coincide. Cameron re-wrote history in having Cal crossing the bridge to get from the lowering of Collapsible C to the loading of boat 2. Getting back to reality, Boxhall was sent to take command of boat 2 at a late stage just before it was lowered, and up until that time was stationed on the bridge where, among other duties, he had supervised the firing of the distress signals. Though again the timing is out, this is what he is seen to be doing just before he challenges Cal and Lovejoy. <<
-------------------------------------------------



Ben, I hope this helps. Thanks.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
>>INGER:


Dodgy bit of timing there on Cameron's part, I suspect (oh, the joys of the lifeboat time-line!). Here's what we have in the script:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Any one else, then?

Cal looks longingly at his boat... his moment has arrived.

CAL

God damn it to hell! Come on.

He and Lovejoy head for the port side, taking a short-cut through the bridge.

Bruce Ismay, seeing his opportunity, steps quickly into Collapsible C. He stares straight ahead, not meeting Murdoch's eyes.

MURDOCH

(staring at Ismay)

Take them down.

CUT TO:

221 EXT. BOAT DECK / PORT SIDE - NIGHT

ON THE PORT SIDE Lightoller is getting people into Boat 2. He keeps his pistol in his hand at this point. Twenty feet below them the sea is pouring into the doors and windows of B deck staterooms. They can hear the roar of water cascading into the ship.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So the cut-through the bridge takes place while Boat 2 is being loaded. The 'Sir, you can't go through here!' is intended to be Boxhall, I believe. IIRC, isn't he still working on the distress rockets with the QM at that point in the movie? I haven't seen it for a long time.


Bob Godfrey
Member
Username: bobgod1

Post Number: 1822
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Tuesday, 9 November, 2004 - 12:52 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is indeed that the real launch sequence and the Cameron launch sequence do not coincide. Cameron re-wrote history in having Cal crossing the bridge to get from the lowering of Collapsible C to the loading of boat 2. Getting back to reality, Boxhall was sent to take command of boat 2 at a late stage just before it was lowered, and up until that time was stationed on the bridge where, among other duties, he had supervised the firing of the distress signals. Though again the timing is out, this is what he is seen to be doing just before he challenges Cal and Lovejoy. <<
-------------------------------------------------



Ben, I hope this helps. Thanks.
 

Ben Holme

Member
Feb 11, 2001
714
6
183
Or alternatively, you could si

Or alternatively, you could simply have said; "Thanks for the information".

Mark,

Yours was a thoroughly vacuous and self-important rant of the order that I've seldom encountered on this website. The tone and tenor of indignation which you delight to adopt here suggests that you have an aversion to being "corrected". Alas Mark, as much as it pains me, you must consider yourself so in this instance.

Quote: "I thought, too, that it was C. D, but Inger confirmed that it was, in
fact LB #2. Please take that up with her. Check the posts above in
this thread."


Inger and I are close friends, and have discussed this over cocktails and curries innumerable, I'm sure. Boxhall's presence on the bridge at the aforementioned juncture is an error on the part of the film-makers. It will be remembered that Cal and Lovejoy had previously scorned places in collpasible C, (starboard side) the moment they learned of the presence of Rose and Jack on the opposite side. On hops J. Bruce Ismay, and collapsible C is lowered. It's counterpart on the port side, however, is still hanging in the davits.

Thus, the latter boat cannot be lifeboat #2, which, as we learn from the indefatigable sleuthing efforts of Messrs. Behe, Wormstedt, and Fitch, was lauched *before* collapsible C. I can refer you to the germane snippets of testimony if you wish?

Watch the "parting" scene again, Mark. If the boat in question was truly #2, you would see an upside-down boat (D) lying on the deck, in view of all, and possibly presenting an obstruction.

But there is no such boat, Mark, so you must swallow your pride, grit your teeth, and graciously accept correction.

Inger's "Dodgy bit of timing there on Cameron's part" is spot on. The launching sequence is largely correct. The only glaring error is the presence of Boxhall on the bridge. Boat #2, as Inger illustrates above, might well have been depicted, but it was not the craft into which Rose entered and subsequently left.

