Worst scene from a Titanic film ever

  • Thread starter Hugo Rupert Talbot-Carey
  • Start date

May 27, 2007
Scarlett was a bit of a shrew with her sister but she did stay with Melanie in Atlanta to help her have her baby and to get back to Tara to find her Mother, whom she idealized dead just about broke her right then and there. Then she had to deal with the fact that it broke her father and that her sisters although ill with peevish creatures whom even Mammy who raised them up from infant hood and loved them for if nothing else that they were Miss Ellen's babies, wanted to take a switch to 'em. As for Wade and Ella the reason they weren't in the movie was because of time constraints! The Movie was over 4 hours and plus with an intermission it was felt that the audience wouldn't stay any longer.

Scarlett is light years a head of Rose, I grant you in that we have a chance to know Scarlett better in that in the book and Movie we meet her at 16 and leave her at 26. While we know Rose as a 17 year old and a 105 year old!

I don't think Rose would of fell for Jack if he hadn't of saved her from trying to kill herself. She might of exchanged a few words with him if she even got the meet him. When he did SAVE her they became friends and it escalated from there over the next 4 days. Cal really didn't communicate with Rose as well as Jack did or he would of known what was bugging her. Jack did and was interested in why she wanted to kill herself and offered to talk with her about it and Jack also had a good idea what was the problem was once he met her family and Cal. I think Rose was right on when she noted that he saw people and had a gift for seeing what made them tick. Really what it boils down to though is that each person sees that movie in a different way and what you take away from that movie is what you take with you! While Jack and Rose do annoy me at times at other times I find my self feeling for their situations even though they are fictitious. I can see why Rose was in the situation she was in and why Jack saved her and why she was thankful and wanted to know more about him so that their friendship blossomed into love. What you have here are basically is a 20 year old male and a 17 year old female who are a couple of kids. Kids fall in love and out of love especially when they have been through what Jack and Rose have been through.

Kyle Johnstone

>> Jack and Rose are the Rhett and Scarlett of our generation.

Rhett and Scarlett are the Rhett and Scarlett of our generation.

Save the brief press coverage of whatever that period film was with Leo and Kate last year about two annoying people who have no business being together, nowhere outside of ET do I encounter any discussion of Jack and Rose, though Rhett and Scarlett are the very definition of the genre 70 years after the fact.

The "worst scene ever"...
What can be worse than Cameron's cheesey, bubblegum-esque happily-ever-after in the ever-after Grand Staircase ghost-reunion pandering to the teeny-boppers and lonely housewives ending?

--> **me barfing...** <--
May 27, 2007
I wasn't talking about Kate and Leo's reunion film but I was talking and stating the fact that the Characters Jack and Rose and the film Titanic is the GWTW of our generation. When I say generation I mean people who were born between 1970 and 1980 for the most part who identified with Rose and Jack the same way their Grandparents identified with Rhett and Scarlett.

Basically getting down to it, Rhett and Scarlett are basically people who have a 1930's mentality who are put in a historical Civil War setting while Jack and Rose who have a 1990's mentality and Issues to go along with it are put in a Gilded Age setting. It's the same formula and it worked the same way.

Jim Kalafus

Dec 3, 2000
>What can be worse than Cameron's cheesey, bubblegum-esque happily-ever-after in the ever-after Grand Staircase ghost-reunion pandering to the teeny-boppers and lonely housewives ending?

Very little can be worse, actually. Somehow the linking of Titanic to Heaven...or more likely Hell considering the moral values of our leads... was a bit feeble.

>Basically getting down to it, Rhett and Scarlett are basically people who have a 1930's mentality

You'll have to expand on this. The "1930s mentality" is a bit vague. The two mindsets most associated with 1933-35, when the book was written, were either arch-conservatism and rejection of the rather loose 1920s standards of behavior, or revolutionary anger. An odd juxtaposition...on the one hand, you had citizens on the rampage in Rhode Island in an uprising so severe that the president was contemplating turning the military on them (9/1934) while, simultaneously, on the other hand you had 'watch and ward' groups scanning prints of films pre-release to make sure that not a frame of above-the-knee inner thigh was visible in dance numbers.

Neither of these mindsets is visible in either the film or the book.

However, virtually every American who could still afford books or trips to the movies could relate to a situation in which a person who had known nothing but comfort and indulgence got blindsided by the 'collapse of a civilization' and had to survive by any means possible. Which was partially why the book resonated as strongly as it did with the buying public....although nominally about the Civil War, it was actually a parable about the Depression. Reading the original reviews of the book, which are easily found, it becomes obvious that the initial appeal of the work was NOT the rather mundane romance, but the "Scarlett as metaphor for American Society 1936" angle, aka the fight to survive theme. Initial reviews by female readers hit upon a secondary theme, which is that Scarlett is abandoned by virtually every person she counts on during the course of the storyline and has to get by on her own intelligence and drive. There is a segment in the 1866 portion where Scarlett realises that she is smarter than any man she has met(as she does Frank Kennedy's book keeping) and that except for fathering children ("And why would I want that?") she'd be better off without them. Just a few lines but, from my perusal of reviews and letters about the book in its initial press run, just about every woman who read the book zeroed in on them.

GWTW explored a theme everyone in 1936-1939 America could relate to first hand. And had a secondary theme which touched on a creeping sense of disatisfaction that a large number of its female readers (and, later, viewers) understood very well.

It was a film about a situation that paralleled what was going on in USA 1930-1940. But very little of the turmoil or arch conservatism of those times were espoused by its central characters. In fact, Rhett even gets to say "Damn," which was far from typical post code.

