Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Edit request on 7 March 2013

Century is misspelled in the first paragraph of the article, could someone fix it?

It's in the first paragraph of the "Plot" section, here is the sentence "to commemorate the centenary of the sinking of the ship" Bumblebritches57 (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bumblebritches57. It's not in the first paragraph of the article or in the article's Plot section. It's in the third paragraph of the article's lead. And it's not a misspelling of century. See this and this entry about the definition. Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a misspelling. "Centenary is an adjective form of century, a period of 100 years." RudolfRed (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Titanic (1997 film) → Titanic (film) – Psycho (film) is now a 1960 film adaptation of the novel, so the 1997 film should be "Titanic (film)". However, I cannot find policies and guidelines that forbid or encourage this request. I don't think WP:MOSFILM mentions which film should dominate the "(film)", omitting a year, or avoiding "(film)" if there is more than one film. As for the article itself, it demonstrates development, long-term recognition based on box office and critical reception, memorable plot, etc. Titanic (1943 film) and Titanic (1953 film) couldn't overcome the significance of the 1997 film. I'm not confident that using a search engine to determine primacy of any film is a good idea. As for the statistics, the 1997 film is still more popular than the 1943 and the 1953 versions. George Ho (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Against – If we are going to disambiguate the title we might as well have it fully disambiguated. I really don't see the point in renaming a fully disambiguated title to a semi-disambiguated title that could refer to two other films. WP:NCF also clearly stipulates that if more than one film shares a title they should be disambiguated by year: it even uses the Titanic films as an example, and recommends they should be disambiguated as Titanic (1943 film), Titanic (1953 film), and Titanic (1997 film). Recommend a speedy close on this one, the guidelines couldn't be clearer. Betty Logan (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Use of Titanic as an example is tagged as "under discussion". There will be another example, like Doctor Zhivago. --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Zhivago is not a comparable example to this since there is only one film. The only other adaptation is a TV series, so Doctor Zhivago (film) is perfectly acceptable in this case, and in accordance with the film disambiguation guidelines. Either the Film Project has the right to decide how film articles are disambiguated or they do not. If you want to challenge the guideline directly, then the correct procedure is to start a discussion at the guideline talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Was going to state Against (was looking over the Psycho case and typing up a response before Betty posted). Decided that I'm semi-neutral (if that makes sense) about the move. But I prefer the 1997 disambiguation title because it's clearer. The Psycho case isn't as comparable to me. With that case, we are dealing with sequels, a made-for-television prequel/sequel, a remake, and the franchise. The sequels are already disambiguated by their titles, and of course most people are not going to be looking for the regular sequels, made-for-television prequel/sequel, the remake or franchise under the title Psycho (film)...unless using that title to find the aforementioned related material. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose disambiguation should not be ambiguous. If this isn't the primary topic, and it isn't because the ship is the primary topic, then it should be unambiguously disambiguated. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the result of the Psycho move discussion would not occur today, since we now follow WP:BRD properly, and the 2010 September decision was a no consensus against return to the longstanding name of "Psycho (1960 film)" (which it had used for many years prior to the August 2010 move) after a bold move to "Psycho (film)". Per WT:RM, that should have been reverted back in 2010, and the failure to revert a bold move clearly does not follow BRD. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

IP, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case is about which of the films is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; seeing as the logic is based on which film a reader is most likely looking for under the topic with the word "film" in it, I do believe that most readers are looking for this film when seeking a Titanic film article. See the current Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) move discussion, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

PT doesn't apply to disambiguated titles. PT only applies to determining the base name usage at the undisambiguated title. Various guidelines already indicate this, such as WP:NCF -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to disambiguated titles, especially given that I have seen it used to apply to disambiguated titles over and over again, including in that recent Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) move discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Buffy move has nothing to do with PT on disambiguated titles. It involved standard PT moves, where the undisambiguated title is concerned. This move on Titanic does not concern the undisambiguated title, so the Buffy case is not applicable and is unrelated to the current discussion, since we are not discussing a move involving Titanic. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I figured you'd state something like that, but you are referring to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a stricter sense than me in that case; for that case, I was stating that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was used as a point regarding the topic of disambiguation vs. non-disambiguation. And regarding what I stated about seeing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC apply to disambiguated titles time and time again, obviously directly to them, that is true. This discussion is about what is the primary topic for the title Titanic (film), not for the title Titanic, and I have seen WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applied in such a way regarding various topics here at Wikipedia; George Ho's move proposal is the latest example of that. Never, until this discussion, had I read that applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in such a way is wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, that a bold move wasn't reverted doesn't mean that it's a failure to properly follow WP:BRD. A lot of bold moves are not reverted. WP:BRD is about being WP:BOLD and then discussing the matter if you are reverted (though you might have also attempted to discuss it on the talk page prior to that); it relies on the possibility of being reverted, not a necessity of being reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_25#RMs_starting_from_the_wrong_.28controversial.2Fundiscussed_move.29_end -- Apply BRD, by reverting bold moves, and then starting an RM discussion, not by opening a discussion without reversion. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I reiterate what I stated concerning what WP:BRD is about, and I'm not sure what else to state about that fact. My point is obviously that bold moves are not required to be reverted. Bold moves are made all the time without being reverted. The point of WP:BRD is to test out if your edit will be reverted. If it's not reverted, then that's that. WP:BRD is also obviously not a policy or a guideline, but rather an essay. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose can we please stop these RMs about finding WP:PRIMARY inside the brackets, this is counter WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Once an article title has brackets then the disambiguation can and should be precise. To be honest Psycho (film) should have moved to Psycho (1960 film) when Psycho (1998 film) came out if the 1998 remake hadn't been a total turkey and barely notable, that's an exception. Therefore the case doesn't establish a precedent to hunt for PRIMARY in every disambiguated article in en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

65.92.180.137 I didn't realise Psycho (1960 film) had been undiscussed moved. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned the current Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) move discussion above, which is something to compare these matters to. Flyer22 (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional Support- As long as Titanic (1943 film) is moved to Titanic (other film). Feedback ^☎ 08:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCF. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says nothing about which disambiguating phrase to use inside parentheses when disambiguation is needed. Fix problem examples (e.g., Psycho (film)) as needed per the naming conventions; don't use the problems as example solutions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose making this article title more ambiguous. For the given term, we have a clear primary topic (the passenger liner), and beyond that, all secondary topics should be properly disambiguated from each other. Psycho (film) is an isolated example of ambiguity that is not appropriate on Wikipedia, and I think we should revisit that topic as well to move it to its proper place at Psycho (1960 film). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per JHunterJ and Betty. I also agree with In ictu oculi about the need for the RMs to stop. MarnetteD | Talk 20:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCF. Since there is more than one film titled Titanic, using the year in the disambiguation is appropriate. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I made a request to move Psycho (film) to Psycho (1960 film) because it is the same situation. The request can be seen here. There seems to be clear consensus (so far) in opposition of moving this film article, and the rationale behind this opposition should be used in support of moving Psycho to a properly disambiguated article title. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. NCF covers the issue. In this case the existence of other Titanic films indicates that all of them should be disambiguated by year. I disagree with trying to assert that the most recent film is the most important. Simple year disambiguation is easiest, least stressful. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Box Office Results

I think it would be a good idea to include the original gross of the film into the infobox. Even though that info already shows below (half-way down), some people (like me sometimes) might only be interested in the top section of the page and read the box office results without knowing of the added gross of a subsequent showing. eg. "I thought Avatar was the first film to make two billion? Guess I was wrong."

