Talk:Titanic (1997 film)
Media:Headline text--70.248.28.252 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)#REDIRECT Insert text
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Titanic (1997 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Film B‑class | |||||||
|
Titanic (1997 film) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Harvard Journal of Law & Technology |
To-do list for Titanic (1997 film):
|
==Disputed clai OMG OHaving seen both films and A Night to Remember I would say that Cameron's 1997 Titanic borrows heavily, and roughly equally, from both films. Format 08:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, the boat in the 1953 film hit an iceberg, and Cameron copied that for his film. I actually dispute the entire claim. Do we have a source to say it was a remake? The JPStalk to me 17:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you: we can't say that this film is a partial remake of any other. In depicting a real event it will have similarities with other films about that event but that does not mean it is a remake of those films. Like most films it reuses film cliches and dramatic formulae, like how horror movies keep using the same old tricks, so there will be other similarities with earlier Titantic films and also with other films in general. Yes I'll get rid of the comment. Both the films are linked-to later in the article anyway. Format 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Titanic did indeed hit an iceberg, which resulted in its sinking. "A partial remake of the original 1953 film" is redundant even if the ship from the first movie sunk; essentially, the storyline was the same. Never Mystic (tc) 23:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you: we can't say that this film is a partial remake of any other. In depicting a real event it will have similarities with other films about that event but that does not mean it is a remake of those films. Like most films it reuses film cliches and dramatic formulae, like how horror movies keep using the same old tricks, so there will be other similarities with earlier Titantic films and also with other films in general. Yes I'll get rid of the comment. Both the films are linked-to later in the article anyway. Format 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
As a dramatization of an historical event that has been filmed many times before, I do not think it is correct to refer to it as a remake. There are elements of earlier films incorporated into the movie -- most notably A Night to Remember, however how much of that is taken from the film and how much is actually adapting material from Walter Lord's book? Interestingly some of the most blatant "borrows" from A Night to Remember can be seen in the deleted scenes, such as a man handing Rose a note to take to his wife and a shot of Lightoller balancing on the overturned collapsable. 23skidoo 21:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The Titanic did hit and iceberg, so NO there was no copying in the iceberg matter. I mean, so, maybe the Titanic hit another ship and sunk..*in this movie*, no one would watch it, it's stupid. Cameron bought rights from the other movies(I think..) so no copyright and law suits would happen. Megan :) 04:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
To-do list
Now I know that I haven't contributed a great deal to this article as of late (...or perhaps yet), but I think a to-do list would be useful to refer to. I've gone through this article in its entirety and think the following issues need to be addressed in order to attain GA and eventually FA status.
- The plot synopsis is too long.
- The production needs to be expanded.
- More images would be preferable, though not an FA recommendation.
- A review section needs to be added (print and non-print sources).
- That trivia section is very short and should be merged with the article's content.
- The awards table needs to be shortened. There's an empty space next to it, but is it possible to place the latter half there? This would help trim the article.
- The music section is somewhat short.
- The cast section; are all these roles notable?
- The lead needs to be rewritten.
- References!
Does one know where to find the book based on the film's production? I can use the DVD for some references, but the book is more desirable. Never Mystic (tc) 20:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ebay or Libraries are probably your best bet. There were a few making-of books including an Illustrated Screenplay. Regarding point #3 bear in mind that Wikipedia has made it tougher to use images ... even images considered Fair Use 6 months ago are no longer considered so ... so unless you can somehow find public domain images relating to the film odds are slim more images can easily be added. Personally I find the whole FA and GA process is too frustrating and too subject to people's whims and POV, so I no longer bother. 23skidoo 21:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'll make sure to add appropriate fair use, even if the rules have changed (I wasn't here six months ago, so I'm not sure of what regulations were followed at that time). Never Mystic (tc) 22:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Citation needed
Under Trivia, a citation needed note is linked to the fact that the Les Demoiselles d'Avignon could not have been on the Titanic as it now hang in MoMA - does it really need a citation? It is in the Museum, the page on Wikipedia about the painting (linked to in the same section) states as much, there doesn't really seem to be anything to dispute. Kouros 11:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Becasue we don't reference ourselves. The JPStalk to me 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- (After edit conflict) Yes, it's not appropriate to use Wikipedia as a reference. Never Mystic (tc) 20:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I see that JPS has added a citation. I hope this satisfies Kouros. Never Mystic (tc) 21:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- (After edit conflict) Yes, it's not appropriate to use Wikipedia as a reference. Never Mystic (tc) 20:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Barbarians
I noticed on the film that the first class people were treating the third class people like dirt. An example was when they took the first class people's dogs to shit in the third class deck as if it were a toilet. Another was the board that said "3rd Class Passengers are not allowed beyond this point". And another was the fact that the stewards were keeping the third class passengers locked below decks until the lifeboats had gone, just because they looked at them as insects rather than human beings.
