Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 1

Tone
OK - the previous version was NPOV and this version reads like a movie review. This text needs help by somebody with more time on their hands than me. --mav


 * OK it's better now. Still needs work but so do most articles in Wikipedia. I am unconvinced by the statement; "What sent this film into the box office stratosphere were the throngs of teenage girls who saw it literally dozens of times because of heartthrob DiCaprio." which sounds like an oversimplified opinion stated as fact. --mav


 * There were throngs of teenage girls who literally saw the movie dozens of times. The reason they did was either DiCaprio, the tugging-at-the-old-heartstrings screenplay of doomed lovers, or a combination of both. I am not good at social commentary, and I don't want to list every reason the teenage-girl-demographic loved Titanic. But that's why the movie made $1.6B. --Gregory Pietsch 00:58 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)


 * The teenage girl reason is a myth and a completely false one. Titanic had 129 million admissions in the US. 100 million of which were UNIQUE admissions. According to Box Office Mojo the average price of a ticket was $4.59. That means repeated viewings account for only $133 million of Titanic's overall gross. Which would leave it's unique admission total of $463 million - still enough for it to be the biggest film in the US. The true reason for Titanic's popularity, as anyone who went to see it could see, was that it brought in people from ALL demographics and ALL walks of life. Never had I seen such a diverse group of people at the theatre than when I went to see Titanic and I haven't since. --Crazymaner2003


 * Still sounds like an opinion. I saw the movie 4 times and now own a copy on DVD. I wasn't a teenager or girl when I saw it and also think DiCaprio is rather plain. A reference on the phenomenon you are talking about would be nice (esp. since throngs of teenage girls flock to many similar movies, yet I don't remember any of the other ones topping $1 billion US. --mav
 * That assertion about what made it successful is essentially unverifiable, unless someone somewhere has collected demographic data on everyone who went to see it, including names. --KQ 01:21 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)
 * I will modify the statement then. --mav


 * Oh, come on! Names won't be necessary.


 * What made this film fly at the box office was its successful melding of categories, the greatest date movie ever, something for the girls, something for the boys, basically a "romantic movie" combined with an "action thriller" with the addition of great special effects and, finally, some political resonance in the social class stuff. The attempt to do the same exact thing with the "Pearl Harbor" movie was a flop.


 * A contractor friend of mine was discussing it with a plumber, who was enthralled. He'd never seen such artful use of water in any film.   Maybe it was all plumbers in the audience. Ortolan88

Gates
Another aspect of the film, the way in which the third class passengers were completely fenced in below decks, is also misleading (see [3] and report quoted at [4]) This sentence from the article is an opinion, a point of view (POV), though giving it a link to a source made it much less POV. Still, it is bad to make the reader go to another site to see who is saying this. It turns out the person expressing the opinion is simply a chat board message writer. Please rewrite this so that instead of the article saying something is misleading, the statement is made by whoever is making it. That is required by the NPOV policy. Wikipedia articles cannot advocate an opinion, they can only report who has the opinion and what their opinion is. By the way, I believe that the opinion is false, that the Titanic did have gates that separated third class from the rest of the ship, and that it was required by US law as a "health measure" - ChessPlayer 19:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Token gates similar to a garden post-and-rail fence if the discussion in ref. [3] (i.e. http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5811/84039.html) is to be believed. It's pretty clear form the "encyclopedia titanica" that the film's impression - of all the third-class passengers being completely locked in - is misleading, rephrase it how you will. To me, the website looks more reliable and NPOV than the film. Andy G 20:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * All I saw was chat board messages, none of which where authoritative, in my opinion, but in yours they were authoritative. Most argued there were no gates, which to me just shows how common it is for people who don't know what they are talking about, to post on chat boards as if they did. But, it is irrelevant. The beauty of the NPOV policy is that instead of us arguing whose opinion is right, NPOV requires that articles take no sides, but instead report who claims what. The idea that the movie is misleading is an opinion; therefore, it has to be stated as "So and so feels the movie is misleading because..." etc. I'm removing the edit, but invite you to re-write it where you state who the movie critic is, and what his opinion is. I can't do it for you, as I don't know who has the opinion. I could say, "some people claim" but that would be a weasel word way of arguing an opinion that cannot be verified. I am not going to use any of the chat board contributers as an authority, I didn't see any scholars identifed. See, here is the point. You may personally believe that the movie was misleading. But, that isn't grounds to make the article say that. We can't use Wikipedia articles to promote our personal views. What a Wikipedia article is for, is reporting what authorities say about things. Now, if even if you knew for a fact, because you had been on the Titanic, that the movie was misleading, you still could not say that in the article. Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing us to publish our own original research. We have to quote scholarly or otherwise major sources, and simply report what they say. Perhaps some movie critic has said something about the gates; you can then quote him. Material deleted: Another aspect of the film, the way in which the third class passengers were completely fenced in below decks, is also misleading (see and report quoted at ) - ChessPlayer 20:46, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * One reference quotes the American report on the sinking and one the British. But here's another: (scroll down). Andy G 18:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This is much better, because now it is in line with Neutral Point of View Now it is a solid, factual addition to the article, regardless of whether the facts of the gates given in the newspaper account are true or not. What is true, is that the accusation was made, and most importantly, by who, and also importantly, future editors can verify where the accusation came from, so there will not be a debate about wether it was really made, or simply the opinion of some Wikipidia editor. Good work!  ChessPlayer 21:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Reading somewhere (I don't recall the source, it wasn't research...), I saw the same claim, all Br liners strictly segregated 3/c passengers below decks & didn't even allow them up top (which'd make nonsense of the romance...). Trekphiler 19:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I find this line to be pedantic: "for example, the designer, Thomas Andrews, claims the ship to be built of iron in the film whereas she was actually built of steel." In context, the line from the film was something like, "she's made of iron, I assure you she will [sink]." "Steel" and "iron" was interchangable in marine parlance, and to claim this as a historical inaccuracy is pedantic. At the very most, it is dramatic license--and I doubt it's that much. However, the statement is true as far as it goes--there are inaccuracies in the film, though it must be stressed that this film is primarily a work of fiction based upon a real event. --Cpk1971 00:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Public Content
As a public encyclopaedia, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to include the nude picture.


