Why are they making a Titanic II?

In 2003 British audiences voted 'Titanic' to be the worst film ever made. I believe it was simply the way in which Cameron portrayed the British. Everything was made to please an American audience with bias against the British. i.e. Make the English characters evil or dumb and make the Americans and Irish heroic. e.g. Lightoller's plan was to lower the boats half full and then fill them up from the gangway doors. The film made him look like an idiot who did not know what he was doing and had to be instructed by Thomas Andews. They gave Thomas Andrew an Irish accent when he was British with an Ulster accent. Captain Smith was very active throughout the entire evacuation, but Cameron made him do nothing and go into shock during the evacuation. Titanic was built in Ulster in a district that was Loyalist, Protestant, and proud to be British and aggressively against the Irish, and that same year there was a vote for Irish home rule which largely divided the country as it determined who were loyal Ulstermen of the King and Empire and who were Irish and loyal to the Pope. In Cameron's film he made the character Tommy say that the Titanic was an Irish ship built by strong Irish hands. To anyone outside the UK it might seem a small matter, but it's like labelling a country that is trying to recover from a civil war and giving credit for a world renowned accomplishment to the opposite side. Like saying The Empire State Building was built by the Germans and it is their achievement. I have to admit the constant Irish music throughout the film was blatant bias towards the southern Irish. Reminds me of the 1953 film when they gave the lookout man an Irish accent and had the ship's band play Oh Danny Boy. The characters in Hollywood films can be so stereotype that is makes the story unbelievable or ridiculously bias. Too much stereotype.

The same might be said of the way the Americans were depicted in ANTR. Especially "Molly" Brown. Although they got the "Molly" wrong, too, Kathy Bates' was much better in the 1997 movie.
Last edited:
Is Disneyland wrong for showcasing "Great moments with Mr. Lincoln", a 5 minute theme park show where the 10 year old audience listens to an assassinated man discuss a bloody war that killed hundreds of thousands? - it's all in how you look at it.
False equivalence. Some things are obviously off-limits, while other things are in good taste. In some instances the line is blurred, sure, but at other times it`s clear as daylight. I think that building another Titanic is fine, as long as there are no icebergs or sinkings involved.
I also thought, they should do something similar to the way the Cutty Sark or HMS Victory have been docked. Build a REPLICA of the RMS Titanic in a dry-dock or land-locked man-made lake, and aside from Boiler Rooms 1 - 4 which would have to include an electrical generator and / or water plant (because we need to preserve the enviroment) make everything as accurate as possible.

If we honest with ourselves we never get a 100% accurate Titanic that would be allowed to sail in open water as it's just to dangerous or ill omened. If we can build a ship permantly to be dry-docked and be treated as a REPLICA when you can be lead around and told the stories of those onboard, then that will be suitable.


Image a REPLICA of Titanic that was dry-docked like this.
Where's the dividing line, other than personal sensibilities? Whats the technical specification?
You`re right in saying that it`s subjective, but so is deciding whether or not it`s appropriate to jump-scare someone who`s had a quadruple bypass. Most people would however agree that it`s not appropriate to do that, and most people, I`m sure, would not think that building a Titanic amusement park is a good idea.

As I`m not Chinese though, I don`t know what their culture would deem as appropriate or not, but most westerners, if not a large percentage of British people would, I believe, find that distasteful. And since the Chinese had very little to do with the original Titanic, they ought to be even more mindful of what they`re doing when they`re culturally appropriating something that was the source of a great tragedy and misfortune for people when the ship sank (I don`t mind cultural appropriation when done in good taste).

Just because it`s hard to define what`s appropriate and what isn`t doesn`t mean that we as a society shouldn`t have any limits, IMO.


Scaring someone, literally, to death, is not in the same category as offending their sense of taste.

Saying that most people would think that building a Titanic amusement park is in poor taste, well there are about 1.3 billion Chinese, and only about a third of that number of English speakers... so, I'd say most people would disagree. In fact, that means it is literally possible that there are more people in China who support the Titanic II, than have ever heard of Titanic in the English Speaking world - and in reality, it is reasonably safe to say, there are more supporters of Titanic II in China than there are people living in Britain.

I agree that society should have limits. But who sets what "appropriate taste" is? The fashion police? I would also point out that "we as a society" is Cultural Appropriation of China into "your" society. They have their own society with it's own values.


Actually, it's just as true to say that adopting Titanic into "our" culture is just as much Cultural Appropriation. It was a different society with different people and values from "ours". We have no more right to appropriate Titanic than the Chinese do.
The Chinese do have an obsession with British culture with it stretching to them making a fake replica english village named ''Thames Town''.


Thames Town - Wikipedia

Fake English town in China complete with cobbled streets and red telephone boxes remains deserted | Daily Mail Online

When it comes to history, there were 8-10 Chinese 3rd Class Passengers and currently, it's believed one of them Fang Lang was the man Officer Lowe reluctenly rescued from a door /piece of grand- staircase, BUT it's not confirmed.
Actually, it's just as true to say that adopting Titanic into "our" culture is just as much Cultural Appropriation. It was a different society with different people and values from "ours". We have no more right to appropriate Titanic than the Chinese do.
I don`t understand this part of your statement.


