- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21692850/
I didn't realize there were so few titanic survivors left. Now, just one.
I didn't realize there were so few titanic survivors left. Now, just one.
1 of last 2 Titanic survivors dies at 96
- Thread starter CzarinaAnya
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
well it sank in 1914... so I'm a bit surprised anyone is still left...
but don't worry we still have James Cameron, Leo DiCaprio, and Kate Winslet....
(oh, wait, they weren't on the REAL Titanic???... my faith is shot! 
)
but don't worry we still have James Cameron, Leo DiCaprio, and Kate Winslet....
(oh, wait, they weren't on the REAL Titanic???... my faith is shot! )
well it sank in 1914... so I'm a bit surprised anyone is still left...
but don't worry we still have James Cameron, Leo DiCaprio, and Kate Winslet....
hahahaha
(maaaaaaaan, I HATED that movie!)
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
hahahaha
yeah don't EVEN get me started
though watching it now I do like the secondary character performances... still hate the story.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Why did we hate it or why does she like the secondary characters? (Because if it's the latter, I'd like to know, too.)
I'll say why I hate that movie. It was an overrated, overacted, bloated, at least 1 hour too long crap-fest. Overly sentimental, melodramatic, from "I'm king of the world" to that stupid necklace. I was squicked out by the sex-in-a-random-car thing, and Billy Zane was rockin' waaaaaaaaaaay too much guyliner. (eyeliner on a guy)
Phew. (And Toni, I never knew you didn't like Titanic either. I knew I loved you!
)However, I do *adore* Kate Winslet, which I blame on "Finding Neverland" and "The Holiday".
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
whenever you see a documentary on it, there is always some survivor on there that was a baby or small child on the ship, BUT they like to show recycled interviews & it gets confusing, sometimes. lol
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2006
Well that does it. Now that we all said that we hated that movie...some skater will be using the music from Titanic next season!!
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
SLL - Oh no, please, no, lol!
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
However, I do *adore* Kate Winslet, which I blame on "Finding Neverland" and "The Holiday".
I've loved her since a Kid In King Arthur's Court
anyway I don't like the story namely because James Cameron said that while he was not going for a documentary that his story was historically accurate. It wasn't. He went more with rumors than actual fact and he villified many of the CREW... which he never should have.
He also gave the star male roll a name of an actual victim of the sinking (he was a crew member in the boiler room IIRC) and found it funny that so many love sick teens went to the man's gravesite and made a shrine out of it (I find it a little offputting he found it funny... it was his doing in a way)...
top it off with the back story that he actually went and robbed the ship so he could have a few props (oh sorry, it was for museum purposes, he just got to borrow the items) and I just have a disgust for the film... it had the makings of being good... but then...
as for secondary characters I ADORE Billy Zane in his role. He plays him SO WELL. I don't like the character so much as the way he was acted... I also think Victor Garber gave a lot of heart to a man who is almost always vilified even though he was probably the only one that was NOT sure that she was unsinkable due to the liner's cutting corners (which is somewhat portrayed in teh film)... and then *brain fart* The unsinkable molly brown is always so much fun...
but yeah, I just have issues with the supposedly greatest movie of all time.
I wasn't crazy about Titanic either although I never understood the backlash Leonardo received after that film was released.
FYI...if you're looking for a really good movie about the Titanic there's an old British movie called "A Night To Remember" that's really very excellent. Just my 2 cents! :agree:
FYI...if you're looking for a really good movie about the Titanic there's an old British movie called "A Night To Remember" that's really very excellent. Just my 2 cents! :agree:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
I find most of DiCaprio's 'best' performances (by critic standards) to be very wooden. The only films I liked him in were What's Eating Gilbert Grape (he really surprised me in that) and Catch Me If You Can (Speilberg is a genius though)
so yeah... I just don't get why Leo is considered one of the sexiest men, or hot, or even a good actor... heck Ilia Kulik (poor guy is always compared to that 'actor') is better in every department! :laughL
so yeah... I just don't get why Leo is considered one of the sexiest men, or hot, or even a good actor... heck Ilia Kulik (poor guy is always compared to that 'actor') is better in every department! :laughL
Really? While I'll agree that I've never understood his status as a sex symbol, I think he's a really good actor. I loved him in the two films you mentioned as well as Marvin's Room, This Boy's Life, The Aviator & especially The Departed (I thought his Oscar nomination for Blood Diamond really should've been for The Departed instead) I also liked him in Rome & Juliet even though I despised that film. The only time I wasn't so crazy about him was Gangs of New York but I think that's just because he was miscast. That whole movie was kind of a mess to begin with anyway.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
He's so very monotone in all of his films, he has no feeling behind the words. Granted I've not seen the last few of his films (chances are if he's in it I won't watch it) but it just bugs me that he has the same tone/voice for all of his characters. As far as I'm concerned his characters are interchangeable...
