' Titanic ' or ' ' A Night To Remember '--Which Do You Prefer?

I’ll tone down the insults when you aren’t so matter of fact smug about the opinions of yours that you present as fact. If you knew anything about the making of the film then you will know why it was written as it was. The romance wasn’t some thrown in plot device. It was used to illustrate the class differences at the time and allowed us to explore the ship. Their tragic story was the story of many on the ship who lost spouses. You wanted a documentary or biopic. Your struggle with that isn’t a flaw with the film.

And to those who ignorantly claim it has bad special effects needs to see their work with the miniatures and other like effects. Watch the behind the scenes and that will fix the ignorance.

 

Y'know, I saw Bernard Fox in that lookout scene and was sure it was him. Then I looked through the long opening credits and he wasn't there. Turns out he was not credited.

 

They were annoyed he didn't spot the iceberg sooner...

 

This reminded me I need to buy A Night To Remember on dvd

 

In actual fact, had they hit the iceberg dead on, it would have damaged the bow, but the ship would have stayed afloat.

 

I grew up with A Night To Remember. It used to be on sometimes on channel 11 WPIX 8:00 pm movie.

 

It was night, it was dark...

S##it happens...

 

I've always liked Kenneth "ha ha" More in films.

 

Yeah I had my post deleted about that version.

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006ML50TC?ref=dp_ib_6_ivx_share

Definitely gonna get this criterion edition

 

Here’s how they did those terrible special effects:

Pt1



Pt 2

https://youtu.be/8NSJmO2jTh4

Pt 3

https://youtu.be/KrWbRSFiEHM

 

First time I have heard Cameron's name come up in the same sentence as "bad special effects"?

 

Right?! The posters that said that in this thread have no clue what they’re talking about. I was proving them wrong.

 

There a couple of sloppy effects in the theatrical release of Titanic, but they really are inconsequential and only noticeable if you've seen the film multiple times and its pointed out :

- a starfield isn't historically accurate, if anyone cares
- one of the big panning shots of Titanic the CGI people are all missing their feet
- during the scene where Titanic tips up and people slide down the ship, a stuntman hits an object, which dents because its made of much thinner, safer material than the actual Titanic was

None of these are deal breakers, and if I remember correctly, are pointed out in various commentaries upon the DVD/BR release where some of them might be fixed.

 

Matter of fact smug? You do know the film came out 24 years ago? Throwing around insults about age is classless. Especially considering that I thought the romantic subplot was pretty badly executed then when I definitely wasn't middle aged, unless I was planning on dying at the age of 42. I'm of the same opinion now that the romantic subplot doesn't belong in this film.

I am very familiar with the making of the film (and there's plenty out there to read and watch about the making of the film). My opinion is that the use of the very, very tired and cliched plot device of class differences (lifted wholesale from Jane Austen) didn't work in the film. I'm well aware it was used as a way of allowing interaction between the largely segregated parts of the shop. That plot was poorly executed and as obvious as a punch in the face. In the finished product the improbable (and imaginary) romance felt carcrashed into the story of the ship as bait to increase the films commercial viability. I get you probably love the film, and that's great. It has much to recommend it, but the Romeo-And-Juliet-On-A-Boat stuff belongs in a different film. That's not a struggle or anything else : I don't think the Leo/Kate story sits well in this film or with the wider story of the tragedy, and is the artistic equivalent of inserting musical numbers into Apocalypse Now.

 

The fact that you called the romantic plot a “subplot” that was thrown in shows you literally missed the point of the film. It’s not a documentary. The film is the romance. You have a hard time getting that. You think it was thrown in there for commercial appeal. That plot was the film. It wasn’t just something thrown in. You may call the class differences a cliched plot device but that was the reality at the time. Sorry that reality is too cliched for you. Thank God that your ignorant views about the film are minority views. Yes, you have been matter of fact smug about it.

 

I prefer Titanic.

 

"A Night To Remember", no contest.

 

You seem to have a hard time being nice to people. And I am being patient. The film is called Titanic, not Forbidden Romance On The High Seas. Having a Leo-and-Kate-forbidden-love plot was undoubtedly a commercial decision on the back of Romeo And Juliet to bring lots of bums on seats. The story of Titanic itself, the hubris of arrogant company men ignoring warnings running the world's largest ocean liner with insufficient lifeboats, is a story more than sufficient to carry a movie.

Ignorant? You've only been on this board two months, so spend a little time getting used to how this place works before you go shooting your mouth off.

 

Joseph Bell

Joseph Bell
Born 12 March 1861
Farlam, England, UK
Died 15 April 1912 (aged 51)
RMS Titanic, Atlantic Ocean

Joseph Bell in New Zealand 1895/96



CHIEF ENGINEER JOSEPH BELL--1997 TITANIC played by English actor Terry Forrestal

 

We holidayed for many years in Kippford, south west Scotland. Nearby is the small town of Dalbeattie, hometown of William Murdoch, First Officer of RMS Titanic.
Naturally he is considered a hero in his home town and his portrayal in Cameron's film caused deep offence. A half hearted apology was later issued by the studio.

Titanic: The True Story Behind The Movie's Controversial Shootings

 

I liked the musical number that Elmer Fudd sung in the Bugs Bunny cartoons that I watched as a child. Of course, this version was without vocals. This was OK as it allowed me to sing along. "Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit..."

 

And a terrible film maker...you left that out.

 

I totally agree, liking the movie is a subjective experience. But Cameron has always been in creative control of his projects. He goes out and does things that nobody else would not even think of attempting.

Cameron never relies on CG effects to carry his movies. He is very strong on creating impressive sets and practical effects.

Cameron spent stupid money to direct and produce Titanic. Very little of which went toward the salaries of big name stars. Nearly all of it went into actual production costs.

 

I find the hostility (not from you) a little baffling, we're being asked a question which film of the two we prefer, and I said why and explained why, yet to have loads of (inaccurate) names thrown at me by someone with a short temper who really likes the Cameron movie is a bit weird.