 * Wikipedia does not censor content. Cburnett 14:08, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * No censorship doesn't mean no social responsibility of avoiding the scenario where 10 year old children stumble upon this page and find nude pictures. --youngyew 03:32, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've not been involved with this artcile at all, but saw a note about the image at the village pump. It seems from a glance at the history of this article that it has been repeatedly asserted that the image is necessary. Assuming that is correct, then I fail to see what the problem is. Its a picture of a nude woman, and not a very graphic one at that, there is no sex depicted. The human body is perfectly natural and a child, no matter what age will not come to any harm from seeing a bit of somebody's skin. In fact, most children are better abel to deal with it than the majority of those adults who protest on their behalf. (yes, this is my POV). see also nudism and What Wikipedia is not. Thryduulf 00:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * True, but why draw fire? That scene is no more critical to the movie than any number of others, and the others presumably won't excite so much controversy. I've nominated the image for deletion. Meelar (talk) 00:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming the image does or doesn't merit inclusion in the article - I've not been involved with it. Hopefully someone who has worked on the article will present their opinion soon. Thryduulf 00:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If God had intended us to go about naked, we'd have been born without any clothes! Oh.... -- Arwel 02:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good thing god doesn't/never has exist(ed)! And we can make our own decisions.

I stated my opinion for why it should be kept on WP:IFD. Basically, it's a key part of their growing relationship (yeah, that's my caption under the image) and doesn't violate any of WP's policies. Cburnett 02:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree this image should not be used. Where nudity is at all important to the encyclopaedic content of the page it should certainly be used (I've supported images of nudity on several pages, and vehemently oppose any attempt at censorship or filtering); but I think here it's just gratuitous. It doesn't add anything to the page, people coming to the page have no reason to expect nudity... it should go. --Khendon 10:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Khendon. I'm sure we all recall the furore over autofellatio, but I think we can at least all agree that someone headed to that article has no reasonable right to complain if there are mildly shocking pictures displayed.  But in clearly non-sexual topics, to display nude photographs (even those as artistically lit as the one of Winslet is) is to invite controversy.  I'm sure we could argue that the crucifix masturbation scene from The Exorcist is a "crucial" scene in that film, and that some would want that screenshot in the article.  But there's no compelling reason to shock our viewership--all it will do is alienate people for no good reason.  There are dozens of moments in any film where important decisions are made, character traits are revealed, etc.  To go out of our way to display the one scene in which a girl's top is off is either to submit to the snickering voyeur within, or to choose a political statement over this site's publicly stated goal of informing and edifying the human race with free knowledge.  I can see no good reason for doing either, and am frankly becoming disgusted with fellow editors of mine (many of whom I have otherwise great respect for) who seem more interested in playing games over "censorship" and "freedom" than in talking seriously about how Wikipedia is going to reach a worldwide audience. Jwrosenzweig 00:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe that someone is seriously suggesting that the Kate Winslet picture will shock anyone. I remind you that it was rated PG13 by MPAA, not the most liberal of bodies.  The nude posing scene is a particularly beautiful (if brief) one and is pivotal to the plot--it is the drawing Di Caprio produces there that is recovered from the wrecked ship at the start of the movie, and prompts the narrative.  Petty prudery is not an attractive thing to witness. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony, let us imagine a hypothetical Wikipedian named Chris. Let us further imagine that Chris's grandmother was once a model in Playboy magazine, but that she went on to a life as, say, a school librarian and a member of the local historical society.  When Chris goes to Chris's grandmother's funeral, wouldn't it be "shocking" for Chris if the Playboy cheesecake shot of the grandmother was on full display?  We could all agree that the shot of a topless lady was not "shocking" in a goat.se manner, but in context I think we could find it shocking.  I don't find the picture of Winslet nude on the couch "shocking" per se, but I think shock is a reasonable word to describe the reaction that at least some readers might have if they came here to read our article on the movie.  Sure, they likely know the shot exists in the film, and perhaps they even enjoyed it, but I'm sure many readers would not therefore assume that an encyclopedia article on the film would therefore feature that moment in full color.  And I wish you'd stop calling me things like "petty prude", since I thought you were a much kinder fellow than that.  Tell me I'm putting sensitivity ahead of the project...fine.  But please don't call me names.  It upsets me. Jwrosenzweig 21:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As is a petty insistence on using nudity just to show how "liberal" you are. --Khendon 07:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * So it would be. Who is doing this? You've been shown how the scene is considered an important one, and that the picture is very nice to look at.  Those are two good reasons that have nothing to do with the reason you accuse others of having. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As an attempt at compromise I've uploaded Image:Titanic Movie Leo Kate Kiss.jpg which is another screenshot from the movie that shows their relationship building without potentially offending a significant portion of our audience.


