She was involved in a major historical event where the person she thought she'd be with forever died right in front of her.
Also she's telling the story of the Titanic to people who asked her to tell the story about her time on the Titanic. Why would her kids or family be relevant? This is just rage bait.
Even besides all that, why does any of this reflect on other women? incel ass shit
Edit: judging by the voting, a bunch of incels found this thread
I think the post is dumb but the logic is that it reflects on other women because millions of them think it's a good love story (as per the post).
Except, this logic falls apart immediately when you start understanding that she was in love with the dude and he died trying to save her. That's something you remember your whole life. This is just a bad unhealthy take from OP and the downvoters here.
Sure, but millions of women are able to separate fiction from reality, and thus are able to appreciate a story which didn't really happen, unlike this anon
Hmm, yea it's probably the Anon who doesn't understand reality and fiction, not the people taking a greentext at face value and making sexual judgements.
Did you not read the banner before coming here? The whole point is to make fun of 4chan, perhaps find a few diamonds in the rough.
4chan makes fun of itself you arn't going to add anything there. The purpose of this community "greentext" is to take a specific style of post that 4chan uses (that is almost certainly an absurd joke and not the secret desires of the poster) and join in on the joke. Kind of like how "memes" work.
Rose had adopted a new life under an assumed name after the sinking. Her family wasn't even aware that she had been on the Titanic, much less met what she considered her soulmate.
Rose allowed herself to tell the story that had weighed on her for 70 years, nearly her entire life, because she knew she was nearing the end of her life.
That's why her scenes are so powerful.
OT:
I can't find the critique of this movie from a classicist viewpoint anymore. That was one interesting read.
I’m so confused because I thought Rose was an amalgamation but you’re speaking of a singular individual in a factual way that makes me wonder how wrong I am. Is there really a Rose from the titanic that aligns with what you’re saying?
Not sure how long it's been since you saw the movie but it starts and ends with a much older Rose in the modern era, on board a research vessel out looking for the wreck of the Titanic. While aboard she starts telling the story of her time on the Titanic, that story then becomes the rest of the film. There's a sort of epilogue at the end where she wraps it up, then passes away in bed.
I think that's what OP is talking about.
You're literally responding to a post in a community named greentext. What do you expect? Just block the community and move on.
Tbh I feel like a point should be made of sharing without adopting the culture. I found that oftentimes greentext centric communities end up with similar vile behaviors and language usage.
A common sentiment is that apparently it's okay to use slurs. Lemmy greentext did a good job at not doing that so far.
It's not even true. She was literally on a ship that was examining the wreckage, so talking about it was relevant.
You can see the wreckage on the screen in the screenshot.
But bro how am I supposed to virtue signal to my fellow misogynists if I have to take things like context into consideration?
This is a really good example of me feeling really one-sided about something and then having my mind changed by the comment section. Somehow I didn’t think about the fact that being on the Titanic sinking would be a pretty pivotal memory in someone’s life lol.
Also, she was on a ship that was examining the wreckage, and iirc she was basically being interviewed.
Somehow I didn’t think about the fact that being on the Titanic sinking would be a pretty pivotal memory in someone’s life lol.
Thanks to the Polish writer Andrzej Pilipiuk when i hear anything about Titanic sinking first thing i think is that it sunk because a moonshine aparature exploded in cargo hold and they just lied about iceberg because they weren't insured for that.
Idk why you’re being downvoted. They did, and you’re right. A door of that size made with accurate wood could hold two adult men out of the water when they removed their life vests and put them under the door.
If Jack and Rose had done the same, they would have increased the chance of survival for both of them by both being out of the water and having double the body heat to warm each other.
They try in the movie and it causes them both to be in the freezing water. It wasn't about him being able to float, it was about them both not freezing to death.
They don’t put the life vests under the door in the movie, which is the key detail tested by the Mythbusters.
Because you missed in the same episode during that part where David Cameron said that Leo's character dying was what had to happen. That was the story. It is a pointless gotcha, based on the movie not spending the time to determine the exact amount of buoyancy of a ship wreck.
Did they come up with that idea while floating in sub-freezing water, after having just experienced multiple near-death scenarios, while afraid for their lives? The reality is that it's easy to solve a problem in a lab, not so much under duress.
My favorite episodes are where they're testing the prowess of some legendary athlete or fighter, and they, being two out of shape nerds, would try the feat, be unable to do it, and be like "MYTH BUSTED!". I was glad to see when they called in an actual master of ninjitsu to test if a ninja can catch arrows, after they themselves were unable to even get close to catching one. That ninja actually did it too! Snatched some arrows right out of the air.
yeah because being in the open ocean in subzero temperatures is the moment that one will think "sure, better take my life vest off and strap it on this fucking door. I bet it will hold the door afloat and I will always be attached to this door. What can go wrong?"
They have straps to tie them on you. You tie them together and hold them under the door. Or use any of the other crap floating in the ocean. Literally anything could be held in a shirt or pants. You can inflate your pants themselves by tying the legs together and blowing air into the waistband.
