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

[fcooke]

I'm all for that....though Warspite seems to favor her for some odd reason.....

The pint should be shared with background music from:

The Stones
The Who
The Police
U2
UB40
Marley
Cranberries
Pogues
Etc.

I should hit London next year. [:'(]

[Lovejoy]

Getting back to Midway, I think I'll go see it. The air CGI scenes that people have mentioned are concerning, but as I've said elsewhere, the CGI-ships seem correct for class and period. Yorktown Class CVs that actually look like Yorktown Class CVs, and I spotted a Northampton Class CA that looked pretty good. No movie is entirely accurate, and even the 1976 Midway film (one of my favorites) used footage from different battles that was noticeably not from the actual battle (A Hellcat crashing aboard an Essex-class CV). Maybe the best we can hope for is that the directors don't butcher things too badly.

I'll also give Roland Emmerich the benefit of the doubt as far as making a good movie goes; I've enjoyed a lot of his films.

I just hope this movie doesn't make me hate Woody Harrelson. I didn't think he'd make a good Nimitz when his role was announced, but after watching him in The Highwaymen with Kevin Costner, I have a little more confidence.

[Kursk1943]

ORIGINAL: Lovejoy

Getting back to Midway, I think I'll go see it. The air CGI scenes that people have mentioned are concerning, but as I've said elsewhere, the CGI-ships seem correct for class and period. Yorktown Class CVs that actually look like Yorktown Class CVs, and I spotted a Northampton Class CA that looked pretty good. No movie is entirely accurate, and even the 1976 Midway film (one of my favorites) used footage from different battles that was noticeably not from the actual battle (A Hellcat crashing aboard an Essex-class CV). Maybe the best we can hope for is that the directors don't butcher things too badly.

I'll also give Roland Emmerich the benefit of the doubt as far as making a good movie goes; I've enjoyed a lot of his films.

I just hope this movie doesn't make me hate Woody Harrelson. I didn't think he'd make a good Nimitz when his role was announced, but after watching him in The Highwaymen with Kevin Costner, I have a little more confidence.

1+!

[RangerJoe]

I see that it is done by a Chinese company so maybe there won't be as much of a Hollywood twist.

I also see that its release date is November 8th. I wonder, if like the movie Fury, if it would be free for US Veterans on Veteran's Day. That would be a nice gesture . . .

[mind_messing]

If you have something to say then please say it. Cryptic and, on their own, meaningless comments like that neither help nor further the current debate.

The context, as I roughly remember, was that you were sceptical of the sincerity of Japanese apologies for war crimes, despite there being an extensive list of apologies made by the Japanese state.

How much did Titanic make? What was the donation? But its not about money. It's about reputation - its about rubbishing someone's existence. How little would it have cost - but how much more would it have meant to have added a proper apology to the DVD? Sadly TV and Film are for many people, their history. They know what happened on Titanic cos they seen the film.

Worth considering.

Limey's as far as I'm aware, aren't necessarily English. They are British. Limey is an American slang term for British sailors. The Irish have their own words for Britons. Why did Mr I'm-so-desperate-to-get-this-film-right-I'm-going-to-personally-place-every-star-in-the-sky Cameron feel the need for Tommy (an Irish Character) to use an American slang term for the British before being shot, unarmed, while pleading for the chance to live (as though the actions of Murdoch were the cause of that situation )?

Unrelated, what would have been your preferred term, were you the screenwriter trying to find a reasonable term that would be understood on the mass market?

...and was this fact - and Murdoch's contribution - highlighted in the film? Or did Cameron simply choose to highlight the bribe taking going on so that he could have his dramatic ending?

I think they may mention it in the above documentary, but I think it only emerged fairly recently (in Titanic terms) as a detailed analysis of lifeboat procedures was done.

Yes, it is worth noting. But not in the film because there, the gates have a far better purpose, right?

They served a dramatic purpose in the film, and I've provided evidence that at least one gate was in fact closed during the sinking.

Now, I'll concede that the pistol-whipping and the like was perhaps too far, but below decks on Titanic must have been absolute pandemonium given the circumstances.

How did the libel laws defend Murdoch? So you wouldn't have any problem with a film director depicting your relative as a civilian murderer in WWII Italy?

Having read into it, I'm actually wrong about libel, the law only applies to the living.

Makes interesting reading.

I would have no issue with what you propose. You have no reputation when you're dead (nor are you likely to be bothered about it, you're dead!).

Personally, I find the notion of the descendants of deceased persons fastidiously defending the reputation of their deceased relatives quite bizarre. Even more so in cases where there is some historical debate as to their reputation (say, Stalin as linked above).

To be completely reductionist on the case of Murdoch, there's no solid proof to refute an artistic re-telling of historical events.

But I thought Cameron was being praised for "his attempts to get the story as close to the truth as possible". The Californian is a big part of the story and for the story teller, she's a godsend because she presents the audience with such hope.... only for that hope to disappear in a I-want-to-throw-something-at-the screen type way.

You may as well ask to add another four hours to the story and have it start in Belfast with the laying of the keel.

But no, he's no different to any other story maker with an angle. A Night to Remember managed to fit this hugely important episode into its confines - but in order to push his own agenda Cameron believed it acceptable to cut Californian out. There was no reason for the Hubris element to have got lost with Californian added in, but I guess Cameron didn't want to take the chance on his audience not being able to understand his angle. Bit like the cheap and obvious use of Tommy....

Understandable, in my view given that Cameron was likely interested in making his own film and not dogmatically following A Night to Remember.

[RangerJoe]

quote:

Limey's as far as I'm aware, aren't necessarily English. They are British. Limey is an American slang term for British sailors. The Irish have their own words for Britons. Why did Mr I'm-so-desperate-to-get-this-film-right-I'm-going-to-personally-place-every-star-in-the-sky Cameron feel the need for Tommy (an Irish Character) to use an American slang term for the British before being shot, unarmed, while pleading for the chance to live (as though the actions of Murdoch were the cause of that situation )?


Unrelated, what would have been your preferred term, were you the screenwriter trying to find a reasonable term that would be understood on the mass market?

Actually, it is related. How would he have known that term and how it came to be? How about the term Cousin Jack, do you know what that means?

I would have no issue with what you propose. You have no reputation when you're dead (nor are you likely to be bothered about it, you're dead!).

Personally, I find the notion of the descendants of deceased persons fastidiously defending the reputation of their deceased relatives quite bizarre. Even more so in cases where there is some historical debate as to their reputation (say, Stalin as linked above).

To be completely reductionist on the case of Murdoch, there's no solid proof to refute an artistic re-telling of historical events.

I don't find it bizarre. It is the same thing as getting a medal for a military person, living or deceased, long after the event has occurred. It refers to family honor, or is that a foreign concept to where you are?

quote:


But no, he's no different to any other story maker with an angle. A Night to Remember managed to fit this hugely important episode into its confines - but in order to push his own agenda Cameron believed it acceptable to cut Californian out. There was no reason for the Hubris element to have got lost with Californian added in, but I guess Cameron didn't want to take the chance on his audience not being able to understand his angle. Bit like the cheap and obvious use of Tommy....


Understandable, in my view given that Cameron was likely interested in making his own film and not dogmatically following A Night to Remember.

The Californian shutting off the wireless set, from what I saw in the clip, showed one very important reason for the death toll to be so high. Another ship to rescue survivors would have helped a lot.

[mind_messing]

Actually, it is related. How would he have known that term and how it came to be? How about the term Cousin Jack, do you know what that means?

I was meaning in the context of a term that would communicate the message and tone and be understood in a broad enough setting.

I don't find it bizarre. It is the same thing as getting a medal for a military person, living or deceased, long after the event has occurred. It refers to family honor, or is that a foreign concept to where you are?

I'm aware of the concept of family honor, and I find it a very disagreeable concept given that it often clashes with individual freedom and choices.

The Californian shutting off the wireless set, from what I saw in the clip, showed one very important reason for the death toll to be so high. Another ship to rescue survivors would have helped a lot.

Nobody is disputing that, but it was cut from the (already very long) film for time constraints. Had it been practical it would no doubt have been included.

[RangerJoe]

quote:

I don't find it bizarre. It is the same thing as getting a medal for a military person, living or deceased, long after the event has occurred. It refers to family honor, or is that a foreign concept to where you are?


I'm aware of the concept of family honor, and I find it a very disagreeable concept given that it often clashes with individual freedom and choices.

In other words, you have no family honor and are not proud of what your ancestors have done in the past.

[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.[;)]

[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.

