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)

I've done it a few hours ago ;-) --Sofffie7 (talk) 22:10, 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

Resolved

 – Sections merged and unsourced content reverted

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 YingYang2, should remain. It's unsourced and out of place. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception for 3D

There should be a critical reception section about the re-release mentioning whether people thought it was necessary or not, the special effects etc... Reviews are already coming in: The Washington Post,The Boston Globe,Rolling Stone,TIME,WSJ, etc...

A new section? A new section or subsection isn't needed for that. It can be added to the critical reception section that's already present or to the 3-D conversion and 2012 re-release section. Wikipedia film articles aren't supposed to have two reception sections. While a subsection going over the reviews for the re-release could be added as part of the critical reception section, that doesn't seem necessary when there is already an area in the release section discussing the re-release. Just like the 3D box office information doesn't have to be placed with the original box office information (see the section above), the reviews for the 3D conversion don't need to be placed with the reviews for the original release. 176.227.199.34 (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I started gathering reviews and put them in the "3-D conversion and 2012 re-release" section but I don't think the subsection is alright for now so if someone could give it a look... --Sofffie7 (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You added the critical reception heading as simply bolded words.[5] Now someone changed it into a solid heading (one that shows up in the table of contents),[6] which almost always happens when someone adds a section title the way you did. This is unnecessary and makes the release section look sloppy. We just got through removing the duplicate 3D release heading from the box office section, and this one should also be removed. There isn't a need for it, just like there isn't a need for a 3D box office subheading, because all of this information is relatively small and fits fine in the 3-D conversion and 2012 re-release section without any qualifiers. The title of the section already tells us that everything about the 3D release is going to be found there, so why is division needed when this is the case and when the information isn't so big that it requires subsection division? I don't believe it will become big either, unless someone adds a lot of repetitiveness, because there isn't much to say about the 3D version. Besides the heading being unnecessary, when editing that section, it will redirect editors to the main critical reception section after edits are saved because the main section has the same exact title and exists before the duplicate. So please remove the duplicate, unnecessary heading. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've merged the sections and removed some of the dated info while I was at it. If I missed anything/removed something that you feel should be in let then let me know. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone added a link to the main article for the 3D version - Titanic in 3D - and that article can be used for a lot of additional information about the 3D version. I'm not sure that it should exist, since it's the same film, only in 3D, and I said before that I don't believe that there is much to say about the 3D version, but maybe that article can mostly serve as a holder for the 3D effects that went into the film. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, if we're to keep that article, maybe the box office material in the infobox of this article should be restricted to the original box office run while the 3D article deals with the original run combined with the 3D run as it currently does? Or is that too difficult to manage? Nonsensical? 31.193.133.160 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point to that other article, at least not yet. No other film with a 3D release or a reissue has its own article and there was a huge overlap between the two articles. I think it is probably better to keep it all in this article and if the section becomes too big we can consider an article split then. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that you redirected the 3D article here, Ms. Betty, but there is something that should be saved from it. It's the following: The only scene entirely redone, for the 3D re-release, was Rose's view of the night sky at sea, on the morning of April 15, 1912. The scene was replaced with an accurate view of the night-sky star pattern, including the Milky Way, adjusted for the location in the North Atlantic Ocean in April 1912. The change was prompted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (commentator for public television science shows), who had criticized the scene. He agreed to send film director Cameron a corrected view of the sky, which was the basis of the new scene.

I'm not sure if the picture that was used for that text should also be included here. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

My redirect was reverted anyway. The article fork is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Titanic_in_3D; if it is decided to reinstate the redirect we can merge that paragraph into the 3D section in this article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Antique towncar

We see a crane lowering a towncar limousine into the cargo hold. Then we see the same type car drive up, on the dock, and Cal, Rose, and Rose's mother step out of the car. In the movie, its supposed to be two separate cars, but it looks to me like Cameron used the same car for both shots. Also, from the slanted slope of the front end, it looks like the car was a Franklin Automobile. Car enthusiasts: any comments? Marc S. Dania Fl. 74.166.156.250 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Pocket Watches

A little bit of pocket watch use in the movie, to help dress the set. We see cal on the dock reaching into a pocket for his pocket watch, and clicking the lid on his pocket watch to check the time. Titanic was close to sailing time. There is a close-up camera shot of the poker pot in the bar where Jack is playing cards. I noticed at least one pocket watch on the table. Pocket Watch collectors: did you see the small open-face silver pocket watch? Was it a kay's pocket watch? Kay's was a british mail-order catalog company from Worchester. They put the Kay's name on the dial, and sold small silver-cased open-face pocket watches. Marc S., Dania Fl 74.166.156.250 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Flash lights

Did you notice in the movie, onboard the ship, they showed the big-box flashlights that they had in that era. But then on the lifeboats, the lifeboat officers had regular tube flashlights like we use today. Was this an error? Or did the smaller tube flashlights also exist back then? Marc Smilen, Dania Fl 74.166.156.250 (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

When Jack rips the bench from the floor

What was the construction method of the decks? Was it wood planks and plywood laid over the steel beams? or did they lay sheet metal over the deck beams? When Jack rips the bench from the floor to crash thru the locked gate, we see a piece of plywood ripped from the floor. Is the plywood accurate to the construction of the ship, or was it just a piece of broken movie-set floor that stayed in the shot? Marc S., Dania Florida 74.166.156.250 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible contradiction

Perhaps I'm missing something but it appears that there is an apparent contradiction in the production section. The paragraph talking about the PCP poisoning starts out by saying that an "angry crew member" did it but concludes by saying the assailant was never caught. If s/he was never caught how can we know it was an angry crew member? SÆdon^talk 21:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Only the crew was around. And it couldn't have been a joke, so the crew member was likely disgruntled. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking out the cast in the intro and infobox

I can understand taking out the stars in the intro,[7][8] although this is the only article where I've seen the intro limit the number of stars that way. But why remove them from the infobox?[9] I can agree that a few shouldn't have been listed. But then there are the ones that had significant roles in the film, like Old Rose. I believe some editors may be looking at the word "starring" in the wrong way. The actors don't have to be the biggest stars in order to be "starring." 31.193.133.159 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)