Talk:Titanic (1997 film) - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 04:01, 14 December 2017 (→National Film Registry material in the lead?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:01, 14 December 2017 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) (→National Film Registry material in the lead?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Titanic (1997 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Titanic (1997 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 25, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
February 28, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
March 7, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 9, 2010	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 19, 2009.
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: Canadian / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Cinema High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Romance Top‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication:
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by David Rush, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 14 August 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2008-02-05

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Plot section.
Verify : Add more references. Anyone got James Camerons Titanic?
Other : This article will never be considered good if people keep adding a trivia section, rather than writing it properly in to relevant sections (Production, etc.). Many people who carelessly add trivia don't bother reading the rest of the article to see if it's already mentioned.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Barker, Martin; Austin, Thomas (2000). "Titanic: A Knight to Remember". From Antz To Titanic: Reinventing Film Analysis. Pluto Press. pp. 87–104. ISBN 0745315844.
Palmer, William J. (2009). "The New Historicist Films". The Films of the Nineties: The Decade of Spin. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 24–37. ISBN 0230613446.
Zizek, Slavoj (2001). "The Thing from Inner Space: Titanic and Deep Impact". In Gabbard, Glen O (ed.). Psychoanalysis and Film. International Journal of Psychoanalysis Key Paper Series. Karnac Books. ISBN 1855752751.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

20th anniversary re-release

First of all, I would like to apologize for my previous edit on this article from earlier today. I did not realize that it was adding soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Misplaced Pages. However, I'd also want to add that this upcoming re-release is also in 3D like the 2012 conversion. If it is all right, then could we add this information it to that section of the article? James Cameron also did say that this one week re-release has been remastered and it goes beyond 3D as well as 70mm. It has been reported on other major entertainment sources as well. Should this re-release be included in the article? If not, then I will move on from this discussion. And1987 (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly not spam so it should not have been reverted for that reason. Does it satisfy WP:DUE enough to be included in the article? It is hard to say at this moment. If the release is big enough for the box-office to increase then obviously that will need to be documented. If there are any 20th anniversary events tied to the release they may need to be documented. Personally I wouldn't have reverted your edit, although I can't convincingly argue it satisfies WP:DUE at this moment. Betty Logan (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Reese Witherspoon considered for the role of Rose

HenryBarnill, regarding this, it appears that you are going by this HuffPost source. But notice that it mentions many names and that we don't include all of those names? Also notice that the article states that the actresses (except for Kate Winslet) turned down the role? What source states that Witherspoon turned down the role? We should not include every actress that was considered for the role. At least the "turned down the role" aspect limits the number of actresses we can include. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with limiting the names to those actresses who were actually offered the role—as the following sentence implies they were—but none of the sources seem to corroborate that they turned it down. I admit I have only skimmed through the sources but which sources actually say the actresses were offered the part and turned it down? Betty Logan (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, the Entertainment Weekly source states, "The next step was getting stars attached to the film, but since Jack was 20 in the script and Rose 17, his options were limited. Looking for a Rose, described by Cameron as 'an Audrey Hepburn type,' he considered Gwyneth Paltrow, Claire Danes, and Gabrielle Anwar. For Jack--envisioned as a young Jimmy Stewart--the shortlist included Chris O'Donnell and Matthew McConaughey, though Cameron ultimately decided they were both too old."

Maybe he offered all of the women the role? Even if he simply considered them, I think we should stick with that short list. As for Claire Danes, her Misplaced Pages article has stated the following for sometime: "Later that year, it was reported that she turned down the female lead role in Titanic. Danes said that while she may have been considered for the part, she was never offered the role." The second sentence is unsourced. I will go ahead and remove that now, and I should have removed it in 2010; the "someone must have put it on wikipedia" part sounds so false. Also, she is said to have stated the following in a GQ interview in 2012: "I had just made a romantic epic with Leonardo – it just seemed redundant to me. The problem is that I always took myself too seriously. Now I realize I should have lightened up. I was a serious kid to an absurd degree. I was overwhelmed with responsibility, trying to play grown up. I overdid it." But this The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) source is questionable due to the paper's reputation. The Misplaced Pages article calls it a tabloid, but it is speaking of the format. Tabloid (newspaper format) is not the same thing as tabloid journalism. Still, the paper does not have the quality reputation that The Daily Telegraph does, and I can't find any good sources supporting this quote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Even if the names are retained, the bit about turning it down needs to be culled from the second sentence. I have no strong view on the inclusion of Witherspoon: she was in the right age range and in the process of breaking out at the time, so it would have been strange if she had not been considered. However, the line needs to be drawn somewhere and I think a sensible cut-off would be to stick to Cameron's shortlist. Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

National Film Registry material in the lead?

