What was so good about Titanic?
Night23
this is just an average movie. So the ship sunk in the ocean and the
guy died, what was so mind blowing about that?
Yet people were watching this movie 3, 4, 5 times over and over. I did
not see what the hype was all about. Titanic was a movie for women, not
men.
David
>I remember sitting in the theater after the movie had ended thinking
>this is just an average movie. So the ship sunk in the ocean and the
>guy died, what was so mind blowing about that?
It's just that, after listening to all that goofy dialog for 2 hours,
we thought it would never end.
>Yet people were watching this movie 3, 4, 5 times over and over. I did
>not see what the hype was all about. Titanic was a movie for women, not
>men.
I would characterize its appeal more along the lines of youth vs. age
rather than male vs. female.
Joe Gillis
Two reasons -- Kate Winslet.
=================================================
"I don't mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy." -- Samuel Butler
Endy9
news:3BD19AF7...@nightynight.com...
If you sat through this movie and didn't feel it was anything special, I
doubt that anything I could say would change your mind. I thought it was
fabulous, writing, acting, direction, special effects, etc. etc.
--
Dennis/Endy
http://members.home.net/endymion91/index.htm
--
Ariel Whitney
You're absolutely right. I remember reacting similarly - I wasn't bothered
by an "it sucked" sense, but it was just a superficial albeit entertaining
movie.
Still, it was a well executed lowest-common-denominator movie (in the same
way that, say, any Micheal Douglas movie is) - but which happened to have a
hook that pulled in a an easily entertained and impressionable niche
audience, namely teenage girls who like DiCaprio (who, I argue, is a more
"accessible" fantasy object for teen girls than a Brad Pitt or a Ben Affleck
by virtue of the fact that Leo doesn't need to shave). I really believe
that had Leo been in the lead in "Pearl Harbor", that movie would have done
similar box office to Titanic - and with the same demographic.
Ari
Joe Sweeney
David <dobe...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3bd19ec0...@news-server.socal.rr.com...
> Night23 <nig...@nightynight.com> wrote:
>
> >I remember sitting in the theater after the movie had ended thinking
> >this is just an average movie. So the ship sunk in the ocean and the
> >guy died, what was so mind blowing about that?
James Cameron movies are a lot like roller coaster rides. This movie was a
great ride.
>
> It's just that, after listening to all that goofy dialog for 2 hours,
> we thought it would never end.
>
> >Yet people were watching this movie 3, 4, 5 times over and over. I did
> >not see what the hype was all about. Titanic was a movie for women, not
> >men.
Try 50 or so times. I'm a guy. Completely hetero, wife and 2 kids, career. I
eat meat and potatoes and I like beer. And for almost 4 years, this has been
my favorite movie. No other movie comes close. In fact, Titanic has kind of
ruined movie-going for me. No other movie compares.
>
> I would characterize its appeal more along the lines of youth vs. age
> rather than male vs. female.
The last time I went, back in July I think (special showing), I saw equal
amounts of old & young, male & female. I was a little surprised too.
Joe
Nimrod``
The mind boggles.....
N``
(well at least that damn car-wreck of a Titanic movie newsgroup has
just about dried up and blown away.....)
Rosanne
racing down the hall ahead of the people, but, in general, a tremendous
disappointment. The corny love story detracted from the true tragedy.
I naively thought they were going to update the essence of the 1958 "A
Night to Remember", which per IMDB was "depicted in a straightforward
fashion without the addition of fictional subplots".
Rosanne
Reboot
people can't help but fall for the hype.
For me this was a potentially brilliant movie totally spoiled by an
unnecessary and pointless love story.
Reboot
"Ariel Whitney" <air...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z1jA7.4990$SP.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Nimrod``
wrote:
Naive indeed when the likes of James F*ck-It-All Cameron is involved.
Cameron makes big budget comic strips that move, with a crude approach
to dialogue, characterization, and story structure....pitched at a
teen-level mentality. The movie was an insult to its subject matter.
A NIGHT TO REMEMBER is vastly superior.....near perfect, tragic, and
despite the few technical details learned since its filming, remains
the closest we have to what it was actually like to be on that
ill-fated ship on that fateful night.
N``
paul packer
wrote:
>I believe that this movie is hype over substance and unfortunately many
>people can't help but fall for the hype.
>
>For me this was a potentially brilliant movie totally spoiled by an
>unnecessary and pointless love story.
>
>Reboot
I thought the love story WAS the movie. Was there anything else? Oh
yes, that ship sank. I think I was fast asleep by then.
paul packer
<muad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>David <dobe...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:3bd19ec0...@news-server.socal.rr.com...
>> Night23 <nig...@nightynight.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I remember sitting in the theater after the movie had ended thinking
>> >this is just an average movie. So the ship sunk in the ocean and the
>> >guy died, what was so mind blowing about that?
>
>James Cameron movies are a lot like roller coaster rides. This movie was a
>great ride.
>
>>
>> It's just that, after listening to all that goofy dialog for 2 hours,
>> we thought it would never end.
>>
>> >Yet people were watching this movie 3, 4, 5 times over and over. I did
>> >not see what the hype was all about. Titanic was a movie for women, not
>> >men.
>
>Try 50 or so times. I'm a guy. Completely hetero, wife and 2 kids, career. I
>eat meat and potatoes and I like beer. And for almost 4 years, this has been
>my favorite movie. No other movie comes close. In fact, Titanic has kind of
>ruined movie-going for me. No other movie compares.
I had that feeling 40 years ago with Ben-Hur, I believe with somewhat
more justification, since B-H was somewhat more than a love story
between 2 dumb teenagers followed by a ship sinking. Maybe if you
could explain what you liked about Titanic the rest of us who hated it
could get over this odd feeling we have of living in a parallel
universe.
Speedbyrd®
It was ok, but would have been a lot better without the sorry star-struck teen saga. What a
couple of losers.
BTW, why was it not for me?
The Speedbyrd®
Speedbyrd®
Effects were top notch. Lead characters were not. More of Kathy Bates might have saved it.
The Speedbyrd®
Joe Sweeney
Nimrod`` <nimrod...@go-c.com> wrote in message
news:hgrSO9CoXaALVL...@4ax.com...
> (well at least that damn car-wreck of a Titanic movie newsgroup has
> just about dried up and blown away.....)
Yeah, we're a small group. We kinda like it that way. :)
Joe
Nimrod``
wrote:
Although I'm no real fan of it, at least BEN HUR was about
adults....their life struggle set against the backdrop of monumental
events.
