Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Matt89]

Also the depiction of the sinking in the film isn't entirely accurate. It's probably the MOST accurate depiction on film, yes, but it was based on what what was believed at the time given the information we had in 1997. Cameron himself has even addressed this. Further expeditions to the wreck (and survivor testimonies) paint a slightly different story. We now know that the ship didn't just sit there and "bob like a cork for a couple of mins" at a 90 degree angle before flooding and heading straight down. The stern also didn't slam back into the ocean causing a massive tidal wave the way it does in the movie. The people who were close enough to the ship to actually witness the breakup and then survive (i.e. not many at all) said that the ship simply looked like it was about to right itself and then sank. Which is why they were uncertain as to whether or not the ship even broke apart and the inquiry after the sinking concluded that the ship sank intact. It wasn't until the wreck was discovered in 1985 that they could finally definitively prove that the ship broke apart.

But then again, you gotta make these things cinematic, so I can understand why they did the things they did in the movie. The night the ship sank was also the night of a new moon so there was no moonlight (which is why they hit the iceberg in the first place) and once the lights went out, they were plunged into complete and total darkness. This is why many survivors didn't see the ship break apart, it also likely happened closer to or right along the waterline. You can't make a movie based on total darkness, the audience wouldn't be able to see shit lol.

But yeah, the breakup happened in near or total darkness and all people COULD see was where the ship blocked out the stars as it sank in its final minutes. The breakup happened about 2-3 mins before the ship slipped beneath the waves.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Bolty

I meant the stern portion -- not the front 2/3

Yes, I'm talking about the stern. The bow section had ripped away from the stern, opening the insides of the ship to the sea. There was no way it could've stayed afloat at that point.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Question....

If the stern had broken off completely, instead of being still attached at the very bottom -- would it have stayed afloat on its own?

No. It's even explained in the film when the designer is explaining the damage to the captain and crew after it hits. It had no chance of staying afloat. Too much damage was done. And as pointed out above, they've learned additional facts since the film was made, so the depiction isn't 100% accurate.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by videopat

Wanting a slipcover with your purchase is one thing, but refusing to buy a movie because it doesn't come with one is kind of hilarious.

I bought so many imports both from the USA, as well Japan and Australia over the years.
Some releases shipped with slipcovers, while others didn't.
Could care less about It, as the special features included in these imports payed well than just a cardboard slipcover, in the end.

If you are desperately looking to have a slipcover with your Blu-Ray/4K Blu-Ray, get an European release.

"That's one of the best things about Europe. Lots of slipcovers willing to take their clothes off!"

My set finally shipped today (a day before its official release date).
I know It will 100% come with a slipcover.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Bolty

I understand the scene where the designer says the ship is doomed and will sink. The front 5 compartments are taking in water and the ship will sink. but he wasn't at that point thinking the ship would split. I was just thinking that since the rear section didn't have any exterior hull leaks that with the watertight doors shut it might float.

They only went up to E deck though, that was the problem lol. They weren't exactly "watertight".

Would've been kinda funny if it broke off and the stern didn't sink. Like "okay everyone, back on the ship!!"

Certainly a lot more lives would've been saved.

[blahsi]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Yes, I'm talking about the stern. The bow section had ripped away from the stern, opening the insides of the ship to the sea. There was no way it could've stayed afloat at that point.

A new simulation was created during one of the James Cameron National Geographic specials. It's based on new knowledge from the wreck and consultation with experts.

New CGI of How Titanic Sank | Titanic 100 - YouTube

.

If this is closer to reality, the stern never stood a shot of staying afloat - even back when the movie was made one of the lines of thinking was the bow pulled the stern down because it clung on by the keel... at least from what I'm remembering.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by blahsi

A new simulation was created during one of the James Cameron National Geographic specials. It's based on new knowledge from the wreck and consultation with experts. New CGI of How Titanic Sank | Titanic 100 - YouTube.

If this is closer to reality, the stern never stood a shot of staying afloat - even back when the movie was made one of the lines of thinking was the bow pulled the stern down because it clung on by the keel... at least from what I'm remembering.

Yup! This was the exact video I was talking about when I said he addressed it.

[mastafishere]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Right, Cameron simply went with what was most dramatic and having it stand straight up certainly did the job. I was of course, referring to the movie's version of the sinking.

