Only partly agree with this. Cameron's movie had the cache of immaculate production values and no-expense spared sets that truly made the scenery come alive. Were that the melodrama set before it had been half as rewarding. Despite some interesting set pieces (Jack and Rose escaping from the water-logged bowels of the ship as the water level exponentially rises, threatening their safety) I would have sincerely preferred Cameron spend a bit more time on the 'actual' passenger list than the fictional Jack/Rose drama which was fairly unappealing - at least, in my opinion.To each their own. The Broadway musical was a classic for me with a glorious score that well-deserved its Best Musical Tony, and Cameron's movie was a piece of overrated junk that I wouldn't ever want to sit through again with its awful cliche-ridden fictional story (as bad as if not worse than the junk in the 96 CBS miniseries and the 2012 ITV one). I would rather have a better-written fictional story with less accurate sets as the 1953 film is than be forced to watch Cameron again. IF anything, his realistic sets only called more attention to how bad his fictional story was.
Actually, Cameron made a comment on GMA the following morning post-Oscars about the movie receiving every conceivable award except Best Screenplay, which he dubiously left open for the pundits to discuss, but clearly felt he had been snubbed at not even receiving the nomination.I don’t think Cameron wondered that at all since his screenplay wasn’t nominated for an Oscar.