Titanic on ITV

[LE Greys]

Every time I watch yet another programme about the Titanic, I do always wonder if this time it might just steer away in time.

I suppose I have to wait until Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer make a Titanic movie.

Edit: I saw the Channel 5 'documentary' and it was very good. If it's repeated, I recommend watching it.

Ever hear of the casualties of war, such as Lusitania, Britannic or Kaiser Wilhelm de Grosse; or (different war) Windsor Castle, Normandie or Lancastria? What about Empress of Ireland or Andrea Doria? No, Titanic was the only liner that ever sank. :roll:

Or maybe we could hear more about the Olympic's twenty years of crossing the Atlantic, generally safe apart from several collisions.

 

[Southwest]

I wouldn't seeing as it was ITV not BBC! Instead I'd suggest trying ITV player.

Sorry, that is what I meant!

 

[SS4]

Ever hear of the casualties of war, such as Lusitania, Britannic or Kaiser Wilhelm de Grosse; or (different war) Windsor Castle, Normandie or Lancastria? What about Empress of Ireland or Andrea Doria? No, Titanic was the only liner that ever sank. :roll:

And the MV Wilhelm Gustloff, sunk by Soviet submarines evacuating civilians from East Prussia in January 1945

Or maybe we could hear more about the Olympic's twenty years of crossing the Atlantic, generally safe apart from several collisions.

A similar analogy is that Hindenburg is a synonym for airship, especially in the hydrogen age

 

[jon0844]

Ever hear of the casualties of war, such as Lusitania, Britannic or Kaiser Wilhelm de Grosse; or (different war) Windsor Castle, Normandie or Lancastria? What about Empress of Ireland or Andrea Doria? No, Titanic was the only liner that ever sank. :roll:

Did I miss something here? Your point is? This is a thread about Titanic, not any other ship.

 

[Heinz57]

Ever hear of the casualties of war, such as Lusitania, Britannic

Actually both of those sinking’s were quite famous, and have both had films made about them.

However yes I do see your point. But I think the reason Titanic is so famous is the circumstances. She was the biggest and most luxurious ocean liner ever built; the most technologically advanced for the time, flag ship for the White Star, and was deemed 'unsinkable'. But then on only her maiden voyage she struck an iceberg (in an avoidable incident*) and went down with a tragic loss of over half the lives on board.

*Full speed ahead despite the ice warnings; the commander on the bridge at the time ordered hard over and full astern. However, if they would have gone hard over at full forward they may have missed it. Or if she would have ploughed full on into it only the front one maybe two compartments would have flooded, meaning she could have limped to land.

 

[LE Greys]

Actually both of those sinking’s were quite famous, and have both had films made about them.

However yes I do see your point. But I think the reason Titanic is so famous is the circumstances. She was the biggest and most luxurious ocean liner ever built; the most technologically advanced for the time, flag ship for the White Star, and was deemed 'unsinkable'. But then on only her maiden voyage she struck an iceberg (in an avoidable incident*) and went down with a tragic loss of over half the lives on board.

*Full speed ahead despite the ice warnings; the commander on the bridge at the time ordered hard over and full astern. However, if they would have gone hard over at full forward they may have missed it. Or if she would have ploughed full on into it only the front one maybe two compartments would have flooded, meaning she could have limped to land.

Well, I believe the word is "hubris". Maybe it's that particuar human element that brings people back.

I'm thinking of setting a chapter aboard the Titanic one day. The characters will travel from Southampton to Cherbourg to Queenstown (as it was) and get off there.

 

[ainsworth74]

But I think the reason Titanic is so famous is the circumstances. She was the biggest and most luxurious ocean liner ever built; the most technologically advanced for the time, flag ship for the White Star, and was deemed 'unsinkable'.

You know I'm not convinced that she was. Perhaps in terms of passenger amenities but mechanically I'm not so sure. For example Titanic was powered by a pair of reciprocating steam engines (the technology of the 19th century) and one low pressure steam turbine whilst to take a contemporary the Lusitania was powered by four steam turbines (the standard motive power for large ships for the next fifty years) and was as a result faster than Titanic. Lusitania was built six years before Titanic but was mechanically far more advanced.

