Semi OT: 2nd Trailer for "Midway" movie...

[fcooke]

Sorry - got the wrong green there. And if Brit sailors are Limeys why do they prefer lemons in their G&Ts? Never understood that?

But thank whatever power is out there for the creation of G&Ts.

[mind_messing]

Not really - and as I have said I have not researched this one much, but they knew there were not enough boats aboard. And even if ferrying, when the ship sinks in an hour you really cannot 'ferry', particularly in the North Atlantic.

Sorry, I missed this point originally.

That was the mindset of the time regarding large passenger ships. Given the fact that the regular European and trans-Atlantic shipping lanes were very busy, there was a certain comfort in that help was never too far away in the event of an emergency.

The mindset of the time was that lifeboats were tied to the tonnage of the ship rather than passengers, but the Titanic was so much of an outlier that the dated laws written for the far more numerous tramp steamers and their ilk were ineffective for Titanic.

A proper apology normally consists of the word apologise, and admission that something done was wrong, and appropriate amends made.

Seems to me Cameron has done all three, or would you dispute that as well?

Yes, that artistic licence is used does indeed go without saying. As has been proven on this and other film threads over the years, not everyone has a deep prior knowledge of every film they watch. What is artistic licence and what is fact can therefore be blurred – either innocently or to satisfy a film makers own bias.

I think it is important to not confuse bias with the desire to tell a story. The portrayal of Murdoch's character must be considered in the context of his role in the film of developing the major plot conflict between DiCaprio and Zane's characters, as well as his final actions demonstrating to Zane that money doesn't get you everything you want.

Murdoch's character servers as an illustration that you can't buy yourself out of every situation to a character that buys his way through life. That the illustration comes from Murdoch, who is in a situation that he simply can't get out of by any means, makes it even more appropriate in a dramatic sense.

I prefer my characters in drama to be a little more three dimensional. Your mileage may vary.

I’m pleased something I’ve written has amused you – it seems to happen quite a lot . I’d hoped I’d made clear what I was objecting to, but it seems you believe it’s the word in itself. So clearly I’ve not done a very good job. Oh well I tried.

That said of course, yes one could say I also object to the use of the word itself. For someone who wanted to make a film sooo accurate he oversaw every star position in the night sky (or whatever) his choice of that word, used by that character, was wrong and from an historical accuracy point of view Tommy may just as well have said: “Yo dog, where you at? Why you say I can’t be takin’ this boat man?” But as said, if it was just the word then I wouldn’t even waste time commenting on it, but it wasn’t just the word as I thought I'd made clear.

The film is set in 1912. Anglo-Irish tensions are building. The issue of Irish Home Rule is still on-going and won't see any progress for another two years (and then not get implemented due to WW1), and two years after that Ireland will erupt in a war for independence.

Given that context, a degree of tension between the Irish and British characters is exactly true to history.

That the other party involved in the interaction is actually Scottish (and not British) is a nice subtle postcolonial commentary on the nature of identity politics. You'll likely disagree, but any film analysis of Titanic (or any film in general) will show you that everything is done for a reason.

Sorry but I genuinely don’t understand your point re the Italian scenario. You say that if ‘the accusations have basis in truth’ – but that is the whole point about Murdoch. His actions that night are presented as fact. He was, as Cameron now admits, not just some generic character. He was a real person who actually served. The issue is that with Murdoch and the crime of bribe-taking and the crime of murder, there is no evidence whatsoever. THAT is the whole point and why he shouldn’t have been treated like that and why there was – and remains - such upset.

My counter-point is simple; there's no evidence that he didn't take a bribe.

As for the supposed murder;
- Murdoch was armed.
- Murdoch had motive (keeping order).
- Murdoch was at the scene.

In this grey area, it's perfectly reasonable to use dramatic licence given imperfect evidence.

I would be cautious as to how you frame the upset, which was exceptionally localised (abet very vocal).

You believe – and more importantly – Cameron believed, that the removal of the Californian from the story was justified. You appear to have changed your mind on the rationale – first you said it was because he didn’t want to muddy the waters on blame (hubris over bad luck) and now you say it’s because of time. But that is not important, it could be both, it could be either, it could be whatever, the reason is not the point at all.

You say ‘such an investment would cost far more than it adds’. That is a very bold statement to make if the goal is to make an historically accurate movie. Californian was an important part of the events that night and why 1,500 people died. I mean if it’s a time issue they could remove the bit about the iceberg right?

The point of Cameron's film was not to deliver a blow-by-blow of the sinking.

It was to personalize the story with Rose's connection to the ships and events on it. The characters involved in the plot had no connection or awareness of the Californian, therefore not including it made perfect sense.

But I don’t consider Titanic a watchable film, let alone a particularly historically accurate one. The removal of Californian was, in my view, just another error by the director. If you are happy with it then I’m glad.

You must be fun to go to the cinema with.

Well I’m not going to get into a debate about that! In conversations over the years where Titanic comes up, the overwhelming view of people – 99% women – is that Titanic is a great film, and they then start gushing over Jack and Rose as it’s clear, from conversations I’ve witnessed at least, that it was the love story that provokes this reaction. But the film obviously pleased a lot of people and made Mr Cameron very rich.

