Titanic SE See Post #541 for Update (1 Viewer)

[Kevin P]

Count me in as another buyer of the eventual SE of Titanic. I'd love to see an ANAMORPHIC transfer (#1 priority!), DTS would be nice but not critical, commentaries, ALL deleted scenes (perhaps the better ones could be re-inserted via seamless branching), the FOX special "Titanic: Breaking New Ground", making-of featurettes, historical information, Celine Dion video, heck, put it on the disc(s), and I'll watch it, even if it takes me a solid week to do so!
I can see this becoming a 2 or 3-disc Ultimate Edition like T2. I just hope we don't have to wait until 2012 (centennial anniversary of the sinking) before this is released. Next year is the 5-year anniversary of the theatrical release, AND the 90 year anniversary of the sinking. To me this seems like the perfect time for a re-release.
KJP

 

[Dan M]

In regard to the Californian scenes, Mr. Cameron took them out because he felt that they had already been done well in A Night To Remember and wanted to focus entirely on events that were transpiring on the Titanic. I read that in an interview with him somewhere.
I personally would

That's correct. I read that somewhere too.
Cameron wanted you (the viewer) to stay on board the Titanic the entire movie. It was all part of his you-were-there approach. I think it was a good idea.
I want to see those deleted scenes myself but separately. Or perhaps combined with the theatrical cut (or directors cut, if you will) via seamless branching in the style of The Abyss.
Cameron has made it plain that the version we all know is indeed his FINAL vision and no doubt the definitive cut. It is the DIRECTOR'S CUT.
------------------

 

[Elbert Lee]

It's extremely difficult to make a completely accurate film. For myself, if I wanted complete historical accuracy, I'd watch a documentary.
Cameron was attempting to bring out the emotional tragedy and cultural history of the period which I think he succeeded in doing. I think he made a valiant attempt to get the technical aspects down, but one must judge the picture as a whole and not a few CGI clips and an assumption that this is a gloss hollywood movie based on an historical event.
Titanic won the academy award for best picture and succeeded in drawing thousands of repeat viewings because it reached an audience on an emotional level and not on special effects. However, I defnitely felt it could have used a screenplay touch up by a more accomplished writer
Elbert

 

[nolesrule]

Tino, all my friends tell me I should see it first. My household does possess the DVD (ie my wife bought it) but it is rarely ever viewed anymore. She tells me the more times she watched it, the more she saw through the plot.
Like the "fact" that a pair of fictional characters distracted the real life lookouts, and that's why they didn't see the iceberg. That's my wife's plot hole. And I do know enough about the story to know that Leonardo DiCaprio's character wouldn't have died if they used their heads (though I would assume his death was a highlight for many moviegoers).

 

[Ken Seeber]

Like the "fact" that a pair of fictional characters distracted the real life lookouts, and that's why they didn't see the iceberg. That's my wife's plot hole. And I do know enough about the story to know that Leonardo DiCaprio's character wouldn't have died if they used their heads.

Within the context of the film, these are extremely petty things to criticize and hardly qualify as "plot holes."
It's made clear in the film that the binoculars were lost, so the lookouts were at a disadvantage. That they were momentarily distracted by someone on the deck below them works perfectly in the movie and is as plausible an explanation as anything else.
As far as Jack's death is concerned, how do you explain the 1,500 people who did die that night? Were they simply not using their heads?
There are plenty of plot holes in "Titanic," but then again you can pick apart virtually any film you've decided you don't like.

 

[Gerry A]

Like someone already mentioned, I think it's better to see any film before he or she is qualified to say anything about it, good or bad. Wouldn't it be better to think for you own, have an opinion of your own based on your own experience?
If you have seen it and still don't like it, then that's cool. Because then you would know exactly what you're talking about.

 

[Craig_T]

True Lies is in more dire need of a re-release. At least Titanic got a GOOD non-anamorphic transfer. If this was a Universal film there'd probably be four versions out already. Oh wait, that's only crappy recent films that get the multiple re-releases. My bad...

 

[Elbert Lee]

Yes - I would suggest seeing it first (and not during dinner on your 13" kitchen tv). Again, Titanic is an experience and not a historical documentary. It succeeds in immersing the viewer in that time period and culture. It was appreciated by critics and viewers on this level more than its technical and historical merits. Cameron did a credible job, utilizing the 2 fictional characters to "smoothly" transition each significant sequence that led to the sinking, which is why their presense on the deck was a good segue to the watch tower. I saw this movie twice (once in theaters and once on dvd) and appreciated the way the film brought the audience into the period and onto the ship. Defnitely done much better than Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor", which was attempting to go for the same effect, but failed on most counts.
I also have to admit that the screenplay is weak and that it was very apparent during my second viewing. I don't think that this film will age well.
One note:
I'm not a huge Dicaprio fan, but I have to say that it's easy (especially men) to bash a popular male star simply because he becomes a superstar (and because he draws so much attention from women). It starts first with being "sick about hearing about him", to "he has no talent", to "the best thing about Titanic was that Dicaprio dies at the end". I think he's a gifted actor, who was nonimated once for an acedemy aware, and has been complimented by people in the profession.