Titanic didn't do the same for its generation. It's social commentary was of a talking chimp level since...taa daaahh.... Rose was a spoiled brat moving in the one strata of 1912 society where a woman COULD hope to advance, stepping down into the strata of society in which a "Woman of Opinion" would stand a great chance of getting her teeth knocked out by either her husband or another woman of strong opinion, factory workers and market wives settling their differences in a less than demure manner.

It was stupid. It had no theme. It DID have a fairly awful animated sunset to rival GWTW's perpetually orange skies, so there is a minor thematic link.

And, as Kyle pointed out, it had a classically inane ending.

Kyle Johnstone

Oh George, I knew exactly what you were talking about... and understand the points you were making, and still feel that J&R pale greatly in comparison to R&S, regardless of dates and eras and settings.
May 27, 2007

Oh George,still feel that J&R pale greatly in comparison to R&S, regardless of dates and eras and settings.
Well to each their own. Rose and Jack may not be as well developed or as richly imagined as Scarlett and Rhett.


You'll have to expand on this. The "1930s mentality" is a bit vague.
Golly, Mr. Jim since I ain't had no fancy schooling and just have my diploma and a year of Vo Tech, I do apologise if I seem a bit vague for your tastes! But seeing how you did it so well for me Jim in your post, I feel I should leave folks with that but what I meant by 1930's mentality was that folks related to the Civil War's effect on people's live to the Great Depression but also that Scarlett and Rhett reacted to the Civil War in a way that a lot of people reacted to the Great Depression and that their Characters had a 1930 mentality instead of an 19th Century one and that's why they where at odds with their surroundings.

Actually GWTW was written between 1926 and 1937. Margaret Mitchell started it as something to do after she broke her ankle. That's basically it. Actually When she started writing the book Scarlett's name was Pansy and Melanie's name was Amelia. Tara was called Fontenay Hall too. I believe although I read all this about 10 years ago in Ms. Mitchell's Bio or 'Scarlett, Rhett and a Cast of Thousands: The Making Of GWTW' so you'll have to excuse me if my memory is a bit faulty! It shins in some places and is dim in others.

Mr Jim, when your on the War path, your worse then Sherman was on Georgia and you got your scouts and soldiers with you too. Well there's nothing here but us poor crackers and you've been here before so you'd best be moving on.​
May 27, 2007
Thinking about this I feel that we're just not going to agree and have a totally different experience and opinion of this movie and others.

Rather then be verbally flogged about my opinion on this or other things by you, Jim and taken down by inches as I've seen you do before to others as well as myself, I'd rather move on to other things and agree to disagree.

Erin Hopkins

Apr 11, 2009
Can I add the "I'm king of the world!" scene to this list? I hated it the first time I saw that scene and now cringe whenever I hear it again.

It makes me flash back to High School where that line was used waaaay too many times.

Holly Peterson

Hello everyone,

It's been a long, long time since I've posted on this forum, but upon seeing a thread called "Worst scene from a Titanic film ever," I just had to mention this one.


This, my friends, is the worst of the worst. An animated children's musical film about the Titanic. Made in Italy in I think 2001, poorly written, poorly animated, poorly dubbed. Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with "PARTY TIME."

Holly Peterson

Sorry Jason, not back.
I just thought I'd pop by and share that.

I'm on FanFiction now, and otherwise completely occupied with other intersts. But the Titanic will always be important to me.

So, this is goodbye to everyone on these threads. It was really fun.

Crystal Von

The spitting scene.
It was not lady like nor I can't image people in 1912 doing such a thing.

King of the world scene,after he said 'I'm King of the world' I cringe, at the loud fog horn voice,which leo created.
When they ship is making her final plunge and Jack and Rose are going to the stern and a man is praying and they say "Could you walk faster through that valley?" I hate that contrast between sheer drama and comic situation. I find it quite corny and the movie is full of them. Otherwise is quite a good film.

Dave Gittins

Apr 11, 2001
I certainly have. I've given some impressions on another thread. I think it's on YouTube, possibly minus subtitles.

It actually has some pretty good effects for the time, notably the flooding of the boiler rooms.

Mostly it's only good for fun. The costumes are nothing like correct for 1912 and Madeleine Astor's hat alone is a hoot.
May 3, 2005
It is available with English subtitles. But it also seems to be a mish mash of a lot sub plots.Use of other names for persons and ships seem curious. Of course it was intended to be a propaganda film and not much thought was given to historical accuracy. But the sets are impressive.
Sep 9, 2017
Surely the worst as to be the scene in James Cameron's movie depicting Murdoch as accepting bribes, shooting and killing someone, and then killing himself - a murderer and coward. In real life he was a hero who helped many people.

I just find it baffling that Cameron put so much effort into supposedly getting things factually accurate. I know there were a lot of fictional characters/events in the movie but they didn't usually clash with real people (or if they did, it was inoffensive).

For a man who obsessed so greatly about getting a clock to look like an exact replica, to then portray a real hero that way, I don't understand the logic.

Those scenes could have been given to a nameless Steward. Why use a real life man who was actually a good person?
Dec 2, 2000
Easley South Carolina
>>Why use a real life man who was actually a good person?<<

Because there were at least some assertions that Murdoch was the man who killed himself. There were also fingers pointing at some others. You may find "Shots In The Dark" a useful article to read as it'll give you an idea of the confused mishmash of claims and stories which the survivors said...or which the media claimed that they said.

Shots in the Dark

Similar threads