okay kids, to get back on topic.... Although the points you brought up make good points, they're not really movie blunders. If you think about it, just about everything in the movie isn't real, so the paintings aren't really a blunder.. they were really just used to emphasize how rich she was compared to Jack. (Kind of like the neckalce, which isn't even a real neckalce, just something to show he comes from money)
And about the plates and fine china, those cupboards actually had doors over them, so they wouldn't have been open like that in the first place, and secondly, and I don't know why they are still in place, but in the documentary that just recenly aired on the Discovery Channel, some of the plates are still in place in the cupboards of the first class areas. (Probably due to the doors that managed to stay intact during the sinking because you could see some of the remains of wehre they were but had been eaten away from being underwater for so long)

A REAL movie blunder would be when Jack referred to the lake he went icefishing on as a kid.. it was a man made lake made like 6 years AFTER the sinking.

In a side veiw of the ship, I forget what exact scence, but in one of them, all 4 smoke stacks are seen with smoke coming from them, when in fact only 3 were working smokestacks.

In the scene when Jack is going to dinner with Cal and Rose, and he's at the bottom of the grand staircase and looks up and sees Cal and Ruth coming down hand in hand, and Rose behind them... it'll go to a shot of all of them, then to Jack as someone walks by him, but behind him, where Ruth and everyone should be, there is noone.

There's actually alot of those mistakes... someone holding something in one hand in one frame, and in the next the other hand... standing this way in one frame, and another way in another frame.

Also, when Rose was talking about Freud's preoccupation with size in the Parisian Cafe, Freud didn't publish his findings on that subject until 1920, when up until that point, he based his data mostly on females, not males.

When the Carpathia docks in New York, and Rose looks at the Statue of Liberty, it's green, when if you go actually see it, it has a plaque on it saying it was originally brown (due to the material it's made of) and having been errected in 1886, in 1912 it would have still been a little brown if the plaque says it took over 35 years for it to turn totally green. Not to mention that the original flame she held was replaced with a gold flame in 1986, to commemorate her 100th anniversary.... in the movie the gold flame is shown, not the original one.

Oh, and let's not forget in inprobability of Jack even getitng into first class areas to start this whole fictional movie! Classes were seperated to guard agasint health risks, thus him getting into first class areas would have ben completely impossbile.

Was this enough mistakes? For more, go to moviemistakes.com

:)

thanks for that nosierosie thats very interesting

but why is there a poll up top but with only one option, kinda pointless don't you ppl think, you know everyone is going to vote for that.

Quote:


Well that is not entirely true. Though i can see why many think this, yes the Fourth smoke stack was there for cosmetic purposes. However, this funnel also vented off some smoke from the boiler room (not the boilers themselfs), so therefore some smoke would always be coming from it, as smoke comes out from where coal is being shuveled, its sucked up and passed into the fourth funnel. It was also used to vent off bad smells and things like that in first class areas, and was also used to store things, I cant remember what exactly.

check mate, big bell comes along broad as he is.

1. I didn't make a poll, so it wasn't me.

2. Very good points Bell, I did know this about the smokestack. However, in the movie, the smoke shown coming from it was just as thick, heavy and black as those coming from the other 3, suggesting it WAS used for for the same purpose as the other 3. In real life photos of it, the smoke shown coiming out of the 4th one was lighter, not as black and thick as the others, obviously, becuase it was only used as ventilation.

3. It stored deck chairs, if I recall it correctly.

I thought the paintings were on loan from a museum for Cameron's movie...

Jessica

I very highly doubt a museum would lend a real Picasso to the movie... knowing they were going to put them underwater, as they did in the sinking scenes. Now, if that was digitally done, and the paintings just had to sit there... maybe.
There are a lot of canvas versions of real paintings out there, that look exactly like the real thing and everything.

Obviously any shots of a paintting being underwater would be a re-production, any scene before like before the ships comes into cherborge where cal says 'he wont amount to a thing' perhaps that was the real ones.

It would be silly to think cameron was going to destroy the REAL paintings, though why not just use re-productions through out would make more sence i think. It seems like a waste of time if you ask me, gettin the real ones in, you cant really tell a fake from a real one on camera.