Did James Cameron tell it all wrong? That’s why the “Titanic” really sank

There are some really wild theories surrounding the Titanic disaster, which sank in the North Atlantic on April 15, 1912, killing more than 1,500 people: Could a cursed mummy on board be to blame? Or perhaps the Titanic did not sink at all, but was replaced by its sister ship Olympia shortly before the accident?

In any case, such patently absurd theories left no one to question the official reading of events, which James Cameron also largely factually followed in his 1997 mega-hit “Titanic”: the result was the highest-grossing film of all time to that point – and made Leonardo DiCaprio definitively a global superstar!

Was James Cameron wrong?

But then, between 2004 and 2017, a new theory emerged, largely promoted by Irish journalist Senan Molony – and eventually even featured in the critically acclaimed documentary “Titanic: The New Evidence” (first broadcast January 1, 2017 on Channel 4 in the UK). ) flowed. That is the core of the theory that the main reason for the sinking was not the iceberg, but a fire in the coal bunker that had been smoldering for days.

If that were the case, not only would the earlier investigation into the sinking of the Titanic be obsolete, but also the $200 million blockbuster “Titanic”, which, despite 25 years of inflation, became the 4th highest grossing film of the year since 1997, despite 25 years of inflation. all time today – behind only “Avatar 2: The Way Of Water” at No. 3, “Avengers 4: Endgame” at No. 2, and “Avatar” at No. 1 (and yes, James Cameron actually occupies three of the top 4 spots) .

New Evidence!?

Senan Molony presented in the TV documentary at the time newly surfaced photos showing a 30-foot trail of soot on the Titanic’s hull. After no one had followed this trail particularly closely before, the journalist discovered that the fire in coal bunker 6 would have smoldered in the belly of the ship even before it left port: “It is precisely the area that collided with the iceberg . And apparently at this point there was some weakening or damage to the hull before the Titanic even left Belfast.”

Court documents also prove the existence of the fire: although it was extinguished on April 13, 1912 (i.e. one day before the collision and two days before the sinking), the great heat of up to 1000 degrees would have made the outer wall porous – and right on the point where the iceberg later ripped open the ship’s hull: “When the Titanic collided with the iceberg, the ship’s hull was so badly damaged that it could easily tear openexplains Molony, before eventually citing “fire, ice and criminal negligence” as the overriding combination of causes for the accident in the documentary.

Everything just covered?

According to Titanic: The New Evidence, White Star Line wanted to control the fire as much as possible. Molony on this: “The fire was known, but downplayed. The Titanic should never have set sail.” He also quotes Titanic Fireman John Dilley:

“Hundreds of tons of coal were stored there. I fought the fire with eleven men. Four days later it got worse. It took until Saturday before we could remove it. But the coals kept bubbling. We weren’t allowed to say anything about it.”

titanic

starting date

January 8, 1998

|
3 hours 14 minutes

By
James Cameron

Of

Leonardo DiCaprio,
Kate Winslet,
Billy Zaan

User review

4.3

movie starts

4.5

On Disney+ current

around the shine the theory made a big impression – it seemed not only fascinating, but also argumentatively convincing, which is why it quickly found adherents within the scientific community. Even then an article appeared on FILMSTARTS with the title, which in retrospect may be a bit too risqué: “James Cameron told it wrong: that’s probably why the Titanic really went down.”

Because there were opponents to the theory from the start – including Malte Fiebing-Petersen, the president of the German Titanic Association, who did not accept the newly discovered photos of the soot on the hull as evidence: “A bunker fire could have had an impact on the sinking, but the photo is not proof A connection between the mysterious place and the bunker fire can be ruled out.

And apparently he was on the right steamer: The coal fire theory is now considered to be all but disproved – as summarized again in this YouTube video from the Titanic Animations channel:

@Rossimint’s top comment below the video sums up the intermediate fascination with the theory and – pun warp! – Untergang again very well together:

“”

So James Cameron wasn’t wrong after all. At least not in such a significant way. At another point, however, the director of “Titanic” got it all wrong – and so even digitally altered the film afterwards for the home theater version. But that’s a whole other story…