Analysis of Titanic and other Box Office phenomena

[lcbaseball22]

I was shocked to discover this film didn't have a thread yet! In many ways, it could be considered the biggest film success of all time!

• Domestic Box Office Gross- $600,788,188
• Worldwide Box Office Gross- $1,842,879,955
• Held #1 at the Box Office for 15 consecutive weeks!
• 14 Academy Award nominations, 11 wins including Best Picture

But what is the reason behind it's commercial AND critical success?

Was it a stellar film?

Well no, not necessarily. It fails to place in the IMDB Top 250 for instance. It places a little higher on Flickchart, coming in at #159. But on Rotten Tomatoes it's at only 82%, making it one of the lowest amongst Best Picture winners. Metacritc score is even lower, at 74, which means "generally favorable reviews" So by nearly all attempts to quantify, it appears to be considered pretty great, but not outstanding.

So what made it resonate with such a massive amount of people? What made it so much more popular than any other film in history?

Was it because it's based on a true event? Is it due to the added love story? Or maybe it is the action and state of the art special effects? Perhaps it's cause the film ends in tragedy, which seem to have such a profound effect on people and often become classics of literature (a lot of Shakespeare's works are good examples of this) film, etc. Or could it have something to do with more trivial aspects like Leonardo DiCaprio's "pretty boy" looks or the fact that it includes 1 of the only nude scenes in a PG-13 film? (afterall, "sex sells" as the saying goes)

Common sense would say it is a combination of a bunch of different factors. But what were the biggest factors I wonder Anyways...


Do you think any film will ever sink (pun intended ) Titanic's records?

The average price of a movie ticket in 1997 was $4.59, which means approx. 400 million people bought a ticket to see Titanic.

BTW, that is more than the entire US population currently to give you an idea of the scope

Well, first lets looks at domestic. Titanic eclipsed $600 million. The film that came closest is of course Dark Knight, which is the only other to break the $500 million boundary. But even TDK which was on a record shattering pace cooled off and ended up nearly $70 million short!

Ok, now how about worldwide? Well, this is the one I don't believe will ever be broken. 1.8 billion dollars, one of only 4 films to earn over 1 billion, and the film in 2nd is Lord of the Rings: Return of the King which made over $700 million less! WOW...what made it so special?

So do I think either record will ever be broken? Well, I think the domestic total is slightly more do-able, especially when you throw in inflation. But as I said, I don't believe the worldwide total will ever be broken...not even with inflation. At the least it'll take many years.

If so, what kind of film do you guys think this feat would require? What upcoming films might have a chance? These would be my picks-

• Deathly Hallows Part 1 and/or 2 (I'll elaborate on this on below but I'd say these have by far the best shot of any in the near future)
• Batman 3- can it build upon the success of TDK?
• Transformers 3- Revenge of the Fallen made $400 million domestic while drawing in more female viewers than the original.
• Iron Man 2- The first one shocked everyone, I'm not sure what the sequel has in store
• Pirates of the Carribean 4- this franchise has proven a force to be reckoned with...but what about with no Orlando and Keira?
• The Hobbit- After the huge success of the LotR trilogy, I think it's possible but not very likely being that it's a prequel
• Avatar- Including this simply because...well, who better to break the record than the director who set it? But I predict it'll bomb

Note that I placed those in the order I'd consider most likely. But I really don't think any have more than a slim chance at best.

Oh, and I only listed films up through 2012, since the world is supposed to end after that anyways

Ok, that being said here is a previous post I made elsewhere in response to Klio's post concerning Deathly Hallows chances.

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

I never said it had a real chance or anything like that. I realize how damn hard it would be, which is why I noted that it would probably require HALF of the US AND UK population turning up at the theatres for the finale (as I will demonstrate here, not even that would do it)

Despite that though (and I said it was "a bit of a stretch") I really don't like to underestimate Harry Potter and IF it somehow pulled off this miraculous feat "I wouldn't be surprised". This is quite possibly the largest worldwide cultural phenomenon of all time! I don't think there is any way we can possibly know for sure just how many might show up for the culmination of the series simply because it's the LAST movie and I envision it attracting those that were never interested in HP before. I think the hype is going to be through the roof like the book...