[jagsdomain]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I've written about Georgians on Titanic. In doing so, I read a great deal of information about what happened and interviewed some of leading experts (at the time, anyhow - around 2002). The hisorical portrayal of what happened is pretty accurate - especially the physical aspects of the ship taking on water, foundering, and breaking up.

Now the love story added to appeal to audiences? That was pretty cringe-worthy. But the movie is a credible portrayal of a momentous historical event.

It's Romeo and Juliet set on a historical event. As I've said above, nobody gives Shakespeare stick for getting the nuance of Danish medieval politics wrong.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It's been a long time since I've seen Titanic, but nothing stands out in my memory that was horrendous in the portrayal of First Officer Murdoch.

warspite1

William McMaster Murdoch was not a made up character. He was very real. He served as an officer on board Titanic on that fateful night.

As far as we know from all the witness statements, Officer Murdoch did his duty that night, despite the fact that as an officer he knew he was unlikely to survive the sinking.

Yes there were reports of an officer shooting himself just before Titanic went down, but even if correct, there are no witnesses that can confirm who that officer was.

But Cameron decided it was Murdoch. But that is not the least of it. Because Cameron also decided to make First Officer Murdoch a bribe-taking coward who murdered two unarmed steerage class passengers (Irish naturally) before shooting himself.

Apparently the scenes were altered from the original Cameron dreamed up to make the bribe taking more ambiguous. But the given the way Murdoch throws the money back at Billy Zane's character (and the narrative that goes with it), there is little doubt what was being conveyed - and to suggest otherwise is simply disingenuous.

So this officer, a man who did his duty in helping to save passengers, and has a memorial in his hometown of Dalbeattie in Scotland where he is considered a hero, and where at the time the film was made he had close relatives (nephew) still living, has his name trashed for no good reason than making a buck.

I read quite a considerable bit on the sinking, but quite some time in the past so I may not be exactly up to speed.

Agreed that it was insensitive to use a named character. IIRC Cameron himself acknowledged and apologised for it, but some thoughts:

- There are far too many independent accounts of a officer shooting himself for it to simply not have happened.

- The general consensus (last I checked) is that it was Murdoch who committed suicide, given the fact that he was in charge when the ship struck the iceberg. Occam's Razor, at any rate, makes sense here.

- From a quick glace at the screenplay, I think it was intended to be played off as Murdoch having too much to do to be interested in some first class passenger throwing wads of cash around. That wasn't how it came across on screen, however.

- The bribe always seemed more a mechanic to reflect Cal's nefariousness plot than Murdoch, who does make a point of coming clean before the end.

- For Murdoch, the shooting of the Irish character serves to put a actual human cost on the collision with the iceberg. As well as a less subtle commentary on class conflict in the film - after all the overwhelming majority of casualties were third class.

The really interesting thing for me is that if you cut the bribery twist out, there's a strong argument based on the historical evidence that:

- Murdoch was armed
- there definitely was shooting, at people or otherwise
- An officer (very likely Murdoch) did shoot themselves as the ship started on it's final plunge.

Soz . I must confess I haven't watched it since the one and only time at the cinema 22 years ago. The taste it left in my mouth has never gone away. So much heroism, so much good about the human spirit on show to be celebrated that night in the midst of such an awful tragedy - but Cameron was only really interested in faux political statements and cheap cliches. Yes there is a place for showing the other side, and what can happen to humans under the most intense pressure, but to use an actual character in that way with no proof to support what he was being accused of is disgusting.

I think you're wrong on Cameron's motivations. I think it's the recent Nat Geo documentary where he discusses the extent to which he developed an emotional connection to the story after diving on the wreck, and had a desire to get the story right as a result.

I'm sure he even had an edit done to the film when someone pointed out that the stars at night were wrong for that time of year.

Am I the only one that that hated Titanic?
Titanic as a whole has never sparked my interest.

