4 ms·

Here's the world's worst opinion on movie making: here's the world's worst idea for a movie: Titanic. Can anybody name even a single, solitary reason--even one

Here's the world's worst opinion on movie making: here's the world's worst idea for a movie: Titanic. Can anybody name even a single, solitary reason--even one--why the story of the Titanic could be considered anything other than a fantastic idea for a movie? The only thing I can come up with is "It's been done (successfully) too many times already", but that actually disproves the general assertion. I mean--it's up there with WWII and James Bond as far as great movie ideas go, and yet, he says "worst"? Bizarre.

jdlegg 16y ago
Show business, being primarily driven by the profit motive, tends to focus on ideas to which an audience can relate and enjoy. The story of the RMS Titanic, being one of the worst peacetime maritime disasters in history, is generally antagonistic toward these ends because most (not all) people don't like thinking about the possibility of dying on an ocean-liner and do not enjoy watching it happen to others. It should be clear how these two are in opposition. For this reason alone, conventional thinking would call a movie about the Titanic a "bad idea." The movie worked, though, and made a billion dollars because the director executed it in such a way that it actually wasn't about a sinking ship and people drowning, it was about something else. And this other thing (call it the human spirit or what-have-you), overcomes the tragedy of the situation to make it something the movie-going audience could relate to and enjoy. From a more technical perspective, the Titanic story could be considered a "bad idea" because, on the surface, the plot should hold no surprises to anyone: boat sets sail, boat hits iceberg, boat sinks, passengers are drowned. The remarkable thing about the Titanic film is that EVERYONE knows how it's going to end, even before they sit down to watch it. This, according to conventional wisdom, would be a bad idea as far as show business is concerned. Who wants to see a movie like that? Yet audiences returned to theaters multiple times. It is a credit to Cameron's direction that the film could overcome such a large, inherent obstacle in the Titanic storyline.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- mynameishere 16y ago
  The "conventional thinking" already produced numerous successful titanic movies, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. They were successful without Cameron's various flourishes, but that's aside the point anyway. EVERYONE knows how it's going to end, Just as with every movie based on any war, any book, any real-life story, any standard hero/villain setup, etc. In ancient Greek drama, almost every play was based on well-known stories. So, the audience knowing "how it's going to end" has been conventional for several thousand years, at least. one of the worst peacetime maritime disasters in history, Replace "disaster" with the word "tragedy" and I think you can see how the titanic, again, fits in perfectly with conventional, time-tested, subject matter for dramatization. Maybe I'm missing your point, but many, many, many movies are based on bad things happening to people. The worse, the better, in fact. Cameron's warping it into a chick flick has nothing to do with Adam's assertion. It's not a question of 1000 million vs. 100 million in revenues.
sroerick 16y ago
It's a romance story where everyone dies at the end. What's the target demographic? Guys? No, too much romance. Girls? No, too SFX heavy and everyone dies. Don't say James Cameron can't play to a crowd.
- orborde 16y ago
  It's a romance story where everyone dies at the end. People seem to think "Romeo and Juliet" was pretty good.
blizkreeg 16y ago
I loved the movie but I'll take a shot. Some possible reasons: 1. A story about a sinking ship could be a rather bleak, depressing watch. 2. So, the maiden voyage of a ship turned out bad because it hit an iceberg. There was no war element, nothing. Have ships sunk due to icebergs before? Sure. 3. A movie about Titanic could be a better candidate for a documentary, not a hollywood drama. I could pass. It was James Cameron's execution (including the Jack/Rose love angle, the human emotion, the SFX) that made the movie into the gigantic hit it turned out to become. The idea was alright, at best.
philwelch 16y ago
I think it's good too. Consider other tragedies: -Losing battles: Tricky to pull off. Michael Bay flubbed Pearl Harbor's execution, but being the victim of the Japanese doesn't match up to being the victim of hubris and ill-fated love. Losing a fight might work if it's Legendary Fight For Good Against Evil, like the (legendary) Alamo, but show me an Alamo movie that caught on as much as Titanic. If you want to see a battle, you want to see the good guys win. That's the instinctive human reaction to seeing people fight. -The Hindenburg. Too many swastikas--the audience will get distracted and want the damn zeppelin to burn just because it has Nazi livery. Seriously, the Hindenburg would make an even better Titanic (you have the romantic lost era of zeppelins) if it wasn't for the fucking swastikas on the tailfins.