Didn't you notice the man who leaped into the descending boat from A-deck as Rose made her unorthodox departure? Remind you a litte of Woolner and Steffanson? These gentleman were *D* people, Mark. There were no A-deck jumpers where boat #2 were concerned.

Friendly tip, Mark: If you feel you can satisfactorily provide refutation of the above, is there any chance you could present your evidence to the contrary rather that simply "referring" me to others?

"It is also the place where the man addresses his two crying daughters (which "crying
man" are you referring?"


Having secured places for his two daughters and wife, the same man can be seen in tears - or on the verge of same - as the boat is descending. Check it.

"If this was supposed to be Ben Hart, he was at the wrong boat.
The Harts, in fact, disembarked on LB #14, farther aft."


Dealt with already. Read above.

"By the way, I do not mean to be rude, but please do not "correct" me
on this, as it is something about which I know very well, and I know
I'm right."


Bunkum. Prove it. What bothers me is the intolerable arrogance of statements akin to "I know I'm right". I can just envisage the mirth that would inevitably result from imposing such a ludicrous attitude into debates such as the California controvery. I can just hear Robin Gardner, too:

"It was the Olympic, not the Titanic! Don't dare correct me because - and here's the killer - I know I'm right!"

"Why are you all doing this if the background characters are
composed of composites anyway? That would make your attempts to
identify all these people a futile endeavor"


They're not "my" attempts. I am not the author of the proposed article. I entered this discussion, as a passenger-researcher, out of a good-natured desire to help familiarise others with the myriad of fascinating personalities involved with this tragedy. And should an interlocuter pose the question "Who is that individual in the background?", I would merely offer suggestions as to who might fit the physical description most closely.

Admittedly, some of the identifcations are of a highly tenuous nature. Who cares? It's just a bit of fun.

And speaking of tenuous, in future I would be disinclined to whinge on about how much you purport to know this or that piece of evidence. Your post paints a decidedly different picture.
 

Ben Holme

Member
Feb 11, 2001
714
6
183
Or alternatively, you could simply have said; "Thanks for the information".

Mark,

Yours was a thoroughly vacuous and self-important rant of the order that I've seldom encountered on this website. The tone and tenor of indignation which you delight to adopt here suggests that you have an aversion to being "corrected". Alas Mark, as much as it pains me, you must consider yourself so in this instance.

Quote: "I thought, too, that it was C. D, but Inger confirmed that it was, in
fact LB #2. Please take that up with her. Check the posts above in
this thread."


Inger and I are close friends, and have discussed this over cocktails and curries innumerable, I'm sure. Boxhall's presence on the bridge at the aforementioned juncture is an error on the part of the film-makers. It will be remembered that Cal and Lovejoy had previously scorned places in collpasible C, (starboard side) the moment they learned of the presence of Rose and Jack on the opposite side. On hops J. Bruce Ismay, and collapsible C is lowered. It's counterpart on the port side, however, is still hanging in the davits.

Thus, the latter boat cannot be lifeboat #2, which, as we learn from the indefatigable sleuthing efforts of Messrs. Behe, Wormstedt, and Fitch, was lauched *before* collapsible C. I can refer you to the germane snippets of testimony if you wish?

Watch the "parting" scene again, Mark. If the boat in question was truly #2, you would see an upside-down boat (D) lying on the deck, in view of all, and possibly presenting an obstruction.

But there is no such boat, Mark, so you must swallow your pride, grit your teeth, and graciously accept correction.

Inger's "Dodgy bit of timing there on Cameron's part" is spot on. The launching sequence is largely correct. The only glaring error is the presence of Boxhall on the bridge. Boat #2, as Inger illustrates above, might well have been depicted, but it was not the craft into which Rose entered and subsequently left.

Didn't you notice the man who leaped into the descending boat from A-deck as Rose made her unorthodox departure? Remind you a litte of Woolner and Steffanson? These gentleman were *D* people, Mark. There were no A-deck jumpers where boat #2 were concerned.

Friendly tip, Mark: If you feel you can satisfactorily provide refutation of the above, is there any chance you could present your evidence to the contrary rather that simply "referring" me to others?

"It is also the place where the man addresses his two crying daughters (which "crying
man" are you referring?"


Having secured places for his two daughters and wife, the same man can be seen in tears - or on the verge of same - as the boat is descending. Check it.

"If this was supposed to be Ben Hart, he was at the wrong boat.
The Harts, in fact, disembarked on LB #14, farther aft."


Dealt with already. Read above.

"By the way, I do not mean to be rude, but please do not "correct" me
on this, as it is something about which I know very well, and I know
I'm right."


Bunkum. Prove it. What bothers me is the intolerable arrogance of statements akin to "I know I'm right". I can just envisage the mirth that would inevitably result from imposing such a ludicrous attitude into debates such as the California controvery. I can just hear Robin Gardner, too:

"It was the Olympic, not the Titanic! Don't dare correct me because - and here's the killer - I know I'm right!"

"Why are you all doing this if the background characters are
composed of composites anyway? That would make your attempts to
identify all these people a futile endeavor"


They're not "my" attempts. I am not the author of the proposed article. I entered this discussion, as a passenger-researcher, out of a good-natured desire to help familiarise others with the myriad of fascinating personalities involved with this tragedy. And should an interlocuter pose the question "Who is that individual in the background?", I would merely offer suggestions as to who might fit the physical description most closely.

Admittedly, some of the identifcations are of a highly tenuous nature. Who cares? It's just a bit of fun.

And speaking of tenuous, in future I would be disinclined to whinge on about how much you purport to know this or that piece of evidence. Your post paints a decidedly different picture.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
Ben,

All I was saying was t


Ben,

All I was saying was that, according to Inger's illustration, the script itself identifies the boat being lowered as 2. That was my proof, unless the details were later changed during the making of the movie. Bob Godfrey, too, came in and seemed to confirm the same thing. These two individuals are considered authorities, no? I merely used their confirmations as evidence. I didn't originally say that the boat was 2 - they did! I was merely pointing that out to you. I had originally agreed with you, way above. When you corrected me, you were, in essence, "killing the messenger," which is ludicrous. That's why I suggested that you take it to them.

As for my getting arrogant, sometimes I can, but because Inger had shown me that part of the script which identified the boat as #2, I felt I was right. If I hadn't a clue and wasn't certain of things, I would either (1) ask, or (2) take an "it's a possibility, but I'm not certain of this" sort of stance. Because the script, above, identifies the boat as 2, I felt I was right. I'll accept the correction if I'm uncertain of things, but when I feel I am right and have confirmation that I am so - i.e. the script - then I proceed to defend my stance, which is merely what I did.

Is the boat Collapsible D? Possibly - no argument. The script, which Inger presented above, however, says something different. That's what I was pointing out.

I apologize if you had been taken aback by my post. It wasn't meant as an attack on you, nor was it intended as a thistle-headed response from an arrogant person who doesn't like being "corrected." As said, I felt I had confirmation, and I was defending my stance.

As for just having fun in this endeavor, yes, of course. I can see that. I can't help but analyze things, even when they are cinematographic in nature, so naturally I will ask questions and point out what seem like inconsistencies to me. That would be the same as you and others have done.

>>But there is no such boat, Mark, so you must swallow your pride, grit your teeth, and graciously accept correction.<<

Now who is getting arrogant? I am full willing to accept correction if logic and evidence is presented to prove me wrong. I am nothing if not open-minded and respectful of the significance of data confirming fact. As said, take it to the source. I don't require correction, because I wasn't the one who had originally claimed the boat to be 2. Still, this argument is over something unimportant, and it's not worth continuing.

By the way, do not keep repeating my name as a reference in text as if I'm slow, thick, or 10 years old. I am none of these, and I realize that the comments in the post(s) are directed toward me - a 40-year-old, professional, who is attempting his Ph.D. That is unnecessary condescension, and condescension is an unwarranted personal affront which I won't accept from anybody.