[RangerJoe]

I only watch a little bit of it. It did not seem that interesting to me.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: jagsdomain

Am I the only one that that hated Titanic?

warspite1

Well yes, quite obviously [8|]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The context, as I roughly remember, was that you were sceptical of the sincerity of Japanese apologies for war crimes, despite there being an extensive list of apologies made by the Japanese state.

warspite1

If you wish to link the two, and make something of that link, then please be my guest. The floor is yours as I simply don’t have the energy to respond to that.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Worth considering.

warspite1

Yes, this is worth considering and is certainly good to hear. Its 20 years late, but we all make mistakes and at least he appears to show genuine contrition in that clip. That being the case – and acknowledging that many, many millions will see the film, while a National Geographic documentary…not so much, I still don’t understand - if he truly feels that way (and listen to what he says) why future DVD’s could not have something added at the end of the film or within the box to state that the portrayal of Officer Murdoch is not necessarily factually correct and that the director used artistic licence. There is absolutely no evidence he took a bribe or shot anyone, and no proof that he took his own life.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Unrelated, what would have been your preferred term, were you the screenwriter trying to find a reasonable term that would be understood on the mass market?

I was meaning in the context of a term that would communicate the message and tone and be understood in a broad enough setting.

warspite1

My preferred term? Well unless one is after cheap, unnecessary, point scoring (heaven forbid) why the need to reference Murdoch’s nationality at all? I mean genuinely, why would the director want an Irish emigrant who’s had his way to the boat deck barred at every opportunity by the evil British crew (who’ve locked all the gates to keep them pesky peasants back) mention to the British officer (apparently the man solely responsible for the fact Tommy and co can’t get on a boat), and the man that is about to murder him and another steerage class passenger in cold blood, about his nationality? Why, if its unimportant and just a saying, would that nationality need be expressed in an American term i.e. a term that can be 'understood by the mass market'? After all if its not important and just a line Tommy could have used any Irish colloquialism - or he could have said “….you [evil], [Feckin’], [heartless] bastard" – or simply “bastard”. But no, it was “Limey Bastard” Why? Why was it SO important to get the understanding of Murdoch's nationality right that Cameron felt he needed to use a word that the Tommy character more than likely would have never even heard of (despite his apparent slavish devotion to making an historically accurate film)? What was the message that Cameron was seeking to convey? I can’t possibly imagine…….

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Now, I'll concede that the pistol-whipping and the like was perhaps too far

warspite1

Indeed

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Personally, I find the notion of the descendants of deceased persons fastidiously defending the reputation of their deceased relatives quite bizarre.

warspite1

Well each to their own. It’s easy to say of course because the Italian scenario I presented to you with your relatives will not (hopefully) ever come about – but I think your comment would be unlikely to find too much support. We are not, after all, talking about 200 hundred plus years ago. This awful film was made 85 years after the event and destroys a man’s reputation with no proof.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Even more so in cases where there is some historical debate as to their reputation (say, Stalin as linked above).

warspite1

Well I take your latter point, but we are not talking about Uncle Joe are we? Unless of course you want to add the murder of millions of Soviet citizens to poor Murdoch's list of crimes...the poor guy's already got a longer rap sheet than Al Capone thanks to Cameron [;)]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

You may as well ask to add another four hours to the story and have it start in Belfast with the laying of the keel.

Understandable, in my view given that Cameron was likely interested in making his own film and not dogmatically following A Night to Remember.

warspite1

Why so extreme? To add in the Californian does not mean Cameron has to make a slavish reproduction of A Night to Remember does it? A Night to Remember features a four stack liner and an iceberg – so does Titanic, but the latter is still Cameron’s own film. It would still be so had he added in the Californian. Why would the addition of two, maybe three scenes of a few minutes each be such a burden? Heart-breakingly, frustratingly, the Californian didn't play the key role she could have that night, and her omission from the film reduces Cameron’s film from both an entertainment point of view and in terms of historical accuracy.

Why the unhelpful comment about the laying of the keel? This isn't a history of the ship. The film is a…ahem… love story set against the back drop of a tragic event that occurred on her maiden crossing of the Atlantic; a tragic event that the director is keen to tell us he wanted to record accurately. There are many reasons why Rose and Jack ended up in the water – well she had the comfort of a door – the Californian provides one of those reasons. Don’t get me wrong, Cameron was entitled to pick and choose what he wanted to show, but if the decision is made to remove such important parts of the story, he shouldn't then 'give it the large' about how historically accurate it is and how every star in the sky had to be right.

[fcooke]

MM - my quoting skills are lacking...

So in a nutshell:

Japanese apologies for what happened before and during WW2 have been 'limp' at best, and a bit too little too late. Which is odd because the Japanese culture generally takes pride in honor. That just seemed (honor) to crawl under a rock from 1930-1945. To claim they have made many 'real' or 'many' apologies since then is well, not well informed.

Screwing with a person's actual behavior, whether living or dead - fairly unforgivable. Why does 'artistic license' trump reality?

In today's world (and that of 2 decades ago), introducing hatred is just wrong - and that is exactly what Cameron did. And it is clear from this thread that he played in that domain.

And I will now owe Warspite an extra pint, but the Californian episode could easily have replaced some BS singing in the film.

Enjoy the day all,
Frank

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

MM - my quoting skills are lacking...

So in a nutshell:

Japanese apologies for what happened before and during WW2 have been 'limp' at best, and a bit too little too late. Which is odd because the Japanese culture generally takes pride in honor. That just seemed (honor) to crawl under a rock from 1930-1945. To claim they have made many 'real' or 'many' apologies since then is well, not well informed.

Screwing with a person's actual behavior, whether living or dead - fairly unforgivable. Why does 'artistic license' trump reality?

In today's world (and that of 2 decades ago), introducing hatred is just wrong - and that is exactly what Cameron did. And it is clear from this thread that he played in that domain.

And I will now owe Warspite an extra pint, but the Californian episode could easily have replaced some BS singing in the film.

Enjoy the day all,
Frank

Art serves to hold up a mirror to our faces that we may recognize the warts on our behaviours. Cameron was not inciting hatred, he was showing us the trope that operated in the minds of many at that time. All that is required is for the viewer to ask themselves if they found it believable at first blush, before questioning the convenient ethnic stereotype.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: fcooke

MM - my quoting skills are lacking...

So in a nutshell:

Japanese apologies for what happened before and during WW2 have been 'limp' at best, and a bit too little too late. Which is odd because the Japanese culture generally takes pride in honor. That just seemed (honor) to crawl under a rock from 1930-1945. To claim they have made many 'real' or 'many' apologies since then is well, not well informed.

Screwing with a person's actual behavior, whether living or dead - fairly unforgivable. Why does 'artistic license' trump reality?

In today's world (and that of 2 decades ago), introducing hatred is just wrong - and that is exactly what Cameron did. And it is clear from this thread that he played in that domain.

And I will now owe Warspite an extra pint, but the Californian episode could easily have replaced some BS singing in the film.

Enjoy the day all,
Frank

Art serves to hold up a mirror to our faces that we may recognize the warts on our behaviours. Cameron was not inciting hatred, he was showing us the trope that operated in the minds of many at that time. All that is required is for the viewer to ask themselves if they found it believable at first blush, before questioning the convenient ethnic stereotype.

warspite1

I'm assuming the racial hatred accusation is in response to the whole British officer shoots unarmed Irish passenger scene.

If so then I personally wouldn't level that accusation at Cameron. I certainly have no reason to believe he's that way inclined (although it becomes harder to defend when adding in the locked gates and the pistol whipping). But what I do accuse him of is unthinking, boring, lazy-arsed, cliche ridden, direct by numbers, formulaic cobblers. And yes, one example of that is the good old staple of the upper class British / down-trodden Irish routine - always guaranteed to put bums on seats....

[mind_messing]

If you wish to link the two, and make something of that link, then please be my guest. The floor is yours as I simply don’t have the energy to respond to that.

The only link is that in both cases there was a strong degree of scepticism towards attempts at making amends. That's all.

It just makes me wonder what would consist of a "proper" apology in your viewing.

Yes, this is worth considering and is certainly good to hear. Its 20 years late, but we all make mistakes and at least he appears to show genuine contrition in that clip. That being the case – and acknowledging that many, many millions will see the film, while a National Geographic documentary…not so much, I still don’t understand - if he truly feels that way (and listen to what he says) why future DVD’s could not have something added at the end of the film or within the box to state that the portrayal of Officer Murdoch is not necessarily factually correct and that the director used artistic licence. There is absolutely no evidence he took a bribe or shot anyone, and no proof that he took his own life.

It's been ages since I watched the film with the Director's Commentary, but I'm sure a similar conversation takes place on it as to the one outlined above.

I would also think that it goes without saying that artistic licence is used in an artistic production, right?

