Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:04, 8 August 2009

	Titanic (1997 film) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 25, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 28, 2008 Good article nominee Listed March 7, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

Film: Canadian / American GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Harvard Journal of Law & Technology

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2008-02-05 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Plot section. Verify : Add more references. Anyone got James Camerons Titanic? Other : This article will never be considered good if people keep adding a trivia section, rather than writing it properly in to relevant sections (Production, etc.). Many people who carelessly add trivia don't bother reading the rest of the article to see if it's already mentioned.

Archives

October 2002 - September 2006 September 2006 - January 2008

Rotten Tomatoes

There is no reason why this should be in every single film Wiki page. They are no the be all end all site. They are a for profit site and are using Misplaced Pages to get hits. This practice must be stopped.214.13.162.2 (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

HaHaHa

No one looks at this article. Why is that? The Titanic is a good movie. That's real weird. Okay. Now let's get to my pointless question.

In the movie, Mr. Murdoch shot himself, right. And you know how people say that if you kill yourself, you go to hell. Well he killed himself. At the end, Rose was walking into Titanic Heaven. How and why was that. He killed himself. Well I know that they were trying to give a happy ending, but..., I hust wanna know!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.81.219 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, check the archives. And your comment is...well...pointless. They're showing a happy ending for everyone. Incidentally, the man who shot himself and others is Mr. Murdoch. Good day. BlackPearl14 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He didn't get to heaven because no such thing exists. Your body rots. The end. ;) The JPS 13:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's quite rude of you to say that one's body rots. Jesus, what's happened to people these days? BlackPearl14 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, we do look at the article; it's on our watchlist for changes. ANYWAY, when people say all that, it's speculation. We don't allow speculation. And on the other hand, we never wrote it was in heaven, because it's supposed to be neutral. We know it was in heaven, but it's just to show that all who died truly live...if you get my saying. BlackPearl14 04:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Granted, this is not a general discussion forum for the extent of God's forgiving nature, or whether Rose died. The original poster's question appeared to be general really. Alientraveller (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

HD DVD

It is come to my attention that the sale of HD DVD players has come to an end. But, it is said that Titanic will be released to HD-DVD. Will this still happen? Limetolime (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's best to wait until Paramount officially dumps the format, and see when Amazon removes the listing. Alientraveller (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

 Done I have focused main parts of the Titanic film history in the intro.

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

 Done I have added more images to the article. Limetolime (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Well, everything seems in control in this article but three things that I have placed it on hold for. The first is lack of pictures, there are only 3 (2 without the infobox one). I'm sure there has to be more that can be used in the public domain. The second is that the lead could be longer, filling in more of the plot, reception, filming, editing, and soundtrack. The third and final thing is that the whole plot contains no inline citations. Unless there's a ref I don't know of, its lacking. If someone could please inform me on a ref, thanks. For now, the article is on hold and should pass with some work.32 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MOSFILMS, films themselves are cites for the plot. Alientraveller (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that all has been fixed, this article meets the requirements for Good Article status. Congratulations!32 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It does? But, there are huge chunks of information missing! :-) Like, how the movie was popular with teenage girls; more critical reviews like Siskel and Ebert, Entertainment Weekly, Time etc.; parodies...anything else? 142.166.202.219 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(This is the same person) I added the Siskel & Ebert review and Richard Corliss' review from Time. 207.179.152.221 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The painting scene

"They enter William Carter's Renault traveling car and have sex"

This happens after Jack Dawson paints Rose in the nude if I recall correctly, however I am unable to find mention of this important scene, which is actually more important to the movie than the two having sex (which is actually only implied... maybe they just kiss naked for a while, lol). But seriously, if it is there I'm overlooking it, can someone post an excerpt so I know what to look for? Or else, please add it in? It's kind of important to the movie. Tyciol (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why has Titanic not been prosecuted as child pornography in Canada?

