MovieChat Forums > Titanic (1997) Discussion > My theories for the huge backlash of "Ti...

My theories for the huge backlash of "Titanic"

posted 10 days ago by Johanesse (503)
31 replies | jump to latest

As we all know, Titanic is simply remembered and labeled for being a huge phenomenon and success. But also for it`s backlash. And it seems like the majority of the users here (without my intention to attack anyone) are labeling this movie for it`s huge backlash. But regardless of that statement, I`ve wanted to mention my theories for why the backlash eventually came about.

1. The first reason for Titanic`s backlash was simply due to it`s success. Titanic`s faced a backlash because it was too successful. Even James Cameron briefly mentioned it on the Reflections on Titanic-documentary on the Blu Ray release. And while it may be a simple reason, the truth is that many popular properties faces backlash when they`re too successful.

2. The second reason was how the elements and components of Titanic`s was working against it. People were essentially seeing through the story and realizing how James Cameron used one of the great tragedies of history to tell a simplistic and conventional fairy tale romance. And frankly making the characters too archetypical, simplistic and conventional (especially Jack). And frankly, it`s been a thing that the movie has been criticized for in hindsight.

3. The third reason was also for it`s genre: That Titanic was first and foremost a romance (despite it`s action-part on the third act). Which gave the film a bad reputation and also the bad impression how the movie`s success was built on how teenage girls who were crushing on Leonardo DiCaprio. And while it was a part of the success, the truth is that it wasn`t the only part for why the movie was successful. Sure, the romance was cheesy and hackneyed. But Titanic was also badly labeled for it`s genre.

So these are my reasons for it`s backlash. What are your thoughts?

[–] Tam87 (1583) 9 days ago

And frankly making the characters too archetypical, simplistic and conventional (especially Jack). And frankly, it`s been a thing that the movie has been criticized for in hindsight

100%. That was my problem, too. Cameron's Titanic has a tv movie-esque script, like he wrote it for teenage girls. Also, the casting of Kate Winslet and Leo Di Crapio was an issue since both are mediocre actors.

I heard a rumor that the studio wanted Matthew McConaughey for Jack and Christina Applegate for Rose. Both would've been better, as McConaughy, while goofy, at least is a bit manly and relatable unlike girly man Di Crapio, while Applegate is actually a beautiful woman (and underrated actress) while Winslet is average compared to her.

They made a tv movie about the titanic the year before this came out, and the script and acting was better than Cameron's movie.

[–] Johanesse (503) 8 days ago

Also, the casting of Kate Winslet and Leo Di Crapio was an issue since both are mediocre actors.

Well, the thing is that they`re not mediocre actors, but their acting in Titanic was fairly mediocre. I know that I`ve previously defended Kate`s acting. But looking back, her acting was really lackluster, too. I know they wanted Gwyneth Paltrow and Claire Danes to Rose. And both are more attractive than Winslet, but that`s not the biggest problem. The problem is that Kate looked way too mature for Leo and looked like she was twice his age (despite being barely a year younger than him).

[–] Tam87 (1583) 8 days ago

But looking back, her acting was really lackluster, too.

There's not much an actor can do if they're given a weak script, even a great actor struggles with it.

The problem is that Kate looked way too mature for Leo

Yes too mature for him, but also not the correct type. If you look at Di Crapio's personal life, he only pumps airheads, not upper crust looking chicks like Winslet. No doubt Jack would be the same.

[–] Keelai (36078) 8 days ago

The romance worked in the movie. There were numerous talk shows and news interviews obsessing about it with women endlessly discussing how they wanted the same thing. Winslet and Decaprio chemistry was through the roof.

One of the main reasons for the movie's popularity was the romance story.

[–] Johanesse (503) 3 days ago

Yes too mature for him, but also not the correct type. If you look at Di Crapio's personal life, he only pumps airheads, not upper crust looking chicks like Winslet. No doubt Jack would be the same.

Yup, that`s true.

[–] Tam87 (1583) 3 days ago

That's also the reason why Titanic was so popular with females i.e. they saw an average looking woman (in moviestar terms) being courted by the ultimate teen pin up of the day (di crapio) and thus this made their fantasy more real in their eyes, like "wow that could be me up there on that bow with a guy who's out of my league".

It's also a strange story because rich women like Rose don't dig street sweepers like jack dawson and vice versa. They'll cheat on their rich husband with guys like him, but they won't want to commit long term to a guy that'll be hip deep in those french girls when she's at her country club.

Cameron didn't write a good love story, but he certainly knew how to write one that would get the most out of the masses. He knew what they'd like, in the same way a boy-band songwriter knows what will sound good to teenyboppers.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15089) 8 days ago

No, the backlash came from the fact that mostly women enjoyed the film and drove everyone else nuts by watching the movie many times, and listening to the soundtrack until nobody could stand the theme song anymore. That, and a lot of girls got mad when they found out Leo DiCaprio might have been a closet case after that interview with him and Kate.

(Incidentally, there has been very little criticism of the costumes, considering they were 98% accurate for the time period).

