For me, being the son of a carpenter, I believe the set builders were the unsung masters of this masterpiece. Even though set design was obviously important, their implementation of that set design so beautifully and astonishingly realistically needs to be recognized. The skill of a carpenter to build those sets the way they were built is unimaginable to those who can barely use a hammer.
I think it is his best film. He put his heart and soul into every frame, every inch of the production. It is one of the most impressive displays of cinema and a masterpiece.
And really if you think about it, kinda his last, I mean he only released 2 films in almost the next 30 years! (Avatar) and it ain't that hot not bad but I think he pushed cinema and his limits here, so it Took him 30 years to push it further
you'll never see a movie like this ever again with giant sets, amazing miniatures and insane level to detail, he used every trick in the book from building an almost 1:1 scale Titanic, he also used forced perspective, models and CGI and like Cameron says "Never use the same trick twice."
What about Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor? I mean, it is not a good movie, but it felt like that movie was trying to copy Titanic. Now, I haven't seen Pearl Harbor in years, but it seemed like Bay tried to make an epic movie in the vein of Titanic, don't remember how it looked Ironically, Bay recently mentioned that he's against the use of IA, while Cameron also recently mentioned that he is excited about how IA could help him and his team in his next movies
I think James Cameron unironically set the standard for how modern films look and feel with Terminator: Judgment Day and TItanic. Both of these movies still look like they were made today.
@@sorryi6685 Jaws looks like a 70s film. A New Hope looks better. ET looks like a muppet movie. Jurassic Park looks like a 90s film anyways. So they all look like the decade they were made in.
I saw this in theaters when it came out, when I was about 7 or 8 years old. Long enough ago the theater I saw it in isn't there anymore! You felt transported back in time for the whole 2 to 3 hour run time. I've remained obsessed with it ever since. I wish someone would make movies like this again, and stop with the Marvel Green Screen spectaculars. And it's weird cause, at the time (1997), it felt like you were seeing the dawn of a new era of unbelievable realism and spectacle in cinema. But really we were seeing theater-based cinema reach a peak that it hasn't returned to since.
I’d argue that the Return of the King and Master and Commander were the last of the “they don’t make them like that anymore” type movies. Both came out in 2003.
One of Cameron's best skills is in the curation of effects: knowing when, whether and how to use CGI/miniatures/etc. and then assembling them all seamlessly. With the exception of maybe one shot (the overhead tracking shot with iffy digital doubles), it's all aged perfectly.
The surprising fact is that the 3D version is the "fake 3D" that looks so crap in most 3D-converted movies, but in Titanic, it was perfection. Between this conversion and Avatar mixing real 3D filming with CGI, nobody can do 3D like James Cameron.
I LOVE this movie so much from both a story and filmmaking perspective. Implementing sparse CGI alongside practical effects always gives the best sense of realism to a scene. You can push the boundaries of reality without looking completely cartoonish. And even the worst shots in the film hold up so well after all this time. This movie honestly trumps any movie that came after it that implemented CGI for the action scenes. Fully CGI shots just does not translate as realistically as what James Cameron’s VFX team did for Titanic. For 1997, it was revolutionary. And by today’s standards, those effects aged like a fine wine in a majority of the shots
I wish I could have seen it in theaters, but I was only just 4 years old when the movie came out and my parents never went to the movies. I know that Titanic has been re-issued a couple of times, but I don't live in the U.S. and I think Disney (who now owns the international distribution rights) only re-released it in a couple of countries back in 2023.
Request: could you do a video about why US produced shows like Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, True Detective etc. look incredible, but when they try to do the same thing here in Britain with shows like Killing Eve, Doctor Who, Vikings etc. they look small and cheap? Obviously the main difference is budget, but wether it’s composition, editing, writing for sure, performances etc they always end up looking and feeling basic and boring with lacklustre kitchen sink storytelling that simply with an American team would look, sound and feel so much better? It’s not just huge budget, golden age of TV stuff, regular day time tv, dramas and soaps etc all look and feel worse, even when the storytelling is good in something like Criminal: UK. If they remade House of Cards here for example, it would look and feel like a cheap knockoff. I would love to get your take on that.
I think it's more that there's been a deterioration in British TV in production, writing and acting. One of the biggest visual declines came when they shifted from filming on 35mm to video and then digital. Ironically House of Cards itself is a remake of a British series. The original still looks great due to it being 35mm, plus the excellent writing and acting. Lots of those older series from the 80s still look great from the early series of Suchet's Poirot to Brett's Holmes. Even going back to the 60s with The Avengers, weird stories, great acting and all filmed on 35mm.
U.S. studios have developed a full production ecosystem that can make things look slick, from the lighting and set design to complex VFX pipelines. British TV budgets are typically smaller, not just because of the market size but also due to a different expectation of what "high quality" should look like. British TV often leans more heavily into nuanced character study and social realism, whereas American TV-even when it's complex-tends to go big on spectacle and high drama. This difference can make British shows feel "smaller" or less intense in scope. So, a series like Mad Men or Breaking Bad is designed to feel both intimate and grand, with each frame crafted to match the depth of the story. Meanwhile, a British series like Criminal: UK might focus on pared-back, dialogue-driven scenes in realistic settings, which can come across as minimalist or "plain" rather than cinematic. The craftsmanship side is huge, especially for things like cinematography, editing, and sound design. American studios train and prioritize specialists who know how to make TV look cinematic, while British productions, even high-end ones, tend to be more conservative. A British editor might be great at pacing a realistic drama but wouldn’t necessarily have the same cinematic flair as a Hollywood editor who’s used to working on fast-paced dramas. Also, in the U.S., top-tier actors often bounce between film and TV, especially in the last decade or two.