I doubt Cameron depicted that way because it was most dramatic. To hear him talk about it, I'm sure he was going with what he genuinely thought was most accurate at the time. Dude didn't doesn't do anything "simply"

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by stevenpaulalejandro

Meh. One time I saved a whole bunch and nobody bit when I put em up for sale.
easy come easy go.
I'm sure If I sold them I'd have to put up with buyers complaining about how long it took to ship them the slipcovers and that the slipcovers had dents and scratches. They could release blurays and 4ks in plain white covers and as long as they had the title on the spine I'd be fine with them.

Well now, this doesn't sound like "obsessive hate" at all!


I'm in the same boat, zero emotions are engaged when it comes to slipcovers for me - they don't all come with them and I sort my collection on the shelves by studio and then A-Z. For uniformity, it's much easier to simply discard the slipcovers.

If they had the value of vinyl records, I'd likely catalogue my slipcovers on a slipcover equivalent website of Discogs.com but I don't think we're there so it's not worth the hassle.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by mastafishere

I doubt Cameron depicted that way because it was most dramatic. To hear him talk about it, I'm sure he was going with what he genuinely thought was most accurate at the time. Dude didn't doesn't do anything "simply"

Of course he did it to be more dramatic. This is a movie. He had reference points and it was based on what was known at the time, but there's obviously a lot of things in the film that are heightened for dramatic impact.

It's quite well known that Titanic was sailing at full speed through an ice field in total darkness. You just can't depict it that way on film, you have to give the audience something to look at.

And I'm not ripping on Cameron here btw, he was making a disaster flick. And while the sinking itself was obviously quite dramatic, you do have to change certain aspects while making a movie (i.e. properly lighting your sets lol).

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by Matt89

You can't make a movie based on total darkness, the audience wouldn't be able to see shit lol.

And yet they keep trying...

[mastafishere]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Of course he did it to be more dramatic. This is a movie. He had reference points and it was based on what was known at the time, but there's obviously a lot of things in the film that are heightened for dramatic impact.

It's quite well known that Titanic was sailing at full speed through an ice field in total darkness. You just can't depict it that way on film, you have to give the audience something to look at.

And I'm not ripping on Cameron here btw, he was making a disaster flick. And while the sinking itself was obviously quite dramatic, you do have to change certain aspects while making a movie (i.e. properly lighting your sets lol).

I wasn't speaking to the lighting (which the area was still depicted as being dark even though obviously *we* can see everything so I wouldn't even say he changed that) but to the sinking. What he put on screen was a reflection of what he really thought happened and I highly doubt he would have changed those details for dramatic purposes. Of course things are heightened, but that's a different thing entirely.

[dobyblue]

When watching this new 4K release it struck me as odd when the first evasive order comes in hard-a-starboard and Hitchens turns the wheel to the left, which would steer the ship to port. When I looked it up I discovered back then and up to 1933 in the Atlantic ships followed the "tiller rules" where wheel would be moved in the opposite direction to the command because so many men trained in sailing and you move the rudder by turning the opposite direction to where you're going. So the movie depicts that correctly. This article is interesting, suggests a cover up with how much notice there was and that Hitchins, who wasn't a sail man, incorrectly first steered toward the iceberg instead of away from it, thus lining it up and history was made. Although dark, Smith and Lightoller agreed that even at three or four nautical miles away, any ice would have been detected with enough time and room to avoid it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...agedy-evidence

[jeff BD]

Ok whats going on at 2:22:28? It looks like they cgi'ed their faces on stunt people as theyre running. Was this like this on the blu-ray?

[mastafishere]

Originally Posted by jeff BD

Ok whats going on at 2:22:28? It looks like they cgi'ed their faces on stunt people as theyre running. Was this like this on the blu-ray?

It's been like that since day 1, in the theater, and in every release since. You'd think of all the things they tweaked, this would be the one thing that they'd tinker to get to look right, but alas.

[wright96d]

Euro-disc info -

[Show spoiler]word on the street is it's a better encode

it’s the exact same encode with the fox logo instead of the paramount logo

Disc Size: 98,962,178,268 bytes
Protection: AACS2
Extras: Ultra HD, BD-Java
BDInfo: 0.7.6.2b

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00800.MPLS
Length: 3:14:48.551 (h:m:s.ms)
Size: 97,554,032,640 bytes
Total Bitrate: 66.77 Mbps

(*) Indicates included stream hidden by this playlist.

