Movies | TV | Books | Quotes Easter Eggs | Drink Recipes
[Slipups.com Logo] The Slip-Up ArchiveTM
SLIPUPS.COM
Google
Web slipups.com
Home > Movies > Q - T > Titanic Bloopers Add a Slip-Up | Help
   
Titanic - Picasso
In the scene where Kate Winslett and her fiancé (she hates him) look at the Picasso painting. This particular Picasso painting can't be there because it is in a museum now, and in the movie the Titanic sank with the pictures.
Special Requirements:
titanic movie
Avg. Rating:    4.8 of 10 - (526 votes cast)
Your Rating:   
Contributed By:
Nicolas on 08-18-1999
Reviewed By:
Webmaster

Pictures Click on the thumbnails for a full-size image, or send in your own
Be the first to send us your picture of this Slip-Up!
Comments:
Fernanda Abdala writes:
Hello people! I'm an art fan. This specific painting of Picasso was only finished in 1916, 4 years after Titanic sank...
49 of 64 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
LLij-aise writes:
Let's solve this debate right now: Shortly after the movie came out, I read an article in Entertainment magazine (I think) that compared the events/info in the movie to the actual Titanic sinking. This article said that "Titanic experts" or Titanic researchers know beyond reasonable doubt that there were NO paintings by Picasso, Monet, and/or Degas aboard the ship when it sank. In fact the article said that there weren't any paintings by artist that are now considered masters. That scene was most likely put in the movie to give the viewer insight to Rose as a person and her relationship with Cal.
16 of 20 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
cjsl writes:
I believe the art was included to show that Rose had an eye for art. Cal thought the Picasso and the others were worthless. When Rose comments later that Jack is a fine artist, the audience knows that she's right.
21 of 31 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
Godsmacker writes:
You know, it IS possible that there were more than one copy of the paintings. Besides, how is James Cameron supposed to know what paintings they ACTUALLY had? He probably just grabbed a couple of copies of some paintings he liked and threw 'em in the movie! If they went down in the movie, they didn't necessarily go down in real life!
19 of 32 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
ymeng2000 writes:
Agree! It's just a movie. It's neither a slip-up nor an egg. Those paintings by Picasso, Monet and degas are among the most well known art works. Jim put them in the movie to try to show his passion for art.
12 of 18 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
RonJLow writes:
Monet especially is known for making MANY paintings of the exact same scene. He could fill a 2' x 3' canvas with those pointelist dots in less than an hour. He was interested in capturing the very subtle changes that the shifting daylight caused in the mood of a scene. He needed to work fast. When he did Haystacks and his works were for the first time the subject of a major exhibit, he was hailed as the first to capture on canvas the concept of time passing. Picasso no doubt did multiple "studies" of a single image as well. He would of course sell them to get money for more paint.
11 of 16 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
Vicki writes:
This is not a documentary. It is a movie based on the Titanic. Stuff was thrown in to add effect, not to be scrutinized.
9 of 12 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
kristabelle writes:
Hey Sharky, the point trying to be made isn't regarding whether or not an original was used in the movie--it's that if it was on the ship and sank, then the world at large would not know about the paintings, and therefore they would not be in museums now. It would have been better if the film had used paintings similar to those done by Monet or Picasso, so it is believable that Rose had authentic paintings that are now lost at the bottom of the ocean.
6 of 7 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
Immortality writes:
If James Cameron used the Mona Lisa instead of a Picasso painting, people would see that as a joke or perhaps even an easter egg because they would know that the painting wasn't really on the Titanic. Now, in the movie he used another painting than the Mona Lisa (but still a painting that still exist) but now people don't see it as a joke but as a mistake......hmmmmm get my drift..?
7 of 9 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
serendipity writes:
Could it be that Cameron use easily recognized paintings? Not everyone is an art historian. Rose and Jack were not on Titanic either.
9 of 14 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
Homer writes:
one word: PRINTS
7 of 12 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
jenell78 writes:
Cameron was not trying to say that those specific paintings went down with the ship. Once again, he was more than likely just trying to show "Rose's" appreciation for great art. You people overannylize way too much.
7 of 12 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
WolfSpirit73 writes:
The movie showed many, many valuable items in the rooms and the storage area, because the immigrants that were actually on The Titanic were starting a new life in America. Of course they would have brought their most precious along with their personal belongings. I also know through reading and watching many documentaries on the sinking of the Titanic, that they believe there were more than likely numerous items of great value that were brought on board. After all, they were starting over so to speak. The movie, although a dramatic recreation, tried to throw in a few factual points that were recounted by written or taped survivors testimonies.
4 of 6 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
charly boy writes:
Some of you insist that James Cameron put those paintings to show that she knew about art (paintings).... maybe he couldĀ“ve just added a scene where she paints! And get this discussion over with! Now, I dont think that the movie is an historic replica. But they went to great effort and reproduced even the plates! So they should have taken better care about the dates those paintings were done.
7 of 12 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
Morna writes:
They should have clarified that those were copies for the sake of historical accuracy...though I don't know if that would have fit with trying to show how filthy rich Cal is.
3 of 4 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
loramer writes:
Also sinking in the movie that didn't sink in real life were at least 3 Monet's
4 of 7 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
fireguardian writes:
It's fiction, people, does it really matter if the painting hadn't been done before 1912, or that it is now hanging in a museum? IT'S FICTIONAL PEOPLE!!!!
8 of 15 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
drunken.honesty writes:
Okay. I have no idea when the painting was made but that doesn't matter. The movie is a fictious story based on a real event. They are not saying that the picasso painting was on that ship.
4 of 9 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
divajinx writes:
If Rose & Jack aren't real Titanic passengers then the art work doesn't have to be real either. James Cameron is an artist himself so of course he loves including pieces in his movies. The Heart of the Ocean was the star piece of art and even that was only a prop piece; not a real relic. I loved the paintings James used. They did add some color to an otherwise dull, dark suite.
0 of 1 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
Sharky writes:
hey net-cat, dontcha think the producer wouldnt use the originals? DUHH! theyre probably copies
6 of 14 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
net-cat writes:
If paintings did go down with the ship, it would be Impossible to use them in a movie.
9 of 28 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes


Register - My Settings - FAQ - Privacy Policy - About Us - Contact Us