Why do people dislike the 1997 Titanic movie?

Dec 23, 2017
1,112
615
123
Ironically as a huge fan for films from the 30's-60's, i never had like ANTR at all (love the book though). I always find it filled with enough historical blunders that i often put it in my mind with the 53 film. Not saying there is nothing historically great about the film, there are lots of great moments with it, but its quite clear it was made for Kenneth More, and since i have never been a huge fan of Lightoller i think that is the main reason iv never liked it.

As for the way JC showed Murdoch, i myself have always really enjoyed it.

As the Sea Of Glass extensively talks about, there is no doubt that a suicide or shooting of of some sort did occur in the final moments and it happened on the starboard side near the bridge.

Since we know there is only one confirmed person who had access with a firearm in the location at that time interval, one can start to connect the dots. Now no one can 100% prove it, but much like other aspects of the sinking if you are going to show the Titanic sinking, these are the kind of things if you want to be accurate that you have to show in some form or other
 
S

SmileyGirl

Guest
(I haven't read all of this thread)

If my memory is correct, it was first shown on UK television at Christmas 2000. (I didn't see it at the cinema).

So I watched it for the first time that Christmas on the TV. Just an ordinary TV - no large screen LED High Resolution TV.

There had to be a 'vehicle' for the film - a 'story' for the plebs, otherwise it would just be a remake of ANTR in colour. The important difference with ANTR was that the wreck had now been found and filmed and photographed, and this was cleverly woven into the film.

I still cannot watch certain bits of the latter part of the film - I find it far too horrific and frightening - as I am quite sure it was that night.

ANTR played around with a sub-plot concerning 'The Californian Incident', and not with any great effect because the first time I watched ANTR (knowing nothing of the background) it completely passed me by. It would have been a mistake to have included 'The Californian Incident' in the 1997 film.

A film just about The Californian, with the Titanic as sub plot in the distance would be something else!

Cheers,

Julian
Yes, and maybe a film about the Carpathia’s story would be great too.
 
Jan 23, 2019
24
13
3
25
I know Cameron was going for high drama and it was a fictional movie but I agree he should have left that out. No need to trash a real person with no definative proof. I wish he would of have covered some more of the radio traffic between the ships. But thats just my opinion coming from a history geek. He obviously knew how to make a blockbuster.
ANTR played around with a sub-plot concerning 'The Californian Incident', and not with any great effect because the first time I watched ANTR (knowing nothing of the background) it completely passed me by. It would have been a mistake to have included 'The Californian Incident' in the 1997 film.
Cameron did film a few scenes with the Californian, but decided not to include it. If I recall correctly, it was an artistic choice. He wanted to keep the story on Titanic the whole night without any diversions.

Seeing his treatment of Murdoch (as spoken about in this thread), I believe him when he implies he wasn't avoiding controversy.


I'm not much for the dialogue, but I think it's going for that classic melodramatic movie feel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
S

SmileyGirl

Guest
Ironically as a huge fan for films from the 30's-60's, i never had like ANTR at all (love the book though). I always find it filled with enough historical blunders that i often put it in my mind with the 53 film. Not saying there is nothing historically great about the film, there are lots of great moments with it, but its quite clear it was made for Kenneth More, and since i have never been a huge fan of Lightoller i think that is the main reason iv never liked it.

As for the way JC showed Murdoch, i myself have always really enjoyed it.

As the Sea Of Glass extensively talks about, there is no doubt that a suicide or shooting of of some sort did occur in the final moments and it happened on the starboard side near the bridge.

Since we know there is only one confirmed person who had access with a firearm in the location at that time interval, one can start to connect the dots. Now no one can 100% prove it, but much like other aspects of the sinking if you are going to show the Titanic sinking, these are the kind of things if you want to be accurate that you have to show in some form or other
Why don’t you like Lightoller? I know he told lies etc, is it because of that?