Was the Titanic 1997 film that bad?

Ah yes, Mr Murdoch:

...*S1M-3564 Dorothy-Grace Elder: Congratulations to Titanic Historian-That the Parliament congratulates the German historian Susanne Stormer on her superb scholarship in respect of the Titanic disaster and her efforts to tell the truth about the heroic actions of First Officer William McMaster Murdoch of Dalbeattie; recorRAB the gratitude of the people of Dalbeattie; supports Ms Stormer in her continuing fight against a wrongful portrayal of Mr Murdoch in James Cameron's film, Titanic, a portrayal that 20th Century Fox eventually admitted was untrue; congratulates Ms Stormer on her latest scholarly book William McMaster Murdoch - a Career at Sea which shows that, but for Mr Murdoch's calmness and courage, even greater loss of life could have occurred on the Titanic, and notes that the sailor from Dalbeattie stayed to the end, going down with the Titanic after giving up his life jacket to another...

Source:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/businessBulletin/bb-02/bb-11-13f.htm

Also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/78839.stm

Which just goes to prove what I said earlier!
 
Better acting, less overblown, no unecessary love story, shorter, more balanced, no Celine Dion song.

If you watch both, you will notice some scenes in Titanic are very similar to A Night To Remember. Either James Cameron made a deliberate homage, or he stole some good ideas.
 
It could well have been. Walter Lord's book "A Night to Remember" was the prime source material for the film of the same name, and remains one of the major works on that event, based as it was on interviews with survivors of the sinking. For that reason alone, there are bound to be similarities. Lord also acted as a consultant on Ca meron's film. Was that choice a tribute to the ANTR book, a tribute to the ANTR film, or because Lord was regarded as one of the major authorities on the events of 14/15 April 1912? Probably a mixture of the three.

I think the major charge against the Cameron version is that a large proportion of the audience went expecting to see a film about the Titanic. What they actually got was a film set aboard the Titanic, which is by no means the same thing.

ANTR is at least about the Titanic and her real-life crew and passengers (albeit that they're in all likelihood fictionalised for dramatic effect). Somehow, the fact that it's in black-and-white adRAB to the documentary feel. In the final part of the film, as it becomes increasingly clear that this is a doomed ship and most of those on board aren't going to see the dawn, it becomes quite chilling.

Which is why, personally, I prefer ANTR to Cameron's film.
 
Did you hear about the man who lost his job on the titanic before it left and kept the key that opened the locker which contained the lookout bernoculars therefore fleet couldnt see the iceburg in time. Now if only..................
 
I agree that A Night To Remember is a vastly superior film, but given that Titanic and ANTR are based on an historical event, isn't it very likely there are going to be similar scenes?

Walter Lord, who wrote the original book ANTR researched what was said and done that night....it is regarded as one of the best accounts, so it is only natural that Titanic would feature the same scenes as it would have been used as a reference. Although I agree Cameron did probably steal ideas.
 
Yes, I think that's a fantastic distinction! The ship and the disaster played a background role to the romance as opposed to being the major feature of the film. Which is a shame but then again, we do have ANTR to counter it so we can't really complain, I guess! :)
 
people moan about how long the film was, but can you put all the events in a 90minute flick????? i personally don't think so.

Titanic is a tragic story and i praise the whole crew who worked on the film to do research and try to make it as realistic as possible, even down to the china they used.

there are hundreRAB of films worse than titanic, personally (i'm gonna get stick for this) i hate harry potter films ansd the lord of the rings trilogy, the latter been over acted and way way too long
 
I think the movie itself suffered from all the hype and being dubbed "the most expensive film in history" (which, relative to the price of bread at the time, it wasn't, of course but Hollywood has to be allowed some latitude).

However, it did itself no favours by overselling itself.

The rule, generally, is "Under- promise and over-deliver."

Titanic did it the other way around.

If it had been promoted simply as a new take on the most famous ship in history along with a love story to keep people interested it would probably have been better received and better remembered now.

Personally, I think it was a good film, no more, no less.

There is such a thing as bad publicity and Titanic suffered from it. Not financially, possibly, but in the way it will be remembered by movie lovers.
 
I'm a huge Kate Winslet fan, so I watched this more for her than, well, the ship! lol.

I did enjoy the film, but what I did not like was the part in the movie where Kate becomes an 'action hero' and saves Jack. Crap.
 
Back
Top