A Titanic Argument

willchadwick wrote:

Finally people have broken through the shell of the fact it is a critic proof movie and we must agree with the critics, no critics (bar a few) gave the film a poor review saying 'Yes best film of the year.' This completely overhyped a film that didn't need overhyping. As well as being the top grossing movie of all time and the popularity with the public meant that if it didn't win the Best Picture Oscar the AMPAS would have floods of complaints about not rewarding the Best of the Year, which AMPAS didn't anyway. But soon some people realised that it wasn't the pure gold and a lot of people managed to bring up the courage to say that it wasn't a great film that everyone said it was. The fact is the film is well made and well shot but the story and the script is very bad, the acting isn't up to scratch and it is too long. While many may argue it is classic the film lacks any real depth to the characters which need that background if you want to create a love story, it is full of cliches and anachronisms that fail to make the film believable at all, DiCaprio is just relying on his boyish charm to get his way through it and really is an false and wrong choice for a leading actor, Winslet spends half the film pretending to look confused and stiff and the only real and interesting characters are the ones that are based on fact. Titanic only ever feels like the most impressive film money can buy, what Titanic should be giving us is a feeling os despair, loss and to be overwelmed by what is on screen and takes the tragedy of the Titanic and wraps it with a glossy, Brief Encounter style love story with Hollywood edge that fails to entertain.

I have to say that although Titanic is always overhyped, it clearly had something special, and seeing that scene with the (albeit clichéd) silhouette of the ship, one end in the air and windows glittering, gives the sense of something... grand, spectacular and maybe epic - what I like about Titanic is not the hollywood sick-ons, but the tale of the ship itself and the people behind it - and the scenes with the Captain going down with the ship and the band who continue to play as this happens - I do get that feeling of "despair and loss" and tragedy - though I agree that the rest of the film is turgid and frankly dull.

Titanic has split opinions previously and on the old forum (most notably as the film that enrages Mr Chadwick) - it'll be interesting to see what other folk think about it and see if anyone actually thinks it deserved the hype and praise it achieved.

Yeah it had something special. There was something about the film that was able to take that amount of money from the public and get the critical acclaim it did. There is no doubt that visually the film is impressive, it's quite nicely shot, the effects and the sets are very well researched and designed and for the time it was very revolutionary. Also there is no doubt that the tragedy of the Titanic should be put on film and that if a film was three hours long it would deal with the considerable loss, but it doesn't. Cameron's view on loss is showing a few shots of people looking a bit sad and then some people getting crushed, he is more interested in showing us Leo and Kate and their hair blowing in the wind. Cameron has no sincerity and has he even says in the audio commentary: 'that shot cost a million dollars', like Kubrick he is more interested in the artiface than he is the actual characters. And with a story of tragedy that isn't good enough.

Apart from that it is rottenly written with dialogue that would make George Lucas look like he was the foremost expert in scriptwriting and characterisation, Cameron has no skill of writing dialogue that actually rings true and when he can't think of anything interesting for the characters to say he resorts to them just shouting out each others names. The other dialogue is so bad that wish you were listening to Hayden Christensen proclaim to Natalie Portman he loved her in that scene in Attack of the Clones which was unbelievably toe curling.

It is baggy and lasts for an immeasureable amount of time which is completely unforgiveable considering there are scenes in which they for no reason go and dance with the lower decks. Where he have to watch Kate Winslet wade through water, Leonardo DiCaprio playing cards and Kathy Bates dressed in that dress and talking in that accent it is just so boring, which is a gross misjustice considering no time is spent developing the original characters and the real tragedy is glazed over with Cameron's obsession with his computer.

The acting is increasingly stiff or incredibly drippy. No matter how many chairs you show on set no one is more wooden than Billy Zane and no matter how much water Cameron shows lapping on the deck over swirling as the bow cuts through the waves no one is more wet than Leonardo DiCaprio. Cameron is the true proof that sometimes actors need to be tamed and taught when under the talent of a great character director DiCaprio can produce something amazing, as can Kate Winslet.

It is a film to show off, and does not do so as it is ill judged, badly disciplined and boring, with a rotten script, bad direction and drippy performances. Cased solidly closed with a big heavy padlock

^That's a conversation killer

You see, you've contradicted yourself by saying that it is unemotional, and yet the entire point behind the so called pointless dancing scene must be to show their undying love.

It is rather long, but perhaps it is intentional, since the titanic didn't just sink in 30 seconds. In fact it took longer, and it is possible (though I haven't seen it for a while) that this is so that the audience gets a sense of scale of the immense tradgedy.

However, I do think DiCaprio needs better direction, and the dialogue is completely uninspired.

bert vimes wrote:

You see, you've contradicted yourself by saying that it is unemotional, and yet the entire point behind the so called pointless dancing scene must be to show their undying love.

Perhaps but I need to be emotionally involved and care for the characters, which I'm not. And undying love. Rubbish they'd been together for two hours, undying love pfft they just dance to Irish jig music with the poor people.

bert vimes wrote:

It is rather long, but perhaps it is intentional, since the titanic didn't just sink in 30 seconds. In fact it took longer, and it is possible (though I haven't seen it for a while) that this is so that the audience gets a sense of scale of the immense tradgedy.

It only begins sinking in the final hour, and as I said Cameron is not concerned with the great scale of tragedy he only cares about the best shot money can buy and Leo and Kate's unconvincing romance.

Titanic is a pretty mediocre and overrated film that uses emotional manipulation rather than character development or any of that fun stuff. It's not terrible, but it's fairly boring.

On the other hand, it's not exactly worth all the ire that Will has for it.

Apple Schnapps wrote:

On the other hand, it's not exactly worth all the ire that Will has for it.

Yes it is. And very simply, it is the biggest film of all time and everyone thinks it is a fantastic cinema revolution and an exercise in cinematic ground breaking, it isn't and people need to be told straight. Titanic is terrible.

willchadwick wrote:

Apple Schnapps wrote:

On the other hand, it's not exactly worth all the ire that Will has for it.

Yes it is. And very simply, it is the biggest film of all time and everyone thinks it is a fantastic cinema revolution and an exercise in cinematic ground breaking, it isn't and people need to be told straight. Titanic is terrible.

I would never ever say it was groundbreaking, but at the same time the concept of undying love at first sight is what makes slumdog a feelgood film.

bert vimes wrote:

I would never ever say it was groundbreaking, but at the same time the concept of undying love at first sight is what makes slumdog a feelgood film.

Right... I love Slumdog Millionaire, but would not say it is feel good at all, its particularly tough in places and there isn't really much 'feel good' until the very end. In Titanic everyone dies, so I don't think the feel good concept was ever there and not part of the campaign. And you're right to say its not groundbreaking, the point was EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE at the time said it was, and it wasn't. No one was allowed to say it was rubbish due to critics falling over themselves saying it was a masterpiece and the reason why my criticism seemed so vitriolic is because compared to the millions of people who loved it mine seems particularly hateful, the point is it isn't great filmmaking, it isn't entertaining but it is rubbish. Very rubbish.

willchadwick wrote:

bert vimes wrote:

I would never ever say it was groundbreaking, but at the same time the concept of undying love at first sight is what makes slumdog a feelgood film.

Right... I love Slumdog Millionaire, but would not say it is feel good at all, its particularly tough in places and there isn't really much 'feel good' until the very end. In Titanic everyone dies, so I don't think the feel good concept was ever there and not part of the campaign. And you're right to say its not groundbreaking, the point was EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE at the time said it was, and it wasn't. No one was allowed to say it was rubbish due to critics falling over themselves saying it was a masterpiece and the reason why my criticism seemed so vitriolic is because compared to the millions of people who loved it mine seems particularly hateful, the point is it isn't great filmmaking, it isn't entertaining but it is rubbish. Very rubbish.

Well the point is that I agree with you, but I think you slate it too harshly, when it isn't as bad as you say it is, though it is still a bad film in my opinion.

I just feel sorry for DiCaprio. How could he have got so poor? Still on the good side it made Scorsesesesese pick him up with is brilliant.

Quote :

In Titanic everyone dies, so I don't think the feel good concept was ever there and not part of the campaign.

Ah well I see what you all meant by the Titanic argument...
Well it's not the greatest film of all time, everyone can argue that because we all have different film tastes.
And Will, everyone DOESN'T die! The whole film is about a woman who survived the sinking of the ship and its her story about a guy she met on the boat and their relationship. There are a lot better films than that, trust me, but Slumdog Millionaire ISN'T one for me.... never seen it never will. Just like Twilight.

Zoe Ratch wrote:

Well it's not the greatest film of all time, everyone can argue that because we all have different film tastes.

Never stopped it from being badly made

Zoe Ratch wrote:

And Will, everyone DOESN'T die! The whole film is about a woman who survived the sinking of the ship and its her story about a guy she met on the boat and their relationship.

Actually she dies in the end

Zoe Ratch wrote:

There are a lot better films than that, trust me

I trust you. SO MUCH

Zoe Ratch wrote:

Slumdog Millionaire ISN'T one for me.... never seen it never will. Just like Twilight.

That comment makes your opinion completely invalid, Slumdog Millionaire is a great movie, you're missing a treat. Also one of the very few times the Academy Awards got it right in giving the Best Picture Oscar

bert vimes wrote:

Well the point is that I agree with you, but I think you slate it too harshly, when it isn't as bad as you say it is, though it is still a bad film in my opinion.

I just feel sorry for DiCaprio. How could he have got so poor? Still on the good side it made Scorsesesesese pick him up with is brilliant.

