• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Maybe I’m in a minority, but I thought Titanic was a bunch of melodramatic crap when there were more interesting true stories that the movie could have been about.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I guess I’m one of those people who would rather watch a low-budget movie with a good story than a big-budget movie with a lot of spectacle but a bad story. But I do understand people going to see a movie just for the spectacle. I’ve done it before. I just usually regret it.

        • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think it is a kind of spectacle that just doesn’t exist anymore. For example, going to a Marvel movie for the effects is sort of like watching a video game. When everything is pure CGI, it loses the appeal (for me).

          But Titanic was right at the cusp of that. There is CGI, but there’s also bigatures and miniature work and practical effects, etc etc etc. In many ways it is James Cameron at his peak.

          But totally agree that the plot is pretty corny and it could have been much better as a more historically-focused film which didn’t spend most of the time on a relatively generic love story.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            The last movie I went to purely for the spectacle was Dunkirk and I was pleasantly surprised that it was an enjoyable film as well, so I guess sometimes it’s worth it even in more recent times.

            • Juvyn00b@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Christopher Nolan is one of the few that can nail big spectacle as well as story telling.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I guess I’m one of those people who would rather watch a low-budget movie with a good story than a big-budget movie with a lot of spectacle but a bad story.

          Might I make a suggestion?

          The Man From Earth

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Thank you, I have seen it and I really love it! I hear there is a sequel, which seems needless so I never watched it. But I’ve seen that one twice.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I watched the sequel. It wasn’t as special as the first one, had probably twice the sets as the first one. (:O) Worth a watch, I’d say.

              It was available for free for a while some years ago, iirc. Don’t know about now though.

              First one great, second one still good, although it’s been a while since I saw it.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Good to hear it doesn’t suck, but eh. I don’t need to know any more of his story.

                I’d like to see the movie done as a play.

                • Dasus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I’d like to see the movie done as a play.

                  Ooooh, I’ve never thought about that. Yes, that would be great. Who would you cast? I just started thinking of British actors and the first ones to pop into my mind, Ian McKellen — but he’s obviously too old to play John Oldman (but perhaps the skeptic Doctor?) — and Tom Hiddleston. On second thought, I don’t know if David Tennant could be good as well. He’s definitely played a young-ish looking ageless man before… He’s better in roles that require high energy, whereas Hiddleston has a sort of cool about him that might be fitting.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    I wouldn’t care about big names unless it was remade as a movie. Honestly, I’d be happy to see it done by the local repertory theater company. Unless the play was filmed while it was on Broadway or at the Old Vic or whatever, I probably wouldn’t see it with someone like Tom Hiddleston. I think David Tennant might be just about the right though. John was played by David Lee Smith, who was 44 at the time. Tennant is 53, but looks younger. Basically the guy needs to look old enough to be an established professor but young enough to still be attractive to grad students.

                    Incidentally, it was written by Jerome Bixby, who also wrote four TOS Star Trek episodes, including the famous mirror universe episode. That was the initial draw to me. That and John Billingsley from Star Trek: Enterprise. What can I say, I’m a sucker for Trekkie bait.

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s reached Rocky Horror Picture Show in my household.

      It’s silly. You quote lines. You laugh at motives if you think about it.