TITANIC was about a couple of insipid teenyboppers, aimed at a
teen/popcorn sensibility (no matter what the actual age of the
viewer), and it merely co-opted this monumental tragedy as an
opportunist backdrop for its cheap version of events. It's slicker
than snot, anachronistic, and an insult to those thousands who were
actually lost or suffered through that tragic, bitter cold night of
April 14/15, 1912.
N``
Tom Cervo
>Night to Remember", which per IMDB was "depicted in a straightforward
>fashion without the addition of fictional subplots".
So much of it was, and that explains the people who came back to Titanic for
the story--the true story has this epic grandeur that even the most hamfisted
retelling can't obscure.
That and Kate Winslet. She may be a very talented actress, but she's also not a
stand-in for Winona Ryder or Julia Styles. She's a double digit dress-size, and
there's a large audience of young women who loved watching her being the object
of desire of a handsome young man.
Nimrod``
OMG.....Somebody call Peter Cushing again!
(For some of the most frightening posts ever to penetrate Usenet,
check out those in alt.movies.titanic during the early months of
1998...and the plethora of websites attached to it, including the
wealth of short fiction written by ng regulars which proposed all
kinds of drippy little prequal/sequal life extensions for those two
icky lovebirds, replete with unicorns and the like.
Well, at least Leo is ooooooover. I can only imagine the types that
still hold on by their fingernails after all this time instead of
letting go of that ng so it can finally sink to the bottom, into its
long overdue oblivion.)
N``
Bob
Nimrod`` wrote:
> >
>
> The mind boggles.....
>
> N``
>
> (well at least that damn car-wreck of a Titanic movie newsgroup has
> just about dried up and blown away.....)
Boggles??? Inept word for my astonishment that there was actually a Titanic
movie newsgroup. What could they possible have discussed (exept for current
politics?)?
Bob
Bob
paul packer wrote:
> I had that feeling 40 years ago with Ben-Hur, I believe with somewhat
> more justification, since B-H was somewhat more than a love story
> between 2 dumb teenagers followed by a ship sinking. Maybe if you
> could explain what you liked about Titanic the rest of us who hated it
> could get over this odd feeling we have of living in a parallel
> universe.
NOT parallel - just Alternate.
Bob
Bob
"Speedbyrd®" wrote:
I don't know about "saving" it, but it would be a most definite improvement.
( Of course, showing nothing at all between opening and closing credits would have been an
improvement).
Bob
paul packer
wrote:
The way Leo's fringe blew gently in the breeze as he stood on the prow
shouting? How cute his dimple is? How cute her dimple is?
Nimrod``
wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:34:28 -0700, Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com>
Yeah...that sort of thing. There was some little wisp of prose
written by one ng member which was a flashback to Leo painting at an
easel in his farmyard back home....smudging his "cute little raccoon
eyes".
I kid you not....
N``
jamiekate
its so much a young thing
jamie
jamiekate
jamie
jamiekate
jamie
jamiekate
jamie
Nimrod``
wrote:
>You read this stuff?
>
>jamie
Just until the rash broke out. I have a sociological fascination with
such phenomena in nature....
N``
Mark Brader
> this is just an average movie. So the ship sunk in the ocean and the
> guy died, what was so mind blowing about that?
To take the down side first, Leonardo di Caprio comes across to me
as having a permanent smirk. This worked nicely when he was the smug
King Louis in The Man in the Iron Mask; but I can't see him as an
appealing romantic lead. On the other hand, I did see how the
character of Rose might be drawn to him, as a symbol of a life on
the "other side of the fence", a life that she might have thought
that she might have liked to lead. But I wasn't.
And I wasn't drawn to Rose either; I found her neither appealing in
her character nor particularly attractive physically. So for me, the
romantic side of the movie was pretty much a dead loss.
But then there was the ship.
To me, the basic story of the Titanic disaster is mind-blowing all
by itself, no matter how familiar. It's one of the great stories of
human vanity -- of people believing that "that can't happen", for all
the wrong reasons, and so doing nothing to stop it.
The magnificent ship was magnificently recreated in the movie, a far
better job than has been done before. (It's no surprise that the
film cost more to make than the inflation-correct cost of the Titanic
itself.) It was worth the price of admission to see that alone.
It was, simply, spectacular.
And behind the foreground clutter of Jack and Rose, the whole story
of the disaster was told -- with similar spectacle, in clear and most
dramatic exposition, and with details only recently discovered.
(Well, almost the whole story. A sequence aboard the Californian was
filmed but deleted, which I think was a mistake.)
Best Picture of 1997? Not to my mind; that honor belongs to "L.A.
Confidential." But a worthy film? To me, there's no question about
that -- and a lot of other people seem to think so too.
--
Mark Brader "Could you please continue the petty bickering?
Toronto I find it most intriguing."
m...@vex.net -- Data ("Haven", ST:TNG, Tracy Torme)
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Dalton
wrote:
>I remember sitting in the theater after the movie had ended thinking
>this is just an average movie. So the ship sunk in the ocean and the
>guy died, what was so mind blowing about that?
Well if the movie was as lame as your summary you might be right.
>Yet people were watching this movie 3, 4, 5 times over and over. I did
>not see what the hype was all about. Titanic was a movie for women, not
>men.
Wrong. It was a big hit because it appealed to both genders.
Do you have a real complaint, or are you just trolling for responses?
paul packer
wrote:
>I really enjoyed Titanic and so did my husband...a man of 32, so i dont think
>its so much a young thing
>
My God, 32! I hope his life insurance is paid up.
Bob
jamiekate wrote:
> I really enjoyed Titanic and so did my husband...a man of 32, so i dont think
> its so much a young thing
>
> jamie
>
To some of us, 32 in incredibly young.
Bob
Mpoconnor7
effects associated with that were outstanding. The love story was kind of
drippy, but the secondary characters were quite terrific (especially Kathy
Bates), and the attention to detail re: the Titanic was meticulous. I have the
movie on VHS, and when I watch it these days I catch the Bill Paxton opening
segment, then fast forward to the iceberg hitting the ship.
On balance, a techinical masterpiece with a weak plot and well acted, but I
still think "LA Confidential" was the best film of 1997.
Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man
"The probability of one person being right increases in a direct porportion to
the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong"
Endy9
news:20011021101737...@mb-bg.aol.com...
> I thought the last half was pretty good as the ship sank, and the special
> effects associated with that were outstanding. The love story was kind of
> drippy, but the secondary characters were quite terrific (especially Kathy
> Bates), and the attention to detail re: the Titanic was meticulous. I
have the
> movie on VHS, and when I watch it these days I catch the Bill Paxton
opening
> segment, then fast forward to the iceberg hitting the ship.
> On balance, a techinical masterpiece with a weak plot and well acted, but
I
> still think "LA Confidential" was the best film of 1997.
I enjoyed LA Confidential but personally feel there were many more contrived
elements of the plot in LA than there were in the love story on Titanic.
Nimrod``
wrote:
Especially these days.....with folks, movie stars included, pushing
the envelope of adolescence into their forties.
Movieline did a story a couple of years ago about how we have no young
actresses who can play the kinds of parts played by Garbo or
Bacall....who actually played mature women of character when they were
barely into their twenties. Lauren Bacall was actually nineteen when
she filmed TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT and held her own (and then some)
acting toe-to-toe with the worldly Humphrey Bogart, every bit his
equal. But I doubt most audience members would realize the difference
these days, thinking those they watch onscreen now are just as earthy
and mature....since the whole bearing of adulthood has been
juvenilized and dumbed down to match the audience.
Nonetheless, we have almost-forty-year-old boy-toys like Tom Cruise
and Brad Pitt playing at being men onscreen while working just as hard
to still look and act like callow teenagers.....with neighborhoods
full of middle-aged fanboys playing with their Star Wars toys.
Whadya expect?
N``
Nimrod``
wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 15:30:45 GMT, Night23 <nig...@nightynight.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I remember sitting in the theater after the movie had ended thinking
>>this is just an average movie. So the ship sunk in the ocean and the
>>guy died, what was so mind blowing about that?
>
>Well if the movie was as lame as your summary you might be right.
You're right. It's no more lame than LOVE STORY or BILLY
JACK.....which were also runaway successes with the mass audience in
their respective years of 1970 and 1971.
>>Yet people were watching this movie 3, 4, 5 times over and over. I did
>>not see what the hype was all about. Titanic was a movie for women, not
>>men.
>
>Wrong. It was a big hit because it appealed to both genders.
You mean, like LOVE STORY or BILLY JACK?
N``
(can you spell "i*n*s*i*p*i*d"?)
Franklin Harris
> Yeah...that sort of thing. There was some little wisp of prose
> written by one ng member which was a flashback to Leo painting at an
> easel in his farmyard back home....smudging his "cute little raccoon
> eyes".
Knock it off. Some of us just ate.
--
Franklin Harris
Pulp Culture Online, www.pulpculture.net
"The only way to know where you're from is to know where you're going and
then work backward." -- The Doctor, DOCTOR WHO
Franklin Harris
> Nonetheless, we have almost-forty-year-old boy-toys like Tom Cruise
> and Brad Pitt playing at being men onscreen while working just as hard
> to still look and act like callow teenagers.....with neighborhoods
> full of middle-aged fanboys playing with their Star Wars toys.
>
> Whadya expect?
Hey! 30 isn't middle aged, and my toys are all mint in package!!!!
Franklin Harris
"jamiekate" <lew...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3BD25972...@mindspring.com...
> I loved Titanic , but i HATE leo.I think Kate did a great job
I adore Kate Winslet, but I can't slog through "Titanic" even for her.
(Too bad Peter Jackson never got his "King Kong" remake off the ground. Kate
would have made an excellent Faye Wray.)
GC
use of colour!"
Man...An Ancient Race
WallSt612
Nimrod's correct (I hope God doesn't strike me dead for writing that.
:>) )
All one has to do is watch the 1958 British film about the Titantic,
"A Night to Remember." That's a great film and tells the story with
much more authenticity. "Titanic" is just expensive fluff, the
contempoary triumph of form over content.
WallSt
Nimrod``
Yep. Garsh, I just love it when we agree, Wall.
Did you see my mention of ANTR in my earlier response? It really is
an excellent film....one I watch annually. Something about that
almost-documentary sense of reality, with the right actors and
mannerisms and authentic sense of place just pulls you in and makes
the tragedy so much more tangible, heartbreaking.
N``
John Reilly
news:3BD2C5D8...@ix.netcom.com...
If you say 33 is still young I'll stick a cheque in the post.
--
John
(Remove NOSPAM) to Reply
------------------------------------------------
Edmund Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yeah, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron.
John Reilly
Now I have to admit that I enjoyed "Titanic" more than I thought I would
(I'm pulling on flame resistant underwear as I type) - certainly not great,
but believe me when I say my expectations were low.
However, my wife recieved the video as a christmas present, and guess what?
It's still in the wrapper.
On the other hand, "A Night to Remember" has been played a few time since
that video was received. A terrific film that avoids histrionics, and
unlike "Titanic", is enhanced by a great central performance. Most of the
best bits of "Titanic" were ripped straight out of ANTR anyway - don;t call
me on this because I can only remember feeling it at the time, and I really
don't have the time or inclination to rewatch "Titanic" ;-)
Bob
John Reilly wrote:
> "Bob" <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3BD2C5D8...@ix.netcom.com...
> >
> >
> > jamiekate wrote:
> >
> > > I really enjoyed Titanic and so did my husband...a man of 32, so i dont
> think
> > > its so much a young thing
> > >
> > > jamie
> > >
> >
> > To some of us, 32 in incredibly young.
>
> If you say 33 is still young I'll stick a cheque in the post.
>
> --
> John
> (Remove NOSPAM) to Reply
Make it payable to cash
send to p.o. box 1317-
John, I turned 65 in Sept.
33 is a young man, just getting started.
Bob (Registered Old Fart)
Tom Cervo
>that video was received. A terrific film that avoids histrionics, and
>unlike "Titanic", is enhanced by a great central performance. Most of the
>best bits of "Titanic" were ripped straight out of ANTR anyway - don;t call
>me on this because I can only remember feeling it at the time, and I really
>don't have the time or inclination to rewatch "Titanic" ;-)
Actually it's an adaptation of Walter Lord's book, and there was a legendary
live TV adaptation of it in the mid 50's on US tv. No kinoscope (?) survived.
Lord made Lightoller the hero of his story--he was senior surviving officer,
and behaved bravely. But he turned into a company man at the various inquiries,
saying nothing that would reflect badly on the owners. For this the owners
never gave him a command--even after WW1, during which he commanded a destroyer
in the RN.
