Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

I know that somebody on the TCM board is going to complain about this film being shown eventually and while I don't think that's a bad thing nor do I mean it as an insult. I personally love this film and I'm glad that TCM is airing it. Sure, it's already been shown a hundred other times on every channel but at least we have many great classic films to go along with it which you won't get on other channels. Of course, it's already avaible on DVD too but I guess you get my point.

 

The fact is that TCM cares about film history and will continue to show films from all eras. I personally feel that we should all be more open minded about important films from all eras of cinema being shown on TCM. Besides, I'm sure that this film will only be aired on TCM once and never again, at least not for a while. Some of you are going to reply with negative comments about the film or TCM airing the it but just keep in mind that the people at TCM care about movies and would never air a recent film unless they had a good reason to and there is a good reason why this film is being aired.

 

I personally feel that this is one of the best films of the 90s and as long as we have other great classic films to go along with it on TCM then I say, let them air it. You won't get this kind of programming on other channels. I doubt that this film is being aired just to get raitings, the people at TCM would never be that cynical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you say about this 1997 film version of the tragic (real life) story. It?s natural to feel that many TCM fans will feel this motion picture is too contemporary to be showcased as an old classic goes. However, I think 12 years is a pretty good length of time to consider airing this film on a classic movie cable channel. Certainly, no one can argue or believe the 1997 ?Titanic? shouldn?t be given classic status. While it might not be so dramatically impressive or even artistic as some award winning films go, the movie does have a high degree of polished accomplishments in numerous other categories, thus giving the film so much historic value. Movies like the 1997 ?Titanic? just don?t come around very often these days. It?s all a through-back to the old days of a big, roadshow engagement at a large movie house that many of us old-timers remember. Today, there just aren?t very many films made big or to look so extravagant. If anything makes the 1997 ?Titanic? special, has to do with the way the film connected so strongly to a movie tradition that was once so common in and around the old Hollywood studio system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=MovieProfessor wrote:}{quote}

> Today, there just arent very many films made big or to look so extravagant.

 

Some would argue that if anything, CGI effects actually make it easier for Hollywood to manufacture visual extravagance (though unfortunately it is not always accompanied by narrative cohesiveness).

Link to post
Share on other sites

CGI effects are tricky- sometimes they look great sometimes they look like crap. In many ways "Titanic" is a traditional Hollywood epic. Cameron wanted Charlton Heston to play the Captain of the doomed ship which would have linked it directly to the classic era.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=joefilmone wrote:}{quote}

> This is a outstanding production with superior art direction, costume and special effects.

 

Seriously?

 

I didn't notice, due to the loud scenery chewing by the lead, um, ac-tors.

 

I was never so happy to see a movie end, and in such a delightful way, when the credits on this stinker rolled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Romance, Romance, Romance. Titanic went way "overboard" on the romance scale. The movie is "bogged down" after Jack gets arrested for stealing the Heart of the Ocean. The silly subplot of Rose rescuing him could have been trimmed on the cutting room floor. The tragedy of it all was the best thing in that movie. The whole audience gasped and moaned "Oh, no!" when that shot of the Titanic sinking slowly from the bow began after intermission. I cried worse than I did at Love Story when the silence from the 1500 was explained by the boats going back to find the dead in the water.

The movie worked best when Cameron "let the camera tell the story." Half the dialogue could have been scraped, and the picture would have been much more effective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love TITANIC. The grand scale works in its favor. Brings to mind what people must have felt about the ship itself and the lifestyles of some of the passengers. The length and magnitude allow for more story elements without cramming in too much at one time. The love story, while not exactly subtle, commanded my attention so that when the iceberg finally appeared, I thought, Oh, my God! I'd almost forgotten about that. That's good screenwriting. The intensity of the production fits right in with the concept. But wisely, this is not a movie about a shipwreck. It's about people.

 

It is too early to include it in a classic format. What does that make the golden age of cinema? Pre-historic? What's the rush?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish TCM reshow the German version of "Titanic", I missed it. Like to see their take on the disaster (who to blame).

 

Trivia: Notice the guy who played John Jacob Astor? He's played by Eric Braedon, who is the ruthless billionaire in CBS's "The Young and the Restless". If they kept his Y&R charactor in "Titanic", he would have bought the ship, placed it in the backyard swimming pool and fired Bruce Ismay. Used the iceberg for chilling champange. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

TITANIC is a very poetic film visually, and Cameron seems to have channeled all his creative energy into the film's look at the expense of everything else; unfortunately, the film's a leaden weight textually: dreadful writing, some atrocious performances (I've come to believe that Cameron cast the inept Danny Nucci as Leonardo deCaprio's Italian buddy just so that deCaprio wouldn't be the worst actor in the movie. The only really memorable, affecting performance is given by Victor Garber as the ship's designer, Andrews), and a trite, contrived love story that would've failed to pass muster in an "Introduction to Screenwriting" course held in Night School.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the love story in Titanic isn't subtle because you see it coming but it's the way that it was done that made it tragic and effective. I personally found the love story in this film to be more beliveable then any other love story in the history of film. I found it a more well developed love connection then Brief Encounter (1945). As much as I love David Lean's other films, I found that love story in this film to be cliched and just as poorly developed as The Notebook (2004). I just hated how the two lead characters kept saying, "I love you" troughout the second half of the movie. It got to the point of being silly. The words, "I love you" are only used once in Titanic and it's only used at the right moment. You can have the carachters say I love you over and over but I want to see it. Show me love and passion, don't tell me. While Brief Encounter is a more thought provoking movie then Titanic, I still didn't buy into the fact that these two were truly in love.

