Bad dialogue in TITANIC?

[Dukjin Im]

The tone here is harsh, and so mine will be (a little) as well.

Caius Marcius wrote:

> In <01bd2c26$66201580$d18dfcc1@phzgpcbd> "Alexandre" <C...@wanadoo.fr>
> writes:
> >
> >
> >I read that some people seem to complain about the bad dialogues in
> James
> >Cameron's Titanic... This movie is *not* a film about words, or
> literature.
> >This film deals with images and sounds. Cameron tells us a story through
>
> >lights and sounds, not about words. I think we all need to accept the
> time
> >we live in: words is an old way of communicating ideas or expressing
> >emotions, nowadays, images and music (in other words: cinema) are the
> very
> >way of describing human kind.
>
> So, Alexandre, you're not going to talk to your girlfriend anymore -
> you're just film yourself, and pass the tapes on to her?
>

Ignoring the sarcasm on Caius' part here, I have to say that Alexandre's
post obviously has nothing to do with eliminating all spoken words. Titanic
communicates very well on a visual storytelling level, and can be great
without having "great" dialog.

Dialog is not the only way of communicating in film. I would argue that in
many types of film, the precise dialog is _way_down_ the list in terms of
importance. Not just modern movies, but, heck, the first films were silent,
remember? There were great classic silent films, that we can appreciate
today. Then there are all the films that were written in different eras
than our own. Characters used expressions that aren't common today in the
30s, and yet we can appreciate gangster movies from that time, e.g. the
original Scarface. The dialog sounds ridiculous today, but we just turn off
our usually discerning ears, or we pretend that this is how gangsters spoke
in those days. Obviously only 1 in a 100 of us video viewers really might
know what correct dialog is supposed to sound like, but we can still ENJOY
the movie! Then what about foreign films? Our American critics (and regular
old, American viewers) who do not speak French are perhaps just pretending
when they proclaim a French film to be great? Or German? I watched Das
Boot, and it had some occasionally unfathomable (pun intended) subtitles in
it, but I can tell you, it was an incredible experience for me. The actors
speak with their faces and with their bodies. The director speaks to us by
moving the camera. The occasional dialog that did not ring true for me did
not yank me out of the movie, though it may have for some. Perhaps some of
the 30 million plus MODERN people who have seen the film so far are used to
a more visual story-telling style.

> Bad dialogues in Titanic? Yes, of course, but

> >Titanic is a MODERN movie.
>
> Bad grammar is also an old way of communicating ideas or expressing
> emotions. Bad dialogues in Titanic? Yes of course, but Titanic is a
> MODERN movie, meaning that it sucked harder than all of the White House
> interns...................
>
> I don't think we all need to accept the time we live in - I think we
> need to hold a Colt .45 to Jim Cameron's head and force him to take a
> remedial English course.

> - CMC

Interesting bit of hyperbole here. Does James Cameron needs to be forced to
take remedial English? That's unduly harsh. In writing this script, and the
many other screenplays that he has, James Cameron has proven he can write.

How simple do you think it was to write a watchable, coherent script for a
3 hour movie like this one? Cameron the writer is responsible for the use
of the framing device, all the wordless communication he wrote into the
scenes, and the clever narrative? Some of the best scenes in the movie do
involve no dialog (Kate being lowered in the boat, Gloria Stuart dropping
the diamond, The Strausses in bed spooning and holding hands, Murdoch
seeing the iceberg for the first time silently deciding which way to go,
Leo and Kate on the bow in the sunset), and those scenes were written and
directed by that same Cameron guy.

Sure, it's easy to grab Cameron's screenplay, take a particular scene, and
then say "You know, if you changed this dialog to that, etc., the scene
would be so much better!"

It's another thing entirely if I throw a screenwriter in a room with a word
processor and say, "Hey, Cameron wrote a script for a Titanic movie he's
planning to film. We want you to write one too... from scratch. The
criteria are that it must be entertaining so people will watch it, and
afterward, people have to 'get' the Titanic disaster, whatever that means.
Oh, by the way, it better be VERY popular because once the movie's done,
some guy named Caius is going rip on you big time and accuse you of needing
to take remedial English if he doesn't like it."

All venom aside, I understand that for people who are just in love with the
spoken word, for whom dialog is the be-all and end-all of movies, the
extreme popularity of Titanic could be very annoying. However, the rest of
us CAN appreciate this labor of love, that was produced, written, and
directed from a single mind, a movie that is great for reasons other than
its refined dialog. Just as many discerning Americans can enjoy the great
silent epics of the past, or foreign films like 8 and 1/2, and a whole
bunch of others that I'm told are really great, but I haven't actually seen
:)

-Duk

[Dave Platt]

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Dukjin Im wrote:

# >
# > So, Alexandre, you're not going to talk to your girlfriend anymore -
# > you're just film yourself, and pass the tapes on to her?
# >
# The tone here is harsh, and so mine will be (a little) as well.
# > Caius Marcius wrote:

# > In <01bd2c26$66201580$d18dfcc1@phzgpcbd> "Alexandre" <C...@wanadoo.fr>
# > writes:
# > >
# > >
# > >I read that some people seem to complain about the bad dialogues in
# > James
# > >Cameron's Titanic... This movie is *not* a film about words, or
# > literature.
# > >This film deals with images and sounds. Cameron tells us a story through
# >
# > >lights and sounds, not about words. I think we all need to accept the
# > time
# > >we live in: words is an old way of communicating ideas or expressing
# > >emotions, nowadays, images and music (in other words: cinema) are the
# > very
# > >way of describing human kind.
#
# Ignoring the sarcasm on Caius' part here, I have to say that Alexandre's
# post obviously has nothing to do with eliminating all spoken words. Titanic
# communicates very well on a visual storytelling level, and can be great
# without having "great" dialog.
#

There are plenty of good movies without good dialogue, and plenty of movies
where the visuals take over from the dialogue. The point here is that the
dialogue here is *quite* bad, and it detracts from the movie.

# Dialog is not the only way of communicating in film. I would argue that in
# many types of film, the precise dialog is _way_down_ the list in terms of
# importance. Not just modern movies, but, heck, the first films were silent,
# remember? There were great classic silent films, that we can appreciate

But romances live or die on good dialogue.

# > Bad dialogues in Titanic? Yes, of course, but
#
# > >Titanic is a MODERN movie.
# >
# > Bad grammar is also an old way of communicating ideas or expressing
# > emotions. Bad dialogues in Titanic? Yes of course, but Titanic is a
# > MODERN movie, meaning that it sucked harder than all of the White House
# > interns...................
# >
# > I don't think we all need to accept the time we live in - I think we
# > need to hold a Colt .45 to Jim Cameron's head and force him to take a
# > remedial English course.
#
# > - CMC
#
# Interesting bit of hyperbole here. Does James Cameron needs to be forced to
# take remedial English? That's unduly harsh. In writing this script, and the
# many other screenplays that he has, James Cameron has proven he can write.

I dunno. I think a lot of screenwriters are practically illiterate.

# How simple do you think it was to write a watchable, coherent script for a
# 3 hour movie like this one? Cameron the writer is responsible for the use
# of the framing device, all the wordless communication he wrote into the
# scenes, and the clever narrative? Some of the best scenes in the movie do
# involve no dialog (Kate being lowered in the boat, Gloria Stuart dropping
# the diamond, The Strausses in bed spooning and holding hands, Murdoch
# seeing the iceberg for the first time silently deciding which way to go,
# Leo and Kate on the bow in the sunset), and those scenes were written and

This doesn't change that a lot of the dialogue is bad, and unintentially
bad. It detracts from the movie.

And the notion that a "modern" movie doesn't "need" good dialogue is
ridiculous. Yes, wordless scenes can be effective, but the dialogue
between those scenes shouldn't be bad.

[Rico]

Dave Platt wrote:
> This doesn't change that a lot of the dialogue is bad, and
> unintentially bad. It detracts from the movie.

I'm sorry. *What* movie are you talking about?

[Gary]

Alexandre wrote:
>
> I read that some people seem to complain about the bad dialogues in James
> Cameron's Titanic... This movie is *not* a film about words, or literature.

> This film deals with images and sounds. Cameron tells us a story through

> lights and sounds, not about words. I think we all need to accept the time

> we live in: words is an old way of communicating ideas or expressing

> emotions, nowadays, images and music (in other words: cinema) are the very
> way of describing human kind. Bad dialogues in Titanic? Yes, of course, but

> Titanic is a MODERN movie.
>

> Alexandre.

Here is a list of films where the dialogue is the main vehicle enhancing
the story. I suggest watching some of these films and, really listening
to the dialogue. Dialogue is not out of date and, it never will be.

As Good as it Gets
Good Will Hunting
Jackie Brown
L.A. Confidential

[Frank Grimes]

Chasing Amy
Clerks
Any Tarantino

[TheChangeling]

I couldn't even get through clerks. After the first 30 minutes I
decided it was a gen-x foul mouth monologue with a boring plot to
boot.

>Any Tarantino

[Dave Platt]

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Frank Grimes wrote:

# >
# > Here is a list of films where the dialogue is the main vehicle enhancing
# > the story. I suggest watching some of these films and, really listening
# > to the dialogue. Dialogue is not out of date and, it never will be.
# >
# > As Good as it Gets
# > Good Will Hunting
# > Jackie Brown
# > L.A. Confidential
#
# Chasing Amy
# Clerks
# Any Tarantino

I think this is what they mean when they say Tarantino "reinvented
dialogue." Seeing Pulp Fiction, I was excited by the dialogue, and I felt
that for once the entire audience was connected around *language*, and
not simply explosions or pratfalls.

[Alex Crouvier]

Dave Platt wrote:
>
> # Chasing Amy
> # Clerks

Oohh, please, I don't have to pay $7 to hear that kind of dialogue!! All
I have to do is drop by my neighborhood video rental stores.

> # Any Tarantino
>
> I think this is what they mean when they say Tarantino "reinvented
> dialogue." Seeing Pulp Fiction, I was excited by the dialogue, and I felt
> that for once the entire audience was connected around *language*, and
> not simply explosions or pratfalls.

If only they matter to the plot. While I find Tarantino dialogues fun to
listen to they still sound like those Seinfeld's observations. Dialogues
that range from cheeseburgers in France to discussion on filthy animals
have no bearing on the plot. They are cute fillers but many seems to
find them profound.

[Phlip]

Has anyone on this thread remembered another master of "bad" dialog?

Ernest Hemingway...

[Frederick N. Petillo]

Alex Crouvier wrote:
> While I find Tarantino dialogues fun to
> listen to they still sound like those Seinfeld's observations. Dialogues
> that range from cheeseburgers in France to discussion on filthy animals
> have no bearing on the plot. They are cute fillers but many seems to
> find them profound.

Sometimes the medium is the message. With respect to Titanic, I think
the analysis has to be more thoughtful. Watch the movie again, and
consider the following... The early dialogues between Jack and Rose are
couched in language and tones that reflect both their youth (ie. awkward
dialogue, eg. "I see you Rose") and their respective classes (eg. "You
don't seem like an outdoor girl" vs. "Do not presume to tell me what I
will and will not do.") Over the course of the movie, their dialogue
changes as their characters develop. When they both turn to the steward
and shout "Shut up," that's not a throw away line because there is a
point where the two character trajectories have converged so that they
can develop past each other. Until at the end Rose is singing "Come
Josephine" while Jack is speaking in stilted 19th c. phrases (eg. "You
must do me this honor."), both of which reflect the points that Jack is
no less a gentleman and product of his age than the wealthier passengers
and is trapped in this role, while Rose has made the transition to a
thoroughly modern woman. In effect, the characters have intersected
along opposite trajectories. As a brilliant stroke, the language of the
elder Rose seems to us to be a bit old fashioned at times (eg. "Thank
you for that excellent forensic analysis.") and uncomfortably modern at
other times ("Did we do it?"). This is exactly right; the young Rose
lived at the cusp of a social revolution which has largely now passed
by. So Rose is trapped between two worlds. Rose's heart has gone, but
this has a double meaning: it has gone on without Jack to make a good
life for herself, and it has gone on with Jack whom she sees in her
dreams each night (according to the song). There is a part of Rose which
never left Titanic (as the final scene might suggest) and a part which
has lived to see moon walks and personal computers. And her conflated
language reflects just this.

I could go into detail about the dialogue of other characters, but you
get the point. The dialogue of Titanic is every bit as brilliant as the
story line and the visuals. If you really want something to criticize in
the movie, you would be better to focus on the nearly ridiculous scene
of Cal chasing Rose and Jack with a gun. In this, Cameron seemed to me
to momentarily loose trust in his ability to convey the compellingness
of the Titanic story and Jack's and Rose's story.

[synthuser]

Gary wrote:

> Here is a list of films where the dialogue is the main vehicle enhancing

> the story. I suggest watching some of these films and, really listening

> to the dialogue. Dialogue is not out of date and, it never will be.
>

> As Good as it Gets

> Good Will Hunting
> Jackie Brown
> L.A. Confidential

I haven't seen Jackie Brown but the others
are fine films IMO. I am also more
into dialogue than FX and seek out those
films that feed that need when I am hungary
for such mental food :)

But I also have no problem with films where
the "dialogue" is not the vehicle but just
another part, much like the music or
cinematography or costumes or whatever.

