How famous was Titanic before the 1997 movie?

[Arun Vajpey]

When WW1 broke out the interest obviously waned. This was the case for the next 73 years as Titanic interest was up and down

Very true. While global events like the 2 World Wars and the Great Depression in between caused some waning of Titanic interest, the fact that it was never completely out of the public's mind is a legacy of the tragedy. There were films like Atlantic (1929) (clearly inspired by the tragedy) and the Nazi film Titanic (1943), Hollywood's 1953 version, of course ANTR and the 1979 TV film SOS Titanic. In between, the Titanic featured in other films, TV shows, The THS was formed. That could only have been due to a LOT of public interest at various stages. Then came the discovery of the wreck and the various things that followed from it, including the BTS and other Titanic societies that were all up and running by the time Cameron's film came out in 1997.

Therefore IMO, if one looks at the big picture, Cameron's film was just another cog that added to the interest and nothing more.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Therefore IMO, if one looks at the big picture, Cameron's film was just another cog that added to the interest and nothing more.

I do agree, however, it was a very big cog in that wheel because of how it popularized the event, for good or bad, over such a wide audience.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I do agree, however, it was a very big cog in that wheel because of how it popularized the event, for good or bad, over such a wide audience.

I fully agree but as to whether it was "good or bad" for the image of the Titanic depends upon one's perspective. IMO, for those like me who feel that the Titanic disaster was somehow a "special event" in history, then I would say that the 1997 film had a 'bad' influence over it with its cardboard characters and parallel romantic storyline. The "bigness" of the cog should not really be measured from the films commercial success, the awards it won, or even the so-called "public awareness" that followed. I have talked to a lot of people about the film in the past 25 years and many, who know me to be a Titanic enthusiast, have expressed surprise as to why I disliked it. By that and reading viewers' reviews, I realized that to an overwhelming majority of the people who saw and opined about Cameron's film, it represented little more than a slick, entertaining thriller with a lot of good special effects and a parallel romantic "boy meets girl" story to boot. Intricate details of the sort that we like to discuss and argue over hundreds of posts over here on ET like how far away the berg was when seen, the Titanic's turning maneuvers (actual and alternative), the anatomy of the damage, the flooding pattern and sequence, lifeboat launching sequence, flooding of BR4, the bending force on the keel during the sinking etc etc mean very little to the "general public" and they probably think we are a bit crazy to be thinking and calculating such "silly" things. How easy would it be to explain the significance of and so our interest in -say - QM Olliver's hurried walk from the Compass Platform to the bridge to one of the 'wider audience'?

If James Cameron's film was about a fictitious ship with exactly the same plot and script, I would have said that it was a very good and entertaining B-movie. But since it was supposedly about the Titanic, it meant something else altogether for me. Yes, I know that Cameron made the film for commercial reasons and knew very well that a lot of events in his script were fictitious, but IMO the fact that it was made of the 'wider audience' somehow diluted the ship's image on the eyes of a genuine aficionado. So, it is up to the individual to decide whether the influence of Cameron's 1997 film on the 'bigger picture' of the Titanic was good or bad.

 

[B-rad]

Speaking only for myself, my first exposer to the story was the discovery of the ship as I was just old enough to comprehend. Since then finding Titanic related material was hard, as there were only a few popular books readily available, and some documentaries, most of which did not offer much in the way of anything. Once the movie came out more content became readily available as if by magic and opened doors to me, as I was still young and did not understand how to obtain information as I do now. It was also nice that a topic which I enjoyed very much, was finally popular. I helped several of my classmates write papers for their english/history classes. As far as what people take from the 97 movie as being real or fake, I feel if they are truly interested they'd put in the effort to learn.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Speaking only for myself, my first exposer to the story was the discovery of the ship as I was just old enough to comprehend.

You make an important point there. The age group of many genuine Titanic aficionados is significant to the reason which made them so in the first place.

People now over 60 years of age like me were exposed to books, articles and films (even if they were re-runs with the latter) even when the interest in the Titanic was somewhat selective 'back then' and some of us took a deeper interest and followed-up the best way we could. So, eventually there emerged from that group a limited number of true enthusiasts, perhaps a few who were interested peripherally but the majority not really bothered.

Then there is the 'intermediate group' of 45+ people whose interest was triggered by the discovery of the wreck in 1985 and subsequent research and a change of outlook about the events involved in the disaster. This spawned more enthusiasts and perhaps a larger number of people with a passing interest.

But for those 35 years old now or younger, I accept that Cameron's film might have been the stimulus that triggered their interest in the Titanic. While many of them also went on to become true aficionados over time, the film also caught the imagination of the general public in a different way, at least partly IMO due to availability of the internet. The film also 'brought in' many previously uninterested parties from the previous two age groups, thus making it a worldwide event. But IMO the fact remains that with some exceptions, the majority of people - irrespective of their age - whose interest in the Titanic was triggered by Cameron's film tend to see the disaster through the eyes of Jack & Rose rather than in a more clinical, matter-of-fact manner.

 

[Gordon Mooneyhan]

The historical problem with the plot was that it was an anachronistic 1990's love story set in 1912.

With all due respect, it was a circa 1595 love story, a retelling of Romeo and Juliet, set on the Titanic. In fact, that was Cameron's "elevator pitch" for the movie.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

With all due respect, it was a circa 1595 love story

Do not concur, at least not in toto. Doomed forbidden loves, historically, are very old hat. But this one definately had a 1990's twist to it. Romeo and Juliet were both from noble houses.
Rose was from wealth however and Jack wasn't.
It makes sense in the context of fantasies contemporary to the 1990s but makes no sense in any other era.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

But this one definitely had a 1990's twist to it

Yep. The antics of Jack & Rose within the Renault were probably too 'modern' even for 1912, let alone 1595.

 

[Sally Rios]

It was familiar enough to the public to be a small segment of the 1933 movie 'Cavalcade," and that bit was quoted/parodied in 1981's "Time Bandits."

 

[Samuel Halpern]

In the 1960s it was in the back of a Chevy.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

In the 1960s it was in the back of a Chevy.

I guess that there was more room in the back of an early 1960s Chevy.

Not being ageist or anything, but don't you think Rose would have been a bit on the older side for that sort of thing 50 years down the line?

 

[Steven Christian]

In the 1960s it was in the back of a Chevy.

Yes. Back when "safe sex" meant you made sure the parking brake was on.

 

[InkMot]

Good evening everyone,

I personally only know about the Titanic through the 1997 movie which I grew up watching. Most people from my generation only know the titanic movie, a lot of my peers can’t even tell which year the ship sank or which parts of the movie are real or fake (many kids thinking rose and jack existed, that the titanic is entirely fictional etc..)

Even my mother only knew about the titanic through the movie when she watched it in the 2000s (might be cause she grew up mostly without western tv and mostly lebanese movies…)


So my question is to those who actually were old enough in the 90s to know: was the titanic already a household name before the 1997 movie or was its history rather insignificant and only a small community of educated people knew about the titanic before the movie release? I wonder if the movie never existed, if I would have even known about it at all.

I’d be interested to know

This fascinates me. I recall my reaction when I heard that Cameron was making this movie: “What? ANOTHER Titanic movie? Sheez.“ I felt that the topic had been beaten into the ground. it was such an over-used story and I couldn’t imagine how they’d make this version different. Well, I was wrong. I sat in the theater with my wife and I was blown away by the effort that was put in to the detail on the ship. They’d have small things correct, like the actual engine or the correct deck fixtures and I couldn’t stop pointing that out to my wife. “Look at the door to the 1st Class Dining Room! That’s exactly right!” We’re still married, btw, which is quite kind of her.

My point is that the Titanic was huge when I was a kid in the ‘70s. There were several movies in circulation. In fact, a boy at summer camp walked us, scene by scene, through “A Night to Remember”. One day, while having milk and cookies at my Cub Scout Den meeting, we were sinking the cookies in the milk saying, “It’s the Titanic!”. The ship was just a part of the cultural fabric. Many people I knew went through a Titanic Phase, especially me. I checked out every book on the Titanic that I could from every library I had access to. There was even a super 8 film that had footage of launching and the departure on her first voyage. The Revell Titanic model was very popular in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Several of my friends built it (I never finished mine.)

My guess is that you’ll find that the popularity of the Titanic stretches over a century, with ebbs and flows of interest. I imagine that it fell from thought during WW2, but it was back in the public mind in the 1950s when Walter Lord’s book and movie came out. Clive Cusler’s “Raise The Titanic” book was a best-seller in the ’70s and the subsequent movie was a big deal. And, of course, the discovery of the wreck in 1986 launched a whole new Titanic frenzy that seems to have inspired Cameron’s movie. So, welcome to a long legacy of Titanic obsessors, my friend!

 

[Seumas]

There was even a super 8 film that had footage of launching and the departure on her first voyage.

There is unfortunately no extant footage of the Titanic's launch or departure from either Belfast Lough or Southampton. There is only a brief bit of footage of the Titanic in the graving dock as she neared completion.

A lot of Titanic documentaries often use footage of the Olympic or the Lusitania leaving New York to portray the Titanic. ANTR used stock footage of the Queen Elizabeth's launch at John Brown and Co of Clydebank in the opening scene depicting Titanic's launch. Those are probably what you actually saw.

A film was taken of the Titanic's launch by a Belfast cinematograph firm but it sadly has been lost for decades. Thankfully newsreel film of the Olympic and the Britannic's launches do however survive.

Second class passenger William Harbeck, a professional cinematographer, was observed by Lawrence Beesley filming the departure from Southampton and the New York incident but of course his film went down the ship and Harbeck sadly lost his own life too.

 

[Magnar Vikoeren]

Good evening everyone,

I personally only know about the Titanic through the 1997 movie which I grew up watching. Most people from my generation only know the titanic movie, a lot of my peers can’t even tell which year the ship sank or which parts of the movie are real or fake (many kids thinking rose and jack existed, that the titanic is entirely fictional etc..)

I was 10 in 1988 as my father bought me the Swedish book "Titanic" by Clas-Göran Wetterström, a very informative book about all the Nordic passengers on the ship. Despite my age I had already been through the Norwegian edition of ANTR, so my interest in Titanic started years before the 1997 movie. Both my father and my grandmother told me stories about the ship, and about the Lusitania and the Andrea Doria as well. My guess is that at least in Scandinavia the Titanic disaster was common knowledge.