 * Looks like a high quality publicity still rather than a screenshot. What's the licensing status on such stills?  The bow shot is nice, but it doesn't really have the significance of Rose posing for Jack drawing wearing the necklace that she later (in the contemporary parts of the movie, as an old woman) returns to the site of the wreck. I really don't see that really very coy picture from a PG13 movie offending significant number of people.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I would imagine that this page as well as the comments right here would make it quite clear that the "really very coy picture from a PG13 movie" actually has offended a significant number of people. Kevin Rector (talk) 15:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you read the comments you will find that most of those voting to delete it are not offended by it themselves, but are voting delete on the grounds that it might offend other people, and/or that it is not apropriate for the article. Thryduulf 16:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * actually, I've just double checked and of the 27 people who have made signed comments, nobody on that page has said they are offended by it, nobody has implied they are offended by it either (except possibly BM, because I am not certain if he is trying to imply that or not). 0/27 doesn't qualify as "a significant number of people" in my book. Thryduulf 17:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There are clearly some who somehow contrive to find this seemingly innocent picture offensive, I agree. There is one chap on the mailing list who says even the sight of certain words offends him so much you'll not see him near any kind of debate involving "images like this". This does seem to me to be one of the more ridiculous, blown-up controversies I've ever encountered on Wikipedia and I don't propose to give these earnest campaigners and rooters-out-of-offense any further sustenance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify this for me Tony? Are you proposing that people with that particular POV should not be welcome to participate in discussions about editorial decisions? If so, which POV should we exclude next? -Rholton 18:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't more clear. I think we should spend less time arguing with people who obviously think bare breasts are offensive and argue instead about the merits of *this* picture (showing KW posing for a drawing) on this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Screenshot?
Is the picture just added, showing a kiss, really a screenshot? To me it looks like an official publicity still, very high quality. What is the licensing status? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why this picture?
It's not a case of "are you offended" it's a case of "do you think this picture should be there". I have no hestitation in saying that my answer is "no". I also have yet to see anyone explain why this picture is necessary. DJ Clayworth 17:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What he said. Kevin Rector (talk) 17:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you'll ever find *any* argument to the effect that a certain picture is necessary. I often browse Wikipedia with image downloads turned off and the experience is very similar to that with images, so none of the pictures are strictly necessary. However the posing picture is a good one for this movie, and I'll explain. Firstly, it's very pretty (even if Kate is really wearing a body stocking or a latex mold). Secondly, it shows a key scene in the movie, linking two artefacts in the "present day" section of the movie with the Titanic of 1912. Rose is posing for the drawing that the salvage crew will find instead of the Heart of the Ocean which they had been seeking. In the picture she is wearing a necklace featuring that very gem. At the end of the movie she goes to the bow of the salvage ship (or maybe the stern--the bit that isn't pointy) and drops the gem back into the water. If there is a pivotal scene in the human interest part of the movie, one around which all the other action focuses, this is it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop arguing long enough to...
...add two paragraphs describing the context of the image you include. It's not just Jack drawing some random sketch. It's a key moment in their relationship, and a critical moment in the history of the jewel. Giving more information is usually the right solution to encyclopec idisputes. -- Sj (sig added by Cburnett)


 * NOTE: Please sign your posts with ~


 * I primarily deleted your comment because they belong on talk pages. Secondary reason was that no one is stopping you from adding text. Cburnett 00:56, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

My point is that people who are making a fuss about such things should have more textual manners. If you want to make a fuss about an image, make sure it's in context before you have the abstract type of debate. If I just fix it, noone will even realize this was missing to begin with.


 * Sorry, I find this point invalid. WP is not a "final product" and constantly evolves.  Having something in context is not a necessity for deletion, it's an avenue for you to expand upon.  I'd link you the page where this is essentially stated, but I can't recall which one it is. Cburnett 01:15, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't consider it an invalid point. When including potentially confusing or controversial material, it's simply good manners to include it with some context and explanation of why you added it, not merely to throw it up without bothering to put any effort into it. --Delirium 08:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I substantially edited the plot outline yesterday afternoon so that the significance of the portrait is more clear. It would be lovely to have a scan of the drawing in the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sketch itself
Can someone find a screencap of the sketch? Now there's an image of great relevance to the film. And one you would be more likely to find in some official plot reference. +sj +  00:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another Screen Shot -- An attempt at compromise
How about this picture:


 * It's still pretty clear that she's nekkid.
 * The caption tells us she's getting drawn.
 * From the text of the article the necklace is the key to tying the story together and this picture shows it off much better than the other picture.
 * It's also a very pretty picture.
 * It won't offend the "prudes".

It is still ridiculously small. What is the point of clicking on the image? - Faid

If this compromise won't work, then I guess none will. Kevin Rector (talk) 15:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. It has all the essential elements and it's a much clearer picture. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree it has all the essential elements, so I support the compromise. I wouldn't be surpised if someone managed to find it objectionable due to the implied nudity, but then thats life I suppose. Thryduulf 16:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If someone is offended at implied nudity then I think it's safe to say that virtually everyone on Wikipedia will roll their eyes and the issue will be pretty well ignored. Kevin Rector (talk) 17:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

