No, I don't think it is damning criticism either. I think you are correct, he does it and repeats doing it because he believes it works and the proof is in the amount of money his pictures have made. You never walk out of a Cameron picture wondering about what he was trying to say and what his characters were up to or what the story was about. He always boils all that down to the very basics and I do agree with him that this is what many people want in a piece of escapist entertainment.Personally, I'd agree with that but in the case of Titanic, I also don't see that as a particularly damning criticism either.
Well, I understand the idea of being a great structuralist but I would not put Cameron in that category either. Also while I agree with your point, Cameron does not make art films with zero dialogue. Titanic is loaded with dialogue and it is pretty lousy most of the time.I don’t think you are getting my point. A screenplay can have zero dialog. It’s about structure. That’s what I mean by his screenplays are strong.
I get that. It’s an oft repeated criticism of the film. But every Titanic film previously made already did that. I applaud him for taking a different approach. Whether he succeeded or not is obviously a matter of personal opinion. But that $1.8 billion gross worldwide sure seems to imply that he did.I'm in the camp of you did not need that because the historical tale is so interesting and I would have preferred he tried to shoot more for telling the tale or tales of people that were on the ship.