Titanic Bloopersgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TitanicShack : One Thread
A friend of mine heard on the radio (in Wichita, Kansas) a list of 'bloopers' that were in Titanic. I'm curious if anyone has heard these, if they are true, or if they can shed more light on the matter. Since I heard this second hand, I have only bits and pieces. And, believe it or not, my friend has not seen Titanic, so she wasn't sure which scenes they were speaking of.
1. When the artist was painting, the film showed the actor painting with his left hand but when the camera showed the picture as it was being painted, the hand that was painting was the right hand. She said painting, I'm assuming they were speaking of Jack drawing Rose) They said this happened because the actor is left handed but the actual artist is right handed. I also heard that the real artist of the drawing was James Cameron.
2. They said that at one point (I don't know when) that when they show the ship and the ocean, you can see a desert in background. Does anyone remember this?
3. They said that the scene of the frozen bodies with ice in their hair was incorrect because salt water doesn't freeze. Is that true? Why would Cameron miss that? How were there icebergs then?
There were about 5-6 others but my friend couldn't remember them all. Has anyone heard of these or any others?
-- Becky Gordon (email@example.com), March 25, 1998
There is a whole list of "bloopers" at this site: http://us.imdb.com/More?goofs+Titanic+(1997)
-- Allison (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 25, 1998.
Just to make a point, salt water's freezing point is about -18 degrees Celsius (or for you Amercians out there, 0 degrees Farenheit)
-- Mariana Silva (email@example.com), March 25, 1998.
Number 1 is correct.
-- Rose (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 25, 1998.
From my own experience, the human body has many fluids, such as sweat, spit, and that stuff in your eyes, that can freeze when exposed to cold air. Also, your breath, from the nose and mouth, contains particles of water that can freeze around those organs.
I would imagine that many of the people who were dumped into the sea that night had been sweating pretty hard just before the final plunge, in spite of the cold air. Most of them were probably running, climbing, crawling, and clawing pretty hard in their attempt to find a safe place on the ship as it went under. Sheer terror tends to make most people sweat, too, even if they aren't exercising.
I don't know if Cameron's depiction, with the frozen hair and all, is exactly correct, but it never struck me as a problem.
BTW, if you work hard enough, and see a film enough times, you can ***always*** find technical glitches or small errors of continuity. I've never heard of one yet that didn't have 'em. Try not to let it disrupt your enjoyment.
-- Thomas Shoebotham (email@example.com), March 25, 1998.
I heard some more. The lake where Jack said he used to ice fish in Wisconsin is actually a man made lake that was not created until 5 years after TITANIC sank. Also, supposedly you can see a reflection of the camera, or some of the crew members in the old fashioned car that Jack and Rose rendevous in. The scene of the statue of liberty that Rose sees can only be seen if you are on land, not from the ocean. And finally, the echoing of the voices when Rose, Jack and the others are in the ocean after the sinking would not have been able to occur. Voices only echo in the ocean if there is a large stretch of land nearby.
-- Jen Alexander (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 25, 1998.
My husband spotted this one: During the boarding at Southampton, in the background, you can see a frontloader, a piece of construction equipment, between the ship and a building. (We've submitted this one to the Internet Movie Database, but it hasn't been added to the Goofs page for "Titanic" yet.)
-- Kathleen Marcaccio (email@example.com), March 25, 1998.
I was just wondering....When Rose blew the whistle,shouldn't her tounge have stuck to it due to the cold???That would have been pretty funny,huh?
-- Ana (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 25, 1998.
DAMN!!!!! Now I gotta go see it for the SEVENTH time, to see the bloopers!!!! :-)
-- Laura (email@example.com), March 26, 1998.
Ana - What a funny thought! Thomas - The goofs aren't disrupting my enjoyment of the movie. I just think it's interesting to talk about and to watch for; similar to the historical accuracies! I know there are goofs in every movie, there have been entire books published about the goofs in Star Wars!
Thanks for the site, I'll have to check it out!