Basically, the backlash came years after the film came out (similar story to the Star Wars Prequels), basically from Titanic fatigue. People also argue that Rose and Jack could have survived on that floating door piece if they'd balanced their weight better, and then gone off to live happily ever after. Titanic nerds also found a number of inaccuracies regarding what rooms were used for different scenes, some of the ways the people behaved, and how some things were far more dramatized than they actually were when the ship sank in real life, including the concept of the ship "sucking down" people after it finally disappeared under the waves.

It's pretty much the same kind of situation as other big blockbusters of the late 90s/early 2000s: people were crazy about it at the time it came out, and the craze lasted a few years, and then, after 5 years, all anyone could do was complain about it, most notably people who didn't enjoy it when it first came out, but their voices were drowned out by fans for the first 5 years.

[–] Johanesse (503) 8 days ago

No, the backlash came from the fact that mostly women enjoyed the film and drove everyone else nuts by watching the movie many times, and listening to the soundtrack until nobody could stand the theme song anymore. That, and a lot of girls got mad when they found out Leo DiCaprio might have been a closet case after that interview with him and Kate.

(Incidentally, there has been very little criticism of the costumes, considering they were 98% accurate for the time period).

Basically, the backlash came years after the film came out (similar story to the Star Wars Prequels), basically from Titanic fatigue. People also argue that Rose and Jack could have survived on that floating door piece if they'd balanced their weight better, and then gone off to live happily ever after. Titanic nerds also found a number of inaccuracies regarding what rooms were used for different scenes, some of the ways the people behaved, and how some things were far more dramatized than they actually were when the ship sank in real life, including the concept of the ship "sucking down" people after it finally disappeared under the waves.

It's pretty much the same kind of situation as other big blockbusters of the late 90s/early 2000s: people were crazy about it at the time it came out, and the craze lasted a few years, and then, after 5 years, all anyone could do was complain about it, most notably people who didn't enjoy it when it first came out, but their voices were drowned out by fans for the first 5 years.

Alright, fair enough But Leo dismissed the rumors of being in the closet at the time. Even Kate stated that she couldn`t stand the song afterwards.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15089) 8 days ago

Yes, but people still believed the rumors after hearing that he and Kate shared a trailer on the Titanic set and didn't sleep together. By the time Leo changed any notions of his orientation, nobody cared anymore.

And yeah, "My Heart Will Go On" was played to death in the years after the movie came out.

[–] Johanesse (503) 7 days ago

Okay, fair enough.

[–] ewd76 (1564) 8 days ago

Basically, the backlash came years after the film came out (similar story to the Star Wars Prequels)

The reaction to Phantom Menace was pretty much immediate. Gay Jar-Jar from Jamaica went viral very quickly.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15089) 8 days ago

It didn't stop millions of people from re-watching the movie over and over again, inspiring costume designers everywhere, nor did the criticism stop people from buying all the franchise goodies. It also inspired an entire new generation of Star Wars fans to come about, as well as a new game franchise from BioWare involving stories about the Old Republic from thousands of years before Episode I.

[–] stevewyzard (1739) 8 days ago

It's pretty much the same kind of situation as other big blockbusters of the late 90s/early 2000s: people were crazy about it at the time it came out, and the craze lasted a few years, and then, after 5 years, all anyone could do was complain about it

You're 100% right. The same thing has happened to American Beauty.

[–] ewd76 (1564) 8 days ago

Kevin Spacey's reputation might have something to do with that.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15089) 8 days ago

I was never a fan of that film, and my family avoided it like the plague when it first came out.

[–] Johanesse (503) 3 days ago

It's pretty much the same kind of situation as other big blockbusters of the late 90s/early 2000s: people were crazy about it at the time it came out, and the craze lasted a few years, and then, after 5 years, all anyone could do was complain about it, most notably people who didn't enjoy it when it first came out, but their voices were drowned out by fans for the first 5 years.

Well, the same has happened with properties from our times: People were crazy about Frozen when it first came out and afterwards, people were beginning to turn against it. Since it was overexposed and people realized that it wasn`t that great after all (which I agree with). And how it was massively overrated.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15089) 3 days ago

The sequel wasn't any better. It's an okay story, but it really would have been better off as a direct-to-video kind of story. It basically was a side quest that was blown up into a bigger movie than it should have been. In fact, the story was very weak compared to the first one.

Good examples within the last two years would be "Barbie" and "Wicked." People went crazy over those movies for just one year, and then less than 6 months after they come out, you don't hear a peep from anyone but the most hardcore fans.

[–] Johanesse (503) 3 days ago

Fair enough, but I felt the sequel was better as a whole. Mainly because the sequel was more focused to tell a cohesive story and the subplots were just subplots. My main gripes with the first Frozen is essentially Elsa`s purpose and placement in her story. She`s the catalyst of the events and is the character with the most compelling struggle. But is ultimately reduced as a secondary character, when the plot clearly needed her to be a more active. Instead, Frozen shoehorned in a completely gratituous love triangle and scrutinized the fairy tale tropes, when the story didn`t needed that angle at all.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15089) 3 days ago

Plus, it was a far cry from the original story. The original "Snow Queen" was about Gerda rescuing her beloved Kai from the cold, selfish Snow Queen who kidnapped him. I found it particularly annoying that they downplayed the love story between Anna and Kristoff, and gave Elsa nobody. That has been a really bad choice because it's a form of toxic feminism, where they are so into the female lead not needing a man, that she ends up with nobody. "Brave" was guilty of this too. Most traditional fairy tales give a love interest to the lead, even if it's someone you didn't expect.

[–] Johanesse (503) 2 days ago

Agreed. Frozen is so removed from the original Snow Queen that it`s hardly the same adaptation. But at least the abscence of love interest was a deliberate choice in Brave. As Brenda Chapman wanted to not include a love interest from the get-go. But as for the sequel of Frozen, I found the tone of the movie way more consistent, as the first Frozen was quite dramatically uneven.

[–] moviechatterer (16293) 8 days ago

What backlash?

[–] Johanesse (503) 8 days ago

What backlash?

I don`t want to sound condescending, but there was a backlash of this movie after it`s release.

[–] Keelai (36078) 8 days ago

There was a very important reason why Cameron told the Titanic story through a romance.

The human mind won't react emotionally to a high number of deaths. For instance, if I said hundreds died on the Titanic, you'll think that's sad, but you're not going to burst out in tears right now. Ditto, the Holocaust, slavery or thousands dying in an earthquake.

A tragedy needs to be narrowed down to one or two people who you learn to care about. Then when one of them dies, there is an emotional release that wouldn't otherwise be there.

I saw Titanic in the theater twice and the audience cried about Jack. Without Jack and Rose, people cannot react on that deep emotional level. That's just the way we're wired.

Cameron knows this which is why he filmed it with a couple.

[–] AnthonySocksss (1522) 8 days ago

if a realistic film was made about the titanic it would be a horror movie.

Ultimately a film is meant to sell tickets, and Cameron understood he’d need a melodrama story at the center of it to capture the largest possible audience.

[–] Keelai (36078) 8 days ago

Titanic IS a realistic film!! Read "A Night to Remember" book which documents the event and compare it to the movie. Cameron literally recreated the event down to the smallest detail like the pen that the captain used. Also, the actual meals they ate, furniture design, church song, minister preaching on deck while ship sinking, woman witness shown sitting next to captain and Ismay (she testified at congressional hearing about their conversation), the two little girls saying goodbye to their father (dad died, 2 sisters were among the oldest survivors), the band playing on the deck as the ship is sinking, the shooting by the crew member at panicked passengers, etc were recreated and based on fact.

Rose & Jack story is fictitious, but everything else happened. Seriously, read the book which also discusses the congressional hearings, witness accounts and how people died which are recreated in the movie in tiniest detail. The French baker survived the freezing water because he drank alcohol. Near the end of the movie, you can see him drinking from a flask before the ship sinks.

This movie is an absolute masterpiece!!!

Cameron visited the Titanic which had a strong emotional impact on him. He wanted the audience to feel the emotion of what happened. I read about the need to narrow focus on 1 or 2 people for emotional reaction from an old Cameron interview.

It worked because I heard people sobbing throughout the theater when I saw it. In the interview, he repeats about the emotional impact.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Xd6M_xvQs

The focus needed to be one or two characters otherwise it's just a cold documentary. He could have used a real couple or family, but then it would become a biography. Rose and Jack represented the experiences of two different social classes on the ship, too.

Cameron knew what he was doing.

[–] PaladinNJ (21766) 8 days ago

What backlash?

[–] ewd76 (1564) 8 days ago

I watched that movie a lot when it came out. It was the last time I remember watching the whole Oscar show and I don't remember a backlash.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15089) 3 days ago

I watched it too (I was about, 12 or 13 at the time), and remember thinking how much of a crime it was that Kate Winslet didn't win Best Actress (she looked so pretty in that green and gold gown at the ceremony), though we did enjoy watching Celine Dion singing "My Heart Will Go On," and seeing all the awards the movie won (and definitely earned). I'll never forget how Celine Dion wore a gray dress with a replica necklace of the Heart of the Ocean.

I remember mom explaining to me that the Academy didn't choose Kate because she was too young. She claims that that they like older, veteran actors who had a longer career and had been in more movies.

Observations over the past 20 years tells me a different story. Kate apparently didn't play a nutty enough sociopath in the movie, and she didn't have someone powerful to kiss up to the Academy members through parties, because that later became the case for the likes of Jennifer Lawrence and Natalie Portman.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7964) 3 days ago

Funny your mom said that considering the year after this came out, Kim Bassinger won best supporting actress for her average performance in L.A Confidential. Both Gloria Stuart in this and Minnie Driver in Good Will Hunting were against her in that category They were both way better than her.

[–] johnmiller (4011) 8 days ago

To me, it's simply that "A Night to Remember" is a much better movie at a tiny fraction of the price.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7964) 3 days ago

Personally I saw it when it came out in 1997. It made me so sad I didn't want to watch it again. I much prefer to watch L.A Confidential, As Good as it gets, and Good Will Hunting which were all nominated for best picture that year.