 

[LE Greys]

You know I'm not convinced that she was. Perhaps in terms of passenger amenities but mechanically I'm not so sure. For example Titanic was powered by a pair of reciprocating steam engines (the technology of the 19th century) and one low pressure steam turbine whilst to take a contemporary the Lusitania was powered by four steam turbines (the standard motive power for large ships for the next fifty years) and was as a result faster than Titanic. Lusitania was built six years before Titanic but was mechanically far more advanced.

Different ships for different parts of the market. With the Lusitania and her sisters, Cunard were after speed above all. She made four Blue Riband crossings, then the Mauretania made one and held the record for twenty years. None of the Olympic class appears on the list, because they were after the low-cost market, emigrant traffic, along with the high-comfort market. As a result, they were both bigger and cheaper, so used a more conservative design. It's Concorde vs a 747.

The Olympic herself used to be called "Old Reliable", although I've never been sure whether that's because she hardly ever broke down or because she always arrived on time.

 

[ainsworth74]

As a result, they were both bigger and cheaper, so used a more conservative design. It's Concorde vs a 747.

Well that's exactly my point. Surely we can agree that Concorde was a more advanced design than a 747? My point is that Titanic was not the most advanced ship in the world at that time which surely has nothing to do with the market she was aimed at (though I agree that they were aimed at different markets).

 

[Heinz57]

You know I'm not convinced that she was. Perhaps in terms of passenger amenities but mechanically I'm not so sure. For example Titanic was powered by a pair of reciprocating steam engines (the technology of the 19th century) and one low pressure steam turbine whilst to take a contemporary the Lusitania was powered by four steam turbines (the standard motive power for large ships for the next fifty years) and was as a result faster than Titanic. Lusitania was built six years before Titanic but was mechanically far more advanced.

Yeah they weren't the best in the world with engines and propultion. But for passenger amenities, nothing came close. The best of the best. Apparently even the third class accomidation could have been considerd luxury - for its time of course.

They probably called Olympic 'Old Reliable' because she never sank - unlike her sisters. I don't know. She did have her own bumps and bruises along the way though. Seems to me like the Olympic Class weren't very reliable anyway, prone to problems, inferior materials*. Wasn't Olympic scrapped after only 20 or so years? That seems quite quick to me, there's been other ocean liners thats served longer and more reliable careers than she did.

*That is with no offence to the ship builders, H+W built good ships. They would have built them with what the cliant specified

 

[LE Greys]

Yeah they weren't the best in the world with engines and propultion. But for passenger amenities, nothing came close. The best of the best. Apparently even the third class accomidation could have been considerd luxury - for its time of course.

They probably called Olympic 'Old Reliable' because she never sank - unlike her sisters. I don't know. She did have her own bumps and bruises along the way though. Seems to me like the Olympic Class weren't very reliable anyway, prone to problems, inferior materials*. Wasn't Olympic scrapped after only 20 or so years? That seems quite quick to me, there's been other ocean liners thats served longer and more reliable careers than she did.

*That is with no offence to the ship builders, H+W built good ships. They would have built them with what the cliant specified

It's my understanding that the scrapping of the Olympic had more to do with the Depression and the Cunard-White Star merger than anything else. She also managed to run down the Nantucket Lightship around then. The Queen Mary was on the way, and they still had the German-built Majestic for service. The Mauretania went then as well, partly because she had lost the Blue Riband to the Bremen.

A rather sad image of the two ships awaiting the breaker's yard at Southampton.

 

[jon0844]

Apparently even the third class accomidation could have been considerd luxury - for its time of course.

I bet it would still look better today than first class on a 317/1.

 

[Darandio]

although I'm sure that sometimes the rolling stock and/or Loco's may not be available!

Titanic isn't available either, at least not for on set production above the waves.

 

[LE Greys]

Titanic isn't available either, at least not for on set production above the waves.

Easier to make a set of a ship than a carriage with scenery going past. Her tender, Nomadic, is currently under restoration in Belfast. I'm not sure what she's like inside, but parts might be useful. The Queen Mary has also stood in a few times.

 

[Darandio]

Easier to make a set of a ship than a carriage with scenery going past. Her tender, Nomadic, is currently under restoration in Belfast. I'm not sure what she's like inside, but parts might be useful. The Queen Mary has also stood in a few times.

That is not quite what I meant though. CGI could have easily been used.

