E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Paramount Pictures / 20th Century Fox
Film director James Cameron talks with Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet during the shooting of a crucial post-sinking scene in "Titanic." The newly released 3-D version of the film will show the sky as it actually appeared that night, thanks to astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson's goading.
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't mind that "Titanic" film director James Cameron called him a "son of a bitch" for shaming him into correcting the movie's constellations.
"I take it as a frustrated expression of affection," Tyson, director of New York's Hayden Planetarium, told me today. "As in, 'you son of a bitch, you got me there.'"
Thanks to Tyson's persistence, moviegoers who go to "Titanic" in 3-D will see a truer representation of the night sky when Rose (played by Kate Winslet) looks up into the heavens after the ship sinks. "That sky, I would say, was the most important sky in the movie," Tyson said. And in the original 1997 version of the film, it was wrong.
In a widely quoted interview with the British magazine Culture, Cameron said the sky scene was the only shot he fixed for this year's 3-D re-release:
"It's because Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is one of the U.S.' leading astronomers, sent me quite a snarky email saying that, at that time of year, in that position in the Atlantic in 1912, when Rose is lying on the piece of driftwood and staring up at the stars, that is not the star field she would have seen, and with my reputation as a perfectionist, I should have known that and I should have put the right star field in.
"So I said, 'All right, you son of a b**ch, send me the right stars for the exact time, 4:20 a.m. on April 15, 1912, and I'll put it in the movie.' So that's the one shot that has been changed."
Rose (Kate Winslet) looks up at the stars in this scene from "Titanic."
The basic problem was that a space-savvy observer would see that the sky in the original version of the movie was unrecognizable, and in fact was produced by mirroring made-up stars on the left and right halves of the screen. Tyson saw that as a needlessly sloppy move, and he made that opinion known to Cameron and his team in a succession of letters, emails and personal encounters. He wrote about the "Titanic" trip-up and other Hollywood missteps in his 2007 book, "Death by Black Hole." You can watch him tell the tale about "Titanic" and other sci-fi movies in this video clip:
Neil deGrasse Tyson on inaccuracies in science-fiction movies and the "Titanic" night sky.
When Cameron's people finally asked Tyson to provide a better sky, the astrophysicist used a standard planetarium program to generate the star field for the proper latitude and time of night, captured a high-resolution image and sent it off to the filmmakers.
"The Big Dipper came out nicely," Tyson said.
The sky was initially fixed in the bonus materials for a special DVD version of "Titanic" a few years ago. "I took that as a triumph and let it be," Tyson told me. Now the corrected sky appears in the big-screen version of the film itself, thanks to post-production wizardry.
Tyson said he can understand why it took a big re-release for Cameron to change the sky. "As a director, you don't want to have to rethink all that, and I respect that," he said. Tyson said his respect for Cameron has grown even more now that the right stars will be on display in theaters around the world.
Will Cameron put the space-savvy S.O.B.'s name in the credits for the 3-D movie? Tyson says he doesn't know, and really doesn't care.
"If he does, that's fine," Tyson told me. "I'm a servant of the public interest and the public's appetite for information about the universe. I get these calls all the time. ... The mere fact that an artist cares about getting the science right, and thereby transmitting that science literacy to the consumers of that art — that's enough reward for me."
More about 'Titanic' and Neil deGrasse Tyson
- 10 reasons for the Titanic tragedy
- James Cameron refloats 'Titanic' in 3-D
- Tyson on NASA's need for a budget boost
- From black holes to black history
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
At least Kate wasn't wearing a digital watch :)
Yeah, but Tyson is quite the likable gentleman. Kudo's for Tyson on getting involved. Accuracy in films can only make the film better.
If anyone is unaware of Neil deGrasse Tyson, I suggest they familiarize themselves with his work ASAP. This man is a national treasure.
Now, if only he could go back and change the 97% of the movie about a love story that never happened, then the movie would be really accurate!
Absolutely & don't forget to get rid of that God awful tacky sickening sugar sweet theme song too. :-)
imbeciles-the movie was a hit due to the love story-duh
Noooo, the movie was a hit due to several factors in film making. That hokey pop song rode on the coat tails of the movie. duhhhh :-)
The only thing I would say to fix is to have Rose move over on the door or trunk she was on. There was plenty of room for two up there, and it would have kept floating.
You understand that without the love story between what we know are fictional characters, it would've been just one more documentary that would've made maybe 1/100th the money, right...?
If it weren't for the fictional love story, a lot of people wouldn't have known that much about the Titanic so you have to give the movie and James Cameron a little respect.
And the fictional love story was based on a real love story.
http://news.discovery.com/history/the-real-titanic-love-story-120415.html
They could have covered the iceberg with zombies, and had them jump on the Titanic after it was hit. Or even one zombie, turning a couple of extras into zombies, until it's avoid zombies while leaving the boat. Leonardo could have turned right before he froze to death.
Or, just more nudity.
