Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Should major fictional characters have their own articles, be in a list article, or JUST be in the main article?

Atlantis77177 recently created Jack Dawson (character).

Rather than creating articles for each fictional character and risking the page failing at WP:AFD, I think Wikipedia would be better served by un-redirecting List of characters in Titanic (1997 film) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions], which was turned into a redirect to Titanic (1997 film)#Cast on 29 August 2009 by Erik with the edit summary of "Redirecting list to main article; list had only fictional detail and no real-world context".

I don't think a formal WP:RFC is needed, but there should be some discussion before a major change like this is done. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose removing the redirect until the issues that led to it being created have been addressed. We don't need another fancruft article. DonIago (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. I've redirected the Jack Dawson article to Titanic (1997 film)#Cast. If I'm reverted, I will simply take it to AfD. We've objected to these characters having separate articles and a "List of" article times before. Why? It's simply not needed. If one wants to argue that Jack and Rose are notable enough for their own articles, it's still a WP:No page matter. I'll alert WP:Film to this discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose particularly if these are going to focus on the fictional biography (which is basically working around WP:NOT#PLOT) A standalone character article must be based on significant coverage of the character's creation and development and reception, and generally for a character appearing in one single film, that's all tied to the film's creation and reception, and not standalone. Thus, makes no reason for neither a separate standalone or a list article here. --Masem (t) 22:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Conditional Support. It depends on the amount of coverage available for a given character. A character appearing in one film does not necessarily mean that coverage can (or is required to) be isolated to only the film's article. When a character has their own standalone article, the scope is redefined to focus more on them, which can mean sorting existing content and/or adding new content. For example, most film articles' "Cast" sections focus on the writing, casting, and development, where their "Reception" and "Themes" sections may be too broad to really talk about how a specific character has been received or analyzed. Considering this is one of the biggest films of all time, with a lot written about it, I find it likely that standalone articles of at least some of the characters is possible, but it involves advanced-level researching and editing. The last-attempted version here is not sufficient, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Would take a lot to persuade me that any of these characters, which only appear in a single work, have been covered in enough depth by independent sources to deserve separate articles. The version linked by Erik above falls far short of the mark. Popcornfud (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per Popcornfud. I can see it for Hannibal Lecter, Aragorn and Steve Rogers, but a 1-movie character would take some convincing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - these aren't "major fictional characters". --Khajidha (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Box office update

update of the total box office of the Titanic, through the box office of the Mojo website. $2,471,751,922

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0120338/?ref_=bo_gr_ti — Preceding unsigned comment added by MauricioMRP (talk • contribs) 04:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Poster block

What do we think of User:Dewilde1997 recent edits? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee, if, as you say, Stuart and Garber weren't on the original billing block, then I think you're well within your rights to revert this person's edits. Dewilde1997, please discuss here instead of continuing to make said disputed edits. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

At the time of Titanic's release, there were multiple original release posters. Not for a very long time has a film, much less a blockbuster like Titanic, been released with simply one poster. It doesn't take a big search to find that out. Gloria Stuart and Victor Garber are on the billing block of some, but not all, the original posters. It's a known fact that Victor Garber's agent even pushed to have his name on the posters at the time of the release, and this was, indeed, executed. As well, they are on the billing blocks of the VHS tapes, the 20th-anniversary re-release, the Blu-Ray DVDs, and the photobook with at least one of the soundtrack vinyls, as well as being credited as the main cast at the end credits of the film. I see absolutely no reason, with their crediting in all these places and basing the information off a single poster when there were multiple as well as their names being present in virtually everything else Titanic-related, why they shouldn't be cited in the starring list. I am fully aware of the rules and criteria of who is to be put in the starring list, but it seems rather incorrect to cite one poster's information when there's more than one to be cited. And even then, if there are multiple examples of the criteria at hand here, shouldn't we use the information with the one with the most information, rather than the least? Dewilde1997 (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Been seeing all this back and forth editing unfold for a while now and upon hearing User:Dewilde1997 discussion, I think that it's only fitting that Stuart and Garber be included in the casting list, and have edited accordingly. I reccommend doing a simple search to confirm their claims as I've done. This along with the variety of information they've provided, leads me to prioritise User:Dewile1997 recent edits, as well as valuing the common courtesy of granting credit where credit is due. I'm finding it difficult to find stronger cause to discredit Stuart and Garber based solely on one poster, especially when they are clearly considered main cast in film credits and every original billing block in the film's promotion aside from this one poster in question. Softboywrites (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems that the original release poster did not include their names so any posters that followed are not of concern to the film or Wikipedia unless the matter was discussed in several reliable sources. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