The irony is that many "American" productions are peopled by significant numbers of British technicians. The UK is home to most TV and movie studio space in the world after Hollywood. Kubrick made all his later films here. Look at the influence of Deakins and Douglas Slocombe in cinematography as but one example. Often it is about budgets not talent. Where do you think much of the SFX come from? The UK is a powerhouse of SFX and VFX. Netflix pools its vast budgets from UK, US and global users: ITV, BBC, etc do not have this option. Besides, only a small amount of US TV makes it in Europe: you cannot use the cream of US TV as if it were the average. I'm certain there are tonnes of lacklustre US TV content. And if, after all of that, you remain unconvinced, then note that the production designer of this beautiful looking film was the late Peter Lamont, a Brit.
Sorry but an average British tv episode can be better than a lot of American shows. The writing of Brits is top tier. Id rather have a good underrated show. Youre also talking about the best shows in the world, which is often a joint venture between British and America and other European and international productions.
It was a corny but somehow wonderful thing when the audience I was with on its opening day sat in stunned, crying silence for a few seconds after it ended then burst into applause. No filmmakers there, no critics, just a crowd moved by the story. That ending, with Rose's life in pictures as she died, was majestic.
Another reason is because it was Cameron’s last movie shot on FILM. Nothing translates like it. Unfortunately, after that movie Cameron went to a complete different and new path with digital
Speaking about film stock, I think Cameron mentioned he switched to digital film due to some issues with Titanic problems in movie theaters. I've read that, since the movie was over 3 hours, it had some problems fitting into some movie projectors and since it was so popular and stayed on movie theaters for almost a year after it was released, plenty of its prints deteriorated and plenty of movie theaters had screening issues. With digital cinema you don't have to worry about film deterioration
@@pablocasas5906 My point is on shooting on Film, not projecting. I'm ok with high class DLP Projection, but it's important for getting into the illusion/movie magic to shoot on Film, shooting on digital just looks dead, just video. I've seen Titanic in 3D in a Dolby Cinema with class leading black levels etc. last Year, absolutely amazing
@@mixdown78 thanks for the explanation. I'm not a huge expert on how movie making works, but I've heard that various directors made the jump to digital filming when the technology became available, like how George Lucas filmed Star Wars Ep. II and III digitally, despite the Phantom Menace being shot on film, though I can see that Ep. I looks much better, though I think the Sequel Trilogy was shot on film, in order to look more like the Original Trilogy. Robert Rodríguez is another director that embraced digital film, I think he joked that if he had digital cameras when he filmed El Mariachi he could have made the movie with $70 instead of $7000 I know that there are directors that don't like digital film, like Quentin Tarantino
@@pablocasas5906 the topic is of course highly subjective and personal taste. We are getting in philosophy territory here too;) Let’s don’t care about what directors say for the moment. The convenience and advantages digital brings, like instant control, no development, no physical work on the medium etc. all let where we are today…. For many reasons, the best days of movie making are in the past. We have learned that giving the people more possibilities and convenience did not improve movies. Photochemical film does have very unique characteristics, which does not have an advantage sometimes either, but it creates a very unique and artwork look, like a moving painting. The color formula is the result from 100 years of development and is fix, you can’t do anything wrong, you have the same effect in photography too. Since the existence of digital, it’s all about copying film, millions are made of try and promises to copy film, from start to end, digital has no soul and no character, it’s always interpretations, new interpretations and tryouts. Film is a lifetime achievement. some directors like Nolan, Tarantino, Thomas Anderson, Lantimos and more know that. Both tech technologies have their reasons for existence if you ask me
@@purefoldnz3070 it seems that makes Titanic the ninth most expensive film of all time, even adjusted for inflation. The most expensive film is apparently The Force Awakens
@@purefoldnz3070 well, leaving aside The Force Awakens' quality, I actually didn't know that it was the most expensive movie ever made. It has some nice shots and JJ Abrams actually shot on location and used actual film stock instead of digital, and while it looks much better than the CGI/Blue-Green fests that were Ep. II and III, I'd say that Ep. VII lacks a lot of visual identity and it's very interesting when you re-watch it, unlike Titanic where you can see tons of fine details. Though if we mention Cameron again I'd say Avatar 1 and 2 don't look as interesting as his previous movies, the effects are amazing, especially if you watch it in 3D, but even then know that the majority is done with computers and while impressive, it's not very visually interesting, especially due to the fact that the majority of characters are actors/actresses in mo-cap
All of it, the nostalgia, the beautiful aethestics of the film from the visuals the sound mixing and soundtrack are what make this movie so memorable. It's $200 million dollar eye and ear candy.
2:00 I sort of doubt that they worked with the original shipbuilders. Even if they were only 18 years old when the Titanic launched in 1912, that would make them 103 when the film was made. Maybe they worked with shipbuilders of somewhat similar ships made later, but the implication here seems to be that they worked with the builders of the Titanic, which seems incredibly unlikely.
