Titanic (1997)

[anna0852]

58 minutes ago, SlovakPrincess said:

That necklace was annoying as hell.  As you said, why else was she holding onto it, if not for some money -- how else was she supporting herself when she first landed in the US?  

Cal didn't just stuff the necklace in his coat pockets, he was seen putting stacks of cash in there too. So Rose didn't just have the necklace, she had a pretty decent nest egg as well.

[SeanC]

7 hours ago, SlovakPrincess said:

That necklace was annoying as hell.  As you said, why else was she holding onto it, if not for some money -- how else was she supporting herself when she first landed in the US?  Payment from the company that owned the Titanic?   Though I could see them skimping on payments to anyone they assumed came from the "lower levels" of the Titanic, as she was hiding her affluent past to avoid being anywhere near Cal on the rescue ship.  

I guess since she wore it while posing nude for Jack, it had some connection to Jack in her mind, but a girl's gotta eat and she was starting over entirely!   Did she ever reconnect with her mom or just let the woman think she drowned -- I mean, damn, not sure her mom deserved that!

And then she throws the damn thing in the sea ... so much for leaving an inheritance to the grandkids.  If nothing else, give it to a museum or sell it and give the money to charity or something!  For cripes sake ...

A diamond that large (and famous, apparently) would probably be difficult to sell in the first place without attracting attention.  But regardless, it was connected with her time with Jack and had sentimental value for that reason.

Her kids were fine financially, from what we see.  After everything she went through, the Heart of the Ocean was hers to decide what to do with, and she clearly derived closure from getting rid of it.

[SlovakPrincess]

Wasting valuable things, for any reason, just bothers me immensely.  🤷‍♀️

Edited February 11, 2022 by SlovakPrincess

[BetterButter]

‘Titanic’: Remastered Version Set For Theatrical Release In Time For Valentine’s Day 2023

[RealHousewife]

On 2/11/2022 at 10:47 AM, SlovakPrincess said:

Wasting valuable things, for any reason, just bothers me immensely.  🤷‍♀️

Same. Titanic is one of my favorite movies ever, but during that scene I just think, oh my gosh! Do you know how many starving people you could feed with the money for that?!

[andromeda331]

30 minutes ago, RealHousewife said:

Same. Titanic is one of my favorite movies ever, but during that scene I just think, oh my gosh! Do you know how many starving people you could feed with the money for that?!

Same here. I'm a history nerd. I always think along the lines of. Do you know how many victims of the Titanic you could help with that or how many starving people during the Great Depression you could have fed? 

[AgathaC]

Exactly! I recall going to see this in the theater and there were audible groans when she dropped the necklace. One guy actually jokingly reached up to “catch” it.

I went in already knowing a lot about the Titanic, thanks to my grandmother doing a presentation on it for her ladies’ club and telling me all about it when I was 9. (This was also at the same time my parents were on a cruise, so maybe not the best timing…) Anyway, I expected to love it and… didn’t. I thought it was very well-made, but I already knew so many of the true stories that I couldn’t summon up much interest in Rose and Jack.

My other memory of seeing it in the theater: all the people sniffling in the last scene with Jack. I suddenly got the giggles and my friends were afraid we’d be pelted with popcorn and Junior Mints. And I’m normally someone who will cry at anything in a movie. Again, I guess it was just my attachment to the real stories and being sort of annoyed at watching what was, to me, a fake, contrived melodrama.

[MsNewsradio]

8 hours ago, AgathaC said:

My other memory of seeing it in the theater: all the people sniffling in the last scene with Jack. I suddenly got the giggles and my friends were afraid we’d be pelted with popcorn and Junior Mints. And I’m normally someone who will cry at anything in a movie. Again, I guess it was just my attachment to the real stories and being sort of annoyed at watching what was, to me, a fake, contrived melodrama.

I also got the giggles at Jack's death scene (I'm sorry, I couldn't help it, and I did *try* to muffle the giggles, but my sister was absolutely gaga for the guy - we shared a room at the time and she had THE POSTER of them on the staircase prominently displayed, etc., so I was doubly cracking up sitting next to her while she was absolutely DISTRAUGHT) and someone threw a soda at me (thankfully, not much left in it, and their aim was terrible) 😆 . Ahh, memories. 

I loved (and continue to love) the film, but almost in spite of the romance storyline between Rose and Jack. I was obsessed with the backstory of the Titanic when I was younger, and the stories of the actual passengers was far more interesting to me, so that's where my focus is on subsequent rewatches. 

[Mabinogia]

31 minutes ago, MsNewsradio said:

I loved (and continue to love) the film, but almost in spite of the romance storyline between Rose and Jack. I was obsessed with the backstory of the Titanic when I was younger, and the stories of the actual passengers was far more interesting to me, so that's where my focus is on subsequent rewatches. 

