James Cameron is NOT the King of the world!

2 views
Skip to first unread message

rjwe...@sd.znet.com

unread,
Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98
to

The good thing about it is that a week after the Oscars, nobody is
even talking about it any more, and a year afterwards, nobody even
remembers.

dpe...@hotmail.com

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

He aint!

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Video Man

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

dpe...@hotmail.com wrote in article <6f7i4h$431$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

> He aint!
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>

The world? No. Hollywood? Yes. At least at the moment....
--
Video Man


Michael Kelleher

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to


Video Man wrote in message <01bd56ef$48bf21e0$0300005a@jonpp200>...


>dpe...@hotmail.com wrote in article <6f7i4h$431$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> He aint!
>>
>>
>

>The world? No. Hollywood? Yes. At least at the moment....
>--
>Video Man
>

That had to be the cheesiest shit this side of Velveeta.

Mike

MFalc1

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Dpemlin said:>He aint!

Agree wholeheartedly.

Mark L. Falconer-film and video reviews at
http://members.aol.com/MFalc1/home.html


mor...@hotmail.com

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

In article <6f7i4h$431$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dpe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> He aint!
>
Yea, And what was UP with " a moment of silence" Give me a break!!!!!!

D.T.Williams

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

In article <6f7i4h$431$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dpe...@hotmail.com wrote:

> He aint!

Damn Tootin'!

--
T.W.Hartig€€€€€
ao...@lafn.org
Hollywood, USA€

name...@usa.net

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

In article <01bd56ef$48bf21e0$0300005a@jonpp200>,

"Video Man" <Vide...@Your.Mom> wrote:
>
> dpe...@hotmail.com wrote in article <6f7i4h$431$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > He aint!
> >
> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
> >
>
> The world? No. Hollywood? Yes. At least at the moment....
> --
> Video Man
>
>


Yes, he is. Every exec kisses his toes and he can kill whoever he wants and
get away from it. :D

Teo Ee Ming

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

mor...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6f83cb$l7i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>In article <6f7i4h$431$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> dpe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> He aint!
>>
> Yea, And what was UP with " a moment of silence" Give me a break!!!!!!


I was already anticipating this sort of shit to happen. After viewing the
movie, I was telling myself, "if that technically-inclined hack somehow got
himself nominated and won, he would do the observe a minute's slience
thingie." And you kow what, it came true in an eerie but still, like the
movie, predictable way.

Teo Ee Ming


sawr...@smartt.com

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

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


>Someone should tell Cameron that it's very tacky to quote your own movie.

If anyone should be able to quote words, it's the people who wrote
those words. I thought it was great! I like to see excited speeches
(like Ben and Matt thanking Cuba for showing them how to give a
speech!).

Cameron could nevery be tacky...geeky maybe, but who cares? It was
still fun to watch him. I am so happy he won. He deserved it.

The moment of silence thing was a very respectful thing to do--very
appropriate considering I haven't seen it on any other awards ceremony
where he has won. I think people would've been upset if he hadn't
(esp. those survivors and their families still alive and Titanic
historians). I thought this was well done, too. I also thought it
was funny that he mentioned the producer of the Oscars after stating,
"I think that's all he can take!". That was hilarious!

I think James Cameron is a GENIUS (hence his geekiness!) and the best
filmmaker around. I am so glad he's finally been recognized!

Paula

wty...@phrusa.org

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

In article <6f7kpj$5lr$1...@usenet87.supernews.com>,

"Michael Kelleher" <rehk...@spammy.net> wrote:
>
>
> Video Man wrote in message <01bd56ef$48bf21e0$0300005a@jonpp200>...
> >
> >The world? No. Hollywood? Yes. At least at the moment....
> >--
> That had to be the cheesiest shit this side of Velveeta.
>
> Mike

No kidding. I know he was just quoting a line from his movie, but
it just came off as arrogant. He could have been more gracious, but
I guess it's hard to feign humble-ness when your bloated movie
snags damn near every flippin' award up for grabs....
(Isn't monarchy close to obsolete by now? ;-))

I can't believe I sat thru the entire ceremony! :-0

Ann Miner

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Considering the amount of money so many people made from this event, a
moment of silence is the least they could offer.