@@wesleyzimmerman6093 that's correct, the people at Harland and Wolff even showed Cameron and his team never before seen photos and documents about the Titanic
Saw it on Oculus Rift in 3D one time through a 3rd party. It looked like you were in the water and everything was coming down around you, it was so insanely cool. Wish they'd just make an app for 3D rendered movies to buy/rent. Totally different experience than my previous viewing of this film.
For me this movie will be forever a masterpiece a classic because of the absolute work went into creating this. Seriously the amount of amazing special effects is so AMAZING nowadays movies just use CGI :/
Another aspect that you neglected to mention is that the look of the film was largely based on the artwork of maritime painter Ken Marschall. He had famously been painting the Titanic and other ships since the 1960s and was often a consultant for other Titanic movies and the go to artist for books and magazines on the subject, even crafting the first illustrations of the wreck sites right after it was discovered, and doing a remarkable job with what he had to work with. No one knows the ship better than he. His artwork became the ideal vision for the Titanic when sinking, and Cameron even used one of his paintings when pitching the film to executives. He laid down a book with an illustration and said: "Romeo and Juliet on that ship." Marschall's paintings are very detailed and sharp, and Ken makes sure to have even the most insignificant details visible to the naked eye. So when making the film, Cameron specifically wanted to recreate many of Marschalls paintings, matching the angles and lighting to match them and their aura. Marschalls work was their roadmap, and Cameron simply translated it through a cinematic language.
Thank goodness it was made in 1997 and they actually built a huge ass ship. I shudder to think of how it would have ended up if it were made today and is still one of my favorite movies of all time. Now we just need a movie about Lusitania made with all the modern toys cinema has now 😁
Doubt anyone would dare to make a new big-budgeted Titanic movie, it'll obviously would have more CGI, but I actually think it could look amazing in the rights hands. One of the biggest struggles James had was filming the sinking and flooding scenes, and I mean the fact that people were in actual danger of drowning. And making miniature physical replica of the Titanic would perhaps may be easier with the new advancements in technology, like 3D printing We also have new information and more solid information on how the Titanic sank, in fact Cameron jokingly said that he should reshoot the sinking because it is believe the ship split in a different way how he depicted it, the ship was partially submerged when it split
I don’t get the anti-Titanic criticism especially in the early 2000’s with the first retrospectives. Yes, there were other Best Picture nominees that year. But the BP award definitely needs to go both to artistic expression AND monumental achievements (think LoTRs in 2004 which many felt was earned for the trilogy as a whole which deserved it.) No one can deny the monumental achievement that Cameron accomplished with all of the artists he worked with.
This film is the reason why studios need to let the filmmakers get on with their jobs instead of interfering! After all, you don't get a bank tell you what house to buy, they just lend you the money.
I'm not the biggest fan of this movie. But it's wild this movie was released back in 1997, and looks like a billion times better than the Star Wars prequels. Despite it being released two years earlier than Phantom Menace.
Just about all of the underwater shipwreck scenes were shot with miniatures. To my understanding, the only actual underwater wreck footage in the movie is the grainy stuff the characters see on their screens.
Perhaps they'll reissue it on its 30th anniversary in 2027, Paramount (in the U.S) and Disney (internationally) re-released it a couple of years ago for its 25th anniversary, and back in 2012 it was re-released to "commemorate" the sinking of the real RMS Titanic
We went to see it and it was a disappointment. Not the movie itself, that’s timeless but our screen was one of those smaller ones that’s just not the same, and the sound was so low we were struggling to hear it, cap it off with two girls constantly talking throughout despite being told to shut up left me seething. Watched it again at home recently and was a much better experience
Thank you for sharing this. I truly appreciate all of the research you did to find all of these small overlooked technical details. Lol, the ending of this video made me chuckle with the mentions of Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" and Enya's "Orinoco Flow".
If I was going to compare Cameron to a couple of Hollywood's golden era directors it would be William Wyler and Cecil B Demille. The attention to the most minute details for the action shots and the multiple takes to get the best performance by the actors and actresses.
I watched it recently for first time in many years and the CGI when Murdoch walks onto the ship before Jack does his “I’m king of the world” is so hilarious. He’s just this little computerised man. And when they do the sweeping shots of the deck you can tell how fake the ppl are now. But it’s still looks freaking fantastic overall
@@mondodimotori of course you can, but most digitally shot movies look like crap to me. Everything is made of alien metal and glass shards. So it must be my taste that's wrong.
This video make it seem like underwater scenes were filmed on a Titanic wreck. But only vhs quality bits were shot there. 35mm footage was filmed on set. You can't take a film camera at that depth.
Actually they did take a 35mm film camera down to Titanic. If you want to see it for yourself the making of documentary 'The Heart Of The Ocean' has a shot of the film being loaded
@@Skrenja It would be expensive and dangerous. Plus you can't put a boat with a camera inside the wreck. All these scenes were done inside a water tank.
Around 5:12 mins in you say Titanic was shot in 7 months and most movies are shot in a month? So not the case. Maybe most Indy movies are shot in a month and Tyler Perry can shoot a movie in 10 days Lol. But most studio movies and big budget films shoot for 2-3 months on average.
It was the first to reach a billion dollars in revenue and has been the top grossing film ever only to be surpassed by Avatar more than a decade later. A movie by the same guy.