If Rose is 17 when she boards Titanic as the introduction describes, and she does not have a birthday on the boat prior to getting painted and the steamy car scene, then would it not count as child pornography? It doesn't really matter if the actress portraying Rose isn't, because the character she plays is portrayed to be a minor. Furthermore, it does not matter what the age of consent was on the Titanic (would that be determined by British Law or American law at the time?) because it only matters what the age is in Canada where it is being shown. The only reason I would presume is has not been prosecuted are because no one noticed it, or because the police knew it would win an 'artistic merit' defence. However, avoiding prosecution based upon the artistic merit defence doesn't invalidate its being child pornography. Tyciol (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking or serious? If you're serious, I'll offer many corrections pertaining to what you posted here. 142.166.205.150 (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the laws are in Canada, but in the U.S., a simple simulation of child pornography (ie. animation or even photoshopping a child's face onto an adult body, for example) is not illegal. As long as Kate Winslet is over the age of 18 when the movie was filmed is all that counts. Again, not sure of the law is similar in Canada but that's why it's okay in the U.S. Bill shannon (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

{This is the same person as 142.166.205.150} The thing is, this movie isn't pornography which, if you read the article which you yourself linked to : ) it says that it involves explicit sex and children. It's legal and quite common to have actors in their 20s portray a teenager and do nudity and sex scenes in movies. Where I live, in the Maritimes, the film would only be banned if the character portrayed (or the actor themselves) was under the age of 16 and the sex was explicit and exploitative. This should answer your question, Tyciol. 142.166.205.101 (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to the link (child pornography) in the heading - some users can't see links in headings. Brian Jason Drake 06:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I was referring to. : ) 142.166.132.223 (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Inflation adjusted box office numbers

When comparing box office receipts across the 100 years of box office receipts, inflation adjusted numbers are very important, and I would argue the most meaningful numbers of all. Some may disagree, but this information belongs in the opening paragraph if the #1 unadjusted ranking is trotted out. Otherwise that is only half of the story. Yes, I know that[REDACTED] articles don't always include this information right now (some of them do), but since this is the #1 unadjusted film, it is important to make this disclaimer. Otherwise, saying only that it is the number #1 grossing film is misleading. I should add that for marketing reasons, the movie industry likes to use only unadjusted numbers to make their recent films seem more enticing. That does not mean that we are required to do that. Cshay (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated before, Titanic is the only major blockbuster film that has an inflation reference in the lead article on wikipedia. Other blockbuster films such as Star Wars: A New Hope, Jaws, and E.T. do not have unadjusted inflation recognized in their lead article. I do not understand why you are pinpointing Titanic as needing a reference for inflation. The statement in the Titanic article misinforms readers that it isn't the highest grossing domestic film in North America, which it is. All over the world since it broke the dometic box office gross record in 1998, media organizations have referenced it as the "highest grossing film in the world." What the statement basically says is that, no matter what film may come after GWTW, it will not exceed it's inflation value, which is the ONLY box office record it holds. Titanic set a box office benchmark, which it still holds. This sentence is completely biased and if you do not want to be biased, then place it in EVERY film that GWTW exceeds in inflation value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickDion22 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Inflation adjusting gives readers a true idea of how the film ranks over many years - even when the price of admission goes way up because of inflation. For example, if a ticket to Gone with the Wind cost 5 cents in the 1930s and a ticket to Titanic cost $8 in the 1990s, you wouldn't be able to tell by unadjusted gross receipts that Gone with the Wind is the #1 inflation adjusted box office draw of all time. That is why inflation adjusting is important when reporting movie receipts. There was already a compromise made on this issue, which was to include both facts in the introduction section. You haven't made a good case why this information should not be included. Simply saying that other editors in other articles have not yet included the information is insufficient (and in fact the information IS included for some "blockbuster" films such as The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King). Please stop reverting the status quo until a consensus is made in your favor here. Cshay (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, placing inflation adjustments for films such as Titanic gives the reader misleading information. It is a fact that Titanic broke box office records domestically and internationally. Also, GWTW was re-released numerous times since 1939, which added to the inflation of the film. Titanic made over 600 million dollars in a single run in North America. It is almost as if you do not even acknowledge the financial success of the film.

Also, just as a clarification, ticket sales in the late 1930's were around 25 cents, not 5 cents, and ticket prices around 1997 hovered around 5 dollars, not 8.

