Last American Titanic Survivor Dies at 99

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obit_tit...mx1Oeys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--



AP
Last American Titanic Survivor Dies at 99

By ANDREW RYAN, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago

BOSTON - Lillian Gertrud Asplund, the last American survivor of the sinking of the Titanic in 1912, has died, a funeral home said Sunday. She was 99.
ADVERTISEMENT

Asplund, who was just 5 years old, lost her father and three brothers — including a fraternal twin — when the "practically unsinkable" ship went down in the North Atlantic after hitting an iceberg.

She died Saturday at her home in Shrewsbury, said Ronald E. Johnson, vice president of the Nordgren Memorial Chapel in Worcester, Mass.

"She went to sleep peacefully," he said.

Asplund's mother, Selma, and another brother, Felix, who was 3, also survived the Titanic sinking in the early morning of April 15, 1912.

Asplund was the last Titanic survivor with actual memories of the sinking, but she shunned publicity and rarely spoke about the events.

At least two other survivors are living, but they were too young to have memories of the disaster. Barbara Joyce West Dainton of Truro, England, was 10 months old and Elizabeth Gladys "Millvina" Dean of Southampton, England, was 2 months old.

The Asplund family had boarded the ship in Southampton, England, as third-class passengers on their way back to Worcester from their ancestral homeland, Sweden, where they had spent several years.

Asplund's mother described the sinking in an interview with the Worcester Telegram & Gazette newspaper shortly after she and her two children arrived in the city.

Selma Asplund said the family went to the Titanic's upper deck after the ship struck the iceberg.

"I could see the icebergs for a great distance around ... It was cold and the little ones were cuddling close to one another and trying to keep from under the feet of the many excited people ... My little girl, Lillie, accompanied me, and my husband said 'Go ahead, we will get into one of the other boats.' He smiled as he said it."

Because they lost all of their possessions and money, the city of Worcester held a fundraiser and a benefit concert that together brought in about $2,000 for the surviving Asplunds.

Lillian Asplund never married and worked at secretarial jobs in the Worcester area most of her life. She retired early to care for her mother, who was described as having never gotten over the tragedy.

Selma Asplund died on the 52nd anniversary of the sinking in 1964 at age 91. Felix Asplund died on March 1, 1983, at age 73.

A memorial service will be held Wednesday, Johnson said.

RIP
 
It is sad. I think the thing we should take from this is that life goes on and regardless of the tragedy it is important to live, not just exist. We owe that to those less fortunate.
 
That gives me an idea for a film:


The oldest living survivor of Titanic sees a news story of a salvage team looking for a rare diamond called the heart of the sea and contacts them to help them in their search.

When she get's there, she tells this story of how she was a 17-year-old, suffocating under the rigid confines and expectations of Edwardian society and set-up in an arranged marriage to a Railroad tycoon, who is a total jerk.

She then meets another passenger and falls for him, a free-spirited young steerage passenger. Their secret love begins a powerful mystery that ultimately echoes across the years into the present. Nothing on earth is going to come between them -- not even something as unimaginable as the sinking of Titanic.

It'll be an epic, action-packed romance set against the ill-fated maiden voyage of the "unsinkable" Titanic!
-

Nawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Never work.
 
What do you mean, the Last American Titanic Survivor? I know I sat through at least 2/3 of that laughable piece of dreck and I'm still here! :)
 
Last edited:
desperatecomfort said:
What do you mean, the American Titanic Survivor? I know I sat through at least 2/3 of that laughable piece of dreck and I'm still here! :)

BWAHAHAHAA!!! :grin: :grin: LMAO.

Thread Winner! :nads:


- Mikko
 
desperatecomfort said:
What do you mean, the Last American Titanic Survivor? I know I sat through at least 2/3 of that laughable piece of dreck and I'm still here! :)

Oh man, my sentiments exactly. What a drippy chick flick. Highest grossing film of all time? Thank God no, after you adjust for inflation.
 
Heh heh!

We have had some killer debates on this subject.

I loved it. Others hate it. No one ever says 'Eh, it was alright...' . I always ask this question:

If not for the drippy chick storyline, what story would you have told ?
 
well, more time by the sundeck (with babes) [and more, umm, "covereage", in the drawing scene too] , and then there would have been lots of explosions when the iceberg hit.
And gunfighting on the deck.


.. I keed, I keed.

I think I'll give it the SOAP answer and say it should have been called "love on a boat".
It wasn't really the story of the Titanic. - That would have been about the builders, the crew, the drama of the situation, not the drama *in* the situation.


- Mikko
 
Last edited:
mikkowilson said:
I think I'll give it the SOAP answer and say it should have been called "love on a boat". It wasn't really the story of the Titanic. - That woudl have been about the builders, the crew, the drama of the situation, not the drama *in* the situation.