As User:DeWilde1997 said, films with the scale of blockbuster success potential as Titanic rarely have only one original poster release. So they are not talking about posters that came after the original, they are talking about how there were indeed multiple original posters made and released at the same time, not just one. No doubt a blockbuster like Titanic would have multiple variations ready to go in their original promotion. Upon checking the source that provides the film poster for this page, it's merely one image selected out of nine different poster designs provided in the source, none of which are clarified to have been a sole original and some of which don't match one another entirely in terms of billing blocks. Thus, the film poster provided seems to be selected as what someone deemed to be the most notable and appealing poster out of the originals, and not confirmed as the only original poster. I don't understand prioritising the discredit of main cast members based on the most appealing poster, instead of rightfully crediting main cast members based on the information provided on all other original film promotions and the majority of original posters which do indeed have Stuart and Garber on billing blocks. The demand for reliable sources for their point is understandable yet no where does the single source for the film poster provided claim it's the sole original. Softboywrites (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film hoping to get more comments. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Whereas both these actors are absent from the film's most known poster, which is the one used in the infobox, their names are present in both of these posters' billing blocks: [1], [2]. It seems that one of these would suffice as a reliable source for their inclusion. —El Millo (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If the one in the infobox is the original, which would be the reason for including it in the infobox over the others, there can then be no context for their inclusion in the infobox when we have a poster as the infobox image not showing their names. This instead should be a matter mentioned somewhere in the body of the article about the other posters produced (and for what reason). If there is a consensus to add their names to the infobox (which I currently wouldn't support), perhaps a note can be placed on these two names for that context. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The requirement for inclusion in the infobox is to be featured in the billing block of the official theatrical release poster. All of these three are official theatrical release posters, what's weird is that the billing blocks changed from one poster to the next. The three are the original, since the three of them were released during the original marketing campaign. I don't know the reason for them being in two billing blocks but not in the third, but I doubt it would be notable. I don't know if a note would do, but certainly both names would have a reference next to them to either of these two other posters. —El Millo (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Poster Block Revived

Reviving the topic of the poster billing block and including Gloria Stuart and Victor Garber in the starring list, considering it was never resolved. While acknowledging the Wikipedia rule of the starring list, this is a unique case because Titanic was the biggest blockbuster of all time, if it isn’t still. Because of this, there were multiple posters at the time of release. And if there is varying information, shouldn’t the option with the most information be used? As I previously said, it’s a fact well known that Victor Garber’s agent made a point to make sure his name was on the billing block of the posters when the film was released, so the fact that his name is on some of the original posters is indisputable. And, considering this, since there is varying information with the source of posters, then you should go to the second best option available: the end credits. Where, indisputably, Garber and Stuart are listed among the stars of the film. They’re on some of the originals and a point was made that such a thing was done, they’re on every single DVD, Blu-Ray, poster, vinyl from the 20th anniversary re-release onwards, and since the poster source is shaky, they’re stars in the end credits. It’s a unique case and there are multiple posters and the billing block with the most of the cast should be used just from a logical standpoint, or since there’s no conclusive answer because of the anomaly of the multiple posters released at the same time with altering billing blocks, then there's plan B, which is written in black and white in the Wikipedia rules: the end credits where, also in black and white, Gloria Stuart and Victor Garber’s names are present.

Dewilde1997 (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

If this is a revival of a previously-discussed topic, can you please link to the prior discussion? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The prior discussion is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Titanic_(1997_film)/Archive_10

Dewilde1997 (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Initial release

The film was initially released in South Africa but I do not see that stated anywhere in the article, why? Motlatlaneo (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source? If so, add it? DonIago (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2021

Change one small age error of Kate Winslet in Cast section from age 22 to 20

I can't find my wiki code. Article states the 22 year old Winslet heavily campaigned Cameron for the role. However, before production began in Sept 1996 (facts as stated in the Production section of this Titanic article and that are quite obvious since a movie of this magnitude had to be filmed far before it's Nov 1997 release) she would have been heavily petitioning for the role and would have been 20 when trying to convince Cameron (she was born in Oct 1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Winslet ).

When the movie was finally released in Nov 1997 she had just turned 22 years old a month earlier. So she was fighting for the part at age 20. Started filming it at age 20 (assuming she was there at start of filming), and turned 21 while filming it. And movie was released when she was 22.

Thank you. 72.28.209.33 (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I just took the age out, since it's not particularly pertinent and is kinda confusing. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2022

I would want to mention that Titanic is considered one of the best films of all time. 89.70.56.2 (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hemantha (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Conversation between Ismay and Smith

"White Star Line’s ignorant, boorish managing director, who influences Captain Smith to go faster with the prospect of an earlier arrival in New York and favorable press attention; while this action appears in popular portrayals of the disaster, it is unsupported by evidence."

