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)

The Cast list

An editor keeps adding cast members that are non integral to the plot (see [1]). This is supposed to be a GA article, and yet the editor is adding cast members in a manner that doesn't comply with WP:CASTLIST i.e. no sources, no background content on their casting, and in non-essential parts. I've removed these cast additions several times and asked the editor to consult the Film style guidelines but it seems to no avail. I'm getting tired of it now, so are we going to permit these cast additions or should I take it to ANI? We need a consensus either way, so what are other people's views on it? Betty Logan (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Betty, long time no type at. Unless something drastic has changes with the project since I've been around regularly, I 100% agree with your reversions and the rationale behind them. I'm still rather light wiki so I doubt I can help much with keeping it cleaned up. If the editor has been warned sufficiently to look at the relevant guidelines, I'd go to ANI. The edits are disruptive and non-constructive, though it looks like the editor means well, at a glance. Millahnna (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is problem editing. For one thing, the bar is too high to say that someone can't be listed unless there is background on their casting. That would lead to many anomalies, especially with older films. Perhaps anyone with a speaking role can be included for a film of this prominence...? Then maybe another editor sees a name for which some background exists and is prompted to include it. But maybe I don't understand the purpose of restricting the list instead of trying to be punctilious that it is complete. Am I missing something? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the logic in listing actors who played real life counterparts, and as a 'bar' everyone who is mentioned in the plot summary should probably be also covered, along with any other casting that is noteworthy, but if you list every single person in the film then you effectively turn the article into one giant cast list. The bottom line is that it isn't consistent with WP:CASTLIST, so if the guideline is no longer relevant then we should actively ditch it or revise it; while it stands it should probably be adhered to since it presumably represents the consensus of the film project. Betty Logan (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Titanic has special problems, and maybe the cast deserves its own article. (It's a little strange that the link is named castlist when a cast list is supposedly not so good.) Isn't there an issue of completeness here or do you think the rest of the internet covers it? Where to set the bar is not simple, but there are several ways to do it (every character mentioned in the plot summary, everyone who speaks, everyone who has a name, everyone who appears, everyone who is spoken to, everyone in the credits). To me it's odd that on one hand IMDb is considered unreliable yet the rationale for leaving the cast list incomplete has to be that they cover it for us. I believe that IMDb was labeled unreliable for critical reception and somehow that bled on its rather complete coverage of the movies. And my view is that only including the cast in the plot section is a mashup. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of characters like Fabrizio, I agree with removing characters who are unimportant or very minor to the plot. We don't list "Woman who made [so and so] comment," for example. That's just not how cast/character lists are supposed to be on Wikipedia, or else such lists would be filled with things like "Boy #1," and so on. Ring Cinema, there used to be a characters list for this topic, but it was redirected here after being deemed unneeded and too difficult to manage (the rampant original research and vandalism that plagued the article). In fact, that list must have been deleted because List of characters in Titanic (1997) and Characters of Titanic (1997), which are redirects, don't show the edit histories or talk page discussions I saw back then. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection?

Is it really necessary to protect this page? Its a movie. Its not an article like Politics, Grass, etc. Ruler of Coasters  Talk  19:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles don't get protected for jollies. If it has been protected there is obviously a reason for it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Its a movie! Why don't we go protect the Hugo article, then? If were going to partly block a article on a movie, then Wikipedia should only be able to be edited by users, then. Ruler of Coasters  Talk  19:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction you are making. If there are problems on a page, a block sometimes helps. It's normal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

New user account, created in the last couple of weeks. My guess is that Kata89 is either very unfamiliar with the practices of Wikipedia, or very familiar with them. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is my problem...Were locking a page about a movie. Pages like WWII, Politics, or the original Titanic page makes sense. I don't get why we are protecting a page about a movie. Ruler of Coasters  Talk  13:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The only disinction we make between articles is those about living people and those that aren't. If a film article is more subsceptible to disruptive editing than the WW2 article, then there is a stronger case for protecting it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Kata89, even articles about movies fall victim to vandalism or other such disruptive editing and need semi-protection. The semi-protection usually does not last too long for film articles, though (a couple of weeks or a month at most), and will eventually be unprotected. In some cases, long protection is issued. This article's protection-rationale, for example, states that it will be unprotected on September 5, 2012. If editors agree to unprotect it before then, unprotection can be done. Sometimes it is done by an administrator who happens upon the article and feels that unprotection should be given another try. But I want to be very clear that this article has endured a lot of vandalism and other disruptive editing. The same goes for the Avatar (2009 film) article. That is why these two articles are locked. Yes, we can simply revert disruption, but that is tiresome when it is consistent. And since we can somewhat stop/avoid such disruption by semi-protecting, semi-protecting makes a lot more sense. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that makes a lot more sense. I just thought since it was a classic film, were protecting it so anonymous contributes can't edit it. Ruler of Coasters  Talk  20:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2012

Bernard Fox as Colonel Archibald Gracie IV: The film depicts Gracie making a comment to Cal that "women and machinery don't mix", and congratulating Jack for saving Rose from falling off the ship, though he is unaware that it was a suicide attempt. While the film depicts Gracie with a British accent, he was in fact American. Archibald Gracie survived the sinking on the overturned Collapsible B. Fox also portrayed lookout Frederick Fleet in the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

Bernard Fox as Colonel Archibald Gracie IV: The film depicts Gracie making a comment to Cal that "women and machinery don't mix", and Congratulating Jack for saving Rose from falling off the ship, though he is unaware that it was a suicide attempt. Born in Port Talbot, Glamorgan, Wales, U.K., which accounts for his British ascent, Archibald Gracie survived the sinking on the overturned Collapsible B. Fox also portrayed lookout Frederick Fleet in the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Fox_%28actor%29 Wfpenn (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Archibald Gracie IV was American. This is a summary of the historical person, not the actor. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2012

Bernard Fox as Colonel Archibald Gracie IV: The film depicts Gracie making a comment to Cal that "women and machinery don't mix", and congratulating Jack for saving Rose from falling off the ship, though he is unaware that it was a suicide attempt. While the film depicts Gracie with a British accent, he was in fact American. Archibald Gracie survived the sinking on the overturned Collapsible B. Fox also portrayed lookout Frederick Fleet in the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

Bernard Fox as Colonel Archibald Gracie IV: The film depicts Gracie making a comment to Cal that "women and machinery don't mix", and Congratulating Jack for saving Rose from falling off the ship, though he is unaware that it was a suicide attempt. Born in Port Talbot, Glamorgan, Wales, U.K., which accounts for his British ascent, Archibald Gracie survived the sinking on the overturned Collapsible B. Fox also portrayed lookout Frederick Fleet in the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

Wfpenn (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See above. Betty Logan (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2012

Please change paragraph 1 to paragraph 2

Bernard Fox as Colonel Archibald Gracie IV: The film depicts Gracie making a comment to Cal that "women and machinery don't mix", and congratulating Jack for saving Rose from falling off the ship, though he is unaware that it was a suicide attempt. While the film depicts Gracie with a British accent, he was in fact American. Archibald Gracie survived the sinking on the overturned Collapsible B. Fox also portrayed lookout Frederick Fleet in the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

Bernard Fox as Colonel Archibald Gracie IV: The film depicts Gracie making a comment to Cal that "women and machinery don't mix", and Congratulating Jack for saving Rose from falling off the ship, though he is unaware that it was a suicide attempt. Born in Port Talbot, Glamorgan, Wales, U.K., which accounts for his British ascent, Archibald Gracie survived the sinking on the overturned Collapsible B. Fox also portrayed lookout Frederick Fleet in the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

Wfpenn (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)william

Request denied. Fox was Welsh, NOT Gracie. This is a summary of the character, not the actor. If you are dissatisified with my decision, then re-set the template answer to 'no' and someone else can review your request, but please stop spamming the talk page with edit requests. Betty Logan (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The fictional death of Officer Murdoch

I am sure this has been said before, but this article still tacitly defends Cameron's decision to show Murdoch blowing his brains out. After looking at the article on William Murdoch, it is quite clear that he most likely died while trying to free Collapsible A, an assertion supported by three notable witnesses.

However this article continues to cast doubts by asserting:

in reality, it is not clear how he died.

That's wrong, he most likely he died trying to free one of the Titanic's collapsible boats as the ship went down. It must be made clear that the suicide scene is fiction based on rumor. Otherwise this article defends Cameron's artistic decision with its "well you know" position, ignoring the statements of three witnesses that make the suicide rumor highly implausible. The suicide of this officer, who was a real historical person, is about as offensive one can be about the memory of someone, who as his article notes, who died a hero. This has all the hallmarks of the fallacy of Russell's teapot. A philosophical viewpoint that neatly surmises: the burden of proof lies upon a person making [...] unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others. Meaning, there is evidence that proves Mr Murdoch did not die by his own hand, however this article's protective attitude towards the American director, justifies the reasoning that the burden proof of whether this is true lies with those like me that say Cameron was grossly wrong to portrait Murdoch in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.43.185 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Has Cameron made any statement on this for the record? Maybe he agrees it's pure fiction but did it for artistic reasons. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any harm in clarifying that the film's depiction of his suicide is not corroborated by any of the known facts, and that the last substantiated account of his actions was that he was trying to free lifeboats; it only requires an extra sentence or two. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And, in response to the IP, it's actually not wrong to say "in reality, it is not clear how he died." It's not wrong because "not clear" in this context means "not known for sure." How he "most likely" died does not equate to "he did die this way." The "in reality, it is not clear how he died" line is not used to defend Cameron's artistic decision; it's used to combat Cameron's artistic decision. The paragraph says:

Ewan Stewart as First Officer William Murdoch: The officer who is put in charge of the bridge on the night the ship struck the iceberg. During a rush for the lifeboats, Murdoch shoots Tommy Ryan as well as another passenger in a momentary panic, then commits suicide out of guilt; in reality, it is not clear how he died. When Murdoch's nephew Scott saw the film, he objected to his uncle's portrayal as damaging to Murdoch's heroic reputation. A few months later, Fox vice-president Scott Neeson went to Dalbeattie, Scotland, where Murdoch lived, to deliver a personal apology, and also presented a £5000 donation to Dalbeattie High School to boost the school's William Murdoch Memorial Prize. Cameron apologized on the DVD commentary, but noted that there were officers who fired gunshots to follow the "women and children first" policy.

It certainly seems to me that the paragraph makes clear that the suicide scene is fiction and is not saying "Cameron may be right that Murdoch died this way," especially with Cameron apologizing for how he portrayed Murdoch's death. But if you feel that an extra line or two is needed to make this clear or that something (like the "in reality, it is not clear how he died" line) should be subtracted and reworded, let us know what you specifically propose. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to bring all that in. So, actually, the Murdoch of the film is essentially taking the part of an officer whose name we don't know. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the case, Ring Cinema. Flyer22 (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure if any suicide is documented as having happened that way on the Titanic. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As for your change to accommodate the IP, I don't feel that "fictional" should be placed in that spot. That part of the paragraph is already detailing the fictional account, so "fictional" is redundant. It would be better placed in the "a depiction that met with some objection" part of the line you added, but reworded as "a fictional account that was met with criticism." I'll add that now. Flyer22 (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I realize it's redundant but now this way (with your change) it is open to the same criticism in that it attributes to "Murdoch" actions that we would not attribute to Murdoch. (At least, with a literal reading.) That kind of bothers me a little. You? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean that by saying "a fictional account that was met with criticism," we are saying that the Murdoch in the film didn't do those things in the film? That he was acting? I'd momentarily considered that, but then got over it when I realized that anyone with comprehension skills is going to know that we are not saying that the Murdoch in the film was putting on a fictional account and received criticism for his portrayal. But to remedy this, since it bothers you and isn't all that great to me either, we could end the sentence with the film's plot for Murdoch, and instead follow that up with "This was a fictional account that was met with criticism." Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As you wish. I just realized that it's because we have it under "Historical Characters." We say it's fiction, though, so that does cover it. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

So do you feel that we should change it to my latest suggestion, Ring Cinema? Does the current wording still bother you? Like I stated, I'm A-okay with changing it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I think we're fine. For the record: because we say it's "Historical" we imply that the depicted incidents are truer than the fictional characters' actions. That is why the original dissent above was brought. Actor, character, and history are together. As a matter of fact, the original was spot on true: it is not known how Murdoch died. Also, it is reported that some officers killed themselves. Who, then, killed himself? Apparently it was Murdoch or Wilde, since others are accounted for, I read somewhere. So, is there a line to cross where the historical becomes the fictional and it's inaccurate to categorize it that way? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Main Page appearance on 15 April

Please note that I have nominated Sinking of the RMS Titanic to appear on the Main Page next month on 15 April. In conjunction with that, it is proposed that this article will also be linked from the Main Page on the same day. Please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#April 15 for details. Prioryman (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone update the line, "The film is due for theatrical re-release in 3-D on April 4, 2012" - this is no longer a future date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.150.183 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Plot bloat

Resolved

Will someone revert the plot boat added by Teamsats1994?[2] Editors worked hard to keep the plot section of this article under control, and then Teamsats1994 shows up and just throws all that out the window. 176.227.199.34 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

New article on Titanic in popular culture

Editors here might be interested to have a look at a new article that I've contributed, RMS Titanic in popular culture, which will be linked from the Main Page on the centenary day. Please leave any feedback at Talk:RMS Titanic in popular culture. Prioryman (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate 3D re-release heading

Will someone remove the duplicate heading about the 3D re-release? And1987 added a section about its box office gross under the box office section,[3] but that information would fit better in the 3-D conversion and 2012 re-release section that already exists. The Avatar (2009 film) article does the same thing for its re-release information. I don't believe that we need two sections under the release section about the 3D-conversion. The re-release box office information doesn't need to be placed with the original box office total, especially not under a separate heading.

I'm also not sure that this edit about the film's budget,[4] by Ice-72, should remain. It's unsourced and out of place. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)