On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:37:24 GMT, Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca>
wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Richard Johnson wrote:
>
>: On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 04:54:34 -0600, mor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>:
>: >In article <6f7i4h$431$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,


>: > dpe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>: >>
>: >> He aint!
>: >>
>: > Yea, And what was UP with " a moment of silence" Give me a break!!!!!!

>:
>: the moment of silence was cool
>
>It was ridiculous. I'm sorry to be callous, but on a worldwide scale,
>1500 people who died over 80 years ago is *not* a tragedy worth a moment
>of silence.
>
>It's part of Hollywood's twisted morals that when Gere or Susan Sarandon
>say something about tragedies that are going on *right now*, they're
>slammed, whereas something that happened nearly a century ago is treated
>as if it were the Holocaust.


T. Ha

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
: On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Richard Johnson wrote:

: : On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 04:54:34 -0600, mor...@hotmail.com wrote:
: :
: : >In article <6f7i4h$431$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
: : > dpe...@hotmail.com wrote:
: : >>
: : >> He aint!
: : >>
: : > Yea, And what was UP with " a moment of silence" Give me a break!!!!!!
: :
: : the moment of silence was cool

: It was ridiculous. I'm sorry to be callous, but on a worldwide scale,
: 1500 people who died over 80 years ago is *not* a tragedy worth a moment
: of silence.

: It's part of Hollywood's twisted morals that when Gere or Susan Sarandon
: say something about tragedies that are going on *right now*, they're
: slammed, whereas something that happened nearly a century ago is treated
: as if it were the Holocaust.

totally agree here, bud. every year since it sank those people have been
dead and no one gave two craps. but now since james cameron cares, we all
have to care? whatever.

molly ann wilkinson

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to Dave Platt

Deep down, I think that Cameron is a geek. I don't think he's
comfortable with public appearances. I cringed when he said he was the
king of the world, and I cringed even more at his moment of silence. At
least he didn't say "big is better" once again!

Still, he deserved director. I'm happy for him.

IrishRose

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

molly ann wilkinson wrote:
>
> Deep down, I think that Cameron is a geek.

Probably, geeks seem to be extremely successful these days. Their
almost single minded focus on their projects which contributes to
alienation is what makes them successful.

> I don't think he's comfortable with public appearances.

Probably not.

> I cringed when he said he was the king of the world,

Well I took it in the spirit of that's how he felt at that moment. I
certainly would have.

> and I cringed even more at his moment of silence.

I appreciated it, and was extremely impressed with how thorough the
silence was...

> At least he didn't say "big is better" once again!
>
> Still, he deserved director. I'm happy for him.

Yes, and I am too.

> On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Dave Platt wrote:
>
> >
> > Someone should tell Cameron that it's very tacky to quote your own
> > movie.

Why? Especially when everybody would know exactly the source?

Linda
--
@->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->---
"Not Everything that is beautiful is good.....
But everything that is Good is beautiful"
@->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->---

Derek Janssen

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

wty...@phrusa.org wrote:
>
> > That had to be the cheesiest shit this side of Velveeta.
>
> No kidding. I know he was just quoting a line from his movie, but
> it just came off as arrogant.

Not arrogant so much as self-delusional: The belief that the "King of
the world, woowoowoo!!" quote was somehow the "Show me the money" of '98
happens to be just plain WRONG--
Even "Titanic" *fans* originally groaned at that one on screen--

As extinct-on-arrival catchphases go, it was as embarrassing as if a
presenter had tried to get a laugh with "Mommy's very angry" or "I make
these look good"....

Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com

Cole

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:37:24 GMT, Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca>
wrote:
>
>It was ridiculous. I'm sorry to be callous, but on a worldwide scale,
>1500 people who died over 80 years ago is *not* a tragedy worth a moment
>of silence.

It is when that event marked the end of an era. The Victorian Age
died with Titanic, and the world changed.

Cole, thought it was cool, too . . .

Dave Gates

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Dave Platt wrote:
>
> Someone should tell Cameron that it's very tacky to quote your own movie.


My thought too, but I'd replace "your own movie" with "your own mundane
dialogue."
--
Dave Gates
dave...@davegates.com

Tim Norton

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

sawr...@smartt.com wrote in message <6f8hmk$i3h$1...@newsfeed.smartt.com>...


>Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Someone should tell Cameron that it's very tacky to quote your own movie.

>I think James Cameron is a GENIUS (hence his geekiness!) and the best
>filmmaker around. I am so glad he's finally been recognized!
>
>Paula

I'm sorry, Paula, but your theroy is flawed. Genius does not = geekiness.
I've known some very brillant people in my time and some of them were very
cool, charming and attractive. I've also known my share of "geeks" and they
were not all bright. The idea that an artist must wear all black, or a
genius a pocket protector is a cliched sterotype. BTW, Cameron is a good
director (action flicks) but I somehow doubt he is a genius...he is, what
I'd coin, a geek...not that that is a bad thing (he is a rich geek who is
married to Linda Hamilton.) Now, about being the best director
around...well, that would be another thread.

Tim

Tim Norton

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

IrishRose wrote in message <3517FC...@u.arizona.edu>...


>molly ann wilkinson wrote:
>>
>> Deep down, I think that Cameron is a geek.
>
>Probably, geeks seem to be extremely successful these days. Their
>almost single minded focus on their projects which contributes to
>alienation is what makes them successful.

I personally know many successful people who are not geeks, freaks, social
retards or single minded. Are you saying geeks in Hollywood, or geeks in
general? The generalization that being geeky = brillant/successful is quite
flawed.

>
>> I don't think he's comfortable with public appearances.
>
>Probably not.

Or, he could have been nervous. Campbell almost seemed to shake out of her
dress during her presentation. Funny what standing in front of hundreds of
your peers will do to you. It obviously makes many winners, presenters
ramble incoherantly...thanking everyone under the sun.

>
>> I cringed when he said he was the king of the world,
>
>Well I took it in the spirit of that's how he felt at that moment. I
>certainly would have.
>
>> and I cringed even more at his moment of silence.
>
>I appreciated it, and was extremely impressed with how thorough the
>silence was...
>
>> At least he didn't say "big is better" once again!
>>
>> Still, he deserved director. I'm happy for him.
>
>Yes, and I am too.

Happy? Sure, why not. I wish he would spread some of his wealth and
happiness my way. I'm still waiting for the day that one of these big shot
directors/actors who have about a billion dollars donate everything they
make off of their next project to charity or to feed the world (which on a
Titanic budget you could almost do.)

Azrael KKK

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

>the moment of silence was cool

Duh! Cool? Take another C - calculating - I saw the $$ light up in his eyes the
moment he said that.

Duh again!

Azrael

I have not been as others were,
I have not seen as others saw,
I cannot bring my passions from a common spring! E.A.P.

Azrael KKK

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

>Dpemlin said:>He aint!
>
>Agree wholeheartedly.

Thanks! I concede that Cameron does have the right to feel relieved that he
pulled it off, but not to that extent.

Co0l D0od

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:37:24 GMT, Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca>
wrote:

>: > Yea, And what was UP with " a moment of silence" Give me a break!!!!!!

>It was ridiculous. I'm sorry to be callous, but on a worldwide scale,

>1500 people who died over 80 years ago is *not* a tragedy worth a moment
>of silence.

>It's part of Hollywood's twisted morals that when Gere or Susan Sarandon

>say something about tragedies that are going on *right now*, they're
>slammed, whereas something that happened nearly a century ago is treated
>as if it were the Holocaust.

Personally, I think you're an evil cocksucker.

But that's not a big deal.


Co0l D0od

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:09:04 GMT, sawr...@smartt.com wrote:

>I think James Cameron is a GENIUS (hence his geekiness!) and the best
>filmmaker around. I am so glad he's finally been recognized!

I agree.

Cameron is the Paul McCartney of the movie business.

One became famous for the Beatles, the other for Terminator 1 and 2,
and Titanic.


Skander Halim

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

molly ann wilkinson (mwil...@students.uiuc.edu) writes:

> I cringed when he said he was the king of the world, and I cringed even
> more at his moment of silence. At least he didn't say "big is better" once
> again!

I wonder, is it possible to have one's Oscar taken away for poor
comportment? I mean, they took away Vanessa Williams' Miss America crown
when she did lesbian porn, didn't they? I think there is far more dignity
in lesbian porn than in any of Cameron's acceptance speeches.

