Talk:Titanic (1997 film)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Barker, Martin; Austin, Thomas (2000). "Titanic: A Knight to Remember". From Antz To Titanic: Reinventing Film Analysis. Pluto Press. pp. 87–104. ISBN 0745315844.
• Palmer, William J. (2009). "The New Historicist Films". The Films of the Nineties: The Decade of Spin. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 24–37. ISBN 0230613446.
• Zizek, Slavoj (2001). "The Thing from Inner Space: Titanic and Deep Impact". In Gabbard, Glen O (ed.). Psychoanalysis and Film. International Journal of Psychoanalysis Key Paper Series. Karnac Books. ISBN 1855752751.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Davenport-Hines quote from Critical Reception

I am proposing that the following passage be removed from this article:

In his 2012 study of the lives of the passengers on the Titanic, historian Richard Davenport-Hines said, "Cameron's film diabolized rich Americans and educated English, anathematizing their emotional restraint, good tailoring, punctilious manners and grammatical training, while it made romantic heroes of the poor Irish and the unlettered".<ref>Davenport-Hines, Richard (2012). Titanic Lives: Migrants and Millionaires, Conmen and Crew. UK: HarperCollins.

The problem with this quote is that it simply does not make any sense. While there is a case to be made that the film depicts Third Class passengers in a better light than First Class, Davenport-Hines' choice of adjectives do not accord in any way with the content of the film. No character can be called "unlettered" because illiteracy is never referred to; it is never suggested that anyone in the film has been "grammatically trained"; and "emotional restraint" is not a term anyone would use to describe the film's central "Rich American" villain, Cal Hockley. And then there's the silliest notion of the bunch: that the film "diabolizes" the "educated English." If anything, the film diabolizes the lack of an education, by contrasting the ignorance of some First-Class characters with the intellectual knowledge and curiosity held by Rose, the film's heroine, who is the only character to even mention schooling.

There have been many insightful commentaries written about this film over the past twenty years, but this quote is not one of them, and I do not think it merits inclusion in this article. While the general direction of Davenport-Hines' argument is valid, his reasoning stinks of projection. I would propose we either remove this quote, or replace it with another which makes a better argument.theBOBbobato (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Bob bobato, as you saw, I'm the one who reverted you on the removal of the text and suggested that you explain here on the talk page why you removed it. Thank you for taking the time to do so. I don't feel strongly about retaining the quote, but, as for your arguments against it, it's merely a historian's opinion, just like a lot of other comments in the section are merely opinions. I think including a historian's critical view of the film is an element that was missing before. That stated, there is likely more to be stated from other historians, and we can look to see what else could be added in this regard or to counter Davenport-Hines's viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Bob bobato: We are unlikely to get anywhere with this argument. Essentially, you are saying that Davenport-Hines is, in some ways, wrong. That is not really something we judge. Davenport-Hines, a notable historian, published (in this instance) by HarperCollins, is a reliable source. Wikipedia doesn't so much examine whether or not he is right as whether or not the basis for his theories is right so much as whether he is a reliable source for those theories. Were we comparing sources for the shape of the Earth, we would not weight the merits of B.o.B's theory against those of Neil deGrasse Tyson, we would merely weigh the reliability of a notable rapper's astrophysical theory versus those of a noted astrophysicist. (Granted, a fairly basic physical fact isn't as slippery as a cultural influence, but the method for weighing them is similar.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that it is not the place of Wikipedia to assess the veracity of a source, but it is the place of Wikipedia to assess the relevance of a source. The purpose of a "Critical Reception" section is to summarize the general consensus on a film, while highlighting the opinions of notable critics, filmmakers, and other parties close to the production of the work. It is true that I've objected to the quote primarily because I find it sticks out like a sore thumb; but I've only proposed that we remove it because Davenport-Hines is not relevant enough a commentator to justify keeping it, and because his background does not make him a reliable source in this particular area. Davenport-Hines is a historian, not a film critic, and his opinion should not be presented as an example of informed, professional film criticism - in the same way that Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn't be treated as a reliable source on linguistics. Neither is he a participant in the film industry or a highly notable public figure whose opinion is noteworthy because of his high cultural standing. He is a man who has achieved notability in other fields, and who has happened to write about the historical Titanic, but is not qualified to comment on the film outside of its historical accuracy. That is why I propose we replace this passage with another quote from a more reliable source.theBOBbobato (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Davenport-Hines seems to be commenting on the film's historical errors (though you disagree with his assessment). IMO, that is very much in line with something a historian would be interested in. I fail to see how a film critic would be an appropriate source for this sort of thing as the content would be well out of their domain.

