site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   3088 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for June 23, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why do girls like Titanic so much?

The film made almost two billion dollars when it was released in 1997, making it the highest grossing movie in history at the time (the previous record was Jurassic Park at only $900 million).

Why? What made it special? It’s a perfectly fine movie I guess. The effects were well-done and innovative. But otherwise it seems like a pretty generic disaster/romance film. There’s an old /tv/ meme about “movies women will never understand”. Presumably there are also “movies men will never understand”. I know many women consider Titanic their favorite film of all time, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard a man say that.

Take a second to think about it. This is actually quite surprising. Big machines, transportation technology, humanity fighting nature, honor, these are all male-oriented interests. I find that these themes make the film tolerable to watch, but why would adding them to a romance make the film so popular amongst women?

What am I missing here?

It's not that complicated. It's a classic tragic romance between a brilliant but stifled heiress and the handsome bohemian artist who promises to whisk her away from her gilded cage, with just enough big machine porn and dudes running around with guns to satisfy the women's boyfriends and husbands. There aren't a whole lot of movies that appeal to both tween girls and old men who like reading books about Napoleonic naval warfare.

James Cameron is far from the first director to recognize the money-making potential of combining historical epic with passionate romance (remember, the most successful film of all time when accounting for inflation and size of potential audience is Gone with the Wind), but his only real competition in this genre in recent decades has been paint-by-numbers YA love triangle garbage, so Titanic stands out as a conspicuous success. The only other notable example of an epic romance I can think of from the past 50 years that wasn't terrible is the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, which also happens to have been an outrageously successful crossover hit with both men and women.

There’s an old /tv/ meme about “movies women will never understand”.

Is there a good list? The one on letterboxd is 50% movies I haven't watched, 25% movies I didn't like and 25% movies my wife didn't like and I did.

There is in fact, a comprehensive list.

I'm a Silent Hero Journey Boy man myself but Boats is runner up. Or as we call them today, Blade Runner 2049 and Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World.

Theres also "Boats in Space"

So, this used to be my favorite movie for years. I think I imprinted strongly on it because I saw it for the first time at age 8 and it was probably one of the first movies - along with Jurassic Park, which also had a profound effect on me at the time - I saw with actual dramatic stakes and spectacular visuals. (It’s also the first nude scene I saw in a movie, which probably contributed to my very positive first impression of it.) I also acknowledge that I was (and still am) a pretty low-T guy, and that my tastes and proclivities largely tended toward the feminine during my formative years.

Other commenters’ cynical and acidic takes on the film’s central romance are basically completely accurate; if you’re a man who is neither as virile and charming as prime DiCaprio, nor as rich and ambitious as Cal, the entire Rose plot is pretty blackpilling. It sucks to know that probably the best that most guys could ever hope to be is the nameless schmuck who later picked up those guys’ sloppy thirds, never being featured onscreen or even apparently occupying much of a place in Rose’s emotional landscape at all, despite being the father of her children. Far more realistic is being one of the innumerable guys who died horribly in frozen water, or just ended it all quickly by leaping off the deck. Me personally, I’d probably end up like poor First Officer Murdoch, gunning a man down in a panic and then offing myself.

The film really is a testament to the awesome power of artifice, spectacle, and aesthetics. On some level, nearly every modern person who appreciates Titanic does so because the world it depicts - no matter how much the nihilistic Hollywood shitlib James Cameron tries to paint it as stuffy and doomed - is glamorous, confident, impeccably classy, and features exclusively high-quality white people. Even the poorest people on the ship are charming European immigrants, with no signs of criminality or dysfunction, dancing a sprightly Irish jig. The music is lush and gorgeous, the effects are stunning, the sets and costumes are incredible. The emotional/ideological soul of the film is utterly poisonous and it doesn’t even matter, because the experience is so beautiful and tragic. (See also: Harry Potter)

I thought it was well-made female-centric garbage. However, redpillers types like you and @Sloot need to decide what you want. She did produce children for the nameless husband, that ought to be considered a worthy contribution. I get it, you want everything, children, reverence, eternal sexual and emotional exclusivity, and of course, to be „loved for who you are„. But „everything“ is hardly in the cards for mere mortals, now is it? Let me put it this way: would you give all that to your garden variety woman?

I mean, switching the sex of the protagonists, our boy Rosario going for the poor hot girl over the stuffy fiancee seems very easy to identify with. Women have enough flaws (like rose‘s selfishness in accepting the sacrifice of his life) , there is no need to stack on their failure to meet your unrealistic, hypocritical demands.

redpillers types like you and @Sloot need to decide what you want.