Former Member
Western culture in 1912 would be I think considered just as foreign to us today and just as intriguing to any culture around the world. One could say the Titanic represented an entire era long forgotten by many today. A time of supreme elegance and high standards. There is something really wonderful and fascinating about those times that we can only look upon it as a foreign culture. This scene from My Fair Lady really sets the mood of the Titanic era.

English society at the 1912 Ascot race. Imagine Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff Gordon there. Also Mr and Mrs Ismay. His brother owned race horses so he might be there too. Rule 1 in English society: Do not express any emotion whatever. :)



Culture isn't cellular. Culture isn't, for example, a bubble, where all Chinese people regardless of age, gender, time era, or region of China are all trapped inside. And "our" culture isn't cellular, where all of us are trapped inside. "Our culture" (and of course your culture and my culture are likely very different) is vastly different from, say 1850's Colorado culture, or 1770 British culture, or 1912 Edwardian culture.

Realistically, James Cameron culturally appropriated Titanic when he made a movie of a culture that wasn't his. We are culturally appropriating it now, on this forum.

But culture isn't cellular. It isn't a bubble with a hard shell, it's a flowing dynamic thing. The Atlantic and Pacific may be two very different bodies of water, yet they are the same body of water.

My overall point being, that the Chinese have as much cultural claim to Titanic as you or I do. It's part of our common heritage as human beings: the world-wide ocean of humanity.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
@TimTurner - You make a good point, but whether or not you take into account the cultural appropriation - it still has to be executed as respectfully as possible, and I`m afraid that the Chinese project is fundamentally flawed - as it appears that no efforts are being made to be respectful on any level. Is there a difference between a water slide/jumping castle and what the Chinese are building? Heck, would it be just the same if the Americans opened up a theme park that recreates the nuking of Hiroshima (I am aware that Hiroshima is in Japan, not in China)? I hope that the end result, if ever finished, will prove me wrong.

(Of course I`m not blaming all Chinese people, but in the context of the conversation you know what I mean.)


Former Member
To the surprise of many the big Titanic museum here in Belfast has no artefacts from the Titanic wreck 'for ethical reasons'. Yet around the world the Titanic artefacts can be seen on display. The Queen Mary is a floating museum/hotel in California and the QE2 is somewhere in Dubai. I think the idea of a Titanic project in China is deemed quite normal these days, but it depends on how much respect they show to the story and the victims.

Last edited by a moderator:
@Aaron_2016 - In regards to the Belfast museum not having artifacts (which is perplexing to me), if that`s what works for them in Belfast, then to each his own. IMO that`s going overboard, but I have nothing to do with the Belfast museum and I don`t plan on going there. I personally have no problems with museums having artifacts, because that`s what I grew up believing to be normal.

Anyway, on second thought, regarding cultural appropriation - I do think that the Chinese have an obligation to go an extra step in being careful about not making their Titanic attraction offensive, since their culture is farther removed from the Titanic`s than is the Judeo-Christian, Anglo-Saxon culture. Our culture may be vastly different than that of Titanic`s, but at least it follows the same evolutionary timeline, and theirs does not.

I want to be mindful of the fact that there are ethics and dos and don`ts in a society, and that it`s not just a free-for-all, "whatever floats your boat, man" (no pun intended) sort of thing. If there are no rules, then there is no society; and no decency means no humanity IMHO.


Part of it is that I just don't get the "Titanic is a gravesite mentality". Perhaps I'm showing my age, but Titanic is part of history, not current events. In my opinion, respecting the dead is about respecting the living who knew them, not superstitiously warding off bad feelings from the spirit world. Since all the people and most of their relatives are dead, I don't see a problem.

I'm not speaking from naivety. I've seen tragedy myself, but I recognize that most people haven't experienced what I've seen. I'm not offended by their light treatment of the subject because I recognize that the subject is personal...to me.

Personally, I'm offended by people who think everyone needs to share their values (You don't need to agree with me there). The Titanic community has plenty of people who seem to believe that the person who is most offended by the sinking has some kind of power over those who aren't. It gives me the feeling rather like a mother waving her dead child in her arms and using it as an excuse to be first in line to the theater, which is rather stomach-churning. And that's why I'm so outspoken about it.

I agree that society has rules, but I don't believe those rules should be arbitrary, or that they should be set by emotion or offense.to a select ruling class of people. Rules should not exist simply because there have to be rules. They should exist to protect and enrich us. Who am I, and who are you that our sense of offense (which is, effectively, entirely random emotion) is binding on other people. Why should your sensibilities be considered more viable than those of the Chinese people going to this theme park? I believe it is wrong to assume that our opinions are meaningful, but the opinions of others are not.

It's easy for people to fall into this trap, because we experience our own emotions objectively, while the emotions of others are abstract.