One of my favorite movies is Ridicule.
It's french with subtitles...I read the
"dialogue" what does that mean lol!

Synthuser

[Dark Penguin]

In article
<Pine.SV4.3.91.980129...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>, Dave
Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Frank Grimes wrote:
>
># >
># > Here is a list of films where the dialogue is the main vehicle enhancing
># > the story. I suggest watching some of these films and, really listening
># > to the dialogue. Dialogue is not out of date and, it never will be.
># >
># > As Good as it Gets
># > Good Will Hunting
># > Jackie Brown
># > L.A. Confidential
>#

># Chasing Amy
># Clerks

># Any Tarantino
>
>I think this is what they mean when they say Tarantino "reinvented
>dialogue." Seeing Pulp Fiction, I was excited by the dialogue, and I felt
>that for once the entire audience was connected around *language*, and
>not simply explosions or pratfalls.

I agree. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were the first films I'd seen in
a long time where I savored the dialogue and, like you said, felt excited
by it, looking forward to the next line, the next conversation. I still
think he's a wee bit overrated, but I'm so glad he's around. I think he's
made us remember why they used to call these things "talkies."
________________________________
Bryan Byun gor...@aol.com
---------------------------------------
http://www.linkline.com/personal/bbyun

[Maggie Exon]

Dave Platt wrote:

> But romances live or die on good dialogue.

The fact remains that Titanic has lived to the tune of getting on for
$300M in the US alone with some admittedly bad dialogue. Explaining
that is why the movie is still eliciting serious debate on this NG.

Maggie

[Dave Platt]

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Phlip wrote:

# Has anyone on this thread remembered another master of "bad" dialog?
#
# Ernest Hemingway...

So? There are "bad Hemingway" contests every year. Are you saying that
Titanic is a work of literary genius?

[Tulisan]

Rico wrote in message <34D0C3...@ix.netcom.com>...

>Dave Platt wrote:
>> This doesn't change that a lot of the dialogue is bad, and
>> unintentially bad. It detracts from the movie.

this is in reference to the other discussions that went on before David
Platt's message above mine. As a Cameron fan, I have always admired his
screenplays in terms of structure, his visuals are poetical, but his
dialogue, I have to admit is rather mediocre. but there is so much in his
movies aside from the dialogue that i wish he would improve.
tulisan

[Dark Penguin]

In article
<Pine.SV4.3.91.980129...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>, Dave
Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:

I think all he is trying to say is that sometimes we confuse plainness of
style with plainness of thought. We're also often quick to pass judgment
on things we may not have taken the time to really understand.

[Dark Penguin]

In article <6as13r$oa...@news.skyinet.net>, "Tulisan" <tul...@skyinet.net>
wrote:

I think of his dialogue as a broken clock that's correct every twelve
hours. Most of the time I find it workable but not especially memorable;
but at those moments in his films where plain, unadorned speech is called
for, it can be quite effective. I'm thinking of moments such as in The
Abyss, where a few utterly unremarkable words like "love you wife" can
have a huge emotional impact when delivered at the right time.

But as you said...the visual flair and fine sense of narrative structure
is what I like best about Cameron's work -- not necessarily his way with
the spoken word.

[Bob Fletcher]

Alex Crouvier wrote:

> > I think this is what they mean when they say Tarantino "reinvented
> > dialogue." Seeing Pulp Fiction, I was excited by the dialogue, and I felt
> > that for once the entire audience was connected around *language*, and
> > not simply explosions or pratfalls.
>

> If only they matter to the plot. While I find Tarantino dialogues fun to

> listen to they still sound like those Seinfeld's observations. Dialogues
> that range from cheeseburgers in France to discussion on filthy animals
> have no bearing on the plot. They are cute fillers but many seems to
> find them profound.

Very important for character though, I would argue

[Bob Fletcher]

Everyone's forgetting 'Glengarry Glen Ross', fantastic, electric, unsurpassed
dialogue, and one of the finest movies of the last 10 years, if not longer.
And no nit-picking about it being an adapted play :-)

synthuser wrote:

> Gary wrote:
>
> > Here is a list of films where the dialogue is the main vehicle enhancing

> > the story. I suggest watching some of these films and, really listening

> > to the dialogue. Dialogue is not out of date and, it never will be.
> >

> > As Good as it Gets

> > Good Will Hunting
> > Jackie Brown
> > L.A. Confidential
>
> I haven't seen Jackie Brown but the others
> are fine films IMO. I am also more
> into dialogue than FX and seek out those
> films that feed that need when I am hungary
> for such mental food :)
>

> But I also have no problem with films where

[Yak]

Frederick N. Petillo wrote:

>
> Alex Crouvier wrote:
> > While I find Tarantino dialogues fun to
> > listen to they still sound like those Seinfeld's observations. Dialogues
> > that range from cheeseburgers in France to discussion on filthy animals
> > have no bearing on the plot. They are cute fillers but many seems to
> > find them profound.

when you go out with a friend...do you ONLY talk about what you are
doing that day? I sure hope not

its called realism

[Alex Crouvier]

Frederick N. Petillo wrote:

> Sometimes the medium is the message. With respect to Titanic, I think
> the analysis has to be more thoughtful. Watch the movie again, and
> consider the following... The early dialogues between Jack and Rose are
> couched in language and tones that reflect both their youth (ie. awkward
> dialogue, eg. "I see you Rose") and their respective classes (eg. "You
> don't seem like an outdoor girl" vs. "Do not presume to tell me what I
> will and will not do.")

That's very observant, fred. But I only saw the film once, and as far as
I could recall the dialogue were pretty uniformly outdated. They sounded
clunky. Jack on the painting: "Look at his use of his color over here."

> I could go into detail about the dialogue of other characters, but you
> get the point. The dialogue of Titanic is every bit as brilliant as the
> story line and the visuals.

Until more people single out the dialogues as TITANIC's forte, I could
not really agree. Yo, Gary!

> If you really want something to criticize in
> the movie, you would be better to focus on the nearly ridiculous scene
> of Cal chasing Rose and Jack with a gun. In this, Cameron seemed to me
> to momentarily loose trust in his ability to convey the compellingness
> of the Titanic story and Jack's and Rose's story.

My heart already sank when I saw the scene in the trailer. So...

Alex Crouvier

[Dave Platt]

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Dark Penguin wrote:

# In article
#<Pine.SV4.3.91.980129...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>, Dave
# Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
#

# >On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Phlip wrote:
# >

# ># Has anyone on this thread remembered another master of "bad" dialog?
# >#
# ># Ernest Hemingway...
# >
# >So? There are "bad Hemingway" contests every year. Are you saying that
# >Titanic is a work of literary genius?
#
# I think all he is trying to say is that sometimes we confuse plainness of
# style with plainness of thought. We're also often quick to pass judgment
# on things we may not have taken the time to really understand.

Yes, but some of the dialogue in Titanic is just plain *bad*.I can't get
over Jack saying, in all seriousness, "I'm just a tumbleweed blowin' in
the wind." Bob Dylan wasn't born for another 30 years. Besides, it's not
just a mater of plainness. The times when Cameron tries for deep poetry
("there was no absolution, etc") is when it really fails for me.

[Dave Platt]

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Frederick N. Petillo wrote:
#> Alex Crouvier wrote:
# > While I find Tarantino dialogues fun to
# > listen to they still sound like those Seinfeld's observations. Dialogues
# > that range from cheeseburgers in France to discussion on filthy animals
# > have no bearing on the plot. They are cute fillers but many seems to
# > find them profound.
#
# Sometimes the medium is the message. With respect to Titanic, I think
# the analysis has to be more thoughtful. Watch the movie again, and
# consider the following... The early dialogues between Jack and Rose are
# couched in language and tones that reflect both their youth (ie. awkward
# dialogue, eg. "I see you Rose") and their respective classes (eg. "You
# don't seem like an outdoor girl" vs. "Do not presume to tell me what I
# will and will not do.") Over the course of the movie, their dialogue
# changes as their characters develop. When they both turn to the steward
# and shout "Shut up," that's not a throw away line because there is a
# point where the two character trajectories have converged so that they
# can develop past each other. Until at the end Rose is singing "Come
# Josephine" while Jack is speaking in stilted 19th c. phrases (eg. "You
# must do me this honor."), both of which reflect the points that Jack is
# no less a gentleman and product of his age than the wealthier passengers
# and is trapped in this role, while Rose has made the transition to a
# thoroughly modern woman. In effect, the characters have intersected
# along opposite trajectories. As a brilliant stroke, the language of the

I still don't buy it. It's more than just stilted phrases. It's stuff
like the Picasso/Freud references, which seem utterly gratuitous, and the
cliches like "When you've got nothin' you've got nothin' to lose" or
(cringe) "I'd rather be his whore than your wife." The way they are
delivered, and the way they are written, I get the impression that
Cameron *means* these bloody pronouncements. It's not the stilted little
bits that can be attributed to the colloquial language of the time. It's
whole bits of dialogue that come out as cliches.

For a movie that effectively emulates how people *really* talk, go see As
Good As It Gets.

[Dark Penguin]

In article
<Pine.SV4.3.91.980130...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>, Dave
Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:

>I still don't buy it. It's more than just stilted phrases. It's stuff
>like the Picasso/Freud references, which seem utterly gratuitous, and the
>cliches like "When you've got nothin' you've got nothin' to lose" or
>(cringe) "I'd rather be his whore than your wife." The way they are
>delivered, and the way they are written, I get the impression that
>Cameron *means* these bloody pronouncements. It's not the stilted little
>bits that can be attributed to the colloquial language of the time. It's
>whole bits of dialogue that come out as cliches.

The problem as I see it is that we're talking about a film that is
characterized by bold strokes and grand gestures. And that is the sort of
tone that doesn't lend itself well to subtle dialogue. We're talking
Sousa here! And I'm not saying that as a defense necessarily -- the
dialogue is definitely weak, in my opinion. Where I differ from some
critics is in concluding on the basis of the dialogue that Titanic is a
failure as an artistic creation.

As far as stilted, cliched dialogue goes, what about Star Wars? Nearly
every line in that film felt cribbed from somewhere else. You want
noxious verse? "But I was going into Toshi Station to pick up some power
converters!" For the love of God, need I say more? The film is rife with
stinkeroo lines like this. Yet Star Wars remains a great, classic motion
picture. The point I want to make here is that cliched dialogue doesn't
necessarily sink a film, if everything else is there. And IM-very-HO,
Titanic delivers the goods in just about every other way I can think of.

>For a movie that effectively emulates how people *really* talk, go see As
>Good As It Gets.

If you say so, although to me it was more like how people *wish* they
talked, especially in the case of Melvin. Don't get me wrong, I love that
movie. Great dialogue. But I would not want to see a film that truly
reflected the way people talk in real life -- too boring and repetitive.
On the other hand, maybe I just hang with a dull crowd. :)

[Dark Penguin]

In article
<Pine.SV4.3.91.980130...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>, Dave
Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:

Mainly I just wanted to give my take on what the previous poster had said
about Hemingway. I'm not really the one to defend Cameron's dialogue,
which I agree is not the most sparkling that I have heard in film --
though at times it carries a great deal of power despite its lack of
grace. Basically, I found the dialogue plain but not actively offensive.
The thing is, I wasn't really testing each line in the film...I allowed
myself to be swept along, suspended my disbelief, and basically accepted
the actors' lines for what they were. The whole dialogue just didn't
bother me that much, though obviously others were more annoyed.

[GLIMA]

Dark Penguin wrote:
>

>
> The problem as I see it is that we're talking about a film that is
> characterized by bold strokes and grand gestures. And that is the sort of
> tone that doesn't lend itself well to subtle dialogue.

I agree that in all effects oriented films there is little effort put
into the dialodue. We come to accept this. I just think that any film
with this sort of dialogue could be vastly improved. It is like some
film makers think that if they develope this part of a film, that they
don't have to develope that part. A lot of actors don't like it
either. Now we have a new trend of actors writting great screenplays
(Bily Bob Thornton, Ben Aflack, Matt Damon, Robrt Duvall) in some cases,
just so they can speak decent dialogue.

> As far as stilted, cliched dialogue goes, what about Star Wars? Nearly
> every line in that film felt cribbed from somewhere else. You want
> noxious verse? "But I was going into Toshi Station to pick up some power
> converters!" For the love of God, need I say more? The film is rife with
> stinkeroo lines like this. Yet Star Wars remains a great, classic motion
> picture.

No arguement here. I think 'Star Wars' position in film history might
effect the thinking of some film makers in concluding that dialogue is
not important. 'Star Wars' was crtisized at the time the film was
released for this, it just managed to overcome it through the years.
'Titanic' is detined to do the same.

