Why do people dislike the 1997 Titanic movie?

A question for the nautical engineers here because I don't know about these things. But was the breakup caused more by the weight of the bow being full of water or the angle of the stern hanging out in the air? I ask because I once sailed thru a typhoon and my ship I'm pretty sure was at angles greater than 10-12%. That was with the stern in the air and the bow crashing thru waves. I don't think there was any concern of us snapping in 2 because we weren't half full water like Titanic was. They told us at one point we were going thru 60 ft seas. I don't know if that's true or not but that's what they said. Just curious. Maybe Titanic wasn't built as good as she could have been. Cheers.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
A question for the nautical engineers here because I don't know about these things. But was the breakup caused more by the weight of the bow being full of water or the angle of the stern hanging out in the air? I ask because I once sailed thru a typhoon and my ship I'm pretty sure was at angles greater than 10-12%. That was with the stern in the air and the bow crashing thru waves. I don't think there was any concern of us snapping in 2 because we weren't half full water like Titanic was. They told us at one point we were going thru 60 ft seas. I don't know if that's true or not but that's what they said. Just curious. Maybe Titanic wasn't built as good as she could have been. Cheers.

That’s an interesting question actually. I’d place my money on the stern being unsupported, but also a flooded bow might have a tendency to tear away from an air-filled stern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Arun Vajpey

Member
That’s an interesting question actually. I’d place my money on the stern being unsupported, but also a flooded bow might have a tendency to tear away from an air-filled stern.
I think it is a combination of those factors. The bow section was flooded completely, which meant that water was now occupying spaces where their was air before. That would have meant that the weighty water filled bow section was 'pulling' at the stern section at the same time as the still dry and air filled stern, incorporating the heavy propulsion machinery, was rising unsupported out of the water, something that was never designed to happen. As Sam's graph shows, the resultant bending effect on the keel would have reached its maximum when the stern reached 11 to 12 degrees.

But even though the keel was bending, it would have held on at that stage but the upper decks, where the "stretching effect" due to the bending would have been maximum, would have started to give way and break. IMO, this would have continued downwards as depicted in the animations but perhaps not as rapidly. Meanwhile, the stern would have continued to rise and reached an angle of somewhere around 22 degrees before the keel snapped and the onlookers saw what they later reported.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think it is a combination of those factors. The bow section was flooded completely, which meant that water was now occupying spaces where their was air before. That would have meant that the weighty water filled bow section was 'pulling' at the stern section at the same time as the still dry and air filled stern, incorporating the heavy propulsion machinery, was rising unsupported out of the water, something that was never designed to happen. As Sam's graph shows, the resultant bending effect on the keel would have reached its maximum when the stern reached 11 to 12 degrees.

But even though the keel was bending, it would have held on at that stage but the upper decks, where the "stretching effect" due to the bending would have been maximum, would have started to give way and break. IMO, this would have continued downwards as depicted in the animations but perhaps not as rapidly. Meanwhile, the stern would have continued to rise and reached an angle of somewhere around 22 degrees before the keel snapped and the onlookers saw what they later reported.
Arun, Kyle thanks for the replies. Yes after thinking about it more it was probably a combination of the 2. Thomas Andrews informed Capt. Smith early on that she would founder. He probably didn't envision her snapping in 2. At the rate she was sinking toward the end if she didn't snap in 2 has anyone calculated the difference in time for the people on the stern. As in I mean did the break give them more or less time? I'm sure it would only have been minutes either way but am curious about it. Will look around as sure others have thought about that already. Cheers.
P.S...In my earlier post I said maybe Titanic wasn't built as good as she could have been. I've said earlier in various post that she sank not because of the way she was built but the way she was operated. As in driving her into an iceberg. That's what I still think. But if memory serves me right I recall something about the expansion joints on Olympic that had to be corrected later on.
 
Last edited:

Arun Vajpey

Member
At the rate she was sinking toward the end if she didn't snap in 2 has anyone calculated the difference in time for the people on the stern. As in I mean did the break give them more or less time?
IMO (and that only), I think it swung both ways but either way we are talking of 90 seconds or less.

When the bow and stern finally separated thus completing the break-up, a lot of people fell off, some onto the water and others onto various parts of the maimed ship, some of which would have had jagged edges. Others probably fell when the stern section settled back momentarily. Most of those people probably died a minute or so earlier than they would have done if the Titanic had remained intact.

By the same token, a few of those fallers-to-their-deaths might even have survived if the ship had remained intact to be picked-up by lifeboats........e la Joughin if one accepts his story.

A third possibility involves victims (probably very few) who managed to hang-on to the stern after the break-up and were still there when it sank. Had the ship remained intact, the stern would have sunk with the bow as the two were still attached; from that viewpoint, the break-up might have bought a minute or slightly more to those managing to remain on the stern till it followed the bow.

