MovieChat Forums > Raise the Titanic (1980) Discussion > Why it didn't do better.

Why it didn't do better.

posted 10 years ago by Blueghost
15 replies | jump to latest

Like I posted in the "IDIOTS!" thread, I think much of low grade feel of the film falls onto the limits of the technology at the time, the over simplification of the computer technology references, and how the plot unwinds.

It's a decently shot film, but there seems to be a desire to weave the subplots a little stronger into the film, than to flesh out the story of the Cold Warriors striving to get to the Titanic.

I think a better film could be made today with a few more flash backs, and perhaps an emphasis more on what the Soviets were after as well as the Americans. That, and maybe some better props in the military intel department...stuff that can match the very excellent lensing the film was treated to, but, because of a weakness in the presentation in regards to props and SFX, failed to reach its full potential.

Just my two bits.

[–] Sphinxara 10 years ago

Barely a penny of the mahoosive budget of this picture is seen on screen (with the actual raising a notable exception). It looked and felt like a TV movie (and I believe it was directed by a TV director) rather than a cinematic release.

I have gone back and read the earlier draft of the script from 1977 when Stanley Kramer was attached to the project (and which is the source of the "adaptation by Eric Hughes" credit) and it looks like the rumors about wanting Steve McQueen for Pitt at the time were true because Dirk Pitt, who in the novels is younger and bolder, is presented instead as a weary, introverted veteran of his 40s, the kind of role I'm sure would have suited McQueen fine at that point in time. When the script was rewritten again by Adam Kennedy this template for Pitt, totally at variance with the original Cussler version, remained. The earlier script drafts did try to make use of the hurricane element and higher tension with the Soviets at the climax. It's now apparent I think that so much money was blown in the F/X for the underwater searching and the raising that they didn't have any left to craft an effective action sequence during the hurricane. Remember also that what *was* shot, and not used in the final cut of the film was a lengthy 1912 prologue sequence of the sinking and the Brewster character locking himself in the vault (the F/X sequence of the sinking was ultimately seen in a 1982 episode of the TV series "Voyagers" which is available on DVD BTW) so that should also tell you how much more was being spent at the expense of some items that would have helped the final end product (also cut from the film incidentally was a final scene of Anne Archer talking with Pitt aboard the Titanic after it arrives in New York. A publicity still for this exists and its clear this was meant to tie up the loose end of her relationship with Seagram which in the film just comes to a dead stop).

So ultimately the film was jinxing itself with a wrong approach to the script in many ways, blowing the budget on areas it could have scaled back on a bit to save room for other areas, and I think hiring a TV director in Jerry Jameson (who seems to have gotten the job only because he did "Airport '77") who wasn't particularly skilled at handling the actors well didn't help either. Far too many of the dialogue scenes that remain just fall flat or are poorly paced.

I described you in terms which were glowing: which is exactly how I'd like to see you in hell

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

Huh, no wonder. Wow. Twas ego that killed this beast.

How interesting.

[–] TheGuyWithTheFeet 10 years ago

It didn't do better because the dialogue was awful, the movie looked awful, and the plot was incoherent after obvious cuts were made. A main character totally disappears 3/4 of the way through with no resolution to her storyline, for crying out loud!

The only 2 redeeming qualities about the movie are the score and special effects.

That being said, I watch this movie once every couple of months. It's a not-guilty pleasure no matter how bad it is.

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

I shrug at it. It's an okay movie for what it is. The romantic subplot didn't need to be. The "strategic map" prop was a joke, and the whole computer thing now is pase' because at the time the movie was made, computers were relatively big bulky things with little horsepower and stone-age like technology (computerwise at least).

I didn't like the model shots at all. I didn't like the sub coming up at the end, and always thought a buzz by a couple of F-14s or F-4 Phantoms would have been more dramatic.

Lots of tweaks to be made if it was reshot.

[–] TheGuyWithTheFeet 10 years ago

You know, it's really stupid for people to look down their nose at technology from the past. It's how we got to where we are. And in 30 years, you'll say again "Oh, those people in the 14s had really quaint technology." It wasn't stone-age technology. It was cutting edge for the time. Just like our phones and tablets and such are cutting edge now.

And why didn't you like the model shots? They were state of the art. And still hold up today. Certainly better than CG, which isn't bound by gravity and physics and subsequently looks fakey.