Brad Filippone
: I remember sitting in the theater after the movie had ended thinking
: this is just an average movie. So the ship sunk in the ocean and the
: guy died, what was so mind blowing about that?
: Yet people were watching this movie 3, 4, 5 times over and over. I did
: not see what the hype was all about. Titanic was a movie for women, not
: men.
Why can't men enjoy it?
Brad
John Reilly
It's on its way :-)
--
John
(Remove NOSPAM) to Reply
Dave Tuttle
> Well, at least Leo is ooooooover. I can only imagine the types that
> still hold on by their fingernails after all this time instead of
> letting go of that ng so it can finally sink to the bottom, into its
> long overdue oblivion.)
>
alt.history.ocean-liners.titanic frequent there as well. If you had
one-tenth the appreciation for history as some of us who have studied the
old girl for three, four, or five decades...then you'd understand. If not,
then I hope you receive gratification upon the release of the next great
Peewee Herman adventure sequel.
Dave Tuttle
A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.
<kb4...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Awesome! I'm sure to enjoy the next great Peewee Herman adventure
sequel. I hear they're spending 100 billion dollars to recreate the
original set of "Pee Wee's Playhouse"....
Dave Tuttle
pretty high mean-average IQ.
Dave Tuttle
Dave Tuttle
Man...An Ancient Race <anthony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:145695ee.01102...@posting.google.com...
> it sank
Yes. Very well, and with STYLE.
Dave Tuttle
Nimrod``
Hey....I can understand those who frequent
alt.history.ocean-liners.titanic and their study of the ship and that
incident; I find it endlessly fascinating myself. It's for that very
reason that I don't understand those who frequent a silly movie-based
ng built around a movie that trivializes the actual incident.
If you were also hanging out at an ng called
alt.movies.a-night-to-remember, I could get your drift.....
N``
(and only a fool unfamiliar with my tastes in movies would presume I'm
a fan of adventure sequels)
>
Ariel Whitney
As Nimrod posted somewhere in the thread, the mind boggles. And today, the
mind boggles anew. Dave Tuttle, your posts are hilarious and entertaining -
I had no idea that there is a Titanic counterpart to the Trekkies and
Chubakas who also have no lives.
Ari
Nimrod``
<kb4...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Nimrod`` <nimrod...@go-c.com> wrote in message
>news:3CPSO3f+KiRSKs...@4ax.com...
>> Well, at least Leo is ooooooover. I can only imagine the types that
>> still hold on by their fingernails after all this time instead of
>> letting go of that ng so it can finally sink to the bottom, into its
>> long overdue oblivion.)
>>
>Don't bet on it. Especially since quite a few of us who are regulars of
>alt.history.ocean-liners.titanic frequent there as well. If you had
>one-tenth the appreciation for history as some of us who have studied the
>old girl for three, four, or five decades...then you'd understand.
By the way, Tuttle.....it occurs to me that you need to have your tie
straightened.
I have a vast appreciation of history and read copious amounts of
non-fiction, biographies, and historical accounts to the exclusion of
most fiction (which I've gradually lost a taste for in reading
material over the years). My bookshelves are loaded with historical
tomes and research materials.
A NIGHT TO REMEMBER is one of my favorite films. It's for that
reason, Tuttle, that I don't like fictional twaddle like so much of
Cameron's film.
Now...tut, tut...
N``
Bob
Ariel Whitney wrote:
There are Trekkies, and there are Trekkers. Then, there are fans.
Some trekkies let it engulf their whole lives. Game players. Some ( a few)
wear Trek Uniforms every day. Trek is their life.
There are trekker who enjoy the show, go to a few conventions, but lead real
lives.
There are fans, who watch the show, and maybe have a few discussions about the
show, just as anybody talks about the shows they like. They don't go to
conventions, they don't have a uniform, even for halloween, but have followed
the show for a long time. They are also aware of the contradictions and
silliness of the shows, but so what, it is no more escapism than going to a
movie is.
What was amazing to me, in my 15 years of purchasing hardware for manned space
flight, and in my interfaces with "Rocket Scientists" ( yes, real ones. They
are Brilliant, just brilliant people. No, not nerds.), just how many of them
were trek fans.
Bob ( one time Certified Cost/Price Analyst, Aerojet General Corporation.)
Bob
Dave Tuttle wrote:
Dave -
I see you coming to the defense of the ship, the people who lived and
died, and all the rest. But as for the film, as a film - methinks you
protesteth too much.
NOW, if you put the script for A Night to Remember along with the FX of
"Titanic", it could have been a masterpiece. Perhaps that is why so
many here are discontent with the film, because we are aware of what it
COULD have been.
Bob
Nimrod``
wrote:
>
>
>Dave Tuttle wrote:
>
>> Man...An Ancient Race <anthony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:145695ee.01102...@posting.google.com...
>> > it sank
>>
>> Yes. Very well, and with STYLE.
>>
>> Dave Tuttle
>
>Dave -
>I see you coming to the defense of the ship, the people who lived and
>died, and all the rest. But as for the film, as a film - methinks you
>protesteth too much.
>
>NOW, if you put the script for A Night to Remember along with the FX of
>"Titanic", it could have been a masterpiece.
Nah....it would have still lacked the right people so culturally in
touch with that era. All the money in the world can't buy
that.....which A NIGHT TO REMEMBER benefits so greatly from. And I
think black & white photography enhances ANTR as well, contributing to
the documentary feel.
N``
WallSt612
> >> (can you spell "i*n*s*i*p*i*d"?)
> >
> >Nimrod's correct (I hope God doesn't strike me dead for writing that.
> >:>) )
> >
> >All one has to do is watch the 1958 British film about the Titantic,
> >"A Night to Remember." That's a great film and tells the story with
> >much more authenticity. "Titanic" is just expensive fluff, the
> >contempoary triumph of form over content.
> >
> >WallSt
>
> Yep. Garsh, I just love it when we agree, Wall.
>
> Did you see my mention of ANTR in my earlier response? It really is
> an excellent film....one I watch annually. Something about that
> almost-documentary sense of reality, with the right actors and
> mannerisms and authentic sense of place just pulls you in and makes
> the tragedy so much more tangible, heartbreaking.
>
thing so I haven;t seen any of your posts for the last year. a mixed
blessing, or so accessing past movies via AOL.
The other thing ANTR has it what it lacks, all the superfluous BS in
Titanic. Judging from Titanic and Pearl Harbor, Hollywood has
evidently decided that you can;t make kids go top a movie about a
historical event unless you include soap opera subplots they can
relate to.
