Matrix Games Forums

Interesting.

Do you find all depictions of class conflict in media difficult to watch?

What about films portraying the British in a negative light?

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.

So the film gets a pass for it's representation of Ismay and not Murdoch?

If so, why?

Should there not be some consideration for his descendants, seeing their ancestor be rubbished on film?

My question is this: is there a consistent framework for determining who you can choose who to defend for their portrayal in a artistic work?

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.

Then why are you so angsty about the hostility from the Irish character to a British officer if it is fitting for the period? [&:]

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

This absence of evidence creates an unknown area. Within that area, it is perfectly acceptable to take artistic liberties. If you object to that in film-making, then you may as well just resign yourself to reading non-fiction.

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.

This is the point where you lose all credibility in discussions about the Titanic, and where I stop reading.

Belief in the coal bunker fire theory (or even entertaining it as a factor in the sinking) is the hallmark of a limited understanding of the Titanic sinking. It seems that every internet expert on the Titanic sinking has a unshakeable belief that it cause the disaster.

The stupidity of it is only surpassed by the crowd that subscribe to the Titanic-Olympic insurance swap conspiracy.

It's nonsense, and worse, it's bad historiography.

I'd suggest going and doing some critical reading of your own if you want to continue. Specifically the origins of the claims, and their subsequent echoing by the news media.

Don't forget the high sulphur steel as well.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Interesting.

Do you find all depictions of class conflict in media difficult to watch?

What about films portraying the British in a negative light?

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.

So the film gets a pass for it's representation of Ismay and not Murdoch?

If so, why?

Should there not be some consideration for his descendants, seeing their ancestor be rubbished on film?

My question is this: is there a consistent framework for determining who you can choose who to defend for their portrayal in a artistic work?

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.

Then why are you so angsty about the hostility from the Irish character to a British officer if it is fitting for the period? [&:]

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

This absence of evidence creates an unknown area. Within that area, it is perfectly acceptable to take artistic liberties. If you object to that in film-making, then you may as well just resign yourself to reading non-fiction.

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.

This is the point where you lose all credibility in discussions about the Titanic, and where I stop reading.

Belief in the coal bunker fire theory (or even entertaining it as a factor in the sinking) is the hallmark of a limited understanding of the Titanic sinking. It seems that every internet expert on the Titanic sinking has a unshakeable belief that it cause the disaster.

The stupidity of it is only surpassed by the crowd that subscribe to the Titanic-Olympic insurance swap conspiracy.

It's nonsense, and worse, it's bad historiography.

I'd suggest going and doing some critical reading of your own if you want to continue. Specifically the origins of the claims, and their subsequent echoing by the news media.

warspite1

Mmmm... you keep asking me to answer questions I've answered......

I've told you the reason why I am less vexed about Ismay's position - why do you ask me to repeat it? Okay Ismay vs Murdoch.

a) There is NO evidence Murdoch took a bribe and then murdered two passengers before shooting himself.
b) There is the possibility based on limited evidence that he did the two latter. That is not to say he did as such, but that someone might of done and if someone did then his was one of the names in the frame.
c) So there is, on balance much less reason to believe he did these things he's accused of than not, and more reason to believe he was a good man that did his duty selflessly that evening and helped get the few boats there were away.
I've said this I don't know how many times now but are you clear now? So no, I personally don't believe, based on the evidence available it was correct for Cameron to portray Murdoch in that way.

The difference with Ismay is simply that if he did not disguise himself as a woman (believed not to be the case) did not enter the lifeboat until the end (believed to be the case) and only did so after seeing no woman and children in the vicinity (believed to be the case) then his treatment seems harsh. BUT, even if he was not guilty of those things, what CAN be levelled at him is that he left the ship knowing that there were insufficient spaces on the lifeboats. Is that acceptable in the woman and children environment of the day? I don't know, its easy to judge, but I think it does make his case weaker and makes him a less sympathetic character.
There, that is the second time I've answered this one.

Is there a consistent framework? Well clearly not. There are many factors to take into account, not least of which is the length of time since the event, the evidence available and what someone is being accused of. Last but not least there is personal opinion on what seems right and what doesn't.

Do I find all depictions of class conflict difficult to watch? No of course not. I am British, its a way of life! Do I find films portraying the British in a negative light difficult to watch? No of course not. I am British, its a way of life! I don't have any issue with cold hard facts. The country I was born into has been on balance a force for the good in all areas - politics, medicine, exploration, science, literature and the arts, industry, practically every area of human endeavour. She has also been responsible for things that are less pleasant to recount. That does not mean they shouldn't be told and that there is not a place for the telling.

