this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
273 points (89.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26959 readers
833 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I'll go first. Mine is that I can't stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree. It's like being continually reminded that I am in a movie. I swear the success of that movie has directly lead to every blockbuster having to have a joke every 30 seconds

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Titanic is not a good movie.

[–] captain_aggravated 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Analyzing...

The movie is set almost entirely aboard the Titanic, barring a brief couple scenes in port, and the framing device set on a research boat in the present day.

The Titanic is realized in excellent detail. The sets, costumes, special effects are all exceptionally well done.

Most of the runtime of the film is dedicated to a teenage love story between Kate Winslet's Rose and Leonardo DeCaprio's Jack. Honestly I think it holds up. It drags a bit here and there (spitting lessons?!) but if Romeo and Juliet is a great love story, Titanic is fantastic.

The sinking sequence holds up amazingly well. The set pieces are of extremely high quality and bring the disaster to life in ways only James "puckered asshole" Cameron can. Life-size sets that actually flooded and tilted, miniatures, and a restrained use of CGI come together beautifully.

The choice to set this fictional love story into this historic disaster setting is perhaps somewhat dubious.

The soundtrack, especially Celine Dion's utter caterwaul of the title theme can be a bit much, and was severely overplayed in the years following the movie's release.

The giant blue diamond was a pointless macguffin that failed to pay off. It was given(?) to her by her fiance that she hates, she decided to have her portrait drawn in the nude wearing the diamond for some reason, retrieving the diamond from the coat the fiance had put on her was the reason why the psychotic guy was shooting at them, she only realized she had it when aboard the rescue ship, and then she throws it overboard at the end...for some reason. Audiences reacted pretty poorly to the thing, didn't stop them from merchandising it.

Overall a pretty well-crafted movie with some questionable choices, made by a canker sore of a person.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I actually really disagree about the whole diamond thing..

In addition to it being the primary plot device to get rose to actually tell her story, it plays a pivotal role in the story aboard the ship & is a key element in one of the main themes of the movie (money doesnt buy happiness).

Regarding the 1st part (wearing it for the drawing).. the drawing was intended to be malicious.. effectively a way to tell cal “we’re over”.. hence the note that accompanied it saying “darling, now you can keep both locked in your safe”. It was effectively a vulgar display to cal showing that she cant be “bought” (essentially what her arranged marriage was.. selling her as effectively a slave so that her mother would remain wealthy).

Regarding the shooting scene, id argue it wasnt about the diamond at all, but about what happened just moments before… jack and cal were both trying to get rose on the lifeboat. It was super macho aggressive where they were both kind-of attempting to one-up eachother to win her affection (hence cal removing jack’s blanket and giving her the coat). This is also when cal gave his “i always win, one way or another” remark. Rose jumps back onto the ship and right into jacks arms (passionately kissing in front of cal). Enraged by this, cal chases them with the gun.. id argue, this is cal’s last ditch attempt of “winning” (attempting to force them apart through murder). I think the comment about the diamond was just more of an afterthought once the adrenaline wore off.

Regarding throwing it overboard, what was she supposed to do? Give it generously to bill paxton? Rose’s entire presence on the modern ship & all of her actions are purely malicious. Bill paxton getting the diamond is literally the worst case scenario.

Think of how rose got involved.. Bill paxton was showing off the drawing on tv to essentially say “see, we arent grave robbing, we are simply preserving history”. Rose saw right through that though due to her knowledge of where the drawing was (in the safe). Her phone call to bill paxton saying “have you found the heart of the ocean?” Wasnt a sincere question, but more of a “i know exactly what youre doing” threat. She is there to stop them, not reward them.. her excessive luggage & wasting a whole day of their time to ramble about old grandma stories prove that. (on a ship like that, schedule is everything and wasting a day to listen to old grandma stories is most certainly a worst case scenario that will cost them millions).

Sure in theory, she could sell it, but doing so would create 3 issues..

1- the sale of such a priceless artifact would garner tons of attention. Everyone with even the slightest potential stake in it would likely come after her with an armies of lawyers (think insurance companies, cal’s heirs, the UK government/royal family, bill paxton’s company, etc).. Sure, enough time has passed that different statutes would limit their effectiveness in achieving success, but she (and her family) would be put in a precarious position of spending years entangled in legal battles while simultaneously being both “rich” and “not rich” (cant exactly buy a lawyer with a diamond that may or may not be yours after the fierce legal battles)… its really being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

2- it would go deeply against her moral compass. Her entire life story was essentially being enslaved by wealth & escaping/ living an amazing life it by essentially faking her death to become poor.

3- The diamond is really the only tangible item associated with her past life, jack’s entire existence, and an event that played such a pivotal role in completely changing every aspect of her life. likely not a single day goes by where titanic isnt in her mind… Considering this, id argue the sentimental value of such an item likely holds more value to her than all the money in the world.

Personally, I always saw her throwing such an item in the ocean being similar to putting a cherished possession in the casket of a deceased loved one.. frankly, i think it is the single most profound scene in the movie. Ive watched the movie literally hundreds of times & that scene is without fail when i start crying. The solitude nature of the act coupled with the look of relief on rose’s face just get to me. Its like shes been holding her breath for the last 84 years & that moment was the first time she was able to finally breathe.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I thought the whole point was to voice an unpopular opinion.

I find no value in that movie, whatsoever, regardless what the critics and public may say otherwise.

[–] captain_aggravated 7 points 11 months ago

I thought the whole point was to talk about movies, with voicing unpopular opinions as a pretense/ice breaker.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

No, it's not. It really sucks. But we all had to watch it back then. It was the rules.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

You know how it ends before it begins. Same with Passion of the Christ. Boooooooring.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Titanic would have been a better movie if they had cast someone other than Leo DiCaprio.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

I don't like the guy that much either, for whatever that may mather.