 

[Gerry A]

And with regards to the "fact" of the accident happening because the lookouts were looking at Kate and Leo kissing instead of the iceberg, it's still highly debatable what really happened. Experts guess that they could have been sleeping, or looking at other icebergs. Or in my opinion, they could just as easily have been distracted by something. Nobody really knows. The lookouts may have, but they could hardly been counted on to say the absolute truth in the inquiry, not when the future of the company they work for is in line. For all we know, they COULD have been distracted by a couple smooching on the deck.
The unreliability of "fact" in the sinking of the Titanic is probably most apparent with the case of Officer Lightoller, who insisted the ship didn't break in two, and this became the official "fact" of the sinking of the ship for years, inspite of the numerous accounts by several independent witnessess to say that it did, and then proven correct with Ballard's discovery of the ship in 1985.
If we are going to insist on facts on this movie, then why accept the gross inconsistency of having someone named Rose De Witt Bukater in the movie? There was no such passenger, nor were there anybody named Jack or Fabrizio or Caledon Hockley?
A movie must be allowed certain liberties to tell a story properly. As long as the essential truth about an event is adhered to, and in this case, the Titanic sank because of an accumulation of mistakes and oversights, then that would be OK.
Because if facts is all that we're interested in, then let's all just watch that fantastic A&E documentary.

 

[Brian Harnish]

John Williamson:
Brian, just curious but exactly how mant times did you see this wonderful film we love called Titanic? I saw it 5 times. And I think NickSo's main sqeeze is Mena Suvari.

Mena Suvari. Yeah. That's it!
I think I saw Titanic in the theater around 15 times. Didn't really care about DiCaprio one way or the other but man, Kate was gorgeous on the big screen!!

------------------
- Brian
My DVD Collection
Want Sliders on DVD? Then please SIGN the petition!

 

[LarryH]

I guess I'm another one of the few people who haven't seen the movie, even though I do have the non-anamorphic DVD. As is the case with several other movies, whenever I think about watching it, I just think, maybe I'll wait until the better version (read: anamorphic) comes out, and then I go with another DVD which is anamorphic. Sigh. Guess I'm really being anamorphic-retentive.

 

[DaveF]

I've heard enough about ... inaccuracies to wonder why the movie got made.

I'm surprised by this attitude. My understanding is that "Titanic" is surprisingly historically accurate. The reason I saw the movie, was because of the history behind it, and its attention to detail. (I have no love for the connecting story of Jack & Rose.)
Before seeing the movie, I watched an excellent documentary on A&E, and saw at least one interview with head of the Titanic survey team. When I saw the movie, it was with a friend who had also been paying some attention to the various historical bits showing on TV.
The entire movie, we were whispering to each other, "That happened", "that was there", "She's a real person", etc.
So far as historical dramas go, my impression is that Titanic is very careful with the details.

 

[Tino]

Other than the fictional story of Jack and Rose, Titanic is the most accurate depiction of the disaster ever filmed.
------------------
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus.

 

[Ryan_M_M]

I personally dislike Titanic, but not for its special effects or good finalé scenes, but rather Kate and Leo. Take them out and you would have had a decent picture. Absolutely disgraceful that the Hollywood Luviee society awarded this film 11 Oscars when great movies of 97' were overshadowed. Never realised the DVD was non-anamorphic. I always assumed the PAL R2 DVD was anamorphic?

 

[James David Walley]

Bodine: So let me get this right. You were gonna kill yourself by jumping off the Titanic? THATS GREAT!
Lovett: (warningly) Lewis
(Rose laughs with Bodine)
Bodine: All you had to do was wait two days!

You're kidding, right?
This was actually filmed?
You mean that Cameron actually wrote a good bit of dialog (the only one in the film, IMHO), and then cut it out???

 

[David Lambert]