The point I want to make here is that cliched dialogue doesn't
> necessarily sink a film, if everything else is there. And IM-very-HO,
> Titanic delivers the goods in just about every other way I can think of.

Gary

[JSC]

Dave Platt wrote:

> Yes, but some of the dialogue in Titanic is just plain *bad*.I can't
> get
> over Jack saying, in all seriousness, "I'm just a tumbleweed blowin'
> in
> the wind." Bob Dylan wasn't born for another 30 years.

This expression predates Bob Dylan by many years. Besides which, the
word "tumbleweed" doesn't appear in Dylan's lyric. Just because Dylan
made it famous doesn't mean it didn't exist prior.

J.

[Daniel R. Baker]

> In article
> <Pine.SV4.3.91.980130...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>, Dave
> Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
>

> >I still don't buy it. It's more than just stilted phrases. It's stuff
> >like the Picasso/Freud references, which seem utterly gratuitous, and the
> >cliches like "When you've got nothin' you've got nothin' to lose" or
> >(cringe) "I'd rather be his whore than your wife."

(snip)

Cliches? The only place I ever heard anything like the line "I'd rather
be his whore than your wife" is in an excerpt from Heloise's letters to
Peter Abelard, where she tells Abelard that she would rather be his
harlot than Vespasian's wife. These letters, though probably not
authentic, are considered among the greatest of French romantic
literature (at least by Will Durant; I can't read French myself). I
would venture to guess than 99% of TITANIC's audience had never heard
this "cliche" before.

I, for one, think it is a great line either in Heloise's or in Rose's
mouth. It shows great defiance of the hypocritical social mores that
brand the name "whore" on a woman who sleeps with a man she loves solely
because she enjoys it, rather than on a woman who marries and sleeps
with a man for his money, for social standing, or other ulterior
motive. You can blame Cameron for being unoriginal if you like, but I
don't think it's necessarily bad to expose a mass audience to a little
taste of Jean de Meun's romantic forgeries.

Respectfully,
Daniel R. Baker.
(Disclaimers ad nauseam).

[Jeff Williams]

Dukjin Im wrote in message <34D039BF...@greystoneapts.com>...

>Dialog is not the only way of communicating in film. I would argue that in
>many types of film, the precise dialog is _way_down_ the list in terms of
>importance. Not just modern movies, but, heck, the first films were silent,
>remember? There were great classic silent films, that we can appreciate
>today.

And I am not arguing with this. In fact, I would have found Titanic a far
more interesting and satisfying movie if it HAD been entirely silent - it
would have been quite avant-garde, but quite interesting.

Nobody's arguing that films can and are great without any dialogue at all.
In fact, what *I* am personally arguing is that most of Titanic's dialogue
is meaningless tripe, and should have been simply removed. Some of the
modern movies that I think have the best dialogue also have among the LEAST
dialogue.

I think the distinction is that, at least in my case, I am not arguing only
about the quality of the dialogue, I am arguing about the *use* of dialogue
in Titanic (and in other films). Film *is* a visual medium first, and
dialogue should always be used as a last resort. The first thing you're
taught as a screenwriter is to look at every spoken line on your page, and
ask yourself first, "is this necessary to my story?" followed directly by,
"is there any way that I could show this in an action instead?" If the
answer to the first question is yes, and the second is no, then you leave
the line in the script. I don't think Cameron did this in his script for
Titanic. I also don't think he really edited his lines for quality - I mean
ignoring the necessity of many of the spoken lines, some of them WERE just
plain bad.

>scenes, and the clever narrative? Some of the best scenes in the movie do
>involve no dialog (Kate being lowered in the boat, Gloria Stuart dropping
>the diamond, The Strausses in bed spooning and holding hands, Murdoch
>seeing the iceberg for the first time silently deciding which way to go,
>Leo and Kate on the bow in the sunset), and those scenes were written and
>directed by that same Cameron guy.

Those scenes were also total cliches that I'd bet 80% of the people told to
write a Romance out of a Titanic script would come up with just as Cameron
did. Leo and Kate on the bow at sunset? That's *clever*? It may or may
not be uplifting to you (it's certainly proven itself as an image enough
times in countless other movies), but it's nowhere near clever.

>Sure, it's easy to grab Cameron's screenplay, take a particular scene, and
>then say "You know, if you changed this dialog to that, etc., the scene
>would be so much better!"
>
>It's another thing entirely if I throw a screenwriter in a room with a word
>processor and say, "Hey, Cameron wrote a script for a Titanic movie he's
>planning to film. We want you to write one too... from scratch.

I guess you've never heard of a script doctor.

>All venom aside, I understand that for people who are just in love with the
>spoken word, for whom dialog is the be-all and end-all of movies, the
>extreme popularity of Titanic could be very annoying. However, the rest of
>us CAN appreciate this labor of love, that was produced, written, and
>directed from a single mind, a movie that is great for reasons other than
>its refined dialog. Just as many discerning Americans can enjoy the great
>silent epics of the past, or foreign films like 8 and 1/2, and a whole
>bunch of others that I'm told are really great, but I haven't actually seen

...and if you did, maybe you wouldn't be so quick to judge Titanic as great
as you apparently think it is. If everyone in America had a broader base of
films in their collective consciousness, our standards would all be a bit
higher.

// Jeff Williams
// jeff-w...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com
// http://www.geocities.com/soho/2024
// To send email remove "NOSPAM" from the address.

[mgr...@sonic.net]

>>So? There are "bad Hemingway" contests every year. Are you saying that

>>Titanic is a work of literary genius?

>I think all he is trying to say is that sometimes we confuse plainness of

>style with plainness of thought. We're also often quick to pass judgment

>on things we may not have taken the time to really understand.

>________________________________
>Bryan Byun gor...@aol.com

Speaking as someone who LOVED the movie despite the clunky dialogue, let
me say this:

The issue is not plainness. It is excessive use of cliche and a very
wooden, simply unbelievable phrasing which crops up consistently
throughout the film. Not because it's a period piece--there are plenty
of period pieces which have thoroughly believable dialogue--but because
Cameron isn't a very good writer and has had all his previous experience
in writing whiz-bang thrillers.

It's unfortunate. If the exact same plot, even all the same scenes, had
been written by a competent writer with a better command of language and
character development, the film would have been even better. As it is,
DiCaprio and Winslet are so GOOD that they manage to imbue life even to
the real howlers in the script.

[Steve Sisson]

> >Yes, but some of the dialogue in Titanic is just plain *bad*.I can't
> get
> >over Jack saying, in all seriousness, "I'm just a tumbleweed blowin'
> in

> >the wind." Bob Dylan wasn't born for another 30 years. Besides, it's
> not
> >just a mater of plainness. The times when Cameron tries for deep
> poetry
> >("there was no absolution, etc") is when it really fails for me.
>
> Mainly I just wanted to give my take on what the previous poster had
> said
> about Hemingway. I'm not really the one to defend Cameron's dialogue,
>
> which I agree is not the most sparkling that I have heard in film --
> though at times it carries a great deal of power despite its lack of
> grace. Basically, I found the dialogue plain but not actively
> offensive.
> The thing is, I wasn't really testing each line in the film...I
> allowed
> myself to be swept along, suspended my disbelief, and basically
> accepted
> the actors' lines for what they were. The whole dialogue just didn't
> bother me that much, though obviously others were more annoyed.
>

I think that plain ("bad") dialogue makes the movie more realistic.
Real everyday people (even in first class) didn't always speak like
poets.

Steve :)

[Alex Crouvier]

Bob Fletcher wrote:
>
> Alex Crouvier wrote:
>
> > > I think this is what they mean when they say Tarantino "reinvented
> > > dialogue." Seeing Pulp Fiction, I was excited by the dialogue, and I felt
> > > that for once the entire audience was connected around *language*, and
> > > not simply explosions or pratfalls.
> >

> > If only they matter to the plot. While I find Tarantino dialogues fun to

> > listen to they still sound like those Seinfeld's observations. Dialogues

> > that range from cheeseburgers in France to discussion on filthy animals

> > have no bearing on the plot. They are cute fillers but many seems to

> > find them profound.
>
> Very important for character though, I would argue

How? They all are well versed in pop culture or other cute little
observations. They just talk talk talk bla bla bla endlessly with no
apparent purpose to the current running plot. Does discussing the way
the French call cheeseburger say anything about their assignment or
their characters? Do discussing whether pig is a filthy animal say
anything about Sam L Jackson's life-changing moments? The bit cribbed
from the bible is nice but everything else is like any dumb, completely
extraneous action sequence in a Jerry Bruckheimer's demoliton derby. And
some went as far as calling him the second coming of Orson? >pttuui<

Alex Crouvier

[Tom Pappas]

Phlip <te...@deltanet.com> wrote in article
<6aril6$rgn$1...@news01.deltanet.com>...

Has anyone on this thread remembered another master of "bad" dialog?

Ernest Hemingway...

The night was cold. The sea was calm. The frozen monolith waited in the
dark.

[Tulisan]

Jeff Williams wrote in message <6at694$qvu$2...@newsfep3.sprintmail.com>...

>Dukjin Im wrote in message <34D039BF...@greystoneapts.com>...
>
>>

>// Jeff Williams
>
>Come on guys, you always go to extremes. There are dialogue movies and
movies that don't depend on dialogue as the end-all and be-all for their
existence. Try to imagine a Woody Allen film without dialogue... or a
Tarantino film... It's just that Titanic didn't need excellent dialogue to
have made its impact on us. But can you imagine if we had terrific dialogue
in it as a bonus?
>Tulisan
>

[Jeff Williams]

Tulisan wrote in message <6au06l$m7...@news.skyinet.net>...

>Tarantino film... It's just that Titanic didn't need excellent dialogue to
>have made its impact on us. But can you imagine if we had terrific
dialogue
>in it as a bonus?

We might have even had the beginnings of a good film. Now, if only Cameron
had hired an editor afterwards, he might have *really* had something.

[Jeff Williams]

Steve Sisson wrote in message <34D22ABC...@wavecom.net>...

>
> I think that plain ("bad") dialogue makes the movie more realistic.
>Real everyday people (even in first class) didn't always speak like
>poets.

Realism has nothing to do with narrative film.

Look. You've all got to realize that no matter how "realistic" a film may
seem to you, it's an illusion. All films, even documentaries, are
constructions. Film, by its very nature, is inherently *unrealistic*. Real
life stories do not have pat beginnings, middles, and endings. They are not
told in 3 act structure. They do not involve varying camera angles. They
do not involve cross-cuts or master shots.

You've been conditioned through years of watching to expect certain things
when you go to the movies, and because of this, these things seem
"realistic" to you. One of these things is naturalistic dialogue, which has
become a trademark of Hollywood. And there's nothing wrong with
naturalistic dialogue - plenty of my favorite films use it to great effect.
But you're failing to make the distinction between what is naturalistic and
what is simply messy.

If you want realism, next time you should just tell Cameron to load up the
film, set up one camera, and let it run undisturbed for three hours,
recording for sound any conversation between anyone who happens to walk by.
That'll be even more realistic than the dialogue you saw in Titanic. It'll
be awful, but it'll be realistic.

[Jeff Williams]

Dark Penguin wrote in message ...

>
>As far as stilted, cliched dialogue goes, what about Star Wars? Nearly
>every line in that film felt cribbed from somewhere else. You want
>noxious verse? "But I was going into Toshi Station to pick up some power
>converters!" For the love of God, need I say more?

Well, for one thing, I think the problem with that line is more in the
delivery than anything. That's one of the worst acted lines in the history
of cinema (it always makes me spit out whatever I'm drinking in laughter
every time I see it, just because of Mark Hammil's whiney voice). That line
shouldn't have stood out as it did - it should have been merely
illustrative. If it was delivered properly you'd have never thought twice
about it.

The film is rife with
>stinkeroo lines like this. Yet Star Wars remains a great, classic motion
>picture.

Star Wars was also part camp. It didn't take itself as seriously as Titanic
does - it had a sense of humor about itself. I think one reason for the
Titanic backlash going on now is that, as a film, it tries to convey a sense
of being so utterly serious, and so *important*, and so big and epic, when
really so much of it is just laughable. If it weren't so pretentious, its
indiscretions wouldn't be so offensive.

[Jeff Williams]

[Dark Penguin]

In article <6aupsr$mqu$1...@newsfep4.sprintmail.com>, "Jeff Williams"
<jeff-w...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote:

>Dark Penguin wrote in message ...
>>
>>As far as stilted, cliched dialogue goes, what about Star Wars? Nearly
>>every line in that film felt cribbed from somewhere else. You want
>>noxious verse? "But I was going into Toshi Station to pick up some power
>>converters!" For the love of God, need I say more?
>
>Well, for one thing, I think the problem with that line is more in the
>delivery than anything. That's one of the worst acted lines in the history
>of cinema (it always makes me spit out whatever I'm drinking in laughter
>every time I see it, just because of Mark Hammil's whiney voice). That line
>shouldn't have stood out as it did - it should have been merely
>illustrative. If it was delivered properly you'd have never thought twice
>about it.

