Will there ever be another big Titanic movie released in theaters?

[Dan Kappes]

The most recent film in theaters to feature a cameo of the Titanic is Holmes & Watson, but I don't know if anyone would be willing to bring a Titanic film back to the big screen after the success of James Cameron's 1997 film.

An interesting footnote: Arthur C. Clarke's 1976 novel Imperial Earth features a raised Titanic in one piece as a museum exhibit in New York City in the year 2276 and a tour guide on board says that the "most ambitious" movie about the Titanic will shortly begin filming on board the raised vessel before showing the tour guide group a screening of the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

Little did Arthur C. Clarke know that the wreck would be found in two pieces in 1985, and that James Cameron would include filmed footage of the wreck in his "ambitious" 1997 film, which turned out to be the highest-grossing film of that time.

 

[Christian Pierce]

Cameron's movie is now 22 years old, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's going to be a theatrical release some time in the next 5-8 years. 30 years without such a release would be abnormal as far as the last century is concerned. I imagine it would be compared mostly to Cameron's movie with further references to Lord's.

 

[Steven Christian]

I'm sure there will be another movie. It's Hollywood. Land of the re-makes.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I'm sure there will be another movie..

I hope the next one has no Jack & Jill in it....or even Rose for that matter. I'd like to see a really good semi-documentary film about the Titanic made with minimal artist's licence and sticking as close to the facts as possible. The facts themselves are more than interesting enough without the need for cheap embellishments.
If it was to be made in the next 5 years, my choice of director would be Paul Greengrass.

 

[Kyle Naber]

I’d like to see another ANTR within the next ten years.

 

[Steven Christian]

Well I guess we will have to wait and see. Hollywood/Movie industry is going thru a transition right now. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon...ect are producing their own movies that go to their streaming sites and never show up at theaters. I've been surprised at how many of the bigger stars have jumped ship and gone that route lately. I guess they see the hand writing on the wall.

 

[Dan Kappes]

At least after the 97 film, there were some great TV dramas about the Titanic like Blood & Steel and the 2012 one written by Julian Fellowes. (Fellowes also wrote Downton Abbey, the first episode of which mentions the Titanic)

But there have been over 20 cinema films and TV shows/episodes about the Titanic throughout the 20th century, so we'll see if we reach that number or go even higher in the future!

By the way, Paul Greengrass included a reference to ANTR in United 93, when the passengers on a doomed transportation vessel say prayers right before the end.

 

[Cam Houseman]

The most recent film in theaters to feature a cameo of the Titanic is Holmes & Watson, but I don't know if anyone would be willing to bring a Titanic film back to the big screen after the success of James Cameron's 1997 film.

An interesting footnote: Arthur C. Clarke's 1976 novel Imperial Earth features a raised Titanic in one piece as a museum exhibit in New York City in the year 2276 and a tour guide on board says that the "most ambitious" movie about the Titanic will shortly begin filming on board the raised vessel before showing the tour guide group a screening of the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

Little did Arthur C. Clarke know that the wreck would be found in two pieces in 1985, and that James Cameron would include filmed footage of the wreck in his "ambitious" 1997 film, which turned out to be the highest-grossing film of that time.

If one of us has billions of dollars, sure. James Cameron was someone who cared about the facts. Out of all of the movies, ANTR and Titanic 1997 stand out.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

James Cameron was someone who cared about the facts

I beg to disagree, Cam. Weaving a mushy romantic story into the Titanic disaster does not feel very factual to me. Also, the way Murdoch's character was portrayed. There are several other issues as well.

ANTR also introduced several non-existent events like the ship's inaugural ceremony, Captain Lord in his pajamas etc. It also was also technically very poor even for 1958 with bargain basement special effects. BUT, for all that, ANTR retained the central ethos of the disaster, unlike Cameron's film.

 

[Kyle Naber]

In my opinion, he went to great lengths to make the set design, sinking, costumes etc as accurate as possible. He could have chosen to not contact historians and do research like we see in many other attempts.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

That might be so, but the film was more about 'Jack' and 'Rose' and it so happened that they were on the Titanic. Not bad as far as a romantic film goes but if that was meant to be a film primarily about the Titanic disaster, then I am the Queen of Sheba.

Researching the period to make appearances accurate is something a lot of directors do and IMO is no excuse for converting a historical disaster into a mushy romance. The scene where the 'spirits' of Jack and Rose embrace with rest of the 'spirits' surrounding them and applauding is enough to make any intelligent person puke.

 

[Bob_Read]

How would one make an entirely "historical" movie about Titanic? Almost every historical question regarding that night is the subject of intense debate here. If I were a director, I would play it like Cameron. I wouldn't let a historian within a mile of the set unless it had to do with set decoration. Movies are for the purpose of making money. Historical treatments are for the latest sensationalist book or YouTube video.

 

[Cam Houseman]

I beg to disagree, Cam. Weaving a mushy romantic story into the Titanic disaster does not feel very factual to me. Also, the way Murdoch's character was portrayed. There are several other issues as well.

ANTR also introduced several non-existent events like the ship's inaugural ceremony, Captain Lord in his pajamas etc. It also was also technically very poor even for 1958 with bargain basement special effects. BUT, for all that, ANTR retained the central ethos of the disaster, unlike Cameron's film.

Without the love story, Titanic would have just been another documentary, to the mainstream audience. It would have not have sold as well. And, they made the movie based on what they knew at the time, I doubt they think Murdoch killed himself, today.

As for the Ending scene, that was purely for the love story. I don't think it was enough to make me puke. The whole story was enough to make my mom cry when she saw it in '97. I think that was just for the "Jack and Rose" story, and again, for mainstream audiences.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

How would one make an entirely "historical" movie about Titanic?

Like the did the original ANTR. Despite the errors and poor special effects, it had its heart in the right place. It was a semi-documentary with no specific hero or heroine although some characters received more screen time than others.

Without the love story, Titanic would have just been another documentary, to the mainstream audience. It would have not have sold as well.

Unfortunately true but that does not mean that everyone should like the end-product. If Cameron or any other modern direct chose to, they could certainly make a very good semi-documentary film about the Titanic using real characters and events as far as they are best known. A simple foreword at the start of the film that the filmmakers have done their best to remain with known facts but accept that there might be small differences with actual events would have sufficed.
Such a film might not have met with box-office success like Cameron's film but would have pleased those for whom the Titanic has a special place.
The point is that very few real life events are centered around the cloying "Boy meets Girl" theme.

 

[Cam Houseman]

A simple foreword at the start of the film that the filmmakers have done their best to remain with known facts but accept that there might be small differences with actual events would have sufficed.
Such a film might not have met with box-office success like Cameron's film but would have pleased those for whom the Titanic has a special place.
The point is that very few real life events are centered around the cloying "Boy meets Girl" theme.

But at that point, would it still be a big Titanic movie? There's 14,000 of us on the website. Could the movie survive if all of us went to go watch it?

 

[Chung Rex]

I beg to disagree, Cam. Weaving a mushy romantic story into the Titanic disaster does not feel very factual to me. Also, the way Murdoch's character was portrayed. There are several other issues as well.

ANTR also introduced several non-existent events like the ship's inaugural ceremony, Captain Lord in his pajamas etc. It also was also technically very poor even for 1958 with bargain basement special effects. BUT, for all that, ANTR retained the central ethos of the disaster, unlike Cameron's film.

Watching Cam,'s movie carefully, the angle of sinking alone is not correct, because he had chosen (for simplicity) to seperate the bow from the stern and sink the bow at the same angle when describing the fates of collapsable A and B and the collapse of the first funnel. Therefore, no increment of sinking angle could be seen from the flooding of A deck to the collapse of the first funnel. Furthermore, the angle is too large (incorrect steepness) when Titanic split into two merely for the sake of exaggerating scene. Also, the forecastle deck was flooded too early, even before lifeboat 10 to 16 were released.

Several years after Titanic '97 was released, I had finally abandoned the idea of trying to explain the movie's apparent deviation from historical facts.

Anyway, less people may be willing to sit inside theaters for obvious reasons now, and this trend may continue for the next two years. More stay at home and watch online movies. It will be appreciated if online movie companies / netflix etc. release some movies related to Titanic in addition to documentaries. I don't know whether the budget would be a concern or an obstacle.

 

[Cam Houseman]

Watching Cam,'s movie carefully, the angle of sinking alone is not correct, because he had chosen (for simplicity) to seperate the bow from the stern and sink the bow at the same angle when describing the fates of collapsable A and B and the collapse of the first funnel. Therefore, no increment of sinking angle could be seen from the flooding of A deck to the collapse of the first funnel. Furthermore, the angle is too large (incorrect steepness) when Titanic split into two merely for the sake of exaggerating scene. Also, the forecastle deck was flooded too early, even before lifeboat 10 to 16 were released.

Several years after Titanic '97 was released, I had finally abandoned the idea of trying to explain the movie's apparent deviation from historical facts.

Anyway, less people may be willing to sit inside theaters for obvious reasons now, and this trend may continue for the next two years. More stay at home and watch online movies. It will be appreciated if online movie companies / netflix etc. release some movies related to Titanic in addition to documentaries. I don't know whether the budget would be a concern or an obstacle.

It was based on what they knew at the time. Literally most of the survivors reported the Ship being "an angle of at least 45 degrees" They also describe the ship standing upwards at 90 degreees. Here's a quote from A Night to Remember (the book) Page 83-84.

"The Titanic was now absolutely perpendicular. From the third funnel aft, she stuck straight up in the air, her three dripping propellers glistening even in the darkness."

Page 84:

"To Lady Duff Gordon, she seemed a black finger pointing at the sky. To Harold Bride, she looked like a duck that goes down for a dive."

And, Jack Thayer reported that the ship's propellers were right over his head.

Titanic (1997) Seems to be more based upon survivor's account, if anything. Like that obscure acount JJ Astor freed the dogs (which I hope is true ) That was in a deleted scene where he talks to Mr. Benjamin Guggenheim, just before Captain Smith walks on the bridge. (Which [some] survivors also reported seeing him do)

 

[Arun Vajpey]

But at that point, would it still be a big Titanic movie

Well, that depends on one's perception of BIG. To me, a box office success alone means nothing as far as the quality of the film is concerned but obviously it did to Cameron. What I would have liked to see - and still do - is perhaps a 3 hour BBC documentary about the Titanic using actors but avoiding non-existent side plots.

 

[Cam Houseman]

that'd be great, but who has the money? If I'd did, I'd employ all of y'all to help

Someone who makes the movie, needs to pay the actor, and get paid themselves from the movie's money made, etc. If all of us went to see our 3 hour dream documentary, which is 14,000 people on ET. Lets say a ticket was $20. The movie would only make $280,000. Lets say the Movie was in theaters for 30 days. And we all went to go see it twice. That'd make $8,400,000. But, that money has to be shared with the makers. lets say 2000 of us out of the 14,000 actually helped on the production. that means the grand total we'd get, if it was shared evenly, would be $4,200. Even less if the company wanted 30% of the money.

Anyway, a movie isn't a success, unfortunately, if a ton of people don't watch your movie. How many people would see our dream 3 hour Titanic movie, with everything accurate, including a true Titanic replica, with the interior, just for filming? Who would have the money to build the ship, costumes, lighting, actors, etc?

 

[Kyle Naber]

In Kate Winslet’s opinion, Titanic isn’t even a movie about a sinking ship. It’s a love story that takes place during a well-known disaster. I would agree that that is most of the first half of the movie. The second half I think is what most of the enthusiasts went into theaters for. I do wish that Cameron would have included many of the deleted scenes that show the Straus’s refusing to part ways and get into boats, events on the Californian, etc.

I think the benefit of having a fictional story and characters is that we can have witnesses to several different scenes without it being inaccurate for the real people there. We can go down and see the bowels of the ship flooding on Scotland road, go into the boiler and cargo rooms and slosh through the flooded dining room while following the same people and keeping it consistent. ANTR I feel jumps around a bit, so we don’t feel too big of a connection or care for the people that we tour.

In saying that though, I would like to see a modernized ANTR which maybe focuses on one real-life survivor like Jack Thayer in a Dunkirk style of film.