And let me clarify- I was talking about simply DH 1 OR 2 (2 probably has the better shot), not BOTH combined

Anyways, let me demonstrate now how difficult of a feat this would truly be (based on current populations at least)

US Population Estimate- 304,059,724

UK Population Estimate- 60,943,912

Combined Population Estimate= 365003636/2 = 182501818

So, half of the combined US and UK population is approx. equal to 182,501,818 people

Average Ticket Price (from BoxOfficeMojo)

Year Avg. Price
2008 $7.18
2007 $6.88
2006 $6.55
2005 $6.41

They don't know the numbers for 2009 yet (cause the year obviously isn't over yet)

but I'm going to extrapolate here and say by the time DH2 rolls around the average ticket price will be approx. $8.00

So...

182,501,818 people x $8.00 = 1,460,014,544

Approximately 1.46 billion...which still wouldn't eclipse the over 1.84 billion that Titanic amassed.

Now of course we are talking about WORLDWIDE box office but I focused on US and UK cause I'm pretty sure they're the countries with the largest interest in Potter. You know, just for the hell of it...what percentage of the world population would have to purchase a ticket?

Titanic's reported worldwide box office = $1,842,879,955 / 8 = approx. 230,359,995 people

World Population Estimate from Google = 6,706,993,152 people

230,359,995 / 6,706,993,152 = .0343 x 100 = approx 3.43%

Well, when you put it in the scope of the entire world it doesn't seem all that difficult But of course that includes all age groups, and for instance I doubt you'll be seeing babies at the theatre watching Deathly Hallows or as Klio pointed out much of the over 60 demographic

But I don't think it's at all impossible. Now there are of course MANY variables affecting worldwide box office that determine whether a film makes not even 100 million vs. upwards of 1 billion and based on the past history of HP films it does indeed seem out of reach but again I wouldn't underestimate Potter...it just might suprise us. Hell, who knows how many REPEAT viewings there might be. This would most likely be dependent on the quality of the film but there might be people paying to see this thing 20 times (I bet there probably IS Potter fans that have done so in the past) But IF they deliver a RotK caliber finale (as I hope for) or like a TDK gem, well then who knows...

MasterofDeath posed this question to me a while back and I originally laughed at him when he thought it might surpass Titanic's record. I said it might have a good shot at beating TDK but no way in hell Titanic. That possibly no film ever would, for one because Titanic stuck around in theatres for an unprecedented amount of time and this was back when there was only a few films in the theatre to choose from at any one time so the box office didn't get as thinly distributed as it does nowdays where you have nearly 20 films to choose from!

BUT...IF there is any one film in the near future that has a shot I told him, it would indeed be Deathly Hallows because of how widespread the Potter phenomenon has been and such. Hell, if you haven't heard of Harry Potter...you've been living under a rock for the last 10 yrs

I will say this though, as enthusiastic as I am about the split...unfortunately I think this hinders any chance that DH 2 would have of box office records. Now to address the shot of the "films" (really I view it still as ONE film split into 2 parts) combined, I think it's HIGHLY likely that their combined total would surpass Titanic. I think we'll have to wait and see how HBP fares to get a bit better idea (I predict HBP will pass SS/PS and become the highest grossing HP film) but I could easily see both parts raking in close to 1 billion (and all it takes is about 921 million each) Based on the history of the HP films THAT is easily within reach (2 of the 5 thusfar have acheived over 921 million)

But yeah, DH2 eclipsing Titanic...

NOT very likely, but IF it does happen I certainly won't be surprised and I reserve the right to say "I told you so"...

