Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
          Article history
Good articleTitanic (1997 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 25, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 28, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 7, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 9, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 19, 2009, and December 19, 2020.
Current status: Good article
WikiProject iconFilm: Canadian / American
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Cinema High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.
WikiProject icon20th Century Studios High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRomance Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLibrary of Congress Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by David Rush, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 14 August 2010.

December 2023[edit]

I edited this recently, but it got reverted. I mean, we can all agree that she doesn't physically reunite with him at the end of the film, right? She's either asleep or passed away, but either way it's clear that it's a spiritual affair after the ship sank. GOLDIEM J (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's already mentioned that she's asleep at that point, so is it necessary to label it as spiritual? DonIago (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FILMPLOT says to avoid interpretations. Just stick to what the movie literally shows us.
In this case, the movie literally shows them reuniting on the ship, so what's what we should describe in the plot summary. The reader can then decide for themselves whether this is an "actual" event or a metaphorical/spiritual/whatever event — just like the viewer decides that when watching the movie.
In the case of the movie, viewers will be inclined to assume it is not an "actual" event as they've just seen Rose seemingly sleeping and it would involve some kind of crazy time travel. In the case of the Wikipedia plot summary, readers will be inclined to assume it is not an "actual" event as they've just read that Rose was seemingly sleeping and it would involve some kind of crazy time travel. Same outcome, and a fair reflection of the plot. Popcornfud (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective section[edit]

I found the retrospective section here to be a bit odd (perhaps poorly named). This film was released in December 1997. The "retrospective" section includes one response from a French filmmaker ... made in 1998 ... and also devotes an entire paragraph to James Cameron's response to criticism ... also made in 1998.

FWIW, whether the French filmmaker's comments should be included at all is also maybe worth reconsidering. His full quotation on Winslett's performance: "On top of which, the actress is awful, unwatchable, the most slovenly girl to appear on the screen in a long, long time. That's why it’s been such a success with young girls, especially inhibited, slightly plump American girls who see the film over and over as if they were on a pilgrimage: they recognize themselves in her, and dream of falling into the arms of the gorgeous Leonard." Lots of directors through the years have spoken of Titanic ... why is that pretty flagrantly sexist comment worth highlighting?--96.94.213.161 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]