Were some people on the ship really that barbaric, or was it a factual error?Jienum 15:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently this was quite accurate to the real events. Never Mystic (tc) 17:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, for the most part. However, the film's depiction of third-class passengers being locked below decks is inaccurate. The bigger problem for steerage folk was finding their way to the boat deck through the ship's labyrinthine bowels, and many were simply waiting for guidance that never came. Even if some passengers were restrained by crew members, it was certainly not as severe as the film suggests. —dustmite 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- What about the part in which the third-class deck was used as a Toilet for first-class passengers' dogs? Jienum 11:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Passengers' dogs were walked twice daily on the poop deck, which was indeed a third-class area of the ship. However, while I don't know of any source to verify this, I imagine the dogs were cleaned up after. Also, it's important to remember that third-class treatment on Titanic were generally outstanding, and was comparable to first- or second-class accomodations on many others liners. Third-class passengers were well cared-for according to the customs of the day, and "barbaric" is a harsh word to use even by today's standards. —dustmite 15:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- What about the part in which the third-class deck was used as a Toilet for first-class passengers' dogs? Jienum 11:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, for the most part. However, the film's depiction of third-class passengers being locked below decks is inaccurate. The bigger problem for steerage folk was finding their way to the boat deck through the ship's labyrinthine bowels, and many were simply waiting for guidance that never came. Even if some passengers were restrained by crew members, it was certainly not as severe as the film suggests. —dustmite 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
>>>I'd say that the astoundingly different survival rates between 1st Class and 3rd Class passengers tells a story of 'social barbarism'.
>>>>You should read the main sinking of the Titanic article here at Wikipedia, some of the problems with third class deaths are explained by problems other than discrimination. Also re "3rd Class Passengers are not allowed beyond this point" if you are in an economy class today on a flight, can you enter the 1st class lounge on the plane and the airport? No you can't! Is that barbaric? No because then there wouldn't be a 1st class.
- Well, we are talking about people's attitudes in the year 1912, so in my mind, people who looked at third-class people as insects were indeed barbarians. But about the part with the stewards not allowing the third-class passengers out until after all the lifeboats had gone, I think James Cameron was just trying to dramatize the film a bit. Jienum 17:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
interior exploration of the wreck has revealed some of those accordion style gates to be closed & locked, just wondered if that should be taken into consideration?
Rose's Father
The article states Rose's mother Ruth divorced her abusive husband and he emptied their bank account. I dont remember hearing about this in the movie. When was this stated?. If it is assumption it should be hastily deleted. H.J. Bellamy 04:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I want to dispute this claim. No where in the film or screenplay does it state that Ruth's husband and Rose's father was abusive or that Ruth divorced him, and given Ruth's desire to maintain her status in society I doubt that she would have divorced her husband given the scandal it would have caused her. In the movie and screenplay it merely hinted at that Rose's father died suddenly and unknown to her and Ruth had racked up many bad investments that left them in finacial ruin. (C.allen)
I do recall while Ruth converses with Rose about not seeing Jack while tying her corset on April 14 mentioning something about debts he left behind. chicablog May 26 2007
Removed Popular Culture Reference to Justice league
- In the season finale of season two on the Justice League Starcrossed #50-52, Hawkgirl is torn between mercy and duty. She is also torn between two men:Hro Talak, Commander of the Thanagarian military from her Homeplanet Thanagar and John Stewart, the Green Lantern. Hro Talak also hit Hawkgirl with his axe out of anger just like cal hockley did with rose
Entry draws a very ambiguous parallel which could be the plot of any movie. (~~Uberpesh 021307~~)
Fake sequel
Do you think we should mention this in the popular culture section? It has 4 million plus views already...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD4OnHCRd_4
Perhaps enough for a mention in that section? *shrug* Draconiator 02:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
its not exactly official, but it might be worth a small mention.--Andy mci 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Titanic was a non-film film?
I heard Titanic in 1997 was the first ever major movie to publish to cinemas on large format optical disc medium, instead of traditional chemical film rolls. It is said the movie was on a set of 3 digital discs, each one having the diameter of the standard crude oil barrel and only the biggest major US cinemas got the very expensive digital equipment for this tech. The smaller domestic US cinemas and abroad got Titanic on 35mm anamorphic film. Is this true? Is this notable for the article? 82.131.210.162 17:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Public reaction
This section is very short and rather wish-wash considering the movie's tremendous presence in everyday talk for at least a full year after its release. The public was firmly divided between Titanic addicts and those who vomited whenever hearing the infamous title music. Nobody was neutral. Many sour critics noted "cinematic art can't sink deeper than this Titanic". Then came Jar-Jar Blinks and suddenly everybody said Titanic is a masterpiece of cinema's golden age. Public reaction section deserves a better treatment in the article. 82.131.210.162 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
James Farrington-Tillyer
Somebody keeps adding references to a fictitious "James Farrington-Tillyer" as being a Titanic survivor who was in the cast of the movie. A search of imdb shows no such person, nor does a search of lists of survivors of the ship.