Are you suggesting that women's opinions on the qualities of what makes a movie good are less valid than those of men?

How...Edwardian. [8|]

At any rate, the film generated a very positive overall response from film critics.

What do I most object to about the film and where does a director take responsibility (as opposed to screen play, music etc.) I don’t know enough about the film world to know. So whether I am right in specifically blaming Cameron – as opposed to others involved – who knows. But fwiw, my personal objections (and I’m conscious it’s been 20 years) are (in no particular order):

Historically inaccurate with key events missing, the treatment of Murdoch, wholly unbelievable (and frankly excruciating) love story, even worse dialogue (did I notice no award for best screenplay?), formulaic rich guy = bad/poor guy = salt of the earth, formulaic Brit = the bad guy (didn’t David Warner’s character have a gun? (Brits do like guns in this film don’t they?) – but in time honoured fashion he refuses to shoot the hero but instead devises a dastardly plot to murder him that allows for the hero’s escape), steerage class passengers being purposely kept below decks, the lazy, unnecessary British/Irish undercurrent, Rose swanning about all over the ship for ages up to her nipples in the freezing Atlantic looking for Jack who’s also exposed to the freezing water for ages (did they hit a tropical zone right after striking the iceberg?). I’m sure there’s more – but one day I will look at the film again – if I can stomach it – just to see if there are any redeeming features (Rose’s charlies aside) that I may have missed first time round.

To address point by point:
- The film was overwhelmingly praised for its historical accuracy by a large number within the Titanic academic community (of which some of the most informed served as historical advisors).
- The love story is (by Cameron's own admission), Romeo and Juliet on a boat. If you consider that bad, you must really hate Shakespeare.
- I am not sure what issue you have with the dialogue beyond a specific scene? At any rate, it didn't seem to detract from the movie as a whole.
- As noted above, the rich/poor distinction was a modern reframing of Shakespeare.
- David Warner's character was American, an ex-Pinkerton.
- Irish/British undercurrent was filled with tension at the time (far more than the norm for the time period) and therefore historically accurate.
- I think it's reasonable to bend the effects of hypothermia for the sake of drama.

[RangerJoe]

That the other party involved in the interaction is actually Scottish (and not British) is a nice subtle postcolonial commentary on the nature of identity politics.

I thought that Scotland is part of Britain and therefore the people of Scotland are British. They are not English nor Welsh who are also British since England and Wales is part of Britain.

It was to personalize the story with Rose's connection to the ships and events on it. The characters involved in the plot had no connection or awareness of the Californian, therefore not including it made perfect sense.

But if that ship not assisting is the reason for the two being in the tropically warm North Atlantic, then simply adding another piece of fictional dialog where they wonder why there is no other ship coming to rescue them would warrant the inclusion of the Californian. Especially if someone would have speculated about the Californians lights to the front of them where one of them could have heard it if not having seen lights themselves.


As far as a ship's crew member taking a bribe, if they thought that they were going down with the ship, why would they take it? They would drown and have no further use for money.

Edited to correct a mistake on my part. I wrote the wrong word - no caffeine yet today. [:(]

[mind_messing]

I thought that Scotland is part of Britain and therefore the people of Scotland are British.

It was warspite's point on the Scottish/British distinction.

They are not English nor Welsh who are also British since England and Wales is part of England.

No.

But if that ship not assisting is the reason for the two being in the tropically warm North Atlantic, then simply adding another piece of fictional dialog where they wonder why there is no other ship coming to rescue them would warrant the inclusion of the Californian. Especially if someone would have speculated about the Californians lights to the front of them where one of them could have heard it if not having seen lights themselves.

As noted above, pacing.

As far as a ship's crew member taking a bribe, if they thought that they were going down with the ship, why would they take it? They would drown and have no further use for money.

To expand on previous comments, in the career of a deck officer of a shipping line , the opinion of first class passengers was "make or break" territory. Captain Smith gained a good reputation by developing good relationships with several high profile individuals - he was known as the "millionaires captain".

For any junior White Star Line officers, first class passengers were handled with kid gloves. This is represented quite well in the film, where things are done with the utmost politeness and respect when it would have been better to abandon them for the sake of efficiency.

This sits on top of the social conditioning common at the time for deference to ones perceived "betters", which was a strong motivation for many at the time.

[RangerJoe]

quote:

They are not English nor Welsh who are also British since England and Wales is part of England.



No.

My mistake, I meant to state that England and Wales is part of Britain.

[RangerJoe]

Pacing is going back and forth, I think that you mean tempo. But a few seconds of dialog and someone pointing to the horizon would not have upset the tempo - especially if it was a crew member. Then that could explain any bribes as just a means of jumping ahead of a lot of people, most of whom would have been expected to be saved if that ship went to their rescue.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Pacing is going back and forth, I think that you mean tempo. But a few seconds of dialog and someone pointing to the horizon would not have upset the tempo - especially if it was a crew member. Then that could explain any bribes as just a means of jumping ahead of a lot of people, most of whom would have been expected to be saved if that ship went to their rescue.

