Stars to Change in Re-Release of Titanic


----------------

One staunch critic of James Cameron’s Titanic will finally get his due in the re-release of the classic sinking ship drama. Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has long railed against a certain scene in the film, citing it was not accurate to the time period. Rose, adrift in the ocean after the passenger liner sinks, gazes into the starry sky. According to Tyson, what Rose sees is not the real sky from that time. The astrophysicist  had no shame telling Cameron his thoughts on the matter.

“There she is looking up. There is only one sky she should have been looking at … and it was the wrong sky! Worse than that, it was not only the wrong sky; the left-half of the sky was a mirror reflection of the right-half of the sky! It was not only wrong, it was lazy! And I’m thinking, this is wrong.

Cameron has since rendered the sky to include a new formation, which will actually be correct to what people in that region of the Atlantic would have seen in 1912.

The science of movie magic.

[Via Discovery News]







12 Responses to Stars to Change in Re-Release of Titanic

    • I can. Plenty in fact. Considering this is NEIL DEBADASSE TYSON speaking, there is PLENTY less relevant. You will bow down before the awesomeness that is Afrophysics.

    • i want to agree, but then i thought about it from neil's perspective and i sorta see where he's coming from. stars are his business, and when he's attending a movie, brother is gonna look at the stars, and if he sees an issue, its gonna be glaring to him, even if its completely invisible to us because stars arent our business.

      if i had the unlikely pleasure of seeing a romantic comedy, set in the 80's, featuring mila kunis and ashton kutcher, and said actors, via their characters, went to what was was supposed to be a pitch perfect video arcade, and they strolled pasta kid with a blonde-banged mullet and day-glo shirt, and he was playing Galaxian Invaders, i'd be up in arms…because video games (and to a lesser extent the 80's) are sorta my business, and that non-existent game being there is glaring to me, while it may be completely invisible to my date.

      its all about your point of view, i suspect, and i'd appreciate it if you dont tell my wife i went out on a date with that unobservant hottie.

      • I'm with you, dadomon. It really seems like it shouldn't matter at all, but little things like that can jump out and bother people when it is their business. Nutrition isn't even technically my business, culinary is, but in bridesmaids (ugh), when all the ladies got 'food poisoning' right after eating at the hole in the wall joint, I was upset, because that's not how it works! Pathogens take at the very very least 12 hours to make you sick. Most times it takes a couple of days until that bad taco you ate really gets you.

        But yea, Dr. Tyson deserves this.

  1. Mr. Cameron spent a bazillion dollars going to the deepest point in the ocean and wishes to include hard science and research among his accomplishments, so imo, editing an accurate starscape into the movie is a small but significant step.

  2. I thought we were seeing Rose's PERCEPTION of the stars, which were gathered to make the shape of the "Heart Of The Ocean" necklace. That would be relatively symmetrical, and it would be appropriate use of artistic license. I can't believe I am bothering to comment, I don't care a lot about the movie and I'm hating myself for taking the time to type th

  3. How about James edits the movie to where Leo doesn’t die, because 2 people could obviously fit on that door. have him tell that cow to move over …

  4. How was this not posted on 4/1. I mean really there are so many aspects of movies that are ruined by poor representation of their period, but the stars? The fact that it took an astro-freakin-physicist to notice means it wasn't a big deal. Grats, Neil just convinced a few hundreds astrophysicists to buy a ticket now…too bad that's not actually a profit after they bother to edit this.