A special tank was dug at Fox Studios Baja to accommodate Cameron's Titanic, but even so, the "ship" had to be truncated so that the finished set (and it was only a set, not a real ship) and the hydraulic lift machinery on which it was built could fit within the tank.
The set was constructed by hundreds of local workers, who took their direction from a variety of production assistants. A number of Titanic experts opened up their archives and made themselves personally available to help ensure that the set followed the original as closely as possible, but as will be found with any undertaking of that scope and limited time schedule, errors crept in. Some were deliberate...I know of a couple specific cases where a production assistant took a shortcut to make his job easier, but most were unintentional. Add to this the fact that most archival images are of Olympic from various stages in her career...it takes a real expert to discern what applied to Titanic and what didn't. The set was also built in a foreign country by a variety of contractors, some better than others. Despite the errors, though, it think that the PAs did an outstanding job -- the best that anyone could have reasonably expected from them -- with the mountain of unfamiliar reference material that was thrown into their laps. The fact that Titanic experts continue to devote so much time to dissecting the "Titanic" set --which was largely built by non-Titanic-experts -- attests to its verisimilitude.
It's difficult re-creating a historic object, especially when there are gaps in the knowledge of the object. I am discovering this for myself in my re-creation of Titanic's Marconi rooms. Yes, I have solid information on the overall layout of the apparatus, but the not-so-glamourous details are killing me. Where does this light switch go, where was that chart hung? Why wasn't a fan provided? How long should the book shelf be and what colour was it painted? It is very frustrating to have so much information, but not everything that you need to complete a life-like, photo-realistic re-creation. At some point, you just have to fill in the gaps as best you can and finish the project; otherwise, your hard-earned research would never see the light of day. And even then, be prepared for the inevitable criticism from others...there is simply no way to please everyone in the world of Titanic.
It's ironic that Jim Cameron, who is so personally involved with Titanic and has offered up the most realistic re-creation of the ship, has so much criticism directed at him by members of the Titanic community. Who remembers -- or criticises -- the sets offered up by William S. Gilmore or (even worse) Brian Trenchard-Smith?
And then there's the matter of material that remains contested by Titanic historians to this day. What's a stage designer to do when the "experts" can't agree on a detail? But that's a whole 'nother subject.
Those are those who have claimed that they could have done a better job than Cameron in re-creating the ship if only they had been in charge. After having experienced the movie-making process firsthand, my response to that claim would be that those people don't know what they are talking about.
MacQuitty introduced a whole new level of accuracy with his mockup of Titanic in 1957/8. Cameron built on that and raised the bar in 1996/7. What's next?
Parks
