"Tales of this film's agonizing gestation and tardy birth, though already the stuff of legend, will mean little to moviegoers, who will pay the same $7 or $8 to see Titanic that they spend on films made for a thousandth its cost. Ultimately, Titanic will sail or sink not on its budget but on its merits as drama and spectacle. The regretful verdict here: Dead in the water." Richard Corliss, Time Magazine

I thought it was fitting to ask this question as Tianic becomes the all time money maker. Do you think above review was accurate?. Also are Time Magazine and Warner Bros Pictures owned by Time -Warner.

-- al (hayes@bio.agc.ca.ns), March 16, 1998

Answers

Response to Critics, whoe needs them

Corliss' review was *probably* 'accurate' as a reflection of his own personal opinion.

As for films being made for $200,000 (1/1000th of $200 megaBucks), it is possible, but most 'low budget' films nowadays are in the low seven-figure range. In any case, drama and spectacle are evident in _Titanic_.

-- Thomas M. Terashima (titanicShack@yahoo.com), March 16, 1998.

Al:

Tom dealt with your first question. To answer your second question, Yes, Time Magazine and Warner Brothers are owned by the same conglomerate; Time-Warner, Inc. You can read into that as much or as little as you like.

Cheers!

-- Kip Henry (kip-henry@ouhsc.edu), March 16, 1998.

Is the insinuation that this guy's motive was to push for box-office-loser LA Confidential in every way possible? It seems a stretch, but at the same time, I don't understand anyone who didn't like Titanic, and I'm convinced many declared it "dead in the water" before even seeing it. Again, the "people" have voted already (box office), so let's not give this small group of nay-sayers any more attention than they got.

-- Bob Gregorio (donthave@wishidid.com), March 16, 1998.