Here’s something that occurred to me about the movie Titanic (1997):
The film features a marine salvage hunter (played by Bill Paxton) who’s searching for a very expensive diamond necklace that supposedly went down with the Titanic. It turns out, in the end, that survivor Rose had actually stolen the necklace from her evil fiancé and help onto it for 80 years, before ultimately throwing it back into the ocean over the wreckage.
Now, it’s a common internet meme to vilify Rose for not giving the necklace to Paxton. And I get what the movie was going for: Rose didn’t owe Paxton anything. But I got to thinking: could Rose have given him the necklace? He was in charge of a salvage operation, but if the necklace hadn’t gone down with the ship, it wasn’t salvage, and he had no right to it - instead, it belonged to the evil fiancé’s heirs. And he couldn’t just lie and say he found it in the wreck: the search was being performed by remote controlled submersibles, so if he suddenly “found” it, where was the footage?
I’m sure with a little effort Paxton (or his screenwriters) could have contrived a way to hide the necklace on the exterior of the submersible somewhere outside the cameras’ fields of view, then descend, drop it, turn the submersible around, and … “Eureka!”
The problem I’d have is that anything not encrusted in ~100 years of sea growth is an obvious plant. How to get around that is tougher. Not to mention the basic needle in haystack problem. Finding an actual single necklace, even in some kind of chest or safe, amongst the twisted wreckage of a Titanic-size ship is crazy unlikely to succeed.
Since the necklace was a gift from Cal to Rose, wouldn’t it legally belong to her to dispose of as she pleased? I know better than to even try to get a gift back from an old girlfriend.
I don’t think vegetable matter grows at depths of two miles, does it? There’s no light for photosynthesis. Anyway, I remember reading somewhere that the current at Titanic’s location pretty much scours everything clean. The “icicles” on the wreckage come from microorganisms devouring the iron in the steel.
Now that the question has been answered, I’m going to add: I’m on Rose’s side. It’s HER necklace. She can do what she wants with it. She owes Brock nothing. He’s a twit anyway, as is his idiot helper Bodine.
The characters getting “gold fever” over the stone really drags down an interesting film on life, death, love and sacrifice. I wish they’d edit a version that eliminates almost everything in the “modern” setting.
Rose killed 1,500 people by playing grab-ass with a steerage tramp, thereby distracting the iceberg-watching crew. She then took up valuable space on a lifeboat only to jump back aboard a sinking ship, thereby denying that space to someone else. And because she jumped back on the ship, Jack had to spend his time trying to save her instead of saving himself.
And when she dies, does she go back to the husband with whom she raised children? No, she goes back to the 2-day steerage hookup! And the less said for closing one’s eyes and blindly swinging an axe at someone’s hands, the better.
Not necessarily saying that she owes Brock the diamond - her family likely would be better recipients of the thing (or the insurance company which paid a claim on it, as noted above). But Rose’s selfishness drives the entire plot, and while she may be a protagonist, she’s definitely not a Good Person.
Nitpick: Rose and Cal were not married yet. Neither did they have children. She hated his guts even before Jack came along.
Distracted or not, the men in the crow’s nest wouldn’t have seen the iceberg in time because they had no binoculars. They were safely stowed away and couldn’t be retrieved because Second Officer David Blair, who had been transferred to another ship at Southampton, still had the key to the locker in his pocket.
I didn’t say they were Cal’s children, or that he was her husband. But she had kids, had them with some man, and when she died, she ignored her entire post-Titanic history and went back to Jack.
In this world. In the world of the movie, it’s established fact that the guys in the crows nest were looking at Rose when they should’ve been looking at icebergs.
I haven’t seen the movie in a quarter century, but as I recall: Rose tells her granddaughter that she never even told her father about Jack. I took this to mean the girl’s father was Rose’s son by Jack, and not that she had married someone else and borne his child in the years after 1912.
Yeah, I also read it as her spirit descending to the depths to join the other ghosts on the ship. If you look at the final scene, you’ll notice that everyone present is people who went down with the ship. Molly Brown (Kathy Bates) - who survived - isn’t there
I don’t think so. We know that she had all these adventures when she was young, after the sinking (as shown in the pictures by her bed); I doubt she was supposed to have experienced them with a small child in tow. There certainly isn’t one in the photos.
You can hate Rose, hate the film, heck, hate my post, but this is BS. She had nothing to do with their deaths. By dialog in the film Cal is far more responsible, for delivering inferior steel which failed in the cold. Heck, Andrews was totally responsible for not sealing off the tops of the watertight compartments. What good is a watertight compartment that isn’t watertight?
This, on the other hand I can get behind. It starter bothering me, sometime around the 15th viewing.
)