The thing is though, as has already been said, its won't bother 99% of people anyway, so wasn't required.

 

[table38]

OMG I was just googling to see if Episode 1 was repeated on ITV2 as my Mum forgot to SKY+ it, and google suggested this thread :roll:

 

[Geezertronic]

Checking the Wikipedia page for the programme, there is a list of historical inaccuracies section. Looks like they basically rushed production so the release was around the same time as the James Cameron film of the same name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_(TV_miniseries)#Historical_inaccuracies

 

[ainsworth74]

That link is for the 1996 CBS series not this series

 

[bnm]

I see that the 1997 film, directed by James Cameron is being re-released in 3D.

Hopefully now it's in 3D they'll actually see the fupping iceberg in time. That'll save us from a further two hours of bad acting from Leo and Kate.

 

[jon0844]

Conversion from 2D to 3D is never great. Considering people, especially in the US, are regularly shunning the 3D versions of new films for plain-old 2D, it seems rather odd to do this for 'old' movies.

I guess they don't need to make as much second time around, but still.

Sent via my Tandy TRS-80 using Tapatalk

 

[GB]

I heard it cost in the region of $18m to convert Titanic from 2D to 3D.

 

[SS4]

I heard it cost in the region of $18m to convert Titanic from 2D to 3D.

Why do they even bother? 3D is just another way of saying this film is so awful we needed to rely on cheap gimmicks

 

[Heinz57]

Come across this one on YouTube.

Its called Titanic, Birth of a Legend. Its a documentry that talks about the construction, the conditions the builders lived and worked in. And of course the discussions and arguments between White Star officials, particularly saftey.

One guy wanted something like 64 lifeboats on Titanic. Someone else disagreed by saying it won't look very good. Thats even with him knowing full well that 3000 people won't have a hope in hells chance of fitting in 16 boats. And well, I think we all know who won that argument.

I still find it astonishing that they knew full well that there was not full lifeboat capacity. And they said they won't do it because it wouldn't look astheticaly pleasing. Imagine if that happened today!

As someone says in the documentry; 'When planning isn't it best to think the unthinkerble?'

 

[ainsworth74]

But don't forget that Titanic did meet (and in fact exceeded) the regulations of the day when it came to the provision of lifeboats.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I watched a program on titanic a few years ago and it listed off the mistakes in design and its operation, it was insane.... Cant believe that anyone ever thought it was a good idea.

The most interesting i found is that it turned better at higher speeds and it is thought that if he had put it on full forward instead of reverse and turned he would of cleared it easily.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But don't forget that Titanic did meet (and in fact exceeded) the regulations of the day when it came to the provision of lifeboats.

Amazing to think that once upon a time it was considered to basically let more than half a ship drown.
Anyone think there was enough lifeboats for first class? :/

 

[Heinz57]

Aye she did actualy exceed the regulations for lifeboats at the time. But saying that, the regulation was out of date even then.

There were enough lifeboats for all of first class. And I'm sure I read somewhere that people reckoned that was the intention. Have enough lifeboats for first class, maybe (at least some of) second. Enough to save the people who at the time were considerd more important. Forget the rest.

Its actualy Titanic that paved the way for many new regulations on ships, including enough lifeboats for all those on bord. I was thinking the other day, how differant would things have been, or even be now if she would have cleared the iceberg and not sank? How many of the regulations would have changed, and when?

It is true that if she would have carried on traveling at full forward, she would have missed the iceberg. Maybe if Captain Smith was on the bridge at the time it wouldn't have happend. Apparently if she would have ploughed full on into the front of the iceberg, she wouldn't have sank then either. Because it would have only flooded the first two compartments.

 

[jon0844]

But don't forget that Titanic did meet (and in fact exceeded) the regulations of the day when it came to the provision of lifeboats.

I guess risk assessments weren't quite the same then.. or they deemed the risk to be so low. Given we don't make crash proof trains, or get people to wear seat belts on trains (or buses), I guess that even now you have to make a decision on things that might - one day - seem outrageous.

 

[Heinz57]

BBC began airing a documentry tonight.

Titanic with Len Goodman. Did anyone manage to catch it? I missed it, didn't know it was on. Wondering what it was like?

 

[jon0844]

Was he a passenger on it then?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Was he a passenger on it then?

ba dum chh