Ok, so I was a bit over-enthusiatic and ultimately wrong about HBP...but not by much, it still made 300 mil domestic/927 mil worldwide


Alright, well now it's your turn to discuss...either your thoughts on this anomaly of a film or the box office records or both

[AldeberanBlack]

It's a spectacle for sure. Personally I enjoyed it. I am a James Cameron fan.

But it does have its flaws as a movie.

The love story is weak. The fictional characters are awful. The lead actors have no chemistry and don't even look right for each other. At times, Di Caprio looked more like Winslet's SON than her boyfriend. I also found it difficult to sympathise with two characters being seperated during a disaster considering that they only met four days earlier. I had more sympathy for actual families being torn apart.

It doesn't even much logical sense either. Both central characters could have survived had they simply used their minds when making decisions. Had Kate Winslet's character got onto the lifeboat, Leonardo Di Caprio's character could have survived by getting on that big piece of wood that Winslet eventually survived on.

The real life characters however are very good. I desperately wanted the movie to focus on THEM rather than the fictional ones. Had the movie focused on Captain Smith, Molly Brown, Thomas Andrews, and Thomas Ismay it would have been superior. I thought the treatment given to William Murdoch (the officer who shoots Tommy then himself) was outrageous.

The special effects and soundtrack however (with the exception of Celine Dion droning on) are excellent.

I don't believe it's box office takings will ever be surpassed considering that in today's world cinema takings are only part of a movie's appeal. Blue Ray and DVD are major players now.

[NumberEight]

Originally Posted by AldeberanBlack

I thought the treatment given to William Murdoch (the officer who shoots Tommy then himself) was outrageous.

I agree completely. For those who do not know what we are talking about, read this. This should tell you all you need to know about this film created by shameless filmmakers (shameless until they decided to apologize).

I absolutely hate the movie. I find it annoying, tedious, and completely overrated. After learning about what I linked to above, I vowed to never watch the film again.

[snapegirl]

I never understood what was so great about the movie. I saw it once when it hit DVD, but that's it. It didn't impress me much.

[MmeBergerac]

Well, it impressed much more on the theatre, giant screen and all that...

I think that had it not been for the fan phenomenon (all those hundreds of teenagers sighing whenever DiCaprio appeared on the screen and screaming when he died -the man didn't have enough common sense to look for a floating piece of wood for himself) it wouldn't have been such a hit.

[Wab]

Titanic benefited no end from trouble on the set, the cost of the film and the still recent footage of the wreck which put the movie into the public consciousness consistently for a long period before the movie was released.

[sick_muse]

I really don't know why it was so popular. Most people are a sucker for a love story? Who knows. There was something romantic and endearing about it when I was younger, I'll admit, but I never really watched it properly when it first came out. I did years later and I found it boring, and tedious. Movies just shouldn't be past a certain length and if they need to be, they should be in two parts like DH.

I don't think any movie will ever surpass it. And even if a movie does, it won't mean nearly as much because of the higher price of movie tickets these days. Most have access to downloading movies illegally, and those who take advantage of this are obviously not paying to see said movie. Whie I enjoy the experience of sitting down in a theatre, there just seems to be so much more holding movies back from beating "Titanic" in how much money it makes.

[NumberEight]

Apparently the film was in theaters in the U.S. for almost ten months, which helped its gross.

[sick_muse]

Apparently the film was in theaters in the U.S. for almost ten months, which helped its gross.

That would *certainly* help rake the money in. Anyone who loved the movie could go in and see more times than I'd like to imagine. o_O Which is possible even with movies out these days, but ten months? Sheesh. That's amazing.

[snapegirl]

I found an interesting Wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tes_and_Canada

From the Wiki page:

The adjustment for inflation better reflects the importance of older films, as lists compiled without adjustment for inflation will consist almost entirely of films released in the last 20 years. Some of the films on this list have had multiple releases and would not be so highly ranked based on their original release alone. At number three, The Sound of Music holds the highest position for a movie that was released only once.