I'm kind of the same. Other than Jack and Rose's love story, I think Titanic is a great movie. The sets and wardrobe were stunning, and it is beautifully shot, and I have always been kind of obsessed with Titanic so I do cry, and I do love everything that isn't Rose and Jack. Now, I don't mind the two characters, I just don't care at all about their romance. 

[MsNewsradio]

2 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I'm kind of the same. Other than Jack and Rose's love story, I think Titanic is a great movie. The sets and wardrobe were stunning, and it is beautifully shot, and I have always been kind of obsessed with Titanic so I do cry, and I do love everything that isn't Rose and Jack. Now, I don't mind the two characters, I just don't care at all about their romance. 

I think both actors do well with what they were given, but at the same time the rest of the movie is so beautifully crafted that I almost wish the characters were excised entirely and the focus had been on the actual real life passengers. I know Cameron wanted an anchor for the audience to root for and care about, but there were so many actual folks on board whose stories could have been featured instead. The brief shot of the Straus couple together in bed as the water rushes in, for example, is more affecting to me than anything between Rose and Jack. 

[Bastet]

14 hours ago, AgathaC said:

Again, I guess it was just my attachment to the real stories and being sort of annoyed at watching what was, to me, a fake, contrived melodrama.

The Rose and Jack story is so ridiculously awful it ruined the film for me and I've never watched it in its entirety again (I'll watch some non-Rose and Jack scenes when going around the dial and coming across it, and even try watching some of their scenes to see if maybe I hate them less [spoiler alert: nope]).  But, visually, it is stunning, and has good performances in the far more interesting roles, so I wonder how I might regard the film had it not centered that dreck.

14 hours ago, AgathaC said:

My other memory of seeing it in the theater: all the people sniffling in the last scene with Jack. I suddenly got the giggles

5 hours ago, MsNewsradio said:

I also got the giggles at Jack's death scene (I'm sorry, I couldn't help it, and I did *try* to muffle the giggles,

I mostly just rolled my eyes, but got vocally "Oh, for fuck's sake!" in the theatre at the unbearably protracted sequence where Rose finally accepts he's really most sincerely dead and calls out to the retreating life boat for help.  I think Kate Winslet does the best with that anyone could, but, good grief, the repetition of "Jack" and, then, "Come back" is way too drawn out.  Cut by half, it could have been (even with the "I'll never let go" dreck) a great moment when she swims over and grabs some dead guy's whistle out of his frozen mouth to save herself.  By then, though, it wasn't suspense, it was nonsense, and lessened the entire moment. 

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Bastet said:

The Rose and Jack story is so ridiculously awful it ruined the film for me and I've never watched it in its entirety again (I'll watch some non-Rose and Jack scenes when going around the dial and coming across it, and even try watching some of their scenes to see if maybe I hate them less [spoiler alert: nope]).  But, visually, it is stunning, and has good performances in the far more interesting roles, so I wonder how I might regard the film had it not centered that dreck.

I mostly just rolled my eyes, but got vocally "Oh, for fuck's sake!" in the theatre at the unbearably protracted sequence where Rose finally accepts he's really most sincerely dead and calls out to the retreating life boat for help.  I think Kate Winslet does the best with that anyone could, but, good grief, the repetition of "Jack" and, then, "Come back" is way too drawn out.  Cut by half, it could have been (even with the "I'll never let go" dreck) a great moment when she swims over and grabs some dead guy's whistle out of his frozen mouth to save herself.  By then, though, it wasn't suspense, it was nonsense, and lessened the entire moment. 

Jack wouldn't have died if Rose had stayed in the lifeboat rather then jumping out of it. 

[Hiyo]

I didn’t hate Rose and Jack, mostly due to Kate Winslet doing most of the heavy lifting regarding the two of them onscreen. But they definitely aren’t the most appealing part of the movie.

The second half of the movie once they hit the iceberg is the better amd more interesting part. Say what you will about Cameron, but he knows what he was doing and did it well. Before that, I always enjoy the detail paid to the historical aspects, and do enjoy the opulance and luxury we see in the first class parts of the ship.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Hiyo

[GHScorpiosRule]

I think I may have mentioned this before in this thread--probably in the first page or so, but I did bawl near the end. BUT. Not because of stupid Jack and Rose. It was seeing all those others who died and were bobbing and floating in the ice cold water.

I had gone to see this with a guy friend, and he was the most unsentimental person there was. Back then, it took a LOT for me to shed any kind of tears. But those scenes had me crying, and I could hear my friend sniffling. He said that Kleenex could have made a bundle if they had set up shop by the doors.

I knew about the history of the Titanic, and I wanted to see what kind of movie it would be. I didn't give any shits about the fictional Jack and Rose. 

As others have stated, the cinematography was magnificent. And just so sad to see what happened to her. All the documentaries, of course, were in Black and White and I wanted to see it in color.

I may just watch again to see David Warner. What a great villain. From Remington Steele, Murder, She Wrote, Perry Mason movie, and the best, for me, as the voice of Ra's Al Ghul from Batman: The Animated Series. He gave that villain such gravitas. Yes! Even though it was a cartoon! SHUDDUP!

But even 100 year old Rose pissed me off when she threw that blue diamond? Sapphire? into the ocean at the end. Why not give it to her granddaughter? You know, as a family heirloom or something. But nooooooo, idiot just threw it into the ocean because...reasons. Oh, yeah, she was ready to die and see Jack again.

[AgathaC]

I remember griping at the time to anyone who would listen that there were so many compelling true stories — way better than Jack + Rose 4ever. I do think I now understand creating a fictional central couple. There’s more freedom in that and you’re not messing with real people’s stories. This certainly wasn’t the first Titanic movie to make up a couple and then sprinkle real people around them. So, the history major in me can forgive that. But if you’re going to do that, make darn sure they’re compelling in their own right. Even as a teen, I thought those two were silly and annoying.

Given the movie’s enduring popularity, I guess J/R was strong enough for a lot of people…

One thing that drove me nuts was these people who were crying over Jack and Rose were laughing about some of the real people. Granted, some of these people likely had no idea these were real people who died, but it just felt disrespectful. Real people dying (or trying to die) with dignity is moving to me. Not funny.

I’ll admit, part of my annoyance with the movie was its ginormous popularity and that damned song. I couldn’t walk in a store or get in a car without hearing Celine Dion warbling, to the point I was ready to rip my own ears off.

[jah1986]

Y'all are killing me 🤣 I remember going to theaters with my mom and some teenage girls to see this. And I told them before the movie started "It's the Titanic, so people are going to die, be prepared". But one of the girls started crying so hard I asked my mom if we should remove her from the theater. It actually stopped other people from crying, seeing how over the top she was. I will always laugh at Jack's death because of my memories of her. That was also the last time we went to the movies together.

All that said, the movie was beautiful, the sets, the costumes. A museum in my home city had a Titanic exhibit and part of it was a recreation of a hallway in first class. You turned a corner and you were on the Titanic, it literally took my breath away. Just stunning. At the beginning of the exhibit you got a card with an actual passenger on the ship and at the end you were able to look them up to see if they survived or not. Shockingly, my passenger survived, I was so relieved/happy.

[RealHousewife]

21 minutes ago, jah1986 said:

Y'all are killing me 🤣 I remember going to theaters with my mom and some teenage girls to see this. And I told them before the movie started "It's the Titanic, so people are going to die, be prepared". But one of the girls started crying so hard I asked my mom if we should remove her from the theater. It actually stopped other people from crying, seeing how over the top she was. I will always laugh at Jack's death because of my memories of her. That was also the last time we went to the movies together.

All that said, the movie was beautiful, the sets, the costumes. A museum in my home city had a Titanic exhibit and part of it was a recreation of a hallway in first class. You turned a corner and you were on the Titanic, it literally took my breath away. Just stunning. At the beginning of the exhibit you got a card with an actual passenger on the ship and at the end you were able to look them up to see if they survived or not. Shockingly, my passenger survived, I was so relieved/happy.

I went to the Titanic exhibit in Vegas. I loved the experience as someone who's always been fascinated by Titanic. Took a pic in the stairway replica, which was beautiful. Seeing things like actual china from the ship was cool, but I was blown away to see "The Big Piece." Never thought I'd see such a large part of the ship. They also give cards with passengers on the ship at Vegas exhibit. Sadly, I believe mine died. :( 

If you're ever in Vegas and a Titanic fan, I highly recommend the exhibit. 

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, AgathaC said:

I remember griping at the time to anyone who would listen that there were so many compelling true stories — way better than Jack + Rose 4ever. I do think I now understand creating a fictional central couple. There’s more freedom in that and you’re not messing with real people’s stories. This certainly wasn’t the first Titanic movie to make up a couple and then sprinkle real people around them. So, the history major in me can forgive that. But if you’re going to do that, make darn sure they’re compelling in their own right. Even as a teen, I thought those two were silly and annoying.

Given the movie’s enduring popularity, I guess J/R was strong enough for a lot of people…

One thing that drove me nuts was these people who were crying over Jack and Rose were laughing about some of the real people. Granted, some of these people likely had no idea these were real people who died, but it just felt disrespectful. Real people dying (or trying to die) with dignity is moving to me. Not funny.

I’ll admit, part of my annoyance with the movie was its ginormous popularity and that damned song. I couldn’t walk in a store or get in a car without hearing Celine Dion warbling, to the point I was ready to rip my own ears off.

That's true. But when it comes to putting in a fictional couple they need to make them as good or almost as good as the real couples. You had women deciding to stay and die with their husbands instead of getting in the lifeboats. Compare that to Jack's and Rose's love story.  When the band members were released one stays and the others come back. They didn't have to but they did. That's a great story. Unsinkable Molly Brown was awesome and she was one of many passengers trying to convince them to go back. Why not have Rose there pleading to go back in hopes there's a chance Jack and others might be saved? Or finally make it to the deck but it's too late all the lifeboats are gone?  They really could and should have made Jack's and Rose's story better.   

