I'm currently watching this god-aweful piece of garbage on tv because, since I've succeeded in getting my daughter quite interested in the sinking she's naturally curious about this movie. While the technical feats of the film when it sticks to the facts will be enjoyable to see...I have to constantly remind my child that this stupid Jack/Rose love story is complete fiction, fabricated solely for entertainment (as was that idiotic 'Heart of the Ocean necklace'.

Poor Jack Dawson has already managed to get himself into trouble with the evil, 'rich' fiance by saving Rose from her ridiculous suicide attempt.

One thing that IS interesting to note is that one of the wealthy gentlemen passengers is played by the actor who was cast as lookout Frederick Fleet in the far superior 'A Night To Remember'. He is much more well known however, as 'Dr. Bombay' from the tv series, 'Bewitched'.

Apple

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!


My daughters think it's hilarious that right after she promises Jack that she'll never let go, Rose SHOVES him into the water to save herself. It is fairly amusing the way she pulls her hand free.

A disastrous movie!!!

Because God forbid fictional fabrications "for the sake of entertainment"!!! God forbid historical inaccuracies in Cinema!!!

An end to the sarcasm, then:

Art has no obligation to teach via historical accuracy. In fact, I'd prefer it if it didn't. Watch a documentary, a document, of the event, not a fictionalisation. Or even better, and less lazy, might be to read a textbook.

I love Titanic because of its lavish production design, its visual seduction when I saw it on the big screen, and it is often very tense - I remember the scenes of Winslet in the water-filled corridors vividly. And I haven't seen it in years, so if lingering imagery counts for anything, I must say the film's quite the masterpiece.

I look at "TITANIC" in the same manner that you do; purely entertainment. And I also happen to like it.


Don Cardi

James Cameron's TITANIC isn't a bad film, its just a 3 hour $200+ million runaway budget chick flick that so totally didn't deserve to win all those Oscars. Besides, only the foolish people would think the love story is factual, right?

The Technical scope presented by Cameron is outstanding. The insane accurate touches to detail, in regards to the entire subject field relegated to the Titanic sinking, on the sets is certainly worth watching for as well.

A great scene is a CGI simulation in the first Act that basically shows the entire sinking within 20 seconds as such, presented as a video game without regards to the hundreds that horribly died. Think about it!

While I'm trying to half-way defend it, I just remembered that it beat the great masterpiece that is L.A. CONFIDENTIAL for Best Picture.

Yeah, fuck TITANIC.

The movie was ok but a scene toward the end of the movie really pissed me off.

Spoiler alert
The scene where this chick is getting into a life raft and she has the nerve to say "is this the 1st class raft?"

You are at the point of death and this was her concern? That just pissed me off to no end

But in truth that was the way it was back in those days on cruise ships. Those who were from money were treated like royalty and those who were not were treated like shit. I could see one of those rich bitches making a statement like that when it actually happened in real life.

The part of the movie that always gets me is the scene where the ship is starting to sink and they show the mother, who obviously knows that the end is near, lying in bed with her children, trying to comfort them and pretending that they are just going to sleep. That scene just breaks my heart.

Don Cardi

I know you are right Cardi but that just ticked me off. I'm glad I am not that type of person.

The scene you are talking about with the mother and her children broke my heart also.

A little trivia for you. The actress that played the mother that you're talking about has been used in various James Cameron films. She was John's foster mother in Terminator 2 and Garcia (I think that was her name) in Aliens. Looks different, doesn't she?

First of all, I think the idea of a 'SPOILER ALERT' on a 9yr old movie that practically everyone on earth has seen is a bit ridiculous.

Second, while my opinion of the movie remains the same...in defense of that scene she does attempt to revive him for quite a few seconds before accepting that he is dead. And she breaks free because she knows she's got to get to the whistle in that dead officer's mouth and use it before that quickly departing lifeboat is too far away to save even her.

It's called the survival instinct and I wonder how many of us would continue to clutch Jack's frozen, dead hand in that situation.

What's more fairly amusing but also a bit absurd (as is most of their story) is how Rose TWICE foregoes opportunities to board a lifeboat in order to return to and save her beloved Jack.

Apple

Fuck that. I can't even begin to justify why spoilers aren't necessary because of age and/or a film's popularity. Perhaps on other grounds, but not those.

I'd genuinely like to hear your counter-thoughts on my first post in this thread.

Gee, Apple, is it difficult to watch a movie and type a post, all the time you're so high on your horse??

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I was being polite to anyone who hadn't seen the damned thing. Maybe they don't want to know that Jack ends up dead at the end of the movie.

And is there any reason that you decided that you desperately needed to piss on my daughter's interpretation of the a scene that she finds funny??? Why don't you go back to YOUR daughter and tell her how completely unpure the film is because it actually has scenes in it that aren't true?!

You are correct.

It doesn't make Jack & Rose's story any less of a piece of obscene bullshit than it is.