So Titanic drops down to number 6 on this list, which is adjusted for inflation.

[magic_is_might]

Wow, I'm shocked to see the negative views people have about this movie O_O

I will say that I love this movie (cliche, I know ), but I'll admit that I'm a sucker for a romance plotline, even if it is corny.

I will say that I think the effects are amazing.

But there are movies out there that are given this 'legendary' status when the movie isn't all that great. Some people say that Titanic is one of them; I disagree. As an example, I personally think that The Dark Knight is one of them - don't get me wrong though, the movie was a fantastic movie, but I think it is far too overrated and many will disagree with me.. Its just a matter of opinion and what different people like and expect from a 'legendary' movie

[lcbaseball22]

I'd never seen the film until this year. Everyone always seemed shocked I hadn't and I felt like I was the ONLY one who hadn't. I think the reason I never saw it is because well for one I was only 10 yrs old when it was released and my parents wouldn't let me watch PG-13 films yet...much less one with a nude scene And then after that I guess I never saw it because it's like a huge date movie and I never really had a girlfriend so....but anyways, I ended up watching it earlier this year by myself cause I curious to see what was so great about it

My personal thoughts were it was great, but not to the point that it was deserving of Best Picture. I believe I gave it a 8.5/10 at the time.

Originally Posted by AldeberanBlack

But it does have its flaws as a movie.

The love story is weak. The fictional characters are awful. The lead actors have no chemistry and don't even look right for each other. At times, Di Caprio looked more like Winslet's SON than her boyfriend. I also found it difficult to sympathise with two characters being seperated during a disaster considering that they only met four days earlier. I had more sympathy for actual families being torn apart.

I really disagree here. I thought they had great chemistry...or they sold it well at least.

It doesn't even much logical sense either. Both central characters could have survived had they simply used their minds when making decisions. Had Kate Winslet's character got onto the lifeboat, Leonardo Di Caprio's character could have survived by getting on that big piece of wood that Winslet eventually survived on.

Yeah, I agree with this.

That part felt contrived. Hell, I'm pretty sure that big door could have held both of them actually and they could have cuddled together for warmth. I dunno, I think that would have been more romantic, but maybe it's just cause I prefer happy endings Jack dying was sad

Other than that, my only issues with the film would be the length and consequently some boring bits. This movie is OVER 3 LONG!

That's ridiculous. I can only justify a movie that long for something like book to film adaptations which need that much to tell the story

I don't believe it's box office takings will ever be surpassed considering that in today's world cinema takings are only part of a movie's appeal. Blue Ray and DVD are major players now.

Yep

Originally Posted by sick_muse

I don't think any movie will ever surpass it. And even if a movie does, it won't mean nearly as much because of the higher price of movie tickets these days. Most have access to downloading movies illegally, and those who take advantage of this are obviously not paying to see said movie. Whie I enjoy the experience of sitting down in a theatre, there just seems to be so much more holding movies back from beating "Titanic" in how much money it makes.

That's a good point and something I forgot mention as a reason why I don't believe any film will surpass it. Yes, I think the downloading, torrenting, streaming, etc of movies has really hurt ticket sales and have an increasing impact every year. And in addition, like AldeberanBlack said, many nowdays just wait for the DVD releases rather than spend the money to see it theatres. I know personally I only pay to see a film in theatres if it's something I REALLY want to watch on the big screen. Otherwise, I wait for the DVD or watch it by other means. So yeah, dvd's and internet and such have a huge impact on ticket sales and they will continue to make a larger dent every year.

Originally Posted by sick_muse

That would *certainly* help rake the money in. Anyone who loved the movie could go in and see more times than I'd like to imagine. o_O Which is possible even with movies out these days, but ten months? Sheesh. That's amazing.

Yeah, it is amazing.

But they pull movies from theatres so much quicker nowdays. Except, remember that this film held #1 at the box office for 15 weeks! If I recall correctly, The Dark Knight by comparison was the #1 film for only 4 weeks...which was still pretty unheard, that is nowdays at least.