I feel that the fact that Titanic has held the North American and international record for over a decade in a single run in theatres is a good enough reason why inflation should not be included in at least the lead. There is a clear bias towards this film and it's record success and it needs to end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickDion22 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not sure what point you are trying to make or what you mean by "misleading information" or "bias". It's a fact that Titanic is #6 in the inflation adjusted ranking. There is no bias in including this fact along with the #1 non-adjusted ranking. Including this fact allows the reader to be fully informed. Some people don't even realize that inflation is not taken into account in the rankings provided by the movie industry. As I mentioned above, the movie industry does not use inflation adjusted figures for marketing reasons and many media outlets just parrot their press releases. There is no reason for us to do so on wikipedia. Cshay (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not be naive here. For over a decade Titanic has been coined the box office champion of the world. Both of us have been exposed to the media hype that was Titanic. Dismissing the unprecedented financial success of the film is just plain ignorant.

There may be no bias in the figures themselves, but there IS bias when one person post a statement challenging the domestic gross of a film one sentence after it is clearly stated that it is the box office champion internationally! Your argument has no substance.

The biggest problem I have with this is, that if Titanic didn't break the domestic record, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The mere fact that it IS the highest grossing film domestically and internationally is what makes this whole arguement so dumb.

Lastly, I find it extremely interesting that not once have you even acknowldeged the success of Titanic. That puts a preconcieved notion in my mind that you do not care about the revenue that it recieved nor the records that the film broke. You should not be given the priviledge of maintaining the status quo of a film that you do not even appreciate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickDion22 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that relevant? WP:AFG. Secondly, the fact it is the sixth highest-grossing film, adjusted, is an achievement to be celebrated. Alientraveller (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. Whether you like to admit it or not, Titanic DID break the record for North America which it still holds to this day. I think that should be counted as more "relevant" than an adjusted estimation value for film's gross that cannot even be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickDion22 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying Titanic did not break the inflation unadjusted record. And this information is in the intro of the article. However it is misleading to state this fact and not also mention at the same time that it is #6 in the inflation adjusted list. You seem to want to hide the inflation adjusted information. Why? Let people have the information and think for themselves. You do realize that Sound of music sold more tickets than Titanic in the very first year it was out? This is why inflation adjusting is important information to provide. You have not made any case for removing this information, except that it somehow seems to offend you. Still you keep reverting it despite being asked to stop. I am sorry that the information seems to bother you, but the fact is that this is important information that by consensus has been included in the intro paragraph.Cshay (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a clarifcation, the worldwide gross is in the opening article. Nowhere in the lead does it state the domestic gross of the film, other than your edit.

I shouldn't have to clarify to you why I think that the inflation adjustments should not be added to at least the lead. I have already stated that numerous times above, which you clearly haven't seen. Also, wikipedia, is an online encyclopedia. People come to this website to read information, not to make their own personal judgements. Readers shouldn't have to "think for themselves."

You say I haven't made any case for this arguement, yet all you seem to have provided are circumstancial statements that have no basis whatsoever. You seem so persistent towards wanting to include this in the opening lead of an article where it isn't warranted.

Misplaced Pages should give readers reputable facts and not speculative information that cannot even be verified.

Lastly, please tell me of the recent "consensus" that you cite because the last discussion where inflation was mentioned was back in December, 2007 and I cannot find anything after that date.

There is something which should be noted on this issue, and though it has been alluded to, it has not been fully explained. Using the term "Adjusted for Inflation," over any period of time, is extremely misleading. Unless you're only going to contrast comparable periods of time between two films, the argument is completely irrelevant. User PatrickDion22 above mentioned the silver bullet of this discussion: "Gone with the Wind" enjoyed numerous releases over the course of time since its first appearance in 1939. "Titanic" has only enjoyed one. When you're adjusting ticket sales for GWTW, you're including the original run as well as nine subsequent re-releases in the last 70 years. "Titanic" was released once in that same period of time, and though it is, in fact, a much younger motion picture, its number still vastly surpassed that of GWTW in less time. That, in and of itself, should be factually sufficient in refuting the "Adjusted for Inflation" argument as it relates to box-office grosses for major motion pictures.

But allow me to take it one step further. Home video was widely unavailable until 1982 (and even then, the formats didn't comprehensively penetrate all households until years later). Now, with the advent of digital home video (DVD, Blu-Ray, etc.), the availability of a motion picture, post-theatrical release, is ubiquitous. From 1939 to 1982, that was not the case. In simpler terms, the only way you could see a film was to go watch it in theaters, and regardless of whether that viewing occurred during its original theatrical run, or a re-release, every single ticket sold over that period of time adds to the grosses of that picture. People don't need to visit theaters anymore to see movies, therefore box-office grosses today are more clearly defined than ever.

