Talk:Titanic (1943 film)

Picture
I uploaded a picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Titanic%281943%29.jpg) but can't seem to post it. Anyone want to try? Palm_Dogg 18:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comparison with 1997 film
I plan on cleaning up the section comparing the movie to the 1997 James Cameron film, unless someone objects. I think the idea that no British character was in a favorable light is false. Other than Ismay and Lovejoy, who was portrayed as a bad guy (Cal, the main villian, is American)? Also, I plan on cleaning up the similar plot points to at least point out that many are standard movie cliches. --Rybock 08:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * personaly, i think it should just be done away with. most of these "comentators" that i have seen are posters on the IMDB forums, and most of these similarities are due to the fact that it was based on a historical event. Also. as the above person said, a lot of other things are standard movie plots (social commentary in fiction existed long before the titanic itself was even designed), and the poor boy rich girl is a common theme for romance films. So unless actual referances to similarities can be found (that were not posted on a forum well known for drama like IMDB) I think that the whole section should just be deleted. --Alphamone (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to remove that section, as the only cited referenced (http://web.archive.org/web/20070928065833/www.riefenstahl.org/director/1954/dassanowsky-titanic.html) only mentions the 1943 film in passing - the focus of the article compares Cameron's film to other German Film styles, particularly the Bergfilm. Sea photo Talk  06:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur with the removal. As I stated below the section read as WP:OR to me and your investigation backs that up. WP:SYNTH also seems to be involved. I appreciate the time you took to investigate this. MarnetteD | Talk 13:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Death of Director
What was the controversy that resulted in the execution of the director? Drutt 09:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * An irony is that the film was more Anglophobic than other Titanic films. Never the less, Goebbless hated the film for it's scenes of mass death, which was already to common in Germany, due to allied bombings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.29.103 (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Titanic 43.jpg
Image:Titanic 43.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Titanic(1943).jpg
Image:Titanic(1943).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature
Is there any reason for the "JJ" Cap Arkona? It links to the page SS Cap Arkona and I cannot see any other use of "JJ" Davidships (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Too partial
The tone of the article totally detracts the film makers. And that might be ok for you, who probably think nazis were demons, but this should be an enciclopedic article and your personal feelings and favoritisms should be off limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.16.217 (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. I've actually watched the movie, and in all honesty it's very well done.  About the only real bit of propaganda you see in the film comes at the end with a closing credit scene that basically says "This movie is dedicated to the (I forget the number) "number" of people who died due to British arrogance."  Other than that, it's actually one of my favorite old movies. 192.60.136.81 (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

To the "person" above
Can the hypocritical bitchy Neo-Nazi who keeps adding his badly written hyperbole bashings please chill out?

Edits of April 2012
To put the edits I made and the reasoning for them in order: Input from other editors is welcome and if the sourcing problems and OR problems can be fixed then so much the better. MarnetteD | Talk 22:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The template added to the infobox is the standard film release date template.
 * 2) Per longstanding consensus we use the word "is" in the lede as the film still exists,
 * 3) The info about Sybille Schmitz and the portrayal of her life in Fassbinder's film are not relevant to this film or this article. This being her "accessable" leading role is a POV statement and, again, has little relevance to this film.
 * 4) The move of the plot is standard to the MoS for films.
 * 5) The section about any connection to A Night to Remember is sourced only to IMDb which is a no-no. Even with a proper source I'm not sure that it is all that relevant to this article though it would be to the 1958 film.
 * 6) The "Themes and propaganda context" and "Allegations about Titanic" are full of WP:OR with little sourcing.

At least leave the comments about A Night to Remember, it's part of the film's history, footage from it was lifted continuously for other projects up until the late 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emlodik (talk • contribs) 00:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * When you came back and edited as an IP you again removed the template in the infobox - changed the tense - moved the plot to the wrong spot in the article. The section you want to keep is sourced to IMDb which cannot be used as a reference (for the umpteenth time). If you can source it to a WP:RS then it can be restored. If you want me to continue to WP:AGF I would suggest that you only edit under your username. Good luck on researching the item info about ANtR. MarnetteD | Talk 02:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I used TCM as source, but apparently made an error while citing... Can anyone help me fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emlodik (talk • contribs) 06:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Caption
Obviously, that is not an image of an "Original film poster"; with 'Kino Video' on top, and English descriptive text. Changed to: Consumer art based on original film poster. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Editorial asides
Critical analysis (parenthetical asides) regarding non-plot elements don't belong in the 'Plot' section, since they are not presented within the plot itself. They may belong somewhere (if cited to a critical review) so I'll put them here:
 * (Titanic's maximum speed is 26 and a half knots in the film, but in reality the liner was much slower than many other ships of the era.)
 * (In reality, this was impossible to have occurred, since at the time the real White Star Line was a wholly owned subsidiary of the International Mercantile Marine conglomerate and was not a publicly traded company.)

~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove pertinent material from article
The account User:Emlodik and several IPs have been heavily edit-warring to remove this material from the article:

"Fittingly, the film itself proved to be a disaster, and was eventually banned entirely by Goebbels after a brief theatrical run as it was decided that the tragic images could be demoralising to the under-fire German population. Its original director, Herbert Selpin, was arrested - and later found hanged in prison - after speaking out against the Nazi regime.The passenger ship used in the filming of Titanic, the SS Cap Arcona, itself sank just three years after filming on May 3 1945, though its sinking in the Baltic Sea was due not to an iceberg but the Royal Air Force."

