Talk:Titanic (1997 film)

Re-releases

Titanic was initially released in 1997, then re-released in 2012 (100th anniversary of the ship sinking), 2017, 2020 and 2023 (25th anniversary of the film). Shouldn't these get their own subheadings under 'release' with the relevant information (tickets, grossing, premiers, etc)? Pabloh94 (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think so. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. A film with this magnitude of impact should include the re-release details. 2600:1700:9E10:EC0:55C7:6ABD:9334:FAE1 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Plot and Script Errors

There should perhaps be a section in the Article dealing with plot errors, of which there are at least two major examples. First, Rose and Jack are responsible for the ship hitting the iceberg, which of course led directly to the sinking, as they distracted the lookouts by kissing and making out in public. "Cor look at that..." said the lookout, spending crucial seconds looking the wrong way as the iceberg came unavoidably close. The ship almost missed the berg and these seconds would have been determining. Second, we must remember that the entire movie is in flashback and what we are really seeing is Old Rose telling the salvage crew what happened. Part of what she tells them is that Cal says to the detective, "I put the jewel in the coat, and I put the coat on her!" In other words, Rose is telling the salvage crew that she has the jewel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.130.236 (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Only if there are independent reliable sources that discuss that aspect of the film. Schazjmd (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Lack of HFR showings in the USA

@Schazjmd‬

I'd love to be wrong, but there appears to be no showings for this film in HFR in the US. A few weeks ago, ticketing sites showed many showings as being HFR compatible. Now they are nowhere to be found. Other markets such as Europe still offer the HFR option, though.

Technically there's no source in terms of an article, just Fandango & other ticketing sites. Tytygh55 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

(FYI, you have to include the ping and sign the comment in the same edit for a ping to work. If your ping works, you'll get a notification.) @Tytygh55:, if no reliable sources have noted or even mentioned it, there's nothing to say in the article. We don't do original research. Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It's showing in HFR at the Chinese Theater in LA. I saw it there tonight. It's playing in 3D IMAX HFR through the morning of Thursday 2/16:

https://tickets.tclchinesetheatres.com/Browsing/Movies/Details/h-HO00000472 Jamesluckard (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Runtime

A user named Betty Logan and I have been going back and forth on whether the runtime is 194 or 195 minutes. The user claims it is 195 minutes because that's what the BBFC says, but the DVD cover of the film says it is 194 minutes. I believe a DVD cover published for the film is the final say on runtime over a film classification board, correct? TheKingLives (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd question that assertion. DVD covers could be construed as marketing material that may or may not be entirely accurate (though I'll admit I don't know whether there's a broader consensus on that). Did you (or anyone) check a broader range of sources?

I also don't know why you don't seem to understand that when it comes to measures of time, anything over 30 seconds would round up to the next minute.

Lastly, tagging Betty Logan (talk · contribs) to ensure they're aware of this discussion. DonIago (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:FILMRUNTIME is crystal clear on this: "Use a reliable secondary source, such as the BBFC classification site, to cite the information; do not time it yourself, and for upcoming releases, do not take it from theater chain or ticketing service websites...Home video packaging should only be used to source run-times for direct-to-video films or for films that may not have been classified; reliable secondary sources are still preferable in these instances if at all possible." Also, it should be noted that for films actually released on film the BBFC is unique in that it actually measures the length of the film and calculates the run-time. Also, TheKingLives has now crossed into edit-warring territory; he should observe WP:STATUSQUO and obtain a consensus before changing the time again. Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The BBFC would have given their rating to the overseas version, with the Fox logo at the front. The US version has the Paramount logo at the front. It's entirely possible the Fox logo ran a couple of seconds longer, pushing the length over that 30 second mark into the next minute... Jamesluckard (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Jack Dawson has nothing to do with James Stewart

In the "Cast" part, in the "Fictional characters" part, in the "Leonardo DiCaprio" part, in line 14 it says "Cameron envisioned the character as a James Stewart type", that's false, you should remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelmendez55 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not false, James Cameron has said this in many interviews, including these:

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/titanic-leonardo-dicaprio-really-rubbed-james-cameron-wrong-way-audition.html/

