Titanic's Appearance in Book vs Movie

Z

Zack Wyatt

Guest
In the book, the Titanic is mastless and funneless, while in the movie, she is complete with mast and funnels, with the exception of the 2nd funnel. Which appearence do you guys like better?

Also, do you guys know any website which has pictures of a model of the Titanic based on how it looks in the book, without masts and funnels? I found pictures of such a model on the Internet last year, but I looked again this year and couldn't find it.

Thanks.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,588
378
283
Easley South Carolina
>>The rest of the movie should be excised from collective human memory.<<

No disagreement there. For the money they spent on the production, they could have been more faithful to the book itself. Not that the book was any great literary masterpiece but the author never claimed otherwise.
 
I know! With the money and the effort that went into it, it should have been electrifying.

I think there were a few missteps:

1) The script
2) The script
3) The script
4) Richard Jordan
5) Jerry Jameson (hiring a TV director!?)

The special effects were some of the best of the 1970s and 80s (we'll lump it into the 70s because that's when it was filmed). Ann Archer was keeee-yute. Jason Robards was perfect casting.
 
Z

Zack Wyatt

Guest
I agree with you both, Jeremy and Mike.

Jeremy, you had your appendix removed?!

Have any of you guys found pictures of the web of the Titanic in the book, mastless and funnel-less?
 
Nov 26, 2005
671
1
88
>>The rest of the movie should be excised from collective human memory.<<

Except for one other scene...them finding the wreck. Just for the effects/model and the soundtrack if nothing else. Oh, and the scene when Titanic finally arrives in New York.

The rest can go!
happy.gif
 

Alex Clark

Member
Mar 24, 2012
68
2
38
The ken Marschall painting from about 1977 of the wreck, raised with a single funnel showing was interesting. I believe it was concept work for the film. It's on his website.