With the exception of "Fittingly", which I have just removed as POVish, this material is quite pertinent to the article and should remain in it. The reason given for removing it (when a reason was provided in an edit summary at all), was that the material is "redundant", but the part about Goebbels banning the film appears only in the lede, which is a summary of the article, and therefore is expected to repeat information in the body of the piece. The material about Selpin is dealt with in more detail in the Production section, so I moved the material to the lede section, where it was not mentioned, despite being a significant fact about the production. The material about the Cap Arcona was repeated (it appeared in the production section), so I removed it.

I look forward to comments. BMK (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the result and reasoning of BMK. The making of the film, the death of the director and the disaster of the SS Cap Arcona are significant historical events that shed light on this subject.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that ALL OF THOSE topics are addressed earlier under "production." I thought wikipedia did not like redundant info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emlodik (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding the redundant information about Goebbels banning the film under "Themes & Propaganda Context." It has no place under that section and has already been mentioned at least twice above. -Emlodik
 * Goebbels, the propaganda minister, commissioned the film for propaganda purposes, and then banned it because it didn't fulfill that purpose, hence, it is part of the propaganda context. BMK (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've put it back. I'll be watching when the Block ends.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, especially now that Emlodik has admitted (circumstantially) on their talk page that they are responsible for (at least some of) the IP edits. Their continuing to edit war even after their expressed concerns have been addressed and explained simply confirms my suspicion that they're editing from a very specific POV. BMK (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd remove "fittingly" & the iceberg remark, both as excessively editorial. I'm not sure the RAF mention is entirely on-point, either. Fate of the "stand-in" ship is only marginally on-point too, IMO, but I wouldn't oppose its inclusion.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Film staples

 * It was the first film on the subject which was simply titled Titanic, and the first to combine various fictional characters and subplots with historical personae and events of the sinking; both conventions went on to become a staple of Titanic films.

I don't think either of these points are particularly notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? BMK (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say both are significant to the film, if not exactly milestones in film history.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Death of director
Unless there is incontrovertible the Goebbels actually did murder the director in his cell, I don't think the article should state this as a fact. Perhaps such evidence exists, but it doesn't bother to explain or deny this, it just says the "Goebbels actually murdered the director in his cell and made it look like suicide" (to paraphrase). This is certainly plausible, but without hard evidence or a confession, it should be clearly stated that it is speculated that Goebbels murdered the man. If there is evidence of it, it should be listed to back the statement up. Reading between the lines, that certainly sounds like the case to me. This is supposed to be an impartial encyclopedia, regardless of what your personal views and suspicions on Nazis are. AnnaGoFast (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The actual phrasing is "However, in reality, Goebbels had arranged for Selpin to be hanged and the hanging framed as a suicide." Is this proven fact, or just a likely hypothesis? If there is evidence, is it definite, or merely circumstantial? If it's not definite, it should say that "However, it is speculated that in reality..." or "However, it some people (preferably it would say which people) claim that Goebbels...", etc. AnnaGoFast (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, largely a hypothesis. It might be better worded "The exact circumstances of Selpin's death are unknown, with multiple theories on it ranging from the reported suicide, to theories that his death was arranged by Goebbels as a result of statements made by Selpin which directly criticized the Kriegsmarine officers who were acting as technical advisors on the set."192.60.136.81 (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have edited the article accordingly, citing murder as a claim that has been made. Wikipedia ought not to give undue weight to claims, even published claims, that are otherwise unsourced. While Goebbels certainly shoulders the moral blame for Selpin's death, whether he actually had him killed is unknown. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Political context
"The faults of capitalism and the stock market play a dominant role throughout the movie."

So, Hitler was a leftie on economic issues, then?

62.226.80.166 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @62.226.80.166 you would do good to check out where the Socialist in the name comes from. 84.215.194.30 (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

An RfC of interest
An RfC of possible interest to the editors of this article can be found here.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A few edits
I made some edits to the plot section, to reflect the actual film more accurately. Two apologies are in order: first, Ismay *DID* short sell the stock, but he did so excessively and privately and without the knowledge of the board; secondly, the Blue Riband *IS* mentioned in the film (twice), but Ismay's secret plan did not involve the Blue Riband. Ismay mentions the Blue Riband and its desired effects on the share price only after his original plan fails.

I do not find Duncan's book to be a good reference. Duncan wrote 5 paragraphs about the film and is extremely negative about the film -- he uses adjectives that do not give the impression of objectivity. His commentary on the film is, as some had put it, nothing more than "eager Nazi bashing".

I'm not sure if the Channel 5 article is a good reference either. The article (from 2012) is basically an announcement of the documentary "Nazi Titanic: Revealed" that was shown on Channel 5. It's not clear if the author of the announcement actually saw the documentary. I was not able to find that documentary. From what I can tell, it is NOT John Tindall's documentary "Titanic: Secrets Revealed" (1998). Here is a more extensive article about the documentary: https://theartsdesk.com/tv/revealed-nazi-titanic-channel-5 -- leuce (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The article from The Arts Desk isn't worth a lot either. It contains two falsehoods: firstly, it says "The Nazi film would use the Titanic, with its upper decks versus lower decks class structure, as the perfect metaphor for a Britain being driven to destruction by its entrenched ruling elite", but the 90% of the scenes take place in first class, and there are only 3 short third-class scenes prior to the iceberg, and none of them attempt to contrast third class with first class.  The article also says that Ismay told the stock holders in the opening scene that their shares would increase in value when the Titanic beats the speed record, but that is untrue: Ismay actually told the stock holders that their stocks would decrease in value and that there is nothing he can do about it; and Ismay did not reveal his plan about the speed record to either the stock holders or to the board until much later. --leuce (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)