Dunno. It’s possible my sarcasm-meter is busted. If so, color me wooshed.
Fenris
Dunno. It’s possible my sarcasm-meter is busted. If so, color me wooshed.
Fenris
Wow… great discussion. Much better than the one I was in recently, on another board, where I tried to talk about some of the same things and got responses that amounted to “Titanic is #1! IT’s the best movie EVAR!!!” Which gives you an idea of its loyal fan base, anyway…
Put me in the “neither here nor there” camp for Titanic. It’s not the worst film ever, nor is it one of my favorites. The reasons for its popular appeal have been well-covered, rooted partially in its very cliched story, which gives it a wide popular appeal, and partially in the pre-exisiting interest in the story of the real Titanic.
The latter is the reason I appreciate parts of Titanic. Though mostly in the background, the finer details of the film are what makes me want to watch it. As Dr.One-L pointed out so well, Cameron did do some homework to get many of the historical details right, and to fit them into the context of the story. For what it’s worth, the only really heart-wrenching part of the story for me is the one that focuses briefly away from the main story. The “Nearer My God to Thee” sequence near the end, as the string players play their final song, and we see other passengers on the ship – a mother reading her children to sleep, an old couple holding each other on bed – gets me all misty every time I see it. There’s something to be said for that.
But yeah, the “Jack/Rose” storyline is pretty much a throwaway romance, and it’s unfortunate that Cameron chose to make a fiction the center of attention, when there are so many compelling true stories that could fill ten three-hours movies better than his main story did.
Which is doubly unfortunate, because he had some great actors working on the film, and grossly underused them. Kate Winslet is a very fine actress (in more ways than one… ba-dum-bum), and Titanic is a film that underplays her considerable talent. She’s been a favorite of mine for some time, ever since I saw her in Sense and Sensibility and her stunning Ophelia in Hamlet. I’m glad Titanic gave her some notice, but I wish that it had been a better role. Similarly for di Caprio… I loved him in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape and Romeo and Juliet, but Titanic just seemed like a step down for him, even though it made him quite famous for a while. Even some of the secondary actors were underused – Bill Paxton’s proven that he can be far better in movies like A Simple Plan and (especially) Frailty, David Warner is usually a great villain but was somewhat flat in Titanic, and Kathy Bates has been far better in more movies than I can name offhand.
Even the music seems unfortunate. James Horner has been a favorite composer of mine for years, but his Titanic score is far from his best work. A fairly blatant ripoff of the Enya song “Book of Days” (Enya had been asked to write music for Titanic, but declined due to a short timeline), the main Titanic works well for a few small parts of the film but is overall somewhat uninspired. Again, it was nice to see Horner get some attention and win an Oscar. I just wish it could have been for some of his really good work, like Braveheart or Sneakers or Glory.
Titanic is a compelling story that suffers from an unfortunately cliched fiction at its forefront. Its current popular appeal can’t be denied, but it remains to be seen whether it will stay popular. It seems to me that its early popularity has waned quite a bit, and I doubt it will have the staying power of some of the “timeless” classics such as Wizard of Oz or Gone with the Wind. In twenty years, we might just be asking, “What Titanic?”
Huh. I love the score of the movie and I think it adds a lot to the film. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Throw in this article to the mix (scroll down a bit to the Five Years Ago section)… it’s just ‘one man’s opinion,’ but it’s interesting nonetheless, and right in line with what many have said here.
And JohnT, don’t get me wrong… Horner’s music for Titanic is one of the best elements of the film itself. But compared with Horner’s large body of work, the music for Titanic is painfully derivative and honestly on the lower end of the spectrum. I suppose it’s more of a crime to me that some of his really great scores get ignored while this one gets all the attention.
Which seems to be the problem with Titanic overall, I suppose. The film itself isn’t even Cameron’s best work, in my opinion. The Abyss is more emotionally honest (at least, with his intended ending), and Aliens was a better action movie. From the standpoint of script, Strange Days is definitely the best story I’ve seen Cameron pen (so good that I couldn’t tell he wrote it, until I looked at the credits), though I’m so glad that he got his one of his exes, Kathryn Bigelow, to direct it. She really made it into an excellent film. Titanic is sub-par compared to these films.
If nothing else, it deserves special mention for those GORGEOUS COSTUMES!!!