Actually, I'm curious to know what it's competition was during those 15 weeks.

Originally Posted by snapegirl

I found an interesting Wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tes_and_Canada

From the Wiki page:


So Titanic drops down to number 6 on this list, which is adjusted for inflation.

Yeah, except inflation is really quite meaningless. You can't compare films from even 10 years ago to those today, because there are so many other factors you have to take into account. Some of which I mentioned above, like the home video market and internet availability.

Sacred_Memories made a good post on the HP Box Office thread in response to Wimsey concerning inflation:

Originally Posted by Sacred_Memories

I certainly don't use adjusted for inflation, as do the vast majority of box office users, because there is simply much too little information to take into account. All they do is take the ticket prices and the amount sold to the current time. For instance, look at Jaws, that movie did $260M back in the day, and adjusted for inflation, it's at $919M. Now, if Jaws had been released today, it would have not done more than $70M. Seriously, don't be so reliant on adjustment, Wimsey, they really are pointless and lack the proper pillars in which to make firm predictions. They don't take competition, newer generation, interest value, etc into account.

The only way to fairly compare films (even this isn't completely fair due to factors Sacred_Memories mentioned) would be the number of tickets sold...NOT the amount of money made. So, lets see. According to boxofficemojo, in 1939 the avg. price of a ticket was $0.23.

And the box office total after Gone with the Wind's intitial release was $189,523,031, which when you divide by the average ticket price gives you 824,013,178 tickets sold. WOW, ok yeah that's like more than twice as much as the number of tickets Titanic sold But remember that back in 1939 the theatre was the ONLY way to watch movies Anyone find it a strange that both films are love stories though? Well, I guess "love" is probably the most popular topic in movies, music, etc. Isn't it considered the most powerful "drug"?

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

But what is the reason behind it's commercial AND critical success?

I think part of this is due to the fact that the sinking of the Titanic is a true historical event that is still somewhat shrouded in mystery. Over the years, people have managed to find information to provide answers to certain questions, but other questions will probably never be answered because the only source of information was eyewitness accounts - which varied a great deal.

For example, the technical aspects of what caused the ship to sink and how it sank was quite a controversy at the time because the cruise line had promoted the ship as "unsinkable". Most eyewitness accounts revealed that the ship broke in two as it sank, but the cruise line vehemently objected to that - they didn't like the implication that the ship's construction was "weak" - and during the subsequent hearings the surviving crew insisted that the ship went down in one piece. That was also a mystery solved by the film footage of the actual wreckage - as well as modern technology being able to recreate what happened using computer graphics, etc...

Some of these things were worked into the film. Others were discussed in the documentaries that were shown on television leading up to and during the release of the film as part of the promotion. The underwater footage of the wreckage used in the film is real and was part of these documentaries as well. My husband and I watched hours and hours of shows about the sinking of the Titanic - all of which only made me want to see the film even more.

I think that was true for a lot of people because this film version of the Titanic sinking was touted to be as historically accurate as is possible. Previous films about the event are not - due to the lack of technology as well as complying with the "official" released story of the ship sinking all in one piece and the denials of the less than stellar behavior of the crew of the ship - i.e. the third class passengers being locked in so the first class passengers could board the lifeboats first. The cruise line denied such things, but there were eyewitness accounts of them. The previous films tend to focus on the first class passengers - particularly the famous passengers. And that's all well and good - they were certainly part of this historical event - but what of the other passengers? Not everyone traveling on the Titanic was rich and/or famous after all.

That's what drew me to the film. The fictional characters of Jack and Rose allowed the audience to see the event from the perspective of high society at that time as well as the lower class stuck below decks. Rose shows us high society with all the wonder and glory as well as the the snobbery and prejudice towards the lower classes. Jack shows us the lower classes and how they dealt with such treatment. Together, Jack and Rose show the audience nearly every aspect of the ship - the cargo hold, the engine room, the lower decks, the private cabins of both first and third class, the "fancy" upper decks with the high class dining room, etc... They traverse the ship as it sinks - giving the audience a view of how everyone was affected and incorporating many of the eyewitness accounts that had previously been denied.