If you want to compare apples to apples (forgive the onslaught of cliches, here), then compare "Titanic" to "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" because each of those two pictures have only enjoyed one theatrical run (to date). Those figures would be comparable. However, simply stating that "It is a fact that 'Titanic' is #6 in the inflation adjusted ranking," and "There is no bias in including this fact along with the #1 non-adjusted ranking," is simply not true. The ONLY way one could compare "inflation-adjusted" figures between films which were released in two completely different eras of film (home video and non home video) would be to adjust the dollar value associated with the ticket sales of each film's INITIAL RELEASE schedule and NOT include any data from subsequent RE-RELEASES.

I cannot immediately find accurate information on the number of actual tickets sold during GWTW's original, 1939 release (most sources only differentiate between the 1939, 1989, and 1998 releases - and even then it's only dollar amounts). But just for the sake of argument, let's take GWTW's total ticket sales all time, which is roughly 283 million. Though we know it's not the case (because that number is "inflated" with all tickets sold during re-release), if you multiply that 283 million figure by the average ticket price of 1997 ($4.59), you get about $1.2 billion, which would surpass "Titanic's" domestic gross numbers. But we are intelligent people and we can extrapolate from all that data that 283 million tickets were not sold for GWTW in 1939 (if for no better reason than the population of the United States in 1939 was just over 130 million people, meaning that every American citizen would have had to have seen GWTW an average of twice EACH to account for those sales - and I think we all know that didn't happen).

A better example of this discrepancy would be to compare the films "Star Wars" and "Jurassic Park." After 1993, when JP was released, it was ranked #2 behind "ET" on the all-time list(JP=$356 million & ET=$359 million). "Star Wars" was #3 on the list (at $322 million, which, oddly enough, included a 1982 re-release). Then, in 1997, when the "Special Edition" was sent to theaters, "Star Wars" miraculously jumps to #1 all-time because it took in another $139 million dollars. The only reason it usurped the current king was because of added tickets sales (which, it should be stated, were higher than in 1977, the year "Star Wars" originally released).

The point is this: the numbers may add up even when you compare original releases between wildly popular films which emerged 60 years apart from one another, but you MUST differentiate between the two time periods. Lumping in all releases and re-releases for one film against a single release for another is blatantly misleading. It may be a fact that "Titanic" exists as #6 on lists everywhere, but those lists are committing the same falsity that has been explained over and over again in previous entries. I believe this is what user PatrickDion22 was attempting to explain.Kpmurphy24 (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Inflation adjusting is important info to provide, even if the data that we have is imperfect. It is better than nothing. Non-inflation adjusted data is useless to compare any films from different decades. In fact, it won't be long (within 10 years) before every summer blockbuster will earn more than Titanic did. Then our argument here will be completely moot and people will be trumpting it's #6 inflation adjusted position because so many other average films will have earned more in unadjusted dollars. Dark Knight already has almost earned as much as Titanic. Why? Because tickets cost a heck of a lot more in 2008 then they did in 1997...not because Dark Knight was the smash hit that Star Wars IV, Gone with the Wind, or Titanic was. 75.101.11.171 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is important to provide, but it does not in any way TRUMP the counterargument... you CAN compare TICKET sales to determine a film's popularity across decades, even generations, because that number is not affected by inflation. My argument does not revolve around the dollar amounts attached to each film, it revolves around the number of tickets sold. With that in mind, given that films like "Gone with the Wind" and "Star Wars" all had MULTIPLE theatrical releases, the number of total tickets sold is a misrepresentation of that film's popularity over time. "Titanic" has had only one theatrical run, and it outsold, in ticket numbers, each of GWTW and Star Wars' INITIAL ticket sale numbers. The dollar amounts attached to each of these films, and thousands of others, are mere byproducts of the discussion. If you take the number of tickets sold to "The Dark Knight" in its original theatrical release, and adjust those for inflation against "Titanic," you would actually be able to compare the two. That's not possible with films of previous, home video-less generations unless you only take into account their original theatrical runs.--Kp.murphy (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It still doesn't change the fact that no other page I see has anything about adjusting for inflation in the opening section. And as others have said, it's a clear flaw when adjusting the numbers of a movie that's gotten multiple theatrical releases with money made over different decades then all adjusting it back to the 1939 number. In the box office section, it even says "unadjusted for inflation" when talking about its worldwide gross. Give me a break, it's just like some person plastered that on everywhere they could even when it doesn't make sense. Exodite (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