So, Cameron was actually the artist who sketched Rose? How cool!
-- Becky Gordon (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 26, 1998.
Not so much a blooper, more an error of continuity caused by the cutting of the film - but after Rose returns to her cabin after her suicide attempt we see her looking at herself in her 'cracked' handmirror (the one later recovered). Why did she do this when there was a big (uncracked) vanity mirror immediately in front of her? It was originally intended according to the screenplay to have Rose throw a bit of a wobbly in her room before her attempt to jump off the ship and she is said to have thrown the handmirror at the vanity mirror - cracking said handmirror - which is why she later examines it.
However, I guess they had to keep this particular fragment in because otherwise there would have been no link back to the present. But if they had left Rose throwing the wobbly scene in, then I'm sure that Old Rose picking up her cracked handmirror aboard the Keldysh would have been more symbolic (it looking the same as when she last saw it and all that - her anger could change it (by cracking it) but big ship sinking could not!)
-- Simon (email@example.com), March 30, 1998.
Hi Simon- Another continuity problem from them cutting the same scene you mentioned is that while she is eating she is wearing a necklace ,but when she is at the back of the boat in the suicide scene, it is gone. I think the script had her ripping it off in her room in the "wobbly" scene, as you called it!
-- Laura (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 30, 1998.
Another blooper: not everyone has digitized breath as the stern rises to a steep angle, particularly the preacher.
-- Bob Gregorio (email@example.com), April 08, 1998.
Geez Bob, that digitized breath doesn't grow on trees, remember? =)
-- Allison (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 08, 1998.
Haha, yes, I remember, Allison. Another "fakey" scene, though I don't think it counts as a blooper: at the dinner, Rose is having what is intended to be a private conversation with Jack, but there is no way others couldn't hear them because they were seated on practically opposite parts of the table. Someone, perhaps Cameron himself, said somewhere that the others were oblivious to what Rose was saying, but that's not very believable. Again, I LOVED this scene, and loved the whole movie, so don't misunderstand me. I've just seen it so many times I can't help eventually noticing these things.
-- Bob Gregorio (email@example.com), April 09, 1998.
I saw the drawing scene again, and the artist and the drawing hand are defenetley the same right hand.
ICEBERG STRAIGHT AHEAD!!!!!!!!
-- jesse fontes (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 12, 1998.
Here's something I noticed the FIRST time I saw this movie: Kathy Bates' first remarks were a voice-over of herself. On the screen it appears she is muttering, but it sounds like she's shouting.
-- Bob Gregorio (email@example.com), April 13, 1998.
anyone notice that in the drawing scene, the picture looks different from the picture that Lovett holds in his hand? the picture then has like a weird shaped nose, and the picture now is perfect. plus, i've seen the two pictures.
-- kelly (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 17, 1998.
blooper: In the computer drafted over view of the ship there are three smoke stacks and all of them have smoke poaring out of them. This is a big blooper becaws the smoke stack at the front of the ship was just an oppening for the kitchen wich could not generate that mutch smoke if the hole thing was on fire.
(this blooper is out of entertainment magazine july,1998 check for your self)
happy to help, jhon steed
-- jhon steed (movie buff) (email@example.com), October 06, 1998.
Of the four stacks on the Titanic, the first three were operational and the fourth was a "dummy" stack although it was used for venting the kitchens as you mentioned. The idea of the fourth stack was, for the most part, cosmetic to add to the contour of the ship. In the film, if you look at the sweeping bow to stern overhead shot as they are heading out to sea, you'll see that the fourth stack is "capped".
-- Peter Nivling (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 07, 1998.
Bloopers in "jhon steed's" post:
- "Bloopers" should be capitalized.
- "Overview" is one word.
- Titanic had four stacks, all shown in the overview. The kitchen vented throught the aftmost or fourth stack and is capped, as Kip said.
- The second "of them" in the first sentence is redundant.
- The following words are misspelled: pouring, because, opening, which, much, whole.
