Why did they kill off Jack the way they did


Thomas Kelly

Member
Jan 13, 2005
51
3
86
I find it puzzling that they came up with such a weak death for DiCaprio's character myself. Were they worried that they would drive away all the Leo fans or something?
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
161
Well, let me ask you: In which way do you think he should have been killed off?

As for weak, it could be argued that it was appropriate: He stayed in the freezing water, knowing that he was going to die, while Rose lay safely on the floating debris. Of all the adventures he'd been through, of all the things he'd done and places to which he'd been, he winds up giving his life for the girl he loved - while Cal got away. That says something! ;)
 

Thomas Kelly

Member
Jan 13, 2005
51
3
86
I don't know, I think they should have had him get sucked down when the stern goes under. They actually showed that but then he just reappeared a few seconds later. It looked like they were going to have him sucked down but changed their minds and the result was the door scene. But that's just me.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,045
318
353
The death of Jack was one of the funniest scenes in Cameron's chick flick. I know that there's a cinema convention that there is always enough light for the viewers to see what is happening, but Cameron went overboard. In years to come, the passage, along with many others, will be regarded as low points in cinema history.
 
Jun 18, 2007
393
7
113
47
"The death of Jack was one of the funniest scenes in Cameron's chick flick"

Maybe this all depends on how much you liked the character in the first place, because I've noticed that those who hated Jack in the first place were the ones most likely to find his death funny. Myself included, but also some others I've spoken with who did like the movie for the most part, but didn't like the character.
 

Susan Alby

Member
Oct 22, 2004
188
1
111
Yeah, that was a real knee slapper! I also got a kick out of watching all the other people freezing to death in the North Atlantic...

It's a movie, so I don't see why it matters HOW Jack was killed. In my opinion, Rose should have been the one to die because she was the one who recklessly gave up her seat on the lifeboat. Jack had to give up his life to save hers.
 
Dec 31, 2003
274
5
183
Hampstead, London
As a poet once said (tonight) - and it makes me think of 'Rose' returning 'Heart of the Ocean' to the sea:

"My love may know a long renewal / disguised as death. Because, / it - more than diamond - is jewel /
forever what it was."
 
Jun 18, 2007
393
7
113
47
"Yeah, that was a real knee slapper! I also got a kick out of watching all the other people freezing to death in the North Atlantic"

Sorry, but I only feel grief for real people and well-rounded characters. The death of a character that was shallowly written does nothing for me.
 
Mar 28, 2002
1,015
12
221
Not a bad idea, Dave. Then maybe we could have been spared Jack altogether.

Maybe he could have fallen into the dock between the gangplank and the third class entrance. Or that bloke he nearly knocked flying in his enthusiasm to get to his bunk could have turned round and floored him. Now, that would be worth watching.
 

Susan Alby

Member
Oct 22, 2004
188
1
111
Thanks, Donald. Who is the author of this poem?

>>"My love may know a long renewal / disguised as death. Because, / it - more than diamond - is jewel / forever what it was."<<

As the story is told from Rose's memory, we are supposed to be feeling HER emotions as she remembers her final moments with Jack. The only reason she kept the "Heart of the Ocean" was because it reminded her of Jack. She knew she would never experience another love like theirs, so the jewel was the only tangible reminder she had of him and their time together. It must of held no other value to her, or she would have sold it or given it back to Cal.
 
Mar 28, 2002
1,015
12
221
I would have thought that necklace was something she wanted to get rid of at the first opportunity. It was almost the death of the pair of them.

It was a token of love from Cal (his opinion) but like a noose around her neck (notice how her hand goes to her throat as if she's feeling his hands tightening around it when Cal puts it on her). The history of it should have been a warning for anyone who was thinking of wearing it. It was a symbol of wealth and status that got it's original owner his head chopped off.

The necklace got Jack put into handcuffs and almost led to him and Rose being drowned. It brought them nothing but bad luck. As soon as I reached New York I would have sold it to Tiffany's and gone on my merry way.
 

Mary Hamric

Member
Apr 10, 2001
138
4
171
Yeah, but if you wanted your family to think you were dead (as Rose did)...selling a jewel of that stature would be a big advertisement to the world that you were alive.

Not to mention it was a nice jab at Cal to keep it.
happy.gif
 
Dec 31, 2003
274
5
183
Hampstead, London
Hello, Susan. From your comments just following the verse, I would judge that you have what Lord Grey of Fallodon - referring in 1920 to Opal Whiteley - called "an understanding heart." The author of the poem was 'Donald Avery'.
 
R

Rachel Walker

Guest
As much as I hate it, Jack had to die. The ending would have been crap if he didn't.
 

Thomas Kelly

Member
Jan 13, 2005
51
3
86
"The ending would have been crap if he didn't."


I thought the ending was crap as it was. I thought having an everyone-happy-in-the-end ending was very out of place in a movie like this. Plus it made Rose's life after the Titanic absolutely pointless. But that's just my opinion.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
161
The thing about the competition between Cal and Jack is that, even though Jack died, he won. You see, Cal lost everything dear to him - Rose and 'la coeur de la mer'. Rose was freed from her oppression, which was Jack's objective, so even though Cal survived and Jack perished, it's ironic (not to mention expected) that Jack would come out the victor.


>>As much as I hate it, Jack had to die. The ending would have been crap if he didn't.<<

Jack had to die for the story to make sense. That's the only way that Rose could gain her freedom and independence. Had Jack survived, she would have been freed from Cal, but chances are likely that she would have been dependent on Jack. The only way she could have gained her independence is for her to be forced away from both men. Remember: The story revolves around Rose, not Jack or Cal, so the outcome had to pertain to her development.


>>The necklace got Jack put into handcuffs and almost led to him and Rose being drowned. It brought them nothing but bad luck. As soon as I reached New York I would have sold it to Tiffany's and gone on my merry way.<<

Something that rare and valuable?? Not at Tiffany's. Do you honestly think that even Tiffany's would, or could, pay out the worth of that diamond? It's doubtful. I would have held on to it. You realize how much that would have been worth in ten twenty or thirty years?

However, older Rose dropped it in the ocean, confirming that the monetary wealth of the diamond wasn't really important to her. The act of her dropping the overweight bauble had two significant meanings: (1) It reflected her final, conscious disconnection from Cal and everything he represented, and (2) It was a symbolic gesture of her giving her heart to Jack after all those years. A fairy tale it is, but...
 

Susan Alby

Member
Oct 22, 2004
188
1
111
Donald- I wear my emotions on my sleeve proudly
happy.gif
and what some would call a "sap"!

Mark- I agree with everything you said about Jack Rose, except the last part...

Rose "disconnected" herself from Cal many years earlier on the Titanic when she meet Jack. The necklace was more a reminder of Jack because of the drawing he did of her wearing it. She kept it for it's sentimental value because of Jack, why else would she want to keep it, as a form "insurance"? She kept it a secret like she did her love affair with Jack, no one knew about either.

About Cal's "gift" to Rose, wouldn't he have tried to get it back from her after he recognized her in the public eye?

Susan
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
161
That reminds me: The significance of Rose's pictures. If she had been involved in the uppercrest, aristocratic lifestyle, she no doubt would have had her photo taken plenty of times, even before Titanic. If Lovett was the researcher that he claimed to be, he no doubt would have had already seen her older pics. At eyeing Old Rose's pics in her cabin and noticing the similarity between Bukater and the figures in Old Rose's picture collection, he would have known it was, in fact, Rose Dewitt Bukater. Instead, he continued to 'test' her, such as with the name of the claimant:

BROCK: "Can you tell me who the name of the claimant was, Rose?"

OLD ROSE: "I Would imagine someone named 'Hockley.'"

In this context, the 'testing' to see if Rose was 'authentic' didn't make any sense.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads