Why do people notice the mistakes in the 1997 TITANIC film?

M

Maria Plotkina

Guest
In my opinion, the film was great. Of course, there were some mistakes, but hey, James Cameron never went on the Titanic itself, did he? All my friends keep bugging me to tell them all the mistakes in the film. Doesn't anyone see the good part, even if it isn't entirely accurate?
 
This particular angle hasn't been explored that I know of. I can think of a few reasons why people notice the mistakes in the Cameron movie:

1. Some of them are jealous of the director's financial and professional success. (Which is deserved IMO - the guy works like one possessed.)

2. Some of them are adolescent males who feel insecure because their adolescent female property are ga-ga over Leo.

3. Personally, I resent paying $9 for a movie, freely suspending my disbelief, and then being suddenly jerked out of the moment by stilted, hackneyed dialogue and glaring physical errors. One moment, I'm in 1912, and the next, I'm sitting in a movie theater wondering what the next implausible plot twist will be. Especially when the director has assured me for months that no expense was spared in making the experience as authentic as humanly possible. Yeah, right.
 
I suppose I should have been more exact in my wording - the subject about mistakes in this film have been discussed alot. It has been discussed on this board what people thought about the historical inaccuracies and what was historically accurate.

No doubt, Maria, you will find lots of people have their own opinions.

- Beth
 
Have often wondered about that myself Maria but I can see where everybody is coming from!! While the film in general was great, the script left alot to be desired but I still think that the movie is fantastic, just for bringing the great ship so dramatically to life on screen
happy.gif
 
Except Sahand, there was nothing accurate about the fictional story or the fictional characters that Cameron forced me to devote my attention to when I wasted three hours of my life watching this movie. A talented writer can make fictional characters and their plight seem true to the real situation they are put through. But Cameron is a terrible writer (as his failure to get a nomination in the writing category demonstrated) and as such we were served up a cliche ridden story filled with lead characters who I found unrealistic, and unsympathetic in every sense of the word. Then, there was the matter of jettisoning far too much real history on the cutting room floor like the Californian, the Strauses and not even giving Molly Brown her comeback to Hitchens.
 
Let's take a reality break for a moment, shall we? For one thing this movie is meant to be about an ill-fated romance set aboard an ill-fated luxury liner. The story revolves around Jack and Rose--the historical characters merely hover about in the background for the sake of authenticity. Cameron's Titanic is purely fictious meaning you have to take things with a grain of salt. I didn't like the way the salvage team was portrayed--they came across as naughty little schoolboys sneaking copies of Playboy into the school bathroom. All brock cared about was the diamond--after shooting the documentary at in the submersible he said with relief, "well that takes care of that bull----." And can anyone explain why old Rose just casually tosses the diamond into the ocean after all that time and fuss? She had that stupid megabuck necklace all that time and she just threw it back into the sea as if it were costume jewelry! Why didn't she give it to her long suffering granddaughter instead--after all that nice young girl took great pains to care for the old biddy.

Oh there is a company out in Utah somewhere which also does some censoring of Titanic--for viewers who are squeamish about nudity, they chop out all of Kate Winslet's nude moments.
 
Hey,
Eric, he wanted people to actually watch the movie. He probably wouldnt make a huge success if he wrote a story about actual people on the Titanic and every exact thing they said. A lot of the people who crammed the theaters were young teen girls not historians.

Sahand
 
The idea that people don't want to see a movie about real history and the real people with no embellishments like a silly romance was disproved with a movie called "Apollo 13" last time I checked.

But nonetheless, even if the fictional story route had to be done, the bottom line for me and many others is that this is a *bad* fictional story, badly written, untrue to the time it takes place in, and ultimately by default exploitative and demeaning of the Titanic story and tragedy.
 
I wonder if those folks in Utah would excise ALL of the Romeo & Juliet footage? And put back the cut scenes while they're at it (most of them are on the Titanic Explorer CD set)!
 
While I don't hate Cameron's Titanic,I still have to agree with a lot of points that Eric states.I think that Rose is a spoiled brat who is self-centered and that Jack is such a loser that he could not even find a job to support himself.I think that this movie would have been better if at least a little more historical fact could have included in the film.Such as to show the heroics of the Carpathia's captain who was Captain Arthur Rostron.But Noooooo!!!!!!!!.We get a little to much of Jack and Rose shoved down our throats. Sincerely,Jerry Nuovo
 
I think it must have been hard to make a movie that would appeal to all walks of life.
The bottom line, without having to sacrifice artistic integrity, is to make a profit off of a 200 million dollar effort.
Whether you are a historian, new-comer, teen-age girl, middle-income or thirtysomething, the movie had something for everyone.
I love the movie, for the ship mind you, for the ship!
-Don
 
I too like the movie,for the great ship Titanic,not for the silly,sappy Jack and Rose love story.And I still think that a portrayal of Captain Rostron of the Carpathia,which this movie sorely lacks,would have made this a better movie.That and minus the unfair depiction of 1st Officer Murdoch who is depicted as being a trigger happy goon. Sincerely,Jerry Nuovo
 
What gives me a laugh about this incredibly stupid movie is that Rose existed in the class which had the most power to "empower" themselves in 1912 (witness the various job resumes amongst the first class women in real life) and willingly stepped down into the class in which realistically, given her survival skills, she would have a miserable existence. Her options: sweatshop (providing she could sew or operate machinery) domestic service (if she had any domestic talents) housewife or criminal. In any of those categories punishment was swift for a woman who had Rose's proclivity to "mouth off." Would Rose have preferred getting her arm broken at an ILGWU rally broken up by thugs to her former life? Would she have been suitable for the 10 hour workday with 15 minute lunch break six days a week life of a shopgirl? Could she haved started, no less cooked on, a wood or coal stove? Since she could not have afforded a doctor would she have known how to deal with something potentially fatal (in 1912) like a scald, or milk poisoning? She did not have the "life experience" which made it possible for women like Rosa Abbott, Margaret Devaney and Mary Davis get on in the world, and in that era it counted for a lot. The "talking chimp" level approach to Social Class Cameron took is puzzling given his fidelty to detail in actually re-creating the ship itself. To me the whole effort seemed like a beautifully wrapped box of.....feces.
 

Similar threads

N
Why do people dislike the 1997 Titanic movie?
25 26
Replies
387
Views
54K
Arun Vajpey
Arun Vajpey
S
Titanic 1997 mistakes
7 8
Replies
112
Views
24K
Cam Houseman
Cam Houseman
A
Titanic Cast 1997 Film
2
Replies
19
Views
4K
John Clifford
John Clifford
Logan Horning
Did any of the survivors watch the 1997 film?
Replies
13
Views
6K
Joshua Garrigan
J
M
Movie Mistakes
4 5
Replies
66
Views
8K
Roy Kristiansen
R
Back
Top