--
Skander Halim
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ba547/

Cole

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:52:17 GMT, Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca>
wrote:

>Um, the Victorian Age died with Queen Victoria. Titanic's demise did not
>change the world.

Victorian Age, Gilded Age, whatever.

Cole, tired of semantics . . .

Justin Siegel

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

There's more dignity in most instances of beastiality caught on tape than
in that jack-ass' acceptance speeches.


>
> --
> Skander Halim
> http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ba547/

--
Justin Kristopher Siegel

"Everything our parents said was good
is bad: sun, milk, red meat, college"
-- Woody Allen, Annie Hall

Greg

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Azrael KKK wrote:
>
> >the moment of silence was cool
>
> Duh! Cool? Take another C - calculating - I saw the $$ light up in his eyes the
> moment he said that.
>
> Duh again!
>
> Azrael
>

Yeah, that's right. He was thinking, "The film has to make more money,
a billion dollars just isn't enough, and I need more money too! I know
people will see this movie again and again if I ask them for a
respectful moment of silence. I can charge them for being silent! Just
think of how much more money I can make." Maybe he actually has respect
for his subject and the event that inspired his movie, you think? Not
everything is done just for more money. When everyone was thinking of
the celebration of the Oscars, they perhaps let it slip their minds that
this was a real, tragic event and this was a nice thing for Cameron to
say to remind them.

Lulu

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

In article <6f8hmk$i3h$1...@newsfeed.smartt.com>, sawr...@smartt.com wrote:

>The moment of silence thing was a very respectful thing to do--very
>appropriate considering I haven't seen it on any other awards ceremony
>where he has won. I think people would've been upset if he hadn't
>(esp. those survivors and their families still alive and Titanic
>historians).

Well, not to rain on the parade, but my mum is related to Titanic people
(well, I suppose that means I am too, but she's closer into it), and she
found it very offensive, for this reason: He's exploiting those people.
She feels that by him making up phony, improbable people who, if they were
real people, never would've met, instead of finding the truly interesting
and poignant stories that *were* on the boat (and there were some that
were much better, and much more realistic and romantic, than that of Rose
and Jack), he really wasn't doing anything about the Titanic at all. He
set a Harlequin romance on the Titanic, and she thinks that's
disrespectful to her relatives and their friends.

Don't assume, please. You'll always find exceptions, like my family.

And I think that 'King of the World' shouting was the tackiest thing in
the world, whoever started this thread.

Cheers,
Lulu

--
Visit the Spice Rack: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/6151/

Lulu

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

In article <6f946s$njt$1...@usenet11.supernews.com>, "Tim Norton"
<tno...@oklahoma.net> wrote:

>IrishRose wrote in message <3517FC...@u.arizona.edu>...
>>molly ann wilkinson wrote:
>>> Deep down, I think that Cameron is a geek.
>>Probably, geeks seem to be extremely successful these days. Their
>>almost single minded focus on their projects which contributes to
>>alienation is what makes them successful.
>I personally know many successful people who are not geeks, freaks, social
>retards or single minded.

Define geek. I mean, Madonna is a total geek, look at how nervous she's
been at all three Oscars she's been on stage for. But she's hardly a
social retard (well, I think most people wouldn't class her as such). So
maybe you're defining geek different. Or whatever. I think you'll find
most famous people *are* geeks in one sense of the word or another, it's
part of what, by and large, drives them to become famous, or to express
themselves.


Dave Letterman just did a quiet jab at Cameron, incidentally.

Lulu

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

>Cameron is the Paul McCartney of the movie business.

In the eyes of an awful lot of music lovers, this is NOT a compliment.

Say, say, say what you want, but don't lead me in no direction...

Lulu

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

>On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:52:17 GMT, Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca>
>wrote:
>>Um, the Victorian Age died with Queen Victoria. Titanic's demise did not
>>change the world.
>Victorian Age, Gilded Age, whatever.

I'm rather certain you'll not find any historians who will tell you,
without irony, that any ages or eras died with the Titanic. The Titanic
was a tragedy that shocked people, but it didn't end the 'age of
decadence'. I mean, the 1920s?

