Most people I know loved the James Cameron film: Titanic. However there are many people who totally dislike the film with outspoken criticism. If you are in sheer adoration of the film as I am, you will probably find this baffling. Why do so many people harbour such hate for a well crafted masterpiece such as the 1997 film?

Some ppl just dont like to agree with the majority. I liked it but not as far to adore it.

What about Titanic do you find mysterious though? To me it is a tomb with many secrets we will never know.

which baffles me is that they didn't see a iceberg right ahead, they got many warnings but ignored them.

whats the point in that, am baffled

True but it's just staying accurate to what happened. But in the case of seeing the ice berg, that's a different matter.

is there any evidence to suggest that the lookout staff on board were asleep on the job

Its the characters in the story (Jack and Rose) that make the story silly. The movie would have done perfectly fine had the movie not been some kind of character driven fantasy.

Movies made nowadays can't tell stories, they have to have some kind of character involvement. Had James Cameron left out the love story, much more could have been told about the ship itself and the circumstances of its sinking--detailed analysis of damage, showing that the ship was definately within regulations with regards to its lifeboat capacity.

Time could have been spent telling the story of the Californian, which was never even mentioned.

People take this pop-culture movie and think its a historical document. Take these same people and ask them about the Titanic and they'll have no knowledge beyond what the movie said. Then you get the people that think Jack and Rose were real people.

James Cameron's movie is now 8 years old. Even still, I read posts here and elsewhere about people who haven't ventured beyond this movie to find out information about this event, why? Do they think this is the only movie made about this? What about the endless stream of books? If you're really interested in this, get some books, read, learn about what really caused it to sink (the reasons were far greater than a simple iceberg).

I started reading about this ship in 1977, when I was in the 1st grade. I've read so much about this, and watched enough movies about this that I can confidently say that his movie only brushed the surface about this ship and its sinking.

That being said, I reiterate that this movie should not have been character driven.

I agree. However Cameron had a wider demographic in mind. What struck me (at the time the movie was in theatres) was that people of all ages and all backgrounds flocked to see it. Not everyone likes watching documentary style films. Ergo the fictional caracters for the younger generation were introduced. That seemed to draw a younger demographic. Older viewers were drawn by the factual parts of the movie. Cameron obviously had to balance the two aspects of the film (Fact and fiction) within the allowed feature length of 3hours and 15 minutes. It will be interesting to see the full director's version of the film just to see how many factual scenes were sacrificed in order to accomodate the fictional storyline. To my knowledge it was a hard attempt by Cameron to include these factual scenes in the theatrical release but studio executives over-rulled him.
I aggree that more factual aspects would have certainly enetrtained me. But many people have different tastes and I am also sure that many probably would have nodded off in the theatre had Cameron included too many factual scenes. Lord of the Rings (for example) is entertaining up to a point were the extended editions get rather boring when to much emphasis is made on mythology and detail (unless you are a true fan of course). One can't compare the two movies but the principle remains the same. If you include too much information, the audience will get bored. (especially after watching for 4 hours) I can't wait to see the director's cut of Titanic though. If you are a fact junkie like me you might enjoy a 4 hour rendition of Titanic laden with facts and history. Fictional finatics might fall asleep though...

see, i agree with most of what has been said. i think the people who have issues with the film are those who are looking for a real analysis and not a love story. i love all the "behind the scenes", and "the making of"...a"fact junkie", and that's where cameron's titanic fell short. as for appealing to a broader demographic, cogratulations, well done. not what all of us had in mind. as for lotr...it's funny, as much as i love the movies(not obsessed, just loyal) i was much more interested in veiwing the special features (all 4+ hours) than reliving the movie....it's the details and the creation....

The whole cult regarding Titanic has struck me as quite odd. Bob Ballard and his team discovered the wreck some 15 years ago now, and I remember reading avidly the articles and speculation about the tradegy. Its funny how there wasn't a Titanic phenomenom then; it takes a slushy film with a fictional romance to create any impact.

If "Titanic" was moving it was because of the fiction, not the fact. It was a story about doomed love on some ship that sank 87 years ago. I just thought it was rather tasteless. I thought "A night to remember" was a much more sensitive and moving film; I wasn't bothered by model shots and historical and technical accuracy. Cameron's film might have been accurate, but it didn't communicate the reality of 1500 drowned individuals.

As someone who has always been interested in the tradegy.. I find the whole cult surrounding this film very disturbing. Why wasn't there all this interest 15 years ago? It will be interesting to see what future cultural historians make of this record-grossing film... I'm certainly baffled by its success.