Rant: Titanic - biggest disappointment in a LONG time...

[trekgeezer]

I was waiting for the posts about that comment. I've gotten into it with people over this before.

I just can't bring myself to get worked up over a bad movie. I will make fun of them, say they were disappointing, or say that was a lot of hype that didn't deliver, but I'm not going start going to start picking something apart unless it is in a funny way.

I think I got ruined by too many other boards I've tried to be a part of where the trollers would post rants just to get reactions out of people.

I actually didn't think the movie was that bad, in fact it had excellent production values, just the story was not everybody's cup of tea.

[Eirik]

"So, if this movie is like E.T., will Cameron re-release it in another 15 years with the guns replaced by walkie-talkies?"

If he thinks there's money in it for him, in a HEARTBEAT.

[Menard]

But we love being children. (:

[blkrider]

It seems like a lot of people feel that way about the movie---it's like everyone went temporarily insane back in 1997 then came to and realized what a crappy movie it was.  I wasn't immune either, but have never seen the movie a second time.

[dean]

I think Titanic's relative success is due to the time it came out.  As mentioned, there was something going on at the time which made everybody crazy!

I think part was Leo's popularity; I too had many a young lass tell me they had seen it ten times at the cinemas.

Also I think it had good timing; there was alot of hype about Titanic [the real one] at the time, with lots of new underwater footage and the like.

Overall I thought it was a silly film, though since when have I been one to hold silliness against a film? :-P

In terms of plot etc, it wasn't too bad, though predictable of course.

But you have to give it to the people involved in the film; they knew exactly what they were doing.  Just think of the amount of money and references it has generated since it first came out?

Yes, it certainly is this generation's E.T, but won't be forgotten easily.

Also, there was a lot of technical things which were pretty good about this film, like the water studio they built specifically for this film, and the use of CGI which were pretty well done [such as the CGI crowds in parts]

Anyways, I wouldn't exactly call it the biggest dissappointment in a long time; it's not as bad as some of the absolute filmmaking tragedies out there at the moment!

[Deej]

Capt. Smith didn't survive the sinking of the Titanic. According to Encyclopedia Titanica:

"He was last seem in the bridge area having given the final order to abandon ship. He appears to have made no attempt to save himself. His body, if recovered, was never identified. "

So it seems, aside from the fact that the ship did sink, they got one other historical fact right. Though, I heard it was Pop-Rocks and Coke that did Capt. Eddy in, not drowning!! It'll probably be explained in the sequel.

[odinn7]

Deej wrote:


>  It'll probably be explained in the sequel.
>

Well, that or the re-make...

[Menard]

Thank you for pointing that out DJ. I had heard on Paul Harvey several years ago about a ship that sank, which was supposedly captained by the captain of the Titanic. This was several years after the Titanic. Perhaps it was an officer under Smith. Do you know anything about this?

[Menard]

It may have been Lightoller to which he was referring. Lightoller commanded the Falcon, a torpedo-boat-destroyer which sank on the sixth anniversary of the Titanic disaster.

[ulthar]

Deej wrote:

>
> So it seems, aside from the fact that the ship did sink, they
> got one other historical fact right.
>

Didn't they also get right the part about Murdock committing suicide?

Also, I heard at the time the movie was out that the sinking in the movie was 'real time' to how long it really took the ship to sink (from the time of striking the iceberg).  That alone, imo, gives the historical backdrop kind of a creepy "air" to the movie.

[Flangepart]

Yeesh....Eirik y'all said it well.

Trek : I think it casued a response like you have with a paper cut. Highly irritating only when some thing rubs it the wrong way.

My response : Ship : Good!
                            Music :  Good!
                            Acting : Border line.
                            Lead characters : Ham!
                            Female leads knockers : Good!
                            Male lead : Sleep with the fishes, Leo!

[Archivist]

Trek: why am I ranting so much about a movie?  Well, sometimes I enjoy a good rant.  I don't think of it as 'wasting' emotional energy, but rather letting it out in a way that releases a kind of 'pressure'.  I just felt really cheated because of all the 'social proof' and subsequent expectations that were not met.  I was expecting an emotionally charged sob-fest that would leave me feeling really weepy but good.  What I got was three hours of trite, obvious and boring as dried batsh*t movie.

Put it this way: they put Zoolander on TV just a few days ago.  I was glued to the screen and laughing my head off all the time.  During Titanic I would leave the room and get several glasses of water, and not even bother to pause the DVD.

As far as the movie itself goes, Titanic was entertaining but nothing to write home about, and definitely not worth the hype that went into it.  The production values, sets, historical detail and architectural accuracy were huge, as were the stunts and special effects.  The soundtrack was magnificent.  Too bad about the acting, plot and dialogue.

I have met people who saw it three times in the cinema, and I think I heard of some guy who watched it over a hundred times theatrically.   The only movies I have seen twice in the cinema were Jet Li's 'Fist of Legend' (once in its original Hong Kong theatrical release, once in the local Chinatown cinema), and The Mummy (once with a work function, once with non-work friends).

I agree that there was something crazy in the air at the time it was made - Leo was the 'flavour of the month' and the Titanic itself was the subject of a lot of public attention, with books, documentaries and the like.  There was even a computer role-playing/espionage game that was made around that time that was historically and architecturally accurate.  According to my brother, who is a buff of all things related to the actual Titanic *ship*, the game was far more enjoyable than the movie.  I talked to him about the movie just a few days ago and while he loved it when he first saw it, now he just enjoys it for the sets and sinking, rather than the story.

~Archivist~

[Deej]

ulthar wrote:

>
> Didn't they also get right the part about Murdock committing
> suicide?
>

Not sure, ulthar. I remember a stink being made because the film had Murdock shooting passengers, when in fact, he's supposed to have saved many lives. Apparently his home town, in Scotland, was unhappy about that bit in the movie.

I'm sure the filmmakers tried, and mostly succeeded, in being historically correct. But, as Menard and others have pointed out, they made some pretty glaring mistakes. Of course, you have to sacrifice some history for the sake of drama, and I know I couldn't have done a better job.

[Eirik]

At my work, there is a major database that everybody has to use to do our jobs.  Well, it was just "upgraded" which means they have to pull it back and fix all the stuff they did wrong.  A temporary database has been created to help us operate in the meantime.  It is called (and I'm not kidding) "TITANIC."

That just can't be a good sign.  

Why is it that computer people get paid soooo much to suck sooo bad (at least where I work)?

[Eirik]

"Anyways, I wouldn't exactly call it the biggest dissappointment in a long time; it's not as bad as some of the absolute filmmaking tragedies out there at the moment!"

That's true.  It always helps to keep movie bashing in some perspective.  I for one wasn't technically disappointed in this movie because I really didn't expect anything from it in the first place.