this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
159 points (88.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
607 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
James Cameron's Titanic. It's marketed as a romantic film, but the moment you start looking at other aspects of the movie, it just seems stupid. The antagonist is so cartoonishly evil, it's a wonder they didn't give him a mustache to twirl.
And then there's the ending. Oh dear lord, the ending. Spoiler warning and all that: at the end of the movie, The Titanic s(t)inks and the passengers try to get to safety. Rose finds a floating door or something to stay afloat and finds Jack swimming in the freezing ocean. Then Jack makes the most non-sensical decision in the entire movie: he sacrifices his own life for no good reason. The plot frames it as a necessary sacrifice, but it totally IS unnecessary, because there was enough room on the stupid door for two people. And then we flash forward to the present, where Rose is old, but still has that gem she wore throughout the movie... and then she tosses it into the ocean. WHY.
Basically the plot boils down to: two young people have a fling on a boat and then the boat sinks. It absolutely did NOT deserve all those academy awards it got that year.
People are STILL bringing up the "there's enough room" arguments?
The movie LITERALLY shows you why it doesn't work. At first they both try to climb on it, but they're too heavy and the stupid thing capsizes. Only then is Jack like "You go take it, Imma good"
Also, Mythbusters tried it and got the same results. 2 people to heavy, 1 ok.
No, the Mythbusters actually proved the door could support two people. At the end James Cameron himself basically throws his hands up, concedes and makes some comment about "whatever, if the script says Jack has to die, Jack is dying." Rewatch the edpisode if ya don't believe me
Yes, after the took off their lifebelts and tied them under the door for adden buoyancy.
I think two people, already stressed to their teeth, now also suffering from hypothermia can be forgiven for not having the same presence of mind in that situation
Guess i forgot about that detail, so thanks for the correction. The end results are the same either way though. The door can float 2 but the script says jack has to die, rendering the entire argument pretty moot. James Cameron's comment was basically "science be dammed, Jack's drowning."
I'm sure if Cameron realized that the door of that size, with two life jackets underneath could support two people, he would have written the door to be smaller. It's ok not to like the film, but this is just CinemaSins level pedantic.
It's been a while since I've seen the movie (and have no desire to see it again) and I don't remember the scene as clearly, so that's on me. Throwing away the gem was still colossaly stupid, though.
Dito