Author
|
Topic: Titanic Sinks Again
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan Bister
Darth 8mm
Posts: 2629
From: Ohio, USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted May 13, 2008 04:31 AM
Wow Graham what a story, thanks for sharing it with us. I agree, that was a small price to pay... what would have been more appropriate would be for James Cameron to release a sort of director's cut which puts the portrayal of Murdoch right, at least by cutting out the "shoot-someone-then-himself" scene.
Did you guys know, btw, that the very first Titanic movie was made just months after the actual disaster? Drat, I can't think of the name or any other details now... but I remember seeing it as part of a Discovery Channel documentary (of which, of course, there were many after the 1997 movie release).
-------------------- Call me Phoenix. *dusts off the ashes*
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claus Harding
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1149
From: Washington DC
Registered: Oct 2006
|
posted May 15, 2008 07:57 PM
Jan,
I do think the set design, and the presentation of the majesty of the ship was something that Cameron did make happen very well. The budget there went to the right places.
Where I have problems with the film is, firstly, where it winds up turning on the silly love story when there were so many real poignant stories to tell. A film version of Titanic, bringing to life the very real people aboard and some of their stories would make, for me, the story so much more honest and focused, and so much more heartbreaking. But I realize ticket sales play into the script....
The second part I object to is the sinking and how it, in almost obscene fashion, gets turned into a Universal-style amusement ride. The horror of the screws appearing above water, juxtaposed with the clever, choreographed extras dropping into oblivion just makes me go...gee, aren't they showing off.
But the one shot that really aggravates is the "let's ride on the tail of the ship as it goes down" moment. That's just inexcusable, given the reality and the history of the story. Cheap theatrics in the service of re-telling a story that should be about grief, not about nicely lit shots of DiCaprio and his lady bobbing easily in what was freezing waters where people were in their last moments.
And the real tragedy is that the story of Titanic most likely will never see this kind of budget again to get it right.
Claus.
-------------------- "Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted May 15, 2008 09:07 PM
I agree with you 100% Claus. Cameron's film was impressive from the point of view of presenting the stunning visuals of that great ship, but the stupid soap opera love story aspect trivialized and diminished the film. In my book, there is only one great Titanic movie, the 1951 British film 'A Night to Remember'. Starring the great Kenneth Moore, it is really an authentic documentary of that night over the north Atlantic. The lofty stature of this 1951 film has in no way been threatened by Cameron's multimillion dollar effort. Incidentally, if anyone is visiting Orlando, there is now a superb permanent Titanic exhibit at the Orlando Science Museum. Complete with real Titanic artifacts recovered from the wreck, a recreation of the Staterooms and main staircase, and an outdoor deck scene recreation complete with icebergs, stars, and frigid temperatures to capture the feeling of having to jump overboard that night. Well worth seeing.
-------------------- The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection, Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|