Ken Marschall vs Simon Fisher breakup painting

[Dan Kappes]

Which painting of the Titanic splitting in two do you like better: Ken Marschall's or the one done by Simon Fisher, which is seen on the cover of The Mammoth Book of the Titanic?

The one by Fisher seems to show the third funnel splitting up into many pieces.

 

[Robert T. Paige]

(1) Ken Marschalll's shows the lighting (or lack of it) more realisticaly and is the more detailed.
(2) Simon Fisher's shows the ship too well lighted.
However, I believe the ship would have appeared much darker even than that shown in Ken Marschall's.
Just a dark silhouette against the starlit sky.

 

[Kyle Naber]

Visually, I like Ken’s better. It’s amazing how you can still identify pieces from within the ship as it basically explodes apart and machinery is thrown up into the air. It’s a really amazing scene. One simple thing I really love that he incorporated into it are the guy wires flying in all different directions as the decking beneath them is demolished. It really brings the feeling of motion and action into the piece.

However, it’s not to be considered accurate by today’s standards of how we believe the breakup occurred. Before the missing tower debris was really discussed, everyone assumed that the section between the third and the fourth funnels was shredded and torn apart (as shown in Ken’s painting). But through survivor testimony and forensics, we’ve discovered that the break was actually pretty clean-cut and not as chaotic as previously construed.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Ken Marschall's painting by a long way. While it may not be as accurate as present day evidence shows, IMO it is pretty close. With so many different types of structures on the deck and inside the bowels of the great liner, a break up is bound to have lots of debris, as depicted in the painting.

The one above, showing the port side of the ship, is the same one as appears in Don Lynch's book Titanic: An Illustrated History, illustrated by Marschall. But in Marschall's own cutaway book Inside The Titanic, the breakup painting shows the starboard side and a closer view of the break itself. With the submerged bow also partly seen, that painting IMO has even greater impact.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Here is Ken's painting with a small edit.

.

 

[SmileyGirl]

Which painting of the Titanic splitting in two do you like better: Ken Marschall's or the one done by Simon Fisher, which is seen on the cover of The Mammoth Book of the Titanic? View attachment 42653 View attachment 42654
The one by Fisher seems to show the third funnel splitting up into many pieces.

Ken Marschall will always be my favourite Titanic artist. His paintings are breathtaking.

 

[Jack Raby]

Ken Marshall's painting look so real and vivid. They're my all time favorites.

 

[Dan Kappes]

Did Ken Marschall edit his painting so it shows the breakup between and second and third funnels instead of the third and fourth? In the movie it's at the third and fourth.

 

[Kyle Naber]

No, that was Aaron’s work. I wonder if Ken will ever update his for real...

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Also, Aaron's edit shows the ship from the starboard side whereas the original shows the port side.

 

[SmileyGirl]

No, that was Aaron’s work. I wonder if Ken will ever update his for real...

Yes, why doesn’t Ken update this? Such beautiful pics though. I would have his paintings all over my house. But I guess they are very expensive

 

[Kyle Naber]

Probably for the same reason James Cameron doesn’t re-do his movie. He has a lot of commissions to work on I’m sure as well.

 

[SmileyGirl]

Yes, he must be busy of course

 

[Dan Kappes]

Yeah, I remember watching the documentary The Final Word with James Cameron on the Blu-Ray, and Cameron told Ken Marschall that he would have to re-do his painting to show the Titanic splitting in two at a shallower angle to reflect recent findings at the wreck site, and Ken didn't seen that enthused about it. I bet the movie would also be less dramatic if Cameron re-edited it to show the stern rising at a shallower angle, but in the 2012 miniseries, the shallow angle is seen effectively; albeit in the background of the scene.

 

[Kyle Naber]

I bet the movie would also be less dramatic if Cameron re-edited it to show the stern rising at a shallower angle, but in the 2012 miniseries, the shallow angle is seen effectively; albeit in the background of the scene.

I think you’d be able to make the final moments pretty dramatic with modern understandings of the sinking. The sudden list to port would be a scary shot from a first-person perspective.