It's the same with Pearl Harbor with it's love triangle that sinks the movie. Two (fictional) childhood best friends stationed at Pearl Harbor?  That could have been a great story. One falls for a nurse. That could have been great. We know the attack is coming followed by war. Instead we get a love triangle.

[AgathaC]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

That's true. But when it comes to putting in a fictional couple they need to make them as good or almost as good as the real couples. You had women deciding to stay and die with their husbands instead of getting in the lifeboats. Compare that to Jack's and Rose's love story.  When the band members were released one stays and the others come back. They didn't have to but they did. That's a great story. Unsinkable Molly Brown was awesome and she was one of many passengers trying to convince them to go back. Why not have Rose there pleading to go back in hopes there's a chance Jack and others might be saved? Or finally make it to the deck but it's too late all the lifeboats are gone?  They really could and should have made Jack's and Rose's story better.   

Exactly! If you’re going to create a new couple, you’d better make sure they’re at least as compelling and awesome as the true stories. In this case, it’s a high bar. Women choosing to stay with their husbands. Men calmly helping load lifeboats or helping women they didn’t even know to boats, knowing they themselves were about to die. Workers below keeping the lights on as long as possible. So many stories.

[Mabinogia]

19 hours ago, MsNewsradio said:

The brief shot of the Straus couple together in bed as the water rushes in, for example, is more affecting to me than anything between Rose and Jack. 

I seriously remember that scene, which brings me to tears every time, more than any scene between Jack and Rose. I mean, I know they did the flying arms at the front of the ship (because just about everyone imitates it) and the whole floating on a door scene, I know what their scene's are, but none of them 

8 hours ago, AgathaC said:

But if you’re going to do that, make darn sure they’re compelling in their own right. Even as a teen, I thought those two were silly and annoying.

True. It's no that they centered on a fictional couple, I get doing that, as you said, it gives them more creative freedom to tell a story, it's that they were the most insipid, cliched couple of all time. The poor boy who teaches the rich girl trapped in a world she doesn't want to be in how to let loose and go after what she wants has been done to death and while the stereotypes fit that time in history (rich young women were expected to be a certain way, etc) it would have been more interesting if it was anything other than your typical play on Romeo and Juliet. 

I do think Kate Winslet did a great job with what she had. I know she hates looking back at her accent in the movie, but I thought it was fine. She was also stunningly beautiful. Leo...meh, he was okay. He wasn't fully developed as an actor back then. I think that's an actor who really grew into his acting skills.

[Annber03]

6 hours ago, RealHousewife said:

I went to the Titanic exhibit in Vegas. I loved the experience as someone who's always been fascinated by Titanic. Took a pic in the stairway replica, which was beautiful. Seeing things like actual china from the ship was cool, but I was blown away to see "The Big Piece." Never thought I'd see such a large part of the ship. They also give cards with passengers on the ship at Vegas exhibit. Sadly, I believe mine died. :( 

If you're ever in Vegas and a Titanic fan, I highly recommend the exhibit. 

My sister went to that exhibit with a friend of hers. She too has long had a fascination with the Titanic. I can't recall how the passenger she was assigned fared - I think she said that they lived? 

But yeah, it sounds like a really fascinating exhibit, so if I ever do find myself in Vegas, I'l make a point to check it out. 

6 hours ago, jah1986 said:

Y'all are killing me 🤣 I remember going to theaters with my mom and some teenage girls to see this. And I told them before the movie started "It's the Titanic, so people are going to die, be prepared". But one of the girls started crying so hard I asked my mom if we should remove her from the theater. It actually stopped other people from crying, seeing how over the top she was. I will always laugh at Jack's death because of my memories of her. That was also the last time we went to the movies together.

Oh, my god, wow. That's rough. It seems a bit weird, on the one hand, 'cause I mean, this is history, so it shouldn't be that big a shock that people died. 

But I suppose it's one thing to hear about it, and another entirely to see it, even a fictionalized version of it. 

I don't think I really cried at the movie, either. I think there may have been some parts towards the end that got me a bit misty-eyed, like the shots of all the other passengers preparing to die, and the very end got to me a bit, too, I believe. But I don't recall outright bawling or anything like that, no.

20 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I do think Kate Winslet did a great job with what she had. I know she hates looking back at her accent in the movie, but I thought it was fine. She was also stunningly beautiful.

Agreed. She looked gorgeous. 

[LilWharveyGal]

When it comes to the fictional stories vs. true stories issue, I'm generally on the side of sticking with history.....however, if anyone's interested in doing their own compare and contrast I'd still give a shout-out to the 1953 version of Titanic which also focused on a set of fictional passengers (including the always awesome Barbara Stanwyck), and IMO was a much more engrossing and emotional storyline.

