PDA

View Full Version : Movie "Titanic" debunked by Astrophysicist



Riff_Masteroff
04-08-2011, 04:46 PM
I believe the movie Titanic (James Cameron) was pre-Rob Powers . . . but it is reputed to include content from LW.

In this YouTube video: astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson rants that Cameron got it wrong. Its kinda longish, but I thought enjoyable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldn32Df8sgo&feature=related

stiff paper
04-08-2011, 04:52 PM
but it is reputed to include content from LW.

Reputed? Pff...

The Titanic itself is all LW.

The people on the decks aren't, nor is anything else, as I recall...

The work was done by DD's first LW commercials group. Shortly after Titanic was finished, the entire LW group quit on the same day and went off together to set up StationX Studios (er... them all quitting didn't have anything to do with Titanic, by the way).

RebelHill
04-08-2011, 04:59 PM
water is LW... DrNatureFx i believe, with spray and foam comp'd in live action. Some of the fall to their deaths people may be too, but cant quite recall.

U know I rubbed popcorn in my eyes at that movie to make myself cry so as Id appear sensitive and get this girl I knew to want to... and, oh no, Ive said too much.

stiff paper
04-08-2011, 05:21 PM
I cried too... about a half hour in when I realized I'd paid $7 to see it...

cresshead
04-08-2011, 05:26 PM
really cool film saw it twice then bought the dvd

JCG
04-08-2011, 05:27 PM
Some of the fall to their deaths people may be too, but cant quite recall.I remember an article in a magazine I got free with LW 5.6 where they said, "we were even allowed to throw in some LW guys swimming around with the Softimage people," or something like that.

stevecullum
04-08-2011, 06:02 PM
I cried too... about a half hour in when I realized I'd paid $7 to see it...

Lol...I've never seen all of it, just the good bit where the boat splits in half and all the cg guys are falling into the sea. I think I would have drowned myself, if I'd had to sit through the full film.

OnlineRender
04-09-2011, 02:48 AM
Let go rose .no jack ,please let him f&%$#@ go. So I can leave ......cg was mint at the time and still holds well

sammael
04-09-2011, 06:14 AM
U know I rubbed popcorn in my eyes at that movie to make myself cry so as Id appear sensitive and get this girl I knew to want to... and, oh no, Ive said too much.

Rubbed it in your eyes suuure, THATS why you were crying... and then the girl refused you because she wanted a manly boyfriend. ;)
All jokes asside I much preferred avatar...

erikals
04-09-2011, 06:23 AM
hah! loosers!... so you've all seen it?... ꞉D

i'm the only man here.

 

wrench
04-09-2011, 07:35 AM
Interestingly Fight Club used recycled breath from Jack in Titanic to do Edward Norton's breath in the cave of happiness where he meets the penguins who tell him to slide. :)

B

stiff paper
04-09-2011, 09:33 AM
hah! loosers!... so you've all seen it?... ꞉D

i'm the only man here.

 

Hah! You wish.

I was just joking. At the time I actually refused point blank to go and see it, despite being hassled by half a dozen people to go along with them.

Markc
04-09-2011, 10:00 AM
really cool film saw it twice then bought the dvd
I saw it twice, then bought the 'Laserdisc' :)
(I specifically went to see it for the Celine Dion music....joke)

sandman300
04-09-2011, 10:07 AM
The Book was way better. :D

jeric_synergy
04-09-2011, 10:15 AM
I liked it fine. Especially the period costume.

For me the only CGI that didn't work was some green screen in the engine room-- that just did not 'sell'.

stiff paper
04-09-2011, 10:42 AM
The Titanic itself is all LW.

I wanted to add to the post where I wrote the above, but there's obviously a time limit on being able to edit... so...

Re-reading that, I should have phrased it better, or at least been more specific - in the shots where the Titanic is CG, it's all LW. It isn't LW when it's a physical model, obviously.

jeric_synergy
04-09-2011, 12:02 PM
Really? What I heard was LW was used 100% on just the little simulation shown on the ship, but that most of the big shots were SoftImage.

Too bad I sold that Cinefex....

(Can't BELIEVE no one wants my "Independence Day" copy.)

gerry_g
04-09-2011, 02:18 PM
Never seen it, in the trailers the CG looked as phoney as hell especially the deck shots, usually have a good BS metre when it comes to movies, ET I didn't see for seven years then I caved out of curiosity, god I wish I hadn't. Why is it important as to which package is used, I thought it was the creativity that counted ?

