Reply
Thu 18 Aug, 2005 05:14 am
Im sure the majority of us have seen the film and I think Im right in saying there are 2 bits of the ship under the sea.On eis on the floor and the other on a 'shelf'.
As the survivors are sadly passing do you think the powers that be will try to raise the higher half of the ship?
Great soundtrack scoring but boring movie. No, I don't believe after the plaque was placed on the ship by Ballard and the IMAX film "Ghosts of the Titanic" that anyone will ever "Raise the Titanic."
If they do, we can all hope the bracing theme from James Horner score is welling up in the background.
I think that they should bring it up. I know that a lot of people think that it's horrid to dig up a graveyard but if I'd have died in the wreck, I'd rather people understand and know and have those artifacts kept safely somewhere forever then to have everything rot away slowly at the bottom of the sea. I think it's a shame to leave it there. The memory will be gone too soon after the ship is gone, IMO.
Many of the artifacts left adrift on the ocean floor have been brought up and displayed in the Titanic Museum. I don't believe the ship is in good enough condition to raise. Perhaps it should be left to eternity.
I don't think that the Titanic should be raised any more than the Arizona should be raised. It should be left as a memorial. What benefit is there to raising it?
Would be interesting to see an actual big part of history as large as life.
You could ask why they raised the Mary Rose back in the 80's.
Lightwizard wrote:Great soundtrack scoring but boring movie. No, I don't believe after the plaque was placed on the ship by Ballard and the IMAX film "Ghosts of the Titanic" that anyone will ever "Raise the Titanic."
If they do, we can all hope the bracing theme from James Horner score is welling up in the background.
Boring?!?!? I have to say it is still one of the films that Ican watch over and over and over again-- something about i just draws me in!
The script is dry and despite the subject matter it builds little momentum with, again, the exception of the scoring. Try watching it without the music and it will likely put you to sleep.
Titanic is a girly love story. That's it.
I liked it because it's a fabulous love story. Romantic and cheesy. I could easily understand why someone interested in the Titanic could dislike the movie since very little (except for the ship sinking of course) is actually true.
I just watched "Titanic" last night on one of the movie channels again for the first time in about 5 years and I still think it holds up as damn good movie. The interweaving of the 3 tales (sinking of what was then the largest, considered to be unsinkable cruise line ship, the love story between Rose and Jack and the modern day search for the wreckage) was very skillful, IMO. For all his egomania at the '98 Oscars, director James Cameron deserves credit for a largely (and mostly unprecedented) telling of a good old fashion "epic" with a human interest story of 2 ill-fated lovers that still, some 8 years later, bore re-telling.
On a personal note, "Titanic" was the first movie I saw at a theater after 9 years of not going (last one b4 was "Lethal Weapon, Pt. 2"), and I saw it twice in a span of about 2 months. The move has some other, much deeper personal resonance for me for reasons that'll go unexplained here but like the Gloria Stuart character of a 90+-year old Rose, for now, it remains just in my memory and I still think the movie is well worth watching now that all the Leo hype has long since faded. I'd rank it among the top 20 movies of all time, believe it or not.
We were discussing the prospect of "Raising the Titanic" (movie of the name but not a very good movie). "Titanic" is often maligned purely on a hatred of De Caprio as a pretty face and his so-called bad acting. I think it's virtually all bias. He's not a bad actor and has turned in extremely good peformances. I liked him as Jack and on the big screen, the movie was truly "Titanic." I thought the story was just a classic love story with a twinge of Dickens but it was really framed by the whole tragedy of man's impudence against nature and his sometimes overwhelming egotism that he is always in control.
I share Lightwizard's feelings about both films. I have watched Titanic three or four times, but could not sit through the Raising.
Lightwizard wrote:We were discussing the prospect of "Raising the Titanic" (movie of the name but not a very good movie). "Titanic" is often maligned purely on a hatred of De Caprio as a pretty face and his so-called bad acting. I think it's virtually all bias. He's not a bad actor and has turned in extremely good peformances. I liked him as Jack and on the big screen, the movie was truly "Titanic." I thought the story was just a classic love story with a twinge of Dickens but it was really framed by the whole tragedy of man's impudence against nature and his sometimes overwhelming egotism that he is always in control.
My "bad" for missing the main gist of this thread, but I appreciate your well-stated comments on the '97 blockbuster, Lightwizard.
Nope, it was the Titanic that was cracked up...in two pieces, that is.
(drum roll)
L.W.'s here all week
snare hit
Thank you, thank you, thank you. And for my next number, I will do back flips to the main theme from "Titanic." Funny thing happened on the way to the movies -- James Horner who wrote the music for "Titanic" also wrote the music for "Raise the Titanic." I'm waiting for him to go down for the third time!
Horner is rich beyond our wildest dreams due to the Celine hit from the movie Titanic.
Yes, I don't think he will be sinking! The score for "Raise the Titanic" is leagues above his score for "Titanic." I just want to rip that pipehorn out of his hand.
Anyone -- besides LW
-- remember "A Night to Remember"? That was the "true" story of the sinking of the Titanic without any fictional characters or sappy, sugary love story to hold it together. Now, if that movie had been remade with the fabulous special effects of "Titanic" . . .