I imagine it would be quite difficult to tie knots with frozen limbs and fingers, in the dark. And trying to get a second person on the door would have required the already freezing girl to dip into the water. I can see why they wouldn't try it.
Perhaps James Cameron in particular doesn't have the most grounded understanding of human relationships, especially from a woman's perspective
Of course, because a forced arranged marriage to a narcissistic fuckwit would have made her life so much better... /s
Considering how wealthy Rose's family is portrayed in the movie, I'm going to assume that her children did just fine without it.
Rose left that family after the sinking of the Titanic. She gave it all up and started a new life for herself, under a new name. But she did find a measure of success as an actress, so she was probably doing alright. No where near her previous wealth, but comfortable.
That blue diamond alone would have been worth millions. Not to mention the chain and all of the other diamonds flanking it.
Well, the whole movie centered around her memories while people explored the wreck site (if my memory is correct, I haven’t seen it since around 2000). It would be like if you were walking around your old high school at the end of your life and someone gets pissed because you remembered that day the new girl banged you under the bleachers and then died in a gymnasium fire.
What else was she supposed to think about?
Speaking as a wife and mother, it's likely the only time in her adult life that somebody focused on her wants and needs instead of expecting her to cater to theirs.
Following that thought through fully: and her wants for those two days happened to be dick from a homeless man.
Lol. I get what you're saying though.
Sure bro, but when a dude does it you're like "He is my role model!"
edit: Not talking about "you" the commenter, just the double standards of people.
The way that person is speaking I don't think it's only from the point of view of the fictional character.
Maybe she got married when she was young and naive and was pressured by her family to settle down with the first half decent man she met. And then by the time she grew up and learned to think about her own needs, she already had kids who needed looking after more than she did.
Yes - my point is I do most (almost all) of the cooking and cleaning because I love my partner. In fact I just washed her underwear by hand in the sink. Her needs are meticulously attended to, it's not the default in heterosexual relationships that a woman be emotionally neglected.
She wasn't on her death bed. She was a mobile old lady who was flown out to a marine vessel to talk to scientists. She dies in her sleep at the end of "old age" and isn't suffering from any ailment. Also, the story is about how a poor boy showed a rich girl a different life and rescued her from her abusive fiance. What woman wouldn't want to be rescued from an abusive relationship by 20 year old Leo on the world's most extravagant cruise ship? Then at the end after she dies, she sees her long lost love in the context she remembers him: dapper, well dressed, and surrounded by gilded beautiful fixtures and things at the stairwell.
Lots of sensitive susans in the comments. If you don't like it block it and move on. There's too many people on lemmy that want to dictate what everyone can and can't see rather than moderating what they themselves see.
Lemmy is a pretty bad echo chamber at the moment. Here it seems like there’s only ever one right opinion.
seeing pushback against stupid-ass opinions is the exact opposite of an echo chamber, but it would be an echo chamber if everyone was just agreeing with the post.
Apparently that's the misogynistic one, based on a whole series of posts on the front page at the moment and the hundreds of gross comments that have followed.
I don't get what's up with people nowadays throwing up the adjective "misogynistic" everywhere, when 80% of the time they're really not seeing something misogynistic, but rather some ideologically conservative crap.
misogyny, as defined by webster, is "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women." we use the term to make it clear that this contempt and prejudice is against women specifically.
conservative ideology seeks to actively harm women who dare be anything more than servants to men. to have contempt for a group of people unless they're effectively enslaved is to have contempt for that group in general.
you're getting downvoted but you're fucking correct.
this place is becoming just like reddit in that people dig up any sort of injustices they can find (or fabricate) toward men and then incorrectly blame it on feminists and women without so much as a citation. hateful misconceptions then spread like wildfire because these guys just take anything that re-affirms their biases at face value without any critical thought.
How is recommending someone to not interact with a post they don't like because you don't like a different opinion anything but being a sensitive Susan yourself?
I didn't tell you to do or not do anything. I'm criticizing you for doing the very thing you criticized someone else for doing. Also you don't follow your own advice of downvote and move on.
what the hell are you even talking about? nobody is calling for this post to be removed. criticism isn't censorship.
That's hypocritical. If you can't take it then don't dish it. Calling out obviously bad greentext is part of this community.
To answer the question:
Perfectly normal.
Now for what is not normal is that Rose is extremely coldhearted and selfish throughout the entire story, even when she's telling the story from her perspective and one of her only redeeming qualities that she has is that she's not Cal. But remember, this is HER version of the story. Imagine how the perspectives could have been wildly different from hers.
Anyway in HER version of the story..:
Now I said 'one of her few redeeming qualities' because she another one.
That is that she was 17 at the time,
and being played by a 20 year old Kate Winslet that's a bit difficult to see.
However, even 17 year olds would be more responsible as she acts like a 13 year old,
since that's what her character is actually based on, 13-year old Juliet from Romeo and Juliet.
But as much as this would have redeemed Rose's actions on the boat as a teenager,
those reflections should have hit the Rose the grandma to put things into perspective.
That didn't happen.