I notice a lot of times the "stars" in movies are just made up - not real constellations or anything. I'm always happy when I notice it's at least real stars. But I have to admit, probably wouldn't notice if it wasn't the right stars at the right time and place!
Well done for both Cameron and Tyson.
Neil deGrasse should keep himself busy analyzing each star in every Star Trek episodes. Seriously, not a single dipsh!t would care about that scene in the movie and if you do happen to be an astronomy freak, you'd probably just laugh at the fact that James Cameron is not an astronomer, creepy laugh that is, coz it aint' funny anyway.
The problem is the star fields in Star Trek may not be known, as the view point in the galaxy is different.
Star field observations from Earth are well known.
Also, the stars themselves are no longer in the position we see them in, as their light takes many thousands of years or more to reach us. So when you travel to the stars you see, their positions will be different.
So people that know things are freaks now Yus?
The only reason Tyson mentioned this to Cameron was because Cameron stated that this film was suppose to be as realistic as possible. Tyson stated that if Cameron not made that statement, he would not have cared.
Yus, you have at least identified a dip@!$%# that doesn't care.
Neil kept his correspondence to Cameron private. It was Cameron who brought this up publicly and obviously thought it had merit. And many others also do.
But you keep living your life the way you want as most won't care.
This guy is an astronomer. He couldn't ignore the fact that the starfield was not only wrong but non-existant. He was like "This director spent so much time reconstructing all the characters, the ship and even the dress and speech of that era and couldn't even put in a real sky? Just a bunch of points of light randomly thrown around? OH COME ON!"
You gotta understand. You have to obsess about stars to make staring at them all day long your career.
I noticed the sky the second time I was forced to stomach the movie. Typical for Hollywood, like all the times the laws of physics are totally ignored. Or some guy falls 30 or 40 feet and catches himself by his hands on a pole and somehow manages not to rip his arms off.
The star fields in STTNG are definitely fakes (think they used black fabric with lights shining through), that'd be a pretty cool update for the blu ray rerelease that's fast approaching, though.
As much as it is neat that directors like to make sure they have accuracies for certain things, no one really pays attention to small details like that due to the bigger key focus taking place in films. It isn't until someone who is really passionate about their study of any topic when it's brought up and even then, it really isn't major. Props to Cameron for making the change and Tyson for bringing it up, but honestly, something like this is not that big of a deal.
Cameron does.
Many of the dialogues and actions of crew members in Titanic were accurate. The dude is a perfectionist.
...and many dialogues and actions of crew members were wildly inaccuarate...particularly the depiction of the first officer and his actions. His family has been very public about the way thier brave family member was dishonered in the movie.
Ruken-completely wrong-hundreds of inaccuracies-the ship splitting isnt even verified as fact
You're kidding right?
Astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson it seems has nothing better to do. As director of New York's Hayden Planetarium (Which amazes most people how he got the job.) Trowbridge & Livingston roll in there graves if they see what he did to the place.
Right...because Important People (TM) are never allowed to see a movie let alone have an opinion about it.
Raymond, 62 years is a long time. I work at an architectural firm and I know first hand that the vast majority of architecture is designed to last a long time but not forever. If you think you have a clue what Trowbridge and Livingston or any of the people who helped on the Hayden planetarium would think about the new place then you need to think again.
From the wikipedia article you linked to:
So, if you ask me, demolishing the old and building a new makes perfect sense, from an architectural point of view. The old planetarium was replaced with a new one in doing that the planetarium can serve the people better.
It's not like Neil actually had to work very hard. Any body with a computer or smart phone can download an application that shows what the sky looked like from that location and that time.
Details are never a big deal, but sweating many small details makes the final product much more refined and enjoyable. After reading this article, and thanks to appreciation of detail by Tyson and Cameron, I will now enjoy that final scene even more, even if it is just a little bit that means nothing to anyone else but me.
Yeah, that's enough for Mr. Tyson. lol
I'm sorry, but when I see him on TV, something rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's his ego. Maybe he can tell us what the sky looked like right before the dinosaurs began to go belly up.
You don't need him. There are plenty of programs that will give you historical data about the position of celestial objects. You can create an accurate sky view for any time you care to name, past, present, and future.
Yes, but that would take more time and effort than just bitching about something.
To the best of my knowledge, deGrasse Tyson is not an astronomer, but an astrophysicist. Also, plotting the night sky on a particular date does not require a doctorate.
In the interest of accuracy, I'm changing the reference to read "astrophysicist" ... and I'm not even calling you an S.O.B. while I do it. ;-)
I think most of the commenters (like me, at least) are just still hacked with him for leading the charge to revoke Pluto's planetary status.
for me it was an unforgettably snarky comment deGrasse Tyson made in an interview about all the little children who wrote him in defence of Pluto as a planet. The tone of his comment had the snark of a hugely inflated ego contemptuous of the kids who dared question his divineness.