'''Sweet Hallelujah I think we've found a good compromise. I'm going to implement it in the article.''' Kevin Rector (talk) 17:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think that you have arrived at a wonderful solution. This is my first visit to the article. I never saw the disputed image, but the agree on image, aside from my personal sensitivities, is one that I think keeps Wikipedia useful for most of the world. Never mind that I minimize and scroll quickly at its appearance. Good work. Tom Haws 18:10, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm very saddened. That's all I can say. RickK 18:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Amazing that when people who are diametrically opposite on a topic come to a reasonble compromise it should make you sad. Does that indicate that you are only happy when you get your way? Or does it indicate that you just generally dislike the notion of compromise? Kevin Rector (talk) 18:44, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh come now! Did *you* not get your way by removing the naked breast?  Mmmmm, that's what I thought. Cburnett 19:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Are the grey bars at the top and bottom of the image part of the screenshot? (I suppose I'm the only person in the U.S. who hasn't seen the movie.) If not, I'll be happy to edit them out. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 18:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong Kevin, but changing the screenshot while voting continues for deletion the previous shot (and with majority for keep) looks like an attempt to get your way against majority. I must strenously object to such practice. I suggest reverting to the previous screenshot, then after voting closes seek compromise. Przepla 20:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, I agree with you. Changing it didn't sit right with me but at the same time the IFD is about the deletion of the image (though it really has been about the merit of the image on the article, a distinctly separate question).  I think it should be reverted until the end of the IFD. Cburnett 20:18, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The conversation on this talk page and the content of this article is completely unrelated to the IFD issue. Reverting the image now does nothing more than stir the pot now that it's settled down. There are a number of people who have expressed on this talk page that they don't want Image:KateWinsletTitanic.jpg in the article. There are a number of people who have expressed that they do want the image. A compromise was struck whereby two of the more vocal people who wanted to keep Image:KateWinsletTitanic.jpg in the article said that Image:KateWinsletTitanic2.jpg worked for them. That very clearly swung consensus towards the removing the old image in favor the new image. The votes on IFD have nothing to do with which image should be in this article. Kevin Rector (talk) 20:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I stick with my previous statements. However I'd like to point out that previous picture was better not because it featured naked breasts, but because it showed important scene from the movie. The act of creating the drawing, that serves as plot device in it. Now it's just a pretty face and part naked body. Przepla 21:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This fuss about breasts is uncomprehensible for me. I live in Poland, and naked breasts here are one of those things that nobody takes care of. They appear in Women's Magazines and TV ads shown during the day. Even official EU public announcement asking people to vote on EU Parliamentary Elections included a pair of breasts. And we Poles are one of the most conservative Europeans -- everybody here is a Roman Catholic, and topless sunbathing, unlike the rest of Europe, is still frowned upon. As I said in IFD, problems with naked breast fall within the same category as problems with woman's face in Islamic nations: I'm OK with your rules, as long as you'll not try to impose it on myself. And I feel that those rules are being forced on me here. Przepla 21:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And let me ask this Kevin: are you personally opposed to the previous picture, or are you trying to make others happy? Przepla 21:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Przepla and Cburnett, I hope you will see Kevin's proposed picture in a more positive light. This site is built on compromise and consensus. Yes, you're right, there is a majority for keeping the picture you prefer...but if an even greater percentage of editors would be satisfied with this new picture, then surely it is preferable?  That's what consensus means.  I know that, had the vote been to delete the picture in question, and you had proposed the picture that Kevin is, I would support its inclusion in the article.  And I'd like to think I wouldn't cast aspersion on you by claiming that it "didn't sit right with me".  That makes it sound to me as though you wanted to win the argument (which you apparently did), rather than reach consensus.  And I hope and trust you both didn't intend your words that way.  Can we call it a truce and accept this new picture?  I hope so. Jwrosenzweig 21:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * J, I think you and others should take responsibility for this, with your egging-on of those who wanted to promote the idea that the display of a human breast is intended to shock. During the course of this discussion you and others have made a lot of vile and frankly indefensible attacks on people who simply don't see what the big deal is about the boobs, in particular the attack that you couched in the following very dismaying words "to submit to the snickering voyeur within, or to choose a political statement over this site's publicly stated goal of informing and edifying the human race with free knowledge".  For some reason it's still seen as a big deal in some areas, while in others we just don't have the breast taboo.  This cultural insensitivity has resulted in some terrible, patronizing haranguing by puritans of one stripe or another on perfectly decent people who happen not to have a puritanical attitude, either for or against.  Having said that I'm happy with the substitute picture, and I'm going to accept it in the spirit of consensus. And I hope nobody ever raises this example of consensual decision-making as a precedent for more displays of this revolting and completely anachronistic puritanism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well, I won't press it further, although I am still considering this change unwarranted censorship. Sheesh. These are only naked breasts, people, nothing special! Przepla 21:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with your sentiments Przepla, and I'm British - naked breasts on daytime TV or advertising posters would cause an outcry here still. The goal of the site is consensus, and although I would have preferred the first image the second isn't hugely inferior (imho) and the fact that someone on the opposite side of the argument also considers it apropriate is a significant point in its favour. Thryduulf 22:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's a consensus. Look at the IFD and you'll find the argument is about the merits of inclusion of the picture in the article. The IFD is superficially about deleting it, but ultimately it is about the inclusion of the image.  Changing images bypasses what the IFD is really doing. Cburnett 22:10, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see why both images should not be in the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the image back to the original. Kevin what makes you claim that you have arrived at an agreed compromise when the vast majority of discussion has been on the IFD page (where, in my opinion, the consensus seems to be for keeping the original image)? TigerShark 23:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your changes for now--the old photo was blurry and hard to make out, and the new one appears to have more support than the old one. Best, Meelar (talk) 23:56, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry Meelar, I changed it back before I saw your comment. I still feel that we should stick with the original one until the original debate is complete. Maybe the issue of this compromise image could be raised in the main IFD debate, for further discussion. TigerShark 00:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem, although I'm not sure how many people are still viewing that page. Best, Meelar (talk) 00:07, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * And I have gone back to the compromise and the IfD debate has got itself into a anti-censorship / unencyclopedic general debate, rather than what belongs here.--Audiovideo 00:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Even so, that is where the main debate has been taking place and I think we can link the two debates rather than say that one takes priority over the other. TigerShark 00:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Because you want to lure people to your disguised link to Image:autofellatio2.jpg? That debate has clearly failed to reach a consensus; this one is attempting a compromise. And a reasonable one. --Audiovideo 01:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Please, Audiovido, assume good faith. What does this have to do with autofellatio? Meelar (talk) 01:51, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Go to the other debate and see what is hidden under TigerShark's link at "blow themselves" . Perhaps you are correct. I should assume in good faith that it was a joke or emphasis, rather than its face value of trying to trick people to click to a shock image. --Audiovideo 02:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that it was intended as a joke, and that I have better things to do than spend a substantial about of time posting messages both here and on the image debate just to try and trick people into viewing an image (even if I did want to trick people into doing that, I'm sure I could find far easier ways to reach a wider audience). TigerShark 19:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I voted keep on the first image (and delete on the autofellatio image, since someone has brought that tired old argument into this discussion), but I like Kevin's compromise image. Personally, I'm about equal on both images (though this one is admittedly of higher quality than the first), but all things being equal, this one would probably make either the most people happy or the least people unhappy. --Deathphoenix 03:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you Deathphoenix. Making the most people happy or the least people unhappy is all I've been trying to do throughout this whole fiasco and it has driven me to the brink of giving up entirely on Wikipedia more than once. It's words like yours that help me know that it possibly isn't all in vain. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:00, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've been somewhat following the article on WikiEN-l, so I was pretty sure that that new picture had been taken as consensus. An anonymous user deleted it, so I re-inserted it. Revived 01:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I'd chime in with my two cents. I ran across the article (and associated tempest) completely accidentally. For what it's worth, I prefer the new image. It's not that I have anything against breasts; I'm quite fond of them, and I have no objection to their inclusion in Wikipedia. It's just that the new screenshot is (to my eye&mdash;this is obviously subjective) technically and aesthetically better. The compression artifacts aren't as glaring, the image is sharper, the jewel (a key plot point) is clearer, and Winslet's face is more visible.