The evidence is the testimony of Elizabeth Lines who stated that she overheard the conversation between Ismay and Smith in the D-Deck Reception room on April 13, 1912 (as seen in the film, although it is a far more condensed version of her testimony). Historians have argued back and forth for decades on whether or not she heard what she heard, but the entry makes no mention of the testimony in which the "action" is based. Here is a link directly to her full testimony. I think is important to include it to give the reader an understanding of why this appears in so many Titanic films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7202:A595:25EE:4D30:FA49:32BE (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

All the information for this movie is all wrong. I wish to correct it. 2600:1700:8780:4600:50C4:B7BA:79B4:51A4 (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Heart of the Ocean

This article says there were 3 different versions of the necklace. Two were used in the film, the third was made after the movie release. This is all true. However what is not mentioned is that there was a third version made last minute to be used to throw into the ocean. If you search interviews of the Titanic production designer, Peter LaMont, one will find instances where he discusses a “facsimile” version that was made “right at the very end so it could be thrown into the water.”

I found this in research because I personally just acquired this prop by a week known credible auction company, and with two certificates of authentic saying the Heart of the Ocean prop was used in the “shipwreck scene.” It has a wire laced around the chain in order for the necklace to fall and slowly spin flat in the water, as seen in the last scene in the movie when old Rose drops it in the ocean of the shipwreck exploration ship. I have other information saying this prop was previously sold in a museum auction in Florida in 2003 to a person who gifted it to her granddaughter. I acquired the prop in 2022.

Regardless of my own personal acquisition, there is public documentation where Peter LaMont references this third screen used prop.

In summary there were 3 screen used versions. 1. The original hero prop necklace 2. The J Peterman necklace which is briefly seen when Cal removes from the safe while the ship is sinking, and his assistant Lovejoy slips it into the jacket pocket worn by Jack. 3. The “Facsimile” or “shipwreck scene” version that is seen dropping into the ocean.

Both the versions 1 and 2 were Asprey designs. Version 2 is called the J Peterman version only because Peterman bought it “for less than $1000” after he secured licensing to reproduce replicas.

The fourth version was also an Asprey design that was made after the film, and worn by Celine Dion. It was purchased by an Asprey client for 1.4 million with the agreement Dion would wear it twice.

I have more info that I’ve researched, and I am in the process of contacting 20th Century Fox for additional verification.

Heath Claiborne Capitol Theatre Maryville, TN Capitol1910 (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Listing of Parody & Jokes & Memes & etc

Mention was made of numerous after-effects but no section specifically listing some or all of those.

Firstly, I am suggesting a new section, "Cultural Responses".

Secondly, I am suggesting under that new section, there be sub-sections: Parody, Jokes, Memes, Commercials, Literary References, Call Outs in Other Movies, Audio Samplings, etc.

Howard from NYC (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Not really in favor of it, especially as such sections tend to end up filled with listcruft that doesn't satisfy WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Doniago. Those sections are not standard inclusions in articles that I've seen and are not Encyclopedic. I wouldn't be against an In popular culture section, however this section has it's drawbacks also. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay let's talk about success in India

Titanic was not the first film successful in India and also this is not necessary to mention Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I noticed in your edit summary that you say Jurassic Park was a success before Titanic, but the NYT's point was that the English language Titanic was a success; Jurassic Park was dubbed into Hindi, Tamil, and Telugu for its release in India, so its success doesn't contradict the NYT source. Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

First let's talk about why to include this in the first place

By this manner Titanic will also become successful in many countries too

Right there it's says biggest cinema crowd is in India

Wrong biggest crowd is china for world market and then it's USA

Second thing it's not necessary to discuss or to give individual success about evry country

It's just looking biased edit from the person who edited that first

I'm also an Indian but referring India as the biggest cinema crowd and that to in 11997 is far more than from reality

Yes today india is a big cinema audience

But this edit just want like to say that Tiat ic become famous and hit because of I dia hit

And also I will point the fact that Tiatnic like anyother film was also available in English and so as Jurassic park Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Also please note what is meant by success here Titanic and jusrrasic succes in India in terms of money

Then Success if money spiderman was the first most successful film Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

If successful in adjusted succes including today then Jurassic will be ahead of time Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

First film to earn more than 10 million in India is Jurassic Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the indents for your comments; you can see WP:INDENT to learn how to use indentation on talk pages properly.

Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say on a topic. You have provided no reliable sources to dispute the New York Times article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh I don't know indent one thanks

First realible source is Wikipedia itself

Jurassic park according to Wikipedia earned around 20 crores 200 M in India and Titanic earned 50 crores or 500 M

Before Jurassic the the most successful film earned only 4 millions

So in this case the first huge success is Jurassic not Titanic

Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_India Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Please check this link Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I fixed your indents again, please learn. Second, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) this — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2022

Please add the following template to the article:

2601:241:300:B610:7D07:2974:4F71:665E (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Of the universe (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)