Well, yes, obviously I agree the whole Pluto issue was not handled well. After all, I did write "The Case for Pluto." But I think history (and science) will be the judge, and Pluto will be remembered long after Neil Tyson (and Alan Boyle) have faded from the world.
When Horizon arrives at Pluto, then everyone that voted for its demotion will need to open mouth and insert foot.
Great points, Alan. You obviously know more about Pluto than Tyson does. But it will still be a planet after all of us are long gone.
I always wondered why they had to take a perfectly good disaster that can stand on its own and muck it up with a fictional and uninspiring love story. I still like the movie though.
Because it's a movie and not a documentary.
If we had to be on the Titanic that night, who would you rather have on the ship? Tyson or Cameron?
Considering who knows what, it would be Cameron for me.
doesnt matter, dope=it still would have sank
Instead of chosing one of those two, can I chose to have all of Congress onboard with me?
That was a hypothetical situation I was referring to, obviously. And I don't appreciate being called a "dope."
Norman-2918025, in the future, please mind rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
How about all the times that EARTH-viewed star fields appear in films that take place on other planets? That can be quite a snicker. You GO, Neil! Maybe Sheldon will finally forgive you over that whole Pluto thing. ;-)
I'm usually a stickler for details - but in this case, I would definitely say "WHO CARES?"
Probably less than 5% of all astronomers noticed the error, which makes up less than .0001% of all moviegoers. Certainly not something worth spending any time or money on.
I remember in particular that it was a beautiful night when Rose was trying to get Jack to hold on while he was in the water. You could see their breaths and the chattering of their teeth. I'd read that Cameron actually had them in ice cold water so that it would be more realistic. I think most people were concentrating on that scene instead of yelling at the screen, " Hey, the night sky didn't look like that! "
Cameron doesn't have to worry about that crap. He did a great job as he always does. Sounds like someone is just being jealous and wants the attention.
except that he just sent a private e-mail to Cameron and Cameron made it public.
wow, talk about anal.
Now, if he can only get the idiot director to release "The Abyss" on Blu-ray.
So, let me get this straight. You're calling the director of a film you desperately want to see on Blu-ray an idiot. Isn't that, um, a bit of a contradiction in terms?
The Abyss is pretty cool. Also pretty cool how the director also dived to incredible depths in real life, doing something only two other humans have done.
Nice to see someone who cares about accuracy....unlike, say, Oliver Stone who blithely rewrites history to suit his own leftist views of America.
every one likes to get in on the act and make sure the world pays attention to them. i agree with darrah on this one...
Neil deGrasse is an arrogant s.o.b. and was even before this lastest useless piece of drek! It's a MOVIE for Heaven's sake, NOT a history lesson!
Know Mr. deGrasse personally, do you?
I stand by my remark. Watch him on ANY of the science shows on which he has appeared. It's his way or the wrong way.
Um, no. The shows I've seen Mr. Tyson on are 99% fact, and 1% interpretation of those facts. They pretty much speak for themselves. So if you're goign to take issue with it, saying it's his way or the highway, at least understand that his way is paved with facts. Arrogance is to accept error with intentional ignorance when a correction is available.
So you prefer ignorance over information, do you? Oh, the comments that follow so naturally from this point! But I'll leave that to the imagination of each reader.
Yep, at least 80% of the population can't find orion or polaris so you would have to be an astronomy nut to really give a rats a$$ in a movie. I'm kinda one of those nuts but I really didn't notice or care and I've seen the movie 5 times..Jack..Jack..Jack, there's a boat...
Ahh, come on guys, it's a funny piece in a day otherwise full of woe. Get over yourselves and have a little fun! This is meant to be fluff and I had a good chuckle with the whole S.O.B. focus. Don't know either of the 2 guys or their habits, but calling someone an S.O.B. during a situation like this (albeit our situ's never gross in the millions) is something my friends and I do to each other all the time! Kudos to the writer of the fluff piece for giving us a grin!
Yes, sometimes it's nice to have a little piece of fluff in your life... I always enjoy chatting with Neil, even if he's wrong about that Pluto thing. ;-)
I'm with the vast majority of astrophysicist. Pluto has had it coming for a long time. :-) It's finally where it belongs.
I disagree Bill in Mill Creek.
I wonder if James Cameron fixed one of the other obvious bloopers in Titanic. The lake that Jack told Rose he went ice fishing on in dialog when she was threatening to jump is Lake Wissota, a man-made lake in Wisconsin near Chippewa Falls (where Jack grew up). However, this lake didn't exist until 1918 when a power company built a dam on the Chippewa River, six years after the Titanic sank.
If Cameron wants to be truly accurate, he need to change not only the night sky but also one of the major misconceptions he shamefully put in his visually stunning movie. In reality, every effort was made to bring those in the lower decks up to the main deck for rescue. There was no class favoritism. Then, millionaires such as John Jacob Astor and Benjamin Guggenheim stepped aside, allowing women and children from every station onto the few lifeboats. They, along with other "higher ranking" gentlemen died honorably.
Oh wow, another perfectionist!