In Titanic when Brock Lovett said “Three years I’ve thought of nothing except Titanic, but I never got it, I never let it in.” did anyone not think he was going to say “I never let it sink in”?
I’m guessing the reason no one has replies to this thread is because it would be too far to joke about a real tragedy. Perhaps that’s why James Cameron didn’t go with that.
Too soon…
(Seriously, though, my wife is a congenital punner and she would’ve said that!)
I saw the movie three times, and I don’t remember that line. But hey, this was like 20 years ago.
He said, at the end of the movie, to Rose’s granddaughter (played by Suzy Amis). He had a victory cigar and tossed that into the ocean.
I just saw it (again) the other day. Epic movie, still well done.
What impresses me about the movie was their painstaking recreation of the sinking. Cameron’s team did a lot of research on the structural mechanics and hydrodynamics of the sinking and while years later they admit that later research showed they were a wee bit off here and there, on the whole they were spot on. What doesn’t impress me was the love story and the trite “rich girl meets poor boy and leaves her life of luxury for him”.
That’s exactly right. The romantic storyline was ridiculous but it brought all the young girls into the theaters, while everyone else was impressed by the superb cinematography, the incredible sets, and the special effects. Some parts of the movie were technically so incredibly well done, particularly the cinematography and the soundtrack, that one can just overlook the stupid parts of the script.
I had the chance to see some of the actual sets, and the formal splendor of some of the first-class suites was almost overwhelming when it actually surrounded you. Titanic is one of those rare movies that I simply don’t remember how many times I’ve seen. I do know that I kept upgrading the video that I had of it, from VHS to crappy DVD (the first release wasn’t even anamorphic, it was a shitty letterbox job), then the much better double DVD, and finally glorious 1080p.
Yes, definitely, the details of the sinking were very interesting. I attended a speech by Bob Ballard, around the time the movie came out, and that was fascinating to hear how he zeroed in on the Titanic and eventually found it.
I’m okay with the love story. They had to come up with something, or otherwise make it a documentary, and that would not appeal to the masses. The expectation of ticket sales allowed for a bigger investment in the movie, and we saw a better CG recreation of the ship and its fine luxurious accommodations. And from Wiki,
And the emotional aspect of the disaster did come through effectively.
People forget that A Night To Remember had a similar, but simpler, love story. I think it even had the young couple talking to Andrews in front of the painting. (it’s been a long time since I’ve seen ANTR, I could be mistaken).
History is Made At Night was all about the love story. I almost believe Cameron ripped off the plot of HiMaN for Titanic.
Having the romance humanizes the tragedy. But Cameron went too far. His obvious disdain for the first class people comes through, especially in the scenes with the drunken Irish. I think the scene where Guggenheim looks panicky as the water comes in is meant to be a slam on him. “See! The rich are really cowardly. The nice Irish woman calmly reads to her children as they drown. They don’t panic.” Sure. And the moment the 30 degree water hits them, their calmness goes right out the porthole. I guess showing children drown was just too much of a downer.
The more times I watch it, I really hate Brock and that doofus he has working for him. I wish I could make a “phantom edit” and remove almost all his scenes. Just keep old Rose. I love those transitions! Especially the one from the bow in 1912 that transitions to the current wreck.
This could be said about a lot of James Cameron’s work.
I still remember my grandfather sending me pictures taken from outside the film lot of the ship structure towering above the Fox Baja Studios. This was around 1995-96. He used to have a ranch a few miles from there until about 2010.
You might be thinking of this movie. A Night to Remember was, as I recall, faithful to the book, which was a straightforward documentary.
I think the point here was to emphasize the class divisions that existed in 1912. A great many third-class passengers, used to being treated like third-class citizens their entire lives, did calmly resign themselves to dying in the bowels of the ship and made no attempt to get to the upper decks. Third-class passengers who did survive expressed no ill feeling toward Bruce Ismay or the White Star Line when interviewed in New York as part of the US Senate’s investigation. They hadn’t expected to be treated any differently afloat than ashore.
I always enjoy Titanic much more when I skip the first 90 minutes or so and go straight to the iceberg.
I didn’t care particularly for the romance, but I did like hearing Old Rose tell the story from her point of view. This made it much more immediate for me. (I wonder how many in the audience realized there were still survivors around when the movie came out.)
The fictitious story also allowed different personality types to be examined, like Rose’s asshole fiance. There was a scene (filmed but later dropped) in which he was beating off survivors with an oar to keep them out of his lifeboat. The impact was much more immediate, knowing just who this dick was.
That made it not only acceptable, but imperative, for her to mess around on him with that no-account artist, who was hitting on an engaged woman. IOW there was enough assholishness in the story for three people. 
Yes, but an *unhappily *engaged woman. Very important in terms of the overall story. Plus, she was being pushed into the marriage by her mother, which ought to have been grounds for justifiable matricide.
Cameron pitched the movie to the studio as “Romeo and Juliet on **this **[he presented a coffee-table book full of photos of the ship],” and that’s how it sold. In creating a love triangle that reflected the social divisions of the time, set against a real historical event, he was thinking along the same lines as Michael Cimino in Heaven’s Gate (or indeed the producers of 1953’s Titanic).
Cameron overplayed his hand a couple other times, too.
It was speculated in real life that one of the causes of the sinking was that the steel used in the hull was of poor quality. It supposedly became brittle in the cold and cracked rather than bent when it hit the iceberg. If it were better steel, the theory goes, the damage might have been less severe, and the ship might not have sunk.
There is a quick line of dialog that steel from Cal’s company was used in the ship. Cameron is stacking the deck - not only is Cal an abusive fiancee, with a murdering henchman/valet, who frames innocent people for crimes, and bribed his way onto a lifeboat, but he actually is responsible for every death on the ship.
And then, in his final comeuppance, he “put a pistol in his mouth that year. Or so I read.” Cameron can’t even say for sure, and it’s his own movie.
I imagine his life post-sinking more like he got the insurance settlement for the diamond, married an empty-headed socialite that had no dreams of independence, had a couple kids, cheated in his wife all the time, and died an old man in his bed, warm and toasty. And he never thought about Rose again.
Or so I read. 
He lost everything in the crash of '29. Hence the chocolate gun.
I saw that documentary. As I recall, the main discrepancies, based on computer simulations, were the point at which the ship broke in two (forward of the third funnel, instead of the fourth) and at what angle the stern protruded above the water before going under (no more than 20 degrees). These findings, however, seem to contradict the eyewitness testimony.
Or so Rose read.
She could be wrong.