Tulisan

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Lulu wrote in message ...


of course he's king of the world, for the moment. look at how many people
are responding to this thread (including myself, unfortunately).
tulisan

Derek Janssen

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Azrael KKK wrote:
>
> >the moment of silence was cool
>
> Duh! Cool? Take another C - calculating -

Well, C is for "cookie"; that's good enough for me...

Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com

Azrael KKK

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

>Yeah, that's right. He was thinking, "The film has to make more money,
>a billion dollars just isn't enough, and I need more money too! I know
>people will see this movie again and again if I ask them for a
>respectful moment of silence. I can charge them for being silent! Just
>think of how much more money I can make." Maybe he actually has respect
>for his subject and the event that inspired his movie, you think? Not
>everything is done just for more money. When everyone was thinking of
>the celebration of the Oscars, they perhaps let it slip their minds that
>this was a real, tragic event and this was a nice thing for Cameron to
>say to remind them.

But he does! A point which apparently eludes you, as you seem caught up in it.
This was so phony and against the pelt that I laughed out loud when he did that
and told my husband "he sure knows how to suck them!" on the spot.

I'm an American living in France, Alsatia to be precise. The last time I was
asked, along with several tens of thousands of veterans, KZ survivors, French,
American, Alsatian and German survivors of WW2 to do such honors (and in this
case it was more than a split second) was during the festivities for the
liberation of Alsatia and the end of the War. That was in Strasbourg and
believe me, we were very quiet. Most people felt deeply at that precise moment
and the person who asked us to was as comparable to Cameron as Ghandi or mother
Theresa. Do me a favour, GET REAL and see(k) reality as it is and not through
rose-coloured glasses. Cameron spat not only on those who died with the
Titanic, but he especially spat on all those for whom moments of silence are
taken.

Crossposted:

<Great comparison. Spielberg quietly mentioned what was a tragedy of human
<evil, and did not milk it for cheap emotion. Cameron's moment of silence
<just seems silly by comparison.
<And I still say that it says a lot about Hollywood that maudlin
<sentiments about events long past are celebrated, whereas commentary on
<tragedies that are happening RIGHT NOW is called "whining."
----------------
<That whole 'moment of silence' was so self-serving- not something even
<Spielberg did after winning for 'Schindler's List'. Tragedies of these,
<and other proportions, cannot be abated or even properly commemmorated
<by a room full of formally dressed millionaires who are making a fast
<buck off of them. Don't you think Cameron was just as thrilled to have
<all of Hollywood at his command for even those few seconds?

ABSOLUTELY!

Jas

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Saith Lulu:

> In article <35184383...@news.usit.net>, dont.ma...@usit.net wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:52:17 GMT, Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca>
> >wrote:
> >>Um, the Victorian Age died with Queen Victoria. Titanic's demise did not
> >>change the world.
> >Victorian Age, Gilded Age, whatever.
>
> I'm rather certain you'll not find any historians who will tell you,
> without irony, that any ages or eras died with the Titanic. The Titanic
> was a tragedy that shocked people, but it didn't end the 'age of
> decadence'. I mean, the 1920s?

Surely it ended the age of maritime hubris, at any rate.

Jas
--
Razors pain you; rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; and drugs cause cramp
Guns aren’t lawful; nooses give;
Gas smells awful; you might as well live.
- Dorothy Parker

To e-mail me, remove 'mudbugs' from my address.

Milo D. Cooper

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

> Lulu wrote:
>> In article <6f8hmk$i3h$1...@newsfeed.smartt.com>, sawr...@smartt.com wrote:
>>
>> The moment of silence thing was a very respectful thing to do--very
>> appropriate considering I haven't seen it on any other awards ceremony
>> where he has won. I think people would've been upset if he hadn't
>> (esp. those survivors and their families still alive and Titanic
>> historians).
>
> Well, not to rain on the parade, but my mum is related to Titanic people
> (well, I suppose that means I am too, but she's closer into it), and she
> found it very offensive, for this reason: He's exploiting those people.
> She feels that by him making up phony, improbable people who, if they were
> real people, never would've met, instead of finding the truly interesting
> and poignant stories that *were* on the boat (and there were some that
> were much better, and much more realistic and romantic, than that of Rose
> and Jack), he really wasn't doing anything about the Titanic at all. He
> set a Harlequin romance on the Titanic, and she thinks that's
> disrespectful to her relatives and their friends.

