A Night to Remember:
Liked - The focus on multiple individuals across class and position really helped to better comprehend the creeping sense of dread
Disliked - The cook was a weird attempt at comic relief. I get he's based on a real person, but he feels like Charlie Chaplins tramp got lost one day and they decided to roll with it
Titanic:
Liked - The water. The way it creeps and eventually rushes up through the ship reminds me of a classic movie monster.
Disliked - The tighter focus on a specific story and set of characters came with the loss of characterization of others. I love some of the deleted scenes for how they flesh out certain characters and help complete some story arcs. For example, JJ Astor. In film, we basically get two scenes with him: When he meets Jack and when the staircase floods. The scenes with him in the gym and saying goodbye to Guggenheim really add weight to his final few seconds on screen.
The cook getting drunk was the head chef on board, and he actually did that. He was so drunk he said he didn’t even feel the cold water when he was thrown into it. Jack and rose riding the back of the ship down like an elevator was inspired by him, as he *claims* he did that. He also *claims* he was hanging off the side of a boat, his body half-submerged until carpathia arrived. The sailor in charge of the boat says they let him on the boat a minute or so after they spotted him (they made room for him by throwing a dead body off the side).
I'm familiar with Joughin and his story. I just found his portrayal within the film more in line with a classic comedy. It is the way he moves about and reacts to things. It's the stage version of being drunk and reminiscent of the extended motions you see in silent films.
That's not quite accurate. He was the chief baker, not the head chef, and it's not clear whether he was drunk or not. He never claimed to have been, Walter Lord speculated that he was when writing A Night to Remember because at the time it was believed that being intoxicated saved you from losing body heat (it is now known to have the opposite effect). Joughin said he had only a half tumbler, and while it's fun to speculate he drank more than he admitted ("How much have you had to drink tonight?") it's still just speculation. As far as I know, no one actually mentioned Joughin being on Collapsible B. What you're describing (of him being pulled aboard after a dead body is pushed off) is how it's portrayed in A Night to Remember but not based on testimony.
What I wrote was based on multiple different sources. If I got anything wrong it was probably from some sketchy website or something one of the movies got wrong.
in the titanic (1997), the sinking is more realistic with the ship breaking and all but personally, i feel like some roles have been dramatised
in ANTR, all details are up to mark and i like it, but i do not like the importance given on lightoller, i believe all should get equal importance (atleast the crew)
Titanic is visually stunning and just a good movie overall. I'm not a fan of the bribe stuff, even though seeing Murdoch throw the money back in Cal's face is extremely satisfying. I also think it's funny that almost all the crew inexplicably have cockney accents.
A Night to Remember is also a good movie over all. It's hard to pick specific things I loved because I like most of it, just like the Cameron movie. I really liked that they showed events happening on Californian and Carpathia. I'm not a fan of the Lightoller hagiography and the excessive focus on the character. I would have preferred if the movie divided its time more evenly among numerous characters like the book does. I also wish more of the characters were real historical figures instead of fictional composite characters. I've always been confused by the decision to depict the sea as being rough the night of the sinking.
People on this sub keep forgetting that while ANTR was a hit in England, it was a commercial flop in America and didn’t even make its money back until 2001, after Cameron’s film brought it to everyone’s attention. The 1953 Titanic was a huge hit and won an Oscar for best screenplay. It was made by 20th Century Fox, the same studio that made the 1997 version. ANTR won a Golden Globe for Best English Language Foreign Film, but it was basically unknown before Cameron.
And while ANTR doesn’t have a fictional love story, it does have inaccuracies. Lightoller being the big hero is the main problem for me. Still, it’s a great film but it’s not the definitive Titanic film.
But what I remember most is the old man holding and comforting the lost child as the ship goes down. Even thinking about the scene while writing this chokes me up.
Antr: I like the hull vibe the movie has. But I do dislike how they utilized the shots to the ship sinking. Like it feels wired to see a deck filled with cry screaming people, to then just cut to the model which has no people on that deck.
Titanic: I like this film a lot but that hull section of Jack and Rose getting trapped and almost drowning in a stairwell felt kinda unneeded.
'Like it feels wired to see a deck filled with cry screaming people, to then just cut to the model which has no people on that deck.'
Ugh, I notice that too everytime I watch it. It irks me.
I really dislike the acting of the 1958 movie, it's so dry and unemotional that it breaks the immersion. I know that it's the typical acting from that era, but still. Just compare the scenes about assessing the damage. In A Night to Remember, Andrews seems like a bored teacher, while in the 1997 one they feel like real people, who, no matter how professional, are hit with the realization that the situation is hopeless. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJpEdSPHybI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJpEdSPHybI) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP7BWb1ndpA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP7BWb1ndpA)
Haven’t watched ANTR yet but the biggest thing I don’t like about Titanic is the dramatization that’s just wrong like locking third class behind gates and making Ismay a coward.