Anyone else agree/disagree? AnimatedZebra (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The original gross is also mentioned in the lead (intro); I think most people read the lead before reading the infobox. I don't mind including the original gross and the additional gross separately in the infobox, but it was included that way before and removed. The same goes for the Avatar (2009 film) article. And that's because that's not how the infobox of film articles are usually formatted here, even including "for the original and additional gross," or something like that, in parentheses beside the infobox gross field. Flyer22 (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... firstly, I guess I didn't READ the intro part carefully enough to see that lol. Secondly, when the "film infobox" was first created, I wonder if the user would have known about "additional gross" due to say, re-screening of films which have been converted to 3D? In any case, I personally think it would be a good idea (or am I all alone?), as the infobox provides a quick snapshop of infomation for users who are on the go or just don't like to read. AnimatedZebra (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, I realize that you didn't see it mentioned in the lead, or rather didn't properly digest that it's there. Again, I don't mind implementing your infobox proposal. But let's wait and see if anyone else weighs in on this. And I think it's worth it for you to suggest such a change be made to the film infobox at WP:FILM; I'm not sure if such a suggestion has been made there before, or sure what the original film infobox looked like. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I might go do that. In the meantime I'll look at my beautiful reflection in my computer screen... O.o AnimatedZebra (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Many films prior to the video era had re-releases, and we only document the total box-office across all releases. We don't single out the original gross for films like Gone with the Wind, Snow White or Star Wars. There are many perspectives to box office: what it took originally, what it has taken adjusted for inflation, what it took in the United States, but we can't cover all of that in the infobox. I think the best approach is to keep it as simple as possible: the infobox tells readers how much it has earned so far, and if they want more information they can read the article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I see and that does make sense. Hmm, I think I might just leave it! I guess all I need to do is to make sure I READ the intro properly and all will be well. lol AnimatedZebra (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a remake of the 20th Century Fox 1953 film

Titanic is released on December 1997 and is the remake of the 1953 film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.64.150.137 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Emphasis mine: During shooting on the Akademik Mstislav Keldysh, an angry crew member put the dissociative drug PCP into the soup that Cameron and various others ate one night, which sent more than 50 people to the hospital. . .The person behind the poisoning was never caught. How can we say for sure that it was an angry crew member if he was never caught? Brownie Charles (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that we can't say it was a crew member who did it? Or that we can't say that the crew member was angry? Either way, "the angry crew member" bit likely came from the Entertainment Weekly source used to support it; I'll have to check, considering that I don't [clearly] remember at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot fixes planned

Any comments on the following fixes?

-necklace is *not* the 'heart of the ocean' -> the necklace *contains* the 'heart of the ocean' diamond (as a diamond pendant)
-nude woman is wearing *only* the diamond necklace/pendant
-Rose's mother *manages* to get aboard a lifeboat
-Jack a 'drifter and artist' -> *penniless* artist
-the party is in third class, not 'on third class deck'
-on-board -> 'on board' or aboard
-salvage vessel -> research vessel the Keldysh
-Rose calls herself Rose Dawson in memory of Jack Dawson, calls herself Rose Dawson Calvert as wife of Mr. Calvert
-Rose attracts attention of lifeboat -> of Lowe
-Rose lives a free and adventurous life -> lives a life of freedom and adventure
-"In order to get into a lifeboat, Cal carries a lost child in his arms"

David F (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For more information about Ferrierd's (David F's) proposed (and now implemented) changes, see this section on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence as written is needlessly wordy. All films open in the present day unless otherwise noted. We don't need to say "In 2013" for a film released in 2013. Saying "In 1996, treasure hunter Brock" rather than just "Treasure hunter Brock" is bad writing by any standard. I also believe the editor who changed it did so out of spite, after becoming sarcastic and abrasive with me at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film for no reason except that I politely disagreed with him. Read the exchange there for yourselves. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I commented on that here, stating: Regarding your first edit to the Titanic Plot section, wasn't the film set in 1996? After all, it came out in 1997. So unless it was set in 1996, it makes no sense for 1996 to have been mentioned. Remember, the film emphasizes that Rose is 100 and that she boarded the Titanic in 1912. That's why Ring Cinema added "1996" back before you reverted him. Flyer22 (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"The present day" is a moving index, so, to avoid confusion, we should say when the frame happens. Clarity is a value above brevity. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact we're all trying to be clear and our intentions all our good. Unless the film opens with a title card or something that says "1996," then what the above posts make it sound like is original-research synthesis — that is, Wikipedia editors doing the math of Rose's age now and Rose's age when the shipwreck took place. If it doesn't explicitly say "1996" on the screen, then it's OR for us to say it. (Needless to say, I don't have a DVD of the movie but I suppose I could call it up on Netflix if it's there and see for myself.) --Tenebrae (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Simple math is not OR, nor are simple inferences. As you mentioned, absent a contrary indicator it is normal to assume present day. That's not OR either. There may be another way to express this framing device that isn't misleading or clumsy, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Plot

As I tried changing the plot summary on 2-3 separate occasions, had it under 700 words in compliance with WP:FILMPLOT and then other editors immediately started adding material again, I've tagged the section for improvement. It seems unlikely to me that there's no way the plot can be brought into compliance, but I'm tired of trying only to have my changes removed. Maybe another editor can find changes that people will be more amenable to. DonIago (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason it must be under 700. The purpose of the plot summary is not to make it short. This film is long, famous, has a framing device, is historical, isn't a simple genre picture and has a large cast. If anything, the summary right now is short if we compare it to the treatment given other movies. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; that other film articles violate the guideline isn't relevant to the question of whether this one should. I had the summary down to 680 words, giving editors a 20-word leeway to add details, but apparently that wasn't sufficient. If we can get it so close, I see no reason we shouldn't be able to bring it into compliance. If editors didn't want this to become a spotlighted article, perhaps they shouldn't have brought it into the spotlight at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. If all else fails, we can discuss the merits of specific changes here, but I'd much rather see editors simply make changes that nobody is inclined to contest. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DonIago that such purple prose as "endures arduous routes to free Jack" doesn't help the plot synopses. His trims to the 680, 690 range are sensible. Just because a film is long, "famous" (which has nothing to do with anything — so is Reefer Madness), "has a large cast" (again, meaningless — so does The Poseidon Adventure (2005), which, additionally, is 173 minutes long in its extended version), "isn't a simple genre picture" (meaning it's a drama &mdash like the vast majority of films), etc. is no reason to believe we need to overwrite. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

699 words right now. I could live with that. :p DonIago (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I could live with that as well, Doniago (obviously, LOL). I felt that your plot tag was unwarranted, though. Ring Cinema is correct that WP:FLIMPLOT is not strictly enforced; nor should it be. You were being reverted (in part mostly) because WP:CONSENSUS was established to keep some of the details you were removing. I can't remember if you were a part of that consensus. But like the hidden note at the top of that section states, that plot section has been extensively worked out. We took care to maintain things that are important to the plot or at least not too trivial, though a lot of those aspects were applied (or retained) too wordily (as witnessed by your and Tenebrae's rewording cuts). For example, editors add things to the Plot section when they feel something is missing, but they often add too much detail; we took into consideration mentioning some of those things, but to a significantly lesser degree. I see no valid reason to be so strict with the plot for a film as long as this one. To me, all this recent trimming of the plot, causing editors who have already extensively been through carving that plot to go through similar again, is nothing more than illustrating a point because of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. I added back a few things, and then added one thing, that I felt was necessary...as witnessed by this, this and this edit. I'm mostly fine with your 680-690 words cut that Ring Cinema reverted and Tenebrae added back; my only objections to it are not clarifying "the following night" part, not clarifying that it wasn't easy for Rose to free Jack, and not clarifying that she was alone when she went to the stern to throw the Heart of the Ocean overboard (it's important to emphasize that no one knows she had it). That's why I made this edit moments ago. If Tenebrae has a better way of showing that Rose freeing Jack was not a simple matter, then I encourage that, but I feel that the matter should be addressed. I added this bit about the bodyguard back for the reasons stated in that edit summary (the "took into consideration mentioning some of those things, but to a significantly lesser degree" aspect I noted above in this response). It might also be best to retain "treasure hunter," an aspect that Ring Cinema wants retained, because it clarifies exactly why Brock Lovett was looking for the Heart of the Ocean. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Tenebrae, but you are mistaken. The reasons I gave for going past the guideline (not a policy, just a guideline) are all good ones. We are a reference and supposedly our mission has something to do with readers. For comparison, the baseline standard for including an article is "notability", which has something to do with fame. The summary should be edited to serve its purpose, whatever the length. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that we're all working together to, as Flyer puts it, keep the plot essentials but expressing them in a non-wordy way. I'm not a strict constructionist about the MOS — my trims brought the article to 730, after all, and I didn't press beyond that, though Ring found similar surgical cuts, which I've applauded. And I see we're finding mostly rewording ways of keeping it under 700 now, so why not? I'm not sure we need flowery scene-setting like "After sunset on the deck," but if we want to throw that in there and it doesn't make the plot go over MOS, then I, at least, can certainly live with it.

Not sure I would say someone is mistaken without addressing their specific points and examples, and merely saying "my examples are good" without buttressing that claim, but whatever. As long as we're being productive and more or less collegial, I can live with that, too. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I would attempt to dismiss all of someone's points with only one counterclaim that, as I demonstrated, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you really want to get into it. Your examples of why Titanic should have an especially lengthy (i.e., over MOS length) plot synopsis are not good. I gave examples why. You didn't acknowledge let alone address them. You said it was fine to write long because a film is:

• ...long. No, lots of long films don't have complicated plots. I gave the example of the 173-minute The Poseidon Adventure (2005), and I could have given many more. Conversely, a short film may have many important plot intricacies. Length isn't a determinant. Complexity of plot it. And in this case, Titanic does not have a complex plot by any stretch of the imagination. It is a very, very simple love triangle.
• ...has a large cast. Again, I use the above example. Just because a film has a lot of people doesn't make the plot more complex. Indeed, given the lengths of most films made for general release, having more characters often means given each character less to do than otherwise.
• ...isn't a simple genre picture. Again, that's a meaningless distinction. Film and literature's single biggest genre (to use the term in the larger sense) is drama. It makes no sense to say a film should have an especially long plot synopsis simply because it's a drama.
• ...famous. This is perhaps your most remarkable claim. "Fame" has nothing to do with the complexity of the plot. Reefer Madness is a famous movie to generations of bad-movie fans. That doesn't mean it needs an especially lengthy plot synopsis. Conversely, many unknown, independent art films may have complex plots.

I could go on, but I hope you can see I'm not just making claims without offering support.

And I'm not sure why we're arguing. You've made many good, incisive edits. You're part of a team working well collaboratively. I have, with all honestly and sincerity, applauded examples of your work. This disagreeableness all started when you took a cheap shot at me, needlessly calling me "grandiose." That wasn't necessary, and if we dial down the rhetoric I think any further work on this article will be more pleasant. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Another question

In terms of cause and effect, how does Rose's story "cause Lovett to abandon his search"? Would it be more specific to say "inspires Lovett to abandon his search"? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should just say that after hearing Rose's story Lovett abandons his search. I don't like "inspires". DonIago (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Just saying simply that was was actually my preference, too! But I wanted to be as light as possible in edits of a non-technical/grammatical nature.

I'll go ahead and make that, then. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

If Brock's a treasure hunter, how is he on a "research vessel"? Research vessel don't generally take treasure hunters. In fact, researchers hate treasure hunters. Can anyone clarify? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't care for labeling Brock as a treasure hunter. He's not called such during the film IIRC, and immediately after he's labeled the summary says he's looking for the diamond, which pretty much implies he's a treasure hunter in any case. DonIago (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. So what's with "research vessel"? Geez, I need to find this on Netflix and check!   : )  --Tenebrae (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae, why don't you refresh your memory with regard to the film by watching parts of it online? There are many online sites that have the film. I refreshed my memory with regard to this aspect; after moving that aspect there, I checked to see how accurate my edit summary was. I was confusing the first gate matter with the second gate matter, but it's correct regardless because Jack and Rose face a gate matter twice. "Few obstacles" is perhaps more accurate than "several obstacles" in this case, however (though "few" doesn't flow as well to me as "several" in this case; makes the situation sound less severe and trivial instead). Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Chronology?

Don't know why I didn't notice this before, but the chronology is skewed in

The RMS Carpathia takes the survivors to New York, where Rose gives her name as Rose Dawson. She hides from Cal on Carpathia's deck and later learns he committed suicide after losing everything in the 1929 Wall Street Crash.

We have the Carpathia going to New York, then Rose in New York, and then we're back on the Carpathia. Maybe, "She had hidden from Cal en route and..." Same number of words. What do we think?

Alternately: "With Rose hiding from Cal en route, the RMS Carpathia takes the survivors to New York. There Rose gives her name as Rose Dawson. She later learns Cal committed suicide after losing everything in the 1929 Wall Street Crash.

Both of these are 39 words, so total word-count remains the same. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I was going to state, "That is the chronological order in the film. Remember, Old Rose's story is flashing between time frames." But I just refreshed my memory on those parts of the film and I see that you are right about the chronology being out of whack in this case. That should have long been caught, so the blame for not catching it obviously does not fall to you. As for your alternative it's not bad, but, to be picky, it makes it seem as though Rose was hiding from Cal the entire time. The film shows that Rose arrives in New York first, Cal boards the ship and searchers a bit for her, Rose sees him searching for her and then covers herself better with her hood. Perhaps, he searched for her some more, though, before he left the ship. Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually re-reading what you stated (and this speaks to the part I struck out), "We have the Carpathia going to New York, then Rose in New York, and then we're back on the Carpathia." is the chronological order of the film. She is still on the Carpathia when she arrives in New York. What is out of chronological order in the Plot section is when she gives her name as Rose Dawson; she doesn't give her name as Rose Dawson until after the "hiding from Cal matter" is over. So it should read as the following or something similar: The RMS Carpathia takes the survivors to New York, where Rose hides from Cal on Carpathia's deck and gives her name as Rose Dawson. She later learns that Cal committed suicide after losing everything in the 1929 Wall Street Crash. Flyer22 (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the way it's written, Rose is hiding from Cal on Carpathia's deck in New York. ("...takes the survivors to New York, where Rose hides...) So that's kind of really what we need to fix. Or wait: Was Cal rescued by some other ship than the Carpathia, and then boarded the Carpathia to look for Rose once it docked in New York? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict; I was just about to correct myself before your reply.]: Okay, so I'm wrong on certain orders of the plot tonight. Though Rose is still on the Carpathia when she arrives in New York, she is not in New York at the time that Cal searchers for her. So Tenebrae's reason for why the Plot order on this aspect is out of whack is correct. And I'm correct about the order of when Rose gives her name as Rose Dawson. So there's no worrisome flaw in Tenebrae's proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

At least that's what I get from looking at the scenes moments ago. Flyer22 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, cool. Jeez, what are we doing up so late?   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Flyer22 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I just saw something amazing, Flyer22: I'm glad I didn't take it personally when this other editor was being needlessly nasty, because wait till you read what he wrote to the admin who banned him for a week because of his history of edit-warring. That's not a way to build good will with admins! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Barker, Martin; Austin, Thomas (2000). "Titanic: A Knight to Remember". From Antz To Titanic: Reinventing Film Analysis. Pluto Press. pp. 87–104. ISBN 0745315844.
• Palmer, William J. (2009). "The New Historicist Films". The Films of the Nineties: The Decade of Spin. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 24–37. ISBN 0230613446.
• Zizek, Slavoj (2001). "The Thing from Inner Space: Titanic and Deep Impact". In Gabbard, Glen O (ed.). Psychoanalysis and Film. International Journal of Psychoanalysis Key Paper Series. Karnac Books. ISBN 1855752751.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 September 2013

