Uncut version of Titanic?
polar...@webtv.net
been asked a thousand times before, if there is any plans to release the
uncut version of "Titanic"? To my understanding 45 minutes were cut out,
and it puzzles me why this hasnt happened as of yet being the money
making machine that it is. Now that the hype has died down, it seems
like this would pump sales back up. Any answers?
S. & J. Cozzi
director wanted you to see.
Van Miller
Actually, according to Cameron, he ended up shooting a
16-hour movie, so there's a LOT, LOT more footage that ended up on the
cutting room floor than just the 45 minutes you speak of. But
obviously, for time constraint reasons, he ended up having to shorten
the sucker down to a 3 hour jaunt. Just thought I'd letcha know.
Peace!
Sincerely,
Van Miller
Birmingham, Alabama USA
Richard Hopkins
<polar...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15056-3A...@storefull-284.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Hello, I just found this site and wanted to ask, and I know it must
> have been asked a thousand times before,
If not more! ;-)
> if there is any plans to release the uncut version of "Titanic"?
What's an 'uncut' version of Titanic? Would you want it to be uncut to such
an extent that all the out-takes and bloopers are put back in? I don't think
so!
> To my understanding 45 minutes were cut out,
That's not really a correct understanding. The one thing you have to
understand is that Cameron had, by contract, final cut on the theatrical
version of the film, and he's said repeatedly in the past that for
theatrical viewing, the version that's already out there is the best
possible one.
There's a lot of half-truth and rumour going round about this issue, with
the running time of the original rough assembly wrongly being used to gauge
material that was 'cut' (which is I think what you're doing), various
stories about deleted scenes and so-on.
As Cameron has said himself, footage removed from a picture often assumes
mythical proportions, even if the reason it was removed was simply because
it wasn't very good. No director would release a version of any film that
contains footage he considers *bad*. Plus, of course there are many
alternate takes of each scene, with spare footage where the camera was
running before and after the scene itself had taken place. Thus, by
definition, you will never (nor would you want to) see a truly uncut version
of Titanic. Would you want to see 27 (or whatever) takes of the same scene?
Didn't think so! ;-) Thus, the editor will always have a job to do, and
footage will always, by definition, be left on the cutting room floor.
There's not 45 minutes worth of 'good' footage to be put back in. Around the
time the original film was released, Cameron stated that there was some
footage that was 'historically accurate' (the Californian stuff, etc.)
that was removed because he felt it distracted from the main characters and
the Titanic itself at crucial moments of the film. He has said that at some
point in the future, he might assemble a cut of the film that includes that
footage, but he's stated that it adds only about 15 - 20 minutes to the
running time - nothing like the figure you're thinking of.
There are other sorts of footage too. A good example is the Jack/Lovejoy
fight, that was dropped because test audiences didn't like it and because
Cameron felt, on reflection, that it just didn't fit into the reality of the
storyline. You're not too likely to see footage that Cameron simply doesn't
like going back in.
> and it puzzles me why this hasnt happened as of yet being the money
> making machine that it is. Now that the hype has died down, it seems
> like this would pump sales back up. Any answers?
It's likely to happen at some point, but when it will happen is anybody's
guess. The Special Editions of Aliens, The Abyss and T2 all appeared around
four years after the original theatrical release of each film, so that might
be good news for this year as far as Titanic's concerned.
Paramount have already confirmed that they're planning a new DVD release of
the film, but at this stage, there's no indication of whether it will be the
regular release + supplemental features (presumably with extra footage in
the supplements) , or whether it will include a longer cut of the film
itself. Bearing in mind that The Abyss and T2 are already available on DVD
in 'branched' format, with the theatrical and Special Edition versions on
the same disc, it's to be hoped that the same opportunity will be taken with
Titanic.
They have said that the new DVD will be produced with the participation and
supervision of Cameron, and as he's a very busy man, we shouldn't expect it
to be any time soon. If it's as good a disc as the T2, Abyss and Aliens
releases were, it'll take a while to prepare.
So, the short answer to your question is that there will never be a truly
*uncut* version of Titanic. However, there probably will be a longer version
of the film available one day, but nobody (maybe not even Cameron himself at
this stage) knows exactly when you'll be able to get your hands on it.
--
Richard Hopkins,
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
Send all my spam to: duise...@reichstag.de
Richard Hopkins
"Van Miller" wrote in message
>
> Actually, according to Cameron, he ended up shooting a
> 16-hour movie,
Really Van? Would you mind quoting what you heard *exactly*, as what you're
saying sounds like, to quote Jack Dawson, horseshit.
> so there's a LOT, LOT more footage that ended up on the
> cutting room floor than just the 45 minutes you speak of.
