Why do people dislike the 1997 Titanic movie?

Dec 29, 2006
726
5
88
Witney
Hello Mark. Yes, I think you have totally misunderstood the point(s) that I was attempting to make, which were 1) This thread asks why do people dislike the film, not why do they like it and 2) In reality, most critics do not, in fact, dislike Cameron's Titanic - it is more a case that they find certain parts of it mildly irritating, which is not the same as disliking it in its entirety.
 
Oct 17, 2006
23
0
71
I think in most respects its due to some of the limitations of the script and the inclusion of elements that would appeal to a broader audience but allienate some of the purists. The first half of the movie is certainly more difficult to sit through as we witness Rose contemplating suicide from the stern, to injokes about old Rose talking about it with the crew (when one quips she only had to wait two days - she was aboard the Titanic), to Jack and friend making dog whistles while climbing up on the prow on the bow section, to the dreaded spitting scene and 'hawking it back in the throat' along the promenade. If anything Rose and Jack (Jack in particular) act like they were on board a liner in 1997 not in 1912. We even have them running all over the ship and down in the boilerroom. It really defies belief and makes you sort of cringe but they include these things because its a romantic take on the story of the Titanic while also including some of the real events and passengers. Its a pity we didnt have the realism of the script from A Night To Remember coupled with the breathtaking recreations in the 1997 movie. Now that would have been something!
 
S

SmileyGirl

Guest
I loved the film for bringing Titanic to life in colour and with such accuracy. I found it truly terrifying at the end. I did enjoy the fictional romance. If it hadn’t been put in, it would have just been a remake of ANTR. What I didn’t like was the film’s portrayal of Lightoller and Murdoch. ANTR remains my favourite film on the subject as I suppose it is more of a documentary but I never felt the terror and emotional upset that I felt watching Titanic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rancor

Arun Vajpey

Member
Apr 21, 2009
964
179
113
63
My dislike of the film, like many other Titanic enthusiasts, is to some extent personal. I would have conceded that it was an OK film (and no more) if it was totally fictional. But to me, converting a real-life saga into a mushy Hollywood romance complete with a nauseating boy-meets-girl story is nothing short of sacrilege. I spent many years hoping that someone would make a new and well researched Titanic film and when Cameron's film came out, I was very disappointed.

To me, it should have been made with the same semi-documentary approach as A Night To Remember but with greater historical accuracy, a snappier script and better special effects. Cameron did fine in the special effects department but there was little else about the film that I want to remember.

I have never believed that central characters are ALWAYS necessary for the audience to get involved in a film. True, central characterisation would be important in certain films - you cannot make Gone with the Wind without concentrating on Rhett Butler & Scarlett O'Hara - but this is not the case with all themes, certainly not the Titanic. I am not suggesting that the script should have been completely detached like a documentary; there were plenty of people on board whose characters could have been given a bit more onus than others - Smith, Murdoch, Andrews, Ismay, Joughin, Beesley, Molly Brown, the Goodwins and so on. Instead, Cameron's film is packed with nonsense about a necklace, romance, cliches and even a few unintentional laughs.