Too true, too true. Yet, I feel for Hamill because, frankly, it's hard to
imagine a really suave way to utter that long, unbroken sentence. I agree
that the delivery was awful, but I suspect it would have been a clunker no
matter what. Well, in any case, it's sure as heck ain't in the same
league as "here's looking at you, kid."

>The film is rife with
>>stinkeroo lines like this. Yet Star Wars remains a great, classic motion
>>picture.
>
>Star Wars was also part camp. It didn't take itself as seriously as Titanic
>does - it had a sense of humor about itself. I think one reason for the
>Titanic backlash going on now is that, as a film, it tries to convey a sense
>of being so utterly serious, and so *important*, and so big and epic, when
>really so much of it is just laughable. If it weren't so pretentious, its
>indiscretions wouldn't be so offensive.

But how much of that is the film itself, and how much is a reaction to the
fans? I asked this question years ago when Forrest Gump came out and
became the must-see movie of '94. I didn't really hear people trashing
the film as "feel good reactionary pablum" until it became popular to
think of it that way by its more diehard fans (who misunderstood the film,
in my opinion). Before that, what I read and heard were much more
measured critiques. I actually went back and looked up reviews by film
critics at the time of release, and compared them to the same critics'
comments around the time of the Oscars. By and large, the reviews were
supportive and positive (when FG was the summer's big discovery) and
turned downright ugly by the following March. (Peter Travers loved the
film in summer, called it pablum six months later.) The only difference
is that during the time between release and Oscar season, the film had
built up this big following, its fans practically forming a cult around
the film and its "Gumpisms." No wonder this previously unassuming film
became perceived as some kind of bombastic manifesto!

Even further back, I heard people criticizing Springsteen's "Born in the
USA" as jingoistic patriot-rock, in response to its popular
misinterpretation, not the song itself, which obviously is one of the
least patriotic songs ever written.

I'm not saying this is absolutely *the* reason for the negative
counterresponse, btw! I bring this up merely as one point out of many to
consider as we surge like spawn-happy salmon against the immense cultural
backwash in search of some understanding of the film. Now me, personally
-- I didn't get the same sense you did, of Titanic being self-important or
pretentious. The light moments contain a good deal of gentle humor, and
the sections of the film dealing with the disaster...well, shouldn't they
be serious? I can't imagine making a film about a tragedy of this
magnitude with a campy tone. But even here, the Sturm und Drang is
leavened with moments (rare, but present) of melancholy humor -- like the
musicians who achieve a sort of pathetic nobility in their final moments.

Anyway, if we're talking about a backlash as opposed to just a negative
review, aren't we talking about a response to a popular movement, and
therefore something which reflects upon the object of that movement with
variable accuracy? It seems to me that Titanic the film isn't serious or
light, important or laughable, until our emotional responses to what we
see determine our definitions and categorizations. When we talk about
things like importance, seriousness, pretentiousness, are we even really
talking about the film at all, just our reactions to it, our
interpretations, because these aren't strictly objectively quantifiable
elements?

Just some disjointed ramblings for ya at 3 in the morning.

P.S.

Incidentally, what's wrong with a bit of the old El Pretentioso in a
cinematic work? I like Greenaway's films precisely because they're so
arch and mannered. Anyway, I'll never failed to be troubled by these
aesthetic distinctions. The thin line between an "important" work and a
"self-important" one seems to be little more than, didja LIKE it?? It's
like how protesters you disagree with are "whiners" and those you agree
with are "activists!" Okay I go sleep now good nite....

[KeN]

i think dialogue might not be that important a factor to consider. the
thing which bring out the plot ( as someone mention as in visual art )would
be the way an actor speaks it, and the emotions & feelings involved or
exchange among the co-stars themselves.

Luv,
KeN

[Dave Platt]

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Daniel R. Baker wrote:
#> > In article

# > <Pine.SV4.3.91.980130...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>, Dave

# > Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
# >

# > >I still don't buy it. It's more than just stilted phrases. It's stuff
# > >like the Picasso/Freud references, which seem utterly gratuitous,
#nd the
# > >cliches like "When you've got nothin' you've got nothin' to lose" or
# > >(cringe) "I'd rather be his whore than your wife."
# (snip)
#
# Cliches? The only place I ever heard anything like the line "I'd rather
# be his whore than your wife" is in an excerpt from Heloise's letters to
# Peter Abelard, where she tells Abelard that she would rather be his
# harlot than Vespasian's wife. These letters, though probably not
# authentic, are considered among the greatest of French romantic
# literature (at least by Will Durant; I can't read French myself). I
# would venture to guess than 99% of TITANIC's audience had never heard
# this "cliche" before.

Cliche is maybe the wrong word, but it just plain stinks. It's too showy,
too mannered, too calculated to make the audience cheer. (Even if it was
in some French literature before, I couldn't give two hoots.)

[Kelly Erlandson]

Distribution:

: Yes, but some of the dialogue in Titanic is just plain *bad*.I can't get

: over Jack saying, in all seriousness, "I'm just a tumbleweed blowin' in
: the wind." Bob Dylan wasn't born for another 30 years.

Are you serious? Tumbleweed was propelled across the open plains by the
wind long before Bob Dylan was born, or sang about wind. (I don't think he
even sang about tumbleweed, did he?) It's such an
obvious metaphor for a rootless existence, surely even our poor Jack could
have thought of it?

[Tom Pappas]

Hey, I know! We can put on our own show!

We'll build a replica of the Titanic (call it Gigantic), hire our own
writers to redo the script, fix all the historical errors, and put out a
sequel to Cameron's movie!

4 Birds with one stone.

[Charles Groark]

And probably kill $400,000,000, too... (grin)

Charlie

[Clear and Present Dylan]

Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> Dark Penguin wrote in message ...
> >
> >As far as stilted, cliched dialogue goes, what about Star Wars? Nearly
> >every line in that film felt cribbed from somewhere else. You want
> >noxious verse? "But I was going into Toshi Station to pick up some power
> >converters!" For the love of God, need I say more?
>
> Well, for one thing, I think the problem with that line is more in the
> delivery than anything. That's one of the worst acted lines in the history
> of cinema (it always makes me spit out whatever I'm drinking in laughter
> every time I see it, just because of Mark Hammil's whiney voice). That line
> shouldn't have stood out as it did - it should have been merely
> illustrative. If it was delivered properly you'd have never thought twice
> about it.

Actually, this is one of my favourite lines in the film just for those
reasons.

> The film is rife with
> >stinkeroo lines like this. Yet Star Wars remains a great, classic motion
> >picture.
>
> Star Wars was also part camp. It didn't take itself as seriously as Titanic
> does - it had a sense of humor about itself. I think one reason for the
> Titanic backlash going on now is that, as a film, it tries to convey a sense
> of being so utterly serious, and so *important*, and so big and epic, when
> really so much of it is just laughable. If it weren't so pretentious, its
> indiscretions wouldn't be so offensive.

I couldn't agree more.

Dylan

[Gary]

Alex Crouvier wrote:

>
> How? They all are well versed in pop culture or other cute little
> observations. They just talk talk talk bla bla bla endlessly with no
> apparent purpose to the current running plot. Does discussing the way
> the French call cheeseburger say anything about their assignment or
> their characters? Do discussing whether pig is a filthy animal say
> anything about Sam L Jackson's life-changing moments? The bit cribbed
> from the bible is nice but everything else is like any dumb, completely
> extraneous action sequence in a Jerry Bruckheimer's demoliton derby. And
> some went as far as calling him the second coming of Orson? >pttuui<
>
> Alex Crouvier

He's convinced me, anyone want to buy my laserdiscs of 'Reservior Dogs'
and 'Pulp Fiction?'

Gary

[Gary]

asch...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>
> >
> >It's unfortunate. If the exact same plot, even all the same scenes, had
> >been written by a competent writer with a better command of language and
> >character development, the film would have been even better. As it is,
> >DiCaprio and Winslet are so GOOD that they manage to imbue life even to
> >the real howlers in the script.
>

> I heard, on some clip about the movie, that Leonardo and Kate were
> allowed to ad lib a bit. And I think this added more of a deminsion
> of "believability" to the characters. Kind of like the line where
> Jack asks Rose to "sit on the bed..uh, couch," in the drawing scene.
> Even though this was a slip on Leonardo's part, not an ad lib, it
> added the "human" diminsion.
>
> Lisa

Cameron saved the film by casting some outstanding talent in the lead
roles. The film could have been a disaster if less skilled performers
had been employed. Cameron has always gotten the most out of his
performers in films. This is one of his really outstanding skills that
he does not get credited for very often.

Even with the flaws in the film, it is way beyond what most thought he
was capable of. If he starts believing his writting is deficient, I
expect he will seek out some advanced training or, a co-writer in future
projects. We shall see.

Gary

[Jeff Williams]

Dark Penguin wrote in message ...

>Too true, too true. Yet, I feel for Hamill because, frankly, it's hard to

>imagine a really suave way to utter that long, unbroken sentence. I agree
>that the delivery was awful, but I suspect it would have been a clunker no
>matter what. Well, in any case, it's sure as heck ain't in the same
>league as "here's looking at you, kid."

Which in itself is not a great line. It's not even a particularly good
line, and it was a cliched line even when it was written - people were
saying that long before it was put on screen (why do you think it WAS put on
screen? That's something people said commonly, so it was natural that a
character in a film would say it). What makes it memorable is WHO said it,
HOW he said it, to whom he said it, and what lead up to and followed the
saying of it. The line itself is a throwaway.

>But how much of that is the film itself, and how much is a reaction to the
>fans? I asked this question years ago when Forrest Gump came out and
>became the must-see movie of '94. I didn't really hear people trashing
>the film as "feel good reactionary pablum" until it became popular to
>think of it that way by its more diehard fans (who misunderstood the film,
>in my opinion).

I can't speak for Forrest Gump - I refused to see it and still do - but I'll
say this: No film exists in a vacuum. No film is ever judged purely on its
own merits, ignoring everything else. Nor, do I think, should films be
judged that way. Films are both a reflection of and a shaper of the culture
from which they're spawned - they draw upon each other, they draw upon other
forms of art, and they draw upon life.

As for the critics of Forrest Gump who apparently changed their stories at
Oscar time (and the swell of anti-Gump reaction, now mirrored by the
Antitanics) - well, one of the first things I learned while studying film in
college was to never write critiques just after seeing a film (we were, in
fact, not allowed to write about films we'd seen until a week after seeing
them). Gut reaction is almost never reliable, because it's influenced too
much by emotion. It's just like how you can say so many things that you
don't really mean to someone when you're angry - the same is true of any
emotion, when talking about anything, including film. Hollywood knows that
preying on cheap emotions and quick gut reactions is what sells movies, and
what most audiences want to see. But that's not what makes a great film
(it's fairly easy to invoke emotions in film by using simple time-tested
narrative devices).

I think that what happened with the critics of Gump, and perhaps now
Titanic, is simply that they had time to think about it - the emotions they
felt while seeing the film waned, and they finally were able to look at the
film objectively rather than subjectively. Or at least as objectively as
possible - as I said, no film exists in a vacuum, and neither does any
critic.

>Even further back, I heard people criticizing Springsteen's "Born in the
>USA" as jingoistic patriot-rock, in response to its popular
>misinterpretation, not the song itself, which obviously is one of the
>least patriotic songs ever written.

But here you're talking about 2 different things. Those you speak of in the
above paragraph have obviously never heard the song, or at least have never
really listened to any of the lyrics but the chorus. That's just ignorance.
That would be like me saying Forrest Gump had bad dialogue, never having
seen the film. I can't say that. I can only say generally what I've seen
happen with films in the past. And I'm sure those reviewers of Gump that
you referred to earlier had seen the film, many times more than once, and
had studied it closely.

>Anyway, if we're talking about a backlash as opposed to just a negative
>review, aren't we talking about a response to a popular movement, and
>therefore something which reflects upon the object of that movement with
>variable accuracy? It seems to me that Titanic the film isn't serious or
>light, important or laughable, until our emotional responses to what we
>see determine our definitions and categorizations. When we talk about
>things like importance, seriousness, pretentiousness, are we even really
>talking about the film at all, just our reactions to it, our
>interpretations, because these aren't strictly objectively quantifiable
>elements?

But these are quantifiable elements! You think Titanic was *calculated* to
achieve an emotional response? Of course it was! The evil rich fiance, the
poor boy with a heart of gold who steals away the oppressed poor little rich
girl, the elderly woman returning to the site of the sinking, the death of
Leo, even the sinking itself, these are all things that nobody in their
right mind would not have an emotional response to. The question is, when
you look *past* these things, which are so easy and obvious, is there really
anything beyond? And to me, the answer is no. Titanic is less a film than
it is a series of emotional cliches.

If you think about *the film*, and not your reaction when you first saw the
film, or even when you see it again now, I think you'll find the same thing.
The fact that it was good at making you cry, or feel emotional pain, says
nothing about the quality of the film itself. I've felt emotional pain
seeing the aftermath of car accidents. That does not lead me to say "that
was a great car accident!" (the film "Crash" not withstanding.)

Anyway, this is becoming too general a criticism of Titanic now. In future
postings to this thread I'll try to stay more on-topic, with regard to
dialogue.

[Jeff Williams]

Tom Pappas wrote in message <01bd2e7d$a77ba590$22a02bce@www>...

>Hey, I know! We can put on our own show!
>
>We'll build a replica of the Titanic (call it Gigantic),

Actually, Gigantic was originally going to be the name of Britannic, one of
Titanic's sister ships, if I remember correctly.

[Gary]

Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> Dark Penguin wrote in message ...
>
> >Too true, too true. Yet, I feel for Hamill because, frankly, it's hard to
> >imagine a really suave way to utter that long, unbroken sentence. I agree
> >that the delivery was awful, but I suspect it would have been a clunker no
> >matter what. Well, in any case, it's sure as heck ain't in the same
> >league as "here's looking at you, kid."
>
> Which in itself is not a great line. It's not even a particularly good
> line, and it was a cliched line even when it was written - people were
> saying that long before it was put on screen (why do you think it WAS put on
> screen?

This comment interests me. I have always been amazed at the number of
lines from 'Casablanca' which are now classics. Do you happen to know
if many of them were cliche at the time?

> As for the critics of Forrest Gump who apparently changed their stories at
> Oscar time (and the swell of anti-Gump reaction, now mirrored by the
> Antitanics)

I enjoyed 'Gump' when I saw it. I became bitter about it at Oscar time
because I loved 'Pulp Fiction' and 'The Shawshank Redemption'
tremendously. 'Gump' was the first film to win the Oscar with my having
a perception of it being unworthy. It also lowered my opinion of
Zemeckis. Even though 'Back to the Future' remains to this day my
favorite film, I don't really think his directing skills are that great.

> - well, one of the first things I learned while studying film in
> college was to never write critiques just after seeing a film (we >were, in
> fact, not allowed to write about films we'd seen until a week after >seeing
> them).

Unless I am wrong, aren't most crtics in media delivering there
critiques soon after viewing. If so this really leaves us with some
very jaded views. I know that personally, I don't ususally form strong
opinions about films until after they have had a while to sink in.

> I think that what happened with the critics of Gump, and perhaps now
> Titanic, is simply that they had time to think about it - the emotions >they
> felt while seeing the film waned, and they finally were able to look >at the
> film objectively rather than subjectively. Or at least as objectively >as
> possible - as I said, no film exists in a vacuum, and neither does any
> critic.

I don't know about this for 'Titanic,' most of the critics that panned
it did so prior to it's release. Personally, I am not aware of any
critic coming out favorably then turning on the film. I think people
percieve a backlash that doesn't exist because they don't read the
negative reviews until after they have become enamered with the film.
There are examples of other films whose critical stature has risen after
the initial critiques were written. Two of the most glaring examples
are 'The Godfather' and 'Star Wars.' Ten years from now, when 'Titanic'
is looked back on it as the Oscar winning film and, one of the five top
grossing films, it will naturally have more stature than it does today.
The reviews that panned the film will be novelty items reprtinted for
humor and, the crtics that wrote them will wish they could forget them.
These sort of reviews are collected in books and, you can see that every
film considered great was panned by someone.

> I've felt emotional pain
> seeing the aftermath of car accidents. That does not lead me to say >"that
> was a great car accident!"

This is truely one of the great line I have read on the net.

Gary

[asch...@mailexcite.com]

[Bob Morris]

Gary <GL...@prodigy.net> writes:

>Cameron saved the film by casting some outstanding talent in the lead
>roles. The film could have been a disaster if less skilled performers
>had been employed. Cameron has always gotten the most out of his
>performers in films. This is one of his really outstanding skills that
>he does not get credited for very often.

Bravo.

>Even with the flaws in the film, it is way beyond what most thought he
>was capable of. If he starts believing his writting is deficient, I
>expect he will seek out some advanced training or, a co-writer in future
>projects. We shall see.

>Gary

That's baloney. A great writer doesn't guarantee a thing.

Jay Cocks, a great critic and writer, co-wrote Age of Innocence.
The result? A BORING FILM ABOUT MANNERS! How come a great critic couldn't
figure out that his script was the best sleep inducer since Halcion?
How come a great director couldn't figure out the same thing?

James Cameron achieved what Marty couldn't: an interesting film
about social structures amd mores, with millions spent on the right dishes,
clothes, etiquette etc. Same as Marty.

Robert Bolt's Lady Caroline Lamb was a disaster. How come?

James Cameron made everything come together in this film.

The assumption that a so-called "better script" would have made the
film better is just that: an assumption that can never be proven.

Critics bitched for years that Peter O'Toole was 9" too tall for the
Lawrence role. Should we use CGI to redo the film with a 5' 5" tall
Peter O'Toole? Would the film then be better?

What a joke!

LRM

[Jeff Williams]

Gary wrote in message <34D420...@prodigy.net>...

>Unless I am wrong, aren't most crtics in media delivering there
>critiques soon after viewing. If so this really leaves us with some
>very jaded views. I know that personally, I don't ususally form strong
>opinions about films until after they have had a while to sink in.

Well, this is why that form of criticism is not really taken seriously in
academia. It's really bordering on meaningless. I personally keep track of
mass-media criticism for a couple of reasons - to turn me on to films I may
have overlooked otherwise, and for larger films to try to get a feel for
what type of film it is and what mass audience reaction to it might be. But
I pay almost no attention to the actual critiques by these critics, except
for my own amusement and for water-cooler banter with my co-workers.
Critics are just like anyone else - they go to movies, watch them and have
the same reactions anyone else has. Their reactions might be a *little*
different than most people's because they (should) have a broader base of
films in their viewing history for comparison. But most critics are going
to be immediately swept away by a film like Titanic just like everyone else.
And those mass-media "critics", which are given miniscule amounts of time to
come up with critiques, are going to write on that basis. But to be a real
*critic* means you're paid to *think* about these films afterwards, it's
your *job* to spend a little more time than the average person and analyze
them in a much larger sense. Eisenstein, Bazin, even Kael, those people are
*critics* in the true sense of the word. Those people who write for most
magazines or for TV news reports can only be called critics for lack of a
better word.

Anyway, most of them do have some formal training, and will occasionally
change their initial reviews once they have had time to think. But I don't
think many of them really have the time to go back and consider films
they've written about earlier in the year.

>There are examples of other films whose critical stature has risen after
>the initial critiques were written. Two of the most glaring examples
>are 'The Godfather' and 'Star Wars.'

I agree with your premise, but these are bad examples. The Godfather was
considered a classic the instant it was released, from top to bottom in the
critical world. On the other hand, Star Wars is considered *important*, but
not great, in serious critical circles. There's a difference between
"important" and "great".

In the ultimate scheme of things, Titanic may eventually be considered
"important" in film history (I saw today that EW has a cover story on how
Titanic will change Hollywood, but I didn't pick it up - I have no interest
in reading anymore commercial material on this film), but it's just such a
poor film in many ways that it's my opinion its stature will drop over time.
For one thing, there have been other, superior films about the Titanic in
the past. For another, serious criticism does not look at things such as
acting and dialogue, but at deeper issues - it's much more issue oriented,
and concerned with the effects films have on audiences. I think Titanic may
be studied quite a bit because of its box office (critics are always
interested in why people go see movies), but it's ultimately a very
simplistic film and I doubt its going to rise in critical stature over time.
As far as the critics you seem to be talking about, it couldn't really get
much higher than it is right now, there's nowhere to go but down.

Ten years from now, when 'Titanic'
>is looked back on it as the Oscar winning film and, one of the five top
>grossing films, it will naturally have more stature than it does today.

This doesn't mean anything. Baseline's summary of Rocky says, as I believe
its opening sentence, "Oscar winner for Best Picture in a very lean year."
That's hardly the attitude of someone who believes its winnings or its box
office speak much to the quality of the film. You'd have to be pretty
shallow to say "well, other people like it, I guess that means I should
too." That's pretty much the opposite of what a critic is paid to do.
Critics are paid to think for themselves, and to hopefully ignore what other
critics and the public are saying. Not all of them do this that well, but
the good ones do.

There are plenty of famous and well-respected films that I don't like, and
I'm not afraid to say so. Not that I'm some kind of great critic (although
I'm fully qualified - now if only I could get a job somewhere doing it!),
but the point is that if you're paid to be a critic, you can't be afraid to
say what you feel just because other people may disagree with you.

[Bob Morris]

Gary <GL...@prodigy.net> writes:

>This comment interests me. I have always been amazed at the number of
>lines from 'Casablanca' which are now classics. Do you happen to know

^^^

>if many of them were cliche at the time?

^^^^^^^^^^^

So, the possibility of "This is where we first met" becoming a classic
is formally recognized. :-) Aha!

It takes years before the test of time may be applied.

By definition, you *can't* do it now!

>I don't know about this for 'Titanic,' most of the critics that panned
>it did so prior to it's release. Personally, I am not aware of any
>critic coming out favorably then turning on the film. I think people
>percieve a backlash that doesn't exist because they don't read the
>negative reviews until after they have become enamered with the film.

>There are examples of other films whose critical stature has risen after
>the initial critiques were written. Two of the most glaring examples

>are 'The Godfather' and 'Star Wars.' Ten years from now, when 'Titanic'

>is looked back on it as the Oscar winning film and, one of the five top
>grossing films, it will naturally have more stature than it does today.

The most infamous reversal of opinion -- for those who have a memory --
was Bonnie and Clyde. Newsweek's critic panned it and then, a couple of weeks
later, called it a masterpiece. (Jack Kroll?) This reversal was news
nationwide.

LRM

[Dave Platt]

On 1 Feb 1998, Bob Morris wrote:

# Gary <GL...@prodigy.net> writes:
#
# >Cameron saved the film by casting some outstanding talent in the lead
# >roles. The film could have been a disaster if less skilled performers
# >had been employed. Cameron has always gotten the most out of his
# >performers in films. This is one of his really outstanding skills that
# >he does not get credited for very often.
#
# Bravo.
#
# >Even with the flaws in the film, it is way beyond what most thought he
# >was capable of. If he starts believing his writting is deficient, I
# >expect he will seek out some advanced training or, a co-writer in future
# >projects. We shall see.
#
# >Gary
#
# That's baloney. A great writer doesn't guarantee a thing.
#
# Jay Cocks, a great critic and writer, co-wrote Age of Innocence.
# The result? A BORING FILM ABOUT MANNERS! How come a great critic couldn't
# figure out that his script was the best sleep inducer since Halcion?
# How come a great director couldn't figure out the same thing?

# James Cameron achieved what Marty couldn't: an interesting film
# about social structures amd mores, with millions spent on the right dishes,
# clothes, etiquette etc. Same as Marty.
#
# Robert Bolt's Lady Caroline Lamb was a disaster. How come?
#
# James Cameron made everything come together in this film.
#
# The assumption that a so-called "better script" would have made the
# film better is just that: an assumption that can never be proven.
#

Hmm.. I wonder if Bob can go a whole post without mentioning a certain
David Lean movie...

# Critics bitched for years that Peter O'Toole was 9" too tall for the
# Lawrence role. Should we use CGI to redo the film with a 5' 5" tall
# Peter O'Toole? Would the film then be better?

Nope, I guess not.

[Bryant Frazer]

In rec.arts.movies.current-films Jeff Williams <jeff-w...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> expounded thusly:

: For one thing, there have been other, superior films about the Titanic in

: the past. For another, serious criticism does not look at things such as
: acting and dialogue, but at deeper issues - it's much more issue oriented,
: and concerned with the effects films have on audiences.

Apropos of nothing in this discussion other that TITANIC itself, I thought
I'd mention that Frank Thompson has a fine critical piece on TITANIC in
the new issue of FILM COMMENT (the one which, quite rightly to my way of
thinking, features KUNDUN on the cover). He offers a quick comparison of
TITANIC to many of the Titanic films that came before it, and even a
convincing defense of the "Romeo and Juliet on a boat" story as a
necessary guide for our tour of a disaster.

-bf-

[Dave Platt]

On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Gary wrote:

# Jeff Williams wrote:
# >
# > Dark Penguin wrote in message ...
# >
# > >Too true, too true. Yet, I feel for Hamill because, frankly, it's
#ard to
# > >imagine a really suave way to utter that long, unbroken sentence. I
#gree
# > >that the delivery was awful, but I suspect it would have been a clunker no
# > >matter what. Well, in any case, it's sure as heck ain't in the same
# > >league as "here's looking at you, kid."
# >
# > Which in itself is not a great line. It's not even a particularly good
# > line, and it was a cliched line even when it was written - people were
# > saying that long before it was put on screen (why do you think it WAS
#ut on > > screen?
#
# This comment interests me. I have always been amazed at the number of
# lines from 'Casablanca' which are now classics. Do you happen to know
# if many of them were cliche at the time?

