Some people say that James Cameron shouldn't have chosen Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio for the roles of Jack and Rose.
What do you think?
Would the movie be better / more famous / more whatever if other actors had got the roles? Or was it the best choice to take them?

(I'm only 13 and from germany, so don't be angry with me if I've made mistakes )

Good question. I think they were the perfect one. I mean Leo made a good Jack with the face and hair and all. I guess you could of chosen another girl instead of Kate, but I think only Kate could do the ending the best. No, I think the movie is good with just them two.

Interesting question. I think that both parts were very well cast.
Kate Winslett is a beautiful woman with class but also with balls... I think a lot of her went into the character. As for Leo, well, he's a fine actor, but had the added bonus of being a huge heart throb at the time,( Not that I'd say no now!!!!) which meant a lot of teenagers went to see the movie just for that... but came away with some titanic knowledge. Which has to be good.
I also think Rose's motehr was extremely good casting... that actress just has #OOPS# written all over her!!!

Es
xxx

It's a silly question to ask of the highest grossing film of all time, but I'll answer it.

Clearly, Cameron had the final call, and he saw something in every single actor he ultimately approved. I can honestly tell you, with relative certainty, this is the finest job of casting on a film that I've ever seen. Perhaps that I will ever see.

DiCaprio was known for his look, moreso than his acting, but I call to the front of the class his work on "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" Challenge met and conquered with brilliance.

The only concern with casting Kate, was her accent, which she managed to hide with her spot on American accent. The pale skin is what made her a perfect cast. If you watch the film in the lighting, even the natural lighting, you'll see what I mean.

Best cast of the film for me was Kathy Bates as Molly Brown. It doesn't get much better than that.

Would it be a different film with different actors? That doesn't even deserve a response.

If the question is that silly, why do you answer it?

This question is also silly, but I'll answer it also. I'm stupid like that.

You are asking questions about the highest grossing film in the entire history of filmmaking. Of course it would be different with different people involved.

You're asking if it would have been better... It was already the best film ever made (says the dollars)

Would it have been more famous? More famous than a film that was already the most famous of all time? It just seems silly. I apologize if I've offended anyone here. Especially you, Miss.

And I may further offend by saying perhaps I was tired of reading comments from halfwits on this forum. (not implying that of you either, just saying in general) Please accept my apologies, but I still think that at least part of the question is silly.

Hey, calm down, girl!!

Let's get on together

P.S.: You needn't always write a post that is 1000 lines long as an answer to another post that is 2 lines long..

First off, I'm not a female. Secondly, I write in detail. That's the way it goes.

Okay, sorry, I thought so because ... no matter.

Wanna talk at the Anything Else Board? I'm bored.

both of yall make me laugh. No offence, but it is so funny.