Special Edition Titanic

[spidey]

lol ghost

 

[CallaghanFilms]

I think Cameron's film was masterfully executed. Honestly I am surprised to hear some of the criticisms that I do hear about it (not at all directed solely at those posted in this thread.) The individual viewpoints represented in Titanic (especially the much-blasted love story) are what allowed the audience to be emotionally vested in the historic moment.

Granted the "2nd Class" passengers (who actually made up the vast majority of those aboard Titanic) were not represented. But as in anything else the "average joe" usually doesn't make for compelling storylines. As a writer, one must go for the extremes of the spectrum when creating intriguing characters.

I have read several books on Titanic, including the actual transcripts from the hearings surrounding the incident. Although an interesting read, the official accounts would have made a rather sterile film. I think enough historic persons were portrayed on screen, to give it realism...but I side with Hollywood in the heated "History vs. Hollywood" battle. For History belongs on cable television.
But that is an argument for another day (rather for another thread.)

Titanic :thumbup: :thumbup:

 

[kimko]

well there you go. facts mam just the facts.

 

[Ought2bCommitted]

I think Cameron's film was masterfully executed. Honestly I am surprised to hear some of the criticisms that I do hear about it (not at all directed solely at those posted in this thread.) The individual viewpoints represented in Titanic (especially the much-blasted love story) are what allowed the audience to be emotionally vested in the historic moment.

Granted the "2nd Class" passengers (who actually made up the vast majority of those aboard Titanic) were not represented. But as in anything else the "average joe" usually doesn't make for compelling storylines. As a writer, one must go for the extremes of the spectrum when creating intriguing characters.

I have read several books on Titanic, including the actual transcripts from the hearings surrounding the incident. Although an interesting read, the official accounts would have made a rather sterile film. I think enough historic persons were portrayed on screen, to give it realism...but I side with Hollywood in the heated "History vs. Hollywood" battle. For History belongs on cable television.
But that is an argument for another day (rather for another thread.)

Titanic :thumbup: :thumbup:

Sorry but I hardly agree.

If the love story angle was how the audience is supposed to connect with the material, it should have been more than the cliched rich girl, poor boy story. It was so ridden with cliches I don't even know where to begin.

Visually the movie shines when dealing with the ship itself and the sinking of course, IMO.

The accounts of what happened there would hardly make a sterile film. I can't see how thousands of people losing their lives in the middle of the freezing cold ocean could be sterile. You need a skilled writer to flesh out the stories and make them palpable to everyone. I can not fathom how watching the horror of the ship sinking wouldn't move someone--without needing a silly love story to "get invested in".

Again, its like saying ok, lets make a 9-11 movie. Ok, so we need a love story to get people connected, you know. Otherwise they won't have any emotional connection to innocent people dying.

I think relying solely on a cliched hacked love story to get people emotionally involved in a historical event is a cop out for bad writing and underestimating your audience.

-Robert

 

[kimko]

okay let's tell the story of everybody on that ship vs a person representing the rich and a person representing the poor. how many days you got!

 

[Ought2bCommitted]

okay let's tell the story of everybody on that ship vs a person representing the rich and a person representing the poor. how many days you got!

Did I say EVERYONE had to be featured? No, I don't think I did.
Thank you very much!

 

[CallaghanFilms]

Robert,
What I said had nothing to do with the tragedy depicted itself. My intended point was that if you want accurate, true-to-life, factual account...well, you have untold numbers of documentaries/specials to choose from (and thats just on Discovery Channel!) These are very interesting, and i have watched several.

However, if you want something beyond escapism...if you want to experience what it was like first hand...and in order to feel true empathy, then a few multi-layered characters is gonna get you there much quicker than a host of nameless faces would. In order to get that personal, you wouldn't want to utilize an actual historic person. First of all because you couldn't possibly know (nor should you try to ascertain) intimate details of the real victims. Secondly, that would IMO be disrespectful to their memory in the event that you got things wrong. The best approach would be to create your dramatic story (yes, love does qualify) - then cut and paste it into a real background (in this case the sinking of the RMS Titanic).

I really don't like to even consider the idea of a 9/11 film in our lifetime. However, for future generations...yeah, sure I think if the story is going to be told, then it should be told from a limited number of viewpoints (not unlike Titanic). In this case, we don't need assistance to be emotionally invested...we already are, my man. It's our children's children that will need help relating.
:beer:

 

[Ought2bCommitted]

Robert,
What I said had nothing to do with the tragedy depicted itself. My intended point was that if you want accurate, true-to-life, factual account...well, you have untold numbers of documentaries/specials to choose from (and thats just on Discovery Channel!) These are very interesting, and i have watched several.

