Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 160
  1. #101
    Administrator Country: Wales Steve Crook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    29,732
    Liked
    418 times
    Quote Originally Posted by alan gowdy
    Wasn't the hated Davis parodied in 'Peeping Tom' as Don Jarvis?
    Steve?
    That's the one, where they made the character say "If you can see it in the first take, then that's good enough"



    The man was an accountant. He didn't have an artistic bone in his body but he was making lots of artistic decisions about what should and shouldn't be made



    Steve

  2. #102
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,378
    Liked
    7 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Crook

    He didn't have an artistic bone in his body but he was making lots of artistic decisions about what should and shouldn't be made



    Steve
    Hmmm - seems to me just the type of person who features prominently in the management structure of a certain independent television company that is going through a tough patch at the moment.

  3. #103
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    207
    Liked
    0 times
    Living in Belfast we never hear the end of the Titanic saga, the modern miracle - I've even heard it referred to as a marvel of Protestant engineering. The telegram about its disastrous maiden voyage is probably still sitting lodged in a disused telex machine at the wrecked Harland & Woolf offices.



    We have Titanic themed festivals, a section of the city called the Titanic quarter etc...



    Yet for all this celebration of the event, the yards and offices where the Titanic was designed and built have been variously demolished and abandoned. The schematics for ships are routinely dumped in skips meant for landfill. A lot of lip service is paid to the cultural significance of that ship without making any effort to preserve or maintain the local history and experience of it. If the sinking of the Titanic is a curiously international event, there is little corresponding evidence of an Irish event in the building of it.



    An existential boat, if you ask me.

  4. #104
    Senior Member Country: UK Moor Larkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,472
    Liked
    120 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Crook
    The man was an accountant. He didn't have an artistic bone in his body but he was making lots of artistic decisions about what should and shouldn't be made
    You'll be hearing from his solicitors.......




  5. #105
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1
    Liked
    0 times
    Bill McQuitty came from Northern Ireland and his brother, now deceased, lived in Braemar Park, Bangor.

  6. #106
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,213
    Liked
    2 times
    Titanic has been featured in a large number of films and TV movies.



    In Nacht und Eis, a 1912 film produced in Germany. It was thought lost until a collector discovered a copy in his collection in 1998.

    Saved from the Titanic, a 1912 film starring Titanic survivor Dorothy Gibson.

    Atlantis, a 1913 film based on a love story in the Titanic.

    Atlantic, a 1929 film that is highly fictionalized. It was retitled Titanic: Disaster in the Atlantic in American home video releases.

    Titanic, a 1943 German Nazi propaganda film directed by Werner Von Klingler.

    Titanic, a 1953 film starring Barbara Stanwyck, Clifton Webb and Robert Wagner, directed by Jean Negulesco.

    A Night to Remember, a 1958 film based on the disaster.

    The Unsinkable Molly Brown, a 1964 film starring Debbie Reynolds as Titanic survivor Margaret Brown.

    S.O.S. Titanic, a 1979 made-for-television film.

    Raise the Titanic!, a 1980 "B-Movie" film based on the novel by Clive Cussler.

    Titanica: IMAX, a 1995 IMAX documentary film about the Titanic narrated by Leonard Nimoy.

    Titanic, a 1996 television mini-series, starring George C. Scott, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Peter Gallagher, and Tim Curry.

    No Greater Love, a 1996 made-for-televisison romance movie in which a young woman takes charge of her young siblings, upon losing her fiance and parents in the disaster. Based on the Danielle Steel novel of the same name.

    Titanic, a 1997 blockbuster film directed by James Cameron and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Gloria Stuart (older Rose), Billy Zane, and the singing voice of Celine Dion: highest grossing film ever, grossing $1,842,879,955 worldwide.

    Britannic (film) a 2000 film features the Titanic sinking in a flashback

    Titanic: The Animated Movie (2001)

    Ghosts of the Abyss, a 2003 3-D IMAX documentary directed by James Cameron and starring Bill Paxton.





    Certainly been given the treatment hasn't it! Anybody know what Ghosts of the Abyss concernet itself with? A bit of justification on Cameron's part perhaps?

  7. #107
    Senior Member Country: United States will.15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    6,364
    Liked
    0 times
    The first episode of the TV series, Time Tunnel (1966), took place on the Titanic. They had to get back in that tunnel before the ship sank.

  8. #108
    Senior Member Country: Great Britain vincenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Liked
    1 times
    The Time Bandits hitch a ride on it after escaping with Sean Connery's loot but end up all afloat. It also pops up briefly in Ghostbusters II.



