+3 votes
71 views
in Movies by (26.1k points)

image

6 Answers

Freeranger

They were totally necessary....in highlighting/advocating for the "haves" vs. the "have-nots."....how romantic that, in the end, it is love that bares the test of time, rather than position---always....always

image

amberleechoo

They were very necessary and the movie is a lot better with them.

Unnecessary.

76May

I enjoyed them in the movie. Having them from different backgrounds and classes definitely helped to explain society during that period of time. It could have been explained with other characters, but might have missed the emotional impact that these two brought out.

ajmsituation

That depends on where you think the story is. You could make the movie without them, but their brief love affair drives home the sense of loss when the ship sinks because you are emotionally invested in the character. If you think the story is the boat and not the cost in human lives then leave them out.

Virginia

Dear MC,

I saw the movie in 1997 at The Casino Theatre on Santa Catalina Island, and I would have much preferred a more accurate, documentary style of telling the TITANIC story - WITHOUT the gratuitous drama of Rose and Jack.

However, that story-within-a-story did point out something quite fascinating about life, which (as I see it) is that our passion for money can suck the meaning out of our lives. So, Jack took Rose to the wonderful party in steerage, and she saw maybe for the first time how much fun life can be, how 'real.'

But that is a whole different story, and it should have been told separately. TITANIC would have been better without it.

...