![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
OK - the previous version was NPOV and this version reads like a movie review. This text needs help by somebody with more time on their hands than me. -- mav
Another aspect of the film, the way in which the third class passengers were completely fenced in below decks, is also misleading (see [3] and report quoted at [4]) This sentence from the article is an opinion, a point of view (POV), though giving it a link to a source made it much less POV. Still, it is bad to make the reader go to another site to see who is saying this. It turns out the person expressing the opinion is simply a chat board message writer. Please rewrite this so that instead of the article saying something is misleading, the statement is made by whoever is making it. That is required by the NPOV policy. Wikipedia articles cannot advocate an opinion, they can only report who has the opinion and what their opinion is. By the way, I believe that the opinion is false, that the Titanic did have gates that separated third class from the rest of the ship, and that it was required by US law as a "health measure" - ChessPlayer 19:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I find this line to be pedantic: "for example, the designer, Thomas Andrews, claims the ship to be built of iron in the film whereas she was actually built of steel." In context, the line from the film was something like, "she's made of iron, I assure you she will [sink]." "Steel" and "iron" was interchangable in marine parlance, and to claim this as a historical inaccuracy is pedantic. At the very most, it is dramatic license--and I doubt it's that much. However, the statement is true as far as it goes--there are inaccuracies in the film, though it must be stressed that this film is primarily a work of fiction based upon a real event. -- Cpk1971 00:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As a public encyclopaedia, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to include the nude picture.
Good thing god doesn't/never has exist(ed)! And we can make our own decisions.
I stated my opinion for why it should be kept on WP:IFD. Basically, it's a key part of their growing relationship (yeah, that's my caption under the image) and doesn't violate any of WP's policies. Cburnett 02:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I agree this image should not be used. Where nudity is at all important to the encyclopaedic content of the page it should certainly be used (I've supported images of nudity on several pages, and vehemently oppose any attempt at censorship or filtering); but I think here it's just gratuitous. It doesn't add anything to the page, people coming to the page have no reason to expect nudity... it should go. -- Khendon 10:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As is a petty insistence on using nudity just to show how "liberal" you are. -- Khendon 07:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As an attempt at compromise I've uploaded Image:Titanic Movie Leo Kate Kiss.jpg which is another screenshot from the movie that shows their relationship building without potentially offending a significant portion of our audience.
Is the picture just added, showing a kiss, really a screenshot? To me it looks like an official publicity still, very high quality. What is the licensing status? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 22:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not a case of "are you offended" it's a case of "do you think this picture should be there". I have no hestitation in saying that my answer is "no". I also have yet to see anyone explain why this picture is necessary. DJ Clayworth 17:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you'll ever find *any* argument to the effect that a certain picture is necessary. I often browse Wikipedia with image downloads turned off and the experience is very similar to that with images, so none of the pictures are strictly necessary. However the posing picture is a good one for this movie, and I'll explain. Firstly, it's very pretty (even if Kate is really wearing a body stocking or a latex mold). Secondly, it shows a key scene in the movie, linking two artefacts in the "present day" section of the movie with the Titanic of 1912. Rose is posing for the drawing that the salvage crew will find instead of the Heart of the Ocean which they had been seeking. In the picture she is wearing a necklace featuring that very gem. At the end of the movie she goes to the bow of the salvage ship (or maybe the stern--the bit that isn't pointy) and drops the gem back into the water. If there is a pivotal scene in the human interest part of the movie, one around which all the other action focuses, this is it. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 18:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
...add two paragraphs describing the context of the image you include. It's not just Jack drawing some random sketch. It's a key moment in their relationship, and a critical moment in the history of the jewel. Giving more information is usually the right solution to encyclopec idisputes. -- Sj (sig added by Cburnett)
My point is that people who are making a fuss about such things should have more textual manners. If you want to make a fuss about an image, make sure it's in context before you have the abstract type of debate. If I just fix it, noone will even realize this was missing to begin with.