Now the ship has just struck the iceberg and here we go, back to that stupid story where the fiancee' and his butler attempt to frame poor, sweet Jack by dropping the necklace into his pocket.

Evil, mean rich people...they're all bad, bad, BAD!!!!

Apple

You just can't help yourself, huh?



Don Cardi

Okay, fair enough; but why relate that to how the film might portray the actual event that happened in history, and then go on to say A Night to Remember is better?

What are you trying to sell, here? That Titanic contains a shitty romance, or that A Night to Remember is historically more accurate? Feel free to try and sell both, of course, but I don't see how the two relate.

Do you also feel that way about "Pearl Harbor"?

I happen to enjoy "Pearl Harbor" for the same reasons. A good entertaining story revolving around real life history.


Don Cardi

You seem to be fond of that 'high horse' phrase. You've used it in the past. Takes one to know one.



Be as polite as you want, If I were reading a thread about a 1997 film that became world famous and won several Academy Awards including best picture...I would neither expect nor deserve the courtesy of a spoiler alert.

But please...don't tell anybody that the ship sinks. THAT would spoil EVERTHING!



Already have. I'm telling it to her periodically even as we watch the movie.

She's already seen 'A Night To Remember' with me and knows my feelings of the comparison between the two.

Apple

The boat sinks????!!!!!

Happy now?? You've entirely ruined the film for me.

Which One? The Titanic or The USS Arizona?


Don Cardi

DC, Please, stop!! You're ruining Pearl Harbor for me now, and I haven't seen it yet!!

Sorry.

SPOILER ALERT!!!


Pearl harbor is attacked by the Japenese and the USS Arizona sinks.

Is that better?


Don Cardi

Because A Night to Remember is better.



To be honest, Titanic IS historically accurate EXCEPT for the shitty romance...the sad part (for me anyway) is that the shitty romance is really what dominates the film; the ship and disaster merely serving as a backdrop to the insipid Jack & Rose story.



The two 'relate' because both films feature the Titanic disaster. And while one is technically superior because current-day film technology, a substantially fatter budget and the advantage of having located the real ship some 10 years earlier...the other, simpler, black & white version with no big names paid far more attention to the details of the tragedy itself, because it was based on a book that was written predominantly via eyewitness accounts of survivors themselves.

Now Capo...I know you're far too intelligent to suggest I should not be stating my preference of one film over the other. So I'll assume you are simply trying to generate discussion, which is admirable.

Apple

DC, with the way history seems to be re-written on these boards you might want to add "According to the movie" the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor lol

Capo I am not going to argue against your opinion because I basically agree with you that art has no obligation to exactly portray historical facts. However I differ with you on a subjective aspect. The movie Titanic was a total piece of crap, with no merits whatsoever. OK, you know that is not true, there was that suit she wore during the painting scene. The movie was worth watching at least for that

You ever see "Pearl Harbor" DMC?


Don Cardi

Never saw it, didn't see Titanic either

Well, then I hope you paid attention to the Spoiler Alerts, DMC.

I did, and I thank you for not ruining the movie for me, it is on my netflix though, I hope to watch it soon. I should stay out of this topic though so I don't accidentally ruin it for myself

HAHAHAHAHA.........I remember when Titanic came out my ex went to see it with some friends and came home crying. She said it was so sad that she never wanted to see it again. I was freaking thrilled because I wouldnt ever have to watch that crap fest.

Don Cardi, you fucking liked PEARL HARBOR?

Man, your license to be the patriotic defender of America has been revoked.

You have no idea how that movie pissed me off. Not just as a self-respectable movie buff, but as an American.

"Well boys, World War two has just begun!"

Jesus Christ. I remember Roger Ebert slammed the movie as this: ""Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle. Its centerpiece is 40 minutes of redundant special effects, surrounded by a love story of stunning banality. The film has been directed without grace, vision, or originality, and although you may walk out quoting lines of dialog, it will not be because you admire them.
"

I could see Jerry Bruckheimer hearing the pitch for PEARL HARBOR from Michael Bay. "Yes, its SAVING PRIVATE RYAN meets TITANIC! We'll make billions and Oscars!"

Really, that fucking piece of shit for a movie had an insane media exposure that, in pre-release, almost made it seem that attacking the movie was attacking "the vets". The same mentality I heard with SPR and FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS(though, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was really good, but thats another story).

Thankfully, the public saw PEARL HARBOR, and it sank quickly afterwards. I remember an old WW2 war vet seeing it at the theater I worked for at the time. He came out all pissed and depressed.

"They took the war and made it a god damn cosmetics commercial of a joke!"

I laughed at the time upon hearing this. Then I saw the movie. Fuck, imagine you fight this war where your buddies get blown to bits, and to honor them, they get a 3-hour shitfest about Dickhead(Ben Affleck) and Pussy (Josh Harnett) fighting it out over a girl that doesn't deserve anyone's attraction.