About Imagery Section

This section was added as part of Imagery effort soon to be made to a WikiProject. Please read my talk at Wikimania conference for more info. TaniaGilman (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't add pointless links though. Alientraveller (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

what makes you be so non-polite? I gave you a link to quite a long argument explaining why I did what I did. Just saying it's pointless is no good answer to that, and it is just not polite. I just presented this talk at Wikimania, and it was very positively received. TaniaGilman (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see the point of adding a entire section with just two links. Sorry if you can't assume good faith and find my comment inpolite (to the point is the phrase you want). Alientraveller (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Home Video Section

Each set is numbered, for buyers to easily tell the difference between an authentic copy and a bootleg copy.

Because no bootlegger will ever be able to duplicate our fiendish numbering scheme! Seriously, can this be right? --EtherGnat (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also with regards to the home video release, in "Death by black hole, and other Cosmic Quandaries" by Neil deGrasse Tyson, he relates an anecdote about telling James Cameron that the stars in the night sky were inaccurate, and how Cameron then had him contacted to provide scientifically-accurate stars for the special edition release. Is this notable and should it be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drax7792 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack and Rose unintentionally caused the accident

I think the plot section should contain the fact, (in the film), that Jack and Rose's romantic embrace untentionally distracted the lookouts until it was too late to warn of a collision. Not only is this scene extremly important as far as showing what was going on the Titanic at the time the iceberg was sighted; there are those, (and I can give references if needed), that feel two fictional people distracting the lookouts made the film inferior to A Night to Remember (film), was historically inaccurate, and made Jack and Rose, (the two lead characters), look partially responsible for the disaster.204.80.61.110 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Bennett Turk

No, it is unsourced, and there are many reasons the Titanic sank. Alientraveller (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I went to the Google search page and put in the words- Jack Rose distract the lookouts -and came up with hundreds of hits. Among them from the titanic-titanic.com review of the film. Also a review of the film and that scene in the book "Titanic in Myth and Memory" by Tim Bergfelder and Sarah Street. Plus, a discussion of the movie's pivotal scene from the book "Disaster Movies" by Stephen Keane. In the film, Jack and Rose did not just walk up on deck and see the ship hit the iceberg. Two fictional people were indirectly responsible for the incident. There were many reasons the real Titanic sank. None of those reasons include the real lookouts being distracted by a pair of fictional people. Any one who has seen the movie Titanic (1997) has seen Jack and Rose unintentionally distract the lookouts and help to cause the incident. The plot review of Titanic should metion that in the movie Jack and Rose do more than observe the collision. In A Night to Remember (film), the lookouts, (one of them Bernard Fox, who also appears in "Titanic"), do not see the iceberg until it's too late, because of the lack of binoculars, no moon, extremely flat seas, and hazy weather. In James Cameron's "Titanic"; Two fictional people distracted the lookouts until it was too late to avoid an impact. It was an extremly important scene, one that insulted and accused Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee, the actual lookouts of dereliction of duty, incompetence, and lying under oath to two boards of inquiry, and it should be metioned.74.76.223.87 (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Bennett Turk.