I substantially edited the plot outline yesterday afternoon so that the significance of the portrait is more clear. It would be lovely to have a scan of the drawing in the article. --
Tony Sidaway|
Talk 09:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can someone find a screencap of the sketch? Now there's an image of great relevance to the film. And one you would be more likely to find in some official plot reference. +sj + 00:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about this picture:
It is still ridiculously small. What is the point of clicking on the image? - Faid
If this compromise won't work, then I guess none will. Kevin Rector ( talk) 15:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. It has all the essential elements and it's a much clearer picture. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 16:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree it has all the essential elements, so I support the compromise. I wouldn't be surpised if someone managed to find it objectionable due to the implied nudity, but then thats life I suppose. Thryduulf 16:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sweet Hallelujah I think we've found a good compromise. I'm going to implement it in the article. Kevin Rector ( talk) 17:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think that you have arrived at a wonderful solution. This is my first visit to the article. I never saw the disputed image, but the agree on image, aside from my personal sensitivities, is one that I think keeps Wikipedia useful for most of the world. Never mind that I minimize and scroll quickly at its appearance. Good work. Tom Haws 18:10, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'm very saddened. That's all I can say. Rick K 18:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Are the grey bars at the top and bottom of the image part of the screenshot? (I suppose I'm the only person in the U.S. who hasn't seen the movie.) If not, I'll be happy to edit them out. — Korath ( Talk) 18:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong Kevin, but changing the screenshot while voting continues for deletion the previous shot (and with majority for keep) looks like an attempt to get your way against majority. I must strenously object to such practice. I suggest reverting to the previous screenshot, then after voting closes seek compromise. Przepla 20:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've been somewhat following the article on WikiEN-l, so I was pretty sure that that new picture had been taken as consensus. An anonymous user deleted it, so I re-inserted it. Revived 01:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, just thought I'd chime in with my two cents. I ran across the article (and associated tempest) completely accidentally. For what it's worth, I prefer the new image. It's not that I have anything against breasts; I'm quite fond of them, and I have no objection to their inclusion in Wikipedia. It's just that the new screenshot is (to my eye—this is obviously subjective) technically and aesthetically better. The compression artifacts aren't as glaring, the image is sharper, the jewel (a key plot point) is clearer, and Winslet's face is more visible.
One question—is the source attribution correct? Because the image seems to be of much better quality, it it really a screenshot, or is it a promotional still? -- TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I highly disagree, and have removed the original photo. The problem was that it didn't really contribute to the article, was grainy and low quality, and needlessly offends some readers (not me, so please don't go there). All of these objections still stand. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 02:52, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
The fact that it's grainy and low quality is apparently a *good* thing. Of course it contributes to the article--it's the most complete illusration we have of the production standards of the movie. Lighting, camera-work, direction and set direction are illustrated perfectly. That it offends a few readers is neither here nor there. We're not a censorpedia, and obviously the MPAA thought it was quite all right for moms to take their young kids to see. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 03:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should the article say something about the special effects ? -- DavidCary 23:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Well...not exactly. The "digital" Titanic's fourth funnel does have smoke/steam coming out of it, because in reality this funnel was used to vent the kitchen. The other three were used to exhaust the coal boilers.
As an old woman in 1996, Rose now goes onto the deck of the salvage ship and throws the Heart of the Ocean into the ocean where Jack died - Didn't the "present day" stuff take place in 1985, with the rediscovery of the ship?-- Will2k 13:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
It's funny, if one does the math, the movie has to be taking place in 1996, even though the movie was released at the end of 1997. Rose was 17 in 1912, placing her year of birth at about 1895. She is 100 years old - almost 101 - when she tells her story to the modern day shipwreck explorers.
I edited the main article to include my information. I just saw the movie today, and I noticed that the Titanic's fourth and last funnel in the movie was portrayed as being in use. This cannot be because the fourth funnel towards the the stern of the ship was actually a fake and wasn't real. It was only added to make the passengers, especially Third Class feel safer travelling aboard the liner.
2nd Officer Lightoller asking Smith if they should load the women in children into the boats is based on what really happened. It happened when Lightoller was being held back by Chief Officer Wilde and Captain Smith was not be very proactive about getting people off the ship. Whether Smith yelled the order in megaphone is not important here because they were two seperate events, the latter not being in the movie. MechBrowman July 4, 2005 22:24 (UTC)
In the movie they portrayed Murdoch as killing himself with a gun. I know Murdoch did not survive the sinking, but did they portray his death accuratly in the film or no?