Titanic” (1997)

Directed by James Cameron
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Gloria Stuart

Extended content

Grade: A Based primarily on our fondness for nice, round numbers, 2012 seems a logical year for James Cameron’s “Titanic” to resurface (let’s hope that’s my last nautical pun). April marked the 100th anniversary of the eponymous ship’s sinking and yesterday, Dec. 19, happened to be the 15th anniversary of the film’s release. Ostensibly in honor of the former, Cameron and company saw fit to re-release “Titanic” this past spring, in 3-D no less. That remastered version of the film then made its way to gorgeous Blu-ray in September. Since nothing official seems to have been planned for yesterday’s anniversary, I’ve taken it upon myself to honor the date with a review. “Titanic” is the movie James Cameron was born to make. The filmmaker’s skills and limitations as a director and screenwriter work together here like the instruments of a grand symphony. His technological mastery, obsession with detail, proclivity for grandiosity, devotion to accuracy, simplistic morality, clumsy dialogue and general over-indulgence—each characteristic finds itself on full display in Cameron’s 1997 blockbuster and each is vital to the film’s success as an overpowering work of art. In crafting “Titanic,” Cameron could have taken what one might call the History Channel approach, wherein historical accuracy and anecdotes reign. That method would have undoubtedly sufficed for many, given the drama inherent in Titanic’s sinking. In a sense, Cameron did craft that film. With a few liberties taken here and there, “Titanic” contains a recreation of the events of April 1912 stunning in its precision. That, however, comprises only a thematic backdrop for “Titanic,” an active set piece fraught with metaphor. “Titanic’s” primary storytelling concern lies not with a ship, but with Rose (Gloria Stuart and Kate Winslet) and Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio). Their story is a love story, but to leave that phrase unqualified is both negligent and deceptive. “Titanic” is, more exactly, a teenage love story at once specific in detail and universal in theme. Hi!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew3427 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC) The film opens as a group of men explores Titanic’s underwater remains with the hope of locating a valuable diamond necklace (“The Heart of the Ocean”) understood to have “gone down with the ship.” This expedition, though unattractive in its financial orientation, is portrayed with only minor criticism embedded. Rather, the scenes aboard the team’s exploratory vessels capture the inevitable detachment characteristic of contemporary perspectives of tragedies past. It’s a phenomenon already observable in our treatment of the 9/11 attacks. The rawness dissipates, topics initially taboo work their way into conversation, and the tragic events are eventually mined artistically and commercially. In the case of “Titanic,” the ship’s artifacts are at first treated with a respect that’s clinical rather than emotional. Expedition leader Brock Lovett, portrayed as an everyman with just the right amount of sleaze by Bill Paxton, isn’t a monster, but his interest in Titanic, unlike Cameron’s, is pragmatic. The story’s pathos arrives, then, in the form of 100 year-old Titanic survivor Rose Calvert (Stuart). Rose flies to Lovett’s mid-Atlantic salvage ship after disclosing that she was once in possession of the necklace Lovett seeks. In narrating Rose’s story, Stuart’s performance offers a blend of spryness and seasoned melancholy. Her character has lived with the trauma and tragedy of Titanic for enough time that only in a few key moments is she caught off-guard by the memory. She has a spark and wit consistent with the 17 year-old Rose (Winslet) we’ll soon meet, but with an added wisdom and assurance. The performance conveys decades worth of information regarding the character’s evolution in minutes of screen time. Through extended flashbacks we meet Rose when she was Rose DeWitt Bukater, a beautiful high-society teen engaged to marry Caledon “Cal” Hockley (Billy Zane), the wealthy son of a steel tycoon. The engagement is forced–Rose’s late father left Rose and her mother (Frances Fisher) with only “a legacy of bad debts hidden by a good name.” The root of Rose’s melancholy, however, extends beyond her impending marriage. She’s repulsed by the luxury surrounding her, yet smart enough to recognize her own reliance on it. Jack, on the other hand, is introduced winning third class tickets to board Titanic in a game of poker, just minutes before the ship is to leave its Southampton port. He’s a handsome, carefree nomad. His travels and varied experiences have granted him the worldliness to which Rose aspires. Jack’s not necessarily flawless, but Cameron isn’t at all concerned if you, like Rose, view him as such. The two meet in a most fitting scenario: Jack finds Rose attempting suicide on Titanic’s stern and talks her down, so to speak. There are many reasons why these broad strokes work in “Titanic” and not, say, “Avatar” (Cameron’s follow-up film). I noted earlier that “Titanic” is not just a love story but a teenage love story–one that takes place on an enormous, sinking metaphor. There’s nuance to be found in teen romance, but nuance isn’t what teen romance, or “Titanic,” is about. Cameron takes the extremes inherent in his subject matter and makes them tangible. To Rose and Jack, each other is the source of all things good, any obstacles to their romance are villains, and the prospect of love’s end is not just sad, but tragic. It’s a portrayal that could veer into condescension, but Cameron steers his film far in the opposite direction. Perhaps obvious in his decision to craft a three-hour epic about teenage romance is Cameron’s deep respect for the subject matter. In many ways, “Titanic” exists as an ode to the earnestness and raw strength of youthful emotion. Despite its refreshing lack of cynicism, however, the film is hardly naive. The implication is clear throughout that Rose and Jack, as a couple, were never meant for land. As viewers, we aren’t to feel sad that Rose Calvert, not Rose Dawson, narrates. This is old-fashioned storytelling akin to “Gone with the Wind” and Cameron takes a cue from the classics in transforming types into characters. He offers Rose and Jack as the stereotypes described above, but fills them out with a necessary specificity. The young lovers may have roots in centuries-old stock characters, but their gender roles, for instance, are hardly traditional and it’s no accident that they occasionally come across as modern American teenagers. These and other touches are why those fabled mobs of teenage girls, said to have been the reason for “Titanic’s” box office success, fell in love specifically with Rose and Jack. Similarly, Cal fills the villain’s role to the extent required of Cameron’s vision without actually being a villain. Rather, he’s portrayed as a product of his upbringing, a man with every reason to assume his fiancé will play by society’s rules. That he’s violently undone by Rose’s insubordination isn’t attractive, but it’s understandable. Cameron follows the basic rule for any compelling soap opera. He can have Cal scoff that Pablo Picasso “won’t amount to a thing” and chase Rose and Jack through the bowels of a sinking ship if beneath the exaggerations lies something recognizably human. It’s what makes “Titanic’s” universe at once larger-than-life and organic. As the film’s leads, Winslet and DiCaprio, both fresh faced and beautiful, fully embrace the earnest intelligence of Cameron’s screenplay. If either of them hoped for edgier material (as their future career choices would suggest), you can’t tell it from their spirited performances here. Winslet conveys vulnerability and rambunctiousness. One gets the sense that she doesn’t care how a romantic female lead is supposed to carry herself, making her “Titanic’s” most distinctive asset. DiCaprio, on the other hand, displays a levity in “Titanic” sorely missing from his more recent work. Watching the film today, DiCaprio’s Oscar snub seems all the more misguided. He thoroughly inhabits Jack Dawson without a crutch in sight. Playing the character straight, so to speak, was as daring an acting decision as any, yet it’s also the reason the performance has been overlooked. The supporting cast is equally deserving of praise. Stuart is the standout, but there’s not a weak link in the bunch. I’ve discussed the thematic purpose served by Cameron’s heavy-handedness, but purpose doesn’t make his dialogue any easier to sell. Take these gems for instance: •“I’m the king of the world!” •“You have a gift Jack, you do. You see people.” “I see you.” •“That fire that I love about you, Rose, that fire is going to burn out.” •“A woman’s heart is a deep ocean of secrets.” Lines like these are corny by design–the work of an artist acknowledging his limitations and using them to his benefit–and Winslet, DiCaprio and company seem entirely at ease with this. They take Cameron’s dialogue and infuse it with emotion as authentic as the lines are cheesy. The “I’m the king of the world!” moment really shouldn’t work, but DiCaprio conjured the requisite amount of gleeful sincerity and made the line iconic. While on the topic of Cameron’s writing, attention should be paid to the ingenuity at work in “Titanic’s” structure. In placing his leads in opposite social classes, Cameron introduces us to an expanse of secondary characters–making their reappearances in the film feel natural rather than contrived to fulfill structural purposes. This also allows Cameron to fill the background of his movie with historical anecdotes, making “Titanic’s” universe feel fully-formed. Additionally, Cameron’s screenplay is an exemplar of pacing done well. He devotes the exact amount of time to the protagonists’ courtship necessary to solidify their relationship by the time the movie turns into a veritable action film. Cameron strategically distributes his characters across the ship as it begins to founder and devises organic reasons for keeping them aboard for as long as possible, allowing us to fully experience the ins and outs of the disaster in what feels like real time. Lest the action become monotonous, the screenplay calls for appropriately timed moments of intimacy, be they on the ship or in a return to the present day. Additionally, the chaos of the sinking is made more comprehensible through the modern-day framing device: Lovett’s crew presents elderly Rose with a computer simulation of the ship’s demise. The scene, which takes place before the flashbacks begin, is both a wry acknowledgement that the audience knows roughly how the film will end and a means of allowing us to focus on the characters (rather than mechanics) during the eventual sinking sequence. This brings me to the film’s visual effects. Watching “Titanic” on Blu-ray, it’s bizarre how well the effects hold up today. The sinking is the standout in this regard–a flawless rendering that’s truly immersive. The sequence looks as though Cameron physically rebuilt the ship then crashed it into an iceberg with his characters aboard. Watching it unfold is an overwhelming, visceral experience. Subtler but no less masterful is the use of effects in the film’s first half. You never question the notion that this is taking place on an enormous ship streaming across the Atlantic. (That being said, the Blu-ray does expose a few seams here and there, most noticeably the use of computer animated passengers in wide shots of the ship, if you keep an eye out for them.) Russell Carpenter’s cinematography is comparably stunning. The broad range of skills necessary for a film this varied in tone and pacing seems to have been mastered by Carpenter; he nails everything from sweeping views to intimate close-ups. His compositions are thought-provoking and rarely expected. A personal favorite is an extreme long shot of an infinite navy sea, empty but for a tiny row of yellow lights tilting into the water as a small flare bursts overhead. James Horner’s score similarly serves Cameron’s vision while standing on its own as a successful piece by capturing sounds deeply personal and specific to the characters’ experiences. His fusion of vocals with instruments haunts throughout “Titanic.” Under Cameron’s direction, every aspect of the film works toward a shared goal. Nothing feels superfluous; this is as carefully controlled and economical as three-hour films get. Yet the terms “controlled” and “economical” don’t do justice to “Titanic’s” emotional core–none of this would work if the right feelings weren’t present. The final scene serves as a testament to this. Having established his credibility and then some, Cameron abandons logic and offers viewers a necessary aesthetic closure. It’s a moment of beautiful emotional insight incumbent of Cameron as an artist if not a storyteller. Fifteen years since it was released, “Titanic” has only improved with age. The themes Cameron tackles are as potent, if not more so, today. His observations about the economy (it’s hard not to think of the Occupy movement when watching third-class passengers rail against steel gates blocking them from survival) and our society’s treatment of tragedy are eerily prescient in a pre-recession, pre-9/11 film. “Titanic” will continue to endure as a work of art for as long as its contents hold true for audiences; at the 15-year mark, Cameron’s epic is surviving marvelously.

abdul 20:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. Read WP:OR. This isn't the place for your essay. RudolfRed (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Decide to"

I can't believe this looks on the way to having to be mediated or RFC'd, but "decide to" phrasing is objectively bad writing. Look it up in any good book about the writing process: It is one of the most common pieces of careless writing. Aside from the even more basic tenet of using action verbs, people don't just "decide to" do something — they do something. Jack and Rose don't just "decide to" warn others — they do warn others, or they go to warn others. People can "decide to" do something and then not do it, or change their minds. Reinserting wording that any writing teacher or good writer would cringe at ... why do that? Why deliberately insert bad writing? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that if we decided things here based on who is the most high-handed, you would have your way. However, I think you should become aware that we aren't obligated to agree with you simply because of your unfortunate habit of verbal bullying. Now, what about the case at hand? We all know that Jack and Rose decide to do something and they do it. Personally, I think the decision is sort of interesting, considering the context, and the "go" part the interstitial bit we can skip past. Not every step is detailed in a plot summary, especially at 700 words. And as written it is easily understood by a native speaker. Commonly, writing teachers don't know when their rules don't apply, so I'd suggest your claim of authority has no purchase in this context. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to mention that I did a Google search for the countless good books that decry "decide to" and came up empty-handed. However, the construction is widely used, with 91 million hits. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because there's no bad writing on the Internet.

I'm appalled by your claim of "verbal bullying" since I give concrete examples that you yourself grasp: "We all know that Jack and Rose decide to do something and they do it." It's the doing that's important. You, on the other hand, say we should do something just because "Personally, I think" something is interesting. Who's the verbal bully? The one who gives concrete examples and objective rationales that you understand, or the person who says, "We should things my way because I like it" — a personal, subjective reason.

I would also suggest that anyone who claims, without offering any evidence, that, "Commonly, writing teachers don't know when their rules don't apply" is just trying to excuse his bad writing by saying, "I'm an amateur, but I know more than the teachers." Now that's bullying. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, we're at loggerheads. It would probably be a good idea to solicit other editors' opinions. Shall we do an RfC, or do you have another suggestion? One possibility in cases like this is to rewrite the sentence in some third way to which the differing parties can compromise and agree.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No, Tenebrae, you got your logic wrong! You have to claim that there is NO good writing on the Internet. Busted. I'll restore the original and you see if you can find the 20 good books that agree with you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Busted"? First of all, no, because your finding casual writing by amateurs all over the Internet doesn't mean good writing is "outvoted". And in any event, some of that number includes "decide to"s that are appropriate in certain instances. Secondly, the alternate versions involve every other verb in the English language, so there are millions more examples of good writing where "decide to" in this context is not used. Your argument in favor of poor writing is ridiculous. Secondly, what kind of grownup gloats, "Busted"? What are you, 19? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Decide to" does not automatically imply the action is executed. "Go to" is more accurate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard the rule that "decide to" is bad writing. However, I agree that "go to" is better for this article. Emphasizing that Jack and Rose "decide to" do something would be appropriate if they had a debate, weighed the pros and cons and said "OK, let's do this." Connor Behan (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

it is possible that Tenebrae made it up. My view is that the following paragraph says what happens when they act on their plan. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you are a vicious, accusatory, ignorant person. I'll bet you've never taken a writing class in your life. You insult me, you insult my integrity, you insult the English language. A false accusation like that crosses a line, and I'm sorry to see a boor like you here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Decides to" pisses me off. I'm not saying that as a great writer or a terrible one. I'm saying it as a reader. It should piss everyone off. From the sounds of it here, it might. Just have them "do" what they have to do. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved awhile ago as noted in the following sub-section... DonIago (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd noticed that. Just adding my support, for the benefit of Wikipedia in general. This issue isn't raised enough, and I was so glad to see someone else annoyed by it, a Wikithanks didn't seem to suffice. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another option

Frankly I don't care for "go to" or "decide to" in this case, as I find the entire sentence somewhat non-essential. I don't believe "decide to" is bad writing, but I believe in this case "go to" is a better choice. If R&J decided to warn Cal but didn't succeed for some reason, that would be a different matter.