The thing is, there are plenty of better lines from Casablanca. Some of
the best ones are not the ones most often quoted. One of my favourites is
"Rick is the type of man who,if I were a woman, and *I* weren't around, I
should fall in love with." Great stuff.

# I don't know about this for 'Titanic,' most of the critics that panned
# it did so prior to it's release. Personally, I am not aware of any
# critic coming out favorably then turning on the film. I think people
#percieve a backlash that doesn't exist because they don't read the
# negative reviews until after they have become enamered with the film.
# There are examples of other films whose critical stature has risen after
# the initial critiques were written. Two of the most glaring examples
# are 'The Godfather' and 'Star Wars.' Ten years from now, when 'Titanic'

Well, I think the criticisms of Star Wars still make sense, for the most
part. Star Wars is dear to my heart, but it is not a "great" movie in
many ways (dialogue, acting, etc.)

# is looked back on it as the Oscar winning film and, one of the five top
# grossing films, it will naturally have more stature than it does today.
# The reviews that panned the film will be novelty items reprtinted for
# humor and, the crtics that wrote them will wish they could forget them.
# These sort of reviews are collected in books and, you can see that every
# film considered great was panned by someone.

Personally, I would never regret a review I wrote. I look back and see
that I have overpraised some movies and underpraised others, but it was
true at the time, and that's what counts. There will always be dissenting
reviews, and people should learn from them, IMHO.

As well, there are plenty of movies that were heavily praised and then
diminished in stature since then. Examples would include Gandhi, Kramer
Vs. Kramer (I can't believe that was a best picture), Rocky, Dances With
Wolves, and even Silence of the Lambs (I'm surprised by the number of
people who now say the best picture Oscar was a mistkae).

[Dave Platt]

On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Jeff Williams wrote:
@
@ Ten years from now, when 'Titanic'
@ >is looked back on it as the Oscar winning film and, one of the five top
@ >grossing films, it will naturally have more stature than it does today.
@
@ This doesn't mean anything. Baseline's summary of Rocky says, as I believe
@ its opening sentence, "Oscar winner for Best Picture in a very lean year."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Does it *really* say that? I'm shocked, because that year Rocky was up
against Taxi Driver, Network, and All The President's Men, three movies
that have become genuine classics, IMHO.

[Tom Pappas]

Actually, Gigantic was originally going to be the name of Britannic, one of
Titanic's sister ships, if I remember correctly.

Also sprach Tom Pappas:

See Jeff, my posting was what is know as "satire" - a form of humor that
makes mocking reference to a factual base. I took four of the most absurd
suggestions I've seen in this newsgroup, and wrapped them all up with the
line Mickey Rooney uttered in a dozen Busby Berkley movies from the 40's.

NOW do you get it?

[Jeffrey Davis]

Bob Morris wrote:
> That's baloney. A great writer doesn't guarantee a thing.

Right.

>
> Jay Cocks, a great critic and writer, co-wrote Age of Innocence.

> The result? A BORING FILM ABOUT MANNERS! How come a great critic couldn't

> figure out that his script was the best sleep inducer since Halcion?

> How come a great director couldn't figure out the same thing?

Because maybe to some it wasn't boring? "Boring" is a ridiculous
criticism. As I've said before "boredom" is an attribute of the mind not
the artifact. Think of all the readers who have claimed to find Milton's
Paradise Lost "boring." Maybe so, but half of the great poets since the
late 18th century spent their poetic lives wrestling with it. Does that
make it boring or not boring? Neither because boredom is an attribute of
mind. The issue of boredom is a non-issue. It says nothing about the
object. In fact, to me it's sort of a confession of inadequacy. It's a
Beavisism.

As for the sleep inducing qualities of The Age of Innocence vis a vis
Titanic, the dilemma which Newland Archer faced was exactly the same
that Rose faced: how not to drown in the expectations of society. The
boundaries of Archer's struggle are delineated far more thoroughly than
Rose's in Titanic where we make do w/ shorthand notes, attitudinizing,
and -- Cameron's favorite dramatic device -- the deus ex machina: Jack,
who saves Rose in every way that a woman can be saved. How is that
miracle accomplished? By spitting and dancing. If only Archer had known
what could be accomplished with spitting and dancing.

It would be interesting if Cameron had chosen not to append a disaster
flick to his movie of manners. Rose, a year after her wedding, a baby
red and innocent at her side, meets Jack right off the boat. Now, with
no photogenic deaths to get pulses pounding, how does Jack "save" Rose?
How does the audience respond to her plight? How many come back for that
6th and 7th time to watch a woman walk away from her family?

--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
Now available on SpitToons: (div. of SJSP&L)
"I used to know when to say when" by Somebody Shake Louise

[Dave Platt]

On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Jeffrey Davis wrote:

# Bob Morris wrote:
# > That's baloney. A great writer doesn't guarantee a thing.
#
# Right.
#
# >
# > Jay Cocks, a great critic and writer, co-wrote Age of Innocence.
# > The result? A BORING FILM ABOUT MANNERS! How come a great critic couldn't
# > figure out that his script was the best sleep inducer since Halcion?
# > How come a great director couldn't figure out the same thing?
#
# Because maybe to some it wasn't boring? "Boring" is a ridiculous
# criticism. As I've said before "boredom" is an attribute of the mind not
# the artifact. Think of all the readers who have claimed to find Milton's
# Paradise Lost "boring." Maybe so, but half of the great poets since the
# late 18th century spent their poetic lives wrestling with it. Does that
# make it boring or not boring? Neither because boredom is an attribute of
# mind. The issue of boredom is a non-issue. It says nothing about the
# object. In fact, to me it's sort of a confession of inadequacy. It's a
# Beavisism.

Not to mention the fact that "boring" is a criticism that could very
easily be leveled towards Lawrence of Arabia, which is (of course) Bob's
favourite movie (maybe even the only movie other than Titanic that Bob
actually likes)

# As for the sleep inducing qualities of The Age of Innocence vis a vis
# Titanic, the dilemma which Newland Archer faced was exactly the same
# that Rose faced: how not to drown in the expectations of society. The
# boundaries of Archer's struggle are delineated far more thoroughly than
# Rose's in Titanic where we make do w/ shorthand notes, attitudinizing,
# and -- Cameron's favorite dramatic device -- the deus ex machina: Jack,
# who saves Rose in every way that a woman can be saved. How is that
# miracle accomplished? By spitting and dancing. If only Archer had known
# what could be accomplished with spitting and dancing.

Age of Innocence was vastly underrated, IMHO. I think it did a much
better job of enveloping the audience in the time.

# It would be interesting if Cameron had chosen not to append a disaster
# flick to his movie of manners. Rose, a year after her wedding, a baby
# red and innocent at her side, meets Jack right off the boat. Now, with
# no photogenic deaths to get pulses pounding, how does Jack "save" Rose?
# How does the audience respond to her plight? How many come back for that
# 6th and 7th time to watch a woman walk away from her family?

This sums up a lot of my feelings about this movie perfectly. Hell,
imagine if Jack had been killed in a sled accident instead of on a big
boat. I predict that even then people wouldn't bother with it.

(In fact, I also wonder what would have happened if Jack had survived.
Would Rose have discovered that life with a struggling artist with no
other marketable skills would be less than perfect? Would Jack realize
that you can take the girl out of high society, but you can't take the
high society out of the girl? I'm guessing that a real relationship
between Jack and Rose would last no longer than a year.)

Face it: the boat is what brought people into the theatre. There are
romances just as moving (if not more) than Titanic, but because they
aren't in the middle of a spectacle, people can't bother with them.

[Count Zero]

> # Gary <GL...@prodigy.net> writes:
> # Jay Cocks, a great critic and writer, co-wrote Age of Innocence.
> # The result? A BORING FILM ABOUT MANNERS! How come a great critic
couldn't
> # figure out that his script was the best sleep inducer since Halcion?
> # How come a great director couldn't figure out the same thing?

Jay Cocks also co wrote Strange Days, with James Cameron. The result: a
very not boring film about anything but manners. More like a world without
them. All William Gibson ripoffs aside, Strange Days is still probably the
best example of cyberpunk we have in film; post Blade Runner.

--
coun...@f-ckheads.com
http://www.halcyon.com/theboss/luc/index.htm
A History of Luc Besson - featuring the Director's Cut of Leon
"[Making] A film upsets everything. You put on and lose weight, laugh at
everything, cry for no reason, five times a day, without even understanding
why." Besson
http://www.lifs.org.uk The London International Film School

[Gary]

Dave Platt wrote:

> Face it: the boat is what brought people into the theatre. There are
> romances just as moving (if not more) than Titanic, but because they
> aren't in the middle of a spectacle, people can't bother with them.

Like 'The English Patient.'

Gary

[Bob Morris]

Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> writes:

>It would be interesting if Cameron had chosen not to append a disaster

>flick to his movie of manners. Rose, a year after her wedding, a baby

>red and innocent at her side, meets Jack right off the boat. Now, with

>no photogenic deaths to get pulses pounding, how does Jack "save" Rose?

>How does the audience respond to her plight? How many come back for that

>6th and 7th time to watch a woman walk away from her family?

Actually, you'll get your wish! You've heard of QE2?

Get ready for ... Titanic 2: AKA Terminator 3!

Unbeknownst to anyone but me (and the cast of thousands), James Cameron
filmed a second version of the film!

Arnold comes back in time, in time, and smashes the iceberg!

Titanic docks safely. Rose, enamoured of Arnold for saving the ship,
ditches Jack who takes up with Sarah Connor!

Together, the Fabulous Four take on their next task: prevention of WW I!

In a cinema near you next December 19!

Screenplay by Gary Pollard!

LRM

[Gary]

Man, I never wrote anything about Jay Coacks or 'The Age of Innocence'
in my life. I wish people would be a little more carefull when quoting
these articles.

Gary

[synthuser]

Bob Morris wrote:

> Together, the Fabulous Four take on their next task: prevention of WW I!
>
> In a cinema near you next December 19!
>
> Screenplay by Gary Pollard!

Of course.

[dgri...@theriver.com]

Anybody ever count how many times "I have a bad feeling about this" pops
up in the Star Wars trilogy?

dg

On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:13:47 -0500, Clear and Present Dylan wrote:

>Jeff Williams wrote:
>>
>> Dark Penguin wrote in message ...
>> >

>> >As far as stilted, cliched dialogue goes, what about Star Wars? Nearly
>> >every line in that film felt cribbed from somewhere else. You want
>> >noxious verse? "But I was going into Toshi Station to pick up some power
>> >converters!" For the love of God, need I say more?
>>
>> Well, for one thing, I think the problem with that line is more in the
>> delivery than anything. That's one of the worst acted lines in the history
>> of cinema (it always makes me spit out whatever I'm drinking in laughter
>> every time I see it, just because of Mark Hammil's whiney voice). That line
>> shouldn't have stood out as it did - it should have been merely
>> illustrative. If it was delivered properly you'd have never thought twice
>> about it.
>
>Actually, this is one of my favourite lines in the film just for those
>reasons.
>
>> The film is rife with
>> >stinkeroo lines like this. Yet Star Wars remains a great, classic motion
>> >picture.
>>
>> Star Wars was also part camp. It didn't take itself as seriously as Titanic
>> does - it had a sense of humor about itself. I think one reason for the
>> Titanic backlash going on now is that, as a film, it tries to convey a sense
>> of being so utterly serious, and so *important*, and so big and epic, when
>> really so much of it is just laughable. If it weren't so pretentious, its
>> indiscretions wouldn't be so offensive.
>
>I couldn't agree more.
>
>Dylan
>

[dgri...@theriver.com]

Yes, since I live in AZ and have had my share of tumbleweeds blowin'
into my yard, I did some resarch on them...they have been around the
western US for over 100 years...they were 'imported' by some Russian,
for reasons I cannot figure out...so his statement was accurate.

dg

On 31 Jan 1998 17:26:23 GMT, Kelly Erlandson wrote:

>Distribution:
>
>
>: Yes, but some of the dialogue in Titanic is just plain *bad*.I can't get
>: over Jack saying, in all seriousness, "I'm just a tumbleweed blowin' in
>: the wind." Bob Dylan wasn't born for another 30 years.
>
>Are you serious? Tumbleweed was propelled across the open plains by the
>wind long before Bob Dylan was born, or sang about wind. (I don't think he
>even sang about tumbleweed, did he?) It's such an
>obvious metaphor for a rootless existence, surely even our poor Jack could
>have thought of it?
>

[Jaimie]

As I hope people have figured out by now...."bad" depends on your
opinion, doesn't it? And your taste, and how you use language. If you
spoke like some of the people did in the movie, would you appreciate
someone laughing and calling your dialogue "bad"? I think not. This
whole thing is very subjective, and since there are thousands of
opinions, this debate will never be answered as right or wrong, because
it can't be.
>
> Dave Platt wrote:
>
> > But romances live or die on good dialogue.
>
> The fact remains that Titanic has lived to the tune of getting on for
> $300M in the US alone with some admittedly bad dialogue. Explaining
> that is why the movie is still eliciting serious debate on this NG.
>
> Maggie

[Jaimie]

Dave Platt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Daniel R. Baker wrote:
> #> > In article
> # > <Pine.SV4.3.91.980130...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>, Dave
> # > Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
> # >
> # > >I still don't buy it. It's more than just stilted phrases. It's stuff
> # > >like the Picasso/Freud references, which seem utterly gratuitous,
> #nd the
> # > >cliches like "When you've got nothin' you've got nothin' to lose" or
> # > >(cringe) "I'd rather be his whore than your wife."
> # (snip)
> #
> # Cliches? The only place I ever heard anything like the line "I'd rather
> # be his whore than your wife" is in an excerpt from Heloise's letters to
> # Peter Abelard, where she tells Abelard that she would rather be his
> # harlot than Vespasian's wife. These letters, though probably not
> # authentic, are considered among the greatest of French romantic
> # literature (at least by Will Durant; I can't read French myself). I
> # would venture to guess than 99% of TITANIC's audience had never heard
> # this "cliche" before.
>
> Cliche is maybe the wrong word, but it just plain stinks. It's too showy,
> too mannered, too calculated to make the audience cheer. (Even if it was
> in some French literature before, I couldn't give two hoots.)