 

Again, I love old films from the classic era and maybe comparing these two films isn't relevant but I'm just making a point of how, while not as subtle as Brief Encounter, Titanic is more beliveable.

 

Edited by: Kubrickbuff on Feb 6, 2010 9:53 PM

 

Edited by: Kubrickbuff on Feb 6, 2010 9:53 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Sprocket_Man wrote:}{quote}

> TITANIC is a very poetic film visually, and Cameron seems to have channeled all his creative energy into the film's look at the expense of everything else;

 

Well, I'd say the same applies to his latest movie, Avatar.

 

Don't get me wrong - I like a director who is ambitious and tries to do stuff that hasn't been done before.

 

There's some truly eye-popping moments in both films, and I think that both were really worth catching on the big screen, if possible.

 

Still, something seems a bit awkward when you start thinking that maybe Oliver Stone's become the more subtle of the two directors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=audreyforever wrote:}{quote}

> > {quote:title=Kubrickbuff wrote:}{quote}

> > I found it a more well developed love connection then Brief Encounter (1945).

>

> I very much agree, Mr. Kubrick Buff.

 

Well, I thought they had good chemistry together. But it's tricky to make a comparison with a movie from the mid-40s, because the sensibilities were so different at the time.

 

All other things being equal, however, I'd probably rather watch Titanic, simply because the scale of the spectacle is so large and romantic. And Brief Encounter has never been my favorite Lean movie, even if you only look at his 40's output.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameron is a very old fashion story teller who uses cutting edge technology. He started out as special effects guy for Roger Corman. He obviously knows how to create spectacles that connect with a huge world wide audience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I think Casablanca is a much better movie than Titanic, I have the feeling that despite the spectacle and action of the movie, the romance in it caught people's attention in the 90's as did the romance of Bogart and Bergman of the 40's; that is, much more than Brief Encounter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people, even teenagers, and especially teenage girls, still love romantic stories, and I think Hollywood could still make a lot of money turning out classic romantic stories, without cursing, vulgarity, or nudity.

 

I would love to see the 1953 version of ?Titanic?, and I wish TCM would rent a copy of it.

 

We?ve seen the 1958 version several times, and the German 1943 version a few times. Now we?ve got the 1997 version, and I?d like to see the 1958 version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=audreyforever wrote:}{quote}

> As much as I think Casablanca is a much better movie than Titanic,

 

The ?97 version of Titanic was 3 hours and 14 minutes long.

 

Casablanca was 1 hour and 42 minutes long.

 

One reason why Casablanca is so successful is because it had a lot of different stuff in it, yet it was NOT 3 hours and 14 minutes long. There was nothing in the film that was boring.

 

Titanic was 1 hour and 32 minutes longer than Casablanca, and much of it could have been edited down into shorter sequences. Such as the boy handcuffed to the pipe, and the hours it took him to freeze to death in the water, and the long stuff about the modern researchers going on and on about finding the ship. That?s two movies in one.

 

Some of the most successful classic movies are not long ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}

> > {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

> > I would love to see the 1953 version of Titanic, and I wish TCM would rent a copy of it.

> >

>

> Do you receive Fox Movie Channel? I'm pretty sure they show it from time to time.

>

> If you don't receive FMC, I'd be happy to record it for you, if you want.

 

No, I don?t receive FMC. I used to receive it, but Directv took it off my premium package about a year ago, after nearly 10 years of being in that package. Now they want me to pay more for what I?m already paying more for.

 

However, there are not enough old movies on Fox for me to pay more for it.

 

Thanks for the offer to send me a copy, but I?ll just do without it. If I got into the habit of asking my friends to send me ?copies? of movies, I?m afraid I?d wind up mooching movies off all my friends. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

FredCDobbs wrote:

<< think people, even teenagers, and especially teenage girls, still love romantic stories, and I think Hollywood could still make a lot of money turning out classic romantic stories, without cursing, vulgarity, or nudity. >>

 

A recent nice example is "Kate and Leopold" (2001). Had the twist at the end of a modern day working woman that wanted to go to the 19th century. Story didn't told what she was in for, still wondering how she faired. :|

 

There was a very small nude scene in the 1997 "Titanic" and it was Kate Winslet's first.. Very tame compared to what she did later.

Kate_Winslet_Titanic_nude_drawing_scene.

 

By the way about losing the FMC channel, the same thing happen to me a few years back. Directv gave me a discount for 3 months to compensate

 

Edited by: hamradio on Feb 7, 2010 3:51 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

*I think people, even teenagers, and especially teenage girls, still love romantic stories,*

 

FredC,

 

I think there were two audiences that went to *Titanic* and both helped make it a box office success.

 

First and foremost were the teenagers, especially girls, who liked the romance of the story and went back for repeated viewings.

 

Second, were moviegoers in our age range who went for the recreation of the ship. Up until *Titanic* only really had Walter Lord's wonderful book, A Night to Remember about the ship and the sinking. Based on his book, we only had our imagination to use about what the grand staircase and the ship interiors looked like. We knew many of the real life people in the movie from his book, Bruce Ismay, Thomas Andrews, Captain Smith, the Strauss', Jack Thayer, the baker, 2nd office Lightoller, the Astors.

 

Coupled with that were the images from the Robert Ballard's historic discovery of the ship at the bottom of the ocean and the rusted remains of the grand staircase, light fixtures and such that we had all read about in Lord's book.

 

For those of us who had grown up reading Lord's book, it the was a chance to see the ship brought to life in a way we had never experienced it before and a chance to vividly compare the sinking of the ship to Lord's historic version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...