Everyone else was drooling over Leo and/or Kate. I was drooling over layers of lavender silk, silver beads, blue velvet…
sigh
BiblioCat, I apologize. Between the fact that every teenaged girl I’ve ever seen spent too much money and that right now I’d really, really broke, my skewed perspective came out of bitterness of my own at the time.
I was a teenage girl when I went to see it.
Just kidding.
I never saw that crappy movie.
Well, I’ll tell you why I was there. For the history. Maybe it was man’s hubris againt all-powerful nature, maybe it was all the little things that could have saved them, but I have always been completely fascinated by the story of the Titanic. And I thought Cameron did a great job with the history of it. Yes, I know there were inaccuracies, but he did better than I expected. (Like Dr. One-L, I also noticed that yo-yo scene).
It’s so incredibly unusual to get a disaster picture that doesn’t just devolve into camp, and this one delivered the goods. Heck, if someone makes a good remake of Krakatoa, East of Java, I’ll be there. Although, they’d better get their Geography right this time 
How do you know it was crappy, then?
It came to me in a dream.
(obscure George Carlin joke)
it WAS a weak movie. the dialogue was little better than idiotic, the poor suitor vs. wealthy jerk suitor is overused (and i think they use the same actor in all of the movies…they all have the harry reems look) and the scenery/cinematography wasn’t worth the alleged 200 mil that went into it. what made it sell was 1)the vast amount of hype/publicity 2)kate winslett 3)kate winslett naked 4)the promise (unfulfilled) of some great titanicology 5)the theme song helped it sell. it was as classy song-syrupy, to be sure-but it promised much that the movie didn’t deliver.
Actually, the 200 million primarily went into the special effects. If that’s what you’re talking about, can you provide specifics? Because I thought all the footage of the disaster itself was incredibly realistic.
Again, can you provide some examples? I thought they did a great job of that. (Refer to Dr One-L’s post for some more specifics).
Fenris- I thought that the Matrix was a rip off of Grant Morrison’s Invisibles
i’ve heard the Morson thinks the Matrix
Wow, Lear got deleted in mid-sentence. Someone must have pulled his plug.
more like i wasn’t puting the effort in to make that post a full
sentance
I just meant that here (I live in Baltimore), “inner-city” means public housing and welfare. Not the types to spend money on seeing movies over and over. Just being an anal nitpicker. Sorry.
Oh, and count me in with those who loved Titanic. I saw it in the theater twice and own it on video.
Why does every movie have to make a profound political statement about the meaning of life? Does every movie have to be a commentary on the societal framework of our everyday life?
Does it have to be full of allegorical meaning?
Or full metaphorical bullshit?
Why can’t it just be entertainment? A good story? Two or three hours of escape?
I was not aware that the earning were those only earned in a theater. I am talking about gross numbers of sales of DVD’s and tapes as well. (if that is in the numbers).
8 mile only got 54 million in the first week? Pathetic, Spiderman Earned 114 million I believe (highest ever…not that it means much). Episode II earned pretty damn close to that. (104M or something)
Why do you think I asked how much, adjusted for inflation, titanic brought in it’s first weekend. I think my logic makes perfect sense. Oh, and put that cofee cup down, you are way to tense, I am not making fun of your precious movie. I actually liked it.
No, your math and logic makes NO sense. Period. Anybody with any knowledge of math will know that the average grosses per month will go down as the number of months increase. I can’t believe that I have to spell it out to you, but here goes:
Movie A is in release for one month only (August) and makes $400 million dollars. Movie B made $600 million for the one month it was out (say, May). By your logic, Movie A is the more successful movie because it made $400 million a month, and because you are making this point on September 1st, you think this is valid and accurate. Movie B, though it made more money, was nowhere near as successful because it only “averaged” $150 million a month. :rolleyes:
Need I point out to you that I wasn’t the only one who thought this was a baseless argument?
Oh, if you are thinking that I’m misunderstanding inflation, wrong again - you are the one misunderstanding it.
And no, the sales from DVD’s, TV rights, etc. are not in these figures - they are Box Office grosses, or did the name of the site not clue you in?
Btw, it is easy to figure out how much money Titanic made on it’s opening weekend. But I’ll leave it up to you to figure out, OK?
Point is, Spiderman “only” earned $400 million at the box office. Titanic earned $600 million which beats Spiderman, adjusted or not. Spiderman is no longer in release, which means that it will earn NO MORE money at the box office, which means that it is no longer a contender.