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.
She also wasn't on her deathbed lol she was just old
She died in bed at the end of the movie, so technically she was on her death bed every night that she slept on that ship.
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.
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.
Ain't that some incel shieet
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.
She's also a fictional character wrote by a man.
It was also the time when she watched a man die to save her life.
He didn't even have to, mythbusters did a show on it lol
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.
Of course, because a forced arranged marriage to a narcissistic fuckwit would have made her life so much better... /s
And she chucked a big part of her kids’ inheritance off the boat!
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.
As if a man wouldn't be having the exact same fantasies
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.
also to be a naked model for a painting
4chan media literacy challenge (100% impossible)
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.
If you don't want to see the "sensitive susans", block them and move on.
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?