It was an inaccurate portrayal - Murdoch drowned. It was only for the pruposes of the story.
It's not necessarily inaccurate. The fact is, no one knows whether or not Murdoch killed himself. Eyewitness accounts say that an officer did shoot himself as the Titanic was sinking. The three likeliest candidates are Murdoch, Chief Officer Wilde, and Purser McElroy. Since none of their bodies were recovered, no one can say with certainty what actually happened. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~. -- Michael Hays 16:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Murdoch's suicide is extremely unlikely. In the film, he shot and killed Tommy Ryan, a fictional character. If Tommy Ryan didn't exist, then niether did Murdoch's suicide. Jienum 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no controversy over whether 3rd class passengers were locked below decks. Papers released by the Public Record Office prove it was a myth. 81.131.249.202 12:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the DVD editions as my understanding was the 3-DVD version was the only version being released (based on press I saw on this). Does anyone know if the 4-disc version contains material different from the R1 version? On a related issue, now that the deleted scenes have been released (on the R1 version anyway) I think a section discussing these sequences is justified especially since one of them is a completely different ending for the film, plus some of the cut scenes also fill in a few historical omissions such as a brief depiction of Lightoller and the overturned lifeboat. 23skidoo 03:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to word this without it coming out as POV, and I don't have a source to back it up myself, but my understanding is Titanic was the end of an era in that it was the last major film (to date, anyway) that registered multiple attendences by viewers. In the 1970s and 1980s it wasn't uncommon to hear of people going to see a movie like Star Wars 20-30 times, but since the advent of VCRs and certainly DVDs and high ticket prices, this rarely happens anymore which is one reason why movies rarely stay at No. 1 for more than a week or two. Titanic seemed to buck that growing trend in 1997-98 as people were known to have gone to see it dozens of times. You don't see that anymore. I think it's a worthy milestone to note, but I don't know how to go about mentioning it in the article. Thoughts? 23skidoo 20:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Just a thought, but perhaps the alternate ending presented on the new DVD edition should be added to the plot summary. (If only because I'm curious to find out what it is.) -- Psyk0 16:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The Criticism and Historical inaccuracies section has gotten out of control, with several mentions of unnotable inaccuracies. I propose this section be changed to Historical criticism and only mention historical events that have been criticized, such as Murdoch's depiction. Nothing will be mentioned as criticism unless it has an appropriate source. It will remove all unnotable mistakes like English accents, wireless noise and Lake Wissota as well as any POV. If Murdoch's depiction is the only inaccuracy with a source (which I would not be surprised) then we should get rid of the section entirely and replace it with Reception and criticism section (as with film Featured Articles) and make Murdoch's criticism part of it. Does anyone disagree? MechBrowman 15:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Ditch the list of deleted scenes; this is not a DVD review. Needs a quotes section. -- Tysto 00:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree with MechBrowman's removal of the deleted scenes and spoofs sections on the basis of precedent ( Wizard of Oz comes to mind). Therefore I suggest a vote be held here to determine if there is consensus on what to do with these sections. I would support them becoming their own articles, otherwise keep. 23skidoo 05:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I created the 'Spoofs' section originally (although others have edited since), and even I agree that it can be taken down. As for the deleted scenes, I think they should be kept, but the section needs to be drastically cut down. Drake Clawfang, Februrary 18, 2006.
I see this debate on some sections considered "unnecessary". Here's my theory: what if we split this article up into a few or several articles? If so, what are your ideas? -- 69.227.173.21 06:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't something be incorporated in the article about how so much of the story paralleled the 1943 Nazi propaganda film Titanic? AmiDaniel 22:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I just reorganized the sections into (in my opinion) a much more appropriate format. With another a copy edits and someone standardizing and augmenting the references, I would support this for a featured article. savidan (talk) (e@) 21:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The 86% positive score on rottentomatoes would suggest they were anything but mixed. Crazymaner2003
The film scored 74 at metacritic, which the site classifies as "generally favorable" (a level above "mixed"). Regarding the legitimacy of rottentomatoes, it's the place industry-types turn to for the overall critical consensus on a movie (Fox Searchlight Internet Marketing executive Mark Gellar: "If you're confident you've got a strong, well-reviewed movie, then you leverage RottenTomatoes."; see http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/risky_business_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001956859).