jdlegg 16y ago

Show business, being primarily driven by the profit motive, tends to focus on ideas to which an audience can relate and enjoy. The story of the RMS Titanic, being one of the worst peacetime maritime disasters in history, is generally antagonistic toward these ends because most (not all) people don't like thinking about the possibility of dying on an ocean-liner and do not enjoy watching it happen to others. It should be clear how these two are in opposition. For this reason alone, conventional thinking would call a movie about the Titanic a "bad idea." The movie worked, though, and made a billion dollars because the director executed it in such a way that it actually wasn't about a sinking ship and people drowning, it was about something else. And this other thing (call it the human spirit or what-have-you), overcomes the tragedy of the situation to make it something the movie-going audience could relate to and enjoy. From a more technical perspective, the Titanic story could be considered a "bad idea" because, on the surface, the plot should hold no surprises to anyone: boat sets sail, boat hits iceberg, boat sinks, passengers are drowned. The remarkable thing about the Titanic film is that EVERYONE knows how it's going to end, even before they sit down to watch it. This, according to conventional wisdom, would be a bad idea as far as show business is concerned. Who wants to see a movie like that? Yet audiences returned to theaters multiple times. It is a credit to Cameron's direction that the film could overcome such a large, inherent obstacle in the Titanic storyline.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mynameishere 16y ago
The "conventional thinking" already produced numerous successful titanic movies, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. They were successful without Cameron's various flourishes, but that's aside the point anyway. EVERYONE knows how it's going to end, Just as with every movie based on any war, any book, any real-life story, any standard hero/villain setup, etc. In ancient Greek drama, almost every play was based on well-known stories. So, the audience knowing "how it's going to end" has been conventional for several thousand years, at least. one of the worst peacetime maritime disasters in history, Replace "disaster" with the word "tragedy" and I think you can see how the titanic, again, fits in perfectly with conventional, time-tested, subject matter for dramatization. Maybe I'm missing your point, but many, many, many movies are based on bad things happening to people. The worse, the better, in fact. Cameron's warping it into a chick flick has nothing to do with Adam's assertion. It's not a question of 1000 million vs. 100 million in revenues.

sroerick 16y ago

It's a romance story where everyone dies at the end. What's the target demographic? Guys? No, too much romance. Girls? No, too SFX heavy and everyone dies. Don't say James Cameron can't play to a crowd.

orborde 16y ago
It's a romance story where everyone dies at the end. People seem to think "Romeo and Juliet" was pretty good.

blizkreeg 16y ago

I loved the movie but I'll take a shot. Some possible reasons: 1. A story about a sinking ship could be a rather bleak, depressing watch. 2. So, the maiden voyage of a ship turned out bad because it hit an iceberg. There was no war element, nothing. Have ships sunk due to icebergs before? Sure. 3. A movie about Titanic could be a better candidate for a documentary, not a hollywood drama. I could pass. It was James Cameron's execution (including the Jack/Rose love angle, the human emotion, the SFX) that made the movie into the gigantic hit it turned out to become. The idea was alright, at best.

philwelch 16y ago

I think it's good too. Consider other tragedies: -Losing battles: Tricky to pull off. Michael Bay flubbed Pearl Harbor's execution, but being the victim of the Japanese doesn't match up to being the victim of hubris and ill-fated love. Losing a fight might work if it's Legendary Fight For Good Against Evil, like the (legendary) Alamo, but show me an Alamo movie that caught on as much as Titanic. If you want to see a battle, you want to see the good guys win. That's the instinctive human reaction to seeing people fight. -The Hindenburg. Too many swastikas--the audience will get distracted and want the damn zeppelin to burn just because it has Nazi livery. Seriously, the Hindenburg would make an even better Titanic (you have the romantic lost era of zeppelins) if it wasn't for the fucking swastikas on the tailfins.