Titanic

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Ok. I haven't yet come across too many people that actually admitted they like this film. Then again I've never come across someone who has come up with a good reason why it's so bad.

 

As a formal debate, not a typical argument, WHY, is this film so bad?

 

I thought the cinematography was really nice, acting was pretty good, ok the storyline was a bit predictable, but it was still good.

 

There was certain things I liked, for instance when Jack is telling Rose how they've got her trapped and stuff, how she's basically being pressured to marry Cal, purely for the money.

 

So it did have a bit of depth to it. It wasn't just that Rose was going out with Cal and then decided to go off with Jack, boat sinks, Jack dies, sad ending e.t.c. e.t.c.

 

Titanic was a huge hit when it came out. People loved it. I never actually saw it at the cinemas, but I remember people coming out of the cinema that had just watched it in tears but also smiling.

 

But then about half a year later it was the fashion to slag it off, Leonardo Dicaprio went from the dream man to an ugly loser for girls. And naturally, everyone copied. So most people will now say they hate Titanic. Oh... Funny you loved it at the time.

Edited March 13, 2006 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Dan Goulder]

Ok. I haven't yet come across too many people that actually admitted they like this film. Then again I've never come across someone who has come up with a good reason why it's so bad.

One of the biggest reasons why people have been biased against "Titanic" is the BUDGET...200 million dollars. As most of the people in this forum are working as independents, it can be discouraging to think you're going to have to compete in the marketplace against productions that involve such obscene amounts of money. Many of us are instead inspired by movies that were shot on more down-to-earth budgets, such as "El Mariachi, or "Stranger Than Paradise", since they were made for the kinds of money that many more of us have access to, yet were effective enough to launch careers.

[David Mullen ASC]

I loved "Titanic" although I will readily admit it is an expensive soap opera. A few scenes make me groan a bit, or grind my teeth, but it has some incredible sweep and beauty at times. The film really takes off once the sinking begins (if that's not a mixed metaphor).

 

I'll never forget that wide shot of a thousand people struggling in the icy ocean after the ship sank -- very disturbing.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Ok. I'll throw my 2 cents in... I think most who don't like it find that the film romanticizes the actual event. At least thats why I haven't seen it since the release. Like David said, soap opera. Kind of like those people who re-enact civil war battles. They have such a romantic idea of things. I personaly don't like that kind of story telling though I'm not offended by it. Just as I'm not offended by the romanticism of Gone With The Wind.

 

As far as tech goes, well, its' a Cameron film. Nuff said.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I loved "Titanic" although I will readily admit it is an expensive soap opera. A few scenes make me groan a bit, or grind my teeth, but it has some incredible sweep and beauty at times. The film really takes off once the sinking begins (if that's not a mixed metaphor).

 

I'll never forget that wide shot of a thousand people struggling in the icy ocean after the ship sank -- very disturbing.

 

---Definitely the soap opera romance plot. & it goes on forever.

At the point where I was thinking I can't take anymore of this love srory, the iceberg is sighted and i'm going 'thank God.

 

'A Night to Remember's lack of romance subplot makes it a better film overall.

 

---LV

[James Steven Beverly]

I've never seen a bad James Cameron film. In my book this man is a film god. I loved this movie! I think it's a guy thing, "I can't like this movie. It's a CHICK FLICK for Christ's sake" but I'll betcha many of them secretly love it as I do. It 's a beautifully filmed, exquisitly designed, perfectly orcestraited masterpiece. You can see the love Cameron has for this story in every frame. The budget was indeed lavish but so was the film and it made every dime back and a lavish porfit to boot. Cleopatra tried to do the same thing a few decades before but with far less successful results. Cleo finally did make a profit but it took a long while to go into the black. Titanic did it within a few months.

 

I LOVE epics and this film is epic, masterful and historic. I hope to see more films with this knd of grand scale made in the future. There's something to be said for small independents, but this film showed just what the big boys can do when they pull out all the stops! The ironic thing about this film is that Cameron had the same complaint that ever other director in the world has, he wasn't given enough money to do the film the way he wanted to. Amazing.

[Mark Dunn]

It got a bad press here for libelling the first officer, William Murdoch, whom Cameron had taking bribes, committing murder and then suicide. None of these things happened and Murdoch was in fact something of a hero by all reports. Cameron eventually donated £5000 to a prize in Murdoch's memory.

We also got a bit irked by the anti-English tone and De Caprio's fake Oirishness.

But mainly, the problem is it's just so long.

[Logan Schneider]

A friend of mine was gaffing for the Al Giddings,the underwater DP on Titanic, (JP also gaffed Northfork for David Mullin). One night he was about to leave long after everyone else had gone home and he saw Jim Cameron working alone, painting a set. That's passion.

 

Logan Schneider

[Filip Plesha]

What's wrong with it?

 

 

Well the fact that nothing is "wrong" with it is the problem. It is a well produced job, who hired best people to do a parade of what hollywood is all about:

glamourous cinematography, moving orchestral music, big special effects, formiliar faces with big names and by-the-book writing.

 

It's just so neat and predictable. Promoting values that we beaten to death:

-Love will always conquer money, greed, and evil

-Fun and edgyness over being stiff

etc.

 

Leave it to big Hollywood productions to tell us things that we already know or at least have been toled a thousand time (but still like to hear it because we are most confortable with it)

all packed in fancy cinematography from a book.

 

Now that being said, I really enjoyed the film the first few times I saw it, it really moved me.

But that's one of the things I don't like about it: it moves you during the presentation, yet later when not being affected with automatic emotions you realise a few things about it.

In other words, it's overly manupulative, obvious and literal. The things you feel are so obvious. Show us a puppy dog and we will all go: :( aaaawww

 

I think in order to really look at things from a deeper point of view, a piece of art must distance itself from the most obvious human interpretations and reactions, only then can it see and show the audience more than they would normally see.