Why ignore the Californian? {In the film?}

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TitanicShack : One Thread

Okay, another quick question.

In A Night To Remember they really focused on the Californian and why it didn't come to Titanic's aid. Now I was just wondering if anyone had read why James Cameron didn't feature it AT ALL in Titanic? I remember reading somewhere months ago that he left it out because ultimately the Californian didn't come to help and it didn't contribute at all, but I think that's a bunch of poppycock, because if they had come to the rescue, the disaster may have been avoided.

Any other opinions?

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), November 11, 1998


Response to Why ignore the Californian?

I think the Californian deserved a mention, but I am sure James Cameron was more worried about introducing this whole other aspect and not having enough time to give it the proper attention. It is like when a writer introduces a new character in a movie, T.V. show, etc. and doesn't explain how this character affects the others. The audience is left wondering what the point of that character was. It seems too unresolved.

Anyway, that is my opinion.

-- Misty (HiRver@concentric.net), November 11, 1998.

Response to Why ignore the Californian?

There was a scene about the Californian, but as with the many other scenes, like the captain calling back the boats, Rose smashing her mirror before her suicidal attempt, Rose looking for Jack in the steerage before the flying scene etc, it was cut from the final movie. I would love to see the movie uncut, even if it would be 5 hours.

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), November 11, 1998.

Response to Why ignore the Californian?

Yes, I knew they had filmed the wireless room in the Californian, I wonder why Cameron didn't leave it in. The footage wouldn't have lasted for more than 5 minutes.

I'd also love to see the movie uncut, even if it went for 5 hours :-) I don't think there's a fan out there who wouldn't.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), November 12, 1998.

Response to Why ignore the Californian?

Hi Emma:

The whole Californian incident could have been a movie in itself. The controversy surrounding her action, or inaction, still rages after 86 years as to why nothing was done, her actual position, a third ship (I personally don't believe that for a minute) in the area that was thought to be the Californian by the passengers and crew of Titanic, and on and on. My personal opinion is that Cameron felt that to include this important part of history in his film would have sent the running time of the film into hours longer, had he had given the subject the attention that it requires. Therefore, rather than to just "gloss over" the subject, he did not include it at all and I think that was a wise move. His intent, I believe he said, was not to make a documentary film but to be as historically accurate as possible with the Titanic story as a backround to the fictional story. "A Night To Remember" does go into the Californian and does not portray her Officers and crew in a very good light, but that film is more of a "docu-drama" and had the space to give it a reasonably thorough treatment. It certainly is an interesting aspect of the whole Titanic story though!

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), November 12, 1998.

Response to Why ignore the Californian?

I've heard Cameron say that if he was to release a Directors cut the only thing that would be different is he would add the wireless room scenes, AKA the scenes pertaining to the California.

-- Miranda Swearingen (Kylen1@hotmail.com), November 14, 1998.

Why would they feature California in the movie Titanic is going from UK to USA

-- Jonathon (jjohnson@sbcglobal.com), June 20, 2003.

Well, it's really time for Cameron to release a Director's Cut, if that would include the wireless scenes on Titanic and Californian. The story of the Californian is vital in the whole history of Titanic. Whithout involving the Californian in the movie, it's historical really incorrect and just a movie like all other movies

-- Nicolas (on1ns@hotmail.com), July 23, 2003.

I don't think he included it into the film because he wanted it to be as acurate as possible about the titanic. No-body really knows what happened about the californian and so if he did include it he would have included a lot of opinion rather than facts.

-- Rhianon (youngyanny@aol.com), October 12, 2003.

The calafornia was mentoined in the script, but they had to cut it cuz the movie was too long and they thought people would get confused.

-- Rachel Andersson (mfwalker@erols.com), September 02, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