That's not true. There are only three survivors left who were on the ship, two of which were babies. I'm pretty sure. I will have to check again on the main Titanic article.208.44.8.229 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Changed origin of the film
I saw a few weeks ago in a British Newspaper (The sun), that there was an advert from {Woolworths}, saying buy British films, and there were some listed below that. However, Titanic was included in this, as so am I right in believing it was British film, or was that advert incorrect. I have changed the origin to UK, as I feel that it is correct, but I am unsure? The main actors, {Kate Winslet} is British, but {Leanardo Di Caprio}, is obviously American, from his accent! Anyone got any more info? {Weavale} 81.129.63.41 21:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well they're wrong. Bar being a White Star Line ship built in Belfast (the north), Titanic was shot in America and directed by a Canadian. Alientraveller 21:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Helen Churchill Candee
I just read about the auction of the memoirs of Helen Churchill Candee (http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=220112444&p=zzxyy3y5x). These memoirs are apparently what inspired Cameron for the character of Rose and the romantic side of the movie. Should we mention her somewhere in the article or it would totally be irrelevant? -- Lyverbe 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless Cameron ever stated as such... Alientraveller 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Old Rose is 100, not 101 :)
In the movie where Brock and Lewis are talking about Rose while she is inbound, they say the exact following...
Lewis: "Rose DeWitt Bukater died on the Titanic when she was 17 right?"
Brock: "That's right."
Lewis: "If she had lived she would be over 100 by now."
Brock: "101 next month."
This means that old Rose is 100 not 101 as it's shown on the main wiki page (x3), the "Character List" page (x2) and Gloria Stuart's page (x2).
Also, if you go to Titanic's official website and play the Trivia King game, you'll notice that the first question doesn't have an option to choose "100" as her age. I have tried finding a way to contact them about this via e-mail but have been unsuccessful. Thankyou!
[Update]:
All x7 errors have now been turned back a year!!!
[Update]: Cleaned up my post and added a date which I didn't do before.
61.68.239.170 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Worldwide Box Office
How much did Titanic gross in other markets in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas (outside the USA)? I have mapped box office receipts from some markets. Data is not yet available for the rest of the markets to update the map.
I am particularly interested in knowing the figures for Canada, Colombia, Venezuela, Chile, South Africa, Portugal, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Czech, Poland, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Anwar 11:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
images
I believe this article needs many more images. It is the highest grossing film of all-time, it won 11 Oscars, it played in theaters for months, Titanic-related material exploded, we need to 1. more images 2. more work on the production - full scale constructed set (missing only a 30 feet gaps in several places on the ship - still 100% scale) 3. more work on public reaction 4. more work on the box office/reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.209.224 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- All in good time, but do not be hasty.
76.202.209.224 Alientraveller 20:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Non-free images should only be used to enhance the words, ideally when words can't express the concept. Number of awards etc. do not correlate to the number of images! However, I support your other suggestions. Trouble is this article attracts so many fanboys and gals that you have to spend so much time tidying up. The JPStalk to me 20:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Should the characters of the Titanic that appeared in Roses "dream" or "afterlife" have a description that says so in their biography?
Many characters; including Cal, Tommy Ryan, Captain Smith, Murdoch, Fabrizo and many others all appeared in Roses supposed "afterlife" or "dream". I think this should be mentioned in their biography because it does have an important role to say that after their deaths or Titanic sinking they did not disappear from the movie completely. Also, Trudy's appearance in the "Dream/Afterlife" is mentioned but not others. Should it be mentioned in their biography?
Citation for use
- "Titanic". Entertainment Weekly. 1997-11-07.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)
Alientraveller 10:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Adjusted for Inflation
This website puts Titanic at 6th after adjusting for inflation. 67.188.172.165 19:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
- That doesn't the stop the fact that the film is credited as the highest-grossing film of all time. Obviously adjusted for inflation doesn't count as much. Titanic is even listed as the highest-grossing film of all time in trivia questions on television game shows, as well as with board games. -- Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wow... so Family Feud trumps all logic... sounds like wiki alright.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like ignorance on your end. No one is saying that Family Feud trumps all logic. Only that adjusted for inflation obviously does not matter as much as some people might wish it mattered. Flyer22 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Historical Accuracy
Discovery Channel did a whole list of picks on the historical accuracy of the film. It should be added. Such as the fact that Jack and Rose could never really meet because of the strict separation of classes on the ship where people were treated as cargo, etc. That section should be expanded. Right now it makes it sound like if you watch Titanic, the movie you will know exactly what happened when the actual boat sunk.---- Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Link? Cite? How much info? Don't just do, act. -- Alientraveller (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, what Alientraveller said. -- Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Titanic5dvd.jpg
Image:Titanic5dvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ice Planet
Why redirects Ice Planet to this Movie? --62.224.115.207 (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was the film's fake working title. Alientraveller (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)