I think the mystery of it is what draws most people to this film. What actually did happen that night is something that will never fully be known with 100% accuracy because it is all based on eyewitness accounts of people who were panicking and in fear of losing their lives. The accounts of men dressing up like women to try and save themselves, officers locking the third class passengers in, passengers being shot in the resulting panic and chaos as people tried to get to the lifeboats to save themselves - how much is true and how much is just an embellishment? How much was covered up? What other secrets went down with the ship? We will never know for sure. A film like Titanic is the closest we can come to knowing.

I think another factor in all that is the fact that it was realized around the time this film was made that the wreckage of the Titanic will eventually be lost forever because it is slowly being eroded by the pressure of the water surrounding it as well as the conditions of the water and sea life that is now attached to the hull. Theoretically, a sunken ship could now be retrieved and brought to the surface. But not for the Titanic. Any attempt to move it now would result in the remains of the ship crumbling. It will eventually crumble where it's at. A piece of our history, gone forever and there's nothing we can do to preserve it beyond bringing a few smaller objects up from the wreckage. The wreckage itself can only be preserved on film.

Jack and Rose take us on a journey through the unknown with their fictional story superimposed over a true, historical event that remains shrouded in mystery. Their story adds a layer of interest as well - you wonder if Rose would have been able to stick to her decision and stay with Jack if the ship had not sunk. You wonder if Cal would have succeeded in killing them. You find yourself rooting for Jack and Rose and hoping they both survive even though the odds are against them - not only in surviving that night, but in being together afterward if they did survive because of the times.

Rose's decision to jump off the lifeboat is both foolish and smart. Foolish because the lifeboat was a guarantee of her survival. Smart because she knew Cal wasn't going to let Jack get off that boat alive. Staying on the lifeboat meant saying goodbye to Jack forever and indebting herself to Cal. Jack's decision not to risk flipping Rose off the door is frustrating, but understandable. It seems that there must be a way that they both could have gotten on the door, but it's understandable that he didn't want to take any further risk with her life to find out. I guess we could call that a "stupid, noble" reason.

The door presents another interesting controversy about what happened that night as well - which is also reflected in the movie with the one crewman lecturing someone for damaging "Whitestar property" in the midst of the ship sinking. This was something my father pointed out - why didn't they just rip all the doors off the hinges and use them as rafts? The Titanic was a huge ship - think of the number of lives that might have been saved that night if they had simply thought about the resources they had around them. The numerous doors, tables - there were a lot of things they could have used within the time they had to increase the odds of survival if they had simply thought it through. The ship was sinking so damaging Whitestar property really shouldn't have been an issue at that point.

The ending is bittersweet for Rose. She survives, but Jack does not. But she is presented with the opportunity to have a different kind of life because of the Titanic sinking and her brief time with Jack gave her the courage to take that opportunity. Instead of the boring life she was dreading, bound to a man she did not love, Rose is able to make a go of it alone, have adventures and find love with someone else. She lives a rich, full life - as Jack wanted her to - and meets Jack on the Titanic after she dies as an old woman. Jack's death was a tragedy, but Rose still had a happy ending with him in the end.

I don't think we can pin it down to any one reason for the films critical and commercial success. Some like the story of Jack and Rose - some like how that story was used to present a more well rounded picture of the true, historical event of the Titanic sinking. Others look at the technical aspects and how well the special effects were done. I think the answer would have to be that it all went into making the film a critical and commercial success.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

I agree completely. For those who do not know what we are talking about, read this. This should tell you all you need to know about this film created by shameless filmmakers (shameless until they decided to apologize).

Yeah. That was all very shabby on Cameron's part.