The only scenes that I found scary when I watched Titanic as a kid back in the early 2000s where the beginning of the film when the submarines explored the wreck, Cameron really captured the feel of a ghost ship. Then there were the scenes where Rose rescued Jack and they had to navigate in the sinking ship, there's a lot of claustrophobic scenes, water rising, they almost drown and got electrocuted, it was more scary than when they were outside the sinking ship, at least to me, like it was worse drowning inside the ship than outside it
I agree, even in this video you can see some examples of it. But I feel like Cameron is able to keep your attention to a point where the bad CGI doesn't detract, unlike alot modern movies where the CGI is so much of the film and when it's bad you can see nothing else. I'm also glad that he hasn't done a Lucas and 'updated' Titanic with new CGI, he knows when to leave well enough alone.
The main characters are horrible people. They steal peoples drinks in that dance scene down in 3rd class. Jack later steals someone’s coat to sneak into 1st class. He bypassed the inspection cue when boarding the ship putting people health at risk considering he’s homeless and filthy. They both snuck into a very expensive car to have sex in it. Also let’s keep in mind that Rose went on to live a full life having children and grandchildren and still at the end of her life her “true love” was the bum she met for 3 days on the titanic. Then she throws the diamond which is a historical artifact into the ocean.
It looks better than most movies made in the last 20 years mainly cause it was at the peak of combing practical and digital before everything became more digital and CGI.
The synthesizer choir when the ship is first setting sail was real cheap for such an expensive film and the CGI from the same section has aged poorly too.
Your figures look a bit exaggerated... and you know what? I watched this on the big screen, but to this day! I still regret that I didn't pay to enter the neighboring room on the cinema that was screening Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
Yeah, the movie did have great visuals but it was an awful movie that made me resent a new female friend for urging my wife and I to see it. We later discovered that this new friend was one of those who lacks logical & moral discernment and operates purely on feelings.
I rhink you missed that some underwater scenes are actually miniatures that are seamlessly cut with real underwater scenes and no one can tell between the real and the miniatures.
For me, being the son of a carpenter, I believe the set builders were the unsung masters of this masterpiece. Even though set design was obviously important, their implementation of that set design so beautifully and astonishingly realistically needs to be recognized. The skill of a carpenter to build those sets the way they were built is unimaginable to those who can barely use a hammer.
The Art Department as always the under appreciated hero
I think it is his best film. He put his heart and soul into every frame, every inch of the production. It is one of the most impressive displays of cinema and a masterpiece.
And really if you think about it, kinda his last, I mean he only released 2 films in almost the next 30 years! (Avatar) and it ain't that hot not bad but I think he pushed cinema and his limits here, so it Took him 30 years to push it further
Have you seen The Abyss?
@@thischannelisdeleted yea fool. In the early 90s!this is late 90s!
It is everybody's best film, the best film ever
you'll never see a movie like this ever again with giant sets, amazing miniatures and insane level to detail, he used every trick in the book from building an almost 1:1 scale Titanic, he also used forced perspective, models and CGI and like Cameron says "Never use the same trick twice."
Never is a strong word. Movies are here to stay for thousands of years so yes you’ll see many movies like this. Even better ones
yeah like Mission Impossible 6,7,8. Gladiator (came out after titanic), the Patriot? I'm not sure what you mean by never.
@@georgeallman102 how do you compare Mission Impossible to Titanic?
What about Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor? I mean, it is not a good movie, but it felt like that movie was trying to copy Titanic. Now, I haven't seen Pearl Harbor in years, but it seemed like Bay tried to make an epic movie in the vein of Titanic, don't remember how it looked
Ironically, Bay recently mentioned that he's against the use of IA, while Cameron also recently mentioned that he is excited about how IA could help him and his team in his next movies
I think James Cameron unironically set the standard for how modern films look and feel with Terminator: Judgment Day and TItanic. Both of these movies still look like they were made today.
He set a standard for himself which he never beat either.
I think it's Spielberg that set standard for modern Blockbusters with movies like Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park
@@sorryi6685 Jaws looks like a 70s film. A New Hope looks better. ET looks like a muppet movie. Jurassic Park looks like a 90s film anyways. So they all look like the decade they were made in.
Agree 100%
@@sorryi6685 Jaws was THE FIRST Summer Blockbuster! His films are some of my favorites! Spielberg and Cameron are on another level!
I always go to see Titanic when it gets replayed in theatres :)
me too
so twice in total since 1997?
Does it?! I would love to see it again at the cinema
until now it still makes me cry. it's so beautiful.
I think Titanic was the first movie that made me cried when I watched for the first time as a kid, I think it was either Titanic or E.T.
I saw this in theaters when it came out, when I was about 7 or 8 years old. Long enough ago the theater I saw it in isn't there anymore! You felt transported back in time for the whole 2 to 3 hour run time. I've remained obsessed with it ever since. I wish someone would make movies like this again, and stop with the Marvel Green Screen spectaculars.
And it's weird cause, at the time (1997), it felt like you were seeing the dawn of a new era of unbelievable realism and spectacle in cinema. But really we were seeing theater-based cinema reach a peak that it hasn't returned to since.
I’d argue that the Return of the King and Master and Commander were the last of the “they don’t make them like that anymore” type movies. Both came out in 2003.
One of Cameron's best skills is in the curation of effects: knowing when, whether and how to use CGI/miniatures/etc. and then assembling them all seamlessly. With the exception of maybe one shot (the overhead tracking shot with iffy digital doubles), it's all aged perfectly.