And your mother is exactly right. And _Titanic_ freaks, ironically,
manifest their own lack of emotional depth by missing this observation.
--
/|__Milo D. Cooper____EverQuest character modeler__|\
\| www.milos-chalkboard.com www.everquest.com |/

Goro

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

That moment of silence seems as in-tune w/TITANIC as the rest of the
script. Manipulative and un-subtle, yet pretending to be; extremely
pretentious. Yet i wonder if ~$500M worth of TITANIC lovers thought
that moment was as touching as the love story in TITANIC.

Lowest Common Denominator, after all...

-Goro

Daniel Richardson

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

In article <351A1AF3...@milos-chalkboard.com>,

Well said. The fans of this piece of filth, which has been been exorcised
from the bowels of Hollywood and fed to the ignorant masses, have little or no
humanity. Yet they have the audacity to blast those of us who do not care for
this poor popcorn movie by saying that we have no heart.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Ryan McGinnis

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:26:22 GMT, Michael Gallamore
<mga...@nswc.navy.mil> wrote:

>> And your mother is exactly right. And _Titanic_ freaks, ironically,
>>manifest their own lack of emotional depth by missing this observation.

>>--
>>/|__Milo D. Cooper____EverQuest character modeler__|\
>>\| www.milos-chalkboard.com www.everquest.com |/

>
> So, now I am a "freak" because I enjoyed the movie "Titanic", and I
>don't subscribe to your point of view? I have been interested in Titanic

Shh! Don't feed the Milo. All food is converted to ego, which, if it
ever reached critical mass, could destroy the internet as we know it.

--
-Ryan
http://www.lionking.org/~ryan/

"Life,for eternal us,is now;and now is much too busy being
a little more than everything to seem anything,catastrophic
included." -ee cummings

Cal Rice

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

It was the opulent EDWARDIAN era that ended with the Titanic,
and this fact has been often pointed out in books and documentaries
about the sinking; notably, in 'A Night To Remember'.

-cr
--


Trav 1138

unread,
Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98
to

>
>I think James Cameron is a GENIUS (hence his geekiness!) and the best
>filmmaker around. I am so glad he's finally been recognized!
>
>


I think you need a brain implant.

Matthew Butcher

unread,
Mar 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/28/98
to

Daniel Richardson wrote:

>The fans of this piece of filth, which has been been exorcised from

>the bowels of Hollywood and fed to the ignorant masses....

A *quadruple* mixed metaphor. I doff my cap in respect.

--
Matthew Butcher | Could I calm her down by throwing stones at her?
but...@math.ubc.ca | -- Roy Wood

Dan Day

unread,
Mar 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/29/98
to

On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:24:14 GMT, Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
>: I think James Cameron is a GENIUS (hence his geekiness!) and the best

>: filmmaker around. I am so glad he's finally been recognized!
>
>See more movies. That's all I have to say. Then Cameron might not look
>like that much of a genius.

How many do we have to see? I've seen several thousand films, and
I still agree that Cameron is a genius. If I see a few dozen more,
do you think that'll suddenly make me see the light?

Dan Day

unread,
Mar 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/29/98
to

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:56:24 -0600, Daniel Richardson <dri...@tiger.lsu.edu>
wrote:

> Well said. The fans of this piece of filth, which has been been exorcised
>from the bowels of Hollywood and fed to the ignorant masses, have little or no
>humanity. Yet they have the audacity to blast those of us who do not care for
>this poor popcorn movie by saying that we have no heart.

Can I have the audacity to say, based on your post, that you have no class?

Dave Platt

unread,
Mar 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/29/98
to

On 29 Mar 1998, Dan Day wrote:

:

Just keep seeing movies, and I believe you'll discover that he's not that
great.

Dan Day

unread,
Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98
to

On Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:14:51 GMT, Dave Platt <woo...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
>: >See more movies. That's all I have to say. Then Cameron might not look
>: >like that much of a genius.
>:
>: How many do we have to see? I've seen several thousand films, and
>: I still agree that Cameron is a genius. If I see a few dozen more,
>: do you think that'll suddenly make me see the light?
>
>Just keep seeing movies, and I believe you'll discover that he's not that
>great.

