I liked this more than the 1997 Cameron film

Are you mad? THIS IS RUBBISH!!!
bad lighting, acting, sets, storylines, special effects, sound and factual correctness.
I can't believe people actually enjoy this film.

Tartlet?!, Tartlet?!, Tartlet?!
Word has lost all meaning.
-Friends

I just watched this movie tonight, and it actually was fairly good for a TV movie. Saying this was better than Cameron's is a little extreme, but they both had things I hated and things I liked. I know I may get a lot of flack for saying this, and people will be like "well the special effects were better in camerons..the characters were better developed." I admit, Cameron's did have better effects. I hated how in this movie the iceberg looked so fake and computer generated. The ship looked pretty fake when it was sinking, too. But in this movie, I was kinda glad they didn't spend so much time on the characters and all the lovey backstory like in Cameron's about Jack/Rose. I just don't like love stories much. I honestly liked the dialogue better in this version than in James Cameron's movie, they actually talked like people of the time.

I know a lot of people will say "well angela...james camerons was similar to the '96 movie b/c they had to show similarities with the disaster." Well, yeah I know that..but as I continued watching, I noticed there were some aspects pulled from this and put into James Cameron's movie by VERBATIM. Please don't get angry, it's just what I observed. I saw another part of the board where people are getting mad at others for stating this. Like the third class passengers shown locked up, Captain Smith at the front of the ship during the final hours, and Officer Murdoch killing himself (which I thought in the '96 movie they did it real tacky and soap opera looking=him shooting the passenger then killing himself looked like a joke). I always wondered why they portray Officer Murdoch killing himself, when his suicide was never verified. It would be real disrespectful to continue to show it if it never happened.

In all, I think Cameron's was better for dramatic effect, this one is better to watch if you're bored...but for some reason, I'm leaning a little more towards this movie. Maybe the characters just didn't annoy me as much?

[deleted]

i agree. i saw it when it premiered that night so long ago. what a cast! i love george c scott, tim curry and that was the first time i saw czj and i thought who is that beautiful woman? i wld love to watch it again.

Me too. David Cameron's version was terribly disappointing for me...

I respectfully disagree (no, I'm not a huge fan of the Jack & Rose storyline - it's just 'okay' to me). Cameron's film is superior, imo; not without its inaccuracies and annoying parts, but superior nonetheless.

The acting in this TV drama was terrible from most of the actors aside from George C. Scott, who completely nailed it as Captain Smith. CZJ is awful, the guy with eyebrows bigger than Billy Zane's was terrible, the inaccurate accents were insulting (Murdoch and Lowe were NOT Englishmen, for Christ's sake!!) and the worst sin of all - Thomas Andrews, master shipbuilder who designed and helped construct the Titanic, did not even exist. Completely obliterated from history, which is an appalling disservice to his memory.

It wasn't ALL bad though. The interior sets were authentic enough, the disturbed nanny/baby snatcher storyline was watchable, and it was refreshing to see events unfold from the point of view of the Carpathia crewmen. The breaking up of the ship and the sinking wasn't terrifying enough, imo. James Cameron effectively got across the horror and the fear in a way that this film did not. This version is not the worst Titanic film I've ever seen, but it certainly isn't the best either. Not by a longshot.

OMG me too I saw this on TV before Camerons movie came out and this one had me in tears.

Then Cams movie comes out and I had zero tears for it and felt it was a knock off of that TV smovie, Cams movie only had great special effects thats it.

[deleted]