Yes went to see in in 3D a couple of years ago and it looks incredible. James Cameron is a genius
it was remastered in 3d in 2012, not a few years ago. it was remastered in 4k and 60fps in 2023. get your dates right
@@BlackpowderBBQyou must be fun at parties
@@BlackpowderBBQThey were talking about when they watched it, not when the remaster came out. What kind of needlessly salty comment it this lmao
The surprising fact is that the 3D version is the "fake 3D" that looks so crap in most 3D-converted movies, but in Titanic, it was perfection. Between this conversion and Avatar mixing real 3D filming with CGI, nobody can do 3D like James Cameron.
@@BlackpowderBBQit's not 60fps, it's HDR
Hollywood will never make a movie like this ever again. This is still my most favourite and I'm sure it's not going to change ever.❤
I LOVE this movie so much from both a story and filmmaking perspective. Implementing sparse CGI alongside practical effects always gives the best sense of realism to a scene. You can push the boundaries of reality without looking completely cartoonish. And even the worst shots in the film hold up so well after all this time. This movie honestly trumps any movie that came after it that implemented CGI for the action scenes. Fully CGI shots just does not translate as realistically as what James Cameron’s VFX team did for Titanic. For 1997, it was revolutionary. And by today’s standards, those effects aged like a fine wine in a majority of the shots
Yassss the Enya reference at the end because she was offered the soundtrack but she turned it down, then they chose Celine and the rest is history
my all time fave movie. So glad i watched it back in 1998 at cinemas. Lifechanging experience, for me at least.
I wish I could have seen it in theaters, but I was only just 4 years old when the movie came out and my parents never went to the movies. I know that Titanic has been re-issued a couple of times, but I don't live in the U.S. and I think Disney (who now owns the international distribution rights) only re-released it in a couple of countries back in 2023.
Request: could you do a video about why US produced shows like Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, True Detective etc. look incredible, but when they try to do the same thing here in Britain with shows like Killing Eve, Doctor Who, Vikings etc. they look small and cheap? Obviously the main difference is budget, but wether it’s composition, editing, writing for sure, performances etc they always end up looking and feeling basic and boring with lacklustre kitchen sink storytelling that simply with an American team would look, sound and feel so much better? It’s not just huge budget, golden age of TV stuff, regular day time tv, dramas and soaps etc all look and feel worse, even when the storytelling is good in something like Criminal: UK. If they remade House of Cards here for example, it would look and feel like a cheap knockoff. I would love to get your take on that.
I think it's more that there's been a deterioration in British TV in production, writing and acting. One of the biggest visual declines came when they shifted from filming on 35mm to video and then digital. Ironically House of Cards itself is a remake of a British series. The original still looks great due to it being 35mm, plus the excellent writing and acting. Lots of those older series from the 80s still look great from the early series of Suchet's Poirot to Brett's Holmes. Even going back to the 60s with The Avengers, weird stories, great acting and all filmed on 35mm.
The Australian film and TV industry has entered the chat
U.S. studios have developed a full production ecosystem that can make things look slick, from the lighting and set design to complex VFX pipelines. British TV budgets are typically smaller, not just because of the market size but also due to a different expectation of what "high quality" should look like.
British TV often leans more heavily into nuanced character study and social realism, whereas American TV-even when it's complex-tends to go big on spectacle and high drama. This difference can make British shows feel "smaller" or less intense in scope. So, a series like Mad Men or Breaking Bad is designed to feel both intimate and grand, with each frame crafted to match the depth of the story. Meanwhile, a British series like Criminal: UK might focus on pared-back, dialogue-driven scenes in realistic settings, which can come across as minimalist or "plain" rather than cinematic.
The craftsmanship side is huge, especially for things like cinematography, editing, and sound design. American studios train and prioritize specialists who know how to make TV look cinematic, while British productions, even high-end ones, tend to be more conservative. A British editor might be great at pacing a realistic drama but wouldn’t necessarily have the same cinematic flair as a Hollywood editor who’s used to working on fast-paced dramas. Also, in the U.S., top-tier actors often bounce between film and TV, especially in the last decade or two.
The irony is that many "American" productions are peopled by significant numbers of British technicians. The UK is home to most TV and movie studio space in the world after Hollywood. Kubrick made all his later films here. Look at the influence of Deakins and Douglas Slocombe in cinematography as but one example. Often it is about budgets not talent. Where do you think much of the SFX come from? The UK is a powerhouse of SFX and VFX. Netflix pools its vast budgets from UK, US and global users: ITV, BBC, etc do not have this option. Besides, only a small amount of US TV makes it in Europe: you cannot use the cream of US TV as if it were the average. I'm certain there are tonnes of lacklustre US TV content. And if, after all of that, you remain unconvinced, then note that the production designer of this beautiful looking film was the late Peter Lamont, a Brit.
Sorry but an average British tv episode can be better than a lot of American shows. The writing of Brits is top tier. Id rather have a good underrated show. Youre also talking about the best shows in the world, which is often a joint venture between British and America and other European and international productions.
In my opinion James Cameron is the best filmmaker of all time. I’m shocked at how little credit he gets.
It was a corny but somehow wonderful thing when the audience I was with on its opening day sat in stunned, crying silence for a few seconds after it ended then burst into applause. No filmmakers there, no critics, just a crowd moved by the story. That ending, with Rose's life in pictures as she died, was majestic.
