Saving Private Ryan vs Titanic : LUSENET : TitanicShack : One Thread

Hi, everyone, I am the one who asked everyone whether or not Saving Private Ryan was better than Titanic. Well, I finally saw Saving Private Ryan and I was disappointed. It was not even close to the greatness of Titanic. It had a decent performance by Tom Hanks. He was better in Forest Gump. I am just understand how most people I talked to said it was better than Titanic. I think a movie's greatness can be sometimes measured in how much media coverage it gets and that is what happened to Saving Private Ryan and Titanic. The difference is that Titanic is excellent while Saving Private Ryan is just average. What does everybody think??

-- Jim Islam (, September 19, 1998


I agree Jim,SpR was also very slow and very over rated by critics who love anything SS puts out, he can do no wrong.

-- michael pitt (, September 19, 1998.

I disagree Jim. To compare the two movies is comparing apples and oranges. To me, they are two completely different movies. One can be moved by both, but for different reasons. I believe SPR did a great job of portraying life on the battlefield of WWII. For me, it was a great movie regardless of whom the director may or may not have been. By the same token, James Cameron did a fantastic job with Titanic.

-- Michael (, September 21, 1998.

Yes, the combat scenes are intense and realistic (some would say hyper-realistic), but for all the talk of how this movie dispenses with the Hollywood sentimentalism and patriotism of past WWII films, I found that SPR actually just replaced past conventions with today's Vietnam War movie conventions. Years from now SPR will appear every bit as phony as "The Longest Day", the movie Spielberg seems to have been driven to "correct".

Any weight that this film has comes from it's shocking and gruesome special effects. Stripped of these, SPR is very conventional (even somewhat tedious) war story about a group of stereotypical "citizen soldiers", none of whom are well-written or defined, confronting routine horrors of war. It might as well be another Vietnam War movie, in which the moral ambiguities and the shaky objectives portrayed here are more appropriate. Hanks, as usual, acts well. But his character, like the others, is still a cypher. In my mind, SPR is a less effective indictment of WWII madness than "Bridge on the River Kwai", which also managed to be a smashing yarn.

Since seeing SPR a couple of months ago, my initial high regard for the film has steadily declined. Titanic, somewhat to my chagrin, lives on.

BTW: Please don't refer to Steven Spielberg as "SS", especially in the context of a WWII movie!

-- Dalton (, September 22, 1998.

Just for the record, I totaly agree with Michael. That';s excatly how I feel - it's like comparing apples and oranges, two completely different movies. I loved Titanic. SPR also portrayed the hero's of war, and the courage those man had to face. Titanic was the kind of movie we all love to see - about the courage to find true love, to give up your seat, and to let your loved one go. I loved both movies as my favorite drama. And just to say, my favorite comedy is There's Something About Mary. I think most people would agree.

-- Kelly (, September 29, 1998.

I disagree. The two movies can be compared. It's not like apples and oranges - they're both movies! That recent AFI 100 best list compared movies much more diverse and ranked them. Comparing Titanic and Saving Private Ryan is more like comparing "golden delicious" to "granny smith" apples. They are more alike than you think! I haven't seen Something About Mary. From the previews it looks like it might be rotten to the core - but still an apple.

-- Dalton (, September 29, 1998.

I have to disagree with you Dalton. Saving Private Ryan and Titanic are two totally different movies. You can compare Titanic to movies such as A Night To Remember because they're on the same subject and you can say which is better or which is worse. But you can only compare SPR to other WWII movies.

-- Emma (, September 30, 1998.

Emma, maybe we shouldn't compare Saving Private Ryan to ALL other WWII films. How about just those set in the European theater of the war, since the Pacific theater was totally different in that Japan was the offending Axis power. Also, Titanic is in color and A Night To Remember is in black and white. Apples and oranges.

-- Dalton (, September 30, 1998.


You believe the two can be compared because "they're both movies". Well, apples and oranges are both fruit. The point is, though they're both fruit, they don't look or taste the same, nor have the same texture. This can also apply to Titanic and SPR. The original question posed here is about the "greatness" of the films. Though "greatness" is in the eye of the beholder, one can arguably say both films are great, but for different reasons (i.e., both taste great, but for different reasons)

Anyone care to turn this into a debate over whether they "taste great" or "less filling"? HA!

-- Michael (, September 30, 1998.

Dalton, does it really matter that Titanic is filmed in colour and A Night To Remember in black and white? They're still the same subject matter, the colour or lack of it means nothing to me. I did enjoy the beginning of ANTR when it showed Titanic being christened then on the day it departed because it looked authentic, but that's about it. I enjoyed the new Titanic much more, probably because I'm a sucker for a good love story :-)

-- Emma (, September 30, 1998.

I would say Titanic "Tastes Great", while Saving Private Ryan is "Less Filling."

-- Misty Chacon (, September 30, 1998.

I say that ALL of the Shack regulars should go this site where some of us get together often: We have a blast! Come on, everyone, GET INTO THE BOAT!!!

-- BobG (bob@bob.bob), September 30, 1998.

Must two "things" be identical in order to compare them? If so, what is the point? Titanic and Saving Private Ryan are both recent big-budget, effects-laden Hollywood epics, made by two uncompromising directors at the top of their form. Both movies are historical tragedies. They both attempt to convey the meaning of an important historical event using fictional characters inserted into highly detailed and accurate settings. They both have contemporary framing scenes. Both are sentimental tearjerkers.....

I could go on and on. My point is, while SPR was a fairly good war film, Titanic is a much better disaster/love story. Titanic is less filling and tastes great. SPR, in comparison, is skunky beer. But hey, what can you expect- the "born on date" was June 6, 1944.

-- Dalton (, September 30, 1998.

Oh my God! Dalton admitted to crying in both movies! He also alluded to MHWGO as his all-time favorite song!! What? You didn't catch that last one? I'll show you: "I could go on and on.." See?? lol. He also said Titanic was a great love story/disaster film! Dalton, you must have found the girl of your dreams to have become sentimental so suddenly! lol

-- BobG (bob@bob.bob), September 30, 1998.

The two subjects, WWII and the Titanic, have produced so many films over the years that I think the most interesting thing is how the treatment of the two subjects has evolved in that time. ANTR and Cameron's Titanic are perfect examples. ANTR was, at the time, the last word on what happened and probably "The Night Lives On" still is historically speaking but even in that time period we keep learning new things. Some theories are shattered (sank in one piece) and some are supported as we continue to find out more about this event and that, to me, is what has kept the mystique of this ship alive for so many years. With Cameron's Titanic (outside of the fictional part of the story) we have the latest, and in living color!

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (, September 30, 1998.

Fuck yall. Your stupid. You all doubt SPR's realism. Go read any of the veterans accounts of D-Day ya fucking idiots.

-- Chris Taylor (, March 02, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