My preferred term? Well unless one is after cheap, unnecessary, point scoring (heaven forbid) why the need to reference Murdoch’s nationality at all? I mean genuinely, why would the director want an Irish emigrant who’s had his way to the boat deck barred at every opportunity by the evil British crew (who’ve locked all the gates to keep them pesky peasants back) mention to the British officer (apparently the man solely responsible for the fact Tommy and co can’t get on a boat), and the man that is about to murder him and another steerage class passenger in cold blood, about his nationality? Why, if its unimportant and just a saying, would that nationality need be expressed in an American term i.e. a term that can be 'understood by the mass market'? After all if its not important and just a line Tommy could have used any Irish colloquialism - or he could have said “….you [evil], [Feckin’], [heartless] bastard" – or simply “bastard”. But no, it was “Limey Bastard” Why? Why was it SO important to get the understanding of Murdoch's nationality right that Cameron felt he needed to use a word that the Tommy character more than likely would have never even heard of (despite his apparent slavish devotion to making an historically accurate film)? What was the message that Cameron was seeking to convey? I can’t possibly imagine…….

I find it highly amusing that you have such objections to a single specific word in a screenplay with thousands.

Well each to their own. It’s easy to say of course because the Italian scenario I presented to you with your relatives will not (hopefully) ever come about – but I think your comment would be unlikely to find too much support. We are not, after all, talking about 200 hundred plus years ago. This awful film was made 85 years after the event and destroys a man’s reputation with no proof.

Let's assume the Italian scenario did come about, because it offers a good window to perhaps change your view on the issue.

In the scenario that a deceased relative is accused committing a war crime, do you:

1) Vehemently oppose such accusations as they smear the reputation of the relative?
2) Do nothing?

If you choose option 1, and the accusations happen to have basis in truth, you're now in the position where you need to make a decision as to what's more important: reputation or the truth (and I hope and think that the truth would win!).

In a broad context, there's historically been a lot of this in post WW2 Germany in relation to Nazi war crimes. The fact that the dead have no reputation in the legal context is actually a very good concept (IMO).

Why so extreme? To add in the Californian does not mean Cameron has to make a slavish reproduction of A Night to Remember does it? A Night to Remember features a four stack liner and an iceberg – so does Titanic, but the latter is still Cameron’s own film. It would still be so had he added in the Californian. Why would the addition of two, maybe three scenes of a few minutes each be such a burden? Heart-breakingly, frustratingly, the Californian didn't play the key role she could have that night, and her omission from the film reduces Cameron’s film from both an entertainment point of view and in terms of historical accuracy.

Why the unhelpful comment about the laying of the keel? This isn't a history of the ship. The film is a…ahem… love story set against the back drop of a tragic event that occurred on her maiden crossing of the Atlantic; a tragic event that the director is keen to tell us he wanted to record accurately. There are many reasons why Rose and Jack ended up in the water – well she had the comfort of a door – the Californian provides one of those reasons. Don’t get me wrong, Cameron was entitled to pick and choose what he wanted to show, but if the decision is made to remove such important parts of the story, he shouldn't then 'give it the large' about how historically accurate it is and how every star in the sky had to be right.

As with any film, you're constrained by time. A film cannot be indefinite, and the introduction of the Californian (new ship, setting and characters) would require a considerable investment of time to make it understandable (and therefore effective).

Such an investment would cost far more than it adds. There's a reason that the film shows no ships other than the Titanic between the departure scenes and the ending on the Carpathia.

Japanese apologies for what happened before and during WW2 have been 'limp' at best, and a bit too little too late. Which is odd because the Japanese culture generally takes pride in honor. That just seemed (honor) to crawl under a rock from 1930-1945. To claim they have made many 'real' or 'many' apologies since then is well, not well informed.

Have you seen the wording of any of the Japanese apologies for WW2 actions?

You can view a list here.

The underlying issue isn't as much the apologies, but the reparations (or lack thereof). It is worth remembering that the score was settled in regards to wartime reparations in the post-war period between the nations.

I'm assuming the racial hatred accusation is in response to the whole British officer shoots unarmed Irish passenger scene.

If so then I personally wouldn't level that accusation at Cameron. I certainly have no reason to believe he's that way inclined (although it becomes harder to defend when adding in the locked gates and the pistol whipping). But what I do accuse him of is unthinking, boring, lazy-arsed, cliche ridden, direct by numbers, formulaic cobblers.

Titanic won Oscars for:

Best Picture
Best Director
Best Art Direction
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Original Dramatic Score
Best Original Song
Best Sound Mixing
Best Sound Editing
Best Visual Effects

Aggregated reviews of Titanic level out at 89%.