Excuse me, on my third showing, several audience members cheered, and
there was a great sigh or intake of breath before it. A question I need
to propose to you spoilers: why do people come up with so many quotes if
you believe the dialogue was forced, uninteresting, and cliched?
Besides, a cliche can only become that if it's been used in wide
circulation....and you've heard it before.

[Zaphy]

>I couldn't even get through clerks. After the first 30 minutes I
>decided it was a gen-x foul mouth monologue with a boring plot to
>boot.

but very FUNNY gen-x foul-mouth dialogue....Clerks didn't need a storyline as such..that was the
whole point of the movie.

[Paul Adams]

Tom Pappas wrote in article <01bd2f25$4104f020$22a02bce@www>...

And as we all know, once someone has posted a satircal comment, no one is permitted
to follow up with a non-satirical post, unless they want to face the humiliation of
being reminded that the original post was satirical. Even if your response is both
relevant and interesting, posting it in response to a satirical post demonstrates a
weakness of wit, and a lack of humour, which will not be tolerated.

[Bob Fletcher]

Jaimie wrote:

> This
> whole thing is very subjective, and since there are thousands of
> opinions, this debate will never be answered as right or wrong, because
> it can't be.

exactly what makes it an interesting thread, after all there's not much
point arguing something that has been proved one way or the other

[Tom Pappas]

| Actually, Gigantic was originally going to be the name of Britannic, one
of
| Titanic's sister ships, if I remember correctly.

Thank you for your post. I included it in my parody because a group exists
who want to pick up where White Star left off, and actually build the
Gigantic. I have asked for a pro forma analysis of their plan, but haven't
heard anything. As much as I would like to see them succeed, I simply doubt
that the project is financially viable.

[Gary Pollard]

There are probably thousands of people who write better than Cameron but are
not rich, including many novelists. They just choose not to stroke their
audiences quite so much.

Gary

Kirk Chronus wrote in message <6b3uqr$8...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>On 1 Feb 98 04:14:43 GMT, mor...@sagitta.sce.carleton.ca (Bob Morris)
>wrote:

>
>>The assumption that a so-called "better script" would have made the

>>film better is just that: an assumption that can never be proven.
>

>Yes. To those who think they can write better than Cameron, I say if
>you're so smart why aren't you rich? (or why aren't you a top
>hollywood director with movies that have grossed over a billion
>dollars so far?)
>
>---------------------------------------
>Replace "nospam" with "yahoo" to e-mail

[William Ragsdale]

What exactlly was "wrong" with the script? I guess I'm just a poor
slug who doesn't know any better, but I thought it was a rather clever
story. The painting locked away in an old safe onboard the Titanic
made us want to find out how it came to be there....made old Rose's
story interesting. As far as dialogue goes, it seemed quite good to
me. Star Wars, which is the highest grossing film ever contains such
lines as "There they are! Blast em!". I mean, golly what did you
want, each character to launch off into some Shakesperean monologue
when the ship was sinking? That would have been stupid. I thought
Cameron did a good job of making the characters human and believable.

I particularly liked his attention to detail and the way he was able
to show us both worlds. That of the upper-class and that of the lower
class. If you think people can't be that snobby then obviously you
haven't met any of the elitists that I have who think they are part of
some master race. Believe me, people can be that arrogant!

The editing was seamless, the acting was top notch and the
cinematography was excellent.

Cameron did a good job of bringing us an interesting story given the
confines of a ship and telling it in such a way that it was at least
as interesting as seeing what the old Titanic must have looked like,
and how it came to sink, etc.

The dialogue and script were *not* the problem with this film. And in
fact there were very few problems with this film. Well done Titanic
crew!

**************************************************************************************

"Some people were born on third base and go through
life thinking they hit a triple". - Barry Switzer

[Gary Pollard]

The dialogue and script were major problems with the film.

And the alternative to bad scriptwriting is NOT Shakespeare.

Sometimes it is to let your characters shut up

Gary

William Ragsdale wrote in message <6b6d3o$o...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...

[Frederick N. Petillo]

Gary Pollard wrote:
> The dialogue and script were major problems with the film.
> And the alternative to bad scriptwriting is NOT Shakespeare.

> Sometimes it is to let your characters shut up.

You are, of course, entitled to an opinion. I agree that there were some
obvious flaws in some of the dialogue (Lovett's lines were awful, for
example) and some obvious flaws in the script (Cal's shooting spree, for
example). But surely you don't mean that the whole of the script and the
dialogue were problems. Could you say more specifically what you did not
care for so that we can discuss them in detail?

[Peace Electric]

William Ragsdale wrote:

> What exactlly was "wrong" with the script? [...] I mean,

> golly what did you want, each character to launch off into
> some Shakesperean monologue when the ship was sinking?

Ah, the old "What'd you want? Shakespeare?" defense. I haven't
seen this one for quite a while.

Question: Why is it that there's no middleground? Why must it be
bad puns, sitcom-style misunderstandings, moronic Picasso jokes,
and pretentious gobbledygook, or else _King Lear_?

(BTW, I went in expecting a script on par with films like, oh
I don't know, 'The Abyss', 'Aliens', 'True Lies', 'Terminator's
1 & 2', and 'Strange Days'.)

--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
"Get back in there, you mock-turtle!"
-Walter (Cary Grant), 'His Girl Friday'

[Gary]

Gary Pollard wrote:
>
> The dialogue and script were major problems with the film.
>
> And the alternative to bad scriptwriting is NOT Shakespeare.
>
> Sometimes it is to let your characters shut up
>

> Gary
>

Two of the most effective parts of the film were the very begining;
showing how the ship might have looked if captured on film in 1912, the
wreckage footage, and the end; Rose walking to the rail, Rose finding
the necklace, Rose' death. No dialouge at all. Cameron showed that he
could create very moving images without words. Some other parts of the
film would have played much better without words.

Gary

[Gary]

William Ragsdale wrote:
> >
>
> What exactlly was "wrong" with the script?

If you were to go back and read the entire thread, you could get a
better idea as to what has been dicussed.

Gary

[Gary]

Peace Electric wrote:
>
> (BTW, I went in expecting a script on par with films like, oh
> I don't know, 'The Abyss', 'Aliens', 'True Lies', 'Terminator's
> 1 & 2', and 'Strange Days'.)

These films all had some varying level of 'camp' elements. 'Titanic'
was created to be a very serious film but, the dialogue, as well as Cal
and Lovejoy, were written with a comic book flavour. Then the film is
played out totaly seriously.

It is kind of like listening to a great symphony with the percussionist
dragging or, the principle cello out of tune. Some listeners won't
notice and, think it wonderful because, for the most part, it is. Some
will only know that something does not feel right. Others will identify
the problem immeadiately. It is just a bad fit.

These flaws wouldn't stand out some much if the things going on around
them were no so god damn terrific in the first place or, in a film with
a different tone.

Gary

[Dukjin Im]

Gary Pollard wrote:

> There are probably thousands of people who write better than Cameron but are
> not rich, including many novelists. They just choose not to stroke their
> audiences quite so much.

Those writers remain "not rich" because they "just choose not to stroke their
audiences quite so much"? Ludicrous. They just don't know HOW to stroke the
audience properly. The devil is in the details.

There are many people who are better writers (in many ways) than Cameron. Fine.
However, they do not know how to become rich, anymore than I know how to fly.
You say "they just choose not to stroke their audiences quite so much", I say I
just choose not to flap my arms that hard.

Most writers would like to have enough wealth to have security, so they can
write what they want. Being famous also gives writers clout to publish what and
how they want. If the stigma of popular fiction is too great, writers can use
other names.

You're right that remaining "not rich" is a choice. But it's the audience's
choice! Creating a very successful movie twice is uncommon. The ability to touch
a mass audience at will is a very rare one.

In a previous post, you belittled Cameron as merely "shrewd" when I wrote about
Cameron's singular abilities and intellect. If his writing is as bad as you say,
then the rest of his talents have to be acknowledged as genius (in order to have
overcome his writing time and time again).

-Duk

[William Ragsdale]

I don't really care to. I thought the script was quite good and the
dialogue was also good. Apparently a lot of other people agreed as
both Emma Thompson and Kate were impressed when they first read it and
Cameron was able to persuade some execs at the movie studio to take a
very, very big risk...

*************************************************************************************

[Dave Platt]

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, William Ragsdale wrote:

# On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:40:55 -0800, Gary <GL...@prodigy.net> wrote:
#
# >William Ragsdale wrote:
# >> >
# >>
# >> What exactlly was "wrong" with the script?
# >
# >
# >If you were to go back and read the entire thread, you could get a
# >better idea as to what has been dicussed.
# >
# >Gary
#
#
#I don't really care to. I thought the script was quite good and the

Then why the hell did you respond at all?

# dialogue was also good. Apparently a lot of other people agreed as
# both Emma Thompson and Kate were impressed when they first read it and
# Cameron was able to persuade some execs at the movie studio to take a
# very, very big risk...

First of all, the very idea of saying "so-and-so liked it, therefore it
must be good" is a fallacy, movie critics, notwithstanding. Secondly,
actors (even those who have written screenplays themselves, like
Thompson) are not neccessarily a great judge of what makes a good
screenplay. Finally, movie studio executives are the LAST people I would
go to for an opinion on anything intelligent.

My own problems with the screenplay are: hackneyed, pretentious dialogue
all around; a cartoon villain; a simplistic view of the class system; a sap
of a hero; and a turgid, melodramatic ending. Not to mention that a
movie that claims to be the "definitive" movie on the subject has some
glaring inaccuracies.

For example, has anybody mentioned that "making headlines" had *nothing*
to do with the decision to go full speed ahead?

[Cowspots]

Reverse Psychology at its best!!! For those who missed it:

James Cameron stated on his MSN interview that he WILL NOT direct Terminator
3. It is planned to be made but Cameron isn't interested.

Though he said that he is interested in the upcoming Spiderman movie and
that Leo Decaprio (please forgive me if I misspelled it) would be a suitable
Peter Parker. Now that's a thought.

[Tom Pappas]

| For example, has anybody mentioned that "making headlines" had *nothing*
| to do with the decision to go full speed ahead?
|

The movie script tried to say it did. Right or wrong, it was a tacky
premise for dialogue.

Afternoon of the 13th

ISMAY

(impatiently)

Captain, the press knows the size of Titanic, let them marvel at her speed
too. We must give them something new to print. And the maiden voyage of
Titnaic must make headlines!

Night of the 14th

SMITH

I believe you may get your headlines, Mr. Ismay.

[chelsea corazon]

Right. From the documentaries I saw on A&E and PBS, my impression was
that Ismay was interested in setting a new record that would go down in
history. In a way, the 'effect' is similar-- he would be immmortalized
as one of the conceivers of the biggest, the safest, the most luxurious,
and the fastest ship ever. However, I don't think the power of the press
was as generally acknowledged back in 1912 as it is now-- people didn't
think in terms of the headline making '15 minutes of fame.' So the
film's dialogue was anachronistic/revisionist in that sense (and in
others.)
chelsea

[Serenleono]

chelsea corazon <kare...@sirius.com> scripsit:

>Right. From the documentaries I saw on A&E and PBS, my impression was
>that Ismay was interested in setting a new record that would go down in
>history. In a way, the 'effect' is similar-- he would be immmortalized
>as one of the conceivers of the biggest, the safest, the most luxurious,
>and the fastest ship ever. However, I don't think the power of the press
>was as generally acknowledged back in 1912 as it is now-- people didn't
>think in terms of the headline making '15 minutes of fame.' So the
>film's dialogue was anachronistic/revisionist in that sense (and in
>others.)

I respectfully disagree, Chelsea. The press was enormously powerful
in that era -- especially powerful, in fact, antedating radio and
television. The phrase '15 minutes of fame' hadn't yet been coined,
but the headline was every bit as important/abused/exaggerated/talked
about in 1912 as the soundbite is today.