Much as Tyson seems to be a relevant source for discussing B.o.b's thoughts on the shape of the Earth and scientific errors in Gravity, Davenport-Hines would seem to be very much a relevant source for historical errors in this film. Cameron, as discussed in the article, had no problem with Tyson -- no film critic, he -- commenting on a scientific error in the film. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Murdoch

I suggest that the cast note regarding Murdoch be rewritten. For example, it reads, "Cameron apologized on the DVD commentary, but stated that there were officers who fired gunshots to enforce the "women and children first" policy." I have heard the commentary and what Cameron, along with a historian, say is, that there is multiple eye witness testimony of an officer shooting passengers/himself. It may possibly have been Murdoch; there is no evidence to rule him out. Cameron gave no apology. We must remember that Mr. Cameron is a film director, not a historian, and his comment certainly does not change the historical fact that whether First Officer William Murdoch committed suicide or not is unknown -there is not enough evidence to prove either line of theory. So even if he feels it was a little dangerous to portray the First Officer as shooting passengers and himself in his film, based on some eyewitness testimony, it still remains a possibility that it in fact really did happen.

Finally, there is the line, "Fox vice-president Scott Neeson went to Dalbeattie, Scotland, where Murdoch lived, to deliver a personal apology". 20th Century Fox (not Cameron) simply donated £5,000 to Dalbeattie High School along with a silver tray. No apology was ever given, despite the media misinterpretating this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.27 (talk • contribs) 03:20, September 4, 2017 (UTC)

The sources cited seem to be [[WP:IRS|reliable for the information provided: The BBC reports on Neeson's visit to Dalbeattie and the DVD commentary is obviously a reliable source for what Cameron says on the DVD commentary.

Here's what can be done:

1) You could argue the sources are not reliable and the content should be removed. This seems like a sure loser, IMO. The BBC is ver likely a reliable source for the visit. I can't fathom an argument that the DVD commentary isn't a reliable source for something Cameron says on it.

2) Argue that we aren't fairly representing what those sources say and the content should be corrected. I just read the BBC article and it seems to be fairly represented to me. I don't have the DVD commentary available here.

3) Argue the content is not relevant and should be removed. It seems relevant to me. Your comment seems to support this view.

4) Present other reliable sources contradicting or fleshing out what the current sources say. What this would accomplish depends on what those sources are and what they say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

20th anniversary re-release

First of all, I would like to apologize for my previous edit on this article from earlier today. I did not realize that it was adding soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia. However, I'd also want to add that this upcoming re-release is also in 3D like the 2012 conversion. If it is all right, then could we add this information it to that section of the article? James Cameron also did say that this one week re-release has been remastered and it goes beyond 3D as well as 70mm. [1] It has been reported on other major entertainment sources as well. Should this re-release be included in the article? If not, then I will move on from this discussion. And1987 (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly not spam so it should not have been reverted for that reason. Does it satisfy WP:DUE enough to be included in the article? It is hard to say at this moment. If the release is big enough for the box-office to increase then obviously that will need to be documented. If there are any 20th anniversary events tied to the release they may need to be documented. Personally I wouldn't have reverted your edit, although I can't convincingly argue it satisfies WP:DUE at this moment. Betty Logan (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Reese Witherspoon considered for the role of Rose

