Naw, y’all are good.
A hunky, but poor man like Jack engaged to a snooty wealthy young woman is one bizarre fantasy! Unless she was of his class, suddenly independently wealthy and offered her old pal from the neighborhood a sweet deal. Snooty wealthy young women of the time were, as Rose was, snatched up and cordoned off to mingle with their own kind. They lived the most constricted lives and never spoke to the lower classes, That’s why heroines like Rose in Titanic (and Scarlett O’Hara in Gone With the Wind and maybe the divorcing (!) Countess in Age of Innocence) are so rare and memorable. They burst the bonds, they were rebellious independent types.
I mean, that is actually a traditional motif going back much further: namely, “the humble apprentice and the master’s daughter”, or even the late master’s widow. Sometimes such relationships were born of spontaneous affection, sometimes frankly viewed as a career move. But you’re right, according to modern masculinity stereotypes it’s bizarre behavior for an impecunious attractive young man to “sell himself” into an advantageous but unfulfilling marriage.
Even by the Victorian-ish period AFAICT, that would have made a male figure irredeemably comic, not heroic. There seems to have been a flare-up around that time of fictional comic situations where a male protagonist enters into such an engagement, reaps the pecuniary advantages of it, and then manages to get out of it before marriage: see, e.g., the Judge in Gilbert and Sullivan’s Trial by Jury, or Kipling’s “The Post That Fitted”.
But nowadays even in comedy a male protagonist faking his way into a relationship for material advantage makes him fatally unsympathetic, AFAICT (Prince Hans in Frozen, anyone?).
It’s empowering for a young woman in Rose’s situation, in a male-dominated society and soon to be trapped in a loveless marriage to a jerk, to be able to choose her own lover. It also does her credit, from our modern perspective, that the man she chooses is from what she would otherwise be expected to look down upon as the lower classes. So of course we don’t hold it against her that she falls for Jack.
Isn’t The Sound Of Music basically the reverse? Also there are differences between engagement scenarios and a marriage. A man can be seen as having social and family expectations and being brave and manly in risking those for a “common” woman provided she’s attractive enough.
Reverse of what? IIRC the Baroness that Captain von Trapp in Sound of Music gets engaged to is aristocratic and wealthy, but then so is he. And it’s the Baroness who eventually breaks off their engagement, because she recognizes that he’s in love with Maria. No cheating occurs, AFAIK.
Sure. It’s not extramarital passion per se that makes a male character appear stereotypically “unmanly”, it’s the connotations of helplessness and “loserdom” that are attached to the notion of a man enduring an unhappy marriage for material advantage.
(If, on the other hand, he is conscientiously staying with a wife who’s a permanent invalid or in an insane asylum or something, so as not to desert her in her trouble, then he is a super-sympathetic character and his torrid doomed extramarital passion is depicted as very romantic.)
Re-watching LOTR: The Two Towers reminds me that Bernard Hill was in both in Titanic (as the captain) and LOTR(TTT and ROTK) (as Théoden) .
brian
That’s right. And David Warner, the arrogant millionaire’s henchman, was in Tron, Time Bandits, A Christmas Carol with George C. Scott, not one but two Star Trek movies, and ST: TNG, among many other roles.
Who knew icebergs could sing?!?
He was also Jack the Ripper in Time After Time with Malcolm McDowell and Mary Steenbergen. A nice little movie from 1979.
I fell in crush with Mary Steenburgen when I saw that movie a year or two after release…
Yes, it was! It was on heavy rotation in HBO’s early days, and I watched it a lot.
[Debates internally whether to stick my neck into this. Checks DVR. Sees mostly women’s gymnastics for the foreseeable future. Briefly considers starting a thread on women’s gymnastics. Sighs, says the hell with it. Drags out old, creaky soapbox.)
It was all right. It was pretty decent. It was watchable. (Not without three restroom breaks, minimum, but watchable.) It was, on the whole, a positive experience. I kinda mostly liked it. It wasn’t a waste of time. I was able to have a nice little discussion about it with my parents afterward, which I appreciated.
The parts everyone said were great (set design, effects, costumes, the ship sinking) really were great. The parts everyone said were lousy (dialogue, plot holes, heavy-handedness) really were lousy. Leonardo DiCaprio was good. Kate Winslet was good. Billy Zane was…erm…dependable.
I’d give it 6/10. That’s in the review sense, not the school sense. (Stop making everything about school. School sucks. 
) That’s “not gooooooood, but not baaaaaad either” or “good enough to be good enough” territory. I wouldn’t watch it again, but if it was playing somewhere in the mall I wouldn’t be driven away.
James Cameron deserves all the credit for realizing that there was a massive untapped gold mine (girls with money) who’d been ignored for pretty much the entirety of American history and refusing to budge on his dream. He is a genius visionary who’s earned every bit of his success. He is also a colossal grandstanding arrogant jerk who I probably could not listen to for thirty seconds before stomping away in a huff. These two stances are fully compatible.
'Kay, I’m done. 
[Goes back to watching tool-assisted speedruns.]
I’ve been needing new glasses for a few months now, so maybe I can blame this on them:
On the movie poster (Jack in one upper corner, Rose in the other upper corner) is the bow of the ship supposed to be referencing Jaws? Even subliminally?
I’m gonna go lie down in a dark room. Carry on.
What plot holes?
I have to agree. There were a lot of plot issues but no plot holes as far as I can tell after watching it 30 times. 
It’s one of the few movies my 70 year old mom went to in the theater, and enjoyed! Even at 3 hours 26 minutes with no intermission.
Anyone hungry?
Does the menu have cockie leekie?
I don’t know what it is, I just like saying cockie leekie.
This part though:
“We are sticking to the classics from the menu and the time period, however, we are going to put our own little spin on it, some more modern techniques"
People just can’t leave well enough alone.
It wasn’t me: https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/style/titanic-door-prop-auction-planet-hollywood/index.html
15 months* and that ebay link for a film frame is STILL THERE! I think you’re asking too much, buddy.
*My auction will go ooooooon and on…