Anyway, that's two separate sites doing independent tabulations of dozens of critics, and both coming up with favorable reviews.
There is a fairly basic howler when the iceberg is first seen. The officer in charge yells to the helmsman "Hard a Starboard...", and the helmsman promply spins the wheel to turn to port (left). The ship is shown eventually going to port, with the iceberg passing on the starboard (right) side. In reality, the iceberb did actually pass to the starboard side of the ship - as the Wikipedia article on the disaster confirms. Later someone says "...we tried to port round the 'berg (ie then swing the other way to help the stern miss the iceberg) but we still hit..." or words to that effect. In fact, to do that, they would have had to have then swung to starboard. Again, this is what actually happened. In other words, the film's writers got their port and starboard mixed up.
I enjoyed the film very much, and it seems petty to carp. Perhaps someone should start a section in the main article on factual mistakes in the film. Peter Maggs 12:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
If the wiki article RMS Titanic is correct, only three of her funnels were really functioning - the fourth was merely a decoration used only as a vent. The movie (evening scene showing the entire ship from astern, steaming) shows all four smoking. Perhaps somebody was making a huge barbacue?
Actually, the film does not portray the fourth funnel emitting smoke. Examine the following link containing still images from the film.' [6]'
I noticed that there was a debate on the fate of the deleted scenes section of the article. I was wondering if it would be possible to narrow the current list on the main article to five or six major deletions, and put a list of all 31 deleted scenes in a separate article, like Deleted scenes from Titanic (1997 film). -- Kitch 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I try to like the movie, I really tried, I wathed it as least 3 times. I just can't find myself liking it. I just don't find it a as a great movie can win 11 nomination. I mean I like the Gone with wind, Froset Gump and Saving Pivate Ryan...etc But Titianic? Man, it's not that touchy any way. I guess I'm just not compassion eough. It meanly become popular because of the media advertisement and all the positive review. I think the movie only attracts woman to see it because of love story. Guys go to see simply because the girl was totally naked in it.
"It currently holds the record for the highest grossing film of all time both in North America and globally. The previous record of $460,998,007 in North America had stood for 20 years, since 1977's Star Wars.[3]"
Actually, it wasn't until mid-February 1997 that Star Wars became the highest grossing movie again due to its re-release, so it did not last for "20 years since 1977" so I am going to change this. McDonaldsGuy 06:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I've gone and tidied the box office portion of the article. It's easier to read, but there's less content. Once I obtain appropriate references, I'll try and re-expand the most important and vital details; it'd be nice if it wasn't overhauled with useless information like it was before the last few edits. The deleted scenes were removed too, because they don't further the article's subject matter and introduce trivialities. As long as the parodies are heavily trimmed and well-referenced, there's a chance they could stay, especially when taking into consideration the section's current image, which requires fair use rationale. If anybody wants to help, I'd be really happy; it's going to take some time before this can be proposed at FAC. A very long time. Never Mystic 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The images that were on this talk page violated Wikipedia's fair use rules for images so I've "commented" them out. Wikipedia is really cracking the whip these days so I'm jumping in there before an image cop finds them and perhaps starts to target images within the article itself. 23skidoo 21:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This is per violation of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria and Wikipedia:Images. Never Mystic ( t c) 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
At the conclusion of the film (which is either a dream, or heaven), Rose Dewitt Bukater and Jack Dawson are reunited at last. However Rose married another man (who was the father of their children and grandfather to their children's kids), and he seems to be left out of her dream world. This does seem callous of Rose, and I wonder if James Cameron has ever addressed this matter? 204.80.61.10 17:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk
After the lookout notifies the officer of the deck that an iceberg is ahead, the office commands the helmsman to steer "hard starboard". How come the helmsman is seen turning the wheel to the left? 192.154.130.14 ( talk) 22:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
OK - the previous version was NPOV and this version reads like a movie review. This text needs help by somebody with more time on their hands than me. -- mav