In the screenplay, there's no explicit mention of the lookouts being "distracted" by Jack and Rose. They do notice the couple before noticing the iceberg, providing a sudden contrast ("It is Fleet whose expression falls first") between humour ("Well if that's what it takes for us two to get warm, I'd rather not, if it's all the same") and seriousness ("a massive iceberg right in their path, 500 yards out"), but that does not necessarily mean that they would have noticed the iceberg earlier if they had not been paying attention to the couple. Perhaps the iceberg caught their attention when it did, because that was the first time the iceberg was close enough to catch their attention (for all the reasons that A Night to Remember takes into account, although in Titanic we're also, incidentally, made aware of what the iceberg diverts their attention from). It's also not unfathomable that the actual lookouts did get bored or distracted every now and then. If they were feeling this way before they saw the iceberg, they probably never admitted it--so if Cameron is implying that they could have felt this way, he's surely acting within artistic license and isn't suggesting anything entirely new. My guess is that Cameron just wanted to give the audience a final laugh before putting it through the inevitable suspense and sadness. Or the scene could have been designed as a more mundane, pragmatic plot device for weaving together the fictional and non-fictional threads of the story, so that we don't suddenly jump from Jack and Rose to the crow's nest for the sheer reason that history requires us to get to the crow's nest eventually. In any event, without sourcing Cameron himself, we can't really be certain. This is just one reviewer's opinion, and citing it as "fact" would probably be giving it undue weight. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The published screenplay has the note "Cameron intended Jack and Rose's embrace to distract the lookouts and prevent them from seeing the iceberg in time, an ironic twist coming at the very moment Rose exercises her will to change her life." (ISBN 0752213202 p80). On the other hand, we always have to be careful about excessive detail creeping in. The JPS 11:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so I stand corrected. That's quite poetic, though (come to think of it, one could probably write a dissertation by analyzing that event in terms of existential authenticity), so I still disagree with the initial poster's assertion that this scene makes the film "inferior" to A Night to Remember. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I (and many conspiracy theorists) believe that the Titanic didn't sink. Rather, it was sunk in a conspiracy or something. The only reason we haven't heard any of these is because of the time of the sinking. Of course, it's irrelevant, but it's worth mentioning. Jienum (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In the article about Titanic itself, perhaps, but those conspiracies are irrelevant for this article. The JPS 16:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mass deletions

MiltonP Ottawa (talk · contribs), here's your chance to explain why this revision, where you tear out lots of production information and James Berardinelli's opinion, is a good idea. It is not, but me and other editors would be interested to know why you apparently think discussing why the original ending was cut out belongs in Plot. Alientraveller (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The information I removed was redundant and unnecessary and also amounted to trivial technical details. There were also redundant and trivial sections about the DVD which were unnecessary. Misplaced Pages is not a fan-site. The alternative plot details amount to trivia which does not belong in Misplaced Pages. The article is extremely bloated and wordy as it is and there isn't a need for even more trivial details. I left in the details which I felt were detrimental to the article.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You say it's trivial but you fail to explain why. Why is it trivial they filmed a port docking scene on the starboard side? Why is the cast and crew getting ill and having accidents trivial? Why is trivial how they managed to sink the ship set when it was acting as a shock absorber? Why is it trivial there was a big fight between Lovejoy and Jack that got cut out? That real actors with make-up played the corpses? Why did you delete Berardinelli's review? "Fan-site"? What argument is that? It'd be nice if Misplaced Pages got recognized actually. If you think the article is wordy then copyedit it: it's comprehensive and that's an FA requirement. And this articles does not violate the guideline against endless unorganized lists of info jumping here and there. Alientraveller (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Technical details like alternate scripts and very specific details of the building of the set are TRIVIAL. They do not belong in the article. The article is already far too long and these details while quirky and interesting add nothing to the actual article. The article is too long and some sections have to be removed and if any sections should be removed it should be technical and trivial details or sections which are repetitive. Read Misplaced Pages's guidelines for trivia: Misplaced Pages:Handling trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a fan-site means just that. This is not a site to discuss pointless and trivial content of the subject matter. Even if the content isn't written as A LIST it does not matter. Trivia should be avoided and I'm trying to exclude it from this severely bloated article. Misplaced Pages defines trivia as "Trivia is information that is not important to the subject it is being presented in relation to." This defines the sections I removed.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, wait, did you just say interesting information does not belong in an article? And why is it too long? It's less than 54 KB, once you remove the citations. Alientraveller (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrews and Ismay

From the Historical characters section:

Victor Garber as Thomas Andrews, Jr.: The ship's designer, ... . After the collision, he struggles to comprehend that his "unsinkable" ship is doomed, with not enough lifeboats for half the people on board. He is depicted during the sinking of the ship ...

Huh? I thought Andrews was the one who assured the others that it was a "mathematical certainty" that the ship would sink, and Ismay was the one struggling to comprehend the impending doom. Brian Jason Drake 01:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've made these changes, removing the phrase "with not enough lifeboats for half the people on board", as it did not seem to fit in anywhere. Brian Jason Drake 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

I heve a stupid question: maybe someone know what is the melody they are playing on violins at the end when the capitans cabin is flooding? I would appreciate any help... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtydiana87 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The last melody the orchestra plays is Nearer, My God, to Thee. They disperse immediately before the scene where the captain's cabin floods. In that scene, the sound is that which would be heard inside the cabin (i.e. breathing followed by rushing water). Brian Jason Drake 06:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Rose is One-Hundred

Would someone like to correct old Rose's age to 100 again. Before I joined Misplaced Pages as a member, I wrote the now archived post/section: "Old Rose is 100, not 101".

Here's a snippet from it...

In the movie where Brock and Lewis are talking about Rose while she is inbound, they say the exact following...

Lewis: "Rose DeWitt Bukater died on the Titanic when she was 17 right?"

Brock: "That's right."

Lewis: "If she had lived she would be over 100 by now."

Brock: "101 next month.

Again, this means that Rose is actually one-hundred in the movie's present day. If you don't believe me, watch the movie again, maybe even with subtitles ON! lol

Also, if you go to various "TITANIC" websites (even the official one), they have her age listed as 101 but they are also wrong...

"WRONG I SAY!" (*pulls hair out.)

There are (x2) dates that need to be changed on the movie page and (x3) on Gloria Stuart's page as well. Thankyous! AnimatedZebra (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we not afford to round up the numbers for the sake of brevity? Alientraveller (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

R1: Hmm, I guess? *eats sandwich. AnimatedZebra (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Would someone like to correct old Rose's age to 100 again. Before I joined Misplaced Pages as a member, I wrote the archived article titled: "Old Rose is 100, not 101".
Huh? Brian Jason Drake 07:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

R2: I did a post some time ago about how in the movie, Rose's present day age is 100 but the Titanic page had it written as 101. So I wrote a post (which is now archived), asking if it could be changed to her correct age; the post was called "Old Rose is 100, not 101". Recently, I then noticed that someone had changed it back to 101, so I once again wrote another post about the same issue (which is what were replying to now). :) AnimatedZebra (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a section (not article) titled "Old Rose is 100, not 101 :)", which is now archived at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 2#Old Rose is 100, not 101 :). Brian Jason Drake 07:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

R3: "Section" is what I meant to say and yes, that is the section I wrote. AnimatedZebra (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, the best compromise would be to put "Rose Calvert (Gloria Stuart), who is nearing 101 years of age..." or something like that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What? We don't have the right to change the character's age "for brevity". The film itself says she's not yet 101, so why is Misplaced Pages telling people something else? -sesuPRIME 20:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

SHe is 100, this is fact as pointed out above, the film clearly defines her as being 100. It should be changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Titanic.html script of titanic is available here, if it is really needed we can add that as a source. Im sorry but we cant just "Round up" someones age in such a way. Doing so makes matters confusing and incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The script is not a good source for details like this because a film never turns out exactly like the script reads. For example, the script has Rose saying "Wasn't I a hot number?" whereas in the film she says "Wasn't I a dish?". -sesuPRIME 21:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

True although 101 is what was said in the film as well and theres a big difference between actors saying the same thing just with a different word or two and saying something completly different. The single sentence about how old she was could not of just been made up on the spot by an actor. Anyway i have changed the 2 mentions of 101 here and 3 on the actors page to read 100. From what i read here nobody was arguing that in the film they said she was 101, just that it was rounded up which is unacceptable when talking about ages. Anyway problem solved unless someone changes it back. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Top billing

So, everyone so often someone (usually an IP) will come through and decide Kate Winslet deserves top bill in the article. Then, after some time, someone else will come through (again, probably an IP), and decide Mr. DiCaprio deserves top billing. And so on.