WallSt
Dalton
wrote:
The comparison to Love Story and Billy Jack is really stretching it
and makes you seem desperate to make Titanic look bad when it isn't.
The original post used the plot as a complaint- "So the ship sunk in
the ocean and the
guy died, what was so mind blowing about that?"
Condense the plot of your favorite movie down to a sentence and then
tack on '...what was so mind blowing about that?' What a brilliant
critique eh?
"So the guy runs a crummy newspaper, loses an election then dies and
we some sled thrown into a furnace, what's so mind blowing about
that?"
Titanic had problems (contrived dialogue and some overwrought plot
elements) but to just dismiss it as having no value at all is an
untenable position.
Speedbyrd®
It had good special effects, which saved it from the destruction that could have been wrought
by the weak teeney boppers.
The Speedbyrd®
Nimrod``
>I didn't see your original. I just started doing the "Google" posting
>thing so I haven;t seen any of your posts for the last year. a mixed
>blessing, or so accessing past movies via AOL.
You haven't seen any of my posts for the last year because there
haven't been any....for more than a year. But you really do need a
proper newsreader (though I don't think frigging AOL allows them).
You've missed some (lengthy) response to you....
N``
Tim Pierce
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
> To me, the basic story of the Titanic disaster is mind-blowing all
> by itself, no matter how familiar. It's one of the great stories of
> human vanity -- of people believing that "that can't happen", for all
> the wrong reasons, and so doing nothing to stop it.
For my money, the chief success of TITANIC was that it motivated me to
go out and read everything I could about the actual disaster. But in
the end this only made me angrier at Cameron, when I learned how much
he had glossed over or rewritten the actual stories of the Titanic in
favor of his hokey melodrama.
The most fascinating story I found to be that of Bruce Ismay, the
scion of the Titanic's owners. The movie paints him as a snivelling
rat, a Dick Dastardly who intimidates the ship's captain into
exceeding safe speeds and later cowardly sneaks into one of the
lifeboats out of turn. His real story was much more complex. He was
apparently something of an ugly duckling in his family: the son who
never amounted to much. The Titanic stint was his big chance to make
something of himself. While he did survive the sinking of the ship,
he (if I remember correctly) helped the ship's officers shepherd
passengers into the lifeboats, and after the sinking tried to arrange
compensation for the victims' families.
It is horribly frustrating to me that these tales of true drama make
such an effort to make sure that every candelabra and porthole is in
the right place, and then take such wild liberties with the actual
story that it can barely be recognized. What's the point?
Polar
wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:35:43 -0500, Nimrod`` <nimrod...@go-c.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:09:59 GMT, Dalton <Dalton...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 15:30:45 GMT, Night23 <nig...@nightynight.com>
>>>wrote:
[...]
>The original post used the plot as a complaint- "So the ship sunk in
>the ocean and the
>guy died, what was so mind blowing about that?"
>
>Condense the plot of your favorite movie down to a sentence and then
>tack on '...what was so mind blowing about that?' What a brilliant
>critique eh?
>
>"So the guy runs a crummy newspaper, loses an election then dies and
>we some sled thrown into a furnace, what's so mind blowing about
>that?"
SPOILER!!!
Some youngsters haven't seen it yet.
[...]
--
Polar
Dalton
>>The comparison to Love Story and Billy Jack is really stretching it
>>and makes you seem desperate to make Titanic look bad when it isn't.
>>
>>The original post used the plot as a complaint- "So the ship sunk in
>>the ocean and the
>>guy died, what was so mind blowing about that?"
>>
>>Condense the plot of your favorite movie down to a sentence and then
>>tack on '...what was so mind blowing about that?' What a brilliant
>>critique eh?
>>
>>"So the guy runs a crummy newspaper, loses an election then dies and
>>we some sled thrown into a furnace, what's so mind blowing about
>>that?"
>>
>>Titanic had problems (contrived dialogue and some overwrought plot
>>elements) but to just dismiss it as having no value at all is an
>>untenable position.
>>
>>
>>
>>Dalton...@hotmail.com
>
>
>It had good special effects, which saved it from the destruction that could have been wrought
>by the weak teeney boppers.
>
> The Speedbyrd®
>
Huh? I can only guess at your view since that post made no sense.
The idea that Titanic made it's money based on teens is flatly false.
The demographic crossed all ages and both genders and all nations.
How soon it is forgotten that parents and grandparents brought friends
and children and grandchildren to see it more than once in many
nations.
The film reminded older viewers of the films they grew up with, the
young females saw empowering messages and the males saw an affirmation
of the traditional role as a protector.
A serious discussion would deal with these issues, but this thread is
simply a narrow minded bash.
What is most irritating is that I have complaints about the picture
but this silly crap claiming Titanic was utter trash prevents a
reasonable discussion.
It is obvious that the REAL complaint is about the profits it made and
awards it won. How stupid.
If you want to complain about bad movies making millions rent the
first dozen 'Police Academy' movies.
Dalton
wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:09:59 GMT, Dalton <Dalton...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 15:30:45 GMT, Night23 <nig...@nightynight.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I remember sitting in the theater after the movie had ended thinking
>>>this is just an average movie. So the ship sunk in the ocean and the
>>>guy died, what was so mind blowing about that?
>>
>>Well if the movie was as lame as your summary you might be right.
>
>You're right. It's no more lame than LOVE STORY or BILLY
>JACK.....which were also runaway successes with the mass audience in
>their respective years of 1970 and 1971.
>
>
>>>Yet people were watching this movie 3, 4, 5 times over and over. I did
>>>not see what the hype was all about. Titanic was a movie for women, not
>>>men.
>>
>>Wrong. It was a big hit because it appealed to both genders.
>
>You mean, like LOVE STORY or BILLY JACK?
>
>
>
>N``
>
>(can you spell "i*n*s*i*p*i*d"?)
Your post is pointless. Love Story? Billy Jack? At least try to be
relevant. Titanic is dated and a product of the 90's that can't be
seperated from it's era? Get a grip.
The only thing in your post that holds any weight is the word
'insipid' but you back it up with absolutely nothing.
Also- Stop taking one very small element of a post and exploding it
into the main point. That's cheap and and the tactic of the ignorant.
Nimrod``
Thank you, Tim. Yours may be the most insightful post in this thread.
It strikes at the heart of what is wrong with a movie like TITANIC...
N``
Joe Gillis
>: men.
>
>Why can't men enjoy it?
>
It's one of those WOMEN'S things!!
=================================================
"I don't mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy." -- Samuel Butler
Dalton
<jo...@NOSPAMthebigfilm.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>
>Now I have to admit that I enjoyed "Titanic" more than I thought I would
>(I'm pulling on flame resistant underwear as I type) - certainly not great,
>but believe me when I say my expectations were low.
>However, my wife recieved the video as a christmas present, and guess what?
>It's still in the wrapper.
>
Why do you seem apologetic? Was Titanic a masterpeice? NO. It was a
solid movie and it worked, what is so bad about that?
>On the other hand, "A Night to Remember" has been played a few time since
>that video was received. A terrific film that avoids histrionics, and
>unlike "Titanic", is enhanced by a great central performance. Most of the
>best bits of "Titanic" were ripped straight out of ANTR anyway - don;t call
>me on this because I can only remember feeling it at the time, and I really
>don't have the time or inclination to rewatch "Titanic" ;-)
There is a basic flaw in the idea that a movie can be critiqued by
comparing it to another. ANTR and Titanic are very different movies
with very different agendas.
Dalton
>It had good special effects, which saved it from the destruction that could have been wrought
>by the weak teeney boppers.
>
> The Speedbyrd®
You are brilliant and have summed up an art form in such a manner that
no person might question it.
Yet I am still compelled to call you a complete idiot.
paul packer
>Bob wrote in <3BD3918A...@ix.netcom.com>:
>
>>There are Trekkies, and there are Trekkers. Then, there are fans.
>>Some trekkies let it engulf their whole lives. Game players. Some ( a few)
>>wear Trek Uniforms every day. Trek is their life.
>>There are trekker who enjoy the show, go to a few conventions, but lead real
>>lives
>
>You've given this all a lot of thought, haven't you.
>
>What a sad, sad person you are.
>
>>Bob ( one time Certified Cost/Price Analyst, Aerojet General Corporation.)
>
>Get his autograph while you can, folks.
He's a sad person? I don't get it.
Bob
Fetid Corpse wrote:
> Bob wrote in <3BD3918A...@ix.netcom.com>:
>
> >There are Trekkies, and there are Trekkers. Then, there are fans.
> >Some trekkies let it engulf their whole lives. Game players. Some ( a few)
> >wear Trek Uniforms every day. Trek is their life.
> >There are trekker who enjoy the show, go to a few conventions, but lead real
> >lives
>
> You've given this all a lot of thought, haven't you.
>
> What a sad, sad person you are.
>
> >Bob ( one time Certified Cost/Price Analyst, Aerojet General Corporation.)
>
> Get his autograph while you can, folks.
While that may be true, corpsey, at least I am person. That is something trolls
cannot claim.
Now, go go back to your friends at alt.flameforfun to enjoy your little games.
Bob
Ariel Whitney
I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, Bob (which doesn't always work in an e-mail
or NG context). But yes, there are fans and then there are those who model
their lives on their obsessions. I've got nothing against fandom - I just
hope (as you have pointed out to him) that Mr. Tuttle isn't allowing his
fascination with the historical event (Titanic) to blind him to the
shortcomings posited by you, Nimrod, myself, and others concerning the film
("Titanic").
Ari
Ariel Whitney
"Dalton" <Dalton...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
SNIPPED
>
> "So the guy runs a crummy newspaper, loses an election then dies and
> we some sled thrown into a furnace, what's so mind blowing about
> that?"
>
Damn you Dalton Abbott, damn you for this spoiler!!!!!
Ari
Ariel Whitney
"Dalton" <Dalton...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
SNIPPED>
> If you want to complain about bad movies making millions rent the
> first dozen 'Police Academy' movies.
>
Oh, we already covered that!
Ari
Brad Filippone
: >Titanic was a movie for women, not
: >: men.
: >
: >Why can't men enjoy it?
: >
: It's one of those WOMEN'S things!!
Really? I enjoyed it. Definetly not the best Titanic movie ever made,
but still pretty damn good.
Why is there this prevailing atitude that if it's a love story, it must be
for women?
Brad
WallSt612
AOL has it's plusses and minuses. I have occasionally seen someone
quote from one of your posts in the last couple months when I access
the newsgroup on AOL>
WallSt
Wishy13764
Grethe Bachmann
"Joe Gillis" <cinema...@aol.comedy> skrev i en meddelelse
news:20011022051335...@mb-fq.aol.com...
> >Titanic was a movie for women, not
> >: men.
> >
> >Why can't men enjoy it?
> >
>
> It's one of those WOMEN'S things!!
>
>
Very funny!!
But No Sir!! I am W O M A N and I didn´t like the Cameron" Titanic!"
One of our channels sent all the Titanic-movies in one week. I liked "A
Night to Remember" - but not the last "Titanic". I don´t understand why this
movie recieved an Oscar - or was it more than one?? I preferred
L.A.Confidential too - as so many others have mentioned.
Maybe I didn´t like the Titanic-movie because this tragic catastrophe was
described in such a supersentimental and tasteless manner. IMO anyway.
Leonardo diCaprio is not my taste of man. He´s just a boy - but maybe he´s
lovely to look at for teenagers. He was casted/miscasted in a lot of films
for some years.
They had to squeeze the lemon while he was worth something. It´s a risky
life to be an actor.
Grethe `)
Liam Devlin
> > >
> > >
> > > jamiekate wrote:
> > >
> > > > I really enjoyed Titanic and so did my husband...a man of 32, so i dont
> > think
> > > > its so much a young thing
> > > >
> > > > jamie
> > > >
> > >
> > > To some of us, 32 in incredibly young.
> >
> > If you say 33 is still young I'll stick a cheque in the post.
> >
> > --
> > John
> > (Remove NOSPAM) to Reply
>
> Make it payable to cash
> send to p.o. box 1317-
>
> John, I turned 65 in Sept.
MEDICARE alert!
LiamD :-)
PS: Please take notes, I'm not far behind (60 on 10/24).
Liam Devlin
>
> Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3BD2C5D8...@ix.netcom.com...
> > jamiekate wrote:
> >
> > > I really enjoyed Titanic and so did my husband...a man of 32, so i dont
> think
> > > its so much a young thing
> > >
> > > jamie
> > >
> > To some of us, 32 in incredibly young.
> >
> And perhaps, in some of the newsgroups Paul frequents, 32 is thought of as a
> pretty high mean-average IQ.