But I went to watch a film about the RMS Titanic that I was looking forward to as I know the story and been fascinated in it since I was a little boy. What did I get? I got a third rate love story, a false view on many things associated with the sinking, a hideous treatment of one of the officers on duty that night, insufficient attention paid to those who did heroic deeds, and some boring half-arsed social commentary on Cameron's view of crowd control and Anglo-Irish relations.

There are theories abounding about what did or didn't happen on the Titanic. Yep, some are way out there (like the Olympic swap) and some that may or may not be true (including many relatively recent and that post date my Titanic reading, which stopped not that long after this appalling film came out). That said I did see a documentary about the fire theory which sounded interesting - albeit like all these things, needs to be properly studied.

If you have specific information on the fire theory such that you do not believe it then great. I'm sure I'll get around to it at some point - maybe after I've summoned the courage to watch Cameron's film again.

@mindmessing and warspite1:

Would you mind limiting this scintillating debate here on this topic please? The expression 'prattle' is coming to my lips at this point.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

@mindmessing and warspite1:

Would you mind limiting this scintillating debate here on this topic please? The expression 'prattle' is coming to my lips at this point.

warspite1

Well I am genuinely sorry you think its prattle, but the potentially good news for you and anyone else who feels the same way is that you've chosen to interject at a point it looked like the debate was coming to a natural end (based on comments in M_M's last post) anyway - so you may well get your wish.

M_M and I rarely see eye to eye but there is nothing wrong with a robust debate and a healthy exchange of strongly held views that remains on the right side of civilised and so, (if this the end of this one) thanks M_M (and other contributors) for the time and effort you've put into expressing your thoughts and arguments and defending your position as ever.

ORIGINAL: warspite1
there is nothing wrong with a robust debate and a healthy exchange of strongly held views that remains on the right side of civilised

Agreed.

And for the avoidance of doubt, whether it's derogatory or not in Titanic is not the issue here

TBH, I don't recall the reference in the movie. Then again I'm not even sure I've seen the thing all the way through. Probably not, knowing me.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Seems like utter crap.

Sad, considering the advances in CGI...since now Hollywood has tools to make spectacular war movies..but no brains...

In the "older" but golden movies "Waterloo" and "Gettysburgh" they used actually 1000s of re-enactors/soldiers and guess what those 2 movies belong to the best. [:)] I recently read a thread on a history forum about "Sharpes rifles" series and yes, this one has a lot of fantasy involved also has NOT many "extras" playing troops so the battlefields look pretty empty in it however this is made up by quite good actors and stories as well some real history in it. For maritime stuff I think Master and Commander is pretty real even if the story is also not historic...

Contrary the (pretty good but also not quite historic) movie Kingdom Of Heaven features CGI troops actually in some sequences one can see the troop "Blocks" are the same just copied CGI frequences....(still it is not so obvciously bad as some "historic" movies, had they chosen a better main actor and left out a bit the love story [;)]

Edit ,another good one without CGI but hundreds of real people playing redcoats and Zulus is...Zulu [:D]... also for middleage stuff a cool movie is "Ironclad" it is pretty unknown I believe so try it out :

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Edit ,another good one without CGI but hundreds of real people playing redcoats and Zulus is...Zulu [:D]...

Men of Harlech/Stop your dreaming/Can't you see their spearpoints gleaming...

I believe the original Lord of the Rings trilogy relied mostly on real actors and extras, even for the armies and orks and goblins. The movies were terrific.

By the time The Hobbit trilogy came along, the production converted to CGI for the armies, etc. The effects were pretty dismal.

An example of a recent movie that relied on the real stuff for stunts and vehicles and explosions was that crazy Mad Max movie. It was one funky movie but the effects were awesome.

IE, CGI pretty much sucks across the board.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I believe the original Lord of the Rings trilogy relied mostly on real actors and extras, even for the armies and orks and goblins. The movies were terrific.

I believe you are incorrect. About the use of special effects. The movies were great, but they were laden with CGI effects, particularly for the massed armies of men and horses (and Olefants, and Wargs and...). Some of these effects came across better than others, IMO.

By the time The Hobbit trilogy came along, the production converted to CGI for the armies, etc. The effects were pretty dismal.

I think the Hobbit trilogy had better special effects than LOTR movies that were done some 15 years beforehand. Smaug was fantastic! However, the elongated plot line and inexplicable love story detracted from my enjoyment of this trilogy.

IE, CGI pretty much sucks across the board.

Meh. I think it's like the use of violence in a movie. Gratuitous use that is not integral to the plot line or is poorly rendered detracts from the experience. But if it's necessary to convey a picture or feeling or emotion (and it's well done) then it's OK.