Matt
04-09-2011, 02:58 PM
I could be wrong, but I remember hearing that the 'Enhanced' anti-aliasing modes in LightWave were a request by Digital Domain to help with rendering cables on that shot.

Riff_Masteroff
04-09-2011, 03:01 PM
Well, it seems my reason for the 'seed' post was, perhaps, too subtle. No one yet has addressed it.

Soooo . . . I will rephrase: Get Neil deGrasse Tyson to go over sci in your fi before going into production, or ask him who else would best serve as a science advisor. Production movies should be checked against reality, just cause its believable isn't enough, you guys are responsible for educating the public.

Yes you should, and yes you can. The 'depth' of a movie/vid experience should be deep. And stand the test of time.

Oh, and by the way, I would have liked to hear the 10' tall blue woman have a deep bass voice.

IMI
04-09-2011, 04:48 PM
I thought Kaye Winslet was just all kinds of smoking hot in Titanic and that's why I bought the VHS (yes, vhs) after seeing the movie.
I really didn't pay much attention to the CG, but I can still picture her pretty clearly. :D

jeric_synergy
04-09-2011, 06:19 PM
There was a lot of helium in that atmosphere. Happy?

Hieron
04-09-2011, 07:27 PM
Ah who cares. As if anyone other than some astronut notices the sky being wrong. Heck, I'm quite sure 99% of people watching that movie couldn't possibly start to draw their own night sky that day. The people next to Neil laugh politely but it is a long story and not that amazing. For me Titanic was really quite enjoyable btw..

I did walk out of 10.000 BC though (first and only time), so I guess there is a limit to my tolerance as well :) That one was just beyond bizarre.

Titus
04-09-2011, 10:21 PM
I can't beleive it. This movie is one of the most documented in the history of cinema, why the confusion?

hcoat
04-09-2011, 11:27 PM
Well, it seems my reason for the 'seed' post was, perhaps, too subtle. No one yet has addressed it.

Soooo . . . I will rephrase: Get Neil deGrasse Tyson to go over sci in your fi before going into production, or ask him who else would best serve as a science advisor. Production movies should be checked against reality, just cause its believable isn't enough, you guys are responsible for educating the public.

Yes you should, and yes you can. The 'depth' of a movie/vid experience should be deep. And stand the test of time.

Oh, and by the way, I would have liked to hear the 10' tall blue woman have a deep bass voice.

I believe that at that time the movie showed a depiction of the standing theory of how the ship sank, and that the new evidences showing that it was incorrect didn't come about until several years after the movie was made. While movies can be educational, they are great at capturing the general consensus of day, no matter how right or wrong.

stiff paper
04-10-2011, 12:51 AM
Production movies should be checked against reality, just cause its believable isn't enough, you guys are responsible for educating the public.

It's very common in movies and TV that the people involved will dig up every piece of useful reference they can find that applies to whatever the situation is that they're replicating. It's also common that if they can't find enough reference they'll call in "an expert".

Unfortunately, at least for those people who demand realism, and this being Hollywood and all, reality very often doesn't turn out to be as visually exciting as something they can just make up. And so they go with something they've made up.

Sometimes this works out fine (and I have to say I think Titanic is fine, really, in that regard) but then other times you end up with one of the characters in the film spouting gibberish like "Earth is the only place in the Universe that has liquid water" or "Maybe I can help, I'm a vetinarian." Both of those lines were in a recent film and both of them are so catastrophically stupid that even an averagely intelligent seven year old should be sitting in the movie theater pointing at the screen and hooting with derision.

In the end, it is "Big Entertainment" we're talking about, and as such it always has and always will come down on the side of visual spectacle.

Maybe the education aspect should be that people are generally educated well enough to be able to understand for themselves that when they watch an "entertainment" it won't necessarily have any connection with reality?

stiff paper
04-10-2011, 01:10 AM
I can't beleive it. This movie is one of the most documented in the history of cinema, why the confusion?

Ah, now I hate to burst anybody's bubble about this, but everything "official" that you ever read about how effects were done for this or that movie is a heavily massaged version of the truth. In fact, "heavily massaged" is about the very best you can hope for. Sometimes the accounts of how certain things were done are completely fabricated.

This counts for Cinefex too. It isn't really their fault, but if they want those interviews with the people involved then they're at the mercy of the effects house. No effects house is ever going to say "It was a catastrophic sh**pile of staggering incompetence from beginning to end" and nobody who was there working on it is going to say "Yes, we wasted six months with four people writing a system to accurately replicate what the jet fighters do when they're flying around. We incorporated the thrust of the jets, all the control surfaces, everything, so it would be physically accurate, and then after we'd wasted all that time and money, right at the end, because he was so pi**ed off with our bull**it, the producer hired a freelance animator to come in, and that guy hand animated all the jet shots so that they simply looked right instead of being accurate. Because, you know, that's what a good animator does; he knows when it looks right. And it was just him, the one person, and it only took him two days, and none of the stuff we'd worked on for six months was ever used for even a single shot."

IMI
04-10-2011, 09:14 AM
Ah, now I hate to burst anybody's bubble about this, but everything "official" that you ever read about how effects were done for this or that movie is a heavily massaged version of the truth. In fact, "heavily massaged" is about the very best you can hope for. Sometimes the accounts of how certain things were done are completely fabricated.

This counts for Cinefex too. It isn't really their fault, but if they want those interviews with the people involved then they're at the mercy of the effects house. No effects house is ever going to say "It was a catastrophic sh**pile of staggering incompetence from beginning to end" and nobody who was there working on it is going to say "Yes, we wasted six months with four people writing a system to accurately replicate what the jet fighters do when they're flying around. We incorporated the thrust of the jets, all the control surfaces, everything, so it would be physically accurate, and then after we'd wasted all that time and money, right at the end, because he was so pi**ed off with our bull**it, the producer hired a freelance animator to come in, and that guy hand animated all the jet shots so that they simply looked right instead of being accurate. Because, you know, that's what a good animator does; he knows when it looks right. And it was just him, the one person, and it only took him two days, and none of the stuff we'd worked on for six months was ever used for even a single shot."

LOL :lol:

I suppose you're right about that, and that would explain why it's so hard to find detailed explanations of how specific things were done. All we get are generalities.
I'd love to be able to buy a 50 hour documentary on the making of Avatar, complete with real video footage of the modelers and animators working, along with interviews and all the four letter words and shouting I'm sure there was. ;)

Titus
04-10-2011, 11:58 AM
Ah, now I hate to burst anybody's bubble about this, but everything "official" that you ever read about how effects were done for this or that movie is a heavily massaged version of the truth

Then why we need to do revisionism?

stevecullum
04-10-2011, 01:11 PM
I suppose you're right about that, and that would explain why it's so hard to find detailed explanations of how specific things were done. All we get are generalities.

Or a total exaggeration...." We worked very hard to ensure our detail texture maps held up at the macroscopic level, using specially developed mathematical algorithms " = "we used a couple of procedurals in there"

crashnburn
04-10-2011, 02:04 PM
The endings too predictable. Thanks for posting, that guy is hilarious.

stiff paper
04-10-2011, 04:01 PM
Apropos nothing much, there's another starfield that mirrors, like the one in the Titanic shot that Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about, but this time in The Fifth Element. (Don't ask me exactly where, because it's been years since I saw it and I can't remember, but it's definitely there.)

Either it's a favorite Digital Domain screw up or they just used the same starfield globe for both movies.

Lightwolf
04-10-2011, 04:53 PM
Either it's a favorite Digital Domain screw up or they just used the same starfield globe for both movies.
It's quite obviously the artists signature and easter egg... ;)

Mind you... all things considered he could have found some major problem in the movie instead. Just picking out this detail is fairly good going for an entertainment product.

Cheers,
Mike

KevinL
04-10-2011, 05:09 PM
I specifically watch movies so I do not have to think! I don't suspend disbelief, I fire it! and gladly accept all premises, looks, science, etc.....

:)

jeric_synergy
04-10-2011, 06:36 PM
It's quite obviously the artists signature and easter egg... ;)
It's like that squeaky screen-door hinge noise in EVERY episode in SG:SG1. They could be in the middle of the gö[email protected] ocean and you'd hear this squeaky hinge, LOL.

AND, it was the exact same track as used in the "Ghost Recon" games. That made me LOL even harder.

Mirror'd starfields though, that's pretty durn lazy.

jrandom
04-10-2011, 11:31 PM
No effects house is ever going to say "It was a catastrophic sh**pile of staggering incompetence from beginning to end" and nobody who was there working on it is going to say "Yes, we wasted six months with four people writing a system to accurately replicate what the jet fighters do when they're flying around. We incorporated the thrust of the jets, all the control surfaces, everything, so it would be physically accurate, and then after we'd wasted all that time and money, right at the end, because he was so pi**ed off with our bull**it, the producer hired a freelance animator to come in, and that guy hand animated all the jet shots so that they simply looked right instead of being accurate. Because, you know, that's what a good animator does; he knows when it looks right. And it was just him, the one person, and it only took him two days, and none of the stuff we'd worked on for six months was ever used for even a single shot."

I uh... I'm getting the feeling you have some very interesting stories. I'm betting all of us here would like to hear them because there's nothing quite like reading about a train wreck that happens to other people. :)

stiff paper
04-11-2011, 04:26 AM
I uh... I'm getting the feeling you have some very interesting stories. I'm betting all of us here would like to hear them because there's nothing quite like reading about a train wreck that happens to other people. :)

Ah. Umm... can't. Even if your feeling is right and myself or anybody else knew some interesting tales they could tell, the truth of it is that nobody ever can. Everybody that works in any of those situations has signed a fairly comprehensive NDA form when they first started at the company, and then sometimes even a second, specific one to do with the current project. As well as all that, really, nobody wants to end up jeopardizing their chances of being employed, and if any company knew that you'd been a tattletale about things that they consider internal, private and covered by an NDA then they'd definitely view that as unprofessional behavior.

So beyond a certain point I'm afraid everybody's always going to be stuck with reading hints, or at least versions of real events that have been rewritten so much that you can't tell who, where or what it really was.

Unless it's a lovely story about how everybody working on that film was a truly fabulous artist that got along with everybody else just great and the whole experience was like an episode of The Loveboat because every single person could do the job they said they could do fantastically well and it all went brilliantly, and none of the supervisors were mental midgets with the IQ of a houseplant and it was all a big success. You could tell that story. Nobody's ever told me any stories like that about working at an effects house though... so I don't think those stories exist...

Philbert
04-12-2011, 10:24 AM
I thought Kaye Winslet was just all kinds of smoking hot in Titanic and that's why I bought the VHS (yes, vhs) after seeing the movie.
I really didn't pay much attention to the CG, but I can still picture her pretty clearly. :D

Yes, I saw Titanic in the theater with a date, but I ended up thinking Kate Winslet was so hot I made a fan site for her (remember it's back in early 1997 when the web was new). Since then I've seen every one of her movies. Heavenly Creatures is really good.

I guess I've never actually watched the "making of" for Titanic before. So I watched this one. Pretty interesting stuff, I have seen a few behind the scenes shots from it, but most of this was new to me:
http://www.youtube.com/user/filmanchor#p/u/69/Ja2-oGoHUpE

Titus
04-12-2011, 11:32 AM
Avoided watching Titanic for several years, now is every sunday on cable so is impossible not see it.

Not as bad I thought, actually prefer the movie over this new teen vampires/wolves saga.

jrandom
04-12-2011, 11:39 AM
Not as bad I thought, actually prefer the movie over this new teen vampires/wolves saga.

Relevant (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/2/28/). :D

erikals
04-12-2011, 12:30 PM
i sure did love Twilight... http://erikalstad.com/backup/anims.php_files/007.gif

 

stiff paper
04-12-2011, 03:55 PM
i sure did love Twilight... http://erikalstad.com/backup/anims.php_files/007.gif 

Yeesh. And you were the one claiming to be manly two pages back...

erikals
04-12-2011, 04:05 PM
real men dig Twilight... sparkling/glittering vampires?... awesome to the max...!

dwburman
04-12-2011, 10:05 PM
Haven't seen either, but from what I've heard I'd have a bigger problem with a few of the plot points than inaccurate star positions... like, if the chick just left when she had the chance, they wouldn't have to choose who got to float on the chunk of debris.

I do, however, have Thumbtanic for which Lightwave was also used. :)

Somewhere I have an .mpg of star wars titanic mashup that the guys doing the simulator animation made.

dang it... now I'm going to have to rummage through some old CDs to find it.

edit:found it on CD, got the title, found it online: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4x16p_star-wars-sim-wars_shortfilms