- Mikko

I saw a doc on the building of Titanic and it was some really interesting stuff. The really eerie part about it was that certain workers were "awarded" with passage on the ship for doing a good job. Watching it now is wierd because you know it's practically a death sentence.
 
Interesting Mikko

But I always have said that the sinking is not the story; just an event.

You still gotta tell a story within this event, right ? The story should be able to fall into any event (disaster)
 
Yeah, but 90% of the plot of "Titanic" could have happened anywhere.

You could do the exact same story on a plane. Or in a burning buidling. There was nothing in this story that made it be "Titanic" - that was just the setting.

You could shoot a 100 different movies on the Titanic, and they would all be euqally deserving of the name, and be equally irrelevant to the fact that they are on the Titianic.

I'd rather a movie was about the topic in the title, and not just in that setting.

My Girlfriend actually had somene tell her once (about "Titanic") "[As you havent' seen it yet] I don't want to spoil it for you; but, the boat sinks."!! Funny as hell, but it does raise an interesting point: the boat sinking itself can't be the climbax, but that's still what the movie should be about.


- Mikko
 
mikkowilson said:
I don't want to spoil it for you; but, the boat sinks.

Bingo, this is inherently the "problem" with all movies that are based on such a historic event; we already know the "final outcome". So the movie has to give us something else as a solution (third act). Or at the very least show us something we didn't know before.
Similarly, any remake has an equal problem, unless they change the ending. We KNOW there's gonna be a big monkey on a skycraper in ANY remake of King Kong, etc. so we better be "surprised" in some other way, to give us $9.00 worth.
 
Why? Why do we need supprize?

How many know *why* the Titianic sunk (I know many do) or what happened to the guy wuo didn't think to put bulkheads on top too? I'm not saying the story should be the event, but it should be ABOUT the event. Which "Titanic" isn't.

- Mikko
 
(Sorry for double post, but this breaks the topic a little)

Ironically one of the photoshop contests on www.fark.com today is "Photoshop theme: If chick flicks were remade as guy movies"

And sure enough, "Abe Vigoda's Ghost" posted this rather on topic pic:
titanic5uu.jpg


So how would I re-make the movie? well...


EDIT: There's some other good on topic photoshops there too.

- Mikko
 
Last edited:
mikkowilson said:
Why? Why do we need supprize?

The "surprise" comment was in regards to remakes, and I mean "surprise" as in: positively surprised about how the story is different than the original, OR how it is technically MUCH better, OR how it is showing us a different angle, etc. etc.
If it is not somewhat radically different, why remake it in the first place?
 
Ive heard these arguments and totally disagree

-

With just the story of Titanic we get facts and figures without substance. Sure, any story could have been told, but I think this was a good one!
 
I don't think it would have been so insufferable if it didn't go on and on and on into such increasing implausibility. Rose going down into the catacombs of the ship to find Jack as it was sinking and just happening to find the room where Jack was handcuffed to a fixture.

Dude Bro, I respect you so if you liked it, then fine. I think we're in much more agreement on 28 Days Later. Danny Boyle did a good job on that.
 
John_Hudson said:
Ive heard these arguments and totally disagree

-

With just the story of Titanic we get facts and figures without substance. Sure, any story could have been told, but I think this was a good one!

I disagree about that.

This is probably my thing, but in general I don't like movies set in historic events. I always prefer just to read or see the history. It's always more interesting in my book, and I do get the drama from that. Not just facts and figures but letters, journals, etc. For instance, I have an amazing set of letters from Southern plantation families during the Civil War. Or visiting a Civil War battle site. I get it more than any movie would give it to me. Again, maybe that's me.

As for Titanic, I just felt it was incredibly trite. I felt like the characters were all 2-dimensional, especially the bad guys.

Also, I felt Titanic was WAY too heavy on the effects. This too is my thing and something I've only recently been able to articulate. I really don't give two shits about special effects. I still marvel at "Clash of the Titans" which can be called cheesy. But the effects are enough to give me the idea of what to see, and my imagination fills in the rest. Likewise if I see the matte boxes around tie fighters, who cares? My imagination tells me: Fighters in space. Danger! I fill in the rest. If I'm hung up on that ****, the movie sucks anyway.

I've found I really prefer that to some effects house trying to show the exact detail of King Kong's fur.

With Titanic, all of the digitized "realism" was so heavy handed that it felt more like an ILM stag film than a movie. For all of Titanic's digital junk, "A Night to Remember" was a far superior film in my book. Tighter and just as dramatic.

Anyway, that is a much longer topic on special effects that I am writing about in my blog, but Titanic is a prime example. I felt they really sacrificed good, full characters, for the sake of getting off on how cool their digital ship was.

Sorry for the long winded response, but I just came in from a really good shoot and am kind of amped up :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top