    The book of Memory Of Eva Ryker was based around the recollections of the daughter of a Titanic survivor though surprisingly this was completely jettisoned for the Natalie Wood TV movie, and the ship became a fictional WW2 one.

  9. #109
    Senior Member Country: Scotland Gerald Lovell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    10,453
    Liked
    182 times
    Quote Originally Posted by David Brent




    Here's a screen grab from the film showing a bearded Sean Connery helping female passengers into a lifeboat.



    Dave.
    Are you sure that's Sean, Dave? I think it looks like Larry Taylor.

  10. #110
    Senior Member Country: UK Jonathan Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    328
    Liked
    0 times
    Quote Originally Posted by thatllbetheday
    Anybody know what Ghosts of the Abyss concernet itself with? A bit of justification on Cameron's part perhaps?
    'Ghosts' is James Camerons return to the wreck to film a 3D experience while exploring both internal and external areas of the wreck. Although this film hit the IMAX theatres, it is not a fully fledged movie, it's a documentary. The follow up to 'Ghosts' is 'James Camerons Last Mysteries Of The Titanic'. This was filmed in 2006 when Cameron took his last dive to the wreck to venture deeper into the liner. It was during this docu that Cameron said he was wrapping up his Titanic ventures.




  11. #111
    Senior Member Country: UK Jonathan Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    328
    Liked
    0 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennie
    I have just carefully rewatched this film, and I'm damned if I can see Sean Connery. Derren Nesbitt has a speaking role.

    I note the version shown on TV today, had the epilogue, but the 'baby' scene was omitted.
    That was the U.S release of ANTR. That scene was removed. The other differance between the UK and US versions was that the UK ending had the life ring float past. The US verison had that and a caption that rolled up the screen.

  12. #112
    Senior Member Country: UK Jonathan Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    328
    Liked
    0 times
    Quote Originally Posted by David Brent




    Here's a screen grab from the film showing a bearded Sean Connery helping female passengers into a lifeboat.



    Dave.
    That has been for decades thought to have been Connery, however it is not him. Although Connery was used as a on-set extra for shots filmed on the boat deck, there are no scenes that actually show him.

  13. #113
    Senior Member Country: UK Jonathan Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    328
    Liked
    0 times
    Even with a budget of $80million in 1996, Camerons 'Titanic' was impressive, but only in some aspects. The use of a young couple (Jack & Rose) was Camerons excuse to get the younger generation interested in the story of Titanic. Personally I hated Camerons approach to this. The interior sets of the film were spot-on. The production crew did a fantastic job of bringing that ship to life, interior-wise. The large scale exterior set, was. . . . not that well thought out. It was a set, but not a accurate one. To the untrained eye, most will not spot the countless mistakes. The "hero" model, the 45ft verison of the ship used for the now iconic fly-over scene with Jack on the bow "I'm the king of the world" was again another model which was flawed, many mistakes were incorporated into the model considering the amount of information and images that the crew had to hand when building the models. The "break-up" model was impressive. A whopping 60ft in length which only showed the ship from her 3rd funnel to the end of her stern post. This model was used for the scene in the film when Titanic breaks her back. Again, another part of the film, which considering the evidence available, and with Cameron himself sayig so, this sequence was highly inaccurate. The ship breaks apart with a clean cut through her decks. In reality, the ship tore itself apart during the break-up. The whole hull popped out and decks collapsed in on themselves. With the technology available to Cameron, this should have been shown but they decided to use the trusted and old method of models. The break was too clean and Cameron said it was. Buts thats Hollywood.



    Camerons 'Titanic' is a good film, but for the wrong reasons. It may introduce new comers to the story that is Titanic and give us the "ship of dreams" (incidently, Titanic was NEVER called that. This was a tagline created for the film by Cameron) and in glorious colour, but 'A Night To Remember' is still the best of the released Titanic movies, for both historical, but emotion.



    Us Titanic historians prefer ANTR, but we still wait for the defintive Titanic movie. However, we know it will never come. Too much happened, to too many people and something that celluloid cannot cover as an entirity. So for the past half a century, we look upon ANTR as that film. It may not be the full package we hoped for, but it's a damn good subsitute.

  14. #114
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    542
    Liked
    0 times
    I don't agree - ANTR is definitive for me. I also don't know that anyone will ever be definitive about exactly how the ship broke up. I've seen dozens of documentaries on thid, and the eye witness statements often conflict.

  15. #115
    Senior Member Country: UK Jonathan Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    328
    Liked
    0 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Azanti
    I don't agree - ANTR is definitive for me. I also don't know that anyone will ever be definitive about exactly how the ship broke up. I've seen dozens of documentaries on thid, and the eye witness statements often conflict.
    I do understand where you are coming from. ANTR is old school and it's attention to detail and authenticty is what makes it, of all the films made, the definitive film on the subject. But, the film still does hold some important historical inaccurencies, but only in todays standards as we know more about how the shiop went down. As a film, ANTR pulls all the strings, as a "historical" documentation on Titanic, the film is a very good starting point, but not entirely accurate. I rate ANTR over Camerons 'Jack & Rose', sorry 'Titanic'. I was bought up on ANTR. The film is what got me interested in Titanic at the age of 8 and some 31 years later, I'm still researching her. Camerons film is good for the colourised view of her interiors, but ANTR is 'the' Titanic film. It's not accurate in todays society, but it's damn ruddy close.



    When ANTR was released in 1958, the general look was that the liner sank intact, even though in 1912 during the inquiries reports were made by engineering staff of Harland & Wolff that the ship was breaking up when she went down. Even survivors stated they had seen her break up. But, one of the ships senior bridge officers (Charles Lightoller, who was played by Moore in ANTR) stated that the ship sank "intact". But he was washed off the deck, then struggled for his life when he got sucked into one of the large vents that sat at the base of the funnel. He spent the rest of the night on the upturned collapsable lifeboat. Being a distance from the ship, he did not witness the break up, but when asked on "how" he left the sinking Titanic, Lightoller commented "I did leave Titanic, Titanic left me". Because he did not report her breaking apart, it was believed that she sank in one-piece.



    Even in 1979 during the making of 'Raise The Titanic', it was still widely thought that she was intact. Not until 1985 when Dr Robert Ballard found her, the images bought back up to the research vessel showed hull damage . . . but Ballard still thought she was intact. The following year he dived the wreck and found that the stern was missing fom the bow. The 'Titanic' community finally got there answer. It is only recently, last year to be exact, when we finally started to realise as to "why" the ship broke. It's taken 97 years to put that together. Unlike these pathetic History/Nat Geo docu's who focus on why the ship broke to deliver "ship broke because of her deck expansion joint" - NO!, she did not break because of that.

  16. #116
    Senior Member Country: Ireland Edward G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,686
    Liked
    107 times
    Jonathan,

    Is it not the case that it broke it's back where weight of the raised stern tore that section away from the already submerged (and therefore "stable") bow?

  17. #117
    Senior Member Country: UK Jonathan Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    328
    Liked
    0 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward G
    Jonathan,

    Is it not the case that it broke it's back where weight of the raised stern tore that section away from the already submerged (and therefore "stable") bow?
    To explain is hard and without it sounding as if the ship had a design fault, which I would like to make clear that it did not. So this is the laymans version.



    When both Olympic and Titanic were built, these new liners exceeded length by almost 100 feet of any other ocean liner of there time. There rivals, the 'Cunard Line' had there own big liners, Lusitania (1906) and Mauretania (1907). Both these ships were at their time the largest liners at a impressive 790ft and estimated weight of 32,000 tonne. With the Titanic and her sister, both liners were 882.9 feet and just under 47,000 tonne. There builders, Harland & Wollf (Belfast) incorporated into the hulls design "flex" points in the upper structure. These were known as expansion joints and went through 3 decks from the top deck down. These two large joints, one towrads the bow and the other towards the stern mean't that during heavy swells the superstructure could "flex", just like a expansion bridge has joints in the road surface to allow flex.





    Cunards Lusitania which was sunk in May 1915 by a German U-boat torpedo





    Cunards Mauretania



    These Cunard liners had 4 sets of Turbines engines that turned 4 propellers which gave greater power. These units, although large, did not take up much engine room space. Unlike the Titanic which had just one turbine engine which drove the center propeller, the two outer props were powered by Harland & Wolffs tryed and trusted Reciprocating Engines. These engines towered five stories in height and weighed 1,000 tonnes each. Due to their shear size and weight, the keel of Titanic (thats the center strength beam of which the bottom of the hull is connected too and built from) had to have a section of the keel in the Engine Rooms strengthened to take the weight. The additional plates created a "step up" and "step down" in the keel. As the keel was built to hold the ships stress points when at sea, with this "step up/step down" in the keel, the stress points became greater. The keel had lost it's stress continuity over 850feet. With the Engine Room space being so big for these engines, the areas of decking around the engine room was strengthened. Running parallel with this area was the rear expasion joint, the rear grand staircase (Titanic had 2 of these staircases, one forward as seen in movies and one not so detailed at the rear), along with what is known as the Engine Room skylight - a huge opening in the deck that could be removed to replace/repair the engines. But in all, this area of the ship was highly strengthened.





    The 'keel' of Olympic being laid at Harland & Wolff. Titanic's were built of the same methods





    RMS Olympic in Liverpool during her 'open day' in June 1911





    RMS Titanic sails out of Southampton on her Maiden Voyage in April, 1912



    During the sinking, as the bow flooded, watertight compartments, although breached, did for a short time hold the water back to prevent "mass" flooding. The ship did list to her Port during sinking. Then as the flooding increased, the liner stabilised itself. When too much pressure built up, one of her forward watertight bulkhead collapsed. The flooding increased dramatically. This resulted in the "sudden plunge" down which had the sea rush up and over the bridge area of the bow. As the liner sank head first, the hull was put under great stress. With the bow now submerged in water, the hull began to slowly bend or buckle "upwards" (not down as you may think). As the hull bent this way, the keel began to fracture beneath the engine room. As the hull was lifted upto a estimated 20degree, the keel began to part in this area. The flooded bow then tryed to lift due to the bend/buckle. The stern then crushed down into the top decks and the rear expansion joint was pulled apart. The stern then lifted up, with parts of the keel plates still attached, to a 35-40 degree angle. Then the hull, which was alreday fractured by the buckle upwards, gave way and the hull ripped itself apart (not the clean break as seen in James Camerons movie). The stern then bent downwards (not splashed down as seen in Camerons). As the bow again sank, it pulled the stern section back upwards due to keel hull plates being still connected. The bow section then detached itself from the stern while the stern remained upright for about a minute. Finally, the stern flooded and twisting slightly, sank from sight with over 1000 people still clinging to her decks and fittings.





    One of Titanic's huge 1,000 ton Reciprocating Engines during testing at the Harland & Wolff shipyards (note the yard worker standing next to the engine)



    A few years back, a expedition crew filmed a section of the ship keel which broke away from the ship during the break-up. The section of hull was photographed laying upside down on the ocean floor some metres away from the main wreck. The keel was bent "inwards" into the ship which indicated clearly that the ship did not break in the "downwards" motion, but bent and collapsed into itself.





    The bend or buckle "upwards"





    Sorry about the lengthy post. It was the best and easy way I could explain.

  18. #118
    Member Country: England
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    Liked
    0 times
    I picked up a copy of SOS Titanic some years ago and I rather like it. I think the scenes of the Captain of the Carpathia getting his ship ready for the rescue are excellent.



    I hated the Rose-Jack elements of the latest film. I tend to fast forward until it reaches the sinking of the ship.

  19. #119
    Senior Member Country: Ireland Edward G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,686
    Liked
    107 times
    Thanks Jonathon.

    Appreciate the time taken with this answer. Great photos, asusual.

  20. #120
    Senior Member Country: UK Jonathan Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    328
    Liked
    0 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Thibault
    I picked up a copy of SOS Titanic some years ago and I rather like it. I think the scenes of the Captain of the Carpathia getting his ship ready for the rescue are excellent.

    I hated the Rose-Jack elements of the latest film. I tend to fast forward until it reaches the sinking of the ship.
    I cannot remember who the critic was at the time, but she commented on the Jack & Rose thing, mainly when Jack teaches Rose to "spit". The critic said . .



    "the iceberg couldn't have come any sooner"



    By the way, if Paramount Pictures (who co-financed the film) had had their own way, a certain Brad Pitt would have played the role of Jack. Not sure about the Rose part. But Cameron insisted he wanted to use no one else but DiCaprio.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Night After Night After Night (1969)
    By Mr Flash in forum British Films and Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-07-15, 02:47 PM
  2. Friday Night is Music Night
    By cassidy in forum Radio Talk
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-07-11, 08:35 PM
  3. Radio 2's late night extra and night ride
    By bhowells in forum Radio Talk
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-05-10, 11:30 PM
  4. Anyone remember ?
    By lovegod in forum British Television
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 29-07-08, 03:45 PM
  5. Apollo 11, A Night to Remember
    By tellingbone in forum Looking for a Video/DVD (TV)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 21-11-07, 10:10 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts