medcop2001
I have been reading the reviews above, and can't for the life of me understand why some feel the need to tear it apart. My husband found this while cruising thru the viewing grid. We went back and downloaded the first couple of episodes to watch. When we watched, we were impressed with the high production values. We knew this was a work of fiction with the Titanic being the background. Most miniseries are originally based in some truth, but filled out fiction. Even James Cameron's movie had fictional characters. That said, I found the first couple of episodes very engaging. I did find the character of Mark Muir to be a bit of a pompous jerk. I loved Lord Pirrie and Thomas. I think Chris Noth did a great job as JP Morgan. It appeared that they gave Neve Campbell a completely factious role so they could have a little bit of recognition from the American audiences. They could've stretched this out to two seasons and not rushed the story lines along. Some of the background stories were rushed and you ended up not caring about it. There were all types of situations that some of those characters would never have been in due to class restrictions of the times. The accents are off and sometimes unbelievable. The production is of high values and in HD. They are beautifully shot. Some of the costumes are out of character for the people in them. The costumes are stunning. Sophia is a beautiful girl, and her dresses are equally beautiful. I found it a bit too rich for her poverty surroundings. She never wore the same outfit twice. Kitty's costumes were beautiful and class appropriate. The men mostly wore clothes that were appropriate. I hope that the people who watch this enjoy it for what it is, a miniseries that entertains. If you spend the entire series picking it apart for historical inaccuracies, then you are just wasting your time. Watch it and enjoy the production as a whole. Most of us have no idea of how Belfast looks today, much less back in the early 1900's. I enjoyed the story, but was frustrated about how it ended. They should've taken their time and spread it out into 2 seasons. Don't skip this program due to reviews. Watch the first episodes and decide for yourself. I watched it on demand from Encore. With all of the reruns being shown now, it's a fresh option to watch on a weeknight or weekend.
J Kent Layton
As a maritime and Titanic author and historian, I was quite interested to see this production, as it focused on the construction of the legendary liner and came at things from a unique perspective. Unfortunately, I am beyond disappointed (appalled would be a more apt word) by the historical errors that made their way into the miniseries.I have been working my way through the 12-part miniseries, trying desperately not to shred the arms of my chair or grinding my teeth to powder in so doing. Although the production might be an enjoyable piece if it were purely fictional, the history of the Titanic became a tragic, jumbled mess in this production.In some respects I found that it captured the period. However even there the effect was not complete; for example, the "jazz" music in the early-episode society scenes was about 10-15 years too premature, and that's something that anyone could get right.Was it poor research that caused this historical monstrosity? Apparently not. Why? Because of how many little details they apparently had easy access to and saw fit to include in the production (i.e., the number of passengers on Olympic's crossing where she tangled with the Hawke, the design of the Great Gantry, the fact that the riveters were paid by the rivet, the way the rivet seals were tested, the name of the British Board of Trade inspector, etc.). Meanwhile, the production included an overwhelming number of serious historical errors, many of which were easier to "get right" than the aforementioned factoids.Included in this list of grievous technical and historical mistakes are:* The "fact" that J. P. Morgan bankrolled and exercised great influence in the design and construction of the vessels. White Star paid for the vessels, and Ismay and White Star, rather than Morgan directly, had primary influence in the design and construction; * The steel issues, which is an older theory which has really been addressed and is blown entirely out of proportion in this production; * The blueprints for the Titanic shown from the opening credits through every episode, and which are actually, in every instance I noticed, of the Lusitania; * The slip that the Titanic was built on in the show is actually Olympic's slip; * The "fact" that the Olympic/Hawke collision (September 20, 1911) took place long before the launch of the Titanic (May 31, 1911) (???!!!); * The term "unsinkable" (or "practically unsinkable") is dreamed up and applied primarily to Titanic by the fictional character after the collision with the Hawke, when in reality it was introduced by White Star publicity and period Trade journals such as The Shipbuilder during construction of the two liners, and was applied to both equally. (Coincidentally, the special number of The Shipbuilder in which the term appeared is seen in the series long before Muir supposedly dreamed up the term); * The damage to the Olympic appears on the forward-port quarter of the hull, rather than the aft-starboard quarter; * Ismay saying that the Titanic would be 'much larger' than the Olympic; * Ismay didn't even have a speaking part, I don't believe, until the third episode; * The timing of any discussion regarding the possibilities of a double hull would have been back around 1907-1908 and applied to both ships, and would not have been applied solely to Titanic after the collision between the Olympic and the Hawke (in the end, a double-bottom was adopted for each); * The complete out-of-character, irritated, gruff behavior of Thomas Andrews throughout much of the first half of the series; * The worries within the yard that Titanic was just "too big" (the Germans were already starting work on the Imperator, which was still larger); * BOT Inspector Francis Carruthers was on site virtually every day of construction, yet he is not seen - until what, the fifth episode? - when he is lethargically tapping a couple of rivets. The implication is that Carruthers and the BOT exercised no real authority or oversight during construction, when in reality the original documentation and correspondence shows that they did not always see 'eye-to-eye' and had to work together to reach satisfactory results for both; * The concept that Harland & Wolff paid an unusually small amount of money to laborers (for the period, mind you) or were extraordinarily ungenerous in paying out benefits to families of those who were injured or killed in their yard (again, for the period). The record of payout benefits given to injured workers or to the families of those killed during construction of the two ships is still available and is actually quite high for the period.The list of egregious historical blunders just goes on and on. They are quite shocking in this series, especially since someone involved with the production/screenplay writing so clearly had access to little factoids that they saw fit to include. It was so badly done that I began to see in the fictional Muir character shades of the German Second Officer from the Nazi propaganda film, where he was the sole voice of reason warning everyone that the ship was doomed.If one even bothers to watch this miniseries, don't take anything in it as fact unless it is checked against leading research on the subject. In my view, this was a completely missed opportunity.
KatharineFanatic
"Titanic: Blood & Steel" proves there are still ways to approach material that has been revisited on the big and small screens in new and appealing ways. From the laying of the hull to her departure from Belfast, this is the story of the workers, businessmen, and common Irishmen impacted through the construction process of the most famous ship in history.It's strengths are its historical figures, such as the open-minded Lord Pirrie (Derek Jacobi at his finest) and the perfectionist, driven Thomas Andrews, who is depicted as I have always imagined him to be, soft-spoken and heroic. Its weaknesses lie in its lack of understanding for the social and sexual aspects of the period, as well as its (for me) rather unlikable leading man.When it comes to historical accuracy, it relies more on fiction than fact to tell its story but somehow this never seems too troubling. The politics of the era are explored: the struggle to unionize Ireland, the rivalries between Catholic and Protestant fractions, even a foray into the beginnings of the Irish Republican Army. The expense of the miniseries shows not only in the terrific cast but the incredible detail on the ships, their construction, the shipyards, and the lavish interiors.Some might complain about the ambiguous ending, but I like it, since it allows the audience to make their own conclusions about the fate of the main characters. The series held my attention and gave me twelve hours spent in the company of Lord Pirrie and Thomas Andrews -- as an amateur "RMS Titanic" historian, for that, I'm grateful.