But warspite1 thinks that Cameron directs by numbers. [&:]

And yes, one example of that is the good old staple of the upper class British / down-trodden Irish routine - always guaranteed to put bums on seats....

This is the Edwardian period. That was actually a genuine reflection of the stratified class and social structure at the time...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

It just makes me wonder what would consist of a "proper" apology in your viewing.

warspite1

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

End of the day I am no relative of Murdoch, he has no link to me whatsoever, but for whatever reason, I do feel very strongly about his shameful treatment. I’ve said what I think would have been appropriate in my view, but it’s not going to happen and that is that.

Titanic was made, released and it’s been out there for 20 years and will remain out there so there is nothing to be done about the past. I can only do what I believe to be right and, whenever the subject of the film is raised, I will mention the way Murdoch was treated to ensure that people know his portrayal was not necessarily true and that all evidence points to a man in an impossible situation (knowing for almost 2 hours he is almost certainly seeing out his last few hours alive) and yet doing his job as professionally as possible to allow others to survive.

In this thread I made Canoerebel aware of something he hadn’t realised. If I make just one person aware every time Titanic comes up then I will be happy.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I would also think that it goes without saying that artistic licence is used in an artistic production, right?

warspite1

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.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I find it highly amusing that you have such objections to a single specific word in a screenplay with thousands.

warspite1

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.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Let's assume the Italian scenario did come about, because it offers a good window to perhaps change your view on the issue.

In the scenario that a deceased relative is accused committing a war crime, do you:

1) Vehemently oppose such accusations as they smear the reputation of the relative?
2) Do nothing?

If you choose option 1, and the accusations happen to have basis in truth, you're now in the position where you need to make a decision as to what's more important: reputation or the truth (and I hope and think that the truth would win!).

warspite1

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.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

As with any film, you're constrained by time. A film cannot be indefinite, and the introduction of the Californian (new ship, setting and characters) would require a considerable investment of time to make it understandable (and therefore effective).

Such an investment would cost far more than it adds. There's a reason that the film shows no ships other than the Titanic between the departure scenes and the ending on the Carpathia.

warspite1

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?

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.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Titanic won Oscars for:

Best Picture
Best Director
Best Art Direction
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Original Dramatic Score
Best Original Song
Best Sound Mixing
Best Sound Editing
Best Visual Effects

Aggregated reviews of Titanic level out at 89%.

But warspite1 thinks that Cameron directs by numbers. [&:]

warspite1

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.

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.

[fcooke]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If you wish to link the two, and make something of that link, then please be my guest. The floor is yours as I simply don’t have the energy to respond to that.

The only link is that in both cases there was a strong degree of scepticism towards attempts at making amends. That's all.

It just makes me wonder what would consist of a "proper" apology in your viewing.

Yes, this is worth considering and is certainly good to hear. Its 20 years late, but we all make mistakes and at least he appears to show genuine contrition in that clip. That being the case – and acknowledging that many, many millions will see the film, while a National Geographic documentary…not so much, I still don’t understand - if he truly feels that way (and listen to what he says) why future DVD’s could not have something added at the end of the film or within the box to state that the portrayal of Officer Murdoch is not necessarily factually correct and that the director used artistic licence. There is absolutely no evidence he took a bribe or shot anyone, and no proof that he took his own life.

It's been ages since I watched the film with the Director's Commentary, but I'm sure a similar conversation takes place on it as to the one outlined above.

I would also think that it goes without saying that artistic licence is used in an artistic production, right?

My preferred term? Well unless one is after cheap, unnecessary, point scoring (heaven forbid) why the need to reference Murdoch’s nationality at all? I mean genuinely, why would the director want an Irish emigrant who’s had his way to the boat deck barred at every opportunity by the evil British crew (who’ve locked all the gates to keep them pesky peasants back) mention to the British officer (apparently the man solely responsible for the fact Tommy and co can’t get on a boat), and the man that is about to murder him and another steerage class passenger in cold blood, about his nationality? Why, if its unimportant and just a saying, would that nationality need be expressed in an American term i.e. a term that can be 'understood by the mass market'? After all if its not important and just a line Tommy could have used any Irish colloquialism - or he could have said “….you [evil], [Feckin’], [heartless] bastard" – or simply “bastard”. But no, it was “Limey Bastard” Why? Why was it SO important to get the understanding of Murdoch's nationality right that Cameron felt he needed to use a word that the Tommy character more than likely would have never even heard of (despite his apparent slavish devotion to making an historically accurate film)? What was the message that Cameron was seeking to convey? I can’t possibly imagine…….