Not sure why "redpiller" was brought-up in a chain about a film being blackpilling, but I suppose I’m sufficiently somewhere on the continuum between red and blackpilled (as opposed to bluepilled) on life that I’ll play along.

And this is a false dilemma. I don’t see why I need to decide on anything in this moment, what I have to decide on, much less how my hypothetical decision would be pertinent to a discussion on what men in general may find sucky or horrifying.

She did produce children for the nameless husband, that ought to be considered a worthy contribution.

Sure, that’s a worthy contribution—as I remarked just a bit further down: “At least, in the film, that sloppy third receiving schmuck was presumably the biological father of those children (I think).”

I suppose it’s somewhat of a favor, since via evolutionary psychology/biology, a given offspring—all else equal—is more psychologically/biologically costly to the mother (e.g., Rose) than the father (e.g., nameless, sloppy third schmuck). However, it’s hardly a complete favor (to say the least), as the offspring are hers too (and with greater assurances: mother’s baby, father’s maybe). In ${CurrentYear}, babies’ mommas and egg donors/surrogates can provide a man with children too, and without the requisite of lifetime commitment or serving as a retirement plan for an alpha-widow.

I get it, you want everything, children, reverence, eternal sexual and emotional exclusivity, and of course, to be „loved for who you are„. But „everything“ is hardly in the cards for mere mortals, now is it?

You clearly don’t, because I’m certainly not one that pines for “everything,” much less wanting to be “loved for who you are.” It’d be nice to be “loved for who you are” unconditionally, just as it’d be nice to win the lottery, but it’d be foolish for men to want to be “loved for who you are,” whatever that may mean. Hence why I remark from time to time about the inegalitarian nature of male sexual success, and reference links such as Chris Rock on how men are only loved conditionally at best.

I’m under no illusion: If I suddenly became three inches shorter, lost 1/3 of my muscle mass, permanently lost my hair, lost a fight in front of her, cried in front of her for whatever reason, etc., pretty much any of the girls I’m dating or have dated would lose some or much of their attraction for me, maybe even ditch me altogether. If I were three inches shorter, bald, had only 2/3 of my muscle mass at the time, had little or no social media preselection or social proof to engender female mate-choice copying, I’d guess over 90% of my one-night-stands, flings, friends with benefits, and relationships would never have happened in the first place.

It would be unpleasant from an immediate emotional standpoint, losing their attraction and/or getting ditched in such circumstances—but zooming out: such is life; it is what it is. (The three/3/90% should be thought of as arbitrary constants, I just put in numbers for illustrative purposes).

there is no need to stack on their failure to meet your unrealistic, hypocritical demands.

It’s not unrealistic nor hypocritical for men to expect that they’re first place in their lifetime partner’s heart, that they’re the primary landholder in their lifetime partner’s emotional landscape. Hardly a tall ask.

However, redpillers types like you and @Sloot need to decide what you want.

I certainly wouldn’t consider myself a “redpiller”. My stance toward women is one of the least right-wing things about my worldview, and as I said, I’ve historically found a lot of female-targeted media somewhat relatable or at least not actively off-putting.

Something can be blackpilling without being unfair. I’m not saying that women are wrong or shitty for thinking the way that they do, and certainly male sexuality and desire have demonstrable failure modes as well. Still, as a straight man, it makes sense for me to be somewhat discouraged and dispirited when I receive another reminder of the significant headwinds I’m facing in the realm of romance. Nobody’s in the wrong here - not even Rose DeWitt-Bukater - but the situation is shitty nonetheless.

along with Jurassic Park, which also had a profound effect on me at the time - I saw with actual dramatic stakes and spectacular visuals. (It’s also the first nude scene I saw in a movie, which probably contributed to my very positive first impression of it.)

I thought you were referring to a nude scene in Jurassic Park at first and quickly did a mental scan of the scenes in the movie. Et tu, Dr. Sattler?

if you’re a man who is neither as virile and charming as prime DiCaprio, nor as rich and ambitious as Cal, the entire Rose plot is pretty blackpilling.

Even more blackpilling for the male masses: even if you're as virile, handsome, and charming as Jack, you could get left to metaphorically freeze to death in icy waters and have it be considered romantic. You could be as rich, ambitious, and handsome as Cal, yet you could get literally cucked if your girlfriend/fiancee/wife felt like it and she and almost everyone else will screech that it was righteous and you deserved it.

