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
I really liked it. They didn't actually drain the sea. I don't remember much but it was just cool. I watched it for school. I liked seeing under the ocean. It looked really real. And the computer graphics were cool, too. --Cameron, age 8
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 :/
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"?
This fascinating documentary uses painstakingly detailed digital 3-D reconstructions of the Titanic's wreckage made from thousands of underwater photographs. The program's chief interest is that it provides clear views of entire sections of the ship that are impossible to see of the real ship because of the darkness of the water more than two miles below the ocean's surface. The digital images look very much like what one would expect the actual wreckage to look if the surrounding ocean could be drained away.
It's all very impressive, but the documentary's presentation has some irritating features. After explaining how the digital images were made, virtual cameras move past wreckage so rapidly it is difficult to take in details. The images would be far more interesting if the cameras were to linger over parts of the ship longer. For example, instead of showing the same rapid panning shots of the ship's bow repeatedly, it would have been better to use some of that time for much slower close-ups. It is also disappointing that the documentary provides almost no close-ups of the surrounding debris fields. What are all those large objects scattered around the ship's hull sections? Despite these reservations, the documentary is fascinating and well worth watching. Perhaps a future documentary will use the digital images to give us better views of the wreckage.
It's all very impressive, but the documentary's presentation has some irritating features. After explaining how the digital images were made, virtual cameras move past wreckage so rapidly it is difficult to take in details. The images would be far more interesting if the cameras were to linger over parts of the ship longer. For example, instead of showing the same rapid panning shots of the ship's bow repeatedly, it would have been better to use some of that time for much slower close-ups. It is also disappointing that the documentary provides almost no close-ups of the surrounding debris fields. What are all those large objects scattered around the ship's hull sections? Despite these reservations, the documentary is fascinating and well worth watching. Perhaps a future documentary will use the digital images to give us better views of the wreckage.
There is some fascinating information in this documentary, but in about 45 minutes of documentary, there are only maybe 10-15 minutes of actual content. The information is heavily punctuated by repeated panning over the model of the wreck and the animation of "draining the sea floor", which of course, doesn't really happen. The narrator breaks from his narrative every few minutes to remind us how amazing it is that we are seeing the Titanic like never before. This is hyped up with dramatic music and sweeping views of the digital model . It extremely repetitive and left me waiting anxiously for more through the entire length of the film, but "more" was never delivered. So much filler, so little true content.
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
Lacune principale
By what name was Le Titanic redévoilér (2015) officially released in India in English?
Répondre