The decision not to include the Californian was the right one. The story establishes that the Carpathia was en-route, but unlikely to arrive in time.

A recent re-appraisal establishes that the Californian would have been in the same situation.

Read more about it here.

Including the Californian (beyond the already discussed deleted scenes) would have added nothing to the story that was not already being done by the Carpathia.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Limey is an American slang term for British sailors.

Haven't read this whole thread, so this is just a little side note.

I've heard the term originated because of the limes' the Brits used in their cocktails. Add to that the practice seems to have originate in malarial regions when the British used it to counteract their distaste for the quinine in their drinks. Don't know if that's true, but at any rate there it is.[;)]

I heard it in reference to the British sailors who had to drink the juice of one lemon or lime a day to eliminate scurvy. That is why the British sailors are referred to Limeys.

Makes about as much sense as my postulation.

Wonder if there's a true/real source for the slang.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: rustysi



Haven't read this whole thread, so this is just a little side note.

I've heard the term originated because of the limes' the Brits used in their cocktails. Add to that the practice seems to have originate in malarial regions when the British used it to counteract their distaste for the quinine in their drinks. Don't know if that's true, but at any rate there it is.[;)]

I heard it in reference to the British sailors who had to drink the juice of one lemon or lime a day to eliminate scurvy. That is why the British sailors are referred to Limeys.

Makes about as much sense as my postulation.

Wonder if there's a true/real source for the slang.

It's true - the citrus fruit juice was the only way for sailors to get dietary vitamin C during long months away from land. I was a sea cadet and we learned some of the British terminology and traditions (they didn't let us try grog, though).

Did you know that the other term for a sailor in the days of wooden ships, "tar", refers to the coal tar or petroleum tar put in their hair to keep lice from taking up residence. Most sailors let their hair grow and braided it into a pigtail at the back. Because of the tar in their hair, a shoulder apron was added to their uniform to keep the tar off their tunics. This is the blue cloth outlined with three white lines that you see in British sailor's uniforms (and Japanese schoolgirls' uniforms too!).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Seems to me Cameron has done all three, or would you dispute that as well?

warspite1

You asked whether I thought the ‘apology’ offered was sufficient and furthermore, what I would like to see by way of an apology. I have answered both as fully as I can and if that is insufficient then I don’t really know what else to say.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I think it is important to not confuse bias with the desire to tell a story. The portrayal of Murdoch's character must be considered in the context of his role in the film of developing the major plot conflict between DiCaprio and Zane's characters, as well as his final actions demonstrating to Zane that money doesn't get you everything you want.

Murdoch's character servers as an illustration that you can't buy yourself out of every situation to a character that buys his way through life. That the illustration comes from Murdoch, who is in a situation that he simply can't get out of by any means, makes it even more appropriate in a dramatic sense.

I prefer my characters in drama to be a little more three dimensional. Your mileage may vary.

warspite1

Ah the old confusion line you love to use on me. We differ in our opinions – that does not mean I am confused – it means we have different opinions. I understand that a story teller tells a story. I am also fully aware that a story may be told for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. You don’t believe there was bias intended? Fine. I, rightly or wrongly, but for the reasons patiently outlined, do believe that Cameron had an angle in how he wanted the story told - and personally I don't like the angle ergo - this is not a film I like. No confusion - just my opinion.

I further understand fully how Murdoch’s character was used Cameron as part of the DiCaprio/Zane story line. Thank-you for pointing out the moral of the ‘we don’t get everything we want in life – no matter how rich’ – but I think I managed to work that out too. The point remains that in my opinion Murdoch did not need to be used in this way. It was unforgivable to abuse this human being in such a way.

To arrogantly dismiss my view as being one of someone who doesn’t want their characters interestingly written is disappointing. As I’ve also said (but you once again seem unwilling to read what I write) I wouldn’t have had this issue if an unidentified officer was used, so it has nothing to do with how I want my characters to appear.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The film is set in 1912. Anglo-Irish tensions are building. The issue of Irish Home Rule is still on-going and won't see any progress for another two years (and then not get implemented due to WW1), and two years after that Ireland will erupt in a war for independence.

Given that context, a degree of tension between the Irish and British characters is exactly true to history.

That the other party involved in the interaction is actually Scottish (and not British) is a nice subtle postcolonial commentary on the nature of identity politics. You'll likely disagree, but any film analysis of Titanic (or any film in general) will show you that everything is done for a reason.

warspite1

I understand quite a bit about the history of Ireland thank-you, and as an English Protestant married to an Irish Catholic, I really don’t need to be given a totally unnecessary ‘history lesson’. Having a historical knowledge of that absurdity – as well as being in London on several occasions when bombs went off - probably makes me more sensitive to irresponsible nonsense like this (there were enough real life situations on both side of the divide that made up ones are simply unhelpful especially when dressed up as being factual).