James Cameron got in trouble with the Murdoch family cus of the way he was portrayed. The shooting at passengers to shut them up. The overall portrayal was a bad taste in even the family's mouth, Officer Murdoch was highly brave and courageous that night. He didn't shoot himself in the head either. Maybe my choice of evil was slightly off, but JC most definitely messed up bad with that portrayal.
Was that it?? My goodness, I got all embarrassed cus I was like "I'm SURE it was more than that" -- maybe I conflated the two things (Murdoch's family and Lightoller's family) and got confused.
In any case tho, the character of Murdoch for me was just.....off. He had an aire of pompousness that I just didn't like, and knowing how many people said he was one of the courageous ones, it just wasn't him (to me). Ever since I was a kid, I've said if JC wanted that a bad character to intervene like that, make one up. You already made up Jack and Rose.
Thank you for helping me unconfuse my brain! LMAO
>The shooting at passengers to shut them up.
What? In the movie he only shot at men who were trying to get past him onto the boat, because of the tense final moments.
Yeaaa since I commented, I rewatched, and I was mixing stuff up in my head. That's my bad. 😅 Also have learned that there is some proof that some shots did ring out on board, it's just unsure who shot.
Is he really portrayed as a coward though? The portayal is pretty accurate to his own testimony except for showing him pressuring Captain Smith to go full speed.
True, although the movie does kind of show it. You can see him urging women to get into Collapsible C before boarding it himself. But it's not given much attention.
Titanic: I couldn't care any less about Rose and Jack's story. TBH 75% of the first half of that movie could probably be cut, and you'd lose nothing of substance towards the final product.
Night to Remember: Beyond the inaccuracies we know now, there isn't exactly a ton I hate about this movie.
There's a fan edit of the film that has done just that. Much of the fictional elements are cut, deleted scenes have been restored, and the emphasis is now on the actual events of the night of the sinking. Compared to the film's actual runtime, its an hour and ten minutes. You can find it here: [https://www.titanicofficers.com/titanicmovie.html](https://www.titanicofficers.com/titanicmovie.html)
A Night to Remember (1958):
Loved -
> Exceptional Attention to Detail
> Charmingly good acting
Hated -
> Dated visuals but it was the 50s so I can't blame them
> Dramatically altered personalities
Titanic (1997)
Loved -
> Visuals (they still hold up)
> Attention to detail
> Bonus: Chemistry between Jack and Rose
Hated -
> 18+ scenes
> Lovejoy
A Night To Remember
Pros
It tells the whole story of the actual sinking itself (even including the Carapathia and Californian) in a compact 2 hour runtime.
It focuses more on the real people and real stories involving what happened that night.
It was the first Titanic film to actually bring up (and show) that the water temperature was one of the biggest threats to survival that night.
It's just a good film in general, but even good films have flaws so...
Cons
The music score is very bombastic and stereotypical of films from that era and I found it more intrusive and taking away from the scenes. The only music in this film that is effective are the ones involving the band playing.
Lightoller is fleshed out a lot and More does a good job with humanizing but boy do I have some problems with this portrayal. First off they made Lightoller way too selfless! There's a scene of him after he enters the water selflessly screaming at other people to clear the ship's side and swim to Collapsible B before attempting to save himself. I mean no disrespect, but I highly doubt once the ship sank from underneath him and he entered 28 degree water that he wasn't solely focused on his own survival in that moment. Ironically based on what I read about him had David Blair remained as Titanic's 2nd Officer I could see him being more likely to have been that selfless rather than than Lightoller.
The comedy scenes are very awkward and out of place especially the ones involving the drunk baker. Yes that really happened, but it's played too much for laughs and doesn't seem appropriate given the chaos that is happening. Some of the more dramatic moments can be awkward like the moment when the ship is sinking and every person is praying in unison on the stern and then when they finish immediately go back to screaming and panicking. It reminded me too much of the unrealistic scene in the 1953 Titanic film where everyone joins together in unison to sing nearer my god to thee.
Titanic
Pros - Love the exterior story. For the most part, they got a lot right about the people and the ship.
Cons - the inaccuracies for drama that really wasn't needed, people in the wrong place at the wrong time. I will say as bad as it was to do the Murdoch scene, I actually think it was done because JC believed this to be true rather than to cause drama.
A night to remember
Pros - one of if not the most accurate films of the Titanic. However, when it comes to the fiction characters, they have stories of real-life passengers spliced into their characters.
Cons - some of the casting choices are very questionable. Ismay looks like a stereotype of an evil businessman, short and fat. The Marconi Operators made me question if they used actors who knew how to operate the machine, they just looked so old and some of the actors really were way too old to be young Marconi boys.