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

I grew up with computers. I build computers. In the 70s I was hammering the keys on teletypes and PET computers, I coded on the first Apples, and Apple clones before Apple closed the door on licensing its personal computer technology.

With that in mind, when I saw a Hollywood production of this film, and they had access to current computer technology, I shrugged. It was not a big deal.

What I'm pointing out is that if you're going to toss computers in there, then it better be as a prop or plot device, not as a dramatic device as was the case in the scene involving the navy Captain.

The spy scenes were good. The overall shot composition was good. I could not have done a better job with the actors nor the lighting. But if you're going to produce a film with elements of the US Navy and national defense, then you better know what you're talking about when you have the characters speak on screen.

[–] Unicorn-9 9 years ago

The fundamental problem was that they had to convert a doorstop of a novel into a two hour movie, and did so by cutting out most of the good parts, while writing new bad parts to fill the gaps. Aside from the intro and the actual raising sequence, the whole movie feels like they shot the parts they should have cut, and cut the parts they should have shot.

Plus, to me, 'Dirk Pitt' in the movie never felt like Dirk Pitt in the novels. I don't blame the actor for that, I'm sure it was more of a script and directing issue.

[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

That's interesting. What parts were cut?

[–] Unicorn-9 9 years ago

It's twenty years since I read the novel, but, for example, there was the whole sequence where the Russians took over the Titanic in the storm, which, in the movie, just becomes 'Look! Nuclear Submarine!' There was, obviously, the prologue on the Titanic, which I believe they partially shot and then cut. The sequence where they found the horn was quite different, etc.

It's about a 500 page book, so they had to toss out at least half of that to fit the movie in two hours. Whenever I watch it, I just think that, whenever I think of the book, I mostly think of scenes they cut for the movie.

BTW, I asked my girlfriend--who's quite a Cussler fan--whether the 'Dirk Pitt' in the movie reminded her of the Pitt in the books, and she agreed that he just didn't seem right. I think part of the problem is that he seems to go through the entire movie smirking all the time.

[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

That's interesting. To be honest I never thought much about the movie, but having a lot of knowledge about the navy, the US Sub surfacing, to me, seemed a little hokey. A couple of F4s or F14s doing a flyby would have been a lot better, coupled with some dialogue like "That's VF-20, Joker squadron off the Kennedy two-hundred miles south of here. Go ahead and mess with us mister Russky, if you dare." Followed by a smirk.

It would be interesting to see the entire novel put up on screen.

[–] arthurab 8 years ago

There was too much overacting in the film too. Idk if that's related to over direction-or not enough.

This is one of my guilty pleasure movies, so please don't think I hate it. My wife makes fun of me for liking and watching the film, tho she will quote it sometimes in humor ("the radar detector is going bananas!"). It's supposed to be a serious movie, but (what turned out to be lame effects) the plot is a mess, and the over acting finishes the film off, unfortunately.

I love the last scene, and the scenes with the Russians in it are more believable than the others, and the intro with all the pics is great. Personally, I don't care if the movie is a mess, I like the leads and their efforts (no, I never read the novels-I don't read fiction).

[–] arthurab 8 years ago

I guess my point is: Some movies aren't 'good' movies (e.g. 'Midnight Madness'), but it doesn't mean they aren't worth watching.

[–] Dantès 8 years ago

Aside from other factors, like slow development and mediocre acting, I'd say it didn't do well because it concentrates more on really boring Cold War motivations that just being a rousing adventure flick.

They should have made this like an aquatic Indiana Jones. Instead, it takes forever to even get to the ship and the motivations are not compelling at all.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16220) 3 years ago

The movie is just boring. But I think it came out too early for the story it was trying to tell.

Technology-wise I think this would look so much better in terms of underwater effects if it came out after The Abyss or The Hunt for Red October. The climactic 'raise the Titanic' moment is still a visual marvel though.

Casting was off too. Richard Jordan was miscast as Dirk Pitt, who should be a swaggering swashbuckling action hero. Not this middle aged bearded dude who barely gets involved in the action-however little there actually is.

John Barry's music is amazing though. It deserves a better movie.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 3 years ago

Technology-wise I think this would look so much better in terms of underwater effects if it came out after The Abyss or The Hunt for Red October. The climactic 'raise the Titanic' moment is still a visual marvel though.

The trouble with that though is by then the Titanic had been found (1985 it was discovered) and was not a whole ship as contrary to some reports it had broken in two on sinking.

Maybe if they made a movie called raise the Britannic.