However, if you want something beyond escapism...if you want to experience what it was like first hand...and in order to feel true empathy, then a few multi-layered characters is gonna get you there much quicker than a host of nameless faces would. In order to get that personal, you wouldn't want to utilize an actual historic person. First of all because you couldn't possibly know (nor should you try to ascertain) intimate details of the real victims. Secondly, that would IMO be disrespectful to their memory in the event that you got things wrong. The best approach would be to create your dramatic story (yes, love does qualify) - then cut and paste it into a real background (in this case the sinking of the RMS Titanic).

I really don't like to even consider the idea of a 9/11 film in our lifetime. However, for future generations...yeah, sure I think if the story is going to be told, then it should be told from a limited number of viewpoints (not unlike Titanic). In this case, we don't need assistance to be emotionally invested...we already are, my man. It's our children's children that will need help relating.
:beer:

I know, I realize that. I just don't think you need help relating to a human tragedy. I don't see why you have to have either a pure doc on the subject or total fluff. I don't see why you can't have a film that actually intelligently encompasses both--factual, and entertaining at the same time. There are so many stories to pluck from that I just feel there was a far more interesting story to tell than the one JC concocted. Really, its not much more intelligent than Pearl Harbor was. Same formula there. And that one tanked, for the most part.

I'm not just talking about Titanic. I really hate what Hollywood does to perfectly moving stories...like Bridge on the River Kwai. Entertaining movie, but it is sooooo not what those poor guys went through...so much so it makes a mockery of it all.

I just don't think Titanic was all that. Some awesome visuals, yes, but not worthy of all the kudos, IMO.

I get what you're saying. I do, I just feel a bit differently.

FYI, they are making a 9-11 movie...Oliver Stone and Nick Cage (I think).

-Robert

 

[spidey]

yeah titanic is basically peral habor same story different setting.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Titanic and Pearl Harbor the same? Ouch. You're really gonna put Cameron into the Michael Bay category?

Pearl Harbor tanked, huh?

Production Budget: $140 million
Est. Marketing Costs: $70 million
--------------------------------------------
Domestic Gross: $198,542,554
+ Overseas Gross: $250,678,391
Worldwide Grosses: $449,220,945

This doesn't include the DVD Sales. Man I'd hate for you to be my producer, Robert.

You still haven't made any validation on what you would have done. I think most people agree that you have to have a vessel (pun) to bring us into the films world. There has to be that magical time machine moment. I don't doubt the stroy could have been told differently but you're saying the opposite is true? That you don't need captivating characters to tell this story?

What are the cliches you noticed?

Are you sure you're not disagreeing to disagree? I think really it's a bunch of young dogs that just arent into the 'love story thing'.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

I agree that it has become "unhip" to admit to really liking certain films (like Titanic). Once again this observation is in no way directed at fellow DVXUser board members. The opposite is also true with other "sacred" films, which can never be desecrated by showing any distaste at all for them (ie 2001 & A clockwork Orange as previously discussed.) This is not, IMHO, a "macho" motive in calling love stories "fluff" or "teenybopper"...but rather a misplaced artistic one.

Well I said it before, and I'll say it again...I adore the love story in Titanic. In fact, I'll go so far as to say it would have suffered greatly without it.

One other thing...Obviously Pearl Harbor is no where near the film that Titanic is, but at what point did it become the new level of comparison for how shitty an epic drama is?? I own Pearl Harbor as well on DVD. I have many qualms with the film (namely the infamous "Bomb-Cam shot" - Ben Affleck's "off again" performance - the fact that the ending was changed for the Asian market - and many more). One thing I felt did work was the love story. I'm not sticking up for Bay...merely saying that Pearl Harbor ain't that bad.

 

[mmm]

What are the cliches you noticed?

"Someone Picasso..." urgh..sickly.

It is a very cheesy film

I think a mystery thriller would have been good - ie something sank or the Titanic that night and now someone wants it back... doubt it would have been so successful though.

I remember reading a Financial Times article about Titanic just before it was released. Someone commented that it was the perfect recipe for Box Office gold. It has elements that make it "unmissable" to almost every audience demographic... All they needed was Will Smith in the cast - the A lister with the broadest appeal.

 

[kimko]

saving private ryan.now how true is that,fluff sure thing,love story sho nuff,great movie you got it,but did it really happen far from it! my father was there got captured in Cisterno did they have time to talk,no way.they slept, cleaned their rifles,and ate whatever they could get their hands on. thats it man they were tired. boring movie that would be. oh my father loved the movie. more real than any other film. DARBY'S RANGER 1ST BTTLN

 

[J.R. Hudson]

CallaghanFilms

I totally agree. Nice post. I admit Pearl Harbor is a Popcorn Film to the fullest extent; but I enjoyed it for that. It was a fun film. My issues are similar; way too much Politcal Correctness in the direction of the film 'Hey let's not upset Japan'. I'm looking very forward to THE PACIFIC WAR (Band of Brothers 2) whereas Episode 1 starts with Pearl Harbor (If rumours are true). Maybe we'll see a more serious side to that.

Still, the film is fun and it is weird that lot's of people kind of use it for that 'CRAP' example of a film. Wasn't great; was'nt at all bad in my head. Very watchable. (I loved the BOMB CAM!)

"Someone Picasso..." although kind of silly is'nt a cliche.

"All they needed was Will Smith in the cast - the A lister with the broadest appeal"

But they didn't need Will Smith! :beer:

"saving private ryan.now how true is that,fluff sure thing,love story sho nuff,great movie you got it,but did it really happen far from it! my father was there got captured in Cisterno did they have time to talk,no way.they slept, cleaned their rifles,and ate whatever they could get their hands on. thats it man they were tired. boring movie that would be. oh my father loved the movie. more real than any other film. DARBY'S RANGER 1ST BTTLN"

Huh? I'm trying to decipher the code on this one. :shocked: :huh:

 

[adkimery]

"saving private ryan.now how true is that,fluff sure thing,love story sho nuff,great movie you got it,but did it really happen far from it! my father was there got captured in Cisterno did they have time to talk,no way.they slept, cleaned their rifles,and ate whatever they could get their hands on. thats it man they were tired. boring movie that would be. oh my father loved the movie. more real than any other film. DARBY'S RANGER 1ST BTTLN"

Huh? I'm trying to decipher the code on this one. :shocked: :huh:

I think he's trying to say that "Saving Private Ryan"'s plot had many historical inaccuracies (including Hanks being way too old for the role), but was still a very good movie (in response to the people saying Titanic was bad because the story arc was fictional).

As someone who's seen "Titanic" once and doesn't really wanna see it again, I don't agree that the event of Titanic sinking is interesting enough to carry a feature length narrative film. Events, especially big events, aren't very engaging. You have to put a human face to the event. Otherwise you are gonna have a tough time getting people on an emotional level. Wasn't it Stalin who said, "One death is a tragedy. One thousand deaths is a statistic." "60 Minute" typically does a good job of humanizing major events or stories by profiling 1 or 2 people affected and using their personal stories to tell the bigger story.

Even if JC took the time to look over the histories of every person on that ship looking for "the story" he could hang the movie on there's always gonna be creative license. There has to be. I love "Patton", and there's a lot in that movie that never happened. But it did a good capturing the "essence", for lack of a better term, of the man. And that's about the best we can hope for, IMO.


-A

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I think he's trying to say that "Saving Private Ryan"'s plot had many historical inaccuracies (including Hanks being way too old for the role), but was still a very good movie (in response to the people saying Titanic was bad because the story arc was fictional).

I'd like to hear them (The plot's historical accuracies).

I believe Hanks was 40 at the time they started filming SPR.

According to War Department Statistics:

...In fact the average age of officers in OPD during the period 1943-45 dropped from that of 1942. The 421 officers who served in the Division during these later war years averaged a little over 36 years of age on reporting for duty or, if already on duty, at the beginning of the period, 1 January 1943.

The earlier average (for the period 9 March-31 December 1942), calculated in the same way, had been a little under 39 years. The similar average for the composite OPD officer, that is, the average man among the 475 who were on duty at various times between 9 March 1942 and 2 September 1945, was a little less than 37 years old...

 

[Sean Michael]

The poll should have another choice, like "I loved it at first, even bought the Celine Dion soundtrack, but then later came to my senses and hated it."

It's a well done popcorn movie, and I (still) love the actual footage of Titanic wreckage. Also love the carpe diem theme. But I haven't really embraced the emotional aspect of the film since it left theatres.

Bon Jovi was cool when no one else liked them . . . :shocked:

 

[J.R. Hudson]

...even bought the Celine Dion soundtrack.

:cheesy:

 

[kimko]

I'd like to hear them (The plot's historical accuracies).

I believe Hanks was 40 at the time they started filming SPR.

According to War Department Statistics:

...In fact the average age of officers in OPD during the period 1943-45 dropped from that of 1942. The 421 officers who served in the Division during these later war years averaged a little over 36 years of age on reporting for duty or, if already on duty, at the beginning of the period, 1 January 1943.

The earlier average (for the period 9 March-31 December 1942), calculated in the same way, had been a little under 39 years. The similar average for the composite OPD officer, that is, the average man among the 475 who were on duty at various times between 9 March 1942 and 2 September 1945, was a little less than 37 years old...

huh thats funny i was at a ranger reunion they all talked about their age my father being one of the oldest at 23 years of age.stats aren't always accurate but those old men maybe they don't remember so well and their squad leaders did get killed and they got younger and younger,well what do i know that's what they told me,from the horses mouth or from some pencil pushing government official. there are people who like to tell the story and put their two cents in,then there's the people who lived it, they told me the officers were under thirty 30 now i'm talking about DARBY'S RANGERS. what are you talking about son

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Don't sweat that. It's never about right or wrong with me; always just the facts.
Sides; I bet those stories are epic and what is true for Darby's Ranger's may not hold true for the rest of the service!

Here's some grab from TITANIC (The print is great)