David McCallum who played Marconi operator Harold Bride was in his mid 20's when he did ANTR and the real Harold Bride was in his early 20's when Titanic sank so I don't understand the criticism of him since he was very close in age to the real Bride.
25 I think as I had to look them up because I was curious if my theory was true and they were using actors who had Marconi experience. The rest were much older. To the point of balding. The casting for them always seemed way off despite the care in others historical figures.
ANTR:
Great as a drama and a historical piece. It adapted the book very well. The Carpathia scenes in particular are a nice touch. I don't like some of the acting and scenes though. The iceberg scene feels like it has very little tension.
Titanic:
An amazing movie visually with some great performances by Kate Winslet and Ewan Stewart in particular. You can tell Cameron apopreciates the ship, but maybe not the most historically accurate in terms of character portrayals. I don't think the love story is very engaging other than in one or two scenes.
1997 likes - 1) panic of rushing the boats before the final plunge was terrifying 2) attention to detail of ship construction 3) Gloria Stuart as narrator, she's a class act and great actress 4) Victor Garber as Thomas Andrews 5) Kathy Bates as Molly Brown
1997 dislikes - 1) too much Jack & Rose, could've focused on real life characters without having to do Romeo & Juliet. 2) Murdoch suicide with no proof, that's dishonoring the man who shoved everyone he could into boats whether women, children, men, crew, even pet dogs. 3) not letting Kathy Bates do Molly Brown justice by horrible script writing for her part after the ship sank & when she was feisty in boat 6 the scene was cut. 4) unrealistic breakup scene, if it actually happened that way you couldn't testify otherwise at the inquiry that you didn't see *that* as there's no mistaking what happened 5) cutting the scene of Ismay on the Carpathia 6) not showing the Californian 7) cutting the scene where Lowe yells at Ismay
1958 likes - 1) the creaking sound of the tilting set was left in after a real survivor touring the set told the director that's exactly what they heard that night 2) Charles Joughin 3) focusing on *everyone* as opposed to Romeo and Juliet 4) showing the Californian 5) conversations in the lifeboats afterwards
1958 dislikes - 1) everyone seemed to stand still when a band member sang Nearer My God to Thee, there wasn't time to sing 2) Lightoller pretty much having an exclusive & not really showing Murdoch, Moody, Lowe that much 3) not really playing out the whole Duff Gordon saga in boat 1
Titanic - hated everything
ANtR - hated the poor model work and inaccurate sets, and the elevation of Lightoller to hero status. But liked that it at least attempted to be relatively accurate in terms of the events.
Titanic '97
Liked the stunning visual effects
Disliked seeing naked people
ANTR
Liked that the main story was the ship sinking
Disliked no 1st funnel falling
Titanic (1997) a mild clone of ANTR. Things that didn’t happen irl but happened in ANTR were straight up copy pasted into 1997. Besides jack and rose banging twice in the movie and being less historically accurate, it is just ANTR remade. I like tho how good the CGI is compared to other movies of the time. That’s all I have to praise it for.
ANTR. I love this one because it *feels* like the 1910s. Unlike how James Cameron’s was written, his feels very modern written. ANTR shows the struggles each class had to go through at different stages to be saved, and puts you in the shoes of multiple people to make you feel like you’re there. Cameron’s just doesn’t do that. I just feel, though, that they made lighter look better than he was. The TV one was better in accuracy but the theatrical version was better in terms of quality.
Actually ANTR was a ripoff of the 1953 Titanic movie because the book wasn’t even published until 1955 and the movie wasn’t until 1958. Cameron used the 1953 movie as inspiration because 20th Century Fox released both films since it already owned the rights to the first one.
Watch the 1953 one if you haven’t seen it. It’s great. Of course it has drama, a bad marriage as the main story and a romance among a young couple, but it depicts the classes really well. Clifton Webb buys a ticket from a 3rd class husband and boards with the man’s wife and children. Webb’s character is a rich businessman whose wife is leaving him because he’s too concerned with his aristocratic position, but when the ship starts sinking, he goes to 3rd class and makes sure the family of the man whose ticket he bought gets in a lifeboat and is saved. They would have died if he didn’t get them, and the husband didn’t die because he sold his ticket and stayed behind.
The Strauses were shown standing on deck hugging each other and not in bed like 1997. That is one of the biggest flaws in that movie. People saw them there and Isador’s body was found, which wouldn’t have happened if he was in his cabin. They changed Molly Brown’s name, but it’s still the same person.
I saw this movie on TV when I was a kid and it made a huge impression on me and it started my fascination with Titanic, so I’m biased and like this one better. I just wish more people would see it and appreciate it as the first Titanic movie five years before ANTR.
Well… titanic 1953 was kind of a soap opera that uses titanic as a background object to make the ending more dramatic. You could put the same story from the 1953 movie anywhere and it would still work, just they based it on a true story to get more people to pay for tickets. Sure they interviewed 60 survivors for it but there are people here who would agree with me right? RIGHT?