Think of the Lizzie Borden trial in the U.S. in 1893. Endless hype
led lawyers to complain that the case was being tried in the press.

More to the point . . . the speed, as well as the luxuriousness, of a
vessel *was* big news and made headlines. It was well known that the
MAURETANIA's speed record remained unbroken for 22 years. The
LUSITANIA's first arrival in New York harbour in 1907 caused a
sensation, even though her captain had not run her at full speed.
During her next voyage, she won the Blue Ribbon for steaming from
Queenstown to Sandy Hook in 4 days, 19 hrs., 52 min. The papers were
full of it. And later, in 1936, a scene of jubilation greeted the
QUEEN MARY when she arrived in New York, in the form of a great
flotilla of ships and boats. And on board were 90 publicists, all
given free passage in first class by the Cunard Line. It took her six
tries, but the MARY finally won the coveted Blue Ribbon -- for making
30 knots.

Bottom line: the race to be the biggest, most luxurious, and fastest
ocean passenger vessel had been going on since before the turn of the
century. I think it's reasonable to guess (although it certainly is a
guess) that Ismay might have wanted TITANIC to arrive in New York in
record time.

Seren

[William Ragsdale]

O

>My own problems with the screenplay are: hackneyed, pretentious dialogue
>all around; a cartoon villain; a simplistic view of the class system; a sap
>of a hero; and a turgid, melodramatic ending. Not to mention that a
>movie that claims to be the "definitive" movie on the subject has some
>glaring inaccuracies.
>

>For example, has anybody mentioned that "making headlines" had *nothing*
>to do with the decision to go full speed ahead?

This coming from a guy who thought "Clerks" was a good movie?

*******************************************************************************************

[William Ragsdale]

On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 23:30:05 GMT, Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca>
wrote:

>On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, William Ragsdale wrote:
>
># On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:40:55 -0800, Gary <GL...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>#
># >William Ragsdale wrote:
># >> >
># >>
># >> What exactlly was "wrong" with the script?
># >
># >
># >If you were to go back and read the entire thread, you could get a
># >better idea as to what has been dicussed.
># >
># >Gary
>#
>#
>#I don't really care to. I thought the script was quite good and the
>
>Then why the hell did you respond at all?
>

Because its here.

># dialogue was also good. Apparently a lot of other people agreed as
># both Emma Thompson and Kate were impressed when they first read it and
># Cameron was able to persuade some execs at the movie studio to take a
># very, very big risk...
>
>First of all, the very idea of saying "so-and-so liked it, therefore it
>must be good" is a fallacy, movie critics, notwithstanding. Secondly,
>actors (even those who have written screenplays themselves, like
>Thompson) are not neccessarily a great judge of what makes a good
>screenplay. Finally, movie studio executives are the LAST people I would
>go to for an opinion on anything intelligent.
>

Yea they only read thousands of scripts over their careers, what do
they know? On the other hand why should I listen to you over Emma
Thompson or an executive at Paramount? Who are you?

>My own problems with the screenplay are: hackneyed, pretentious dialogue
>all around; a cartoon villain; a simplistic view of the class system; a sap
>of a hero; and a turgid, melodramatic ending.

On the contrary. Billy Zane was wonderful, he's a great actor. If
there were any inadequacies in his character he made up for them with
his talents. Simplistic view of the class system? I dunno, maybe I'm
just a dumb janitor but to me the upper class DOES seem that way. I
get annoyed at talking to people who have educations because they
always talk down to me in a childlike tone as if I couldn't possibly
understand the complex things that they do. Ya have to be on the
outside to see things others dont...I thought Cameron nailed it. A
sap of a hero? On the contrary, I thought Dicaprio's character oozed
with charisma, as much as I hate to admit it about a guy who's in all
the issues of "Teen Beat" magazine.

The ending is something that either touches you or doesn't. Maybe it
touches those of us who have lost loved ones in the past, or are
facing the eventual loss of aging loved ones, or perhaps have never
found love quite like that with a "soulmate" but secretly fantasize
about it. I'm afraid I'm not much of an orator or in this case a
writer but I can say that the message "hit" something in me, something
I guess you don't understand. Don't bother replying to this, no
offense but I don't feel like arguing!

Thanks!

*****************************************************************************************************

[Frederick N. Petillo]

chelsea corazon wrote:However, I don't think the power of the press

> was as generally acknowledged back in 1912 as it is now-- people didn't
> think in terms of the headline making '15 minutes of fame.' So the
> film's dialogue was anachronistic/revisionist in that sense (and in
> others.)

The newspaper was already a powerful medium in the US in 1912. Check
out...

http://www.lib.virginia.edu/cataloging/vnp/titanic/titanic1.html

...for a start.

[Bob Fletcher]

William Ragsdale wrote:

> On the contrary. Billy Zane was wonderful, he's a great actor. If
> there were any inadequacies in his character he made up for them with
> his talents. Simplistic view of the class system? I dunno, maybe I'm
> just a dumb janitor but to me the upper class DOES seem that way. I
> get annoyed at talking to people who have educations because they
> always talk down to me in a childlike tone as if I couldn't possibly
> understand the complex things that they do.

All of them seem that way? every one? hmm...
The problem was that, other than Rose pretty much every 'priveliged' character was portrayed as an
arsehole, (other exceptions being the characters whose primary association was with the story of the
ship, rather than the Rose/Jack story), while every working class person was a salt-of-the-earth good
guy. The only exception was Molly because she wasn't from a priveliged background, but had worked her way
up through the ranks as it were, i.e. she has "seen it form both sides". Now that strikes me as a bit
simplistic. I liked the movie, but wouldn't claim for a moment that it was very highbrow in its
consideration of the 'class struggle'.

[Andrys D Basten]

In article <34D766...@prodigy.net>, Gary <GL...@prodigy.net> wrote:

>It is kind of like listening to a great symphony with the percussionist
>dragging or, the principle cello out of tune. Some listeners won't
>notice and, think it wonderful because, for the most part, it is. Some
>will only know that something does not feel right. Others will identify
>the problem immeadiately. It is just a bad fit.
>
>These flaws wouldn't stand out some much if the things going on around
>them were no so god damn terrific in the first place or, in a film with
>a different tone.
>
>Gary

I like your analogy. You left out one situation. Some listeners *will*
notice and squirm a bit but will find the pluses so strong that they forgive
the flaws as they do in the people they most like (including themselves :) )
and be more affected by the strengths.

There's no doubt that when 8 of us went last week (average age 55), with
two of us again sitting through the bad dialogue and logic-straining plot
devices to take us all over the ship before and after the iceberg, we found
ourselves being affected by the overall accomplishment and its very
effective moments at least as much as the first time. We also noticed nice
touches we had missed the first time.

- A

--
===========================================================
Andrys Basten <and...@netcom.com>
CNE, Basten Micro Consulting
San Francisco/East Bay - 510/235-3861
Have music, will travel: piano, harpsichord, recorders
http://www.andrys.com -Online resources, Peru photos w/Canon Elph

[Paul Adams]

>Has anyone on this thread remembered another master of "bad" dialog?
>
>Ernest Hemingway...
>
>The night was cold. The sea was calm. The frozen monolith waited in the
>dark.

Two questions:

A) Is this what people are refering to as "bad" in this thread?

B) Is this dialogue?

[Dave Platt]

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, William Ragsdale wrote:

# On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 23:30:05 GMT, Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca>
# wrote:
#

# >On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, William Ragsdale wrote:
# >

# ># On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:40:55 -0800, Gary <GL...@prodigy.net> wrote:
# >#
# ># >William Ragsdale wrote:
# ># >> >

# ># >>

# ># >> What exactlly was "wrong" with the script?
# ># >

# ># >

# ># >If you were to go back and read the entire thread, you could get a

# ># >better idea as to what has been dicussed.

# ># >
# ># >Gary
# >#

# >#

# >#I don't really care to. I thought the script was quite good and the

# >
# >Then why the hell did you respond at all?
# >
#
# Because its here.
#
# ># dialogue was also good. Apparently a lot of other people agreed as
# ># both Emma Thompson and Kate were impressed when they first read it and
# ># Cameron was able to persuade some execs at the movie studio to take a
# ># very, very big risk...
# >
# >First of all, the very idea of saying "so-and-so liked it, therefore it
# >must be good" is a fallacy, movie critics, notwithstanding. Secondly,
# >actors (even those who have written screenplays themselves, like
# >Thompson) are not neccessarily a great judge of what makes a good
# >screenplay. Finally, movie studio executives are the LAST people I would
# >go to for an opinion on anything intelligent.
# >
#
# Yea they only read thousands of scripts over their careers, what do
# they know? On the other hand why should I listen to you over Emma
# Thompson or an executive at Paramount? Who are you?

You shouldn't listen to me over them, but you shouldn't listen to them
over me. It's an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy. The only
possible exception is if someone with a proven track record of agreeing
with you says something is good. Even there, I disagree with Ebert and
others.

As for executives at Paramount: here are a few other movies they've
greenlighted: The Relic, Hard Rain, Forrest Gump... There is plenty of
evidence that movie execs don't know jack abou;what makes a good movie.

# >My own problems with the screenplay are: hackneyed, pretentious dialogue
# >all around; a cartoon villain; a simplistic view of the class system;
a#sap > >of a hero; and a turgid, melodramatic ending.
#
# On the contrary. Billy Zane was wonderful, he's a great actor. If
# there were any inadequacies in his character he made up for them with
# his talents. Simplistic view of the class system? I dunno, maybe I'm
# just a dumb janitor but to me the upper class DOES seem that way. I
# get annoyed at talking to people who have educations because they
# always talk down to me in a childlike tone as if I couldn't possibly
# understand the complex things that they do. Ya have to be on the
# outside to see things others dont...I thought Cameron nailed it. A
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And Cameron, a millionaire movie director, is somehow in touch with the
lower classes? Bullshit. But yes, there was a simplistic view here: rich
bad, poor good.

# sap of a hero? On the contrary, I thought Dicaprio's character oozed
# with charisma, as much as I hate to admit it about a guy who's in all
# the issues of "Teen Beat" magazine.

He oozed something, I'll give you that/.

# The ending is something that either touches you or doesn't. Maybe it
# touches those of us who have lost loved ones in the past, or are
# facing the eventual loss of aging loved ones, or perhaps have never
# found love quite like that with a "soulmate" but secretly fantasize
# about it. I'm afraid I'm not much of an orator or in this case a
# writer but I can say that the message "hit" something in me, something
# I guess you don't understand. Don't bother replying to this, no
# offense but I don't feel like arguing!

Too late. Why bother responding to a post in the negative if you don't
want to argue?
I would point out that it's you who's doing the condescending, saying
that the ending is something I "don't understand." I understood it fine,
I just thought that it's cheap and manipulative.

[GLIMA]

William Ragsdale wrote:
>
> O

> >My own problems with the screenplay are: hackneyed, pretentious dialogue

> >all around; a cartoon villain; a simplistic view of the class system; a sap

> >of a hero; and a turgid, melodramatic ending. Not to mention that a
> >movie that claims to be the "definitive" movie on the subject has some
> >glaring inaccuracies.
> >
> >For example, has anybody mentioned that "making headlines" had *nothing*
> >to do with the decision to go full speed ahead?
>
> This coming from a guy who thought "Clerks" was a good movie?

Clerks is the best $25,000 film that I have ever seen.

Gary

[peter krynicki]

Paul Adams wrote:
>
> >Has anyone on this thread remembered another master of "bad" dialog?
> >
> >Ernest Hemingway...
>

These are thoughts of El Sordo while on top of the hill surrounded by
the Civil Guard in his novel For Whom the Bell Tolls.

"Dying was nothing and he had no picture of it nor fear of it in his
mind. But living was a field of grain blowing in the wind on the side of
a hill. Living was a hawk in the sky. Living was an earthen jar of water
in the dust of the threshing with the grain flailed and the chafe
blowing. Living was a horse between your legs and a carbine under one
leg and a hill and a valley and a stream with trees along it and the far
side of the valley and the hills beyond."

Perhaps children shouldn't play with computers.
Pjk

[GLIMA]

Dave Platt wrote:

> As for executives at Paramount: here are a few other movies they've
> greenlighted: The Relic, Hard Rain, Forrest Gump... There is plenty of
> evidence that movie execs don't know jack abou;what makes a good movie.

Dave, I don't think that you are going to in too many people over using
'Forrest Gump' as an example of a bad flick.

> And Cameron, a millionaire movie director, is somehow in touch with
the
> lower classes? Bullshit.

I think that this may be unfair. He definatly did not grow up rich and,
worked for a time as a truck driver. I believe him to be a lot more
down to earth than you seem to think. In a way, he is somewhat analogus
to the Molly Brown character.

Gary

[Bob Fletcher]

GLIMA wrote:

> Dave, I don't think that you are going to in too many people over using
> 'Forrest Gump' as an example of a bad flick.

Well, I for one won't be arguing with him.