[Spartan Girl]

For all those that vented their spleen about Rose chucking the necklace at the end, you’ll be happy to know I just posted about it in the What An Idiot: Stupid Decisions in Movies thread.

[Camera One]

I've only watched this movie once, and I sort of want to rewatch it to see if my feelings have changed.  I didn't hate the main characters, but it was a case where a done-before soap opera-ish plot took away from immersion in a historical setting.  A lot of historical films seem to make this mistake.  The sinking of the ship was suspenseful enough... did we need a psycho with a gun hunting Jack down?   Way back when, it seemed cool to hate on the film and the theme song, and it was tiring to hear that constantly too.  For me, it was more of a disappointment of what could have been, given the solid technical elements of the film.  Granted, it is certainly a challenge to construct a film around a historic event.  Whose story do you tell?  Do you pick one family from each class?  How do you weave their tales together into a coherent film?  This movie just didn't seem like a genuine attempt to create historical fiction.

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

This movie just didn't seem like a genuine attempt to create historical fiction.

It was definitely a cookie cutter love story that happened to take place during a historic event rather than a story about a historic event that happened to have a love story woven into it. 

Jack and Rose's story could have happened anywhere. It just happened to be on the Titanic. They didn't fall in love because of the sinking, it's just that the sinking was used as the device that tore them apart which really, Jack could have died in a million other ways and it would still have been the same story. Rich girl meets poor boy, poor boy shows rich girl how to live life to the fullest, poor boy dies and rich girl must somehow go on without the love of her life that she knew for a few days.

It's an odd choice because from what I've read about him, James Cameron is really into the story of the Titanic, and I feel like this movie was meant to be a love letter to the Titanic, but the Titanic was little more than a prop to tell a mediocre love story. 

[SeanC]

3 hours ago, Camera One said:

This movie just didn't seem like a genuine attempt to create historical fiction.

This sort of storyline is one of the prototypical types of historical fiction.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I seriously remember that scene, which brings me to tears every time, more than any scene between Jack and Rose. I mean, I know they did the flying arms at the front of the ship (because just about everyone imitates it) and the whole floating on a door scene, I know what their scene's are, but none of them 

Me too. That's such a great scene and knowing it really happened makes it so much better. Mr. Strauss actually had a chance to get off the boat with his wife. The officer in charge of one of the lifeboats offered to let him go because of his age. He refused because there were women and children still aboard. She wouldn't go without him but did make sure her maid got off the boat. 

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

It was definitely a cookie cutter love story that happened to take place during a historic event rather than a story about a historic event that happened to have a love story woven into it. 

Jack and Rose's story could have happened anywhere. It just happened to be on the Titanic. They didn't fall in love because of the sinking, it's just that the sinking was used as the device that tore them apart which really, Jack could have died in a million other ways and it would still have been the same story. Rich girl meets poor boy, poor boy shows rich girl how to live life to the fullest, poor boy dies and rich girl must somehow go on without the love of her life that she knew for a few days.

It's an odd choice because from what I've read about him, James Cameron is really into the story of the Titanic, and I feel like this movie was meant to be a love letter to the Titanic, but the Titanic was little more than a prop to tell a mediocre love story. 

It really is. He spent so much time on getting as many details about the ship correct as possible but doesn't seem to put much effort in the story. 

[AgathaC]

13 hours ago, Camera One said:

I've only watched this movie once, and I sort of want to rewatch it to see if my feelings have changed.  I didn't hate the main characters, but it was a case where a done-before soap opera-ish plot took away from immersion in a historical setting.  A lot of historical films seem to make this mistake.  The sinking of the ship was suspenseful enough... did we need a psycho with a gun hunting Jack down?   Way back when, it seemed cool to hate on the film and the theme song, and it was tiring to hear that constantly too.  For me, it was more of a disappointment of what could have been, given the solid technical elements of the film.  Granted, it is certainly a challenge to construct a film around a historic event.  Whose story do you tell?  Do you pick one family from each class?  How do you weave their tales together into a coherent film?  This movie just didn't seem like a genuine attempt to create historical fiction.

Agreed. I think a big part of what took me out of it was the crisis on top of crisis thrown at Jack and Rose. They’re on a sinking ship in freezing water with way too few lifeboats. Are all the additional obstacles necessary?

14 hours ago, LilWharveyGal said:

When it comes to the fictional stories vs. true stories issue, I'm generally on the side of sticking with history.....however, if anyone's interested in doing their own compare and contrast I'd still give a shout-out to the 1953 version of Titanic which also focused on a set of fictional passengers (including the always awesome Barbara Stanwyck), and IMO was a much more engrossing and emotional storyline.

I adore Barbara Stanwyck! It’s been a while, but I have seen that one. It falls short on some of the realism, really (not just special effects, but some of the less-noble and heroic sides and the fact that so many women and children actually died), but I did find the central story moving. And, as it was a 1950s movie, I thought one particular aspect of the ending was surprising.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 8/2/2022 at 6:39 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

I may just watch again to see David Warner. What a great villain.