You're joking, no? Titanic was not, and was never planned to be, a 16 hour
movie. There just isn't the material in the script.
> Just thought I'd letcha know.
Gee, thanks.
Robert Denial
television special on the film that included some scenes that were cut.
The scenes that were shown were the ones with the Californian trying to
warn of icebergs and being told to shut up. If I recall it was about a
5 minute segment. It is too bad that Cameron opted not to distract from
Rose and Jack to show some of the accurate history. Thanks for your
responses.
RD
Richard Hopkins
"Robert Denial" <RDe...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12762-3A...@storefull-282.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> When "Titanic" was still the hot boxoffice ticket, there was a
> television special on the film that included some scenes that were cut.
Yes, that TV special was called 'Titanic: Breaking New Ground'.
> The scenes that were shown were the ones with the Californian trying
> to warn of icebergs and being told to shut up. If I recall it was about
> a 5 minute segment.
Yep. There were quite a few similar 'historically accurate' vignettes - the
Straus' footage, Smith attempting to call the lifeboats back and so-on
featured in that TV special. There's some more similar stuff on the Titanic
Explorer CD-ROM too.
> It is too bad that Cameron opted not to distract from
> Rose and Jack to show some of the accurate history.
Sure, there's plenty of people (myself included) who'd agree with that.
However, it's Cameron's film, and he said all along that his primary purpose
was to make a love story set on the Titanic, rather than to simply make a
film about the Titanic, and it was with that goal in mind that this footage
was cut.
As he's on record saying that this 'historically accurate' footage has
value, and that he plans to re-integrate it one day, it's a pretty good bet
that sooner or later we'll all get a chance to see it in the context of the
rest of the film.
Joe Sweeney
Richard Hopkins <ri...@dial.pipex.nospam> wrote in message news:3ada70b2$0$15023$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> Paramount have already confirmed that they're planning a new DVD release of
> the film,
<snip>
When did they say this? Or was it so long ago that I just forgot?
Joe
Richard Hopkins
"Joe Sweeney" wrote in message...
Richard Hopkins wrote in message ...
> Paramount have already confirmed that they're planning a new DVD
> release of the film,
<snip>
When did they say this? Or was it so long ago that I just forgot?
Probably! The first mention of it was at the VSDA trade show in '99 - before
the original DVD was released. The last time I saw it mentioned was late
last year in an online chat with a couple of Paramount's senior DVD people.
All they said was what I quoted before - no mention of the timescale or
content, other than that Cameron would be closely involved with it.
If you look through the Digitalbits or Home Theatre Forum archives, you'll
no doubt be able to find the chat transcript.
dj
>Actually, according to Cameron, he ended up
>shooting a 16-hour movie, so there's a LOT,
>.LOT more footage that ended up on the
>cutting room floor than just the 45 minutes you
>speak of. But obviously, for time constraint
>reasons, he ended up having to shorten the
>sucker down to a 3 hour jaunt. Just thought I'd
>.letcha know. Peace!
I wonder if any of the 16 hours would include Cameron's remaining
footage from the wreck? I read he only used 7 seconds of his actual
wreck footage. dj
Tom Pappas
it up in a NYM.
--
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. She can, and she will."
"dj" <djfrom...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23490-3A...@storefull-157.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Richard Hopkins
"dj" <djfrom...@webtv.net> wrote in message...
> I wonder if any of the 16 hours
What 16 hours? Still, that's been addressed elsewhere...
> would include Cameron's remaining footage from the wreck?
It'd be interesting to see some more of it, but by all accounts a lot of it
was either unusable or near-repetition of the sort of stuff that did make
the movie.
> I read he only used 7 seconds of his actual wreck footage.
That's incorrect. There's over 1 minute 40 seconds of 'real' wreck footage
in the opening sequence of the film alone.
dj
>I read he only used 7 seconds of his actual
>wreck footage.
"Richard Hopkin's" wrote:
>that's incorrect. There's over 1 minute 40
>seconds of 'real' wreck footage in the opening
>sequence of the film alone.
Thanks, Richard....guess i better not believe everything i read. dj
KimNB
footage from the wreck? I read he only used 7 seconds of his actual
wreck footage. dj >>
I would love to see more of his footage. Actually, isn't there an IMAX film or
2 on Titanic that takes you to the wreck? I'm sure it's been discussed before,
but since at the time I didn't have a chance of seeing it since we had no IMAX
theatre, I more or less skipped through the discussion. However, Austin just
got a new IMAX theatre in the newly-built State History Museum, so maybe
they'll bring Titanic to Austin. Can anyone tell me anything about the film?
I'm thinking I'd like to try to lobby them to bring it here.
Tom Pappas
because there were only a few minutes (14?) of actual bottom footage - the
rest was interviews and preparation for the dive.
The film's one redeeming feature, from my point of view, was letting me see
the historical photographs of the construction and launch on that 40-foot
screen. Breathtaking.
Worth the $5.
--
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. She can, and she will."
"KimNB" <ki...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010421125945...@ng-mj1.aol.com...
Ron
well.
They didn't show nearly as much of Titanic as I thought they would.
Honestly, I
couldn't care less about the film crew and what logistical problems they had
preparing for the dive. Just show me Titanic!! That's what I was there to
see!
Ron
"Tom Pappas" <t...@spam.pcslink.com> wrote in message
news:FslE6.117306$Vk1.7...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
KimNB
that they focused mostly on the crew. I'd rather watch an hour of them
scanning the ocean floor for artifacts and running the camera all over the ship
and inside as much as possible with any voiceovers limited to historical
commentary. Still, I'd go see it if they brought it here.
Kimberly Dickson
as
> well.
Are you talking about the one in the Pacific Science Center? How is the
exhibit overall? Sometime this summer, possibly in August, I plan on going
to Seattle just for the museum. Think it'd be worth it? Also, do you know
if they allow picture-taking?
Kim
Dave Tuttle
Kimberly Dickson <VaEs...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:N8qE6.29763$RF1.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The answer is a resounding NO !!! Absolutely no video or photographs. If
you're caught violating this edict, don't be surprised to be asked to leave
(sans refund). They'll not let anyone take pix of anything they want to
charge everyone $15 to $20 to see. So much for the high and mighty claims
of how they're "preserving history for all the world to enjoy and see".
Dave Tuttle
>
>
Ron
Nope, no picture taking allowed. Someone actually took a picture of the
Grand Staircase
while I was there and one of the staff (who was dressed in period clothing)
made it
very clear that pix were a no-no.
The exhibit overall? Honestly? I was pretty disappointed. I really
didn't think that there
was much to see. I wasn't expecting a whole lot either. I kind of assumed
that it would look
like a flea market, you know, all sorts of things to look at. There were a
surprisingly few exhibits
to look at.
The best part? There was a big piece of Titanic's hull that was brought
up, maybe 20x12 or so.
While you were not allowed to touch that piece, there was a smaller piece in
a Plexiglas case
that you could touch. That was really neat.
I had sort of planned on going down a couple of times to see the
exhibit, but the two hour drive from
Vancouver, BC seems a bit long for what the exhibit has to offer.
One last thing. When you first go into the exhibit, you get a boarding
pass with a passengers name on it.
Near the end of the exhibit is a wall with the names of all of the survivors
and their class. You are supposed to
try and find "your name" to see if you survived or not. It was fairly busy
when I was there and it was interesting
to hear couples talking about which one of them survived and/or died. Sort
of macabre, but a great idea, I think.
Hope you have fun, Kim.
Ron
"Kimberly Dickson" <VaEs...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:N8qE6.29763$RF1.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Tom Pappas
disappointed
> > as
> > > well.
> >
> > Are you talking about the one in the Pacific Science Center? How is the
> > exhibit overall? Sometime this summer, possibly in August, I plan on
> going
> > to Seattle just for the museum. Think it'd be worth it? Also, do you
> know
> > if they allow picture-taking?
> >
> > Kim
>
> The answer is a resounding NO !!! Absolutely no video or photographs. If
> you're caught violating this edict, don't be surprised to be asked to
leave
> (sans refund). They'll not let anyone take pix of anything they want to
> charge everyone $15 to $20 to see. So much for the high and mighty claims
> of how they're "preserving history for all the world to enjoy and see".
They spent the money to go down and get the stuff. They own the stuff. They
can charge people to look at the stuff.
And, if they please, they can protect their investment in the stuff by not
letting people photograph the stuff and sell the photos.
They said they're preserving history, but I didn't see where they said it
was a charity.
Dave Tuttle
> > The answer is a resounding NO !!! Absolutely no video or photographs.
If
> > you're caught violating this edict, don't be surprised to be asked to
> leave
> > (sans refund). They'll not let anyone take pix of anything they want to
> > charge everyone $15 to $20 to see. So much for the high and mighty
claims
> > of how they're "preserving history for all the world to enjoy and see".
>
> They spent the money to go down and get the stuff. They own the stuff.
They
> can charge people to look at the stuff.
>
> And, if they please, they can protect their investment in the stuff by not
> letting people photograph the stuff and sell the photos.
>
> They said they're preserving history, but I didn't see where they said it
> was a charity.
>
has to be turned. (I'd make a LOUSY communist.) My only point was that I
wish they'd cut out all the touchy-feely self esteem crap on how NOBLE their
efforts are for mankind, and just admit that they're a bunch of opportunists
in it for the bucks. I may dissapprove of their activities, but at least I
could respect the honesty.
Dave Tuttle
Richard Hopkins
> Thanks to Ron and Tom for your feedback about Titanica. That is
> disappointing that they focused mostly on the crew. I'd rather watch
> an hour of them scanning the ocean floor for artifacts and running the
> camera all over the ship and inside as much as possible
It was literally impossible for them to film inside the ship, and extremely
difficult for them to film outside it too. The main difference between
Titanica's underwater footage and Cameron's is that Cameron used his trick
water/pressure tight remote camera housing to get his shots. The Titanica
crew used the large format Imax camera mounted *inside* the submarine,
looking through the Mir's centre viewport. That greatly limited their
freedom to shoot, and the footage is, generally speaking, nowhere near as
impressive as the shots Cameron was able to get.
Don't forget also that Cameron was shooting a movie, and set his shots up
deliberately to be as 'cinematic' as possible. The Titanica crew were doing
a much more documentary style piece. Related to this is that the underwater
footage Cameron shot for Titanic was done with an undercranked camera, and
thus is speeded up when you see it in the film. In comparison, the Imax
stuff looks really slow and ponderous - which is as it really is of course,
but it's a bit of a shock when you compare it directly with the opening part
of Cameron's Titanic.
> Still, I'd go see it if they brought it here.
If you really want to see it, you can buy it on DVD and Laserdisc, and I'd
imagine it's available on VHS too. Maybe you'd be able to find somewhere
that would rent it? Of course you loose the effect of seeing it on an Imax
screen, but to make up for that you can pause and replay the good bits! ;-)
KimNB
topic. It would be nice if Cameron's footage could translate to the IMAX
screen. I guess I can't have everything. :)
___-________----__________________________
Richard Hopkins
> Interesting info, Richard. I confess to having no prior knowledge on
> this topic.
Probably just as well, most prior knowledge on this subject is pretty boring
and useless ;-)
> It would be nice if Cameron's footage could translate to the IMAX
> screen. I guess I can't have everything. :)
ISTR that Cameron's Titanic was screened in a couple of IMAX theatres during
its original release, but it would have been very much a compromise, with
the film being projected on regular 35mm equipment and only occupying a
small proportion of the IMAX screen - it wouldn't have been that different
from seeing the film in a regular theatre.
It wouldn't really be possible to strike a true IMAX format print for
Titanic, as material shot on 35mm film simply doesn't have IMAX's quality
there in the first place. Plus, IMAX has an aspect ratio near to regular
1.33:1 TV, whereas Titanic's true aspect ratio is around 2.35:1. Thus, any
potential IMAX conversion would effectively end up losing nearly half the
picture in a lot of cases.
About the best way to have seen Titanic would have been on one of the
handful of 70mm prints that was struck. Apparently these looked really good
for a blow-up from 35mm, but unfortunately most (if not all) have now been
cut into little pieces to make those 'collector's film cels' that were given
away with various video packages.
gh
ki...@aol.com (KimNB) wrote:
> Interesting info, Richard. I confess to having no prior knowledge on
> this topic. It would be nice if Cameron's footage could translate
> to the IMAX screen. I guess I can't have everything. :)
Cameron's footage wouldn't translate very well to IMAX since it is all 2
perf 35mm which means the quality is about as good as 16mm. On the IMAX
screen the film grain would be the size of basketballs. So comparing the
IMAX Titannica footage with Cameron's is comparing apples and oranges.
GH
--
ptrsk...@gmail.com
> Hello, I just found this site and wanted to ask, and I know it must have
> uncut version of "Titanic"? To my understanding 45 minutes were cut out,
> making machine that it is. Now that the hype has died down, it seems
> like this would pump sales back up. Any answers?
21Ava Jeffery
> Hello, I just found this site and wanted to ask, and I know it must have
> been asked a thousand times before, if there is any plans to release the
> uncut version of "Titanic"? To my understanding 45 minutes were cut out,
> and it puzzles me why this hasnt happened as of yet being the money
> making machine that it is. Now that the hype has died down, it seems
> like this would pump sales back up. Any answers?
Hope this helps.
Tata
Rick
> Hello, I just found this site and wanted to ask, and I know it must have
> been asked a thousand times before, if there is any plans to release the
> uncut version of "Titanic"? To my understanding 45 minutes were cut out,
> and it puzzles me why this hasnt happened as of yet being the money
> making machine that it is. Now that the hype has died down, it seems
> like this would pump sales back up. Any answers?