HAHAHA-Just kidding, Dan!! Actually, as much as I have loved this movie it is refreshing to see another POV!!! My question to Dan is this, cynisism aside, did YOU enjoy the movie? How many times have you seen it? Maybe you haven't seen it enough, heeheehee!!!!! ps LOVED your critical analysis of Rose! I guess all those years of being a "spoiled brat" would have been hard to overcome....

-- Laura (lrc@usit.net), March 02, 1998

Answers

Laura, before you get out the rope, I loved Titanic. I have seen it 8 times (I travel a lot on business and it's better than spending a long evening in a hotel room alone). While familiarity often breeds contempt, not so with this movie. But my obsession is not blind, I must temper it with cynicism to remain sane! And remember that indifference, not hate, is the opposite of love. Yes, the dialogue is cheesy and could have been much better. But two of my favorite movies are Koyaanisqatsi (NO dialogue) and 2001:A Space Odyssey (about 30 minutes of bad dialogue). Great movies do not necessarily need great dialogue. Cameron could have easily gone the other way and over-written. For example, go see Good Will Hunting (stunningly bad for such a well-reviewed movie) or any movie by written by David Mamet. As for the critique of Rose's behavior, I wrote that just as a counterpoint to the near deification of Rose I've been reading here; it was only half-serious. To me, the real history of Titanic is what moves me, not the fiction.

-- Dan Dalton (DDalton2@prodigy.net), March 05, 1998.

Dan, what was it about "Good Will Hunting" that you disliked so much? I thought it was great (of course...I can see we are going to be agreeing to disagree quite a bit, you and I). :)

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 05, 1998.

Gilded, just don't ENJOY disagreeing TOOO much. Don't think I haven't heard that opposites attract. I remember too well that episode with G.H. Is this in any way unclear? Oh, and I don't know what "overwritten" is supposed to mean. Too much dialogue? I too thought there was some excellent dialogue in GWH (i.e., Robin WIlliams monologue on how Matt Damon knew a lot but experienced little.....hmmmm, Gilded, I'm now reminded of George III). But, I thought the story of Titanic was better (sorry to compare). I forget, does screenplay mean both dialogue AND story? (GWH won screenplay as you may recall)

-- BobG (bob@dxx.yoo), August 05, 1998.

Have no worries, sweetness. My heart belongs to you!:)

Screenplay, I believe, encompasses both the story and dialogue (someone correct me if I'm wrong). With so many people (both in the business and not) agreeing that the dialogue in "Titanic" was lacking, it makes sense to me that GWH won best screenplay. I thought it was fair, too, if only that a good chunk of Cameron's story had already been written for him by history, and GWH was from scratch. But there you go again, comparing ALL movies to "Titanic"! You're going to give yorself a nosebleed! :) I thought GWH was just as good in completely different ways. We're talking MAJOR apples and oranges, there. I personally thought award distribution was the most fair it's been in years last February.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 05, 1998.

Sweetpea (I'm still Cal), agreed that history was there for Cameron. But, even though GWH was my third favorite for 1997, it wasn't without flaws, namely the beginning (that fight wasn't explained very well; wasn't he too smart to be involved?) and slow ending; and the psychiatrist approach, which although well written, seemed similar to that of the one in "Ordinary People" (one of my favs). But, for your last sentence, about award distribution, here is a big goodnight smooch!

-- BobG (bobg@titanac.nut), August 05, 1998.

I forgot about the fight scene. Yes...I was TRULY confused by that. I couldn't understand if it was just a "Southy" thing to do or if they had a long-standing grudge...it wasn't set up very well, that's for sure. But I would blame that one on editing.

The only unfair award? Kim Basinger for Best Supporting Actress. Not because I don't think she deserved it (I didn't see L.A. Confidential, but I was glad to see her break through the no-talent barrier), but I think they should have at least tied her with Gloria Stuart. Whether people agree or not about Ms. Stuart's performance, she has been in the business for a thousand years and deserved it for that reason alone. The academy should have honored her for her years of service.

Goodnight (big smooch back). I'll be there in a minute...:)

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 06, 1998.

Dear Dan Dalton, Maybe I am naive and new to this site, but.....I have been pondering this question since I got on this site...... Who are you and why do they want to lynch you (joking of course)? Do you not like the Titanic or something like that? This was not meant as being snotty in any way, I just wondered who you are?

Granny Groza

-- Granny Groza (ajgroza@4docmm.com), June 22, 1999.

Dan Dalton is one of the many contributors to this Q&A site.

He is sometimes cynical, sometimes irritating, but I usually respect his opinion. He posts anonymously (i.e. with a "foo@bar.com" email address), but he has not abused this option.

(Mini-editorial)
I believe that a plurality of opinions and voices is a good thing. Specifically, there's that wonderful place where there's a banter of conversation, a zone where the exchange of ideas is neither out of hand nor staid. In complex dynamical systems ("chaos theory"), there's a sweet spot where things are balanced, between total noise and dead silence.

Lambda point? I don't have my reference library handy at this moment, but in cellular automata things are most interesting when a CA is "alive": not seething dog barf, not a dead pattern, but constantly changing, in an interesting way.

-- Thomas M. Terashima (root@fullahead.to), June 25, 1999.