the only time he broke out of that (in the films I've seen) were the two I mentioned... I liked him in the Quick and the Dead, but just because of the movie's outcome (yes I am one of THOSE types lol)
but now I've highjacked this thread and we're not even on subject anymore lol
the only time he broke out of that (in the films I've seen) were the two I mentioned... I liked him in the Quick and the Dead, but just because of the movie's outcome
(yes I am one of THOSE types lol)but now I've highjacked this thread and we're not even on subject anymore lol
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2005
Psst: 1912. April 14-15, 1912.
And yes, the movie bit. Hated every fictional character, hated their portrayal of the real people (shame the Andrews and Murdoch families can't sue for defamation.)
Though I don't have a problem with artifact recovery. The "grave site" argument makes me roll my eyes as any unrecovered corpses were fish food decades ago, plus that has never stopped people from excavating on land even WITH remains present. Plus the thing's going to be gone eventually anyhow, as it's deteriorating pretty rapidly.
I liked the made-for-TV "SOS Titanic" a lot better. Plus it even had David Warner playing a nice guy role. That doesn't happen every day.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Wow! Thanks for this. It is also sad to think this Remembrance day (November 11th) in Canada will probably see the last Canadian World War One Vet left. Every year the ranks grow fewer of the men who bravely went off fight in World War 1 and World War 11.
The Titanic is also a significant loss. There was a special display of the Titanic artifacts at the Royal BC museum in Victoria this year. My sister and her husband got over to see it. I wanted to go but could not find the time. I hear it was awesome.
Here is a link:
http://www.admiral.bc.ca/rbcm.html
The Titanic is also a significant loss. There was a special display of the Titanic artifacts at the Royal BC museum in Victoria this year. My sister and her husband got over to see it. I wanted to go but could not find the time. I hear it was awesome.
Here is a link:
http://www.admiral.bc.ca/rbcm.html
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
OMG I didn't even realize I typed 1914... *bangs head* I feel stupid....
I don't know, I just find the whole 'borrowing' of the ships remains to use it in the movie a little disgusting... personally I don't agree with dragging mummies around from mueseum to museum... I don't care if they're dead and long gone, it's just the idea of respect... *shrugs* I think it's also a slap in the face to the man who really 'discovered' the wreck back in 85... he did ask that it not be disturbed... I know it's not *his* to say don't touch, but he is basically forgotten. and for whatever reason that bugs me.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2005
Whereas I've eaten lunch off a table where I was handling the skeletonized remains of a murder victim five minutes prior. *shrug* Trust me, bones don't care. Whatever cared is long, long gone.
And yes, I believe Dr. Ballard, with all due respect, was being unrealistic. Especially as if he were THAT worried, he should have filed a salvage claim and could have "owned" the wreck, but he didn't. It's a wreck, like any other, though the depth makes recovery and "underwater archaeology" difficult, and as such it's fair game for salvage or any other retrieval. There's nothing particularly special about it now or ever, just that it was lost for so long and that difficult aspect means there are many more artifacts to be recovered. They're not doing anyone any good where they are.
And yes, I believe Dr. Ballard, with all due respect, was being unrealistic. Especially as if he were THAT worried, he should have filed a salvage claim and could have "owned" the wreck, but he didn't. It's a wreck, like any other, though the depth makes recovery and "underwater archaeology" difficult, and as such it's fair game for salvage or any other retrieval. There's nothing particularly special about it now or ever, just that it was lost for so long and that difficult aspect means there are many more artifacts to be recovered. They're not doing anyone any good where they are.
Similar threads