I've said earlier in various post that she sank not because of the way she was built but the way she was operated. As in driving her into an iceberg
With respect, IMO that statement is a bit too generalized. We can talk about not reducing speeds, not properly dealt with ice warnings etc but those actions involved several people and so finger-pointing at any one or two would be inappropriate. Also, no one on board had sole responsibility for lack of sufficient lifeboat capacity or lack of a strict drill. IMO Murdoch, on bridge duty at the time of the collision, was fully alert and professional and did his best when the iceberg was sighted. But by then it was just a bit too late for anyone to do anything to avoid a collision and eventual foundering of the ship.
I recall something about the expansion joints on Olympic that had to be corrected later on.
I don't know much about expansion joints but have read somewhat polarized opinions from qualified people. Some feel that they contributed to the break-up while others argue that the expansion joints had nothing to do with it. I have no idea how forces worked but would like to know the sort of effects opposing forces between the flooded and sinking bow and dry and rising stern could have had on the expansion joints.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
At the rate she was sinking toward the end if she didn't snap in 2 has anyone calculated the difference in time for the people on the stern. As in I mean did the break give them more or less time?
IMO (and that only), I think it swung both ways but either way we are talking of 90 seconds or less.

When the bow and stern finally separated thus completing the break-up, a lot of people fell off, some onto the water and others onto various parts of the maimed ship, some of which would have had jagged edges. Others probably fell when the stern section settled back momentarily. Most of those people probably died a minute or so earlier than they would have done if the Titanic had remained intact.

By the same token, a few of those fallers-to-their-deaths might even have survived if the ship had remained intact to be picked-up by lifeboats........e la Joughin if one accepts his story.

A third possibility involves victims (probably very few) who managed to hang-on to the stern after the break-up and were still there when it sank. Had the ship remained intact, the stern would have sunk with the bow as the two were still attached; from that viewpoint, the break-up might have bought a minute or slightly more to those managing to remain on the stern till it followed the bow.

I've said earlier in various post that she sank not because of the way she was built but the way she was operated. As in driving her into an iceberg
With respect, IMO that statement is a bit too generalized. We can talk about not reducing speeds, not properly dealt with ice warnings etc but those actions involved several people and so finger-pointing at any one or two would be inappropriate. Also, no one on board had sole responsibility for lack of sufficient lifeboat capacity or lack of a strict drill. IMO Murdoch, on bridge duty at the time of the collision, was fully alert and professional and did his best when the iceberg was sighted. But by then it was just a bit too late for anyone to do anything to avoid a collision and eventual foundering of the ship.
I recall something about the expansion joints on Olympic that had to be corrected later on.
I don't know much about expansion joints but have read somewhat polarized opinions from qualified people. Some feel that they contributed to the break-up while others argue that the expansion joints had nothing to do with it. I have no idea how forces worked but would like to know the sort of effects opposing forces between the flooded and sinking bow and dry and rising stern could have had on the expansion joints.
 

RiffRanger

Member
It definitely seems that the breaking would have been a progressive process, with structures failing as the burden of supporting the stern shifted downward as those failures occurred. Perhaps the aft expansion joint goes first, relieving the pressure on the superstructure and shifting the stress to the hull plates, they hold long enough for the stern to rise to the 20-30º angle, then, deck by deck, the hull fails until the stern has settled back, leaving only the keel connecting the bow and stern, the bow keeps sinking and pulls the stern down with it and begins the process of flooding the stern, the keel can't hold the weight of the bow and the remaining buoyancy in the stern for more than a few seconds, so the bow separates and begins its fall to the bottom, the stern keeps flooding on its upward trajectory, rolling to port as it goes nearly vertical and slips under.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Arun Vajpey

Member
It definitely seems that the breaking would have been a progressive process, with structures failing as the burden of supporting the stern shifted downward as those failures occurred. Perhaps the aft expansion joint goes first, relieving the pressure on the superstructure and shifting the stress to the hull plates, they hold long enough for the stern to rise to the 20-30º angle, then, deck by deck, the hull fails until the stern has settled back, leaving only the keel connecting the bow and stern, the bow keeps sinking and pulls the stern down with it and begins the process of flooding the stern, the keel can't hold the weight of the bow and the remaining buoyancy in the stern for more than a few seconds, so the bow separates and begins its fall to the bottom, the stern keeps flooding on its upward trajectory, rolling to port as it goes nearly vertical and slips under.
To me that sounds very much like how the break-up must have occurred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
the movie is what got me collecting , I remember as a young child, reading about how they discovered the ship in 1985, when I was 5 years old. We got National Goegrapics magazines in the mail, and I was crazy about the underwater photo's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The very high angle was definitely the prevailing theory for decades because that's what most survivor accounts stated. It's why some of the very low angle breaking theories are frankly preposterous to me. If the ship had broken at the 10-11º angle like some theories propose, that directly contradicts actual eyewitness accounts. It's much more likely that it broke in the 20-30º range, which would agree with survivors. That was part of the point of Cameron's "Final Word" documentary. He was trying to find some way to combine what the science showed and what witnesses said. He found that it was absolutely possible for the ship to reach a - let's call it medium - 30º angle, break, and for the stern to go vertical before sinking, which lines up with what was reported by survivors.
Wouldn't anything above 25 degrees be right August Wennerstrom reported people sliding down the decks during the final plunge, which definitely wouldn't happen with anything below 23 degrees. Me and a friend were talking about this and he showed me the angles of the ship of 20-30 with a model.

It can be anything under 33 degrees, as that's what Wilding calculated the Machinery and Boilers would break loose and tear forward through the ship, I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Arun Vajpey

Member
Wouldn't anything above 25 degrees be right August Wennerstrom reported people sliding down the decks during the final plunge, which definitely wouldn't happen with anything below 23 degrees
There is a point in that but which part of the 'final plunge' was Wennerstrom referring to? He was clinging onto a child and trying to reach Collapsible A when it floated free as the "wave" hit them. He lost his grip on the child and was himself washed away, but managed to hang onto #A before struggling on board.

By then it must have been well past 02:17 am and the break-up process had already started in the top decks, even though the stern continued to rise. Did Wennerstrom and others who reported people sliding down the rising stern say the sliders fell into the water or at least partly onto the breaking/broken parts of the ship?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

RmS_TItAnIc

Member
There is a point in that but which part of the 'final plunge' was Wennerstrom referring to? He was clinging onto a child and trying to reach Collapsible A when it floated free as the "wave" hit them. He lost his grip on the child and was himself washed away, but managed to hang onto #A before struggling on board.

By then it must have been well past 02:17 am and the break-up process had already started in the top decks, even though the stern continued to rise. Did Wennerstrom and others who reported people sliding down the rising stern say the sliders fell into the water or at least partly onto the breaking/broken parts of the ship?
I think that there are 2 theorys to what happened to Wennerstrom, both have there trade offs for accuracy though. Theory 1. is that Wennerstrom was part of those who tried to run to the stern but was washed over by the wave, therefor being close to collapsible a as the account stated, and simply climbed in and waited for the boat to sink. Theory 2. (The more likley) is that wennerstrom was on either till max peak stress, or until the ship broke and he slid down the deck on the starboard side, and as he watched the ship sink, he drifted to where collapsible A was.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
I think that there are 2 theorys to what happened to Wennerstrom, both have there trade offs for accuracy though. Theory 1. is that Wennerstrom was part of those who tried to run to the stern but was washed over by the wave, therefor being close to collapsible a as the account stated, and simply climbed in and waited for the boat to sink. Theory 2. (The more likley) is that wennerstrom was on either till max peak stress, or until the ship broke and he slid down the deck on the starboard side, and as he watched the ship sink, he drifted to where collapsible A was.
Wennerstrom, like several others, might have tried to move stern-ward in the final minutes, but if he did, he could not have gotten very far. He must have been reasonably close to - perhaps even in some sort of physical contact with - Collapsible A when the "wave" hit. At the time he was hanging on to a child or two - IMO Alma Palsson's children - but lost them in the wave-wash. Also, after reaching and boarding Collapsible A, Wennerstrom tried to help the Lindells and perhaps one or two others, but nobody had the strength to help anyone else. The people who managed to survive on board Collapsible A were really lucky to have done so - although in case of Rhoda Abbott, who lost both her teenage children in the wave, we cannot say that.

There is a certain similarity in the statements of Wennerstrom and John Collins - in the latter case both from his testimony and what I found out from my research - about events around Collapsible A. Collins was also trying to get to the lifeboat with a child (probably another of the Palsson children) when the wave hit and he got washed away. Collins lost his grip on the child but somehow made it to the overturned Collapsible B.
 
There is a point in that but which part of the 'final plunge' was Wennerstrom referring to? He was clinging onto a child and trying to reach Collapsible A when it floated free as the "wave" hit them. He lost his grip on the child and was himself washed away, but managed to hang onto #A before struggling on board.

By then it must have been well past 02:17 am and the break-up process had already started in the top decks, even though the stern continued to rise. Did Wennerstrom and others who reported people sliding down the rising stern say the sliders fell into the water or at least partly onto the breaking/broken parts of the ship?
I think he refers to as the bridge went under and minutes later, but I'd have to check.
 

Sara S

Member
I personally like the movie for the astounding visual effects and that we get a realistic glimpse of how the titanic could have looked like. But there are way more things I hate about it. The fictional love story between Jack and Rose is imo very unrealistic. Rose knows Jack for like one and a half day and suddenly she loves him so much that she throws away eveything she has ever known and they want to die for each other. For me their story is a real insult to all the really tragic stories that happened.
And they did all the real historical figures a heavy disservice. Literally any character that was based on a real person was almost embarassingly assassinated. Molly Brown, Countess of Rothes, Mr. Ismay all have been shrunked to one dimensional characters. Almost all passengers of 1st class were villainized and generalized as being shallow, judgemental, arrogant and wasteful people who only think of money and buisiness. The role of Captain Smith was understated. The officers got wayyy too little screen time. The fact that they didnt show Moody during the evacuation of the passengers at all is what I almost took personally. I dont mind if they invent a fictional story, but please not at cost of the facts. Murdoch got a painful character assassination although his portrayal started originally quiet promising. I wish we had seen more of moody, as he was quiet active at the lifeboata. So many chances to tell an epic story wasted
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top