Quite why you mention Murdoch being Scottish and ‘not British’ is truly alarming from the point of view of your own knowledge of the United Kingdom but I’ll gloss over that together with whatever ‘post-colonial’ point you were endeavouring to make.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

My counter-point is simple; there's no evidence that he didn't take a bribe.

warspite1

That comment shows how diametrically opposed we are in terms of what we believe is acceptable and so will comment no further.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I would be cautious as to how you frame the upset, which was exceptionally localised (abet very vocal).

warspite1

I do not believe I have framed the upset in any particular way. I’ve made clear why I am upset – a view I share with others. I have given no numbers or any other data and so have not mis-represented anything - so I don't see the need for caution. Indeed the fact that the upset has been localised merely emphasises my argument; people generally didn’t go to watch that film with a deep knowledge of the events of that evening (and those who do know are likely the few with an interest in the Titanic story and/or residents of Dalbeattie (especially the Murdoch family). That film is their history lesson. Murdoch’s actions, as told by Cameron, are the actions of that officer that evening as a result. That upsets me.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The point of Cameron's film was not to deliver a blow-by-blow of the sinking.

warspite1

As I’ve said, if the story was designed simply as a love story that happened to be set against the backdrop of the sinking then fine. It’s when I’m told by people such as yourself about how “Titanic is probably one of the most factually accurate movies based on a historical event”. That the fact that it isn’t gets really rather annoying.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

You must be fun to go to the cinema with.

warspite1

Thank-you – I’ll buy the popcorn and we can go together

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Are you suggesting that women's opinions on the qualities of what makes a movie good are less valid than those of men?

How...Edwardian. [8|]

warspite1

Oh dear…… No, I am suggesting that, in my personal experience, those that liked the film – nay, raved about it – were overwhelmingly in the female camp and their comments centred on the love story aspect. How you decide that I’ve said their opinions are less valid is very disappointing.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

To address point by point:

- The film was overwhelmingly praised for its historical accuracy by a large number within the Titanic academic community (of which some of the most informed served as historical advisors).
- The love story is (by Cameron's own admission), Romeo and Juliet on a boat. If you consider that bad, you must really hate Shakespeare.
- I am not sure what issue you have with the dialogue beyond a specific scene? At any rate, it didn't seem to detract from the movie as a whole.
- As noted above, the rich/poor distinction was a modern reframing of Shakespeare.
- David Warner's character was American, an ex-Pinkerton.
- Irish/British undercurrent was filled with tension at the time (far more than the norm for the time period) and therefore historically accurate.
- I think it's reasonable to bend the effects of hypothermia for the sake of drama.

warspite1

Your opinion is you like the film, mine is I don’t.

- I don’t know the number that praised it as opposed to those who were disappointed with its accuracy, nor do I know the number who praised it – but with reservations. Without wishing to state the obvious, the fact that historical advisors were employed means nothing. Do you think there were no historical advisors on Pearl Harbor or U-571 or Battle of the Bulge? Please.
- That is a quite ridiculous thing to say. I must hate Shakespeare because I didn’t like Titanic? Do you have any idea how many films have been made of Christmas Carol? Are you suggesting that unless I like every adaptation of that book I must hate Charles Dickens? There are adaptations and there are adaptations. But you believe all are the same? How thoroughly absurd.
- The dialogue was obvious and hackneyed, but then I didn’t like Pearl Harbor either
- Re the English actor David Warner’s character – your point is noted (as said it was 22 years ago) however I don’t recall him having an American accent - maybe he did in which case I fully accept that I was wrong on that point.
- If you are comfortable with the Irish/British undercurrent no problem – too irritatingly obvious for me
- If you like bending the effects of hypothermia to that level no problem – too much for me.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: rustysi



Haven't read this whole thread, so this is just a little side note.

I've heard the term originated because of the limes' the Brits used in their cocktails. Add to that the practice seems to have originate in malarial regions when the British used it to counteract their distaste for the quinine in their drinks. Don't know if that's true, but at any rate there it is.[;)]

I heard it in reference to the British sailors who had to drink the juice of one lemon or lime a day to eliminate scurvy. That is why the British sailors are referred to Limeys.

Makes about as much sense as my postulation.

Wonder if there's a true/real source for the slang.

warspite1

This (in bold) is the source of the nickname that I was taught as a kid. I've never heard anything to suggest otherwise.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




I heard it in reference to the British sailors who had to drink the juice of one lemon or lime a day to eliminate scurvy. That is why the British sailors are referred to Limeys.

Makes about as much sense as my postulation.

Wonder if there's a true/real source for the slang.

warspite1

This (in bold) is the source of the nickname that I was taught as a kid. I've never heard anything to suggest otherwise.

And that is supported by a quick 'google' that I just finished. So we have a winner. Nice to know. BTW, my 'google' search said the term is no longer considered derogatory. I myself never considered it that way, and I'm no spring chicken.[;)]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




I heard it in reference to the British sailors who had to drink the juice of one lemon or lime a day to eliminate scurvy. That is why the British sailors are referred to Limeys.

Makes about as much sense as my postulation.

Wonder if there's a true/real source for the slang.

It's true - the citrus fruit juice was the only way for sailors to get dietary vitamin C during long months away from land. I was a sea cadet and we learned some of the British terminology and traditions (they didn't let us try grog, though).

Did you know that the other term for a sailor in the days of wooden ships, "tar", refers to the coal tar or petroleum tar put in their hair to keep lice from taking up residence. Most sailors let their hair grow and braided it into a pigtail at the back. Because of the tar in their hair, a shoulder apron was added to their uniform to keep the tar off their tunics. This is the blue cloth outlined with three white lines that you see in British sailor's uniforms (and Japanese schoolgirls' uniforms too!).

The Dutch used fermented cabbage, commonly referred to Sauerkraut, for their vitamin C.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rustysi




Makes about as much sense as my postulation.

Wonder if there's a true/real source for the slang.

warspite1

This (in bold) is the source of the nickname that I was taught as a kid. I've never heard anything to suggest otherwise.

And that is supported by a quick 'google' that I just finished. So we have a winner. Nice to know. BTW, my 'google' search said the term is no longer considered derogatory. I myself never considered it that way, and I'm no spring chicken.[;)]

warspite1

And for the avoidance of doubt, whether it's derogatory or not in Titanic is not the issue here - the issue is why it was used and what was the motivation (given the person who said it).

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Pacing is going back and forth, I think that you mean tempo. But a few seconds of dialog and someone pointing to the horizon would not have upset the tempo - especially if it was a crew member. Then that could explain any bribes as just a means of jumping ahead of a lot of people, most of whom would have been expected to be saved if that ship went to their rescue.

The decision not to include the Californian was the right one. The story establishes that the Carpathia was en-route, but unlikely to arrive in time.

A recent re-appraisal establishes that the Californian would have been in the same situation.

Read more about it here.

Including the Californian (beyond the already discussed deleted scenes) would have added nothing to the story that was not already being done by the Carpathia.

Since you don't know in advance when something will occur, you can't justify not going there to alleviate the damage/death. In fact, that same report indicates that if the Californian did establish contact with the Titanic it could have gotten the false location corrected and actually would have been able to arrive just when the Titanic sank. Then boats could have been launched, people unloaded from the Titanic's boats, and all of those boats could have been used to rescue people in the water - some of whom where alive for awhile. Also, the knowledge on the Titanic that the Californian was coming could have lessened the panic.

The correct location could also have assisted the Carpathia in getting to the correct location as well.

[mind_messing]

Ah the old confusion line you love to use on me. We differ in our opinions – that does not mean I am confused – it means we have different opinions. I understand that a story teller tells a story. I am also fully aware that a story may be told for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. You don’t believe there was bias intended? Fine. I, rightly or wrongly, but for the reasons patiently outlined, do believe that Cameron had an angle in how he wanted the story told - and personally I don't like the angle ergo - this is not a film I like. No confusion - just my opinion.

Out of curiosity, what about the angle made you so uncomfortable?

I further understand fully how Murdoch’s character was used Cameron as part of the DiCaprio/Zane story line. Thank-you for pointing out the moral of the ‘we don’t get everything we want in life – no matter how rich’ – but I think I managed to work that out too. The point remains that in my opinion Murdoch did not need to be used in this way. It was unforgivable to abuse this human being in such a way.

Unforgivable in what manner?

I'd be interested to here your views on how this specific case differs from that of other individuals who are portrayed in the film.

Bruce Ismay immediately comes to mind. Would you decry his depiction as unacceptable?

To arrogantly dismiss my view as being one of someone who doesn’t want their characters interestingly written is disappointing. As I’ve also said (but you once again seem unwilling to read what I write) I wouldn’t have had this issue if an unidentified officer was used, so it has nothing to do with how I want my characters to appear.

Well, at the very least it's obvious that you'd have a preference for introducing a new ship and characters half-way in to the movie, so I'm questioning if you enjoy character-driven movies at all at this point...

I understand quite a bit about the history of Ireland thank-you, and as an English Protestant married to an Irish Catholic, I really don’t need to be given a totally unnecessary ‘history lesson’. Having a historical knowledge of that absurdity – as well as being in London on several occasions when bombs went off - probably makes me more sensitive to irresponsible nonsense like this (there were enough real life situations on both side of the divide that made up ones are simply unhelpful).

Then you should be sufficiently informed to know that the interaction under discussion is, if anything, completely historical.

Quite why you mention Murdoch being Scottish and ‘not British’ is truly alarming from the point of view of your own knowledge of the United Kingdom but I’ll gloss over that together with whatever ‘post-colonial’ point you were endeavouring to make.

Just a general recollection of a lecture many moons ago, around how individual identities tend to be washed away and instead replaced with an identity that is crystalized in opposition to each other in situations where there is a significant imbalance of power (say, between an Irish third class passenger and a middle class ships officer). I've butchered the technical language but that's the general gist of it.

That comment shows how diametrically opposed we are in terms of what we believe is acceptable and so will comment no further.

It's fine to do so, but in the circumstances of the sinking and the points discussed about the practical balance of power between a ships officer and a high-profile first class passenger, it is almost certain that some attempts were made to influence the Titanic's officers.

As I’ve said, if the story was designed simply as a love story that happened to be set against the backdrop of the sinking then fine. It’s when I’m told by people such as yourself about how “Titanic is probably one of the most factually accurate movies based on a historical event”. That the fact that it isn’t gets really rather annoying.