For that alone, he shouldn't have got any Oscars.

I can't deny that I find the second half of the film powerful though.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Jack and Rose take us on a journey through the unknown with their fictional story superimposed over a true, historical event that remains shrouded in mystery.

That to me is the secret of this film's success.

I don't actually like the Jack/Rose love story very much. For one thing, it's utterly unrealistic: back in 1912, if a boy of Jack's class were actually to succeed in wooing a posh young lady like Rose, it would hardly have been on the decks of the Titanic. The movie romance is not plausible given the strict social conventions and hierarchies of the time ... the world changed a lot after WW1, of course.

Secondly, the chemistry between Winslet and di Caprio is ... meh.

However, I understand the popular appeal of the film romance to other people. And Winslet is very charismatic and watchable. It's her performance that pretty much saves the movie for me.

That, and the second half of the film, which is genuinely powerful. But I was more moved by random characters on board the ship being separated and dying, than by Jack and Rose.

I went to the Titanic exhibition in London in 2003. It was simply astounding to see a large section of the ship's hull ... I couldn't believe I was actually looking at a part of the Titanic. It was amazing and very, very eerie. They also had the ship's bell ... and so many artefacts retrieved from the ship, astonishing things like vials of perfume and music sheets and dinner plates ... capturing a lost world.

Oh, and most people didn't die by drowning. They had lifebelts. What killed them was the unbelievable cold of the North Atlantic. The cold killed them in less than half an hour of being in the water.

It's nearly 100 years since the disaster and I imagine there will be big things planned in Belfast (where the ship was born!) for 2012.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

That to me is the secret of this film's success.

I don't actually like the Jack/Rose love story very much. For one thing, it's utterly unrealistic: back in 1912, if a boy of Jack's class were actually to succeed in wooing a posh young lady like Rose, it would hardly have been on the decks of the Titanic. The movie romance is not plausible given the strict social conventions and hierarchies of the time ... the world changed a lot after WW1, of course.

Secondly, the chemistry between Winslet and di Caprio is ... meh.

However, I understand the popular appeal of the film romance to other people. And Winslet is very charismatic and watchable. It's her performance that pretty much saves the movie for me.

That, and the second half of the film, which is genuinely powerful. But I was more moved by random characters on board the ship being separated and dying, than by Jack and Rose.

For me, Jack and Rose were the means to have a chance to get a view of those other people - whom I see as representative of the real people rather than characters in a story. Jack and Rose are fictional characters - and I did like their story for the most part - but it was the presentation of a very real tragedy that moved me the most. The film allowed me to put myself in that situation and imagine what that would have been like for the people who actually were there and it was heartbreaking and terrifying all at once.

Still, I was moved by the fictional story as well. I think - given the times - it would be more likely for two people from different social hierarchies to interact on a ship than it would have been for them to meet by chance in their normal lives. Not an entirely plausible scenario in either case, but slightly more plausible on the confines of a ship where Jack could do something like steal a wealthy man's coat and sneak on to the first class deck. And Rose being unhappy with her lot in life adds to that - she was looking for any opportunity to escape her fate so she was more open to interacting with Jack than she might have been under normal circumstances. The idea of a "shipboard romance" is one that is plausible because people will often do things in that type of situation that they wouldn't even consider under normal circumstances. Of course, I'm also a rather soppy romantic at heart so the fact that it wasn't entirely plausible didn't bother me. I liked the possibility of it and what better place to have a forbidden romance than on a cruise ship?

That was something that drew me into the story as well - the odds of Jack and Rose actually having any kind of relationship other than a shipboard romance in those times were slim to none. Without the tragedy of the Titanic sinking, it was very unlikely that they would have ended up together. I found myself rooting for them and hoping they would even while the logical part of my mind kept saying it wasn't possible and Rose would most likely end up having to marry Cal anyway - and that was knowing that the ship was going to sink in the end. Still, in that sense, the ending for Rose after the ship had sunk was really the closest she could come to a happy ending in those times - becoming Rose Dawson was her only chance to have the kind of life she had dreamed of. It was bittersweet, but still a happy ending for Rose overall.

I went to the Titanic exhibition in London in 2003. It was simply astounding to see a large section of the ship's hull ... I couldn't believe I was actually looking at a part of the Titanic. It was amazing and very, very eerie. They also had the ship's bell ... and so many artefacts retrieved from the ship, astonishing things like vials of perfume and music sheets and dinner plates ... capturing a lost world.

Oh, and most people didn't die by drowning. They had lifebelts. What killed them was the unbelievable cold of the North Atlantic. The cold killed them in less than half an hour of being in the water.

It's nearly 100 years since the disaster and I imagine there will be big things planned in Belfast (where the ship was born!) for 2012.

Yeah - I can't even imagine how cold it must have been. The most difficult scene in the film for me to watch is when the lifeboats finally go back and sift through the bodies, looking for survivors. It just breaks my heart every time I watch it. That's usually where my dad pops in with his comment about the doors - of course, he's an engineer so that kind of thing sticks out to him. But it's the sheer number of bodies that prompts him to say it every time.

I hadn't even thought of how it was coming up on 100 years. I imagine there will be some kind of memorial and probably other things to commemorate the event. I'm sure there will be another round of documentaries about it.

[MasterOfDeath]

Wonderful posts, Meesha! I agree 100%. Titanic was and is a great movie. I don't know why so many suddenly decided they hated it, a few years after. I guess like most popular things, a few years later, people tend to mock what they once claimed to love. Especially when it pertains to romance. We're quite a cynical people. We may enjoy that melodramatic romance deep down, but we'd never admit it to each other and thus label it corny and cheesy or whatever. But I must say, I find this love story probably the most romantic I've ever experienced.

It was genius to create fictional characters we could all follow as we learned about the ship. The people suggesting we should have followed historical figures forget how controversial that would have been. Can you imagine how many liberties the filmmakers would have had to have made to depict their daily lives aboard the ship? Nah, it was better off to follow the captivating story of fictional characters that you could freely manipulate to engage the audience and only glimpse the real historical people here and there.

Titanic as a film, is ultimately a story about the true treasure of life not being in diamonds but in the rich experiences of someone's life, those moments and events that shape who we are and set our life on it's present course. There are few more powerful ways to illsutrate these themes than in a real-life tragedy like the Titanic. I remember James Cameron once saying that Titanic was like the epic novel that really did happen.

[AldeberanBlack]

It's nearly 100 years since the disaster and I imagine there will be big things planned in Belfast (where the ship was born!) for 2012.

I think the most logical way of marking the sinking in Belfast would be to simply build a full size replica of the ship itself. It would be a tourist goldmine.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Wonderful posts, Meesha! I agree 100%. Titanic was and is a great movie. I don't know why so many suddenly decided they hated it, a few years after. I guess like most popular things, a few years later, people tend to mock what they once claimed to love.

Can't speak for others, but I hated it a few minutes out of the cinema hall. And I was 15. It's just a mediocre story, at best, riddled with cliches and predictable dialogue. For me, that overshadowed all positive aspects the film might have had.

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by Yoana

Can't speak for others, but I hated it a few minutes out of the cinema hall. And I was 15. It's just a mediocre story, at best, riddled with cliches and predictable dialogue. For me, that overshadowed all positive aspects the film might have had.

I'm talking globally. The majority of the population seemingly loved it to keep it in theaters for a year and make it the highest grossing film of all time.

[ginger1]

But what about the music? - no, not the Celine Dion stuff with Jack and Rose on the bow of the ship - but James Horner's wonderful soundtrack. Forget the movie, just listen to "Take her to sea Mr Murdoch" - one of the most atmospheric pieces of movie music written in recent (well, fairly recent) years. It's brilliant. But then I have a bit of a "thing" about how important movie soundtracks are ...