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
--------------- ------------- -----------
MPEG-H HEVC Video 45,871 kbps 2160p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / Main 10 @ Level 5.1 @ High / 10 bits / HDR10 / BT.2020
* MPEG-H HEVC Video 3,681 kbps 1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / Main 10 @ Level 5.1 @ High / 10 bits / Dolby Vision / BT.2020

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
--------------- ------------- ------------- -----------
Dolby TrueHD/Atmos Audio English 4758 kbps 7.1 / 48 kHz / 4118 kbps / 24-bit (AC3 Embedded: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -27dB)
DTS-HD Master Audio English 1733 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1733 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 2.0 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit / DN -4dB)
Dolby Digital Audio English 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -27dB
Dolby Digital Audio French 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -27dB
Dolby Digital Audio German 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -27dB
Dolby Digital Audio Italian 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -27dB
DTS Audio Spanish 1509 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit / DN -4dB
Dolby Digital Audio Japanese 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -27dB
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -31dB
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -27dB
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -31dB

SUBTITLES:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
--------------- ------------- ------------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 39.96 kbps 1920x1080 / 2985 Captions
Presentation Graphics French 24.06 kbps 1920x1080 / 1750 Captions
Presentation Graphics German 29.88 kbps 1920x1080 / 1869 Captions
Presentation Graphics Italian 31.08 kbps 1920x1080 / 2035 Captions
Presentation Graphics Spanish 25.64 kbps 1920x1080 / 2007 Captions
Presentation Graphics Japanese 17.92 kbps 1920x1080 / 1828 Captions
Presentation Graphics Dutch 31.46 kbps 1920x1080 / 2026 Captions
Presentation Graphics Danish 26.63 kbps 1920x1080 / 1928 Captions
Presentation Graphics Finnish 22.48 kbps 1920x1080 / 1769 Captions
Presentation Graphics Norwegian 30.78 kbps 1920x1080 / 2035 Captions
Presentation Graphics Swedish 22.62 kbps 1920x1080 / 1373 Captions
Presentation Graphics English 79.70 kbps 1920x1080 / 3649 Captions
Presentation Graphics Japanese 40.78 kbps 1920x1080 / 2186 Captions
Presentation Graphics English 84.33 kbps 1920x1080 / 3736 Captions
Presentation Graphics Japanese 46.26 kbps 1920x1080 / 2522 Captions
Presentation Graphics English 90.01 kbps 1920x1080 / 4050 Captions
Presentation Graphics Japanese 42.27 kbps 1920x1080 / 2355 Captions
Presentation Graphics English 0.03 kbps 1920x1080 / 2 Captions
Presentation Graphics French 0.04 kbps 1920x1080 / 3 Captions
Presentation Graphics German 0.09 kbps 1920x1080 / 5 Captions
Presentation Graphics Italian 0.26 kbps 1920x1080 / 18 Captions
Presentation Graphics Spanish 0.10 kbps 1920x1080 / 5 Captions
Presentation Graphics Japanese 0.22 kbps 1920x1080 / 15 Captions
Presentation Graphics English 3.84 kbps 1920x1080 / 398 Captions

[jeff BD]

Originally Posted by mastafishere

It's been like that since day 1, in the theater, and in every release since. You'd think of all the things they tweaked, this would be the one thing that they'd tinker to get to look right, but alas.

Hadnt seen the movie in years and never on a big screen and man that stood out and i never noticed. Same with a couple ps2 level characters in overhead shots

[Trekkie313]

1996 CGI to film-out can only be gussied up so much.

[jeff BD]

As more and more years pass by the more I think Starship Troopers shouldve won best VFX

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by mastafishere

I wasn't speaking to the lighting (which the area was still depicted as being dark even though obviously *we* can see everything so I wouldn't even say he changed that) but to the sinking. What he put on screen was a reflection of what he really thought happened and I highly doubt he would have changed those details for dramatic purposes. Of course things are heightened, but that's a different thing entirely.

I'm not sure that he wouldn't have changed things for dramatic purposes, but there were plenty of eye witnesses who reported that the ship briefly stood straight up during the process of sinking. It's interesting to read A Night to Remember (and The Night Lives On) and see how much eyewitness accounts differed, but numerous people reported that it broke in two and that the remaining part of ship stood straight up. In any case, god that must have been terrifying.