Don't get me started on Robin Gardner. All I can say is that I am above name-calling, as that doesn't solve anything. Needless to say, Gardiner, in my opinion, is not an authority on Titanic. Enough said.

>>"If this was supposed to be Ben Hart, he was at the wrong boat.
The Harts, in fact, disembarked on LB #14, farther aft."

Dealt with already. Read above.<<

I was the one who confirm this to begin with. Therefore it is unnecessary for me to reread.

Oh, Ben, your profile doesn't acknowledge anything about you, so how am I to know that you and Inger are old drinking buddies? In the same light, you have no idea who I am, so, with all due respect, please don't try to sum up my character, which is what your last posts seems to be doing. That's not your place.

I can be friendly - very friendly - but I will defend myself when I feel a need to, sometimes with excessive and overwhelming robustness. For that, I also apologize. I will never attack, as that's not in my nature. Instead of attempting to sum me up by comparing me to others, like Gardiner, and placing me in some general category or type, spend time getting to know me. I assure you that you would develop a very different impression of me than you seem to have here.

Who knows, we just might become friends, and I'm not opposed to that. ;)

Take care, Ben, and have a nice day. I hope that we can have more civil and amiable conversations to come...


Mark Hopkins
Editorial Executive, EIC, and Senior CNF Editor
River Walk Journal, Inc.
http://www.riverwalkjournal.org
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
Ben,

All I was saying was that, according to Inger's illustration, the script itself identifies the boat being lowered as 2. That was my proof, unless the details were later changed during the making of the movie. Bob Godfrey, too, came in and seemed to confirm the same thing. These two individuals are considered authorities, no? I merely used their confirmations as evidence. I didn't originally say that the boat was 2 - they did! I was merely pointing that out to you. I had originally agreed with you, way above. When you corrected me, you were, in essence, "killing the messenger," which is ludicrous. That's why I suggested that you take it to them.

As for my getting arrogant, sometimes I can, but because Inger had shown me that part of the script which identified the boat as #2, I felt I was right. If I hadn't a clue and wasn't certain of things, I would either (1) ask, or (2) take an "it's a possibility, but I'm not certain of this" sort of stance. Because the script, above, identifies the boat as 2, I felt I was right. I'll accept the correction if I'm uncertain of things, but when I feel I am right and have confirmation that I am so - i.e. the script - then I proceed to defend my stance, which is merely what I did.

Is the boat Collapsible D? Possibly - no argument. The script, which Inger presented above, however, says something different. That's what I was pointing out.

I apologize if you had been taken aback by my post. It wasn't meant as an attack on you, nor was it intended as a thistle-headed response from an arrogant person who doesn't like being "corrected." As said, I felt I had confirmation, and I was defending my stance.

As for just having fun in this endeavor, yes, of course. I can see that. I can't help but analyze things, even when they are cinematographic in nature, so naturally I will ask questions and point out what seem like inconsistencies to me. That would be the same as you and others have done.

>>But there is no such boat, Mark, so you must swallow your pride, grit your teeth, and graciously accept correction.<<

Now who is getting arrogant? I am full willing to accept correction if logic and evidence is presented to prove me wrong. I am nothing if not open-minded and respectful of the significance of data confirming fact. As said, take it to the source. I don't require correction, because I wasn't the one who had originally claimed the boat to be 2. Still, this argument is over something unimportant, and it's not worth continuing.

By the way, do not keep repeating my name as a reference in text as if I'm slow, thick, or 10 years old. I am none of these, and I realize that the comments in the post(s) are directed toward me - a 40-year-old, professional, who is attempting his Ph.D. That is unnecessary condescension, and condescension is an unwarranted personal affront which I won't accept from anybody.

Don't get me started on Robin Gardner. All I can say is that I am above name-calling, as that doesn't solve anything. Needless to say, Gardiner, in my opinion, is not an authority on Titanic. Enough said.

>>"If this was supposed to be Ben Hart, he was at the wrong boat.
The Harts, in fact, disembarked on LB #14, farther aft."