One question&mdash;is the source attribution correct? Because the image seems to be of much better quality, it it really a screenshot, or is it a promotional still? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I had a word with User:Quadell and he says it is probably okay, as long as the quality isn't too high. I strongly recommend keeping both images in the article (I put the old one in the awards section with an appropriate caption) just in case the new one should prove *too* high quality. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I highly disagree, and have removed the original photo. The problem was that it didn't really contribute to the article, was grainy and low quality, and needlessly offends some readers (not me, so please don't go there). All of these objections still stand. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 02:52, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it's grainy and low quality is apparently a *good* thing. Of course it contributes to the article--it's the most complete illusration we have of the production standards of the movie. Lighting, camera-work, direction and set direction are illustrated perfectly. That it offends a few readers is neither here nor there. We're not a censorpedia, and obviously the MPAA thought it was quite all right for moms to take their young kids to see. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I dont know; does it show the production standards of the movie? I'm afraid that the full image accentuates artifacts of compression twice over: once for the transfer to DVD (and the rip from DVD) and again for JPEG compression.  I don't remember the movie in the theater being grainy and low quality.... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with TenOfAllTrades. My problem isn't that the image is offensive; I'm all for offensive pics when they enhance the article. An image of this quality, when we already have two better ones, IMO does not .Meelar (talk) 05:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

special effects
Should the article say something about the special effects ? --DavidCary 23:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "Digital Domain used 105 DEC Alphas running RedHat Linux to simulate and render water for John Cameron's Titanic" -- http://www.computer.org/computer/homepage/0202/ec/


 * Definitely. For instance, it should mention the digital Titanic had a miraculous fourth working stack, when the real ship only had 3... Trekphiler 19:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well...not exactly. The "digital" Titanic's fourth funnel does have smoke/steam coming out of it, because in reality this funnel was used to vent the kitchen. The other three were used to exhaust the coal boilers.

Time frame
As an old woman in 1996, Rose now goes onto the deck of the salvage ship and throws the Heart of the Ocean into the ocean where Jack died - Didn't the "present day" stuff take place in 1985, with the rediscovery of the ship?--Will2k 13:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * No it took place in the present, meaning around the time the film came out. MechBrowman 02:20, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's funny, if one does the math, the movie has to be taking place in 1996, even though the movie was released at the end of 1997. Rose was 17 in 1912, placing her year of birth at about 1895. She is 100 years old - almost 101 - when she tells her story to the modern day shipwreck explorers.

Historical Inaccuracy that author of article did not include in his/her work
I edited the main article to include my information. I just saw the movie today, and I noticed that the Titanic's fourth and last funnel in the movie was portrayed as being in use. This cannot be because the fourth funnel towards the the stern of the ship was actually a fake and wasn't real. It was only added to make the passengers, especially Third Class feel safer travelling aboard the liner.
 * This didn't seem right to me so I went through the movie to see if smoke did come out of the fourth funnel in the film. I am absolutely convinced no smoke was billowing out of that funnel. During the time it was not obvious (when the funnel is not in direct view) it apparent the smoke is coming from the other forward funnels. MechBrowman July 8, 2005 02:13 (UTC)
 * It looked pretty clear to me the 4h stack was in use... Trekphiler 19:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It was not, I am confident about this. MechBrowman 20:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed this
 * Finally, another factual mistake made in the movie was made towards the end when Titanic began to sink. By this point most of the passengers are on deck being loaded into the lifeboats, and a crewman walks over to Capt. Edward J. Smith and asks him whether or not woman and children should be boarded onto the boats first. Smith gives the order, and soon afterwards the audience hears the crewman shout "Women and children into the boats first!" During the actual sinking, Smith announced to the passengers on deck himself by using a megaphone, and pronounced "Women and children first into the boats." He did not leave it only to his crewmates, and soon afterwards bravely went down with his ship; he did not survive the disaster.

2nd Officer Lightoller asking Smith if they should load the women in children into the boats is based on what really happened. It happened when Lightoller was being held back by Chief Officer Wilde and Captain Smith was not be very proactive about getting people off the ship. Whether Smith yelled the order in megaphone is not important here because they were two seperate events, the latter not being in the movie. MechBrowman July 4, 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Did Murdoch Kill Himself?
In the movie they portrayed Murdoch as killing himself with a gun. I know Murdoch did not survive the sinking, but did they portray his death accuratly in the film or no?

It was an inaccurate portrayal - Murdoch drowned. It was only for the pruposes of the story.