Another aspect of the film, the way in which the third class passengers were completely fenced in below decks, is also misleading (see [3] and report quoted at [4]) This sentence from the article is an opinion, a point of view (POV), though giving it a link to a source made it much less POV. Still, it is bad to make the reader go to another site to see who is saying this. It turns out the person expressing the opinion is simply a chat board message writer. Please rewrite this so that instead of the article saying something is misleading, the statement is made by whoever is making it. That is required by the NPOV policy. Wikipedia articles cannot advocate an opinion, they can only report who has the opinion and what their opinion is. By the way, I believe that the opinion is false, that the Titanic did have gates that separated third class from the rest of the ship, and that it was required by US law as a "health measure" - ChessPlayer 19:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I find this line to be pedantic: "for example, the designer, Thomas Andrews, claims the ship to be built of iron in the film whereas she was actually built of steel." In context, the line from the film was something like, "she's made of iron, I assure you she will [sink]." "Steel" and "iron" was interchangable in marine parlance, and to claim this as a historical inaccuracy is pedantic. At the very most, it is dramatic license--and I doubt it's that much. However, the statement is true as far as it goes--there are inaccuracies in the film, though it must be stressed that this film is primarily a work of fiction based upon a real event. -- Cpk1971 00:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As a public encyclopaedia, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to include the nude picture.
Good thing god doesn't/never has exist(ed)! And we can make our own decisions.
I stated my opinion for why it should be kept on WP:IFD. Basically, it's a key part of their growing relationship (yeah, that's my caption under the image) and doesn't violate any of WP's policies. Cburnett 02:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I agree this image should not be used. Where nudity is at all important to the encyclopaedic content of the page it should certainly be used (I've supported images of nudity on several pages, and vehemently oppose any attempt at censorship or filtering); but I think here it's just gratuitous. It doesn't add anything to the page, people coming to the page have no reason to expect nudity... it should go. -- Khendon 10:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As is a petty insistence on using nudity just to show how "liberal" you are. -- Khendon 07:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As an attempt at compromise I've uploaded Image:Titanic Movie Leo Kate Kiss.jpg which is another screenshot from the movie that shows their relationship building without potentially offending a significant portion of our audience.
Is the picture just added, showing a kiss, really a screenshot? To me it looks like an official publicity still, very high quality. What is the licensing status? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 22:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not a case of "are you offended" it's a case of "do you think this picture should be there". I have no hestitation in saying that my answer is "no". I also have yet to see anyone explain why this picture is necessary. DJ Clayworth 17:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you'll ever find *any* argument to the effect that a certain picture is necessary. I often browse Wikipedia with image downloads turned off and the experience is very similar to that with images, so none of the pictures are strictly necessary. However the posing picture is a good one for this movie, and I'll explain. Firstly, it's very pretty (even if Kate is really wearing a body stocking or a latex mold). Secondly, it shows a key scene in the movie, linking two artefacts in the "present day" section of the movie with the Titanic of 1912. Rose is posing for the drawing that the salvage crew will find instead of the Heart of the Ocean which they had been seeking. In the picture she is wearing a necklace featuring that very gem. At the end of the movie she goes to the bow of the salvage ship (or maybe the stern--the bit that isn't pointy) and drops the gem back into the water. If there is a pivotal scene in the human interest part of the movie, one around which all the other action focuses, this is it. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 18:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
...add two paragraphs describing the context of the image you include. It's not just Jack drawing some random sketch. It's a key moment in their relationship, and a critical moment in the history of the jewel. Giving more information is usually the right solution to encyclopec idisputes. -- Sj (sig added by Cburnett)
My point is that people who are making a fuss about such things should have more textual manners. If you want to make a fuss about an image, make sure it's in context before you have the abstract type of debate. If I just fix it, noone will even realize this was missing to begin with.
I substantially edited the plot outline yesterday afternoon so that the significance of the portrait is more clear. It would be lovely to have a scan of the drawing in the article. --
Tony Sidaway|
Talk 09:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can someone find a screencap of the sketch? Now there's an image of great relevance to the film. And one you would be more likely to find in some official plot reference. +sj + 00:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about this picture:
It is still ridiculously small. What is the point of clicking on the image? - Faid
If this compromise won't work, then I guess none will. Kevin Rector ( talk) 15:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. It has all the essential elements and it's a much clearer picture. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 16:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree it has all the essential elements, so I support the compromise. I wouldn't be surpised if someone managed to find it objectionable due to the implied nudity, but then thats life I suppose. Thryduulf 16:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sweet Hallelujah I think we've found a good compromise. I'm going to implement it in the article. Kevin Rector ( talk) 17:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think that you have arrived at a wonderful solution. This is my first visit to the article. I never saw the disputed image, but the agree on image, aside from my personal sensitivities, is one that I think keeps Wikipedia useful for most of the world. Never mind that I minimize and scroll quickly at its appearance. Good work. Tom Haws 18:10, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'm very saddened. That's all I can say. Rick K 18:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Are the grey bars at the top and bottom of the image part of the screenshot? (I suppose I'm the only person in the U.S. who hasn't seen the movie.) If not, I'll be happy to edit them out. — Korath ( Talk) 18:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong Kevin, but changing the screenshot while voting continues for deletion the previous shot (and with majority for keep) looks like an attempt to get your way against majority. I must strenously object to such practice. I suggest reverting to the previous screenshot, then after voting closes seek compromise. Przepla 20:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've been somewhat following the article on WikiEN-l, so I was pretty sure that that new picture had been taken as consensus. An anonymous user deleted it, so I re-inserted it. Revived 01:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, just thought I'd chime in with my two cents. I ran across the article (and associated tempest) completely accidentally. For what it's worth, I prefer the new image. It's not that I have anything against breasts; I'm quite fond of them, and I have no objection to their inclusion in Wikipedia. It's just that the new screenshot is (to my eye—this is obviously subjective) technically and aesthetically better. The compression artifacts aren't as glaring, the image is sharper, the jewel (a key plot point) is clearer, and Winslet's face is more visible.
One question—is the source attribution correct? Because the image seems to be of much better quality, it it really a screenshot, or is it a promotional still? -- TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I highly disagree, and have removed the original photo. The problem was that it didn't really contribute to the article, was grainy and low quality, and needlessly offends some readers (not me, so please don't go there). All of these objections still stand. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 02:52, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
The fact that it's grainy and low quality is apparently a *good* thing. Of course it contributes to the article--it's the most complete illusration we have of the production standards of the movie. Lighting, camera-work, direction and set direction are illustrated perfectly. That it offends a few readers is neither here nor there. We're not a censorpedia, and obviously the MPAA thought it was quite all right for moms to take their young kids to see. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 03:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should the article say something about the special effects ? -- DavidCary 23:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Well...not exactly. The "digital" Titanic's fourth funnel does have smoke/steam coming out of it, because in reality this funnel was used to vent the kitchen. The other three were used to exhaust the coal boilers.
As an old woman in 1996, Rose now goes onto the deck of the salvage ship and throws the Heart of the Ocean into the ocean where Jack died - Didn't the "present day" stuff take place in 1985, with the rediscovery of the ship?-- Will2k 13:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
It's funny, if one does the math, the movie has to be taking place in 1996, even though the movie was released at the end of 1997. Rose was 17 in 1912, placing her year of birth at about 1895. She is 100 years old - almost 101 - when she tells her story to the modern day shipwreck explorers.
I edited the main article to include my information. I just saw the movie today, and I noticed that the Titanic's fourth and last funnel in the movie was portrayed as being in use. This cannot be because the fourth funnel towards the the stern of the ship was actually a fake and wasn't real. It was only added to make the passengers, especially Third Class feel safer travelling aboard the liner.
2nd Officer Lightoller asking Smith if they should load the women in children into the boats is based on what really happened. It happened when Lightoller was being held back by Chief Officer Wilde and Captain Smith was not be very proactive about getting people off the ship. Whether Smith yelled the order in megaphone is not important here because they were two seperate events, the latter not being in the movie. MechBrowman July 4, 2005 22:24 (UTC)
In the movie they portrayed Murdoch as killing himself with a gun. I know Murdoch did not survive the sinking, but did they portray his death accuratly in the film or no?
It was an inaccurate portrayal - Murdoch drowned. It was only for the pruposes of the story.
It's not necessarily inaccurate. The fact is, no one knows whether or not Murdoch killed himself. Eyewitness accounts say that an officer did shoot himself as the Titanic was sinking. The three likeliest candidates are Murdoch, Chief Officer Wilde, and Purser McElroy. Since none of their bodies were recovered, no one can say with certainty what actually happened. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~. -- Michael Hays 16:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Murdoch's suicide is extremely unlikely. In the film, he shot and killed Tommy Ryan, a fictional character. If Tommy Ryan didn't exist, then niether did Murdoch's suicide. Jienum 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no controversy over whether 3rd class passengers were locked below decks. Papers released by the Public Record Office prove it was a myth. 81.131.249.202 12:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the DVD editions as my understanding was the 3-DVD version was the only version being released (based on press I saw on this). Does anyone know if the 4-disc version contains material different from the R1 version? On a related issue, now that the deleted scenes have been released (on the R1 version anyway) I think a section discussing these sequences is justified especially since one of them is a completely different ending for the film, plus some of the cut scenes also fill in a few historical omissions such as a brief depiction of Lightoller and the overturned lifeboat. 23skidoo 03:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to word this without it coming out as POV, and I don't have a source to back it up myself, but my understanding is Titanic was the end of an era in that it was the last major film (to date, anyway) that registered multiple attendences by viewers. In the 1970s and 1980s it wasn't uncommon to hear of people going to see a movie like Star Wars 20-30 times, but since the advent of VCRs and certainly DVDs and high ticket prices, this rarely happens anymore which is one reason why movies rarely stay at No. 1 for more than a week or two. Titanic seemed to buck that growing trend in 1997-98 as people were known to have gone to see it dozens of times. You don't see that anymore. I think it's a worthy milestone to note, but I don't know how to go about mentioning it in the article. Thoughts? 23skidoo 20:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Just a thought, but perhaps the alternate ending presented on the new DVD edition should be added to the plot summary. (If only because I'm curious to find out what it is.) -- Psyk0 16:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The Criticism and Historical inaccuracies section has gotten out of control, with several mentions of unnotable inaccuracies. I propose this section be changed to Historical criticism and only mention historical events that have been criticized, such as Murdoch's depiction. Nothing will be mentioned as criticism unless it has an appropriate source. It will remove all unnotable mistakes like English accents, wireless noise and Lake Wissota as well as any POV. If Murdoch's depiction is the only inaccuracy with a source (which I would not be surprised) then we should get rid of the section entirely and replace it with Reception and criticism section (as with film Featured Articles) and make Murdoch's criticism part of it. Does anyone disagree? MechBrowman 15:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Ditch the list of deleted scenes; this is not a DVD review. Needs a quotes section. -- Tysto 00:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree with MechBrowman's removal of the deleted scenes and spoofs sections on the basis of precedent ( Wizard of Oz comes to mind). Therefore I suggest a vote be held here to determine if there is consensus on what to do with these sections. I would support them becoming their own articles, otherwise keep. 23skidoo 05:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I created the 'Spoofs' section originally (although others have edited since), and even I agree that it can be taken down. As for the deleted scenes, I think they should be kept, but the section needs to be drastically cut down. Drake Clawfang, Februrary 18, 2006.
I see this debate on some sections considered "unnecessary". Here's my theory: what if we split this article up into a few or several articles? If so, what are your ideas? -- 69.227.173.21 06:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't something be incorporated in the article about how so much of the story paralleled the 1943 Nazi propaganda film Titanic? AmiDaniel 22:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I just reorganized the sections into (in my opinion) a much more appropriate format. With another a copy edits and someone standardizing and augmenting the references, I would support this for a featured article. savidan (talk) (e@) 21:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The 86% positive score on rottentomatoes would suggest they were anything but mixed. Crazymaner2003
The film scored 74 at metacritic, which the site classifies as "generally favorable" (a level above "mixed"). Regarding the legitimacy of rottentomatoes, it's the place industry-types turn to for the overall critical consensus on a movie (Fox Searchlight Internet Marketing executive Mark Gellar: "If you're confident you've got a strong, well-reviewed movie, then you leverage RottenTomatoes."; see http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/risky_business_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001956859).
Anyway, that's two separate sites doing independent tabulations of dozens of critics, and both coming up with favorable reviews.
There is a fairly basic howler when the iceberg is first seen. The officer in charge yells to the helmsman "Hard a Starboard...", and the helmsman promply spins the wheel to turn to port (left). The ship is shown eventually going to port, with the iceberg passing on the starboard (right) side. In reality, the iceberb did actually pass to the starboard side of the ship - as the Wikipedia article on the disaster confirms. Later someone says "...we tried to port round the 'berg (ie then swing the other way to help the stern miss the iceberg) but we still hit..." or words to that effect. In fact, to do that, they would have had to have then swung to starboard. Again, this is what actually happened. In other words, the film's writers got their port and starboard mixed up.
I enjoyed the film very much, and it seems petty to carp. Perhaps someone should start a section in the main article on factual mistakes in the film. Peter Maggs 12:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
If the wiki article RMS Titanic is correct, only three of her funnels were really functioning - the fourth was merely a decoration used only as a vent. The movie (evening scene showing the entire ship from astern, steaming) shows all four smoking. Perhaps somebody was making a huge barbacue?
Actually, the film does not portray the fourth funnel emitting smoke. Examine the following link containing still images from the film.' [6]'
I noticed that there was a debate on the fate of the deleted scenes section of the article. I was wondering if it would be possible to narrow the current list on the main article to five or six major deletions, and put a list of all 31 deleted scenes in a separate article, like Deleted scenes from Titanic (1997 film). -- Kitch 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I try to like the movie, I really tried, I wathed it as least 3 times. I just can't find myself liking it. I just don't find it a as a great movie can win 11 nomination. I mean I like the Gone with wind, Froset Gump and Saving Pivate Ryan...etc But Titianic? Man, it's not that touchy any way. I guess I'm just not compassion eough. It meanly become popular because of the media advertisement and all the positive review. I think the movie only attracts woman to see it because of love story. Guys go to see simply because the girl was totally naked in it.
"It currently holds the record for the highest grossing film of all time both in North America and globally. The previous record of $460,998,007 in North America had stood for 20 years, since 1977's Star Wars.[3]"
Actually, it wasn't until mid-February 1997 that Star Wars became the highest grossing movie again due to its re-release, so it did not last for "20 years since 1977" so I am going to change this. McDonaldsGuy 06:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I've gone and tidied the box office portion of the article. It's easier to read, but there's less content. Once I obtain appropriate references, I'll try and re-expand the most important and vital details; it'd be nice if it wasn't overhauled with useless information like it was before the last few edits. The deleted scenes were removed too, because they don't further the article's subject matter and introduce trivialities. As long as the parodies are heavily trimmed and well-referenced, there's a chance they could stay, especially when taking into consideration the section's current image, which requires fair use rationale. If anybody wants to help, I'd be really happy; it's going to take some time before this can be proposed at FAC. A very long time. Never Mystic 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The images that were on this talk page violated Wikipedia's fair use rules for images so I've "commented" them out. Wikipedia is really cracking the whip these days so I'm jumping in there before an image cop finds them and perhaps starts to target images within the article itself. 23skidoo 21:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This is per violation of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria and Wikipedia:Images. Never Mystic ( t c) 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
At the conclusion of the film (which is either a dream, or heaven), Rose Dewitt Bukater and Jack Dawson are reunited at last. However Rose married another man (who was the father of their children and grandfather to their children's kids), and he seems to be left out of her dream world. This does seem callous of Rose, and I wonder if James Cameron has ever addressed this matter? 204.80.61.10 17:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk
After the lookout notifies the officer of the deck that an iceberg is ahead, the office commands the helmsman to steer "hard starboard". How come the helmsman is seen turning the wheel to the left? 192.154.130.14 ( talk) 22:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)