I've never paid it much attention because I'm pretty sure they shared top billing equally. So I figured who cares?; it's of trivial importance. However, someone came first in the credits, so we may as well decide who goes first. I don't have the DVD, but IMDB has DiCaprio first and I assume that's actual credit order. I guess it's just time to settle this and I can add a hidden note. DKqwerty (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

During its release in theatres in 1997/98, DiCaprio was given a higher billing than Winslet at the ending credits. It went him first, then her. Hoenstly though, it's totally irrelevant. They are both the main characters. I don't see why it should be such a huge deal. Overall however, DiCaprio should be above Winslet, because his billing was above hers in the initial release and on the dvd's closing credits. BalticPat22Pat 22:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's all I wanted to know. Again, I don't think it makes a huge difference, but we need some consensus for consistency. Unless anyone objects, I'll just be reverting future edits that flip-flop their order. DKqwerty (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It's not a huge issue, but I have spotted the phenomenon to which DKqwerty refers. Someone else is obsessed with raising Sarah Michelle Gellar's billing in the Scream 2 article too. A hidden note and immediate reversion might do the trick, especially now we've discussed it. P.S. In addition to the credits, DiCaprio is listed on the left side of the posters; using the Western convention of reading from left to right, this also puts him first.The JPS 23:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And we have another similar little drama going on. One user wants to add Zane to the lede. He's been reverted several times now. The JPS 12:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed Zane from the lead a few hours and now he's back in! As I noted in my edit summary, the reason he doesn't belong is because his part isn't a starring role; he's a supporting character. Simply not lead-worthy. -sesuPRIME 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. The same user is having similar discussions with other films. There's 'another' user I'm expecting to 'contribute'... The JPS 13:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't qualify the actors as "lead actors". It simply says "starring....". The fact of the matter is that there is no consistency among these articles. This is not necessarily a surprise, but part of the purpose of contributing to the text is to add to detail and drive toward consensus. Why, for example, is "Titanic" limited to identifying two actors as its stars, while others ("Die Hard", for example) identify 5 or 6 actors as stars. The "Titanic" review overlooks Billy Zane and Kathy Bates, while "Die Hard" lists virtual unknowns in lesser supporting roles. My edits are unjustifiably being labeled as unconstructive, or worse - vandalism, when I am simply trying to contribute like anyone else. Why the inconsistency among these films? HM211980 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo DiCpario and Kate Winslet are the two lead roles and are the stars of the film. That is a fact. Billy Zane or Kathy Bates shouldn't be put in the lead because they aren't crucial to the plotline. Frances Fisher has more on-screen time than Bates, but she isn't a central charatcer either. The plotline is centered around Jack and Rose. The film's poster says so, the dvd says so, and the first two characters in the ending credits are Dicaprio and Winslet. A lead is supposed to give a short and concise summary of the article itself, while being interesting enough, that users will want to read more. What is to say that we do add Zane or Bates after Dicaprio and Winslet, and some other users who are biased feel that other characters in the film should be added as well? We would end up with the whole cast in the first sentence! It doesn't make sense. That is my opinion and I believe it is right for the article.BalticPat22 —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

Interesting that no one can address the inconsistencies among the films. We can all read the posters, DVD covers, etc. HM211980 (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's simply a case-by-case matter. For example, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe lists six characters in its lead. On the flipside, Citizen Kane lists only one. That's not to say Kane is the only important character in that film, he's just the most significant. Think of it this way: which characters need to be mentioned in a brief synopsis of the story? "Four siblings free Narnia from a tyrant with the aid of mystical lion" or "A newspaper tycoon's personal life and career are revealed through flashbacks", or "A wealthy woman falls in love with a poor man aboard the Titanic". -sesuPRIME 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right. That's why Billy Zane's character should be mentioned as a prominent one. Jack and Rose spend half the movie running from him. Nevertheless, I'm not inclided to argue over this any longer with administrators on a power trip. HM211980 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that "administrators are on a power trip" is transpiring to be a little habit of yours. Someone else has already pointed out how this could be considered a personal attack. (Although, it needs to be said, that two of the above who you have disagreed with are not actually admins.) The JPS 14:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Original Release Date

The article cites an expected original release date of July 2, 1997. I attempted to verify this by the referenced source, but it was not referenced so I have removed it. HM211980 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't look hard enough. I reverted your edit and added a citation giving the July 2nd release and info regarding delays. BalticPat22Pat 03:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Sports and recreation good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• GA-Class film articles
• GA-Class Canadian cinema articles
• Canadian cinema task force articles
• GA-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists