"Titanic" (1997) is a movie about some of the untold stories of the Titanic shipreck where Brock is trying to "let Titanic in," while Rose is fulling her promise before letting Titanic out.

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), December 09, 1998

Answers

I meant to write fulfilling not fulling.

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), December 09, 1998.

Mr. Draghici,

I wish to propose an alternate answer:

Titanic (1997) is a film designed by an uncreative and pedestrian director to profit off of and trivialise an event in which fifteen- hundred souls perished.

I do think this has sufficed, but in a different manner.

A Contributor

-- A Contributor (foo@bar.com), December 10, 1998.

A Contributor:

Unfortunately, I find that there are errors in your logic. You state that the director designed this movie to "profit off of and trivialize" the sinking of the Titanic. In fact, the director made this movie as true to life as was possible. If he was truly seeking to profit off this movie, he would have cast Brad Pitt and Jennifer Love Hewitt as the stars simply because they would attract the crowds. Rather than paying such attention to detail, he could have gone with a much less expensive set and saved a lot of money, which would have increased profits. However, he didn't do that, which should be proof enough for everyone that he wasn't simply trying to profit off the tragedy. You also claim he trivialized the event. He took painstaking measures to assure that every concievable detail was modeled as closely as possible to the original event. If he had "sold-out" as he was asked to, that would have trivialized the event. On the contrary, he created with his movie a new wave of interest in the tragedy which is the best way to make sure the memories of the people who perished stay alive and with us. To allow those people to have died in vain, without the benifit of learning from them and their struggles, would be disgraceful.

If you don't like the movie, that is fine. We can debate the movie, but unless you have met James Cameron and had some personal conversations with him, I find it very rude and extremely disturbing that you claim to know his "motives" and his thoughts behind making this movie. You presume to know things and you draw conclusions about people whom you have never met, and I find that highly improper.

-- Misty (HiRver@concentric.net), December 10, 1998.

A Contributor,

I should respect your opinion about the production of this movie, though I do not share your thoughts on this. May I kindly ask how would YOU have done this movie? What changes would you have made in order not to trivialise the Titanic tragedy? I'm simply curious. I agree that the movie could have been done better, though I would not have been able to do such, even if I were a film student. However, this movie is and will remain dear to my heart and I will always watch it with pleasure. I will always cry when I would hear Hartley playing "Nearer My God to Thee" or when Jack is making Rose promise she'll never let go. Or athe end... Again and again, it is a movie for the heart, for the open heart. Otherwise it would be like looking for God on the Moon and for Noah's Ark in the Ararat Mountains...

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), December 10, 1998.

I had thought my reply might spark debate.

Misty,

The trivialisation I speak of was due mainly to the inclusion of utter fiction in such a historical episode. The truth of this statement is most certainly undeniable. Any "memories" of the actual event were diluted in absolutely disgusting fiction.

Mr. Draghici,

I believe that my friend and colleague Mr. Haverstrom politely explained what he would have done if he had made "Titanic." I must agree with him completely. Although I am not a filmmaker, I believe I would not have included historical fiction (my film would be entirely fact), I would have cast more competent and overall-better actors and actresses in my production, and I would have written a more artistic, finely-crafted screenplay.

You state that you "will always cry when [you] hear Hartley playing 'Nearer My God To Thee.'" Interestingly, such never occurred on the actual ship (it has been explained to me that the infamous band played a French tune of the day, "Le Chanson d'Automne"). Also, Mr. Murdoch neither shot others nor committed suicide. It is not even known where Captain Smith was during the sinking. As for an Irish wedding, none took place aboard the ship (although there were two Lebanese weddings). Of course, one mustn't forget that the two main characters were utterly fictitious.

I do not believe I wish to debate this matter further. I thank you for this opportunity.

A Contributor

-- A Contributor (foo@bar.com), December 12, 1998.

"and I would have written a more artistic, finely-crafted screenplay."

Screenplay? No. You would have written a documentary which this film was not, and was never intented to be a documentary.

"Interestingly, such never occurred on the actual ship (it has been explained to me that the infamous band played a French tune of the day, "Le Chanson d'Automne")"

Were you there? This has been debated since 1912! You must have some inside information or were on the ship in a former life!

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), December 12, 1998.

That should be "intended" not "intented". Suffering from 'fat finger syndrome" again!

Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), December 12, 1998.

What better way to memorialize all the men, women, and children of this tragedy than to spark new interest in a subject that had been pushed aside for so many years. Had it not been for this movie, many people would have continued living their lives blind to the intensity of this tragic event. It would still be a fact in a history book. Because of this movie, factual books have begun selling like crazy. People are learning the facts about this tragedy because of the not quite factual movie they saw. This has helped keep alive the memories of the people who were actually involved and affected by the tragedy. If anything, James Cameron has helped make sure we do NOT trivialize the tragedy.

-- Misty (HiRver@concentric.net), December 13, 1998.

Hello Misty:

That is exactly what I have been saying all along. How many people, because of this film, are just now (or a year ago) learning of this event? School projects, little kids, adults, politicians, entertainers and on and on. It will never go away and each generation, although sometimes needing a "jumpstart" gets on to this subject. It is almost mythical but never ceases to amaze me. Even my own two children(one 20 and one 14) have picked up on it as they have never done before even though they have heard their old man spout about it their whole lives. It's not Jack and Rose, it's Titanic!

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), December 13, 1998.

Off subject a little, sorry...

"A Contributor" is pulling our legs. He can't possibly be a friend of George's, because those educated in George's circle would never say, "the trivialisation I speak of". George and his little friends would have been taught to say, "the trivialisation of which I speak".

Dude...if you're going to come in here and wreak havoc as an imposter, be a better one than that. You broke character. Busted.

Just a thought. :)

-- Gilded Age Junkie (gildedagejunkie@yahoo.com), December 13, 1998.

And, no doubt, correct!

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), December 13, 1998.

Another correction to all-knowing "Contributor": it is not KNOWN (double underline, italicize) for sure if Murdoch or someone else shot a passenger or himself. There is a thread on the Shack which explores this further. Gilded, you kill me! You sounded like me with that grammar correction! Unfortunately, I think this person is indeed a fan of George and was simply grammatically improper in his discourse! And, of course, impropriety of any form is intolerable.

-- BobG (rgregorio@foo.bar), December 13, 1998.

"Gilded Age Junkie,"

Well, you were almost correct. I'm not one of "the aristocracy," although I do know George personally. I attend the same school (the Hackley School) as he, although I am one grade below him. He isn't a very good "friend" of mine, but I occasionally talk to him. He told me all about what happened here, and I decided to check it out. I guess I'm not a very good imposter after all.

Either way, I didn't like "Titanic" - partially from the discussions that George and I have had on the subject, and partially from my own viewings and opinions. I guess I just came here trying to see if I could pretend to be one of George's ilk. I'm really sorry if you thought I was being mean or rude. Although George and I share some similar opinions, we certainly aren't the same people.

Niles M. Gregory Tarrytown, NY

-- Niles M. Gregory (a.k.a. "A Contributor") (foo@bar.com), December 13, 1998.

"BobG,"

On another thread you said that the Denver Post published an editorial about George. Where could I find this? I'd be very interested in reading it. Thank you very much.

Niles M. Gregory

Tarrytown, NY

-- Niles M. Gregory (foo@bar.com), December 13, 1998.

Titanic sank at 2:00 in the morning of 4/15/1912, two hours and fourty minutes after the fatal collison with the iceberg that broke off a glacier in Greenland.

-- Sarah Wang (ddraghic@sprint.ca), December 13, 1998.

I have a sentance for you

I you don't like the movie and feel like bashinging it...LEAVE before you get your Butt kicked!!

-- Miranda Swearingen (Kylen1@hotmail.com), December 14, 1998.

Sarah, why is it my e-mail aside your name? Strange... Anyway, just wanted to say that the ship sank at 2:20 AM.

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), December 14, 1998.

Who is George??

-- Nonnie Parker (x96smock@wmich.edu), April 19, 1999.

Nonnie:

George was a regular here; check out this category for much, much more.

-- Thomas M. Terashima (titanicshack@yahoo.com), April 20, 1999.

Once again, you have come to my 'rescue' by answering my questions. Thanks, Thomas! =)

-- Nonnie Parker (x96smock@wmich.edu), April 20, 1999.