Well I appreciate someone having a go at least.Zen wrote: I'll take a crack off of that.
(First, TLDR; one word answer; TASTE)
Disclaimers;
I've never seen Titanic (1997) from start to finish in one sitting. Obviously, this is because I am drug free. I also have not seen the very end of the film.
Second, a little story;
I was born and raised at the ships last port of call.
One of the Centenary remembrances at the port, was an all ticket affair. On each of those tickets was printed the name of one of the passengers of the Titanic.
An attendee who took their children, told me that at the end of the night when leaving, ticket holders whose tickets held the name of a passenger allocated according to the attendees sex,
presented the ticket and were then informed (children and all) if they had perished or not.
All of which is, of course, in no way to say that there is anything wrong with making a film about the sinking.
A Night to Remember (1958) - Roy Ward Baker (from which Cameron lifted with abandon) is a favourite of mine. The "Cameronization" of it, is another thing altogether.
I think people recognise that this event is not like a generic war story, with which "artistic" licence can be taken.
The sinking is a very specific tragedy and I think some were put off by the idea of the "boy" DiCaprio, ring master Cameron, shrill sphincter mouthed Dion and James Horner,
making a three ringed circus out of it.
Now, if none of this is of the slightest concern and one is just judging the film on a check list of "what makes a good film", one can easily miss why many people would viscerally dislike the film.
So, no, ones "heart will not go on".
It went down 12,500 feet, in freezing waters, on a moonless night, 15 April 1912, to the bottom, 370 miles off Newfoundland and James Cameron can kiss my Irish arse.
So yes, Titanic quite heavily plagiarises A Night to Remember, although all things being equal neither of them holds claim over the sinking of a ship. With respect to the thematic and visual similarities, such a comparison don't a film critique make. You can still judge each by its merit or lack thereof.
"Taste" is a good argument, but not one that fits all. In this case, you need to lower your taste barometer's needle to the Commercial Hollywood rung before making judgement. Nobody is going to compare Titanic to something that's much higher brow; this is a film that falls in the same category as The Fugitive, Robin Hood Prince of Thieves and The Towering Inferno.
Regarding taste as in the movie being in 'bad taste', well yes, that's arguable. He created a romantic drama out of a real-life tradgedy. But seeing as love is in itself one of the most powerful forms of drama, heightening it with a situation of impending doom is a good, if cheap, trick. Personally I wouldn't let that cloud my judgement of the movie as entertainment, but I respect where you're coming from.
But what is it about the film as a piece of Hollywood commercial adventure storytelling that you think falls down? The two leads are well cast and give good performances. The dialogue, though manufactured around cliche scenarios, is good enough. The pacing is fine, the characterisation of its comic book heroes and villains is handled well enough, and the movie gets us invested in the fates of its cast through likeability factors. All importantly it's exciting. When the shit hits the fan Cameron and his editing and effects team engineered quite the spectacle.
Removing Celine from the equation, it's well scored and achieves the scale it sets out for: one of depicting a disaster of unbelivable proportions.
Most importantly it cooks its components into a fun ride. Nothing more, nothing less. Titanic is an entertaining movie. Me personally, I would have cut everything to do with the old bat and her harem of present day submariners, but regardless, it's still successful at what it sets out to do - and that includes the romantic element.
So on a blow by blow breakdown, taking all of this into consideration, and ignoring the 'I just don't like this type of movie' opinion - which you're entitled to - what exactly makes the film a failure as a film?
Indulge me, I'm honestly intrigued.