Because your personal opinion is some sort of Absolute Truth? *snort*

"Yeah", says Dave, "sooner or later everyone *will* come around to
looking at things just the way *I* do."

Don't hold your breath, Dave.

I repeat -- despite your arrogant assumption that if one just
"sees more movies", then one will necessarily See The Light According
To Dave, I've already seen thousands, and I doubt another few will
suddenly drastically change my opinion. Give it a rest, Dave.
Your implication that if we climb far enough, we'll eventually find
you already sitting on the mountain peak says a lot more about you
than it does about anyone else.

Dave Platt

unread,
Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98
to

On 30 Mar 1998, Dan Day wrote:

: On Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:14:51 GMT, Dave Platt <woo...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
: >: >See more movies. That's all I have to say. Then Cameron might not look
: >: >like that much of a genius.
: >:
: >: How many do we have to see? I've seen several thousand films, and
: >: I still agree that Cameron is a genius. If I see a few dozen more,
: >: do you think that'll suddenly make me see the light?
: >
: >Just keep seeing movies, and I believe you'll discover that he's not that
: >great.
:
: Because your personal opinion is some sort of Absolute Truth? *snort*


How is my opiniong any *less* viable than people who do say he's a genius?

:
: "Yeah", says Dave, "sooner or later everyone *will* come around to


: looking at things just the way *I* do."

:
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that someone who thinks James
Cameron is a genius filmmaker seems to have a narrow view of what makes
great filmmaking.

: Don't hold your breath, Dave.


;
: I repeat -- despite your arrogant assumption that if one just
: "sees more movies", then one will necessarily See The Light According
: To Dave, I've already seen thousands, and I doubt another few will
: suddenly drastically change my opinion. Give it a rest, Dave.

So you are prepared to say that Cameron is a genius filmmaker - when
compared with Welles, Huston, Wilder, Hitchcock, Fellini, Lean, etc? If you
really can claim that, then I believe you. But I think many people would
say that if Cameron is a genius, then the above mentioned directors are
something beyond genius. Because frankly, if Aliens and T2 are the work
of a genius, then I'm not sure what "genius" really means.


, : Your implication that if we climb far enough, we'll

eventually
find : you already sitting on the mountain peak says a lot more about you
: than it does about anyone else.

:
Spare me the personal attacks. I don't claim to be any authority on
movies. But there is so much good stuff out there, I find it frustrating
to see a merely average filmmaker proclaimed as brilliant.

Dan Day

unread,
Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98
to

On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 19:13:14 GMT, Dave Platt <woo...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
>: >Just keep seeing movies, and I believe you'll discover that he's not that
>: >great.
>:
>: Because your personal opinion is some sort of Absolute Truth? *snort*
>
>How is my opiniong any *less* viable than people who do say he's a genius?

I didn't say it was. *YOU*, on the other hand, seem to think that
as people gain in experience, they'll "naturally" come to see things
your way. That's mighty arrogant of you, Dave.


>: "Yeah", says Dave, "sooner or later everyone *will* come around to
>: looking at things just the way *I* do."
>:
>I'm not saying that.

Then why did you say, *twice*, that if those who don't agree with you
would just "see a few more movies", they'd come around to your view?

daarksun

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to


With the quality of his work and the money he has taken
in for Hollywood He can be whomever he likes. It is OK
with me.

ALIENS: SE
Terminator
Terminator 2: SE
The ABYSS: SE
True Lies
Titanic

and the rest are great.

daarksun

Paul J. Adams

unread,
Apr 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/3/98
to

Dave Platt <woo...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote in article
<Pine.SV4.3.91.980330...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>...


> I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that someone who thinks James
> Cameron is a genius filmmaker seems to have a narrow view of what makes
> great filmmaking.

Sorry to butt in, but I'm a nosey guy sometimes...

To simply say that Cameron is a genius does not reflect on a person's
narrowness or breadth of views. To say that Cameron is the ONLY genius
filmmaker would be an example of narrowness.