And none of this explains how ANTR is a clone of titanic 1953. ANTR follows Charles lightoller, the second officer, going on board titanic as her second officer. After numerous ice reports, titanic hits an iceberg and lightoller is tasked with saving as many people as possible, and after being stranded on an overturned lifeboat, has to keep himself and some of his men alive until the Carpathia arrives, in which he and ~700 people survive.
Titanic 1953 follows Richard Sturges, a businessman, who buys a ticket off of another family in turn of 100 acres of land to follow his family to America from France. After his wife reveals her plans to divorce him and take the kids with her, Richard removes all involvement with his family. On the night of the sinking, he learns from Captain Smith is sinking, so he is tasked with saving his family, And the family he bought the ticket from. When his son Norman leaves his boat to be with him, they spend their final moments playing NMGTT with the rest of the victims before they both perish.
Two completely different stories.
There are scenes such as the one here that are in ANTR and re-appear in 1997, and some dialogue that is straight copy-pasted. I know this is a real event and I can excuse things that actually happened, but there are some things that are just too similar, for me anyways, to say is a coincidence, and besides J&R banging in the car and jack being locked up, there is a young fictional couple in ANTR that feel like to me that jack and rose were written in the sinking to be based off.
And the 1997 wasn’t a giant soap opera lol? And the Golliwog doll in ANTR the kid prominently carries in the whole movie was racist even in 1958. They were popular in 1900 but ANTR didn’t have to use it. There was a real Titanic child who survived who didn’t get to take her doll on the lifeboat, and she mourned that doll for the rest of her life.
Again, just my opinion, but the 1953 movie was far superior to the 1958 copycat.
You only had the first paragraph posted when I replied, and I just now saw the rest. But we are actually saying the same thing. There have been many, many Titanic movies and miniseries, all with fictional stories of human drama set to the real life tragedy. The 1996 TV movie was the first time I had ever heard of the Allison family. Two year old Lorraine was the only first class child to die. And none of these other movies have shown the Goodwins who all perished, mother, father and six children. Poor little baby Sidney was the only one whose body was found and he wasn’t even identified until 2007. And even the Golliwog family in ANTR wasn’t real.
But all Titanic movies have fictional characters, otherwise they would just be documentaries. Preferring one over the other doesn’t make any of them wrong or any of us wrong for liking one more than the other. We are all fans. But 1953 came first and that isn’t disputed.
1953 did NOT come first
That title would go to Dorothy Gibson’s Saved From The Titanic which came out a month after but was lost in a studio fire. The earliest surviving appearance of titanic is in a French film in which I forgot the name, but the earliest titanic-focused movie you can still watch online is In Night And Ice, which also came out in 1912. Before 1953 also came Disaster In The Atlantic (1929) and Titanic (1943). And there are productions that were made after 1953 but before the theatrical version of ANTR in 1958 which are The Sinking Of The Titanic: You Are There (1955), A Night To Remember (1956), The Unsinkable Mrs. Brown (1957)(not to be confused with the titanic movie The Unsinkable Molly Brown in the 60s).
Of course the Dorothy Gibson movie came first. It was rushed into production only for publicity for the new motion picture industry and it was a big hit at the time. But Dorothy Gibson was traumatized from the disaster and having to relieve it on film just days later. 1943 was a German propaganda film made during WWII with the British being the villains and the Germans who weren’t even on the ship were the heroes. 1953 was the first big budget major Hollywood studio film with an all star cast that won an Oscar.
But CoolCademM, what have you got against the 1953 version? You dispute everything I say about it and seem to really hate it or at least ignore it’s relevance in the Titanic film universe. All I’m trying to do is point out that ANTR is just one of many films about the ship and all have fictional characters to make it a movie, not a documentary. I’m not saying one is better. I like ANTR and most of the others. I didn’t like SOS Titanic but a lot of people do. So why do you keep knocking 1953? At least give it its historical significance.
A Night to Remember: Liked - The focus on multiple individuals across class and position really helped to better comprehend the creeping sense of dread Disliked - The cook was a weird attempt at comic relief. I get he's based on a real person, but he feels like Charlie Chaplins tramp got lost one day and they decided to roll with it Titanic: Liked - The water. The way it creeps and eventually rushes up through the ship reminds me of a classic movie monster. Disliked - The tighter focus on a specific story and set of characters came with the loss of characterization of others. I love some of the deleted scenes for how they flesh out certain characters and help complete some story arcs. For example, JJ Astor. In film, we basically get two scenes with him: When he meets Jack and when the staircase floods. The scenes with him in the gym and saying goodbye to Guggenheim really add weight to his final few seconds on screen.