- Yourself is one word.
- There is no Entertainment Magazine (which should be capitalized, at any rate). There is an Entertainment Weekly Magazine, but you give the issue as "july, 1998". July should be capitalized and the full issue date should be given.
- Your name is mispelled (twice) and should be capitalized.
All of this begs the question: What was the point of this obviously pore attempt at humor? And will someone find all the mistakes in this post (some of which are far more subtle).
-- Dalton (email@example.com), October 07, 1998.
Ya Know, I just watched the film again as there was no one else home and I could enjoy it uninterrupted. If there are "bloopers" in there, I didn't notice them (except for Ismay getting on the wrong boat) and if they are there, so be it. It is a great film!
-- Peter Nivling (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 1998.
Having just watched the video (widescreen version), I'm aware of at least one "blooper" from the theatrical version that appears to have been corrected. The modern front-end loader that was visible moving in the background near the beginning of the Southampton scene (as Rose's car pulls up) is now missing! There appears to be some smoke or fog obscuring it, or perhaps it was digitally removed. Is anyone aware of any other alterations made to the theatrical version for the video release? Is it common practice to correct or alter mistakes in a film for the video?
-- Dalton (email@example.com), October 12, 1998.
Hey, if they "diddled" with Dalton's front-end loader thingy, maybe they took out the part where Cal threw the little girl back on board too. I know I saw SOMETHING like that at the movies :-)
-- Emma (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 12, 1998.
-- Dan Draghici (email@example.com), October 12, 1998.
Hahaha. I wish you wouldn't have put it that way, Emma. The thought of Cameron "diddling with my front-end loader thingy" displeases me to the point of physical illness. Now, if Kate were involved in this process the prospect would seem more appealing....
Cal never put the child overboard. He handed her to a woman in the boat, the same one who can be seen holding the child after the sinking during Rose's "waiting for an absolution that would never come" line, while Cal is drinking from a flask.
-- Dalton (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 12, 1998.
Hee hee hee, sorry for making you ill Dalton :-) Did I hear you correctly though, did you actually say that you'd enjoy Kate "diddling with your front end loader thingy" even though you constantly mention her weight? ;-)
And yes, I do realise I was wrong about Cal and the young girl, I can see her clearly later on when Cal is drinking from that flask, sitting on the lap of that lady next to him.
-- Emma (email@example.com), October 12, 1998.
In one of the scenes when the ship is sinking there is a person running up the deck trying to stay out of the water wearing Nike shoes, but Nike wasn't even around then.
-- Jack Miller (Flyerboy3@hotmail.com), July 03, 2002.
Just going on about "editting" errors in films after they've been released (particularly with repect to the front-end loader), I've noticed that this has been done in other films, most notably Terminator II.
The first time I watched this film, Sarah opens the lock to her "cell" with only one paper-clip, which is impossible with modern Yale locks. In subsequent versions a "new" scene has been introduced which shows a woman (without a face in the shot) using a paper-clip and another clip she pulls out of her hair. So, yes, I would say that it is normal to correct bloopers.
Note: They also did this with the re-mastered Star Wars films, although they did have a slightly different reason for doing this.
-- James Howells (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 23, 2003.
I don't really care about the blooperz coz the whole movie was so fuckin awesome to even think about what was wrong with it so who gives a shit!!! Some of the blooperz are funny though! Anyway, I reckon the movie rulz and I've seen it more than 40 times now coz I own it on video and guess what...I'M STILL NOT SICK OF IT YET!!! Plz email me and tell me how many times you've seen the movie so far coz i'm interested to hear from ppl with anything to say about the titanic movie in general! also, i'm not interested if you lie about how many timez you've watched the movie either, so don't even bother if you make the number up! by the way, i'm 14 yearz old and I live in Australia! Hooray for everyone in the good old Auzzie Land m8!!! BYE~!~
-- *~* Lauren Steele! *~* (email@example.com), June 28, 2003.