LOL, good one.
Liam Devlin
Plus, what was the point in hanging on to the necklace for all those
years only to toss it into the ocean in the movie? I simply could not
buy the old woman walking the deck barefoot at night (alone, yet).
> "So the guy runs a crummy newspaper, loses an election then dies and
> we some sled thrown into a furnace, what's so mind blowing about
> that?"
Major problem: no part for Julia Roberts (with thanks to "The Player").
LiamD
Liam Devlin
>
(snip)
>
> If you want to complain about bad movies making millions rent the
> first dozen 'Police Academy' movies.
The first one wasn't so bad, pretty funny IMHO.
LiamD
Speedbyrd®
Name calling will get you a long way. The trademark of juvenile delinquents. Does mommy know
you're on her computer?
The Speedbyrd®
Speedbyrd®
Yea, too bad Titanic had weak lead characters. It could have been much better.
Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck are sorely missed!
The Speedbyrd®
Robert John Guttke
Speedy, you are being grumpy over here, too? I liked the characters
in Titanic. I LOVED the dialogue writing in the Clifton Webb and Babs
Stanwyck version, too.
Robert John Guttke Photography
~www.guttke.com~
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>Still, it was a well executed lowest-common-denominator movie (in the same
>way that, say, any Micheal Douglas movie is) - but which happened to have a
>hook that pulled in a an easily entertained and impressionable niche
>audience, namely teenage girls who like DiCaprio (who, I argue, is a more
>"accessible" fantasy object for teen girls than a Brad Pitt or a Ben Affleck
>by virtue of the fact that Leo doesn't need to shave). I really believe
>that had Leo been in the lead in "Pearl Harbor", that movie would have done
>similar box office to Titanic - and with the same demographic.
I didn't see "Pearl Harbor," but somehow I doubt that it had the young
rebellious tough girl empowerment attitude which was equally as important as
Leo's face in drawing young girls to "Titanic." Chicks are just props in
Michael Bay movies, right? Cameron has a bit more going on than just mindless
cinematic pinball games a la Bay. Maybe not much more.
--Kevin
***
"The only thing infinite is our capacity for self-deception."
Robert John Guttke
FilmNutBoy) wrote:
Not being a teenage girl, I can not comment on their appreciation for
the film Titanic. But as an adult sitting in the dark of the theatre,
I found this film entertaining and touching. The fact that little
girls flocked to it was of no consequence to my opinion. I mean, look
at the people who flock to Star Wars or Star Trek films........ ;-)
jamiekate
Nimrod`` wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:15:00 -0400, jamiekate <lew...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You read this stuff?
> >
> >jamie
>
> Just until the rash broke out. I have a sociological fascination with
> such phenomena in nature....
>
> N``
>
> >
> >Nimrod`` wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:29:20 GMT, pac...@terrigal.net.au (paul packer)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:34:28 -0700, Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>Nimrod`` wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The mind boggles.....
> >> >>>
> >> >>> N``
> >> >>>
> >> >>> (well at least that damn car-wreck of a Titanic movie newsgroup has
> >> >>> just about dried up and blown away.....)
> >> >>
> >> >>Boggles??? Inept word for my astonishment that there was actually a Titanic
> >> >>movie newsgroup. What could they possible have discussed (exept for current
> >> >>politics?)?
> >> >>Bob
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >The way Leo's fringe blew gently in the breeze as he stood on the prow
> >> >shouting? How cute his dimple is? How cute her dimple is?
> >>
> >> Yeah...that sort of thing. There was some little wisp of prose
> >> written by one ng member which was a flashback to Leo painting at an
> >> easel in his farmyard back home....smudging his "cute little raccoon
> >> eyes".
> >>
> >> I kid you not....
> >>
> >> N``
jamiekate
jamie
jamiekate
jamie
Franklin Harris wrote:
> "jamiekate" <lew...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3BD25972...@mindspring.com...
> > I loved Titanic , but i HATE leo.I think Kate did a great job
>
> I adore Kate Winslet, but I can't slog through "Titanic" even for her.
>
> (Too bad Peter Jackson never got his "King Kong" remake off the ground. Kate
> would have made an excellent Faye Wray.)
>
> --
> Franklin Harris
> Pulp Culture Online, www.pulpculture.net
> "The only way to know where you're from is to know where you're going and
> then work backward." -- The Doctor, DOCTOR WHO
jamiekate
agree.I know there are a few others i havent seen yet.
jamie
WallSt612 wrote:
> Nimrod`` <nimrod...@go-c.com> wrote in message news:<TdzSO4jKFzLFy1Zsl3oP5mWNoS9=@4ax.com>...
> > On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:09:59 GMT, Dalton <Dalton...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 15:30:45 GMT, Night23 <nig...@nightynight.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>I remember sitting in the theater after the movie had ended thinking
> > >>this is just an average movie. So the ship sunk in the ocean and the
> > >>guy died, what was so mind blowing about that?
> > >
> > >Well if the movie was as lame as your summary you might be right.
> >
> > You're right. It's no more lame than LOVE STORY or BILLY
> > JACK.....which were also runaway successes with the mass audience in
> > their respective years of 1970 and 1971.
> >
> >
> > >>Yet people were watching this movie 3, 4, 5 times over and over. I did
> > >>not see what the hype was all about. Titanic was a movie for women, not
> > >>men.
> > >
> > >Wrong. It was a big hit because it appealed to both genders.
> >
> > You mean, like LOVE STORY or BILLY JACK?
> >
> >
> >
> > N``
> >
> > (can you spell "i*n*s*i*p*i*d"?)
>
> Nimrod's correct (I hope God doesn't strike me dead for writing that.
> :>) )
>
> All one has to do is watch the 1958 British film about the Titantic,
> "A Night to Remember." That's a great film and tells the story with
> much more authenticity. "Titanic" is just expensive fluff, the
> contempoary triumph of form over content.
>
> WallSt
jamiekate
kudos
jamie
Nimrod`` wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:35:24 -0700, Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Dave Tuttle wrote:
> >
> >> Man...An Ancient Race <anthony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:145695ee.01102...@posting.google.com...
> >> > it sank
> >>
> >> Yes. Very well, and with STYLE.
> >>
> >> Dave Tuttle
> >
> >Dave -
> >I see you coming to the defense of the ship, the people who lived and
> >died, and all the rest. But as for the film, as a film - methinks you
> >protesteth too much.
> >
> >NOW, if you put the script for A Night to Remember along with the FX of
> >"Titanic", it could have been a masterpiece.
>
> Nah....it would have still lacked the right people so culturally in
> touch with that era. All the money in the world can't buy
> that.....which A NIGHT TO REMEMBER benefits so greatly from. And I
> think black & white photography enhances ANTR as well, contributing to
> the documentary feel.
>
> N``
Nimrod``
wrote:
>Ok, if that is the boring one about the married couple thats in black and white ..then i cant
>agree.I know there are a few others i havent seen yet.
>
>jamie
Sigh.....no, it's not that version. You're thinking of the 1953 film,
also called TITANIC. And "that married couple" is Barbara Stanwyck
and Clifton Webb.
A NIGHT TO REMEMBER is vastly superior. But, being in black & white,
you might find it...er...."boring". It happens to actually just be
about the...uh....ship, you know. The one called the Titanic that
sank. It's about all the events that actually occurred simultaneously
leading up to, during, and after the sinking. No dumb artificial love
stories. No Celine Dion goo on the soundrack....
N``
Dave Leckie
Never had I seen such a sad disgrace. When it first came out, I could
not find one single bad review about the movie. Everybody was singing
its praises. I was skeptical. And it became a bit of a self-fulfilling
prophecy. I saw it and thought it sucked harshly. I was the only person
I heard of that disliked the movie... PERIOD... until I saw Denis Leary
on Conan O'Brien about three months later talk about how he fell asleep
during the movie.
Then they won the oscars.
Two months later, I couldn't stop hearing how everybody hated the movie.
All the people that were singing its praises when it first came out had
turned on it, that GODDAMN annoying Celine Dion song, Leonardo DiCaprio
and everything about that movie I hated. Even Jim Cameron allegedly said
to throw away the first video when it came out because of its
uselessness.
I lost a lot of respect for movies in general simply because of Titanic.
I remember one day I went to go see a matinee and I had the choice
between Spice World and Titanic.
I saw Spice World. I laughed at one of my favorite actors emerge from a
toilet bowl.
A few weeks later I saw Titanic and laughed at myself for paying money
to see it.
I still say I made the right choice that day.
Titanic is an exemplary case of "What the hell were we thinking?"
--
Silliness,
Dave "If a quiz is quizical, what's a test?" Leckie
Dr. Riff-Raff in training
Winner, "Most viscious list", 1999
"Music isn't a product" - Till Crueger
Ivan G. Shreve, Jr.
(snip)
> If you want to complain about bad movies making millions rent the
> first dozen 'Police Academy' movies.
If I want to complain about bad movies making millions--rent the "Police
Academy" movies...but then, by renting them, the "Police Academy" movies
will make EVEN MORE millions...and then they'll have to be rented again if I
want to complain, which means they'll make EVEN MORE millions...
Ivan G. "It's a vicious cycle!" Shreve, Jr.
Kevin FilmNutBoy
Well, at least it's not the worst movie about the Titanic ever made. ;-)
That (dis)honor probably belongs to Atlantic (Dupont, 1929). They were trying
to figure out that new fangled sound technology on this one. It's pretty funny
to see characters move up to the hidden mic in turn to deliver their lines.
--Kevin
***
"Pacifism is hurtful, but so is blind loyalty."
Dalton
<ebbo...@silliness.8m.com> wrote:
>This movie was indeed made by hype.
How strange, since it was plagued by bad press for months prior to
it's release. The press didn't improve until well after that because
of it's appeal across a variety of demographics.
If hype worked than Godzilla would have made 3 billion.
>Never had I seen such a sad disgrace.
Give me a break.
> When it first came out, I could
>not find one single bad review about the movie. Everybody was singing
>its praises.
It got decidedly mixed reviews from mainstream critics. Tomatometer
shows 33% negative but it was actually higher and most of the good
reviews had complaints.
> I was skeptical. And it became a bit of a self-fulfilling
>prophecy. I saw it and thought it sucked harshly. I was the only person
>I heard of that disliked the movie... PERIOD... until I saw Denis Leary
>on Conan O'Brien about three months later talk about how he fell asleep
>during the movie.
>
>Then they won the oscars.
>
>Two months later, I couldn't stop hearing how everybody hated the movie.
>All the people that were singing its praises when it first came out had
>turned on it, that GODDAMN annoying Celine Dion song, Leonardo DiCaprio
>and everything about that movie I hated. Even Jim Cameron allegedly said
>to throw away the first video when it came out because of its
>uselessness.
Huh?
>I lost a lot of respect for movies in general simply because of Titanic.
How sensitive you must be.
>I remember one day I went to go see a matinee and I had the choice
>between Spice World and Titanic.
Yeah, sure... That's believable.
>I saw Spice World. I laughed at one of my favorite actors emerge from a
>toilet bowl.
>
>A few weeks later I saw Titanic and laughed at myself for paying money
>to see it.
>
>I still say I made the right choice that day.
>
>Titanic is an exemplary case of "What the hell were we thinking?"
Most people were thinking Titanic was good and went back to see it
more than once.
I think a support group should be formed for the people obsessed with
bashing Titanic. You guys are just as bad as the Titanic groupies who
overpraise it.
Give it a rest already and go buy your beloved Spice Girls dvd.
Dalton
wrote:
>I thought the last half was pretty good as the ship sank, and the special
>effects associated with that were outstanding. The love story was kind of
>drippy, but the secondary characters were quite terrific (especially Kathy
>Bates), and the attention to detail re: the Titanic was meticulous. I have the
>movie on VHS, and when I watch it these days I catch the Bill Paxton opening
>segment, then fast forward to the iceberg hitting the ship.
>On balance, a techinical masterpiece with a weak plot and well acted, but I
>still think "LA Confidential" was the best film of 1997.
>
>Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man
>"The probability of one person being right increases in a direct porportion to
>the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong"
Wow, a legitimate view of the picture that explains the posters views
without silly hyperbole!
Oddly I didn't like Kathy Bates performance at all (I thought it was
hammy), but found the guy who played the designer of the ship to be
the most interesting character.
Leo and Kate were serviceable but saddled with some cringeworthy
dialogue. I would have preferred an older couple as the protagonists,
but think the complaint that the use of a fictional relationship was
'disrespectful' (as others harp on) is just flatly stupid.
I need to see LA Confidential again. The first time I liked it but
found myself asking 'what was the point?' when it was over. Certainly
not bad, but it didn't connect with me either.