What were the names of the other Titanic Movies?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TitanicShack : One Thread

What were the names of other Titanic movies made. In particularly one done around the 1970's. It may have had Shelly Winters in it. It's bugging me what the name was, I thought it was also called Titanic.

-- Elaine Fraser (tess@radiant.net), February 08, 1998


You may be thinking about "The Poseidon Adventure" with Gene Hackman and Shelley Winters. I do know there was a made-for-TV movie in 1979 about the Titanic. Cloris Leachman played Molly Brown and Ian Holm ("Alien") played Mr. Ismay. I believe that David Warner (Spicer Lovejoy) was also in it

-- WEP (WEP@carol.net), February 08, 1998.

A NIGHT TO REMEMBER. 1959. Book & movie are considered the bible of the disaster. But, the movie doesn't show the ship's splitting into two. It's available at some Blockbusters.

TITANIC. 1953. (Barbara Stanwyck, Robert Wagner) Like Cameron's piece, this one has a fictionalized story, I'm pretty sure.

There are others too.

-- Bob Gregorio (rgregori@pacbell.net), February 08, 1998.

There have been several: Most notable as far as historical reference was "A Night To Remember" (1956, I think) based on the great book by Walter Lord and "Titanic" (1953) with Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwyk, and Robert Wagner (very young). This one ran this past summer on AMC for quite a while and also has a romantic, "forbidden love" type of story behind it. ANTR I have not seen recently in the listings for this area. David Warner did appear as one of the main characters in the made for tv movie as Lawrence Beesley, an actual survivor. He was a much nicer person than Spicer Lovejoy. I would think that after surviving Titanic once and not surviving Titanic once, Mr. Warner would find another mode of travel! Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), February 08, 1998.

the iron maiden

-- marsha tomlinson (matom@up.net), April 04, 1998.

Titanic(1953) was weak. I went ahead and bought it, just to add to my cabinet. I found the sets to be so unimaginative, the "grand staircase" looked like the metal railings out of a YMCA and the sinking itself; sheesh. Like they all stood there and sang "My God Nearer To Thee.." Yeah, right. Did anyone happen to notice that the iceberg struck on the port side in the movie? And what the hell is up with that preppy Perdue boy? Typical 50's jock dork, but in 1912?????? And since when did the First Class Staterooms have those cheap vent/slats on the bottoms of their doors? Not to nitpick but the 1953 version...well, it blew.

-- Duhh... (Rob Betz@aol.com), July 08, 1998.

Well, you are correct in saying it was pretty weak and the wrong side striking the iceberg was also noted. However, I am a bit partial to this one as it was the film that started me on the Titanic when I was 9 years old and I haven't strayed yet. You have to remember that in 1953, people were not that technically nit-picky about the Titanic as nothing had been done on it movie-wise for years and years. Just as today, I think viewers were more interested in the screenplay rather than the historical event. I believe it won an Oscar for writing so it was the love story that people were interested in. Also, the cast were all big name stars which got people into the theaters. One other goof from that film was the difficulty Clifton Webb had obtaining a ticket as the passage was sold out months before. This was not true and Titanic sailed with plenty of vacancies (thank God!). The public really didn't get into the ship and her story until Walter Lord came on the scene and then it took off with ANTR book and the film of the same name. Yes, technically "Titanic" was not up to par, but I think it rekindled the interest in the event itself.

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), July 09, 1998.

Regarding the 1953 "Titanic" - I recently saw it for the first time (twice) on American Movie Classics, after having seen "A Night To Remember" many times since I was a kid, and naturally Cameron's film too.

I thought it was actually considerably better than its reputation, but it should be taken with this very large grain of salt: When this movie was made, the sinking was 30 years in the past and Walter Lord's book had not yet come out - aside from maritime historians, nobody really knew about the sinking in any detail. (The world in 1953 was a very different place, without 500+ continuously viewable websites about the Titanic, several excellent films that are all almost instantly available on video and cable, constant TV documentaries, and a wealth of books on the subject.) For what was primarily a melodrama that used the Titanic as its setting, it did a pretty good job in detailing some aspects of the tragedy.

Sure, the fact that Andrews isn't there and a minor star (Brian Aherne) is playing Capt. Smith turns him into something of a Superman (he instantly realizes the ship is sinking from the initial damage reports without so much as looking at a blueprint!), and the Engine Room set is embarrassingly minimalist (not to mention dead wrong). But for an "average" studio "A" picture of the time - not a mega- blockbuster - the effects work, particularly the ship model, is quite good. And most of the sets were relatively good, given the modest budget and minor amount of research done.

Yes, everybody standing in the stern stoically singing the hymn as the ship slides down is a bit hard to take. And, as someone noted above, the attitudes (and clothes, hair, etc.) of the characters are far more about the 1950s than 1912... but this is always true. (Compare any film genre set in the past - Ancient Rome flicks, Three Musketeers, etc. - the costuming, grooming, dialogue, etc., always mirrors the time in which the film was made. For example, the Musketeers have slicked-back hair in the versions from the 20s, 30s, and 40s, and long blow-dried hair in Richard Lester's films from the 70s!)

Certainly, the classic ANTR stands as the definitive documentary- style stiff-upper-lip version, and Cameron's film as the supercharged mega-blockbuster that tells the story with an unbelievable level of detail and emotion. (Both of these films were made by filmmakers who had tremendous passion for the subject.) But the 1953 "Titanic" was a darn good attempt for its time, and considering it has no major Titanic expert behind it and no mega-budget (vs. Cameron's super- expensive film, and ANTR was considered very expensive for a British film in the 50s), it's a worthy forebearer to the other two...

-- Michael Goldfarb (mgoldfar@mobius-inc.com), September 10, 1999.

Michael, thanks for the balanced review of the 1953 version. I enjoyed all the responses above, having just watched it for the first time yesterday. My reaction was similar to the first guy's above; I thought it stunk big time. What bothered me most was the continuous wailing of the siren, which apparently did not occur. Next most bothersome was the speed of the sinking. But Michael makes a good point, which I didn't realize; there was little known or publicized about the disaster (technically speaking), and the budget was low. I found the story between the son and his father to be pretty good, and Barbara Stanwick's acting very good. I was glad when it ended though, however abrupt it was!

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), September 12, 1999.

I own a 16mm film copy of TITANIC 1953 and I love it I know it does not look as good as the new film but as other people said above you have to give them credit for their ship model etc (the model they used was 58ft long!) I however LOVE the 1958 film A NIGHT TO REMEMBER I would rather watch that than the lastest film! A NIGHT TO REMEMBER is just straight fact telling with little or no fictious parts and most of the scenes in the new film were taken from A NIGHT TO REMEMBER!

-- Pat Walsh (projectionist20@hotmail.com), May 28, 2003.

I LOVE TITANIC MOVIES. TITANIC(1953)although not one of my favorites,is a nice little story. Many things that are found wrong like the alarm sound and the quick sinking I thought they could have done better. Overall,it still was a good movie if not realistic.I really like A NIGHT TO REMEMBER(1958)because it was more realistic and stuck straight to the facts. I'd Mostly suggest this movie over TITANIC(1953or1997)for all of you non-romantic types

-- CHRIS PATTON (cpatton2002@yahoo.com), June 25, 2003.

Speaking of other Titanic films im trying to find 1 in particular that i remember seeing as child in the school holidays.

From what i can remember it was where they were going to raise the titanic and i can remember seeing a diver looking into a port hole and seeing someone looking back out and the diver was that scared he lost his mouth piece and all these bubbles flew out of his mouth piece to the surface ,from what else i can remember they did raise it and apparently most of the young children/babys had survived in an air pocket or something and were now these old people.

It was really good but i don't remember much more about it but i have been trying to hunt it down for years and so far no one i have spoken to recalls any such movie ,i can't remember the exact year but it would have been between 1985 and 1991 i remember it was on during the school holidays and thats about it!

Hope someone knows what one i would have seen!

-- Brian Green (lappie@softhome.net), September 09, 2003.

I remember seeing a movie I believe was about the Titanic .I don't remember the name but,Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone and Woody Strode acted in it. I've been trying to find that movie for many years. anybody got any ideas?

-- Bruce Hachey (easterbh@nb.sympatico.ca), April 04, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