Even before the public got its first glimpse, it was called too large, a disaster waiting to happen. Experts said it was the perfect example of man's arrogance. Were they talking about White Star's ocean liner? No. They were talking about James Cameron's magnum opus, "Titanic."
Once again, art imitated life, but in this case, Cameron's $200 million dollar behemoth has outstripped expectations rather than dashing them.
Titanic has made $337.4 million dollars (domestically) in eight weeks. It has surpassed "Forest Gump" to become the fourth-highest-grossing movie of all time behind "Star Wars," "E.T." and "Jurassic Park."
Even more stupendous than any of those facts is that the ship won't slow down. Last weekend, it made $23.2 million dollars, an enviable opening weekend for any other movie, let alone an eighth. Needless to say, it has been the number-one movie every weekend since its opening. With a record-tying 14 Oscar nominations, further success is guaranteed.
That's enough statistics, however. What does this mean for the film industry? Hollywood had already embraced the event movie as its new moneymaker (or studio breaker). When Cameron took this formula to the limit, however, everyone from the moneymen to the talent thought he had gone too far.
Paramount split financial responsibility with Twentieth Century Fox. Cameron had to forgo his salary and percentage of the gross. Now that Cameron has broken all the rules and won, expect change.
First of all, Hollywood is nothing if not a land of shameless imitation. When every movie is a gamble, the aspects of every success are consistently stolen by other studios. Unfortunately, it's usually the most superficial aspects. Witness the recent spate of "disaster movies." Yeah, "Twister" was fun (maybe), but two volcano-oriented movies? Come on.
Expect to see more and more expensive movies. One-hundred-million-dollar movies will become commonplace. Movies are going to stratify even further into event/special effect films and big star films because the combination has become prohibitively expensive.
That is why Paul Verhoeven staffed his $100 million "Starship Troopers" with 90210 rejects. He had spent too much money on bugs and starships.
All the other superficial aspects of "Titanic" will also almost certainly be copied. For all those who saw the Oliver Stone tribute at Dartmouth, his joking prediction of a $700 million "Lusitania" may not be far off. Big budget period pieces and more movies where a vehicle is the star could easily be coming our way.
The great tragedy here is the death of the medium-priced movie. The inordinately cheap independent film will always have a niche. After all, it can be made for $2 million! If it makes $20 million the studio is overjoyed.
With the advent of the event movie, the medium film ($40-$60 million) has fallen by the wayside. The wild success of "Titanic" and other event movies this year will put the nail in the coffin.
When a stinker like "Batman and Robin" can break even with a $100 million budget, who can blame the studios for only wanting to make event movies?
Still, without that medium range, studios lose the capacity to make all the courtroom dramas and crime thrillers and comedies that movies are all about.
If every film becomes an independent sensation or a special effects blockbuster, moviegoers will be missing out on a prime slice of film entertainment.
Most important of all, however, is that the success of "Titanic" cannot be duplicated by copying its superficial aspects. "Titanic" broke several canonical studio rules and beat all the odds. It was too long, too expensive, too woman-oriented. None of that mattered.
However, in my humble opinion, it was not the combination of these rule-beating quirks or even solely its budget which catapulted "Titanic" to its wild success.
Why is "Titanic" is so incredibly successful? It is a great movie by a great writer/director. For James Cameron, "Titanic" is a dream come true. He didn't only invest it with Paramount and Fox's cash, he invested it with his soul. Without the passion and talent brought to the film by Cameron, "Titanic" would be just like its subject: a failed testament to arrogance.
Now we will get to see what would have happened if the actual Titanic had succeeded in its voyage. Larger vessels constructed with even less care would have followed. And most of them must founder.