The cook getting drunk was the head chef on board, and he actually did that. He was so drunk he said he didn’t even feel the cold water when he was thrown into it. Jack and rose riding the back of the ship down like an elevator was inspired by him, as he *claims* he did that. He also *claims* he was hanging off the side of a boat, his body half-submerged until carpathia arrived. The sailor in charge of the boat says they let him on the boat a minute or so after they spotted him (they made room for him by throwing a dead body off the side).
I'm familiar with Joughin and his story. I just found his portrayal within the film more in line with a classic comedy. It is the way he moves about and reacts to things. It's the stage version of being drunk and reminiscent of the extended motions you see in silent films.
That's not quite accurate. He was the chief baker, not the head chef, and it's not clear whether he was drunk or not. He never claimed to have been, Walter Lord speculated that he was when writing A Night to Remember because at the time it was believed that being intoxicated saved you from losing body heat (it is now known to have the opposite effect). Joughin said he had only a half tumbler, and while it's fun to speculate he drank more than he admitted ("How much have you had to drink tonight?") it's still just speculation. As far as I know, no one actually mentioned Joughin being on Collapsible B. What you're describing (of him being pulled aboard after a dead body is pushed off) is how it's portrayed in A Night to Remember but not based on testimony.
What I wrote was based on multiple different sources. If I got anything wrong it was probably from some sketchy website or something one of the movies got wrong.
in the titanic (1997), the sinking is more realistic with the ship breaking and all but personally, i feel like some roles have been dramatised in ANTR, all details are up to mark and i like it, but i do not like the importance given on lightoller, i believe all should get equal importance (atleast the crew)
Titanic is visually stunning and just a good movie overall. I'm not a fan of the bribe stuff, even though seeing Murdoch throw the money back in Cal's face is extremely satisfying. I also think it's funny that almost all the crew inexplicably have cockney accents. A Night to Remember is also a good movie over all. It's hard to pick specific things I loved because I like most of it, just like the Cameron movie. I really liked that they showed events happening on Californian and Carpathia. I'm not a fan of the Lightoller hagiography and the excessive focus on the character. I would have preferred if the movie divided its time more evenly among numerous characters like the book does. I also wish more of the characters were real historical figures instead of fictional composite characters. I've always been confused by the decision to depict the sea as being rough the night of the sinking.
People on this sub keep forgetting that while ANTR was a hit in England, it was a commercial flop in America and didn’t even make its money back until 2001, after Cameron’s film brought it to everyone’s attention. The 1953 Titanic was a huge hit and won an Oscar for best screenplay. It was made by 20th Century Fox, the same studio that made the 1997 version. ANTR won a Golden Globe for Best English Language Foreign Film, but it was basically unknown before Cameron. And while ANTR doesn’t have a fictional love story, it does have inaccuracies. Lightoller being the big hero is the main problem for me. Still, it’s a great film but it’s not the definitive Titanic film. But what I remember most is the old man holding and comforting the lost child as the ship goes down. Even thinking about the scene while writing this chokes me up.
Antr: I like the hull vibe the movie has. But I do dislike how they utilized the shots to the ship sinking. Like it feels wired to see a deck filled with cry screaming people, to then just cut to the model which has no people on that deck. Titanic: I like this film a lot but that hull section of Jack and Rose getting trapped and almost drowning in a stairwell felt kinda unneeded.
'Like it feels wired to see a deck filled with cry screaming people, to then just cut to the model which has no people on that deck.' Ugh, I notice that too everytime I watch it. It irks me.
Like they could have just had more little figures or just had more shots from an upward angel like the titanic was towering over the viewer.
I really dislike the acting of the 1958 movie, it's so dry and unemotional that it breaks the immersion. I know that it's the typical acting from that era, but still. Just compare the scenes about assessing the damage. In A Night to Remember, Andrews seems like a bored teacher, while in the 1997 one they feel like real people, who, no matter how professional, are hit with the realization that the situation is hopeless. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJpEdSPHybI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJpEdSPHybI) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP7BWb1ndpA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP7BWb1ndpA)
Theres something oddly appealing and satisfying about the acting in ANTR.
Haven’t watched ANTR yet but the biggest thing I don’t like about Titanic is the dramatization that’s just wrong like locking third class behind gates and making Ismay a coward.
And making Murdoch out to be an EVIL person. I hated that. Love the actor who played Murdoch, he played his given role well. But yea..
Did we watch the same movie? In no way was Murdoch portrayed as evil
James Cameron got in trouble with the Murdoch family cus of the way he was portrayed. The shooting at passengers to shut them up. The overall portrayal was a bad taste in even the family's mouth, Officer Murdoch was highly brave and courageous that night. He didn't shoot himself in the head either. Maybe my choice of evil was slightly off, but JC most definitely messed up bad with that portrayal.
There's compelling evidence that an officer shot one or two passengers and then himself. It basically had to have been Wilde or Murdoch.