Did we see what happens to Lovejoy? Did he escape with Cal or end up frozen in the water?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

17 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

It's an odd choice because from what I've read about him, James Cameron is really into the story of the Titanic, and I feel like this movie was meant to be a love letter to the Titanic, but the Titanic was little more than a prop to tell a mediocre love story. 

I read.....somewhere, can't remember now of course, that Titanic and The Terminator, which James Cameron also directed, have a lot of the same beats; a man and woman fall in love, and they love passionately for their brief time together, and then the man dies protecting her. The necklace that Rose throws into the ocean (dumb) takes the place of the picture that Kyle carries of Sarah even before he meets her in person, and he remains the linchpin even when he's been absent for most of the story, a ghost that hovers over Sarah and her son years later. Of course, in comparison Kyle and Sarah are pretty compelling, even if its only in Sarah's transformation after his death.

[GHScorpiosRule]

22 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Did we see what happens to Lovejoy? Did he escape with Cal or end up frozen in the water?

It's been so long since I watched. I think he became a popsicle.

[Hiyo]

Quote

Did we see what happens to Lovejoy? Did he escape with Cal or end up frozen in the water?

We see him when the ship splits in two. He was right next to where it cracked, so his chances of surviving were pretty slim.

Quote

Of course, in comparison Kyle and Sarah are pretty compelling, even if its only in Sarah's transformation after his death.

I'd say they were compelling even before that.

[Mabinogia]

19 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

That's such a great scene and knowing it really happened makes it so much better. Mr. Strauss actually had a chance to get off the boat with his wife. The officer in charge of one of the lifeboats offered to let him go because of his age. He refused because there were women and children still aboard. She wouldn't go without him but did make sure her maid got off the boat. 

Too bad they weren't young and hot, maybe then we could have gotten the movie focused on them, a ridiculously rich, well-connected couple who chose to die together in an effort to let someone else have a chance to survive. When you contrast that with someone like Ismay who got on a lifeboat claiming he saw no women or children around (despite the fact that plenty of them died so they must have been somewhere), it becomes and even more poignant story. 

The one that always gets me is the band playing amidst all the chaos. When so many were thinking of nothing but saving themselves (and I don't fault anyone in that situation for that. Self-survival is a basic human instinct. It's how some went about it that I judge. But I digress) the fact that the band played in an attempt to calm terrified and frantic people is quite touching. 

Honestly, the most touching part of the movie for me was the shots of all those who had resigned themselves to the fact they were about to die. It kills me even just thinking of it. The band playing, the Strausses in each other arms on the bed, the captain at the wheel, Thomas Andrews adjusting the clock (that one kills me. I think because the Titanic was his baby and it felt very much like him not wanting to abandon his child as it died).

Only ones that didn't move me? You guessed it, Jack and Rose. Watching them cling to the railing as the ship went down, people running and screaming and all that chaos around them, just fell flat for me. I actually liked Rose. I was ambivalent towards Jack, but I didn't actively root for his death...well, until they were bobbing around in the ocean on that door and I just kept rooting for him to let go and slip into the ocean just so we could be done with the movie because ones the ship was gone I didn't really care what happened. The story was over for me. 

[RunningMarket]

A few years back I read a book covering the stories of many of the more prominent survivors - including Ismay. It covered the trial afterwards as well.

Many of them had absolutely horrible lives afterwards - a lot of hardships and tragedy, let's put it that way. I apologize I can't think of the name (and Google isn't helping), but I'll come back if I think of it. It was a fascinating read.

Also, I couldn't care less about Jack and Rose. Have you ever noticed how many times they say each other's names? "Jack, did you see that Jack?" "Rose, that's so lovely Rose."

[Annber03]

25 minutes ago, RunningMarket said:

A few years back I read a book covering the stories of many of the more prominent survivors - including Ismay. It covered the trial afterwards as well.

Many of them had absolutely horrible lives afterwards - a lot of hardships and tragedy, let's put it that way. I apologize I can't think of the name (and Google isn't helping), but I'll come back if I think of it. It was a fascinating read.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me. I've wondered about that before, the kinds of nightmares and PTSD those survivors must've suffered and dealt with afterward. Or at least, whatever term/diagnosis, if any, would've been the equivalent of "PTSD" back then.

But yeah, whatever one called their trauma, I don't doubt it ran deep and impacted their lives in a whole host of ways :(. That book does sound very interesting - heartbreaking, but interesting. 

[AgathaC]

One of the saddest stories (to me) was the Allison family: parents, infant son, toddler daughter, servants. There are a few different explanations of what happened, but here’s the one I remember: They were separated from their son in the chaos, not knowing he was with the nanny in a lifeboat. Mrs. Allison refused to leave without knowing where he was and wouldn’t let anyone else take her daughter. So, all three died (little Lorraine was the only first or second class child to die). The boy survived and was raised by relatives, only to die of food poisoning in his teens.

