OK, here's what I read today in the Canadian "Ottawa Sunday Sun" (Dec. 13, 1998), p. 2 of Showcase:

[Here's Michael Caine, asked by Premiere magazine's Jason Matloff to "advise" Leonardo di Caprio. Says Michael: "I hardly feel qualified to give him advice; he's a much bigger star than I ever was or am likely to be. He's a very good actor; people forget that .... I'm slow to give advice to actors because actors don't listen unless you're talking about them."

Pressed to advice something, Caine says, "I would say save the money. You never know. It's not as much as you think and doesn't last as long as you think it will."]

And on page 8:

[The Dawson's Creekgang is going Titanic in January.

Last year at this time, the movie about the doomed luxury ship was a huge smash with teens, the same folks who live to follow the comings and goings of the kids from Warner Brothers' hit series. So in a Titanic-inspired episode airing in January, Joey (Kathie Holmes) will be drawing in art class when Jack (Kerr Smith) spills something on her sketch pad. She needs another model to replace the deed - in the nude.

In the film Titanic, Jack (Leonardo di Caprio) drew a nude portrait of Rose (Kate Winslet). "We thought it would be fun to put Joey in a situation that was a reversal of what happened in Titanic, executive producer Paul Stupin said.

Stupin said the episode is the first in a two-parter that features new variations of couples from the show.

"Each of the relationships take an unexpected and unpredictable turn," Stupin said.

And who's involved here? "I'm not saying. It's a surprise."]

{replaced some linebreaks with paragraph tags, for clarity}

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), December 13, 1998

Answers

So my question is: should we care of the trivialisation of Titanic by "Titanic" (1997), as "A Contributor" suggests, or rather of the trivialisation of "Titanic" (1997) itself? Just a Sunday thought...

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), December 13, 1998.