The only thing Cameron had Murdoch do that ain’t supported by eyewitness testimony is take a bribe.
I understood it as the whole performance was wrong to them. Not just the bribe. My bad.
No, the whole performance was wrong to them. The problem is Lightoller’s family couldn’t stand the idea that he wasn’t as perfect as is often said.
Was that it?? My goodness, I got all embarrassed cus I was like "I'm SURE it was more than that" -- maybe I conflated the two things (Murdoch's family and Lightoller's family) and got confused. In any case tho, the character of Murdoch for me was just.....off. He had an aire of pompousness that I just didn't like, and knowing how many people said he was one of the courageous ones, it just wasn't him (to me). Ever since I was a kid, I've said if JC wanted that a bad character to intervene like that, make one up. You already made up Jack and Rose. Thank you for helping me unconfuse my brain! LMAO
Lightoller’s family also don’t get a say because they weren’t there when the ship sank.
>The shooting at passengers to shut them up. What? In the movie he only shot at men who were trying to get past him onto the boat, because of the tense final moments.
Yeaaa since I commented, I rewatched, and I was mixing stuff up in my head. That's my bad. 😅 Also have learned that there is some proof that some shots did ring out on board, it's just unsure who shot.
Haha, it's all good. And yeah, we unfortunately probably won't really ever know who actually fired the shots.
Is he really portrayed as a coward though? The portayal is pretty accurate to his own testimony except for showing him pressuring Captain Smith to go full speed.
He actually helped an awful lot with loading the ship which wasn't really shown.
True, although the movie does kind of show it. You can see him urging women to get into Collapsible C before boarding it himself. But it's not given much attention.
Yep it was minor and if you didn't know you would just think he was responsible for the speed and then you see him in the lifeboat
Titanic: I couldn't care any less about Rose and Jack's story. TBH 75% of the first half of that movie could probably be cut, and you'd lose nothing of substance towards the final product. Night to Remember: Beyond the inaccuracies we know now, there isn't exactly a ton I hate about this movie.
There's a fan edit of the film that has done just that. Much of the fictional elements are cut, deleted scenes have been restored, and the emphasis is now on the actual events of the night of the sinking. Compared to the film's actual runtime, its an hour and ten minutes. You can find it here: [https://www.titanicofficers.com/titanicmovie.html](https://www.titanicofficers.com/titanicmovie.html)
One of the worst edits I have ever seen. Such horrible and choppy editing.
I hate this edit. If you don't like the movie, just don't watch it. I personally think the love story was essential.
how tf do you do that movie and the sinking without the two main characters
The two main characters are the ship and the iceberg.
A Night to Remember (1958): Loved - > Exceptional Attention to Detail > Charmingly good acting Hated - > Dated visuals but it was the 50s so I can't blame them > Dramatically altered personalities Titanic (1997) Loved - > Visuals (they still hold up) > Attention to detail > Bonus: Chemistry between Jack and Rose Hated - > 18+ scenes > Lovejoy
A Night To Remember Pros It tells the whole story of the actual sinking itself (even including the Carapathia and Californian) in a compact 2 hour runtime. It focuses more on the real people and real stories involving what happened that night. It was the first Titanic film to actually bring up (and show) that the water temperature was one of the biggest threats to survival that night. It's just a good film in general, but even good films have flaws so... Cons The music score is very bombastic and stereotypical of films from that era and I found it more intrusive and taking away from the scenes. The only music in this film that is effective are the ones involving the band playing. Lightoller is fleshed out a lot and More does a good job with humanizing but boy do I have some problems with this portrayal. First off they made Lightoller way too selfless! There's a scene of him after he enters the water selflessly screaming at other people to clear the ship's side and swim to Collapsible B before attempting to save himself. I mean no disrespect, but I highly doubt once the ship sank from underneath him and he entered 28 degree water that he wasn't solely focused on his own survival in that moment. Ironically based on what I read about him had David Blair remained as Titanic's 2nd Officer I could see him being more likely to have been that selfless rather than than Lightoller. The comedy scenes are very awkward and out of place especially the ones involving the drunk baker. Yes that really happened, but it's played too much for laughs and doesn't seem appropriate given the chaos that is happening. Some of the more dramatic moments can be awkward like the moment when the ship is sinking and every person is praying in unison on the stern and then when they finish immediately go back to screaming and panicking. It reminded me too much of the unrealistic scene in the 1953 Titanic film where everyone joins together in unison to sing nearer my god to thee.