I find it highly amusing that you have such objections to a single specific word in a screenplay with thousands.

Well each to their own. It’s easy to say of course because the Italian scenario I presented to you with your relatives will not (hopefully) ever come about – but I think your comment would be unlikely to find too much support. We are not, after all, talking about 200 hundred plus years ago. This awful film was made 85 years after the event and destroys a man’s reputation with no proof.

Let's assume the Italian scenario did come about, because it offers a good window to perhaps change your view on the issue.

In the scenario that a deceased relative is accused committing a war crime, do you:

1) Vehemently oppose such accusations as they smear the reputation of the relative?
2) Do nothing?

option 3 - do some research before heading down a road? Which I think is the crux of the matter in this discussion?

If you choose option 1, and the accusations happen to have basis in truth, you're now in the position where you need to make a decision as to what's more important: reputation or the truth (and I hope and think that the truth would win!).

In a broad context, there's historically been a lot of this in post WW2 Germany in relation to Nazi war crimes. The fact that the dead have no reputation in the legal context is actually a very good concept (IMO).

Here we just disagree.

Why so extreme? To add in the Californian does not mean Cameron has to make a slavish reproduction of A Night to Remember does it? A Night to Remember features a four stack liner and an iceberg – so does Titanic, but the latter is still Cameron’s own film. It would still be so had he added in the Californian. Why would the addition of two, maybe three scenes of a few minutes each be such a burden? Heart-breakingly, frustratingly, the Californian didn't play the key role she could have that night, and her omission from the film reduces Cameron’s film from both an entertainment point of view and in terms of historical accuracy.

Why the unhelpful comment about the laying of the keel? This isn't a history of the ship. The film is a…ahem… love story set against the back drop of a tragic event that occurred on her maiden crossing of the Atlantic; a tragic event that the director is keen to tell us he wanted to record accurately. There are many reasons why Rose and Jack ended up in the water – well she had the comfort of a door – the Californian provides one of those reasons. Don’t get me wrong, Cameron was entitled to pick and choose what he wanted to show, but if the decision is made to remove such important parts of the story, he shouldn't then 'give it the large' about how historically accurate it is and how every star in the sky had to be right.

As with any film, you're constrained by time. A film cannot be indefinite, and the introduction of the Californian (new ship, setting and characters) would require a considerable investment of time to make it understandable (and therefore effective).

Such an investment would cost far more than it adds. There's a reason that the film shows no ships other than the Titanic between the departure scenes and the ending on the Carpathia.

Japanese apologies for what happened before and during WW2 have been 'limp' at best, and a bit too little too late. Which is odd because the Japanese culture generally takes pride in honor. That just seemed (honor) to crawl under a rock from 1930-1945. To claim they have made many 'real' or 'many' apologies since then is well, not well informed.

Have you seen the wording of any of the Japanese apologies for WW2 actions?

You can view a list here.

The underlying issue isn't as much the apologies, but the reparations (or lack thereof). It is worth remembering that the score was settled in regards to wartime reparations in the post-war period between the nations.

Score was never settled. Mac made sure of that (ducks to avoid Mac fan bricks). And Wiki is not exactly a 'source' with this audience.

I'm assuming the racial hatred accusation is in response to the whole British officer shoots unarmed Irish passenger scene.

If so then I personally wouldn't level that accusation at Cameron. I certainly have no reason to believe he's that way inclined (although it becomes harder to defend when adding in the locked gates and the pistol whipping). But what I do accuse him of is unthinking, boring, lazy-arsed, cliche ridden, direct by numbers, formulaic cobblers.

Titanic won Oscars for:

Best Picture
Best Director
Best Art Direction
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Original Dramatic Score
Best Original Song
Best Sound Mixing
Best Sound Editing
Best Visual Effects

If I didn't know better I would say you are his publicist.

Aggregated reviews of Titanic level out at 89%.

But warspite1 thinks that Cameron directs by numbers. [&:]

And yes, one example of that is the good old staple of the upper class British / down-trodden Irish routine - always guaranteed to put bums on seats....

This is the Edwardian period. That was actually a genuine reflection of the stratified class and social structure at the time...