Dealt with already. Read above.<<

I was the one who confirm this to begin with. Therefore it is unnecessary for me to reread.

Oh, Ben, your profile doesn't acknowledge anything about you, so how am I to know that you and Inger are old drinking buddies? In the same light, you have no idea who I am, so, with all due respect, please don't try to sum up my character, which is what your last posts seems to be doing. That's not your place.

I can be friendly - very friendly - but I will defend myself when I feel a need to, sometimes with excessive and overwhelming robustness. For that, I also apologize. I will never attack, as that's not in my nature. Instead of attempting to sum me up by comparing me to others, like Gardiner, and placing me in some general category or type, spend time getting to know me. I assure you that you would develop a very different impression of me than you seem to have here.

Who knows, we just might become friends, and I'm not opposed to that. ;)

Take care, Ben, and have a nice day. I hope that we can have more civil and amiable conversations to come...


Mark Hopkins
Editorial Executive, EIC, and Senior CNF Editor
River Walk Journal, Inc.
http://www.riverwalkjournal.org
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Gentlemen, let's step back

Gentlemen, let's step back from the blowup I see about to happen here and take a breath. I'd hate to have to come in here later and delete half or all that follows or just shut the thread because people lost their tempers with each other.

Remember that the *points* are fair game for attack, regardless of who they came from, but the person making them is *not.*
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Gentlemen, let's step back from the blowup I see about to happen here and take a breath. I'd hate to have to come in here later and delete half or all that follows or just shut the thread because people lost their tempers with each other.

Remember that the *points* are fair game for attack, regardless of who they came from, but the person making them is *not.*
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,043
107
333
UK
I second the proposal that thr

I second the proposal that threads like this one are (or should be) for light relief, and ought not to provide any need for heated exchanges. I would also caution against making too much reliance on evidence from reality in support of arguments about the intentions of the makers of a fictionalised account of reality.

It's clear from Cameron's original script that he intended the scene in question to take place during the loading of boat 2. But at some stage he must have taken advice from his technical advisors and substituted boat D, because on close examination the prop used in this scene is indeed a collapsible. Not a very convincing prop, because it seems that it was made for use in static scenes on deck and the canvas sides could not actually be erected. That's why the impression it gives at a quick viewing is of a solid wooden lifeboat with people perched on it rather than in it. But at the end of the day, what the hell. It's only a movie, and I think we're all agreed on that.
.
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,043
107
333
UK
I second the proposal that threads like this one are (or should be) for light relief, and ought not to provide any need for heated exchanges. I would also caution against making too much reliance on evidence from reality in support of arguments about the intentions of the makers of a fictionalised account of reality.

It's clear from Cameron's original script that he intended the scene in question to take place during the loading of boat 2. But at some stage he must have taken advice from his technical advisors and substituted boat D, because on close examination the prop used in this scene is indeed a collapsible. Not a very convincing prop, because it seems that it was made for use in static scenes on deck and the canvas sides could not actually be erected. That's why the impression it gives at a quick viewing is of a solid wooden lifeboat with people perched on it rather than in it. But at the end of the day, what the hell. It's only a movie, and I think we're all agreed on that.
.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>But at the end of th

>>But at the end of the day, what the hell. It's only a movie, and I think we're all agreed on that.<<

That's really the bottom line too. Enjoy it, play with it, have fun with it, but don't fight over it.
wink.gif
 

Ben Holme

Member
Feb 11, 2001
714
6
183
Hi Mark,

Clarification appr


Hi Mark,

Clarification appreciated. If anyone is not fully cognizant of the lifeboat launching sequence, numbers, officers etc, it is Cameron - at least in this instance. Whilst it is clear that you, Inger, Bob and myself know our boat #2s from our boat Ds, it appears that Cameron has confounded the two. Or very possibly, Cameron realised his error rather late in the proceedings and ammended it accordingly, hence the script confusion.

I wouldn't wish for any further acrimony to ensue as a result of a film-maker's error!

Thanks for your kind wishes, Mark. I extend the same, of course. :)

Best Regards,
Ben
 

Similar threads

Similar threads