HenryBarnill, regarding this, it appears that you are going by this HuffPost source. But notice that it mentions many names and that we don't include all of those names? Also notice that the article states that the actresses (except for Kate Winslet) turned down the role? What source states that Witherspoon turned down the role? We should not include every actress that was considered for the role. At least the "turned down the role" aspect limits the number of actresses we can include. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with limiting the names to those actresses who were actually offered the role—as the following sentence implies they were—but none of the sources seem to corroborate that they turned it down. I admit I have only skimmed through the sources but which sources actually say the actresses were offered the part and turned it down? Betty Logan (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, the Entertainment Weekly source states, "The next step was getting stars attached to the film, but since Jack was 20 in the script and Rose 17, his options were limited. Looking for a Rose, described by Cameron as 'an Audrey Hepburn type,' he considered Gwyneth Paltrow, Claire Danes, and Gabrielle Anwar. For Jack--envisioned as a young Jimmy Stewart--the shortlist included Chris O'Donnell and Matthew McConaughey, though Cameron ultimately decided they were both too old."

Maybe he offered all of the women the role? Even if he simply considered them, I think we should stick with that short list. As for Claire Danes, her Wikipedia article has stated the following for sometime: "Later that year, it was reported that she turned down the female lead role in Titanic. Danes said that while she may have been considered for the part, she was never offered the role." The second sentence is unsourced. I will go ahead and remove that now, and I should have removed it in 2010; the "someone must have put it on wikipedia" part sounds so false. Also, she is said to have stated the following in a GQ interview in 2012: "I had just made a romantic epic with Leonardo [DiCaprio] – it just seemed redundant to me. The problem is that I always took myself too seriously. Now I realize I should have lightened up. I was a serious kid to an absurd degree. I was overwhelmed with responsibility, trying to play grown up. I overdid it." But this The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) source is questionable due to the paper's reputation. The Wikipedia article calls it a tabloid, but it is speaking of the format. Tabloid (newspaper format) is not the same thing as tabloid journalism. Still, the paper does not have the quality reputation that The Daily Telegraph does, and I can't find any good sources supporting this quote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Even if the names are retained, the bit about turning it down needs to be culled from the second sentence. I have no strong view on the inclusion of Witherspoon: she was in the right age range and in the process of breaking out at the time, so it would have been strange if she had not been considered. However, the line needs to be drawn somewhere and I think a sensible cut-off would be to stick to Cameron's shortlist. Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

National Film Registry material in the lead?

As seen with this edit, an editor added the National Film Registry material to the lead and I moved it down since, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. A little later, Fireflyfanboy added the material to the lead and I reverted, explaining that it's covered lower. Fireflyfanboy then reverted me, stating, "Most, if not all, NFR titles have reference to it in their intro paragraphs." I reverted again and noted that this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; I also pointed the editor to this talk page for discussion. Thoughts?