It's not necessarily inaccurate. The fact is, no one knows whether or not Murdoch killed himself. Eyewitness accounts say that an officer did shoot himself as the Titanic was sinking. The three likeliest candidates are Murdoch, Chief Officer Wilde, and Purser McElroy. Since none of their bodies were recovered, no one can say with certainty what actually happened. Also, please sign your comments with ~. --Michael Hays 16:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Murdoch's suicide is extremely unlikely. In the film, he shot and killed Tommy Ryan, a fictional character. If Tommy Ryan didn't exist, then niether did Murdoch's suicide. Jienum 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What? That's a non sequitur. Murdoch's suicide may be unlikely, but that doesn't make it impossible. Saying otherwise is misleading. —Michael Hays 03:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracy (again)
As far as I know, there is no controversy over whether 3rd class passengers were locked below decks. Papers released by the Public Record Office prove it was a myth. 81.131.249.202 12:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

DVD editions
I stand corrected on the DVD editions as my understanding was the 3-DVD version was the only version being released (based on press I saw on this). Does anyone know if the 4-disc version contains material different from the R1 version? On a related issue, now that the deleted scenes have been released (on the R1 version anyway) I think a section discussing these sequences is justified especially since one of them is a completely different ending for the film, plus some of the cut scenes also fill in a few historical omissions such as a brief depiction of Lightoller and the overturned lifeboat. 23skidoo 03:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Box office
I'm not sure how to word this without it coming out as POV, and I don't have a source to back it up myself, but my understanding is Titanic was the end of an era in that it was the last major film (to date, anyway) that registered multiple attendences by viewers. In the 1970s and 1980s it wasn't uncommon to hear of people going to see a movie like Star Wars 20-30 times, but since the advent of VCRs and certainly DVDs and high ticket prices, this rarely happens anymore which is one reason why movies rarely stay at No. 1 for more than a week or two. Titanic seemed to buck that growing trend in 1997-98 as people were known to have gone to see it dozens of times. You don't see that anymore. I think it's a worthy milestone to note, but I don't know how to go about mentioning it in the article. Thoughts? 23skidoo 20:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you find an actual journalistic assertion that this is true, mention it with the appropriate reference. MechBrowman 15:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Alternate Ending?
Just a thought, but perhaps the alternate ending presented on the new DVD edition should be added to the plot summary. (If only because I'm curious to find out what it is.) --Psyk0 16:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think a better idea is to create a section outlining the various deleted scenes. If anyone wants to start this, feel free. In short, the alternate ending has Old Rose heading to the back of the ship, and being intercepted by Brock, Lizzy and Lewis who beg her not to jump (they think she's going to commit suicide). Instead, Rose pulls out the diamond, and the film flashes back to New York in 1912 when she discovers she has the jewel. Brock, after unsuccessfully trying to convince her not to throw it overboard, asks to at least hold the jewel for a moment (an earlier scene that was also cut foreshadowed this moment). Afterwards, Rose throws the jewel overboard and Lewis shouts something like "That really, sucks, lady!" There's a bit of laughing and hugging and then the scene fades to Rose lying in bed and the ending proceeds as normal. 23skidoo 20:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and created the section. I didn't list all the deleted scenes as some are too minor to mention, but there were a number of major ones cut. 23skidoo 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That list should go completely and be replaced by prose that gives two or three examples of the major deleted scenes. MechBrowman 15:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Change Criticism and Historical inaccuracies
The Criticism and Historical inaccuracies section has gotten out of control, with several mentions of unnotable inaccuracies. I propose this section be changed to Historical criticism and only mention historical events that have been criticized, such as Murdoch's depiction. Nothing will be mentioned as criticism unless it has an appropriate source. It will remove all unnotable mistakes like English accents, wireless noise and Lake Wissota as well as any POV. If Murdoch's depiction is the only inaccuracy with a source (which I would not be surprised) then we should get rid of the section entirely and replace it with Reception and criticism section (as with film Featured Articles) and make Murdoch's criticism part of it. Does anyone disagree? MechBrowman 15:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree there is quite a bit of nitpicking. I agree let's keep the major inaccuracies only. Lake Wissota actually qualifies, however, as it is one of the few errors (along with Murdoch) that James Cameron has actually pled guilty to. If you watch the DVD with the commentary, most of the other so-called errors originate from the sources Cameron used such as interviews with survivors, testimony from the hearings, etc. The survivors, for example, could not find consensus over what song the band played at the end - Nearer My God to Thee or Autumn. As I understand it, Cameron chose the former because it was a song more likely to be recognized by viewers. One other thought regarding the historical inaccuracies section: due to the film being so popular, it has become trendy to hate it, just as it has become trendy to hate things such as Star Trek. For that reason, I think some of the criticisms need to considered on the basis of having been added strictly from the POV of "let's have something to complain about". The accents nitpick is a prime example of this; the Murdoch controversy (though Cameron is hardly the first to follow mythology on this one) and even the Lake Wissota goof on the other hand are fair ball. 23skidoo 16:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree about Lake Wissota, one line in a movie does not make it notable. I do agree with you this film is unfairly picked on. MechBrowman 23:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But in theory most other historical goofs in the film are also just one or two lines of dialogue, too. The Wissota thing is a rather notable goof that has been compared to the stereotypical Roman soldier in an old Hollywood epic being spotted wearing a wristwatch. By itself it isn't notable but the very fact Cameron and others have come out and said "we goofed" made it notable (as did the whole Murdoch thing since Cameron's film was hardly the first to follow the myth; if Cameron and Fox hadn't pled guilty and donated to the Murdoch fund it could be argued that this error isn't notable, either). I don't have a source (otherwise I'd have put it into the article) but I remember reading somewhere that there was a rumor that Cameron was going to overdub the Wissota line with the name of a lake that actually existed in 1912 for the DVD special edition, but that obviously didn't happen. 23skidoo 00:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As recent edits had the section arguing against it self, I decided to be bold and got rid of it. I only left the complaint about Murdoch, because it is the only serious historical complaint agaisnt the movie. I added references and merged some sections. Its not perfect, but its better than before. MechBrowman 02:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably just as well as the section was turning into a bitch session about the movie. 23skidoo 05:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
Ditch the list of deleted scenes; this is not a DVD review. Needs a quotes section. --Tysto 00:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree, the deleted scenes has no reason being hear, also the list of parodies also needs to go. I completely disagre about adding quotes, that is what Wikiquote is for. MechBrowman 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll: keep or delete the deleted scenes and spoofs section
I completely disagree with MechBrowman's removal of the deleted scenes and spoofs sections on the basis of precedent (Wizard of Oz comes to mind). Therefore I suggest a vote be held here to determine if there is consensus on what to do with these sections. I would support them becoming their own articles, otherwise keep. 23skidoo 05:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree with having a poll, but I will weigh in with my thoughts in anycase. As far as I'm concerned, the deleted scenes appear to be notable, however, the spoof section could go. There are tons of parodies/spoofs of this film and I don't think all or even any really need to be listed. K1Bond007 06:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Bond; everyone parodied Titanic, but the deleted scenes are noteworthy, especially since the only way to see them legally is to buy the overpriced 4-disc set. ProhibitOnions 10:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Try to get the 3-disc version released in Canada and the US - it's only about $30. ;-) 23skidoo 18:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * When I first saw that the sections that were removed was restored, I tried throughout the day to think of the best way to explain how it is unencyclopedic. Since I'm terrible at debates all I can think of is that the content is just unencyclopedic, it does not belong. A list of deleted scenes has aboslutely no buisness here, there is already info on the DVD releases and to go into such detail about something so minor, its just a bad idea.  The information is basically the same length as the information on the actually film.  Spoofs is the same thing, it is describing in so much detail on something that has no relation to the movie.  The best we can do for spoofs is making it a small paragraph in Criticism and reception that describes how the fame of the film has made it parodied all over.  23skidoo cited Gone With the Wind to support keeping the content, I'll cite the only film articles currently in Featured articles. FAs should be our guides on other articles, while some have degraded in certain ways (Triumph of the Will has an image gallery!) the idea is to make articles of high quality, and with these lists the article can not even get close. I really hope this is reasonable to the above people. MechBrowman 22:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I created the 'Spoofs' section originally (although others have edited since), and even I agree that it can be taken down. As for the deleted scenes, I think they should be kept, but the section needs to be drastically cut down. Drake Clawfang, Februrary 18, 2006.
 * I can live with the spoofs section being either dropped or perhaps reduced to a paragraph. I maintain my disagreement with MechBrowman over the deleted scenes. This is the type of information that makes Wikipedia worthwhile. Not all "featured articles" are that good. I've seen some articles turned to absolute uselessness in order to obtain the "coveted" FA status and to be honest it ain't worth the effort just so it appears on the front page for 24 hours. IMO the existence of a citation notice (see top of this page) is a far more valuable indicator of this page's usefulness. 23skidoo 16:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Split proposal
I see this debate on some sections considered "unnecessary". Here's my theory: what if we split this article up into a few or several articles? If so, what are your ideas? --69.227.173.21 06:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Further controvery -- Nazi propoganda film
Shouldn't something be incorporated in the article about how so much of the story paralleled the 1943 Nazi propaganda film Titanic? AmiDaniel 22:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We should have more reliable sources about this. Once the reliability is established, we can include this parallel with the 1943 film. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It had parallels with another film about exactly the same event. Well I never! Frankly mentioning these similarities to a "Nazi propaganda film" in the hope that some mud would stick sounds like it would be a ridiculous slur - or propaganda if you will. 62.31.55.223 06:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
I just reorganized the sections into (in my opinion) a much more appropriate format. With another a copy edits and someone standardizing and augmenting the references, I would support this for a featured article. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Mixed Reviews?
The 86% positive score on rottentomatoes would suggest they were anything but mixed. Crazymaner2003
 * They most certainly were mixed, with some highly disparaging comments from well known critics. Rotten tomatoes divided reviews in a crude good/bad fashion, which can be highly misleading. 62.31.55.223 06:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The film scored 74 at metacritic, which the site classifies as "generally favorable" (a level above "mixed"). Regarding the legitimacy of rottentomatoes, it's the place industry-types turn to for the overall critical consensus on a movie (Fox Searchlight Internet Marketing executive Mark Gellar: "If you're confident you've got a strong, well-reviewed movie, then you leverage RottenTomatoes."; see http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/risky_business_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001956859).