“Then Leo decided he didn’t want to do it. It wasn’t quirky enough for him. He wanted, I don’t know, warts or a hump or a cocaine addiction. I said, No, that’s not the guy. He’s like a Jimmy Stewart character, pure of heart. Then, there was a moment the lightbulb went on for Leo, and he realized that that would be a really hard thing to make great,” Cameron recalled.

https://www.thewrap.com/leonardo-dicaprio-titanic-jack-james-cameron-traumatic/

"I said, ‘Look, you’ve done all these great characters that all have a problem, whether it’s addiction or whatever it is, I said you’ve gotta learn how to hold the center and not have all that stuff. This isn’t Richard III. When you can do what Jimmy Stewart did or Gregory Peck did – they just f—king stood there, they didn’t have a limp or a lisp or whatever – then you’ll be ready for this. But I’m thinking you’re not ready. Because what I’m talking about is actually much harder. Those things are easier, those are props, those are crutches. What I’m talking about is much harder, and you’re probably not ready for it.’"

https://www.yahoo.com/now/leonardo-dicaprio-wanted-titanic-character-151305067.html

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/11/how-leonardo-dicaprio-almost-lost-out-on-playing-jack-in-titanic-twice Jamesluckard (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is false. In the article it says "Cameron envisioned the character as a James Stewart type" implying that James Cameron was inspired by James Stewart to create his character Jack Dawson, which is false, James Cameron created Jack Dawson without being inspired by a specific actor. In these statements, James Cameron is talking about characters played by James Stewart and what he does is use them as examples of characters other than those previously played by Leonardo DiCaprio, with the aim of convincing Leonardo DiCaprio to accept the role of Jack. Dawson. Miguelmendez55 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Cameron literally spoke the words "He’s like a Jimmy Stewart character," as quoted above. I think you're fighting a losing battle. Jamesluckard (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That "I think you're fighting a losing battle" was read as an insult and provocation, I remind you that respect must be maintained at all times. The James Stewart thing, if that is the case, the name of Gregory Peck should also appear, James Cameron said it literally "When you can do what Jimmy Stewart did or Gregory Peck did – they just f—king stood there, they didn't have a limp or a lisp or whatever – then you'll be ready for this. But I'm thinking you're not ready", in the Wikipedia article only James Stewart's name appears and not Gregory Peck's despite that James Cameron also mentions it. Miguelmendez55 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It was not my intention to insult you or provoke you. If I did, I apologize. It was merely my intention to state a fact, which is that you're contradicting direct quotes from the film's writer/director, James Cameron. The existing text: "Cameron envisioned the character as a Jimmy Stewart type," literally means that Cameron imagined the character as the type of character played frequently by Stewart. And that's exactly what he says in dozens of quotes. I don't think most readers would take the text to mean Cameron envisioned the character being like the human being that Mr. James Stewart actually was in real life. And there's nothing wrong with adding Peck into the mix too. Cameron uses his name often too in interviews. Jamesluckard (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

How about this, we can change it to: "Cameron envisioned the character as being like those played by James Stewart or Gregory Peck." That way there's no way a reader could possibly confuse the fictional character in Titanic with either of those men as actual people. Jamesluckard (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Miguelmendez55 (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

James Cameron did not hire Leonardo DiCaprio for his acting ability

In the "Cast" part, in the "Fictional characters" part, in the "Leonardo DiCaprio" part, it says in line 13 "Cameron strongly believed in DiCaprio's acting ability", there is a mistake, James Cameron never said that he has hired Leonardo DiCaprio for his acting ability, here the reference, he says it in paragraph 4 "But I met him and I started to love him, basically. He is capable of dazzling a group of people without doing anything obvious, so As soon as I met him I was convinced" https://www.antena3.com/objetivotv/cine/james-cameron-noqueria-leonardo-dicaprio-titanic_2023022563f9e50941fd7c0001b2f612.html Miguelmendez55 (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved early since this request is a revert of a move that should have been discussed due to clearly being controversial. (This would have been a request I would have accepted on WP:RMTR as a request to revert an undiscussed move.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

---

James Cameron’s Titanic → Titanic (1997 film) – Revert to original article name. Or better yet, Titanic (film). 92.40.197.121 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.