That said, I instead propose eliminating the sentence entirely. Suggestion follows, though I'm open to better wording. DonIago (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Current text: "Rose and Jack decide to warn her mother and Cal. Cal discovers Jack's sketch of Rose and a mocking note from her in his safe along with the necklace. He has his manservant slip the necklace into Jack's coat pocket. Accused of theft, Jack is arrested, taken to the Master-at-arms' office, and handcuffed to a pipe. Cal puts the necklace in his own coat pocket."

Proposed text: "Rose and Jack decide to warn her mother and Cal. Cal discovers Jack's sketch of Rose and a mocking note from her in his safe along with the necklace. When Jack and Rose attempt to warn Cal about what has happened, Cal has his manservant slip the necklace into Jack's coat pocket and accuses him of theft. Jack is arrested, taken to the Master-at-arms' office, and handcuffed to a pipe. Cal puts the necklace in his own coat pocket.

Doniago's proposed text is good; it keeps the material, but rewords and relocates it in a sufficient manner. I support. Flyer22 (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The sequence of events is much clearer from the proposed text - I also support this. Alfietucker (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent suggestion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support everyone! Nice to know I can occasionally nail it. :) @Tenebrae: As one of the involved editors, can I get an opinion from you please? If you're fine with this as well I think we can say we have consensus. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, DonIago. I had proposed we find a third way as a compromise solution, and I'm glad a mature and thoughtful editor did not dismiss that suggestion.

I might tweak a few words in one phrase: "about what has happened" could mean several things, so perhaps "about the collision" might be clearer and also save a word. Secondly, do they not warn Cal? Do they start to tell him and he cuts them off and doesn't learn about the collision then? (It's been years since I've seen the film.) Unless they fail to warn him, perhaps the phrase should open, "As Jack and Rose warn Cal". So the phrase together would be: "As Jack and Rose warn Cal of the collision...." (I like "tell" better than "warn" in this context, but I can live with warn if everyone else can.) --Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've implemented changes based on this discussion. I ended up going with "attempt to speak with Cal about the collision", as Cal already knows that it happened. I didn't want to use "seriousness" as it's used at the end of the prior paragraph and I loathe repetition. J&R don't successfully speak with Cal as he basically cuts them off. And the best part is we're still under 700 words, so woot! or something. If anyone wants to tweak this further, feel free, but obviously you may end up launching another discussion here (provided my edits don't already have that effect). Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, guys. Now that the edit-warring is done] — I had no idea that editor had such an edit-warring history, though in retrospect it's no surprise — I just wanted to applaud you all for so surgically taking the word-count down from the 730 that I'd managed. Serious bravo. I wasn't sure it could have been trimmed more but you did it — 719! — and made it read better and more succinctly and to-the-point as well.

At this point, just since we're so close and I love a challenge, I looked and I think I can take it down five or six more without hurting anything. Let me know how I do!--Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2013

OK. I got it down to 702, giving rationales for each edit (again, mostly condensing language). If there's any other thing we can condense, using one exactly word to say what two or three say ... wow, what a feat that'd be! We're so close! What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

701: "the Wall Street Crash of 1919" > "the 1929 Wall Street Crash". Says same thing, one word shorter.

So close!   :) &nbsp: --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I made an effort to trim while avoiding contentious areas such as the below conversations. 695 now. DonIago (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Good job to the both of you. These tweaks by Doniago are good, and I see nothing more that should be cut. But there was something that needed clarification. Ring Cinema changed "After realizing she prefers him to Cal, she meets him during what turns out to be the Titanic's last moments of daylight. In Rose's stateroom she shows him Cal's engagement present" to "After sunset on the deck, she shows him Cal's engagement present in her stateroom." That was a decent cut, except that it was without the aspect of Rose having met him at sunset; this made the sunset aspect seem trivial, when it is actually a significant part of the film (where Rose commits to Jack; this is discussed in some screenwriting books, for example). It was tweaked a bit afterward, but still failing to mention that Rose meets with Jack, instead of simply watching a sunset and then showing Jack Cal's engagement present in her stateroom. Therefore, I tweaked it to give that aspect context, as seen here and here. Of course...the Plot section could do without the sunset bit, but since it is such a well-cited part of the film and people are bound to add information about it back to the Plot section (if removed), but in greater detail, I'd rather we retain what is there about it (which is in few words). I made clear the "addressing details in fewer words before others address them in too many words" case in the #Plot section above and on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013

In plot summary change "and have sex in an automobile" to "they make love in an automobile" this conveys the message of the film. Sex represents the action with no feeling, making love encapsulates the tone of the film.

Jbirch82 (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: See WP:EUPHEMISM. Betty Logan (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an euphemism, but it's a GOOD euphemism. David F (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC) WP:EUPHEMISM edited to remove NPOV material ;^). David F (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it can be argued whether one realistically can fall in love in the space of under a week... :p DonIago (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

EUPHEMISM expressly gives "make love" as an example we should avoid, so from the perspective of good writing no euphemism is good. Basically Rose and Jack are just a couple of horny teenagers, albeit the story is heavily romanticized by old Rose retelling it. For all we know Jack would have done a runner if the Titanic had docked. Betty Logan (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word however

As seen by this, this, this, this and this edit, InedibleHulk objects to the use of the word however...either in every form or just some (or most) forms. I don't agree with InedibleHulk that use of however "always implies the other thing should have had an effect that it didn't." or that it necessarily "implies the positive trumps the negative." It's not a word that is banned or heavily discouraged by grammar buffs, though enough of them suggest that a sentence should not start with that word. It's a word that is used to contrast a statement, and is not always used to imply that the latter statement is superior.

I don't care too much about whether or not to use however, but I'm bringing up this matter on this talk page so that we may better understand InedibleHulk's views on this topic, whether we should generally employ those views at this article and other Wikipedia articles, and so that others can weigh in on this matter. For example, maybe Tenebrae, who taught and/or still teaches writing, and who has helped edit the Plot section of this article, has something to state on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we'd all agree that "however" doesn't necessarily signal the same thing in every instance of its use; the context in each case affects its meaning. That said, I've found that most of the time it's just what we call "throat-clearing" — a little preface that, if you remove it, really doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. In the third instance above, involving Corliss, I could see an argument for keeping it, as it highlights the fact of a contrast. But mostly, I'd say the choice of using it or not using it is a matter of wordiness, before we even get to the issue of what it's signaling. So in that respect, oddly enough, I agree with your both. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

At a glance I'd say that IH is perhaps being a bit more overzealous than I might be in their expulsion of the word, but they're not creating any oddities that were readily apparent to me either. As someone who's generally in favor of trimming unnecessary words, I say good job unless and until they're definite problems. DonIago (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a subtle little weasel, almost harmless. Probably why it pops up so much. But there's virtually always some form of editorializing in it. Where it's used here after negative thoughts on the film, it's essentially saying "But that doesn't matter, because..." Best to just relay both statements with equal weight, and let their obvious differences create a natural contrast, rather than forcing it.

In another couple of presidential articles, it was often used like "Public and lobby support was for this thing. However, Mr. President decided to do the other thing." Decision aside, it implies the guy was either stubborn or strong-willed (the difference lies in the inferrer), neither of which is in the source.

Other times, it's used just like "Also," "Then," or "Furthermore,". A purely extra word, no subtance.

