....during the sinking. The way it split, the ship was no more than 15 degrees out of the water when it split, compared to the Cameron version which was totally dramatised and sensationalised, whilst still being entertaining.
"I never miss"
Well yes, it's easy to get things like that right when more facts have come to light. As for the actual sinking, I couldn't even make it out.
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.
If you watch the ship in the background, you will notice that it keels over to port for a moment. I thought it was a nice touch when Mario finally looked back to see the stern rising into the air.
shareI actually thought that was effective. With the Cameron version, even when the ship loses power, it's still lit and you can see detail. Showing the break up and the sinking from the POV of the people by the collapsible, although obscured, worked IMHO.
Granted, this production didn't have Cameron's budget, the sinking still resonated. That being said, why they cut to commercial halfway through the sinking is beyond me.
Having watched the UK episode, they cut to commercial break after the forward funnel toppled onto Astor and Widener. Since scenes were removed in the US and Canadian broadcast, they had to make time for the timeslot.
shareCameron version which was totally dramatised and sensationalised, whilst still being entertaining.
Really? Like most Titanic films, the heavy listing during the sinking didn't appear. The only time I recall seeing Titanic depicted as listing while the boats were being lowered is in the deleted scenes of Raise the Titanic!
sharePlease see here:
http://marconigraph.com/titanic/breakup/mgy_breakup.html
And here:
http://www.paullee.com/titanic/sinking.php
Also, read the books “Report on the Loss of the SS Titanic: A Centennial Reappraisal” by Samuel Halpern et all, and “On a Sea of Glass” by J. Kent Layton.
All of them examine the break up from an in depth forensic perspective and by gathering together eyewitness accounts of the sinking. All 4 demonstrate that the low angle break up theory does not hold up to scrutiny. Parks Stephenson was even on the same History Channel expedition as Roger Long, who first proposed the low angle break up theory. If you watch the documentary, Stephenson starts to refute Long’s theory after Long presents it, but gets cut off by the narrator.
It seems to me that the History Channel wanted something controversial to promote their show to audiences, so they went with the low angle break up theory, despite all the contradictory evidence.
After you have read through the sources above, please get back to me.