5 ms·
The article is total spin. I fail to see how the egregious number (and detailedness) of factual errors in this report could be blamed on faulty wireless communi
by reneherse 15y ago
The article is total spin. I fail to see how the egregious number (and detailedness) of factual errors in this report could be blamed on faulty wireless communication. Is it a case of just overzealous filling in the blanks, or was the Edwardian-era WSJ the Fox News of its time?
Incidently, by coincidence I happened to see the 3D version of the movie last night at the exact hour of the hundreth year anniversary of the collision. Didn't realize it til later when I was reading about the disaster on Wikipedia, at what turned out to be, after triple checking my calculations, the centennial of the final sinking, to the minute, 2:20am ship's local time.
It was a bit surreal to say the least, inspiring a long night of contemplation about technology, nature, society, love & honor, and the brevity of life. So terrible to see how the facts were initially so thoroughly misrepresented...
- seldo 15y agoOut of genuine curiosity: did you miss the movie the first time, or did you think the 3D would add something more to it? Either way, did you enjoy it?
- reneherse 15y agoI'd seen parts of the movie on the small screen, wanted to finally see the whole thing, and there's no better place to watch an epic scale movie than in a theater. 3D was ok. I could take it or leave it. At least in this movie it wasn't overdone; apparently Cameron kept many of the wide shots pretty flat to avoid making the ship look like a model. I guess it's a wash: how much the added dimensionality enhances the experience was balanced by the times when it's just a distraction.