Someday you may encounter a film buff who's watched 30 times as many movies
as you. He may claim that the four greatest directors of all time are
Federico Fellini, James Cameron, Michael Bay, and Yahoo Serious. Such a
person may be insane or misguided, but he's certainly not narrow minded!

Although I've never particularly liked a Cameron film (I've seen them all
except for Piranha II and Titanic), I am aware that there are many people
who are knowledgable about films who think Cameron is amazingly talented.
I find this odd, but I cope. I know that to persuade Cameron fans that he
ain't so hot would be as hard as persuading Hitchcock fans that his films
are nothing special either.

I've met film students who worship at the altar of Spielberg, and some who
worship at the altar of Godard. When I worship at the altar of Godard I
have to be careful not to stand too close to the other worshippers because
I have so little in common with them. There were students in my school who
were inspired to make movies because they loved the Wizard of Oz, and there
were those who were inspired by Raiders of the Lost Ark. Those who spat on
Fellini and sang the praises of De Palma had me slightly confused.

Reading posts here has reinforced the impression that knowledgeable film
lovers cover a wide spectrum, and rarely agree with me or with one another.
I'm not taking a purely subjectivist approach here. I'm not saying that
all tastes are equal. I'm simply saying that knowledge does not
necessarily bring wisdom.

Some Cameron fans, if you were to twist their arms and force them to watch
Amarcord, Seven Samurai, and Persona, would become enlightened. Others
have already seen them and thought they were nothing special (foolish, but
true!) However, if you could persuade them to love these excellent films
you might still fail to convince them of the inferiority of Titanic.
People's ideas are not easily shaken, and the tight bond of emotions is
even more difficult to break. One question which people may reasonably ask
is "Why should I try to break the bond of emotion? If a movie brings me
pleasure than it's done its job, hasn't it?"

I agree with you that those whose experience is narrow should make the
effort to go beyond what they know. But if they've already seen it all, or
pretty damn close, and they still love Titanic, then you might as well give
up the fight. Talk about the movie's strengths and weaknesses as much as
it seems profitable to do so, but don't expect to your insight to result in
mass conversions.


Pentti J Lajunen

unread,
Apr 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/6/98
to


daarksun <daar...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

> With the quality of his work and the money he has taken
> in for Hollywood He can be whomever he likes. It is OK
> with me.
>
> ALIENS: SE
> Terminator
> Terminator 2: SE
> The ABYSS: SE
> True Lies
> Titanic

I rank (original versions of) his movies:

The Terminator
Aliens
The Abyss
T2
Titanic
True Lies

which, as you can see, is also (almost) chronological
order of them. Its weird that his movie are getting
worse one after another, but as a director he's
getting more and more succesful.

> and the rest are great.

Certainly not according to the trend of
declining quality in his work.


Jane Lumley

unread,
Apr 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/7/98
to

In article <01bd5f4d$0d5a8ac0$e93b...@gravedig.tiac.net>, "Paul J.
Adams" <ada...@worldnet.att.net> writes

>Some Cameron fans, if you were to twist their arms and force them to watch
>Amarcord, Seven Samurai, and Persona, would become enlightened. Others
>have already seen them and thought they were nothing special (foolish, but
>true!) However, if you could persuade them to love these excellent films
>you might still fail to convince them of the inferiority of Titanic.
>People's ideas are not easily shaken, and the tight bond of emotions is
>even more difficult to break. One question which people may reasonably ask
>is "Why should I try to break the bond of emotion? If a movie brings me
>pleasure than it's done its job, hasn't it?"
>
>I agree with you that those whose experience is narrow should make the
>effort to go beyond what they know. But if they've already seen it all, or
>pretty damn close, and they still love Titanic, then you might as well give
>up the fight. Talk about the movie's strengths and weaknesses as much as
>it seems profitable to do so, but don't expect to your insight to result in
>mass conversions.
>
What a sensible summary. With any luck, it might even put this whole
futile debate to rest. Then we could talk about what makes people
develop such different ideas about cinema and cinematic value, which
would be much more interesting than another bout of attack
Cameron/defend Cameron.

Incidentally, is it just me or are some posters being a trifle literal-
minded in their anxieties about Cameron's claim to be World Monarch?
Here's hoping this is red-blooded American republicanism at its
finest....
--
Jane Lumley

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages