Titanic is such a sad movie!

I would agree with you except that this isn't just a disaster movie, this actually happened. That's my problem with the Jack and Rose nonsense. They could have picked real people to frame the film around but instead they create a raft of people who never existed. As if the story of the Titanic isn't tragic enough they drag in some contrived love story to try to make it even more so - why?

And for that matter, why make a film about a real life incident if you're going to largely ignore the real life events going on around them? The sinking of the Titanic in this film is tragic, not because 1,500 people lost their lives but because Jack and Rose didn't live happily ever after. That's largely what I object to about this film. That and the fact that the whole thing is so badly written.
 
But dramatic licence is purely that. You do need to connect with characters who pull you through the events, and let you see the tragedy from their point of view. It's like with Apollo 13, some of the exposition dialogue in that film is just horrendously contrived "The Lunar Module just became the lifeboat" or "It's like flying with a dead elephant on our back!" yeah, no shit sherlock! lol, and nobody would have said such tripe, but it is still an entertaining movie based on a real-life (near) tragedy.

The only part of Titanic I object to, is the part where the officer (Lightoller?) shoots himself. Apparently his family were very upset at the film making him appear cowardly, when in fact, he was an outstanding officer, and had been instrumental in loading the boats.
 
But Jack and Rose and the others don't have a point of view because they never existed, that's my problem. All that rubbish with them chasing all over the ship being shot at and the below stairs romance is all nonsense and it never happened. It's like the writers decided that 1,500 people dying wasn't quite tragic enough so they dreamt up something to make us really care. Why not focus on someone who was actually on board? Is that not sad enough? Jack and Rose don't pull us through the events of the Titanic, they pull us through a hackneyed star crossed lovers romance which has been done before and much better. As I've said, the Titanic sinking is largely irrelevant, you could transplant that story to any time, there's nothing especially unique about setting it on the Titanic.

In Apollo 13 the writers may have used dramatic licence with what was said but at least they pretty much stuck to what happened and didn't invent people, stick a few extra astronauts in, add some extra peril just in case we weren't worked up enough. I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with Titanic if they'd actually written about real people, it's the invention of people who draw our attention from the real life tragedy that I object to.

And why would you object to what happened with the officer? It's just dramatic licence surely? They made up Jack and Rose, why can't they make up what happened to the officer?
 
But then you may as well watch a documentary about the sinking is my point. Cameron wanted to use a real life event as the setting of a film that was first and foremost, entertaining to watch. How do you choose which particular real life passengers to use for your narrative otherwise? And woulld their story be engaging enough to have you sit through two and a half hours of film? The build up allows for investment in the characters at a personal level, so that the tragedy is identified with more. Filmmakers have used real-life events as the backdrop for fictional drama since cinema began, it's nothing new.
 
Now I love romantic, slushy movies and I absolutely hated this film. You could not pay me to watch it again but that might have something to do with Leo DiCaprio making my skin crawl, I can't watch any film with him in it, so I've still never made it all the way through this film. :o

I also can't stand James Cameron, so having a James Cameron/Leo DiCaprio blockbuster is my idea of hell! :D;)
 
Good point! :D

I was hoping that when the life boat came along & found her clinging to the wardrobe someone would have given her a good crack to the back of her head with an oar and sent her plummeting to the depths of the ocean after Jack. It was 3 hours and 14 minutes of my life I will never get back. Mind you at least Kate got her tits out I suppose. :)
 
I think the film is pretty sad.
It's sentimental, unrealistic, stupid and pathetic. And people who think that is a sad movie haven't seen anything sad at all.
It's a good enough movie becuase it's simple to understand, it's got a big boat that sinks and it has a cute couple. There isn't much more depth to it than that imo. I enjoyed it, when I saw it as a child, but it's not one of my all time tear jerker movies. They made the film really soppy and simple this way so it would appeal to more people, all age groups.
It's not a good movie imo, it's a watchable movie. And I never cried when Jack died.. I was kind of smirking. "I'll never let go Jack..." bye bye... she lets him go. Now I know she means she'll never let go in her heart. But still it's far too clichie.

The only thing I got a bit upset at is when the woman puts her kiRAB to bed, even though the boat is sinking. She had no chance, becuase they were saving the richest first.

The real story behind the titanic is sad and upsetting. The movie is a sad representation of how sentimental society is. Only interested in some soppy good looking couple.
 
It's become a somewhat "Marmite" film over the years; you either love it or hate it. There doesn't seem to be much of a middle-ground.

Personally I think it's a great film, although I'm not normally a fan of slushy romance flicks. I think if a film gets as much commercial success as Titanic, there will be those who will automatically hate it because it seems "cool" to do so. I'm not saying that's the case with all of its critics I hasten to add, just a fair share of them. It's the same with any "popular" film.

P.S: RIP to Gloria Stuart.
 
Back
Top