Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
So, having watched the end of the Titanic programme, it transpires that the rivets weren't very good, and they should have hit the iceberg bow foremost rather than trying to avoid it.
I already knew both these things.
Furthermore, although the metallurgical properties of the rivets leading to the seam failure of the hull and the potential survivability of the vessel had it collided bow-first with the iceberg were apparently the main points being made by the programme, both those factors got about thirty seconds of stating the actual fact - about as much time as it takes to say the words I typed above in suitably portentous tones.
FFS, an hour-and-a-half (including adverts) for all that? Somebody's getting paid too much for making programmes about the Titanic
A message to the people who make these things: I'm very good at stating things in a doom-laden voice. Next time you need a voice-over chap to say something like "It was this property of the rivets that would lead inevitably to the deaths of x people" just give me a call. I don't care if it's a boat, or a plane, or a pair of hobnail boots - I can be really portentous when I want to talk about rivets. Rivetting, even
Comment