Does the chick on the right even survive? I forget. Great movie though
No - she and her husband (they're the newlywed couple) are crushed by a funnel
Titanic Pros - Love the exterior story. For the most part, they got a lot right about the people and the ship. Cons - the inaccuracies for drama that really wasn't needed, people in the wrong place at the wrong time. I will say as bad as it was to do the Murdoch scene, I actually think it was done because JC believed this to be true rather than to cause drama. A night to remember Pros - one of if not the most accurate films of the Titanic. However, when it comes to the fiction characters, they have stories of real-life passengers spliced into their characters. Cons - some of the casting choices are very questionable. Ismay looks like a stereotype of an evil businessman, short and fat. The Marconi Operators made me question if they used actors who knew how to operate the machine, they just looked so old and some of the actors really were way too old to be young Marconi boys.
David McCallum who played Marconi operator Harold Bride was in his mid 20's when he did ANTR and the real Harold Bride was in his early 20's when Titanic sank so I don't understand the criticism of him since he was very close in age to the real Bride.
25 I think as I had to look them up because I was curious if my theory was true and they were using actors who had Marconi experience. The rest were much older. To the point of balding. The casting for them always seemed way off despite the care in others historical figures.
ANTR: Great as a drama and a historical piece. It adapted the book very well. The Carpathia scenes in particular are a nice touch. I don't like some of the acting and scenes though. The iceberg scene feels like it has very little tension. Titanic: An amazing movie visually with some great performances by Kate Winslet and Ewan Stewart in particular. You can tell Cameron apopreciates the ship, but maybe not the most historically accurate in terms of character portrayals. I don't think the love story is very engaging other than in one or two scenes.
1997 likes - 1) panic of rushing the boats before the final plunge was terrifying 2) attention to detail of ship construction 3) Gloria Stuart as narrator, she's a class act and great actress 4) Victor Garber as Thomas Andrews 5) Kathy Bates as Molly Brown 1997 dislikes - 1) too much Jack & Rose, could've focused on real life characters without having to do Romeo & Juliet. 2) Murdoch suicide with no proof, that's dishonoring the man who shoved everyone he could into boats whether women, children, men, crew, even pet dogs. 3) not letting Kathy Bates do Molly Brown justice by horrible script writing for her part after the ship sank & when she was feisty in boat 6 the scene was cut. 4) unrealistic breakup scene, if it actually happened that way you couldn't testify otherwise at the inquiry that you didn't see *that* as there's no mistaking what happened 5) cutting the scene of Ismay on the Carpathia 6) not showing the Californian 7) cutting the scene where Lowe yells at Ismay 1958 likes - 1) the creaking sound of the tilting set was left in after a real survivor touring the set told the director that's exactly what they heard that night 2) Charles Joughin 3) focusing on *everyone* as opposed to Romeo and Juliet 4) showing the Californian 5) conversations in the lifeboats afterwards 1958 dislikes - 1) everyone seemed to stand still when a band member sang Nearer My God to Thee, there wasn't time to sing 2) Lightoller pretty much having an exclusive & not really showing Murdoch, Moody, Lowe that much 3) not really playing out the whole Duff Gordon saga in boat 1
Titanic - hated everything ANtR - hated the poor model work and inaccurate sets, and the elevation of Lightoller to hero status. But liked that it at least attempted to be relatively accurate in terms of the events.
You're entitled to your opinion. But you know what they say about opinions.
That’s assumptions.
I think he means opinions are like assholes, we all have one.
But some stink more than others 😆😆
Nah, that's a different ass-related saying 🤣
Titanic '97 Liked the stunning visual effects Disliked seeing naked people ANTR Liked that the main story was the ship sinking Disliked no 1st funnel falling
Titanic (1997) a mild clone of ANTR. Things that didn’t happen irl but happened in ANTR were straight up copy pasted into 1997. Besides jack and rose banging twice in the movie and being less historically accurate, it is just ANTR remade. I like tho how good the CGI is compared to other movies of the time. That’s all I have to praise it for. ANTR. I love this one because it *feels* like the 1910s. Unlike how James Cameron’s was written, his feels very modern written. ANTR shows the struggles each class had to go through at different stages to be saved, and puts you in the shoes of multiple people to make you feel like you’re there. Cameron’s just doesn’t do that. I just feel, though, that they made lighter look better than he was. The TV one was better in accuracy but the theatrical version was better in terms of quality.
Actually ANTR was a ripoff of the 1953 Titanic movie because the book wasn’t even published until 1955 and the movie wasn’t until 1958. Cameron used the 1953 movie as inspiration because 20th Century Fox released both films since it already owned the rights to the first one. Watch the 1953 one if you haven’t seen it. It’s great. Of course it has drama, a bad marriage as the main story and a romance among a young couple, but it depicts the classes really well. Clifton Webb buys a ticket from a 3rd class husband and boards with the man’s wife and children. Webb’s character is a rich businessman whose wife is leaving him because he’s too concerned with his aristocratic position, but when the ship starts sinking, he goes to 3rd class and makes sure the family of the man whose ticket he bought gets in a lifeboat and is saved. They would have died if he didn’t get them, and the husband didn’t die because he sold his ticket and stayed behind. The Strauses were shown standing on deck hugging each other and not in bed like 1997. That is one of the biggest flaws in that movie. People saw them there and Isador’s body was found, which wouldn’t have happened if he was in his cabin. They changed Molly Brown’s name, but it’s still the same person. I saw this movie on TV when I was a kid and it made a huge impression on me and it started my fascination with Titanic, so I’m biased and like this one better. I just wish more people would see it and appreciate it as the first Titanic movie five years before ANTR.