Kind of glad the movie didn’t cover that one because I always found it frustrating and depressing.

[JustHereForFood]

Personally, I was never bothered by Rose throwing that necklace away. I've only seen that scene a few times, because the movie is so long and with commercials it would always be so late when it finishes. Plus, I prefer the first part before the ship starts to sink, I really don't like disaster movies, so I would just watch until they notice the iceberg. (Yes, I know that the movie is called Titanic, so it would make more sense to concentrate on the ship and not on the lovestory, but for me that is the only thing I like about the movie.)

Back to the necklace, I see it as Rose finally being free of what happened to her so long ago. She told her granddaughter that she never told anyone about Jack before and who knows, maybe she never told anyone about being on Titanic either, we saw her changing her name when they arrived to New York (if anyone remembers if it was known that she survived Titanic, feel free to correct me). It must have been a kind of weight on her, so I can see that telling the story after all these decades could feel like a huge weight has been lifted. And the necklace was the only link she had not only to Jack but to the life she had lived for the first 17 years of her life. Her throwing it away can be seen as symbolic to finally coming to terms with it.

I'm not sure if I like the last scene when she obviously dies though.

[ursula]

On 8/25/2022 at 1:50 PM, JustHereForFood said:

Back to the necklace, I see it as Rose finally being free of what happened to her so long ago. She told her granddaughter that she never told anyone about Jack before and who knows, maybe she never told anyone about being on Titanic either, we saw her changing her name when they arrived to New York (if anyone remembers if it was known that she survived Titanic, feel free to correct me). It must have been a kind of weight on her, so I can see that telling the story after all these decades could feel like a huge weight has been lifted. And the necklace was the only link she had not only to Jack but to the life she had lived for the first 17 years of her life. Her throwing it away can be seen as symbolic to finally coming to terms with it.

 

Same. I understood the symbolism of the necklace. She held onto it because it was the closest connection she had to Jack ("he exists now, only in my memory") and now that she'd shared his story with other people, she didn't need it any more. Sharing his story also allowed her to die in peace, because she had passed on that memory.

And there's no guarantee that the necklace would have "fed hungry children" or whatever. Most likely its discovery would have been tied up in legal claims and lawsuits since it's arguable if the necklace was hers in the first place. Especially since, according to all official records, Rose Dewitt died on the Titanic. It's a needless nitpick just as the "Jack could have fit on the boat" grousing that was at first amusing but over the years, thanks to social media's penchant of dialing up toxicity to the 11th, has become irritating. 

I loved this movie, cheesy romance and all. Looking forward to watching it in cinemas next year - something I've never actually got the chance to do before. It's odd to see complaints that the film should have focused on another relationship/story 🙄 when if that was the case, it wouldn't be the Titanic that we watched. It would be a completely different film. Obviously the complainers must like this version of Titanic, or they won't want to find/replace Rose/Jack with their own preferred characters.  And there's literally nothing stopping anyone from making another Titanic focused on whatever these "deserving" people should have been.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by ursula

[cambridgeguy]

4 hours ago, ursula said:

And there's no guarantee that the necklace would have "fed hungry children" or whatever.

Well, it's absolutely guaranteed that it won't when it's sitting at the bottom of the ocean.  In any case, Rose is a horrible person takes are as hilarious as any other where fans work themselves into a snit over their opinion that heroes are being jackasses/villains (see Superman mind wiping Lois, Indy looting artifacts, Steve peacing out at the end of Endgame, etc.).

Speaking of which,

 

[Crashcourse]

Rose looked older than Jack.

[RealHousewife]

51 minutes ago, Crashcourse said:

Rose looked older than Jack.

Kate Winslet had a mature beauty, while Leonardo was very baby-faced. 

[Bill1978]

On 8/2/2022 at 12:44 AM, AgathaC said:

My other memory of seeing it in the theater: all the people sniffling in the last scene with Jack. I suddenly got the giggles and my friends were afraid we’d be pelted with popcorn and Junior Mints. And I’m normally someone who will cry at anything in a movie. Again, I guess it was just my attachment to the real stories and being sort of annoyed at watching what was, to me, a fake, contrived melodrama.

I remember when I first watched this in the cinema being grateful that Jack died. Because it drove me nuts that teenage girls were in love with Leonardo DiCaprio and so I got some sort of perverse pleasure knowing Jack didn't survive the movie and thus destroying all the girls dreams of a perfect happy ending. Now when I watch the movie, I do feel some sadness when we discover Jack dies and Rose lets him go, but I ain't sobbing like those girls in the cinema did back in 97/98. I reserve my tears for those people we see accepting their death in the cabins as the water rushes into their room and the frozen bopsicles in the water.

[Scarlett45]

Quote

I’d rather be his whore than your wife.

I was 12yrs old when this came out and my peers were obsessed with Leo. I enjoyed the film but it’s not one of my favorites. 
 

It did provide me my favorite movie insult I have yet had the opportunity to use (quoted above).

As an adult I can appreciate that the figure drawing scene was hot. However why were Rose and what’s his name only engaged? I know her Mom was acting as a chaperone but I think it would’ve been more tragic if they had been wed and she learned he was abusive.

 

[ursula]

14 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

It did provide me my favorite movie insult I have yet had the opportunity to use (quoted above).

Agreed. No idea why some people rag on that line. I thought it was brilliant and very quotable, as you said.

14 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

However why were Rose and what’s his name only engaged? I know her Mom was acting as a chaperone but I think it would’ve been more tragic if they had been wed and she learned he was abusive.

Probably to avoid the implication of marital sexual assault. There's an unspoken threat of premarital assault: It's strongly implied that Carl expects something, ("honor me the way a wife is supposed to honor her husband"), hadn't quite crossed the rules of proprietary but absolutely could if he decided to stop humoring Rose and no one - certainly not her grasping mother - would protect her from him. 

As it stands, there's enough abuse (throwing the table, slapping her, the manhandling) to show how absolutely horrible being married to him would be for Rose.

[Scarlett45]

8 minutes ago, ursula said:

Probably to avoid the implication of marital sexual assault. There's an unspoken threat of premarital assault: It's strongly implied that Carl expects something, ("honor me the way a wife is supposed to honor her husband"), hadn't quite crossed the rules of proprietary but absolutely could if he decided to stop humoring Rose and no one - certainly not her grasping mother - would protect her from him. 

As it stands, there's enough abuse (throwing the table, slapping her, the manhandling) to show how absolutely horrible being married to him would be for Rose.

Carl did expect something, he and Rose were sleeping together on the ship, but it was implied that she went to is room before marriage to "keep him happy" rather than because they were a young couple in love who didn't want to wait. Or even simply she thought he was handsome even if she didnt like him much.

We could tell Rose really couldn't stand him, not in a "he's a nice man, and I have to get married so I will make the best of it" but in a "I hate this fucking shit." She wanted to throw herself off of the ship she was so distraught at the idea of being married to him. Seems that he was absolutely vile from day 1.

So the implication was there, we knew he was physical with her. I think they're not being married yet, although feel bad for Rose, she isn't trapped yet so it's not such a gut punch. (of course I am not saying that being man-handled by one's fiancé is okay just because you haven't said "I do" yet)

Just wondering about that......

[Cobalt Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

So the implication was there, we knew he was physical with her. I think they're not being married yet, although feel bad for Rose, she isn't trapped yet so it's not such a gut punch. (of course I am not saying that being man-handled by one's fiancé is okay just because you haven't said "I do" yet)

Yeah, for all the talk of how much Rose would have hated being poor with Jack, her other option at the time was jackhole Cal, who her mother was shoving her towards because the lifestyle she was accustomed to was being threatened. I was under the impression that Rose's father had died and left them with a lot of debts, or that he just wasn't a very good planner, but either way they were broke. Ruth didn't seem like the type who was willing to go to work, and who knows if Rose would have had any skills other than maybe housekeeping.

[Scarlett45]

2 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Yeah, for all the talk of how much Rose would have hated being poor with Jack, her other option at the time was jackhole Cal, who her mother was shoving her towards because the lifestyle she was accustomed to was being threatened. I was under the impression that Rose's father had died and left them with a lot of debts, or that he just wasn't a very good planner, but either way they were broke. Ruth didn't seem like the type who was willing to go to work, and who knows if Rose would have had any skills other than maybe housekeeping.

From what I remember from the dialogue, Rose's father died and left them penniless with a bunch of debts. Likely the creditors were patient, but it was going to be "pay them" or they were going to repossess everything they owned (the house, the furniture, the jewelry, the sterling silver). And they were literally going to be on the street.

Rose wouldn't have had ANY housekeeping skills. She grew up upper class, they had servants to do all of that. If she didn't want to marry Cal (or another well situated man) her best bet was being a governess (she hadnt been to university but was somewhat educated, she could likely find a position as a tutor for a young lady), or a paid companion to a wealthy widow. I think Rose's mother was a jerk, but I understand her fear. It would've been one thing if Cal just wasn't Rose's cup of tea (or older/unattractive) but he was angry and violent. It was DANGEROUS for Rose to be married to him, Rose was young and beautiful, no other men of their social class were interested in her? I didnt see Ruth out there trying to marry a widower to keep them a float.

[RunningMarket]

"Your father left us with a legacy of bad debt covered by a good name." (Or something quite close to that.) So, they still have name caché despite being poor. Ruth then goes on to be extremely dramatic about if Rose wants to watch her "return to work as a seamstress."

[ursula]

On 1/4/2023 at 2:00 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

for all the talk of how much Rose would have hated being poor with Jack

Which makes no sense because from what we saw of her life, she stayed (or at least started out) poor and had an amazing life. She literally did everything he told her she would. Titanic is first a love story, but it’s also a story about a girl finding and becoming the best version of herself. 

[BetterButter]