As seen with this edit, an editor added the National Film Registry material to the lead and I moved it down since, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. A little later, Fireflyfanboy added the material to the lead and I reverted, explaining that it's covered lower. Fireflyfanboy then reverted me, stating, "Most, if not all, NFR titles have reference to it in their intro paragraphs." I reverted again and noted that this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; I also pointed the editor to this talk page for discussion. Thoughts?

Yes, the content is now covered lower in the article and it being in the lead would no longer be a matter of having content in the lead that is not first covered lower, but the content lower in the article is a single sentence. Why should this bit be in the lead, given all of the other accomplishments the film has achieved but which are not noted in the lead? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And for the record, I like the idea of this being in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this boils down to "is a film being added to the NFR such a distinction that it merits being noted in the lead"? Personally, I have no idea, but it might be worth considering that this is, obviously, a United States-specific honor, so there might be some grounds for saying it's a bit of bias. DonIago (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There is literally so much precedence that this is a meaningless thing to be debating. Yes, OBVIOUSLY, the distinction is important enough that it merits being talked about in the intro paragraph, as is the case for LITERALLY EVERY OTHER NFR movie, from Citizen Kane to Top Gun. I will be removing the text from the "critical reception" section, and adding it to intro.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Done! Hope that resolves it! And for the recond, most articles don't mention it outside of the intro paragraph. Source: I've spent a lot of time editing articles for movies on the NPR.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, do stop WP:Edit warring on this. You need to discuss and achieve WP:Consensus on the matter. Not simply make a comment, which is yet another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and then re-add the material. You removed the content from lower in the article just so you could add it to the lead. That does not solve the issue; this is because, per WP:Lead, the material should not be in the lead if not also covered lower in the article. I will go ahead and query WP:Film about weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The NFR passage should definitely be mentioned in the article body if it is to go in the lead section at all. If other articles do not include it in the body, they need to be fixed. As for whether or not to mention in the lead section the selection for preservation (here or in general), I don't have a strong preference. I do see it plopped into the lead section a lot, but that does not necessarily mean it is a good practice. We should look at WP:LEAD and determine how the preservation matter fits the criteria for important information, especially since it is generally apart from the overview, production, and reception. Any ideas on how to reflect that the National Film Registry is a big enough deal to highlight? I know the NFR selects for preservation some lesser-known films, and mentioning that in their articles would be a highlight. Is the highlight any less warranted with a film like Titanic? Erik (talk | contrib) 21:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Guys, it literally feels like a mountain is being made out of a molehill right now. I did the edits for most every other NFR title announced today, and it was totally noncontroversial every time. The ones that had beaten me to it ALSO included it in intro sections. It's just the way things have been done. This is neither the time or place to discuss if this policy should be changed or modified, as Erik seems to want to do. You also can't cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when it's standard operating procedure AND it'd make Titanic the one exception to the rule. (That actually seems to run contrary to... a lot more WP: stuff than just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) I've had a bad week in terms of getting into nit-picky details with overzealous editors, so I would appreciate it if we could just let bygones be bygones. It is literally just this article that seems to have difficulty with including it in the intro...Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And for the record, this isn't worth querying WP:Film about. This is the absolute definition of a nit-pick, particularly in the face of SO MUCH precedence. In all my years for all my NFR editing work, Flyer22 Reborn is literally the only person to raise any kind of fuss. Flyer22 Reborn, please do what you have to do to make sure it's in the intro as quickly as possible. If that includes another mention later, fine. But this is getting absolutely ridiculous and becoming a waste of my time. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If you feel it's a waste of your time, nobody's forcing you to make these edits, but it is clear that while you may feel this is a minor issue, other editors do not, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an entirely valid concern in this instance. I am curious as to why you seem to be so resistant to having a genuine discussion as to whether this material belongs in the lead. DonIago (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