Another reason is because it was Cameron’s last movie shot on FILM. Nothing translates like it.
Unfortunately, after that movie Cameron went to a complete different and new path with digital
100%
Speaking about film stock, I think Cameron mentioned he switched to digital film due to some issues with Titanic problems in movie theaters. I've read that, since the movie was over 3 hours, it had some problems fitting into some movie projectors and since it was so popular and stayed on movie theaters for almost a year after it was released, plenty of its prints deteriorated and plenty of movie theaters had screening issues. With digital cinema you don't have to worry about film deterioration
@@pablocasas5906 My point is on shooting on Film, not projecting. I'm ok with high class DLP Projection, but it's important for getting into the illusion/movie magic to shoot on Film, shooting on digital just looks dead, just video. I've seen Titanic in 3D in a Dolby Cinema with class leading black levels etc. last Year, absolutely amazing
@@mixdown78 thanks for the explanation. I'm not a huge expert on how movie making works, but I've heard that various directors made the jump to digital filming when the technology became available, like how George Lucas filmed Star Wars Ep. II and III digitally, despite the Phantom Menace being shot on film, though I can see that Ep. I looks much better, though I think the Sequel Trilogy was shot on film, in order to look more like the Original Trilogy. Robert Rodríguez is another director that embraced digital film, I think he joked that if he had digital cameras when he filmed El Mariachi he could have made the movie with $70 instead of $7000
I know that there are directors that don't like digital film, like Quentin Tarantino
@@pablocasas5906 the topic is of course highly subjective and personal taste. We are getting in philosophy territory here too;)
Let’s don’t care about what directors say for the moment. The convenience and advantages digital brings, like instant control, no development, no physical work on the medium etc. all let where we are today…. For many reasons, the best days of movie making are in the past.
We have learned that giving the people more possibilities and convenience did not improve movies. Photochemical film does have very unique characteristics, which does not have an advantage sometimes either, but it creates a very unique and artwork look, like a moving painting. The color formula is the result from 100 years of development and is fix, you can’t do anything wrong, you have the same effect in photography too. Since the existence of digital, it’s all about copying film, millions are made of try and promises to copy film, from start to end, digital has no soul and no character, it’s always interpretations, new interpretations and tryouts. Film is a lifetime achievement. some directors like Nolan, Tarantino, Thomas Anderson, Lantimos and more know that. Both tech technologies have their reasons for existence if you ask me
TLDR: Titanic Still Looks Like a Trillion Bucks because they spent a trillion bucks making it.
$380m in adjusted inflation
@@purefoldnz3070 it seems that makes Titanic the ninth most expensive film of all time, even adjusted for inflation. The most expensive film is apparently The Force Awakens
@@pablocasas5906 which is an expensive turd
@@purefoldnz3070 well, leaving aside The Force Awakens' quality, I actually didn't know that it was the most expensive movie ever made. It has some nice shots and JJ Abrams actually shot on location and used actual film stock instead of digital, and while it looks much better than the CGI/Blue-Green fests that were Ep. II and III, I'd say that Ep. VII lacks a lot of visual identity and it's very interesting when you re-watch it, unlike Titanic where you can see tons of fine details. Though if we mention Cameron again I'd say Avatar 1 and 2 don't look as interesting as his previous movies, the effects are amazing, especially if you watch it in 3D, but even then know that the majority is done with computers and while impressive, it's not very visually interesting, especially due to the fact that the majority of characters are actors/actresses in mo-cap
@@pablocasas5906 nice shots are meaningless without a story
All of it, the nostalgia, the beautiful aethestics of the film from the visuals the sound mixing and soundtrack are what make this movie so memorable. It's $200 million dollar eye and ear candy.
Such a great film that I cried my eyes out during this whole documentary.... great work!
James Cameron is a treasure!
2:00 I sort of doubt that they worked with the original shipbuilders. Even if they were only 18 years old when the Titanic launched in 1912, that would make them 103 when the film was made. Maybe they worked with shipbuilders of somewhat similar ships made later, but the implication here seems to be that they worked with the builders of the Titanic, which seems incredibly unlikely.
The “shipbuilders” being Harland and Wolff the company, not the individual workers.
@@wesleyzimmerman6093 that's correct, the people at Harland and Wolff even showed Cameron and his team never before seen photos and documents about the Titanic
Titanic looks amazing today.
And also "True Lies" & "Hocus Pocus".
Like jurassic park i could watch it everyday and never have it get old
Saw it on Oculus Rift in 3D one time through a 3rd party. It looked like you were in the water and everything was coming down around you, it was so insanely cool. Wish they'd just make an app for 3D rendered movies to buy/rent. Totally different experience than my previous viewing of this film.
For me this movie will be forever a masterpiece a classic because of the absolute work went into creating this. Seriously the amount of amazing special effects is so AMAZING nowadays movies just use CGI :/
that was beautiful.
One of my all time favorites! 💐
Another aspect that you neglected to mention is that the look of the film was largely based on the artwork of maritime painter Ken Marschall. He had famously been painting the Titanic and other ships since the 1960s and was often a consultant for other Titanic movies and the go to artist for books and magazines on the subject, even crafting the first illustrations of the wreck sites right after it was discovered, and doing a remarkable job with what he had to work with. No one knows the ship better than he. His artwork became the ideal vision for the Titanic when sinking, and Cameron even used one of his paintings when pitching the film to executives. He laid down a book with an illustration and said: "Romeo and Juliet on that ship."
Marschall's paintings are very detailed and sharp, and Ken makes sure to have even the most insignificant details visible to the naked eye. So when making the film, Cameron specifically wanted to recreate many of Marschalls paintings, matching the angles and lighting to match them and their aura. Marschalls work was their roadmap, and Cameron simply translated it through a cinematic language.
Thank goodness it was made in 1997 and they actually built a huge ass ship. I shudder to think of how it would have ended up if it were made today and is still one of my favorite movies of all time. Now we just need a movie about Lusitania made with all the modern toys cinema has now 😁
Doubt anyone would dare to make a new big-budgeted Titanic movie, it'll obviously would have more CGI, but I actually think it could look amazing in the rights hands. One of the biggest struggles James had was filming the sinking and flooding scenes, and I mean the fact that people were in actual danger of drowning. And making miniature physical replica of the Titanic would perhaps may be easier with the new advancements in technology, like 3D printing
We also have new information and more solid information on how the Titanic sank, in fact Cameron jokingly said that he should reshoot the sinking because it is believe the ship split in a different way how he depicted it, the ship was partially submerged when it split
I understand zero of the cinematography jargon but what I'm taking away is that care was put into absolutely everything.
I don’t get the anti-Titanic criticism especially in the early 2000’s with the first retrospectives. Yes, there were other Best Picture nominees that year. But the BP award definitely needs to go both to artistic expression AND monumental achievements (think LoTRs in 2004 which many felt was earned for the trilogy as a whole which deserved it.) No one can deny the monumental achievement that Cameron accomplished with all of the artists he worked with.
Well presented 🎉
It's mainly because the entire cast and crew did a magnificent job! Cameron only brings the best onto his projects!
It is an epic ❤
It is a truly everlasting masterpiece! 🙌
Can I say anything to describe this Priceless movie........
Watching.. You just only feel the depth of Emotions 🥰
Good lord the intro took me out. So many metaphors. Nice work mate.
This film is the reason why studios need to let the filmmakers get on with their jobs instead of interfering! After all, you don't get a bank tell you what house to buy, they just lend you the money.
Cameron might not get the credit he deserves, but he gets the ticket sales he deserves, and that's all that matters.
This is a fantastic video.
Amazing work!
Another word for perfectionist - James Cameron.
The restaurant in the Russell Hotel in London was copied and installed on the Titanic.
5:40 I have a few 35mm frames of that from when it got stuck in the projector.
I'm not the biggest fan of this movie. But it's wild this movie was released back in 1997, and looks like a billion times better than the Star Wars prequels. Despite it being released two years earlier than Phantom Menace.
Just about all of the underwater shipwreck scenes were shot with miniatures. To my understanding, the only actual underwater wreck footage in the movie is the grainy stuff the characters see on their screens.
Not gonna lie. Its the best movie ever…
I wish I could watch titanic in theatre
Perhaps they'll reissue it on its 30th anniversary in 2027, Paramount (in the U.S) and Disney (internationally) re-released it a couple of years ago for its 25th anniversary, and back in 2012 it was re-released to "commemorate" the sinking of the real RMS Titanic
We went to see it and it was a disappointment. Not the movie itself, that’s timeless but our screen was one of those smaller ones that’s just not the same, and the sound was so low we were struggling to hear it, cap it off with two girls constantly talking throughout despite being told to shut up left me seething. Watched it again at home recently and was a much better experience
Thank you for sharing this. I truly appreciate all of the research you did to find all of these small overlooked technical details. Lol, the ending of this video made me chuckle with the mentions of Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" and Enya's "Orinoco Flow".
You’re welcome! Glad you enjoyed it.
If I was going to compare Cameron to a couple of Hollywood's golden era directors it would be William Wyler and Cecil B Demille. The attention to the most minute details for the action shots and the multiple takes to get the best performance by the actors and actresses.
Interesting that when spliced in among Titanic footage, Avatar looks campy by comparison.
I wish Cameron would have kept making semi-historical movies instead of the stupid Avatar nonsense
Titanic is the best movie ever made...
I watched it recently for first time in many years and the CGI when Murdoch walks onto the ship before Jack does his “I’m king of the world” is so hilarious. He’s just this little computerised man. And when they do the sweeping shots of the deck you can tell how fake the ppl are now. But it’s still looks freaking fantastic overall
I ❤ James horner
Very nice video. Was this Sail Away on the end a little Hommage to AIDA?
IT WAS SHOT ON FILM, THAT'S A HUGE REASON
Titanic looks great because it's shot on film. Of course sets, costumes, cinematography, all are awesome, but that magic comes from film.
The medium used is irrelevant. U can get great stuff from digital and make crap with film.
@@mondodimotori of course you can, but most digitally shot movies look like crap to me. Everything is made of alien metal and glass shards. So it must be my taste that's wrong.
Billy Zane is incredible in this movie
This video make it seem like underwater scenes were filmed on a Titanic wreck. But only vhs quality bits were shot there. 35mm footage was filmed on set. You can't take a film camera at that depth.