Anyway, that's two separate sites doing independent tabulations of dozens of critics, and both coming up with favorable reviews.


 * And you think there is anything scientific about "a level above mixed"? Anyways, yes, they both come up with mostly favorable reviews.  They also come up with several scathing reviews, from quite reputable sources at that.  Both sites are basically more of a database of reviews, rather than the IMDB ratings, which are so swung by the overzelous politicking to be completely unreliable.  I personally am not a fan of Rotten Tomatoes because of it's "All or nothing" format, which is correctly said as misleading.  I also think that the Cream of the Crop system (which gives it a 70%) is more reliable, since it tends not to have the random sources like "Matt's Movie reviews" and other internet user's homepages-turned-critic sites.


 * However, I think the best way of wording it isn't to ignore the scathing reviews, because they came from rather respectable sources, but also not to claim that it's completely mixed, because that implies that, overall, it wasn't viewed much more one way than the other, which isn't the case in terms of critical acclaim. --Hawk405359 05:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Mistake
There is a fairly basic howler when the iceberg is first seen. The officer in charge yells to the helmsman "Hard a Starboard...", and the helmsman promply spins the wheel to turn to port (left). The ship is shown eventually going to port, with the iceberg passing on the starboard (right) side. In reality, the iceberb did actually pass to the starboard side of the ship - as the Wikipedia article on the disaster confirms. Later someone says "...we tried to port round the 'berg (ie then swing the other way to help the stern miss the iceberg) but we still hit..." or words to that effect. In fact, to do that, they would have had to have then swung to starboard. Again, this is what actually happened. In other words, the film's writers got their port and starboard mixed up.

