Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueComputer-generated imagery and other visualization techniques reveal how it would look if all the water was removed from RMS Titanic's final resting place.Computer-generated imagery and other visualization techniques reveal how it would look if all the water was removed from RMS Titanic's final resting place.Computer-generated imagery and other visualization techniques reveal how it would look if all the water was removed from RMS Titanic's final resting place.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Russell Boulter
- Narrator
- (voix)
Brad Cartner
- Narrator
- (voix)
Paul-Henri Nargeolet
- Self - Co-Director, Titanic Mapping Project
- (as Paul-Henry Nargeolet)
Thomas Brown
- Self - Hoteller
- (as Thomas William Solomon Brown)
Avis à la une
The conclusion they made about when the Titanic broke up is tenuous at best. They use the 'relatively' small size of the debris field to theorize that it broke up after going underwater. That doesn't add up. If it had then the stern might have been in better condition and I don't think they would have the great sliding feature in the mud near the stern. Also ocean currents are unpredictable so you can't say for sure whether they would have carried the artifacts far away.
As others here note, the repetition and faux "drama" blunts the pleasure and value of seeing this, even to someone interested in the topic.
Instead of a calm and sane review of what was accomplished, and time to look over the new model, we get an incessantly ominous junk-music soundtrack, constantly tense narration, and camera work that cuts away from every remark as if to mark it as profound or revelatory.
Pretty soon, I too cut away.
Who's minding the store at National Geographic? Who sets the goals, the story-line, and the style guidelines?
Who thinks that "if some drama is good, then more is better, and too much is just enough"?
Instead of a calm and sane review of what was accomplished, and time to look over the new model, we get an incessantly ominous junk-music soundtrack, constantly tense narration, and camera work that cuts away from every remark as if to mark it as profound or revelatory.
Pretty soon, I too cut away.
Who's minding the store at National Geographic? Who sets the goals, the story-line, and the style guidelines?
Who thinks that "if some drama is good, then more is better, and too much is just enough"?
They are way better titanic docs out there, Boring.
I love most things on the Titanic. This is a cool doco, but stretched out to 45 minutes by repeating the same "now, as never seen before, the ocean drained away" and lots of slow dramatic statements like "and on that deadly night, when disaster struck, an iceberg, it tore a hole" like, it's really not new info. Very repetitive, lots of seen before footage, with a few cool views of CGI ship with the water drained. Kinda background TV while you're playing on your phone :/
So much time is devoted to whether the ship broke apart at the surface or further down, and the show teases you it might be answered or given info to suggest a possible break up, but then all you get is some mysterious model about debris fields that never really is explained, video of stoic men looking at computers, some fancy graphics and no answer or data to back up an answer or model of the sinking. Then a blurb about what it might look like in the future and some stuff about preservation. Waste of time.
Le saviez-vous
- ConnexionsEdited into Trésors sous les Mers: Ghost Ships of the Atlantic (2018)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Durée46 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.78 : 1 / (high definition)
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant