Avatree Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, IronJimbo said: Jim hates that meme, its about buoyancy. He said he tested it out (of course he did this is Jim) to make sure it couldn't support the weight if them both. Obiviously weight and buoyancy are too much for meme lords so he just says "jack dies because page X in the script, says jack dies." how can that be? humans naturally float in water because, we are lighter than water. so if you sit on a piece of wood you will float on top of the wood and stay out of the water. Edited January 3, 2018 by Tree Billboards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJimbo Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Just now, Tree Billboards said: how can that be? humans naturally float in water because, we are lighter than water. so if you sit on a piece of wood you will float on top of the wood. Good job this ain't the box office physics website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Parr Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, Tree Billboards said: how can that be? humans naturally float in water because, we are lighter than water. so if you sit on a piece of wood you will float on top of the wood and stay out of the water. That doesn't work. The piece of wood has its buoyancy. The buoyancy matches the weight of the water that gets displaced. A human that is sitting on the piece of wood (read: who isn't in the water himself) doesn't add the buoyancy he would have if he were in the water himself but he adds weight to the piece of wood. If the weight on top of the wood exceeds the buoyancy, the piece will go down. You can't just assume that a person who is floating in the water will have the same effect as a person who is not floating in the water. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valonqar Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) TLJ lifted certain quote from Titanic so that's that. I guess RJ appreciates the movie just fine. Edited January 3, 2018 by Valonqar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAR Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 The last few pages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoMisfits Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, George Parr said: That doesn't work. The piece of wood has its buoyancy. The buoyancy matches the weight of the water that gets displaced. A human that is sitting on the piece of wood (read: who isn't in the water himself) doesn't add the buoyancy he would have if he were in the water himself but he adds weight to the piece of wood. If the weight on top of the wood exceeds the buoyancy, the piece will go down. You can't just assume that a person who is floating in the water will have the same effect as a person who is not floating in the water. And now we have physical science added - we're gonna get these kids "edumucated" in no time:)...no need for school - just need to read every BOT thread:)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJimbo Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Valonqar said: TLJ lifted certain quote from Titanic so that's that. I guess RJ appreciates the movie just fine. having not seen the movie I can only assume that Poe asked Finn to paint him like one of his space girls. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatree Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, Valonqar said: TLJ lifted certain quote from Titanic so that's that. I guess RJ appreciates the movie just fine. I don't remember this. to quote James Franco's Wiseau, "what is line?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REC Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, titanic2187 said: Among the criticism to Titanic, I only agree that the writing of the film or dialogue are poor, i am so glad the academy didn't nominate titanic in best original screenplay category. Titanic is a pretty poor story if it is just a script. But it is the poor dialogue of the film prove how great was the acting from the cast, Leo and Kate especially, delivered those lines in a most passionate and artsy way. The poor script or ordinary plot never equal to a poor film, the marvelous directing can save everything. Film is a visual art, story is not everything, if those can't recognize the way of how those VISUAL art being presented, or ignore the philosophy of visual art, why bother to watch a film? If plot is everything, don't bother to watch movie, just read storybook will do. Visual story telling + plot, only then produce a well-made film. I would just like to see Cameron step away from doing final script treatments at this point. Maybe that's not what he wants I don't know, but I think it would make a stronger result. His plotting is fine, just fine. His overall story arcs are well done. The characters and motivations that are his weaknesses but only in the sense that they are so simple. It's not that they don't make sense, they make an oversimplified amount of sense. We get them. Company man wants unobtanium and hates all things nature, got it. He should still be his own head writer, but just give the screenplay to a trusted writer for a final co-written treatment of the characters. Just something to take away the stereotypes a bit, give them a touch more depth. Wouldn't it have been nice to see Titanic get the Oscar for best screenplay? I'd have liked that a lot, I think it would've been within reach. Same thing for Avatar. None of this has to do with the bottom line of the movies of course, they are box office gold. Just something a little more meaty for Frances Fisher to chew on with that character (who is a great, prolific and underrated actress btw), maybe she's not so obsessed with stereotypical rich old mommy dearest issues. Maybe something Billy Zane does makes his character more well rounded or sympathetic, that you think momentarily Rose might go for him. I dunno, those are hack ideas, but something to give them literally any amount of depth and/or actually interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valonqar Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, IronJimbo said: having not seen the movie I can only assume that Poe asked Finn to paint him like one of his space girls. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattie08 Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 48 minutes ago, REC said: It's hard to communicate this idea in a movie for sure. If either character had started talking about buoyancy while they were freezing to death it almost certainly wouldn't have worked. It's too bad he couldn't come up with a better way to achieve the same end result, something a bit more cleverly written or communicated. But I can totally see this would've been tough to figure out, and he handled it well in the execution. //de-lurks Sometimes I think I'm the only person who saw that Jack *does* try to get on the piece of wood with Rose after she initially climbs on, and it immediately tips over, putting them both back in the water. He tells her to get back on, the camera holds on him for a beat, and you can see on his face that he realizes he's stuck in the freezing water and is accepting that in order to save Rose. It wasn't lingered on, but it was clearly there. //re-lurks Edited January 3, 2018 by mattie08 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 hours ago, vc2002 said: Well, it's indeed made by JC. 2 hours ago, Brainbug said: Does that mean the ship will rise again from the ocean? 2 hours ago, Tree Billboards said: So Titanic never existed? Somehow, all of these 3 are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatree Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 But one thing no one thought about, was the ship will rise again, just like the phoenix. Will fucking riiiiiiise agaaaiin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 hours ago, redfirebird2008 said: Speaking of that topic. Was just reading about Cleopatra...biggest box office of 1963, but still lost money because of insane production costs. Really interesting production history on that film. Only movie to ever the year end box office, and still technically be labeled a flop. The budget going over, and behind the scenes "drama" are the primary reasons why. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narniadis Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Did I step into the Titanic thread or the Numbers thread??? Can we not have at least one day of peace from some of this insanity? Btw, good numbers for both films, Jumanji is truly moving away from solid hit to wom monster. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said: Really interesting production history on that film. Only movie to ever the year end box office, and still technically be labeled a flop. The budget going over, and behind the scenes "drama" are the primary reasons why. Had Fox split the film which they wanted to do but decided against, they'd have made a decent profit. $40m back in 1963 was like $300-350m today, Fox was almost bankrupt but was saved by a number of cheaper movies most notably The Sound of Music in 1965. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfirebird2008 Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, narniadis said: Did I step into the Titanic thread or the Numbers thread??? Can we not have at least one day of peace from some of this insanity? Never. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Jonwo said: Had Fox split the film which they wanted to do but decided against, they'd have made a decent profit. $40m back in 1963 was like $300-350m today, Fox was almost bankrupt but was saved by a number of cheaper movies most notably The Sound of Music in 1965. Back then it would have been wise to split the film up into two movies, but Zanuck and co were more interested in pushing the Taylor / Burton affair because the public was interested in it (it worked, but not enough), and wanted to capitalize on that a lot. The studio almost went bankrupt because of it, but they were able to survive mostly by falling back on their bread and butter of musicals, which would a few years later go out of popularity because of New Hollywood and audiences changing tastes. It's all interesting. Edited January 3, 2018 by Fancyarcher 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainbug Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) Jumanjis overperformance is also generally good news for theaters in January. TLJ would always have burned off the majority of its demand in December, so with Jumanji the cinemas have 1 more hit movie for this month. Which is badly needed if one looks at the movie slate this January. Apart from The Post, Paddington 2 and maybe The Commuter/Maze Runner theres really...nothing. Edited January 3, 2018 by Brainbug 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Just now, Fancyarcher said: Back then it would have been wise to split the film up into two movies, but Zanuck and co were more interested in pushing the Taylor / Burton affair because the public was interested in it (it worked, but not enough), and wanted to capitalize on that a lot. The studio almost went bankrupt because of it, but they were able to survive mostly by falling back on their bread and butter of musicals, which would a few years later go out of popularity because of New Hollywood. The original cut was 4 hours long IIRC, they managed to get to three hours for the theatrical release. The sets and costumes that they abandoned in England ended up being used in Carry On Cleo, 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