I enjoyed the film very much, and it seems petty to carp. Perhaps someone should start a section in the main article on factual mistakes in the film. Peter Maggs 12:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, it is much more complicated than that. I need to check the literature and report back. Peter Maggs 17:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Hard a starboard" is, apparently, what the 1st officer said. It is certainly reported as such in Walter Lord's "A Night to Remember". There is an explanation here: http://www.keyflux.com/titanic/mov_faq.htm although I'm not convinced. On a tiller steered ship, pushing the tiller hard to starboard puts the rudder to port and the ship goes to port. But you cannot steer a ship of any size with a tiller; even the ships of Nelson's time were steered using a wheel in order to get sufficient mechanical advantage. It is difficult to believe that on a wheel-steered ship the order "...Hard a starboard..." is automatically interpreted as a turn to port. An expert is needed here please. Peter Maggs 20:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Hard a'starboard" was the order given by First Officer Murdoch to Quartermaster Hichens, as reflected in Hichens' testimony at the inquiries. This order signalled a hard turn to port, a relic from earlier days of seafaring. This is fact, although often mistakenly labelled as a mistake in many Titanic movies, and is absolutely not in dispute. Michael Hays 02:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A mistake in the movie
If the wiki article RMS Titanic is correct, only three of her funnels were really functioning - the fourth was merely a decoration used only as a vent. The movie (evening scene showing the entire ship from astern, steaming) shows all four smoking. Perhaps somebody was making a huge barbacue?

''Actually, the film does not portray the fourth funnel emitting smoke. Examine the following link containing still images from the film.' '

Alternate proposal for deleted scenes
I noticed that there was a debate on the fate of the deleted scenes section of the article. I was wondering if it would be possible to narrow the current list on the main article to five or six major deletions, and put a list of all 31 deleted scenes in a separate article, like Deleted scenes from Titanic (1997 film). --Kitch 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The only problem with that idea is those types of articles seem to automatically generate AFDs. 23skidoo 21:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I try to like the movie, I just CAN'T
I try to like the movie, I really tried, I wathed it as least 3 times. I just can't find myself liking it. I just don't find it a as a great movie can win 11 nomination. I mean I like the Gone with wind, Froset Gump and Saving Pivate Ryan...etc But Titianic? Man, it's not that touchy any way. I guess I'm just not compassion eough. It meanly become popular because of the media advertisement and all the positive review. I think the movie only attracts woman to see it because of love story. Guys go to see simply because the girl was totally naked in it.
 * Please sign your statements if you want them taken seriously. In any event this isn't really the forum for a movie review. And lots of guys (me included) like this film for reasons other than Winslet getting naked. 23skidoo 19:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also liked the movie and to me it's very moving, maybe you just don't like love stories? Although the reason i like it could have been influenced by the fact that i'm gay?
 * As was said, this is not a movie rating forum. Michael 06:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

About the box office...
"It currently holds the record for the highest grossing film of all time both in North America and globally. The previous record of $460,998,007 in North America had stood for 20 years, since 1977's Star Wars.[3]"

Actually, it wasn't until mid-February 1997 that Star Wars became the highest grossing movie again due to its re-release, so it did not last for "20 years since 1977" so I am going to change this. McDonaldsGuy 06:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not incredibly educated on Titanic's box office success, but I was under the impression that other films had bypassed its total gross. Its profile on Box Office Mojo claims it has grossed close to US$2 billion; I assume this is accurate. Recently, I read somewhere that some films have passed it and/or came close to this achievement, but I'm skeptical on such news. Could somebody please verify the information? And since we're on the topic, the box office portion of the article requires trimming. It's too long. Never Mystic 00:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The only movie to even get close to Titanic's gross is Return of the King, but it's still $700 million off. You must have read that it was beaten adjusted for inflation - because Gone with the Wind and Star Wars beat it in that regard, but Titanic technically is still the highest grossing movie of all time. McDonaldsGuy 03:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're right; it's the only logical assumption, after all. Thank you for the verification. Out of curiosity, are there any portions of the article that you think require editing? In general, the entire bulk needs to be rewritten. Are there any other suggestions? Never Mystic 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone and tidied the box office portion of the article. It's easier to read, but there's less content. Once I obtain appropriate references, I'll try and re-expand the most important and vital details; it'd be nice if it wasn't overhauled with useless information like it was before the last few edits. The deleted scenes were removed too, because they don't further the article's subject matter and introduce trivialities. As long as the parodies are heavily trimmed and well-referenced, there's a chance they could stay, especially when taking into consideration the section's current image, which requires fair use rationale. If anybody wants to help, I'd be really happy; it's going to take some time before this can be proposed at FAC. A very long time. Never Mystic 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Images removed from talk page
The images that were on this talk page violated Wikipedia's fair use rules for images so I've "commented" them out. Wikipedia is really cracking the whip these days so I'm jumping in there before an image cop finds them and perhaps starts to target images within the article itself. 23skidoo 21:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A good idea it was. Thanks for "jumping in". Never Mystic 22:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of images, are there any websites that display and/or handle good screenshots from the film? Currently, the article is rather empty concerning the number of images. Never Mystic 21:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Images in the "Cast" section removed
This is per violation of Fair use criteria and Images. Never Mystic (tc) 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened to Rose's legal husband?
At the conclusion of the film (which is either a dream, or heaven), Rose Dewitt Bukater and Jack Dawson are reunited at last. However Rose married another man (who was the father of their children and grandfather to their children's kids), and he seems to be left out of her dream world. This does seem callous of Rose, and I wonder if James Cameron has ever addressed this matter? 204.80.61.10 17:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk
 * Your question is interesting, but I'm not sure. Never Mystic (tc) 20:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Left or Right?
After the lookout notifies the officer of the deck that an iceberg is ahead, the office commands the helmsman to steer "hard starboard". How come the helmsman is seen turning the wheel to the left?192.154.130.14 (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)