It sucks to know that probably the best that most guys could ever hope to be is the nameless schmuck who later picked up those guys’ sloppy thirds, never being featured onscreen or even apparently occupying much of a place in Rose’s emotional landscape at all, despite being the father of her children.

At least, in the film, that sloppy third receiving schmuck was presumably the biological father of those children (I think). Nowadays, there is no such guarantee. You're the Asshole if you treat single mothers differently than chicks without kids in dating and/or if you don't Man-Up and raise said kids as you would your biological own.

On some level, nearly every modern person who appreciates Titanic does so because the world it depicts - no matter how much the nihilistic Hollywood shitlib James Cameron tries to paint it as stuffy and doomed - is glamorous, confident, impeccably classy, and features exclusively high-quality white people.

The Titanic sank in 1912, two years before Europe destroyed itself spiritually and emotionally in WWI (from which it has yet to recover). I suppose one could make the argument that the Titanic represents the height of human civilization, a world where officers would lower partially empty lifeboats into the ocean because letting men get on would just be improper wouldn't it? All without a hint of irony.

Right, when I watch Titanic now, I weep not for charismatic hobo Jack Dawson, but for the quickly-impending self-inflicted implosion of European society - in which the vast majority of the people involved were hapless victims cast into destruction by the hubristic and unnecessary decisions of a sclerotic and insulated privileged class which had outlived its usefulness - that the film implicitly depicts. It’s grotesque what happened to those unsuspecting families on the Titanic, just as it’s grotesque what happened to the countless men who were slaughtered in the World Wars. At least on the Titanic, most of the men responsible for the disaster - Captain Edward Smith, Thomas Andrews - suffered the consequences themselves (although not the man arguably most directly responsible, J. Bruce Ismay, who escaped on a lifeboat and lived another twenty-five years). Most of the men responsible for the World Wars did just fine for themselves afterward.

I used to love WWI/WWII movies when I was younger, it scratched that Star-Wars-esque heroism itch. Now I avoid them unless I'm willing to end up demoralized watching Hollywood dance on the grave of Europe. Some are really good and worth watching like Dunkirk, but it's a genre where my interpretation of the films has radically changed from adventure-heroism to tragedy.

Men weren’t banned from getting on the first few empty lifeboats at all, as far as I know. The few wealthier young men who survived were often those who got out early like this.

Depends on who was doing the evacuation. On the starboard side, First Officer William Murdoch certainly favoured women and children in the evacuation, but when he could find no more women and children, he allowed men on. On the port side, Second Officer Charles Lightoller interpreted it as women and children only and prevented men beyond crew from boarding them, even when there were spaces available.

"During the evacuation, Lightoller took charge of lowering the lifeboats on the port side of the boat deck.[10] He helped to fill several lifeboats with passengers and launched them. Lightoller interpreted Smith's order for "the evacuation of women and children" as essentially "women and children only". As a result, Lightoller lowered lifeboats with empty seats if there were no women and children waiting to board, meaning to fill them to capacity once they had reached the water. Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Godfrey Peuchen has the distinction of being the only adult male passenger Lightoller allowed into the boats on the port side evacuation, due to his previous nautical experience and offer of assistance when there were no seamen available from the Titanic's own complement to help command one of the lowering lifeboats."

What Quantumfreakonomics is describing did happen. And the relatively small proportion of men who did survive the Titanic came under public scrutiny and were often reflexively judged as cowards.

EDIT: As an aside, it should also be noted that there were instances of boys (at least by today's standards) being deterred from entering lifeboats on the Titanic. For example, there's George Frederick Sweet: "On the night of the sinking young George, alongside Samuel Herman, saw Mrs Herman and her daughters off in one of the lifeboats. George, although not quite 15-years-old, was probably deterred from entering a lifeboat despite his young age and he and Samuel Herman died together, George being just one day short of his 15th birthday. Their bodies, if recovered, were never identified." In a similar instance, Rhoda Abbott refused her place in a lifeboat because she realised her sons (aged 13 and 16) would not be able to enter.

Then there's this affidavit by Emily Ryerson: "We saw people getting into boats, but waited our turn. There was a rough sort of steps constructed to get up to the window. My boy, Jack, was with me. An officer at the window said, "That boy can't go." My husband stepped forward and said, "Of course, that boy goes with his mother; he is only 13." So they let him pass. They also said, "No more boys." I turned and kissed my husband, and as we left he and the other men I knew - Mr. Thayer, Mr. Widener, and others - were all standing there together very quietly."

Adult first class men on the titanic had a 33% survival rate. The lifeboats overall (if full) could have accommodated perhaps half the ship. I suppose Lightoller was ultimately a villain for turning men away (especially as he survived himself), but extrapolating his ‘chivalry’ into the rest of the men of the ship seems a stretch.

While it is true that Lightoller's behaviour was not necessarily replicated among other officers (something which I acknowledged), you seem to be trying to equate "They allowed men onto the boats sometimes" with "there was no chivalry involved" which doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Other officers did in fact prioritise women and children.

Furthermore, your isolation of that "33% survival rate" statistic and selective presentation of it is also misleading. First class men on the Titanic survived at rates lower than third class women.

They also survived at 400% the rate of second class men, if we’re cherry picking statistics to demonstrate supposed chivalry.

  • -10

...Yes? Nobody is disputing that class mattered and that second class men fared worse than first class men. None of that invalidates the fact that men in every class were less likely to survive than women.

Rose is a super relatable character for girls and women, one with whom they can identify strongly. And what’s not to like?

You get awarded luxuries for merely existing, like an expensive necklace and a voyage on the world’s largest ship. Ugh, the stupid shiplet is only 880 feet though, not even 1,000 feet. At least you get to stand and sit around the boat looking cute each day, with your cute dresses, cute gloves, and cute hats. Yay! But you feel sad, because life is so exhausting, your rich handsome fiancé gives you the ick, and you just can’t even anymore. You’re in the midst of considering whether to throw yourself overboard, when a Manic Pixie Dream Chad (MPDC) shows up out of nowhere to rescue you and sweep you off your feet. You cuck your fiancé with MPDC because why not? Girls just want to have fun, teehee. Plus, your stupid fiancé deserves it for being a jealous and controlling jerk. He and MPDC fight over you, which is literally the worst because you definitely hate drama. But then the shiplet hits an iceberg and starts sinking (you knew it, this totally wouldn’t have happened if you went with a real ship). MPDC sacrifices his life so you can live. Awww, how sweet of him. Your (ex-)fiancé survives but later on commits suicide. Oh well, it’s like whatevs. With both MPDC and fiancé gone, you eventually branch swing onto a husband, with whom you have children and grandchildren. You return to the wreck site as a centenarian, wistfully fantasizing about your fling with MPDC and throwing the necklace (now a priceless artifact) into the ocean like Willa yeeting the iPad in Succession. lol, whoopsie.

In contrast, Titanic is a horror film for men. It's Male Expendability: The Movie, where not even Manic Pixie Dream Chad was immune to male expendability. Who do men have to relate to?

The guy who froze to death hanging onto a door, submerged in frigid waters? The guy who brought his fiancée and her mother onto the maiden voyage of the world’s largest ship, only to get cucked in return? The guy who free-fell when the ship broke in half and went vertical, clanging against a propeller along the way? The guy who eventually dedicated his life to alpha-widowed Rose? The nameless hordes of men who waited on the ship as it sank, listening to the string quartet play their last set while the women scampered off with the children onto lifeboats? At least door-popsicle-guy had the fresh memories of smashing sweet seventeen-year-old redhead puss as a morale boost in his waning moments.

For men, there’s also the meta-horror that women consider this a great love story. Five minutes of Alpha >> lifetime of Beta.

This is the best movie review ever posted on the motte

For men, there’s also the meta-horror that women consider this a great love story. Five minutes of Alpha >> lifetime of Beta.

Isn’t this, to some extent, just a way to rationalize your own ephemeral relationships with women as meaning something and to justify your own aversion to settling down, though? It seems a little self serving.

I doubt most men think in terms of experiences as "meaning something," especially those who grok "five minutes of Alpha/lifetime of Beta"-type aphorisms.

Are you, personally, the alpha in this scenario?

My use of “Five minutes of Alpha >> lifetime of Beta” should be parsed as a descriptive 1) “women will often have a larger part of their mind- and/or heart-share allocated to fleeting moments with (a) past Chad(s) than her longtime partner Brad” rather than a prescriptive 2) “it’s better to be the five-minute Alpha than the lifetime Beta,” for variants of the saying are generally used along the lines of 1). As we saw in Titanic, the five-minute Alpha died young, childless as a human popsicle, his Alphsicle corpse to serve as chilled chow for deep-sea fish and bacteria.

The point is that most men would find it horrifying, the prospect that they’re second, third, or n’th place in their girlfriends/wives hearts, that they hold but a peasant’s garden plot in their girlfriends/wives’ “emotional landscape,” as @Hoffmeister25 put it above. Hence why I mentioned “Five minutes of Alpha >> lifetime of Beta” alongside a 4chan screenshot (a most rigorous and sophisticated citation) about Rose thinking of Jack instead of her husband and children on her possible deathbed, in a post where the second half is about Titanic being a horror film for men.

My personal circumstances are largely irrelevant to the commentary. If we accept the premise that I have an aversion to settling down, it wouldn’t be any more relevant to a discussion on men finding it horrific to be n’th place in their girlfriends/wives hearts, than if we accept a premise that I have an aversion for going on cruises to a discussion on men finding it horrific to drown/freeze in icy waters as a part of an anonymous, forgotten horde while the women flee.

The Titanic heroine is every woman’s dream. She is a wealthy and sought-after nubile. She has a wealthy fiancé who represents maximal resource and power, a wealthy father as well, and gets to have an affair with the handsome DiCaprio who represents maximal youth, vigor, and primal sexual desire. This is a combination of Zeus, Apollo, and Adonis, the children of the Titans all on board the Titanic. Our heroine gets to choose the best of all worlds. She has the affection of the two competing interests of the fertile women.

But the movie doesn’t end there. The smut (and the movie is emotional pornography) piles on. Because our heroine has all the right decisions made for her. She is captivated by DiCaprio, her interests momentarily cut in two like the Titanic, but she gets to leave him frozen in time while her “heart goes on”. She gets everything out of him that she wants while getting to keep her privileged status. The iceberg and the icy sea represent this process of freezing into memory. The female viewer takes away that she could have his child, while also retaining a powerful and resourceful upper class position.

Lastly, she’s the victim, while also looking superior to her peers. What more does a woman want than this? All the money, the vigorous male, the damsel distressed, and finally the superiority over the men guiding her. There is nothing more to add.

Obligatory Zizek: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9DocwBZyESU . The true tragedy would be if Jack survived, they had sex for a month in New York, and then she is hanged to try. Lastly, this emotional processing in the Titanic allows the modern woman to put Jack to death in her own life, much like the Christian can behold the Passion and put sin to death. You have been baptized in the frozen sea with Rose and buried with Jack, and now you can put away forever the delusions of youth.

Everyone liked Titanic. It's the definition of a four quadrant movie and it wouldn't have made that much money otherwise.

Girls can enjoy the romantic appeal of Leo in his prime. As well as the obligatory feminist message of resisting stale old sexist norms for a fresh romance and a free life. A fantasy of being able to throw away a highly eligible suitor for true love and adventure and be well off enough to never regret it.

Guys get to enjoy Kate Winslet in her prime and the idea of a cross-class romance earned by the male lead's charms, as well as the spectacular effects, ship stuff and stories of heroism and excitement.

It was also just perfectly executed if not particularly original. The leads were mega hot, the tie in song was a classic from a superstar and Cameron stretched effects and action enough that anyone, male or female, could buy into the stakes.

Quality does count for something.

I would add: the special effects really were spectacular for the time. It's a beautiful film.

Going to the movies as a pure spectacle has declined linearly over time as special effects have improved and gotten cheaper. We're so used to CGI doing truly absurd things that it's tough to go back, especially for young people, to how it felt the first time those kinds of vistas were produced on screen. Today we're kind of jaded by having 70" HD screens to watch endless CGI schlockfests, just 25 years ago the comparison to a ~30" crt set showing infinitely lesser SFX with seeing Titanic on the big screen.

People didn't go see Titanic in theaters because of the love story, they went to see it purely to see it. Avatar is the closest recent comparison, and even that doesn't come close because it happened so much later.

I hated the movie. It denigrates duty and familial responsibility (eg the duty the grandmother owed her family when she just cast a priceless heirloom into the depths). The Jack character wasn’t really masculine (many people have suggested Jack is properly seen as a lesbian relationship) even if he did typical masculine things.

The only cool part was the Titanic imploding.

I actually rather enjoy, or enjoyed that Celine Dion song. Unfortunately, I've been mind-raped by the recorder-parody version of it, so I can't hear the original song in my head anymore without automatically having it go to the recorder-parody version. If only I had perfect pitch (so hot right now), I could mentally recreate the original song and sing/play it on command.

I could be remembering very localized phenomenon, but I recall it being a huge hit before becoming uncool through overplay because it was such a big hit.

The song was insanely popular at the time, but of course, someone who's chosen to write a book about why said popular song is ackshually not cool at all is a far better arbiter of coolness than the general population.

I don't find it surprising at all; it is a tragic romance.

The only people I know IRL that are/were obsessed with the movie are men. A neighbourhood friend of mine growing up watched it almost every day.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats