Titanic Revisited – And Why Rose is Kind of a Bitch (in 3D!)

So my girlfriend (who, in 1997, had Leonardo DiCaprio posters covering her bedroom wall) and I went to go see Titanic in 3D over the weekend.  Did I feel slightly weird feeding money into the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time’s recent cash grab?  Sure, maybe a little.  But I didn’t really mind too much.

I haven’t seen the film from start to finish since probably a year after it came out, on a VHS tape my parents bought.  I’ve caught 10 minutes at a time here and there on TV since then, but haven’t seen the whole thing in over 10 years.  I remember when I first saw it in theaters when I was a teenager, I’d probably have given it a 7.5 out of 10.  That’s about the same score I’d give it now as well.

There are some things I do give it credit for.  For a 3 hour film, it does flow pretty well.  It goes by pretty quick.  I’ve always thought the historical detail was (and still is) very impressive.  And if you push the romance plot to the side, it proves to be a pretty good disaster movie.  I’ve always kind of thought that the romance stuff was OK for what it was (a brilliant demographic bulls eye for young girls), but it was really good in the frantic destructo-meter department.  I still felt a little emotion from all the death and destruction, it was a very sad amount of life lost.

There were technical things I noticed when I watched it as well.  I had a more keen eye to wider angles of the ship, and while it looked incredible in 1997, if you look closer you can really notice how fake the CG people walking around the boat look.  They look about on par with characters in The Sims.  Also, I don’t know if it was the 3D, or the RPX big screen we saw it on, but I noticed a lot more fuzzy edges on the green screen shots.  But still, overall, it’s an undeniable technical achievement.

The 3D conversion of the film wasn’t really anything all that special.  Some of the water splashing about looked kind of neat, but *most* of it still looked flat.  There were maybe 3 shots that were like “whoa, that sure was 3D…” moments.  Again we saw this on RPX (Regal Premium Experience) and apparently they use brighter bulbs on those screens, so the 3D didn’t appear to ruin any of the cinematography from what I noticed.  Still, not worth seeing just for the 3D.  But I assume if you wanted to see Titanic again in theaters, you’d just go regardless of what D it was.

I once again got reminded of what a douchebag Billy Zane’s character was.  He played a smirking hard-on pretty well in this.  He was on a level of rich prickish self-entitlement that was often reserved for 80’s college comedies about jocks vs. geeks.


I’ll kill all you Tri-Lambs if it’s the last thing I do!


I still hate the end of the movie when the old lady throws the diamond into the water.  What a selfish person.  I get that it was closure for her and everything, but c’mon.  That boat crew probably spent thousands of dollars to fly her onto their boat, hoping that she would help them in some way.  They’ve been searching the ocean for three years, which I assume is costing them multiple millions of dollars, hoping to get a pay off, and she just throws it away like it’s nothing.  Where’s the closure for the 80 people on the boat?  Who I might add, were also pulling artifacts out of the Titanic and preserving them for their cultural significance.  Why didn’t the old lady just sell it to them, and give the money to charity?  Or to help her own family?  She could have paid for college educations for the next 10 generations of her family.  Now no one can reap the benefits of the diamond.  As humorously quirky as it was, it still annoys the hell out of me.  It did in 1997, and it still does now.  Blarg!

God damn it, now it won’t stop bugging me.  Actually, I don’t even see how it’s closure.  The diamond essentially had no emotional connection to Jack, other than the fact she was wearing it when he drew her “like one of his French girls” (btw, Winslet boob in 3D, that’s what I’m talkin’ about! [nudges arms, winks creepily]).  When you boil down to it, the diamond is essentially a gift (albeit a *really* expensive gift) from an abusive asshole of an ex-boyfriend.  Why it would bring her closure for Jack, or her experiences on Titanic, doesn’t really make sense to me.  If anything, it’s confusing why she would even want to hold on to it at all, if it didn’t really mean anything to her.  The diamond’s connection to Jack was rather thin.  She wore it during the sketching because she wanted to write that snarky burn of a note to Billy Zane when she put it back in the safe.  She used it to insult her ex-boyfriend, and then gave it back to him because she didn’t want it.

She basically did the modern day equivalent of her boyfriend buying her a car, then meeting a new guy, banging him in it, taking some cell phone pictures of them banging in it, sending the old boyfriend those pictures, and then KEEPING the car for sentimental value of the NEW guy she’s banging.  It doesn’t make sense.  Unless she’s like a total bitch.

Did she completely forget who gave her the diamond?  Did she completely forget that the diamond represents the opulent lifestyle that she left because she hated it?  Does she 100% associate it with her romance with Jack?  Why?

The diamond shouldn’t be a symbol of her love for Jack, it should be a reminder of how “awful” her life was *before* she met Jack.

Just sell it to Bill Paxton and leave the money to your great-grandchildren.  Or to cancer research.  Or to feed the homeless.  Or to build the freaking Jack Dawson Memorial Children’s Hospital.  Don’t just throw it in the ocean so no one can benefit from it, you selfish old bitty.

And what does throwing it in the ocean even mean?  I’m sure it didn’t even land directly on the boat.  It probably fell to the left or right of it after wafting down to the ocean floor.  And then years of ocean currents will eventually make it be miles away from the Titanic.  So you’re essentially throwing the BS symbol of your ex-boyfreind’s prickish wealth (that could FEED A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY mind you) to an eventual random spot in the ocean to give you selfish closure of the crazy week you had with that cool guy who taught you how to rebel against your upbringing.

And mind you, is Jack even the love of her life?  She knew him for a great couple days (actually the last day or so was pretty emotionally scarring, I bet), and then she married some guy after that for multiple decades, and had a family with him.  Isn’t that guy the love of her life?  Or does he get second fiddle to Pretty Boy Leo?  That must have been some legendary car sex.

I hope when your granddaughter took out all those huge student loans to get through college, or when your new husband worked a 9-to-5 job that he disliked for 40 years, you were holding that meaningless diamond real tight in your pocket there, Rose.  Or for the 10th time – YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN THE FREAKING MONEY TO CHARITY IN MEMORY OF JACK.


What a selfish bitch.


Anyway, there was one thing I was really thinking about when I was watching the film again…  hypothetically, do you think Titanic would have been as huge as it was if it was originally released in 2012…?  I will say, Titanic was brilliant in its approach.  Historically accurate for the history buffs, Leo romance for the teen girls, mayhem for the teen boys, and all of the epic spectacle one could have asked for in a tent pole picture.  But what if Titanic never happened in 1997, and the same movie was getting released for the first time in the summer of this year?

I think it would be hard to argue that Titanic wasn’t driven heavily by the fact that it was just this HUGE special effects movie, a movie that had scale and detail that no one had seen before.  But since 1997, we have seen many, many cases of epic movies being released.  Lord of the Rings blows Titanic out of the park in terms of nuanced detail, and in epicness, AND in special effects.  Even the Star Wars prequels drove the hype machine further than Titanic did.  People have seen their share of hyped up, big movies in recent years, and they don’t always do so hot anymore (remember John Carter?).  And what about comic book movies, and nerd culture?  Would Titanic just get brushed aside as another Oscar-bait period piece like War Horse?

Titanic was an original screenplay, so it wouldn’t have the built-in audience of a book or comic book.  I guess I’m saying that Titanic would struggle to find an angle of unique interest like it had in 1997, because it wouldn’t be *the* epic special effects movie of the decade, it would be one of *many* epic special effects films of the decade.  Even with updated special effects, do you think Titanic would be enough for today’s audience?  Do you think that because the special effects and scale wouldn’t be blowing people’s minds anymore, the love story/plot would be looked at much more critically in 2012?

Though, I suppose it would have one hyped up line to add to the trailers…  “From the director of Avatar, the biggest movie of all time…”  Is James Cameron alone enough to sell a movie?


9 thoughts on “Titanic Revisited – And Why Rose is Kind of a Bitch (in 3D!)

  1. BobChuck says:

    I hated the fact that he wasn’t on the raft. They would have been warmer conserving body heat. AND THERE WAS ROOM. Unless it made it sink, but I dunno about that.

    Throwing the gem away?!?! wtf.

    3Dbewbs want that

  2. David H. Schleicher says:

    Wow – Rose WAS kinda a bitch. I pretty much agree with you. I think the film would be bigger than WAR HORSE if it was “new” today – but not sure it would be as big as it was…it’s hard to say…I don’t think AVATAR would’ve been as big as it was had Cameron not had the success he did with TITANIC…eh…I could get lost in the matrix thinking in this kind of circular logic. It still woulda bin HUGE (in the words of Donald Trump…HUUUUUGE.)

  3. vickie says:

    Whilst I enjoyed reading this in depth very personal review of titanic, I feel that you may have lost the way as YES titanic was a vessel that sank but the story told in the film is that of a creative mind therfore not real…

  4. Nick says:

    1.Because the director wanted to create drama.2.Because the diamond symbolized her soul,memories and most important incident in her life.Giving it to a bunch of geeks was like selling her soul.It was the only thing that kept Jack alive in her mind.Even if it was made out of plastic shed still do the same.It was something that cant be understood by others.She prefered to leave them with her story which she believed it was above any material worth.Romantic?Sure.I cant believe you are such cynic idiots all of you and still havent figured it out.

    • scottodactyl says:

      I don’t think it’s cynic to wonder why she wouldn’t just donate the money in memory of Jack, and then use the happiness of the charity she provided as a constant reminder of their love for each other. She could walk into the children’s hospital she built with the money every day and see Jack in every single kid’s face.

      I get that it was just a movie and the director was trying to create drama, but the ability to equate movies to real life is part of what makes them fun, dude.

    • Ana says:

      yeah right. It was never hers to keep or throw away so callously. I can understand why she didn’t give it away as a younger person. She was escaping her fiance and her Mother and her old high class society. But atleast in the end, she could have done the right thing and given it back to the world to some museum or charity. The picture should have been dearer to her than the diamond. But she was not gonna cherish even that. She uses it so cheaply to get back at her fiance. So neither the diamond nor the picture was about Jack. I find that final act of Rose throwing away the diamond ludicrous beyond measure.

  5. Richard says:

    I was just watching it and I agree, she’s a bitch.

    If you’ve ever seen the alternate ending you’ll hate her even more lol, she basically taunts Bill Paxton with the diamond and the fat guy calls her like a crazy bitch or something.

    I KIND of get that she’s letting go of her past, but she waited 100 years to do it? What would she have done with it if she hadn’t been flown out to a boat that happened to be floating above the boat that she almost died on.

    I just feel like Cameron let things fit together a bit too nicely, that it became almost like a Disney movie ending instead of the historic epic that he was attempting to make.

    As others have said, she could have done a lot of good by selling the diamond. Sure it would have been backed by her dickhead ex-fiancee but they say it’s worth more than the Hope Diamond, which is estimated to be worth 350 million. So say it’s worth 500 million (probably more based on it’s titanic storyline) then she could have built a couple freaking children’s hospitals with that thing.

    Or given scholarships to underprivileged children for the next 100 years. Sure money isn’t everything, but when you could do incredible things with it (a la Bill Gates’ foundation), I feel like it’s a waste no matter what she gains from throwing it into the ocean.

    I know, I know, it’s a movie – but it does feel selfish when looked at in a real life setting.

    As for if it would be as popular now? I’m not sure, I do agree with you that it would lose its whole “epic” feeling due to us becoming so used to giant films and comic book, YA novel adaptations, but it still has a very wide appeal and it’s very rewatchable, which is why it did so well in the first place.

    So my guess is it would probably do just as well. I still don’t know how it or Avatar made so much money. It seems impossible for Avatar to have made 2.78 billion and Titanic to have made $2.2 billion, when Avengers only made $1.5 billion in 2012, it just doesn’t make sense with inflation.

    If you think about the fact that Avengers got the benefit of inflation and more theaters just being available, it makes zero sense that it would do nearly half of the box office as Titanic.

    I’m not saying Avengers is a great movie, but a popular one – like Titanic, so that’s why I compare them.

    But nothing makes sense anymore, since Iron Man 3, which was fking terrible, made $1.2 billion and holds the #5 spot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s