My reasons for saying it's a bad film are harsh because everyone else (though not on this forum) thinks it's great and it isn't. And I completely agree about it having good outcomes DiCaprio wised up and became a proper actor, Kate Winslet proved she is one of her generation's finest actors and James Cameron disappeared for 12 years and is now coming back with what he does best: big, stupid, loud, show off action films so it's all good.

willchadwick wrote:

My reasons for saying it's a bad film are harsh because everyone else (though not on this forum) thinks it's great and it isn't. And I completely agree about it having good outcomes DiCaprio wised up and became a proper actor, Kate Winslet proved she is one of her generation's finest actors and James Cameron disappeared for 12 years and is now coming back with what he does best: big, stupid, loud, show off action films so it's all good.

So what we can say from this discussion is that Titanic is a poor poor film with good visuals, but has had a significant benefit to the film world.

Apart from the poor film bit, that is remarkably similar to what the critics who loved it said (but for VERY different reasons)!

Yeah although I do have to say, I could not care less about Avatar, I'll see it but I just don't get the hype, yeah Cameron's back and with 3D and with Cameras that have been specifically designed....... so? I think it looks like a video game, no offence to video games but the visual style Cameron has gone for makes it look like an XBOX game, which for cinema is wrong.

willchadwick wrote:

Yeah although I do have to say, I could not care less about Avatar, I'll see it but I just don't get the hype, yeah Cameron's back and with 3D and with Cameras that have been specifically designed....... so? I think it looks like a video game, no offence to video games but the visual style Cameron has gone for makes it look like an XBOX game, which for cinema is wrong.

I don't mind it though. It's the same sort of argument as Zemekis and his Motion capture, I really don't mind it. It's not off putting for me because at the end of the day it just looks like Pixar meets realism, in terms of visuals at least.

bert vimes wrote:

I don't mind it though. It's the same sort of argument as Zemekis and his Motion capture, I really don't mind it. It's not off putting for me because at the end of the day it just looks like Pixar meets realism, in terms of visuals at least.

Meh that's fine. I just don't care, again its the hype people are bigging it up so much it can only be a disappointment.

Oh and a shout out to those who say it'll redefine cinema. Don't be stupid.

Might as well put my little note into the argument.

I have never actually seen Titanic but i dont think a film such as this deserves as much hate as will goes on about. Now the actual story of the Titanic is a quite intresting one, Cameron's done a straight documentary on it for Imax which was pretty intresting but as being a hollywood film i dont think the film version would stick to the history that much.

I'll watch Titanic willingly as sorry will but i dont think this film will be as bad as you say. Titanic at its worst looks average i mean if Titanic is a steaming pile like you say it is you dont know what a terrible film is. THESE ARE TERRIBLE FILMS: http://www.trailerclub70.com/

Watch 1 trailer on that website and i guarantee you'll re-consider titanic to be better than you give it credit for. And on the note of actually seeing the film if somebody gives me a copy ill watch it that evening.

kabirrane wrote:

Cameron's done a straight documentary on it for Imax which was pretty intresting but as being a hollywood film i dont think the film version would stick to the history that much.

Yes Ghosts of the Abyss was pretty intriguing but it was under an hour. I don't think film should be completely historically to the tee because you have to make something entertaining. There are two ways to go about it: Braveheart, which is the wrong way. And Schindler's List which is the right way. And Titanic is closer to Braveheart, Titanic is not as bad as Braveheart but you see what I mean

kabirrane wrote:

I'll watch Titanic willingly as sorry will but i dont think this film will be as bad as you say. Titanic at its worst looks average i mean if Titanic is a steaming pile like you say it is you dont know what a terrible film is.

I think you should watch it. You should be able to make your own opinion, you did with Gump so why not with this (and interestingly I think Titanic is a better made film than Forrest Gump). The problem is Titanic for the budget it was made for only seems like the best film money can buy and no emotional attachment, the film had a gargantuan budget and comes out as an undisciplined, badly written, poorly acted and turgidly directed piece. In my opinion. Obviously people are allowed to disagree. Plus I bet some of those films are terrible but they were done and shoestring budgets and do exactly what they say on the tin, you want a film called 'Sexed up Rug Suckers from Mars' that's what you get. In Titanic you didn't get the story you got the ship but not the story and that is a real problem

And I do know what a terrible film is. I paid to see Epic Movie, I saw Transformers 2, I saw Sex and the City, I saw Plan 9 from Outer Space, I saw Blood Rayne, I saw Super Mario Bros. So don't go there. Film ratings and criticism are subjective it is unfair to criticise Titanic against Alone in the Dark, as in comparison Titanic is 2001 A Space Odyssey.

kabirrane wrote:

Watch 1 trailer on that website and i guarantee you'll re-consider titanic to be better than you give it credit for. And on the note of actually seeing the film if somebody gives me a copy ill watch it that evening.

I think they're quite funny, very hard to laugh at Titanic and the thing is EVERYONE thinks Titanic is great and my criticism seems harsh because of that. See it I think you should, hopefully if you agree, fine, if you don't fine. But I'd like to know where you think I'm getting it wrong.

I'll happily lend you Titanic. Beware thought you start at 8 don't finish till 11

I like Titanic, I wont watch it again but I liked it, probably because I like that sort of thing and don't approach films in a critical way.