Like it or not, the Titanic is one of the most factually accurate movies based on a historical event.

That is demonstrated across two areas:
- Contextual accuracy: accurate representation of social norms in the Anglosphere prior to WW1.
- Visual accuracy: uniforms, clothing, the set (both interior and exterior), the footage of the wreck and the ships machinery were all faithfully reproduced.
- Technical accuracy: The sinking component of the film conforms very close to our current understanding of how the ship sank (even your valued A Night to Remember had the ship sink intact).

If it is so sloppy, then perhaps you would suggest a film comparable that had such success at the box office?

Thank-you – I’ll buy the popcorn and we can go together

Salt or sugar?

Oh dear…… No, I am suggesting that, in my personal experience, those that liked the film – nay, raved about it – were overwhelmingly in the female camp and their comments centred on the love story aspect. How you decide that I’ve said their opinions are less valid is very disappointing.

I would like you to clarify your meaning here then. Does the love story cheapen the experience?

Your opinion is you like the film, mine is I don’t.
- I don’t know the number that praised it as opposed to those who were disappointed with its accuracy, nor do I know the number who praised it – but with reservations. Without wishing to state the obvious, the fact that historical advisors were employed means nothing. Do you think there were no historical advisors on Pearl Harbor or U-571 or Battle of the Bulge? Please.
- That is a quite ridiculous thing to say. I must hate Shakespeare because I didn’t like Titanic? Do you have any idea how many films have been made of Christmas Carol? Are you suggesting that unless I like every adaptation of that book I must hate Charles Dickins? How thoroughly absurd.
- The dialogue was obvious and hackneyed, but then I didn’t like Pearl Harbor either
- Re the English actor David Warner’s character – your point is noted (as said it was 22 years ago) however I don’t recall him having an American accent - maybe he did in which case I fully accept that I was wrong on that point.
- If you are comfortable with the Irish/British undercurrent no problem – too irritatingly obvious for me
- If you like bending the effects of hypothermia to that level no problem – too much for me.

- As outlined above, the aspects of the Titanic that were reproduced for the purposes of the film were done so with the utmost attention to detail. There's a good segment in the Nat Geo documentary where Cameron is concerned about the colour of paint on the walls of one of the suites not matching the actual wreck.
- If the love story was so distasteful for you, given the fact that the love story was a more or less direct insertion of R&J, then yes, I do suggest that you're not a fan of R&J.
- Would you care to provide an example of what you consider good dialogue in a film? Just so I can have a reference as for your judgement on the matter.
- Warner didn't try an American accent IIRC (probably for the best). The confusion is understandable, but the character was intended to be American.
- I think it would have been naïve to have ignored it, especially given the political context of the time.
- Having the ability to manage just a little suspension of disbelief goes a long way!

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Pacing is going back and forth, I think that you mean tempo. But a few seconds of dialog and someone pointing to the horizon would not have upset the tempo - especially if it was a crew member. Then that could explain any bribes as just a means of jumping ahead of a lot of people, most of whom would have been expected to be saved if that ship went to their rescue.

The decision not to include the Californian was the right one. The story establishes that the Carpathia was en-route, but unlikely to arrive in time.

A recent re-appraisal establishes that the Californian would have been in the same situation.

Read more about it here.

Including the Californian (beyond the already discussed deleted scenes) would have added nothing to the story that was not already being done by the Carpathia.

Since you don't know in advance when something will occur, you can't justify not going there to alleviate the damage/death. In fact, that same report indicates that if the Californian did establish contact with the Titanic it could have gotten the false location corrected and actually would have been able to arrive just when the Titanic sank. Then boats could have been launched, people unloaded from the Titanic's boats, and all of those boats could have been used to rescue people in the water - some of whom where alive for awhile. Also, the knowledge on the Titanic that the Californian was coming could have lessened the panic.

The correct location could also have assisted the Carpathia in getting to the correct location as well.

Saw the trees, missed the forest.

The bolded scenario was contingent upon Lord immediately, on seeing the first rocket, dropping everything he was doing and going full speed (through and ice field) towards the rockets.

As noted in the report, that's not going to happen in a practical setting.

The key point, and I'll quote it in case you missed it, is here:

"I do not think any reasonably probable action by Captain Lord could have led to a different outcome of the tragedy."

Therefore your fantasy about the boats remains a fantasy.

[RangerJoe]

You are deluded. The Californian was stopped, it was maintaining a low level watch and that is all. In fact, in that link that you posted, the last two sentences on page 15 are:

When she first saw the rockets, the "Californian" could have pushed through the ice to the open water without any serious risk and so could have come to the assistance of the "Titanic." Had she done so she might have saved many if not all the lives that were lost.

Since the Californian was maybe only 5 miles away but no more than 10 miles away, and in sight of the Titanic when she hit the iceberg. Then the Titanic was sending up signal rockets, and asking for help by radio and possibly by blinker light, the Californian could have quickly made her way to the Titanic. So the Californian should have been included in the movie for historical accuracy about the senseless loss of life. That would have been much better than including some singing.

Also, if you want to go on about the social division between the classes, what are the chances of such a love story even happening in that situation? Especially if there was also a Protestant and Roman Catholic difference which at that time could have been just as great?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You are deluded. The Californian was stopped, it was maintaining a low level watch and that is all. In fact, in that link that you posted, the last two sentences on page 15 are:

When she first saw the rockets, the "Californian" could have pushed through the ice to the open water without any serious risk and so could have come to the assistance of the "Titanic." Had she done so she might have saved many if not all the lives that were lost.

Since the Californian was maybe only 5 miles away but no more than 10 miles away, and in sight of the Titanic when she hit the iceberg. Then the Titanic was sending up signal rockets, and asking for help by radio and possibly by blinker light, the Californian could have quickly made her way to the Titanic. So the Californian should have been included in the movie for historical accuracy about the senseless loss of life. That would have been much better than including some singing.

Also, if you want to go on about the social division between the classes, what are the chances of such a love story even happening in that situation? Especially if there was also a Protestant and Roman Catholic difference which at that time could have been just as great?

You are deluded. The Californian was stopped, it was maintaining a low level watch and that is all. In fact, in that link that you posted, the last two sentences on page 15 are:

This is a steamship, not a car.

Understand the implications of having engines that can't start at the push of a button, then realize how silly what you're saying is.

Well done for reading page 15, by the way. Page 18 will have some illumination for you when you get to it!

Since the Californian was maybe only 5 miles away but no more than 10 miles away, and in sight of the Titanic when she hit the iceberg. Then the Titanic was sending up signal rockets, and asking for help by radio and possibly by blinker light, the Californian could have quickly made her way to the Titanic. So the Californian should have been included in the movie for historical accuracy about the senseless loss of life. That would have been much better than including some singing.

Read the report all the way through before commenting.

- Californian was stopped. Takes time to build speed up on coal fired ships.
- The Californian arriving on time to make a difference in the loss of life is contingent on the officers immediately spotting the rockets and interpreting them as a sign of distress. Given the common use of rockets at that time, it would have required near prophetic insight on behalf of the Californian's crew.
- The report makes quite clear that if the Californian did notice, it would merely replace the Carpathia in her role.

Also, if you want to go on about the social division between the classes, what are the chances of such a love story even happening in that situation? Especially if there was also a Protestant and Roman Catholic difference which at that time could have been just as great?

I don't recall the religious differences between the main characters being brought up in the film at all.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Out of curiosity, what about the angle made you so uncomfortable?

warspite1

I did not like the whole undercurrent of the film. But let me do my best to explain how I personally saw the film.

The main focus was the wholly improbable love story. DiCaprio the hero, Winslet the heroine and Zane the bad buy. I don’t care whether this was based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet or Nora Ephron’s When Harry Met Sally. The issue was how the love story was scripted, acted, how realistic it appeared and how it played out. To my mind it was absurd.

The secondary focus was the sinking, on her maiden voyage, of RMS Titanic and the reasons for her loss. This is not an in-depth forensic look at why she was lost, and didn’t need to be. It was sufficient for Cameron to make his point that she was lost through hubris – the de rigeur ‘unsinkable’ myth (callous big business) played out, the lack of lifeboats (governments and bodies unfit for purpose), the callous owners and the 1st class passengers (the hideous rich) and their willing lackeys (the evil, bribe-taking officers who are only too happy to put the poor steerage-class down - and worse). Note too that none of the officers or crew really had any care for helping the passengers – witness the steward who had the keys to the locked gates but ran off before opening them. Some elements are sadly true, some are maliciously false and some true to a degree. Taken together though, in addition to Zane, they provide another bad guy focus and the director and script writers don’t have to work too hard – or the film goers think too much. They are especially useful as DiCaprio’s life will be lost thanks to all these ‘bad things’ things and poor Tommy and friend will be murdered by one of them.

So then, lots of low hanging fruit and easy pickings in the baddy dept. and a distinct lack of celebration of the good, the decent, the brave and the humane that was also on show that terrible night in April 1912.

So the undercurrent, the whole vibe of the film is a downer for me, and as it proceeds, so there is no let-up leading to the one Pearl Harbor-esque scene that takes a rather disappointing and shallow film into the downright disgusting. I won’t say too much on it as there isn’t much more to be said than has already been offered.

But the scene in question brings together so much of the ‘bad guys’ mentioned above. The hideous British officers have been unable to keep the steerage class behind bars, despite their best efforts, and now one of the officers – who has already taken a bribe to ensure Zane gets away – is about to shoot a couple of Irish steerage class. It’s important the audience don’t have to think too much so in case there is any doubt as to who is going to be shot by whom, Tommy calls Murdoch a Limey Bastard. BINGO! – corrupt British officer shoots two unarmed Irish steerage class whose only crime was to ask to be allowed to live……

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Unforgivable in what manner?

warspite1

After everything I’ve said about Murdoch, why I think he’s been wronged, the lack of evidence before accusing him, hell – even Cameron’s re-think – and you have to ask that at this stage in the debate? I think I’ve made my feelings clear once or twice on the unforgiveable way Murdoch has been treated.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'd be interested to here your views on how this specific case differs from that of other individuals who are portrayed in the film.

Bruce Ismay immediately comes to mind. Would you decry his depiction as unacceptable?

warspite1

Ismay is an interesting case. Here is someone who – depending on who you believe – was wrongly vilified (thanks largely to the US press and a quarrel he had with Hearst) or was a coward of the worst order.

I don’t feel the same level of sympathy for Ismay for a number of reasons. Yes he may have been ‘guilty’ or he may have been ‘innocent’. The downside is the question of: what if he had been ‘innocent’ and that he did get into one of the last boats only when no women or children could be found? If so would that make his actions right? A captain goes down with his ship, Andrews apparently chose to go down with Titanic. Should Ismay have done the same – thus allowing one of his passengers (regardless of sex) to live? I think there is a case to be made for that.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, at the very least it's obvious that you'd have a preference for introducing a new ship and characters half-way in to the movie, so I'm questioning if you enjoy character-driven movies at all at this point...

warspite1

Erm….. that is really bizarre… Yes you’re right. I only enjoyed Rush when the McLaren M23 and the McLaren team were introduced half way through the film…..I ignored the Hunt and Lauda characters… What a thoroughly left-field thing to say??

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Then you should be sufficiently informed to know that the interaction under discussion is, if anything, completely historical.

Just a general recollection of a lecture many moons ago, around how individual identities tend to be washed away and instead replaced with an identity that is crystalized in opposition to each other in situations where there is a significant imbalance of power (say, between an Irish third class passenger and a middle class ships officer). I've butchered the technical language but that's the general gist of it.

warspite1

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Ireland in all their various guises had a tortuous relationship. I have not said anything remotely about the interaction not being historical.

As to the second sentence – sorry I’m not sure what is being said here or what point is being made.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

It's fine to do so, but in the circumstances of the sinking and the points discussed about the practical balance of power between a ships officer and a high-profile first class passenger, it is almost certain that some attempts were made to influence the Titanic's officers.

warspite1

And maybe you are right and maybe you are wrong. But there is NO EVIDENCE for such a charge to be levelled against Murdoch.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Like it or not, the Titanic is one of the most factually accurate movies based on a historical event.

That is demonstrated across two areas:
- Contextual accuracy: accurate representation of social norms in the Anglosphere prior to WW1.
- Visual accuracy: uniforms, clothing, the set (both interior and exterior), the footage of the wreck and the ships machinery were all faithfully reproduced.
- Technical accuracy: The sinking component of the film conforms very close to our current understanding of how the ship sank (even your valued A Night to Remember had the ship sink intact).

If it is so sloppy, then perhaps you would suggest a film comparable that had such success at the box office?

warspite1

Factually accurate – apart from the bits that aren’t and apart from the bits that may not be. There is a strong body of opinion that believes one of the biggest factors in her loss was a fire that had been raging in one of her coal bunkers since she left Belfast.

There are plenty of areas where the film falls short too – and can be found readily on the internet: the band playing as the ship went down, the gates holding back the steerage class passengers, the unsinkable Molly Brown, the way the ship sank, DiCaprio getting invited to dinner, the reference to Freud, the omission of the Californian, the unsinkable myth etc.

But of course much of the film is, necessarily a judgement call on what may or may not have happened – Ismay being one of those.

As was made clear at the outset of this thread – and has been said repeatedly before – what is acceptable for one (their line that mustn’t be crossed) is not the same for another. I really, genuinely don’t care if the film was commercially successful. For me, it was a no.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Salt or sugar?

warspite1

Salt

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I would like you to clarify your meaning here then. Does the love story cheapen the experience?

warspite1

I can’t say it cheapens the experience because Cameron – as far as I am aware – set out to tell a love story against the tragic back drop. I don’t believe he set out to make a factually accurate telling of the ship’s maiden voyage – oh and then added in the love story.

Why did I go and see the film? I wanted to see the story played out with modern CGI. What I got was Titanic….. I wish I had saved my money and saved myself the angst of witnessing Murdoch’s disgusting treatment

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

- As outlined above, the aspects of the Titanic that were reproduced for the purposes of the film were done so with the utmost attention to detail. There's a good segment in the Nat Geo documentary where Cameron is concerned about the colour of paint on the walls of one of the suites not matching the actual wreck.

warspite1

Yes, he is concerned about the paint work, he is concerned about the stars in the sky… and that’s great, no it really is… but I don’t care about that as much as I do care about the unrealistic love story, the lack of focus on the heroes of that night, the treatment of Murdoch and the overall poor vibe the film gives off.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

- Would you care to provide an example of what you consider good dialogue in a film? Just so I can have a reference as for your judgement on the matter.

warspite1

Well there’s no better place to start than with the best film ever made. Schindler’s List.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

- If the love story was so distasteful for you, given the fact that the love story was a more or less direct insertion of R&J, then yes, I do suggest that you're not a fan of R&J.

warspite1

This again! Seriously M_M are you being deliberately argumentative? How the **** can it be a direct insertion??