When you've edited as many intros for as many NFR titles as I have, and literally for every one of them except this one it's been a non-issue, something doesn't smell quite right.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, regarding this, why would you think that adding the content to the "Accolades" section resolves the issue when you still added the text to the lead and when the text being in the lead is contested here on the talk page? Right now, that piece in the lead, which you've given its own paragraph, sticks out like a sore thumb. It is WP:Undue. We are not trying to change the rules; we are trying to follow them. WP:Due is an important rule. And why do you think this text fits better in the "Accolades" section than in the "Critical reception" section? I thought about placing it in the "Accolades" section, but I decided against it because it is not an accolade. You need to learn how to collaborate with editors. What you have done with the latest revert of yours is make me want to take this issue to the MOS:FILM talk page, where there will be a significant change concerning the inclusion NFR material in the lead. What say you, Erik? MOS:FILM or a WP:RfC? It's clear that we have an editor here thinking that this bit is automatically supposed to go in the lead of our film articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I changed it. Jeez. I've done everything you've asked, obeyed every request. Christ, If this ever resulted in a change of policy for the entire NFR, I would quit editing Misplaced Pages all together. I'm so over this bureaucratic bullshit, and you can quote me on that.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, like I stated, "You need to learn how to collaborate with editors." It's not about doing everything that I have asked, and I haven't asked you to do anything anyway except discuss. You keep popping in on the talk page and making changes to the article as if that resolves anything. None of your edits, including the latest one, has resolved anything. Editors are trying to have a serious discussion, and you are being dismissive and doing what you want. You have made it so that the article is currently held hostage by you because reverting again would put me over WP:3RR. MOS:FILM is not a policy, by the way. Neither is WP:Lead. They are guidelines and they cover best practices. It is not best practice to have the NFR piece highlighted in the lead when it is not extensively covered lower. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, but it does have rules. WP:Due is a policy. If you don't want to follow the site's rules, you should not be editing here. And, yes, I will be taking this matter to MOS:FILM either today or tomorrow since the article is currently being dictated by you and you are not open to discussion. If you quit editing Misplaced Pages, we'll just have to manage without you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, abrasive much? You come off like a complete asshole dude. And your talk page is nothing but explaining your behavior is a result of the environment you grew up in...? Dude. Go outside. Read a book. Make friends. This shit doesn't matter this much. People like you ruin Misplaced Pages.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, you ask "abrasive much?" and yet you are the one cursing and throwing a temper tantrum. You are the one who has just engaged in a WP:Personal attack. As for my talk page, you have clearly misread what is at the top of it. And I think it's clear to many that I read books. As for ruining Misplaced Pages for you, Misplaced Pages is not your playground. And if "this shit doesn't matter this much," then why are edit warring over it and being so stubborn and dismissive? You can make your case at MOS:FILM, where I will ping you. I'm female, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think there is a fairly good case for including the NFR selection for preservation on a consistent basis. It tends to come off badly because of the editing approach of merely tacking it on (and not putting it anywhere in the article body, which is the worse practice). However, it does not need to be "extensively covered lower". It does need to be mentioned in the article body, but there is not really much more to say about it. A film that wins the Oscar for Best Picture may not always have more than a sentence in the article body saying so, and we would include that. Reading WP:LEAD, I think the NFR passage can count as part of "a summary of its most important contents", "cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article" (though more applicable for fleshed-out articles), and "summarize the most important points". MOS:INTRO says, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The challenge is that the selection for preservation is somewhat an afterthought to the production and contemporary reception. It's important, yet hard to place in a summary if it is not fleshed-out or lacks any other legacy-related content. Erik (talk | contrib) 00:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Erik, I'm taking this to MOS:FILM because the above editor thinks that NFR material should automatically go in the lead of our film articles. I disagree. As for "extensively covered lower," I don't see this as the same as a film winning an Oscar. It is but a single sentence covered lower, and is not something that is necessary for the lead. A film's Oscar reception should be in the lead. As for a Legacy section, the Commercial analysis section somewhat resembles one, but I haven't gotten around to making a Legacy section yet, partly because it will overlap with the Commercial analysis section, unless I arbitrarily divide the content into two different sections. And we certainly should not have a Legacy section that consists of one sentence (the NFR stuff). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Categories: