I am one woman who hates 'chick flicks'. Give me a good sci-fi film, or a good crime mystery and I am happy.
TITANIC being rereleased in 3D in theaters on 2012
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
What a perplexing statement.
J
Jetfire
Guest
I LUV The Notebook! 
No, chick flicks just suck ass.
No truer words ever spoken.
Where is the subtlety in Gone with the Wind?
As famous philosopher Carlos Estevez would say... in his mind.
My point is not about Titanic's marketing specifically, but the marketing of large budget films in general since the blockbuster era of the late '70s. All have to appeal to the youth market in some way, since the younger demographics go to the movies more and give more repeat business. A consequent emphasis on action, spectacle and effects and de-emphasis of plot, character and theme development has been widely remarked. Which is why I don't find much in Titanic comparable to studio A-pictures of the '30s and '40s. I think the most comparable previous genre is the '70s disaster movie, actually. But YMMV.
Archetypes bordering on stereotypes or clichés. They might as well have given the Billy Zane character a long mustache to twirl. But while I will never find much artistic merit in Titanic and would never bother to watch it again, I agree that it succeeded remarkably as the kind of movie it intended to be.
If you'll read again, you'll see that I made no claim of subtlety for Gone With the Wind, only that its dialogue and characterization were superior to Titanic's. Gone With the Wind, however, did challenge audiences' assumptions on gender roles and raise adult-sized themes in its day.
--Justin
And they said "damn."
I wouldn't say Titanic emphasizes action, spectacle, and special effects over plot and character. Certainly, there is quite a lot of spectacle and action, but only in the movie's final climax. Most of the rest of the movie was more of a slow-paced character-oriented plot.
I wouldn't say Titanic emphasizes action, spectacle, and special effects over plot and character. Certainly, there is quite a lot of spectacle and action, but only in the movie's final climax. Most of the rest of the movie was more of a slow-paced character-oriented plot.
It's rather ridiculous to compare Billy Zane's character to a mustache-twirling villain, given that for most of the film he acts exactly as a man in his place and time generally -would- act...unless the implication is that most men during that time period were mustache-twirling villains.
Most men in that time traveled around with personal hitmen whom they would send to frame or kill romantic rivals? That's certainly news to me.
--Justin
I would assume that's why he said "for most of the film".
Exactly.
Cal certainly does go a bit crazy by the end of the film, but at least until the point where he hits Rose he's not exactly atypical for his period. And even that, while certainly deplorable, isn't exactly the act of a mustache-twirler.
Hell, in a way I pity the guy. By his society's standards he's doing pretty well for himself, and he's set to marry a woman he's in love with (at least to the best of his ability). He knows things aren't quite where they're supposed to be, but isn't sure how to fix them, and she's not exactly being communicative. Then she gets infatuated with some flashy scruffy con-artist vagabond and in under three days is ready to abandon him without even showing him the courtesy of an actual conversation.
And of course, later in his life he's financially ruined and left with nothing to show for his life.
Cal certainly does go a bit crazy by the end of the film, but at least until the point where he hits Rose he's not exactly atypical for his period. And even that, while certainly deplorable, isn't exactly the act of a mustache-twirler.
Hell, in a way I pity the guy. By his society's standards he's doing pretty well for himself, and he's set to marry a woman he's in love with (at least to the best of his ability). He knows things aren't quite where they're supposed to be, but isn't sure how to fix them, and she's not exactly being communicative. Then she gets infatuated with some flashy scruffy con-artist vagabond and in under three days is ready to abandon him without even showing him the courtesy of an actual conversation.
And of course, later in his life he's financially ruined and left with nothing to show for his life.
OK, 14 years is a long time to remember details of a movie so I could be over-emphasizing the later part, but that is how the character struck me at the time. I was under the impression that the David Warner character was employed not as a valet or even a bodyguard, but to "take care of things" in extra-legal ways as necessary, not exactly the kind of servant your average businessman would have around.
--Justin
That's not the impression I got at all. I believe it's mentioned that Lovejoy has a background as a cop, and he does carry a gun (possibly illegally?), but aside from chasing Our Heroes at one point, and punching Jack in the gut before leaving him to die, he doesn't seem especially villainous either. I suppose one could argue as to whether leaving someone in a situation that you think will ultimately kill them is more or less villainous than flat-out shooting them.
I think Lovejoy was generally just Cal's manservant/bodyguard, and the acts he performs in this movie were somewhat atypical requests from his employer.
I think Lovejoy was generally just Cal's manservant/bodyguard, and the acts he performs in this movie were somewhat atypical requests from his employer.
Yep, which is one reason it's the second most-successful film in history - just after, oh yeah, Avatar...because Cameron understands movies and he understands the audience.