Look everyone...we've got a big camp of people who say Titanic is a great film, and another camp who say it wasn't so hot. What movie doesn't fall into this category?
My wife and I had heard good buzz about it during the production stage, so we saw it opening day. Then we went back and saw it again a couple of weeks later. And we bought the DVD less than a month after we got our player (a couple of years ago). All-in-all, I'd say we're fans of the film.
It's too long and not quite engrossing enough to warrant repeated viewings, but we like it and understand why it made so much money. The cinematography and special effects are dazzling, the music is wonderful and, in places, haunting, and the immersion that Cameron wanted is complete. You are ON the Titanic.
No, it's not a complete depiction of the events. If it were, then we'd see more about the telegraph operators, who sent the first "S.O.S." morse code signal ever, and stayed at their posts until the end. The Californian would be there and more of the Carpathian would be shown. Hey, we would have been watching this film for a loooong time if everything had been included!
No, it's not historically accurate. If it were, then the framing story at the beginning wouldn't be there, because there was no such jewel as the "Heart of the Ocean". Jack and Rose wouldn't be there, nor others.
Yes, Cameron was guessing at things that noone knows for sure how it happened. We don't know whether or not the lookouts were distracted by something, or just couldn't see in the fog (my interpretation of that scene is that, although they were momentarily distracted by Jack & Rose, they paid enough attention to their job that they would have seen the iceberg if not for the fog...so perhaps "both" is the right answer). We don't know whether Lightoller was in a position to know whether the ship broke in half or not, or was just shaken by events and forgot what he saw, so Cameron put him in a position to just not know. We don't know how each dead body ended up postitioned or anything like that. It's called "dramatic license".
This was never intended to be a documentary. It was intended to be a work of fiction set against a very dramatic real event, depicted as realistically as possible. But NOT a documentary!
My advice is that, if you watch it, just sit back and enjoy the ride. Don't question or nitpick; it just ruins the experience. Good advice for any movie, in fact.
Most people who ended up not liking this film are those who had no interest in it, but got cajoled or roped into it by friends or loved ones, or thought they ought to go see it because everyone said it was so good or the critics loved it or it made so much money or it was the T2 director, etc. I have a co-worker who said at the time "I know what happened; the boat sank" and concluded that he had no interest in the film, but saw it later anyway because of all of the above.
In the end all these people probably felt "it was overrated". Yes, I've met people who felt the same about the first Star Wars film! (I know...Blasphemy!)
We all know that Titanic *will* get a re-release on DVD sooner or later. Paramount has only now just begun to explore Special Edition territory, and will no doubt bring Cameron on-board for something he will be proud of...when he's damn good and ready. In the meantime, it's probably good to let everything settle down with this film. There's still too much backlash (like we've seen in this thread) against a film that's only REAL problem is that it did so very well at the box office!
------------------
DAVE/Memphis
Widescreen is Family Fun!

 

[Dave F]

Nice post, David.
-Dave
------------------
DVD List

 

[David Lambert]

Thanks. I get paid by the character!

------------------
DAVE/Memphis
Widescreen is Family Fun!

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

David, your mstaken about one crucial detail, their was NO fog the night Titanic sank.
------------------
"How can I heal, when I can't feel time?"
Leonard from Memento

 

[Jeff D.]

I always have, and always will, defend Titanic as being amazingly accurate to the true story. More than anything else, this movie is beautifully faithful to the ship itself. Historian Ken Marschall even said every detail, down to the patterns in the carpets, was accurate to the original design. This was not particularly difficult, since they had the original plans from Harland & Wolff (the company that built the ship).
There is so much to the Titanic story that is intriguing that people do not know about.
A lot of people don't realize that the Titanic was in fact the second in a line of three nearly identical sister ships. The first was in fact called the Olympic. It has been said that, until the Titanic sank, she went largely unnoticed, hidden in the shadows of her sister. Maybe a bit of an exaggeration...but only a bit. The third sister, Britannic, was built after the the Titanic disaster and it too was sunk in the war. Thus the Olympic was the only one of the three ever to complete a peacetime voyage.
There were a lot of events leading up to the Titanic disaster that may have determined her fate. The maiden voyage was actually scheduled to be much earlier, but was delayed twice - both because of mishaps with the Olympic.
As the Titanic departed on her maiden voyage, there was a near miss in the harbour with another ship. The power of the massive ship moving through the harbour actually ripped another steamer, the New York, from her moorings and it was a very close call.

Yes, Cameron was guessing at things that noone knows for sure how it happened. We don't know whether or not the lookouts were distracted by something, or just couldn't see in the fog (my interpretation of that scene is that, although they were momentarily distracted by Jack & Rose, they paid enough attention to their job that they would have seen the iceberg if not for the fog...so perhaps "both" is the right answer). We don't know whether Lightoller was in a position to know whether the ship broke in half or not, or was just shaken by events and forgot what he saw, so Cameron put him in a position to just not know. We don't know how each dead body ended up postitioned or anything like that. It's called "dramatic license".

I never interpreted that the lookouts were distracted by Rose and Jack. Its not like they look up and the iceberg was right there. By all accounts, the real story is that they simply did not see them. The binoculars had been misplaced in Southampton. It was a moonless night and the ocean was still (like a pond, a survivor later said). Reports said the iceberg was what was called a "black berg". A black berg is an iceberg that has turned over in the water because of a change in the centre of gravity. This means that the ice was actually clear ice, not white ice as most would imagine - and practically invisible in those conditions.
The movie brilliantly portrayed the mechanics of the sinking and surely this movie is the best glimpse we will get at what this ship was really like.
What surprises me most about this movie, however, is the apparently glaring factual error. In the movie, Molly Brown (portrayed by Kathy Bates) tries to take charge of her lifeboat but after a stern warning by the Quartermaster, she relents and sits down. By all accounts this is wholly inaccurate - in reality she completely took charge and took no lip. It was her brazen attitude that garnered her the nickname the Unsinkable Molly Brown. There was even a musical about her.
All in all, Titanic is great in so many ways. It is a wonderful historical look at one of man's worst moments of arrogance. It is a great action movie. It achieves things on many different levels and it would be nice to see Paramount revisit it with an anamorphic treatment.
----
Jeff
------------------
"They're coming to get you Barbara..."