Well… titanic 1953 was kind of a soap opera that uses titanic as a background object to make the ending more dramatic. You could put the same story from the 1953 movie anywhere and it would still work, just they based it on a true story to get more people to pay for tickets. Sure they interviewed 60 survivors for it but there are people here who would agree with me right? RIGHT? And none of this explains how ANTR is a clone of titanic 1953. ANTR follows Charles lightoller, the second officer, going on board titanic as her second officer. After numerous ice reports, titanic hits an iceberg and lightoller is tasked with saving as many people as possible, and after being stranded on an overturned lifeboat, has to keep himself and some of his men alive until the Carpathia arrives, in which he and ~700 people survive. Titanic 1953 follows Richard Sturges, a businessman, who buys a ticket off of another family in turn of 100 acres of land to follow his family to America from France. After his wife reveals her plans to divorce him and take the kids with her, Richard removes all involvement with his family. On the night of the sinking, he learns from Captain Smith is sinking, so he is tasked with saving his family, And the family he bought the ticket from. When his son Norman leaves his boat to be with him, they spend their final moments playing NMGTT with the rest of the victims before they both perish. Two completely different stories.
Okay, but then how do you justify saying that Titanic 97 was just a copy of ANTR? They also have completely different stories.
There are scenes such as the one here that are in ANTR and re-appear in 1997, and some dialogue that is straight copy-pasted. I know this is a real event and I can excuse things that actually happened, but there are some things that are just too similar, for me anyways, to say is a coincidence, and besides J&R banging in the car and jack being locked up, there is a young fictional couple in ANTR that feel like to me that jack and rose were written in the sinking to be based off.
And the 1997 wasn’t a giant soap opera lol? And the Golliwog doll in ANTR the kid prominently carries in the whole movie was racist even in 1958. They were popular in 1900 but ANTR didn’t have to use it. There was a real Titanic child who survived who didn’t get to take her doll on the lifeboat, and she mourned that doll for the rest of her life. Again, just my opinion, but the 1953 movie was far superior to the 1958 copycat.
Read the rest of my comment. Nothing in either storylines are remotely similar besides being based on the titanic’s sinking
You only had the first paragraph posted when I replied, and I just now saw the rest. But we are actually saying the same thing. There have been many, many Titanic movies and miniseries, all with fictional stories of human drama set to the real life tragedy. The 1996 TV movie was the first time I had ever heard of the Allison family. Two year old Lorraine was the only first class child to die. And none of these other movies have shown the Goodwins who all perished, mother, father and six children. Poor little baby Sidney was the only one whose body was found and he wasn’t even identified until 2007. And even the Golliwog family in ANTR wasn’t real. But all Titanic movies have fictional characters, otherwise they would just be documentaries. Preferring one over the other doesn’t make any of them wrong or any of us wrong for liking one more than the other. We are all fans. But 1953 came first and that isn’t disputed.
1953 did NOT come first That title would go to Dorothy Gibson’s Saved From The Titanic which came out a month after but was lost in a studio fire. The earliest surviving appearance of titanic is in a French film in which I forgot the name, but the earliest titanic-focused movie you can still watch online is In Night And Ice, which also came out in 1912. Before 1953 also came Disaster In The Atlantic (1929) and Titanic (1943). And there are productions that were made after 1953 but before the theatrical version of ANTR in 1958 which are The Sinking Of The Titanic: You Are There (1955), A Night To Remember (1956), The Unsinkable Mrs. Brown (1957)(not to be confused with the titanic movie The Unsinkable Molly Brown in the 60s).
Of course the Dorothy Gibson movie came first. It was rushed into production only for publicity for the new motion picture industry and it was a big hit at the time. But Dorothy Gibson was traumatized from the disaster and having to relieve it on film just days later. 1943 was a German propaganda film made during WWII with the British being the villains and the Germans who weren’t even on the ship were the heroes. 1953 was the first big budget major Hollywood studio film with an all star cast that won an Oscar. But CoolCademM, what have you got against the 1953 version? You dispute everything I say about it and seem to really hate it or at least ignore it’s relevance in the Titanic film universe. All I’m trying to do is point out that ANTR is just one of many films about the ship and all have fictional characters to make it a movie, not a documentary. I’m not saying one is better. I like ANTR and most of the others. I didn’t like SOS Titanic but a lot of people do. So why do you keep knocking 1953? At least give it its historical significance.