Yes, the content is now covered lower in the article and it being in the lead would no longer be a matter of having content in the lead that is not first covered lower, but the content lower in the article is a single sentence. Why should this bit be in the lead, given all of the other accomplishments the film has achieved but which are not noted in the lead? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And for the record, I like the idea of this being in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this boils down to "is a film being added to the NFR such a distinction that it merits being noted in the lead"? Personally, I have no idea, but it might be worth considering that this is, obviously, a United States-specific honor, so there might be some grounds for saying it's a bit of bias. DonIago (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There is literally so much precedence that this is a meaningless thing to be debating. Yes, OBVIOUSLY, the distinction is important enough that it merits being talked about in the intro paragraph, as is the case for LITERALLY EVERY OTHER NFR movie, from Citizen Kane to Top Gun. I will be removing the text from the "critical reception" section, and adding it to intro.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Done! Hope that resolves it! And for the recond, most articles don't mention it outside of the intro paragraph. Source: I've spent a lot of time editing articles for movies on the NPR.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, do stop WP:Edit warring on this. You need to discuss and achieve WP:Consensus on the matter. Not simply make a comment, which is yet another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and then re-add the material. You removed the content from lower in the article just so you could add it to the lead. That does not solve the issue; this is because, per WP:Lead, the material should not be in the lead if not also covered lower in the article. I will go ahead and query WP:Film about weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The NFR passage should definitely be mentioned in the article body if it is to go in the lead section at all. If other articles do not include it in the body, they need to be fixed. As for whether or not to mention in the lead section the selection for preservation (here or in general), I don't have a strong preference. I do see it plopped into the lead section a lot, but that does not necessarily mean it is a good practice. We should look at WP:LEAD and determine how the preservation matter fits the criteria for important information, especially since it is generally apart from the overview, production, and reception. Any ideas on how to reflect that the National Film Registry is a big enough deal to highlight? I know the NFR selects for preservation some lesser-known films, and mentioning that in their articles would be a highlight. Is the highlight any less warranted with a film like Titanic? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Guys, it literally feels like a mountain is being made out of a molehill right now. I did the edits for most every other NFR title announced today, and it was totally noncontroversial every time. The ones that had beaten me to it ALSO included it in intro sections. It's just the way things have been done. This is neither the time or place to discuss if this policy should be changed or modified, as Erik seems to want to do. You also can't cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when it's standard operating procedure AND it'd make Titanic the one exception to the rule. (That actually seems to run contrary to... a lot more WP: stuff than just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) I've had a bad week in terms of getting into nit-picky details with overzealous editors, so I would appreciate it if we could just let bygones be bygones. It is literally just this article that seems to have difficulty with including it in the intro...Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And for the record, this isn't worth querying WP:Film about. This is the absolute definition of a nit-pick, particularly in the face of SO MUCH precedence. In all my years for all my NFR editing work, Flyer22 Reborn is literally the only person to raise any kind of fuss. Flyer22 Reborn, please do what you have to do to make sure it's in the intro as quickly as possible. If that includes another mention later, fine. But this is getting absolutely ridiculous and becoming a waste of my time. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If you feel it's a waste of your time, nobody's forcing you to make these edits, but it is clear that while you may feel this is a minor issue, other editors do not, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an entirely valid concern in this instance. I am curious as to why you seem to be so resistant to having a genuine discussion as to whether this material belongs in the lead. DonIago (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

When you've edited as many intros for as many NFR titles as I have, and literally for every one of them except this one it's been a non-issue, something doesn't smell quite right.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, regarding this, why would you think that adding the content to the "Accolades" section resolves the issue when you still added the text to the lead and when the text being in the lead is contested here on the talk page? Right now, that piece in the lead, which you've given its own paragraph, sticks out like a sore thumb. It is WP:Undue. We are not trying to change the rules; we are trying to follow them. WP:Due is an important rule. And why do you think this text fits better in the "Accolades" section than in the "Critical reception" section? I thought about placing it in the "Accolades" section, but I decided against it because it is not an accolade. You need to learn how to collaborate with editors. What you have done with the latest revert of yours is make me want to take this issue to the MOS:FILM talk page, where there will be a significant change concerning the inclusion NFR material in the lead. What say you, Erik? MOS:FILM or a WP:RfC? It's clear that we have an editor here thinking that this bit is automatically supposed to go in the lead of our film articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I changed it. Jeez. I've done everything you've asked, obeyed every request. Christ, If this ever resulted in a change of policy for the entire NFR, I would quit editing Wikipedia all together. I'm so over this bureaucratic bullshit, and you can quote me on that.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, like I stated, "You need to learn how to collaborate with editors." It's not about doing everything that I have asked, and I haven't asked you to do anything anyway except discuss. You keep popping in on the talk page and making changes to the article as if that resolves anything. None of your edits, including the latest one, has resolved anything. Editors are trying to have a serious discussion, and you are being dismissive and doing what you want. You have made it so that the article is currently held hostage by you because reverting again would put me over WP:3RR. MOS:FILM is not a policy, by the way. Neither is WP:Lead. They are guidelines and they cover best practices. It is not best practice to have the NFR piece highlighted in the lead when it is not extensively covered lower. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but it does have rules. WP:Due is a policy. If you don't want to follow the site's rules, you should not be editing here. And, yes, I will be taking this matter to MOS:FILM either today or tomorrow since the article is currently being dictated by you and you are not open to discussion. If you quit editing Wikipedia, we'll just have to manage without you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, abrasive much? You come off like a complete asshole dude. And your talk page is nothing but explaining your behavior is a result of the environment you grew up in...? Dude. Go outside. Read a book. Make friends. This shit doesn't matter this much. People like you ruin Wikipedia.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)