I may seem zealous in its eradication. However, that's a good thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on this matter. InedibleHulk, I generally can't agree with your views on this matter; by that, I mean that while use of however can at times be used in a biased way, it's usually not and often helps the flow of a sentence or paragraph. There's a reason that it's not banned or heavily discouraged by the vast majority of grammar buffs. Clearly contrasting a statement that is a contrast matter almost always makes that sentence flow better, at least to me. For example, the contrast matter that Tenebrae mentioned above. Like Tenebrae basically stated, context is everything. The word however is almost (and simply is to many people) as valid a word as but or although, all words that help contrast matters and usually without signaling that one statement is more important or right than the other. I am aware that WP:Editorializing mentions these words, but it does not advise against their use; nor should it, especially given how often the words but and although are needed in language. It simply advises us to be careful when using them. And don't forget other uses of however; for example: "However angry she may be, she still loves him." Or maybe the following sentence works better in that case: "No matter how angry she may be, she still loves him."

As for the link that I provided above showing some grammar experts advising against using however to start a sentence and that we should use but in its place, far too many people are taught not to use but to start a sentence; I'm sure that's the main reason that the word however appears as often as it does. I think that it's generally (not always, but generally) best not to impose personal-preference grammar choices on Wikipedia articles, since some people are likely to disagree with the changes and since they are generally trivial matters. One could state that since it's trivial, the person might as well be WP:Bold and employ their writing style, but still... It's generally unnecessary and will possibly result in unneeded drama...as well as an unneeded headache; I've seen unnecessary drama over use of words such as however on Wikipedia before. Flyer22 (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm cool with "However much/many/far". Just not however, comma. I'd rather see "but," just because it's shorter. Same meaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I am ok with most of the changes, but I would hate to see the article become the whipping boy for grammar nazis. Like Tenebrae, I thought the use of "however" was entirely appropriate in the third example and I preferred that version because it was contrasting its wins with the nominations. The word was being overused but that doesn't mean every instance of it should be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about this Nazi. I just did it because I was already here, having heard a couple of starlets were "making love" instead of "having sex". Take my edits or leave them, it's all good. A lot of other "however" out there for me, Titanic is just a drop in the ocean. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, Betty. Coincidentally, at the Rape article, I'd seen these removals of the word however by John a day before InedibleHulk's aforementioned edits. Like InedibleHulk, John made good removals there. I at first thought however should be used for the "African myth that sex with a virgin can cure HIV/AIDS" part, but then I saw that it works well without it. So I'm not sure that I object to any of John's "however" removals in that case. But again, I generally prefer that use of however remain for clearly contrasting statements...where that word is reasonably placed...or that it's replaced with a suitable alternative. And at the same time, I agree that it should not be overused. I imagine if we were to take the use of however matter to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, we'd have about as many different views on it (or close to as many) as we currently have regarding the No mention of passive voice vs active voice debate going on there. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Good work, John! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

opening introduction suggestion

"Romeo and Juliet on the Titanic" a phrase Cameron has mentioned in interview he used to pitched the film to Fox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.47.199.254 (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not WP:Lead material. It's already in the article, and that's enough. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2014

Titanic is also tied with Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003) for most Academy Awards won (at 11). 31.205.74.162 (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Titanic did not tie with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King; The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, which clearly came years after Titanic, tied with it. At the time that Titanic won, it tied with Ben Hur (1959), which is why that is mentioned in the lead. In the Accolades section of the article, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King aspect is noted appropriately. Flyer22 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: As Flyer states, Titanic tied with Ben-Hur at the time. Return of the King tied with Ben-Hur and Titanic, but it would be incorrect to state Titanic tied with Return of the King. Return of the King sharing the record is mentioned in the awards section, but I don't think it's necessary to go into detail in the lede. Betty Logan (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Low temperatures and illness

"Many cast members came down with colds, flu, or kidney infections after spending hours in cold water, including Winslet."

I don't think it has been scientifically proven that exposure to low temperatures significantly increases the probability to "catch a cold". I would think that the large number of crew memebers confined to a small set for a long period of time was the primary cause of the many cases of illness. I don't think that this article should take any stand on this matter. Thus the above sentence should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.187.236 (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, per WP:Verifiability. On that same token, however, per this section (which is also WP:Reliably sourced) at the Common cold article, I do see what you mean on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

PREMIERE DEATES QUERY

At the moment the first date listed is at TOKYO international film festival. However this is not really a premiere. The first premiere that was attended by full cast and crew and full covered by the media, and generally considered a premiere with the film in it's original language of English is the LONDON premiere. I think it should be changed. Please discuss.

 1 November 1997 (Tokyo International Film Festival) 
 18 November 1997 (London) (premiere) 

--Warner REBORN (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:FILMRELEASE states "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." Going by that the correct dates are in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Cast omission

Puzzling to discover that on this page dedicated to the movie, the actress in it nominated for an Academy Award and the actress listed after Frances Fisher on the official Titanic program--Gloria Stuart--is unlisted for the curious reason her name is not on the poster. On the official movie program, Bernard Hill is listed after Bill Paxton and Paxton is listed after Stuart. It's fine to show the poster as the illustration for the article, but why be slavish about what's on the poster at the expense of information? Too, there is naturally a link from the article on Gloria Stuart to this article but whoops! when one looks for her name on the roster, what a surprise to find she's not there. Miramaribelle (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Miramaribelle

Reverting copy edits

User:Flyer22 seems to have some problems with some copy edits I'm making.

First, a tiny bit of text in the plot. I suggest we delete the bold text: "While she is seemingly asleep in her bed, photos on her dresser depict a life of freedom and adventure, partly inspired by Jack." The film doesn't say this. Instead, the film shows us photos of her adventurous life. The viewer is left to interpret it. Our article should do the same: describe what information the film gives us and no more.

From Flyer22's edit summary: "Again, there is no further need to keep cutting this section." What's with the attitude? Acting as if the existing text is unimprovable isn't helpful. Plainly, I disagree with you, or else I wouldn't have made the edit. And last time you said this, you seemed to admit later that I'd improved the article, so maybe you should keep an open mind. ;)

Next, the thing about Cameron explaining Rose sleeping.

For him, unnecessary, and a muddy way of putting it. the end of the film leaves open the question clunky phrasing. if the elderly Rose was in a conscious dream or has died in her sleep. What on earth is a "conscious dream"? And what's wrong with simply "whether the elderly Rose had died"? If she's alive then perhaps the final scene is a dream. If she died then it isn't. This is obvious and unimportant: why mention the final dream/heaven sequence at all? "I'll never tell," he stated, "Of course, I know what we intended..." This is poorly formatted, sounds journalistic, and again is unnecessary for the point we're reporting.

You wrote: "If I wanted this shorter, I would not have added on to it." Again: this is a bad attitude. Wikipedia editors don't care what you particularly "want". We are not furniture removal men asking you where you want your picture hung. If an editor thinks an article can be improved, he or she should be bold and go for it. Popcornduff (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As seen here, I explained to you that the Plot section has been extensively worked out and nothing was left in willy-nilly. Our edits (not simply your edits) from October 26, 2014‎ to October 27, 2014 cut the plot section down 680 words, minus the two notes in the section, which is perfectly acceptable per WP:FILMPLOT. Though I stated, "So, yay, good work on that front," I obviously still disagree with your having removed clarification of exactly how Cal felt about Rose possibly having died. I stated as much here and here, both edits showing that I tweaked the matter in a way that was a compromise with you. Yes, I take exception with an editor who keeps nitpicking at text and is never satisfied with the text. You've done this at other Wikipedia film articles, and have had disagreements with editors on similar aspects. You keep acting as though more of the Plot section needs cutting or improvement; it does not. All of that is where my attitude comes from on this matter. Working on the same plot summary over and over again, debating the same aspects over and over again, can give a person such an attitude. I told you here that I agree that doing a lot of work on a Plot section does not mean that a Plot section cannot be improved, but that "I just feel that the Plot section is cut down as far as it needs to be cut and don't want to see significant plot points or well-summarized plot aspects needlessly cut." Text can be cut without removing significant points; some copyeditors are good or great at doing that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Yes, of course I realise the article has been worked on very hard by others, and it's within the word length for plot summaries. But that doesn't mean it can't still be improved. I'm happy for you to disagree with my rationales, but please don't accuse me of pointless "nitpicking". I want to make the articles better like everyone else. Popcornduff (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that I'm being silly. I don't see that section as needing further improvement, and I certainly don't see it as needing any further cuts, especially if any of those cuts will remove significant plot points. Every single aspect of that plot section has literally been worked out by various editors to get it just right and not cut out essential details. Obviously, what is nitpicking to me is not the same thing as what is nitpicking to you. In this case, at least. But I understand what you mean about wanting to improve the article. Flyer22 (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And regarding this latest disagreement between you and me, you cut the "partly inspired by Jack" part without an explanation. I restored the material, stating, "No need to remove 'partly inspired by Jack.' That is the point of the ending scene -- that and the 'die an old woman warm in your bed.' Foreshadowing." I then expanded on Cameron's foreshadowing angle by clarifying that he clearly holds a belief about whether or not Rose dies at the end of the film, and had an intention for viewers to likely see it his way. It's not simply a matter of him leaving the film open to interpretation. You re-cut the "partly inspired by Jack" part, likening it to WP:Original research, and removed extra material that I added regarding Cameron's foreshadowing; that is why I stated, "If I wanted this shorter, I would not have added on to it." I restored the Cameron text because, as noted, "For one, it should be clear that Cameron is talking about both a dream or death. For two, it should be clear that Cameron indeed had an intention." We obviously don't have to leave in "conscious" as part of "dream," but that might be from the source (not to mention...we could simply link the Dream article if we wanted readers to know what is mean by "conscious dream"). Needless to state, I disagree with your "poorly formatted, sounds journalistic, and again is unnecessary for the point we're reporting" assertions in this regard. Stating "he said" or "he stated" in Wikipedia articles is common practice, regardless of if it sounds journalistic; there is nothing wrong with partly sounding journalistic. And breaking up the quote saves the text from being needlessly put into WP:Blockquote form. And what you consider obvious is not obvious to everyone. Anyway, I've tweaked away the "conscious" part, and made other tweaks to the text. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The text we have at the moment is a little better than the first version. But it can still be improved.

"For him, the end of the film is left open to interpretation regarding whether or not elderly Rose is dreaming or has died in her sleep."

"For him" is such a muddy way of putting this, and why use the passive voice here? So how about: "Cameron wanted whether the elderly Rose had died in her sleep to be open to interpretation." This uses the active voice and combines the effect (the ending's ambiguity) with Cameron's intent. This is simpler and clearer.

"He said that although he knows what he intended with the ending, he will not reveal its intention, adding, "The answer has to be something you supply personally; individually.""

I don't think it's important to mention that Cameron knew what he was intending. Of course he did; he's the director of the film. But it doesn't make sense anyway; what Cameron actually intended was for the film to be ambiguous. Additionally, we shouldn't use synonyms for "said" (see WP:SAY). So how about: "Cameron said "the answer has to be something you supply personally; individually."

Together: "Cameron wanted whether the elderly Rose had died in her sleep to be open to interpretation, saying "the answer has to be something you supply personally; individually." Now, for my money, that's all the information we need, written simply, clearly, and concisely.

Now, if I haven't persuaded you of that there's nothing I can do about it. I won't edit it again. It's your call; I don't want to cause an edit war. Take it easy, and no hard feelings. Popcornduff (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the text can be improved. But I don't think that it's necessarily accurate to state that "Cameron wanted whether the elderly Rose had died in her sleep to be open to interpretation." He literally states that he "will never tell" if she is dreaming or has died in her sleep, and that he knows what he intended, but, for others, the interpretation is left up to them. I think, like the actresses who portrayed Rose believe, it's quite obvious that Cameron intended for the audience to see Rose as dead in the end, which is why he included the part about Jack stating that she will die an old woman, warm in her bed; like I noted here, that is major foreshadowing that screenwriting books acknowledge and point to as Cameron having intended for the ending -- Rose being an old woman, warm in her bed. And then the pictures showing that she lived a full and happy life, partly thanks to Jack, before she dies. It's just that Cameron also likes the idea of viewers interpreting the ending scene differently. This is why I think it's important that we show the layers of his intent for that ending.

Your characterization of WP:SAY, a guideline that I'm very familiar with, is inaccurate. Stating that "he will not reveal its intention" is not a violation of WP:SAY. If it were, then, for similar cases, using the word reveal would hardly be condoned. If I had stated "he revealed" in place "he said," then you might have a case regarding WP:SAY. Furthermore, certain synonyms for "said" are clearly allowed, as noted by the WP:SAY guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Going back to cutting the "partly inspired by Jack" aspect: Like I told you here, "Showing us is the same thing as telling us [in this case]. ...[T]he plot summary is meant to tell readers, not show them." You are acting as though we can or should fully apply the viewing experience to the reading experience; we can't, as Ring Cinema would tell you. And like I made clear here, the "partly inspired by Jack" part "is not WP:Original research, since sources for that material [exist]. Like WP:FILMPLOT states, the sources don't have to go in the plot section; they can go in another section of the article; that's what I've done." It is silly for me to add a WP:Reliable source for that part in the Plot section, but I will if you continue to insist on its removal. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm persuaded by your arguments that it's not original research, and I agree we don't need a source. Popcornduff (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

However, my principle concern is that it's unnecessary. The plot summary should only describe what the film shows us. Just as the film shows us (not tells us) that Rose had an adventurous life, leaving the viewer to put two and two together, I think our plot summary should, too. But it's clear you feel strongly about this and I'm not willing to keep arguing over such a trivial detail. I will at least delete "partly", which surely you can agree adds nothing to the sentence. Popcornduff (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it's unnecessary. And that part is something that the film shows us. You acknowledge this above. And yet you state that we shouldn't include it because we are stating it in the Plot section; that does not make sense. It does not make sense because, again, "[T]he plot summary is meant to tell readers, not show them." In other words, the Plot section is a reading experience, not a viewing experience (other than the mental picture). Flyer22 (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to explain that "Wikipedia editors don't care what I particularly 'want'" or WP:Bold to me. Firstly, it's not true, since collaboration is vital on Wikipedia and it means caring about what I or other editors want, and since many Wikipedia editors do care what I think/want. Secondly, being WP:Bold does not mean that you get a free pass to needlessly cut things. Third, I do think that you often needlessly cut things. And copyedits get reverted at various articles. People don't always agree with the copyeditor(s). There is also no need to ping me to this talk page via WP:Echo since it's on my WP:Watchlist; if you were linking my username for others to click on it and see what I am about, though the active editors of the Titanic (1997 film) article are already familiar with me, okay then. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing "partly" like you did here leaves the text less accurate. All of the experiences that are shown by the pictures are not things that are inspired by Jack earlier in the film; those pictures show a few things that Jack and Rose discussed, things that Rose wanted to do and Jack encouraged her to do; the pictures show that Rose did those things, and much more. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

She was either inspired by him or she wasn't. You don't need to tell us how much (a little; a lot; very much; partly; somewhat) she was inspired by him. It's useless. Popcornduff (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, and already explained above why. But I'll go with your change on this matter as a compromise. Also, in the future, would you not break up my posts like this? I don't like disjointed replying such as that, and had to sign our statements so that it's clear who is stating what. The only reason that I didn't re-combine my reply is that, in this case, it seemed clearer not to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)