Actually they did take a 35mm film camera down to Titanic. If you want to see it for yourself the making of documentary 'The Heart Of The Ocean' has a shot of the film being loaded
If the camera was fully sealed/pressurized there is zero reason why you couldn't take it down to those depths.
@@Skrenja It would be expensive and dangerous. Plus you can't put a boat with a camera inside the wreck. All these scenes were done inside a water tank.
Around 5:12 mins in you say Titanic was shot in 7 months and most movies are shot in a month? So not the case. Maybe most Indy movies are shot in a month and Tyler Perry can shoot a movie in 10 days Lol. But most studio movies and big budget films shoot for 2-3 months on average.
Even longer, sometimes up to a year.
why did you imply that James Cameron directed Alien? That was Ridley Scot.
He was talking about Aliens, the sequel? Why don’t people pay attention nowadays jfc 🤦♂️
It was the first to reach a billion dollars in revenue and has been the top grossing film ever only to be surpassed by Avatar more than a decade later. A movie by the same guy.
What did you mean by "before colour grading was a thing"? Did you mean digital colour grading? Colour grading/correction has existed for a long time
I’m just waiting for the titanic submarine movie
Because it's almost 100% practical effects, not the shitty cgi.
Not on the 4K disc it doesn’t. Damn AI sharpening and over brightening. Makes all the VFX stand out.
sorry i dont use bucks
i use Danish Kkrone
1:22 Lob Legatto? Wtf?
I’m I the only one who is fucking scared by this movie ?
The only scenes that I found scary when I watched Titanic as a kid back in the early 2000s where the beginning of the film when the submarines explored the wreck, Cameron really captured the feel of a ghost ship. Then there were the scenes where Rose rescued Jack and they had to navigate in the sinking ship, there's a lot of claustrophobic scenes, water rising, they almost drown and got electrocuted, it was more scary than when they were outside the sinking ship, at least to me, like it was worse drowning inside the ship than outside it
🤤 glazing the doughnut...
draw me like one of your French girls
Primos... it's pronounced Pree-mo
Leonardo's character is just so cringe
New title format please 😂
The dialog is still bad. Really. really bad.
Chomon ya know it ya know ya know it ya know AAAWWWWWWWW
Shame about the dialogue.
Never seen it
Congratulations?
too bad the writing and acting were garbage
Nah.
Such a shame that he chose to besmirch a real person's reputation for glory.
i like the idea that she is really the villain of the movie
I personally thought the CGI looks badly dated when I rewatched it last. 🤷🏼
I agree, even in this video you can see some examples of it. But I feel like Cameron is able to keep your attention to a point where the bad CGI doesn't detract, unlike alot modern movies where the CGI is so much of the film and when it's bad you can see nothing else. I'm also glad that he hasn't done a Lucas and 'updated' Titanic with new CGI, he knows when to leave well enough alone.
The main characters are horrible people. They steal peoples drinks in that dance scene down in 3rd class. Jack later steals someone’s coat to sneak into 1st class. He bypassed the inspection cue when boarding the ship putting people health at risk considering he’s homeless and filthy. They both snuck into a very expensive car to have sex in it. Also let’s keep in mind that Rose went on to live a full life having children and grandchildren and still at the end of her life her “true love” was the bum she met for 3 days on the titanic. Then she throws the diamond which is a historical artifact into the ocean.
Looooooool
Just to clarify; I’m laughing AT you 😂
It looks good, okay. But not even close to a trillion bucks. Is the brainless clickbait necessary?
It looks better than most movies made in the last 20 years mainly cause it was at the peak of combing practical and digital before everything became more digital and CGI.
it does look better than most films made today
"when the content creator runs out of title ideas"
I'd say arguably it does look a trillion bucks. The sinking sequence is an utter spectacle in of itself
Cinematic masterpiece, but hard to watch after being Red Pilled.
Oh jeez, the last scene is her with the blue pill.
Yeah I know right. She was literally on a lifeboat, home free. She essentially killed Jack.
The synthesizer choir when the ship is first setting sail was real cheap for such an expensive film and the CGI from the same section has aged poorly too.
It doesn't.
It looks cheap and dated. The cgi is poor and shoddy.
It looks ten bucks !
💀💀 why you lying
@Roboxpkrrr truth
@@DaleHanbury why do you think it looks dated what scenes
You’re so fulla shït 😂
A Night To Remember was better.
Dude, it's sunken, rusted, broken and barely has any shape left. Do you really think it looks like it's worth a trillion bucks?
You’re right, I should have added a few more zeros.
Your figures look a bit exaggerated... and you know what? I watched this on the big screen, but to this day! I still regret that I didn't pay to enter the neighboring room on the cinema that was screening Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
One fact, you could have mentioned is that this movie cost about the same as the original construction cost of the actual Titanic
Clearly didn’t watch as he did at the beginning.
He did
@@HitcherUK yes, but after that, he made no mention of it
@@DavidWainTube So there was no need to mention it again!
@@HitcherUK yes I can see your point. Having said it towards the beginning there was no need for him to repeat it. Is that what you’re saying?
Yeah, the movie did have great visuals but it was an awful movie that made me resent a new female friend for urging my wife and I to see it. We later discovered that this new friend was one of those who lacks logical & moral discernment and operates purely on feelings.
Uhh okay? 🥴
I rhink you missed that some underwater scenes are actually miniatures that are seamlessly cut with real underwater scenes and no one can tell between the real and the miniatures.