Hollywood Doubted Titanic In A Huge Way Before Its Release — Here Are The Receipts

Whatever you do, don't bet against James Cameron. Many have made this mistake recently, as 2022 saw a year-long debate over where or not Cameron's long awaited sequel to his 2009 film, "Avatar" could break even, let alone pass its goal of passing the $2 billion mark at the global box office. Call it what you think it is, irony, or fate — but critically and financially, "Avatar: The Way of Water" has exceeded all those expectations and then some, topping the box office at #1 for a whole seven weeks straight.

The box office success of "Avatar: The Way of Water" proved that — despite the echo chambers of the internet — there is a desire from general audiences to escape into the spiritual, science-fiction beauty of Pandora, and that James Cameron has not lost any ounce of his ability to package his personal cinematic fixations into the mold of a populist blockbuster film. Looking back, it feels foolish to have even doubted the maverick director, but let's not forget this is far from the first time that the public underestimated Cameron.

As we reflect on the 25th anniversary of James Cameron's historic epic romance, "Titanic," let's also acknowledge how history has simply repeated itself once again. Despite our universal recognition of the film as one of the biggest Hollywood blockbusters to date, there was a point in time leading up to the film's release where it seemed as though the industry was bracing itself for disaster.

Join us as we comb through a flurry of bad headlines, production issues, and outspoken critics that the overwhelming success of Cameron's film silenced.

On December 8, 1997, TIME Magazine published a feature that ran through all the production issues that went behind the making of "Titanic," one of the controversial upcoming films of that year, and pre-maturely made the judgment that the film was (as the headline reads) "trying to stay afloat."

It's humorous to think about now, but there's some truth here as the film's financial future was never a safe bet. Co-financed by Paramount Pictures and 20th Century Fox, "Titanic" was, at the time of release, one of the most expensive films ever made with a budget of $200 million (excluding marketing costs) and a production schedule that lasted eight months from July 1996 to March 1997. The production of "Titanic" cost more than it did to build the titular ship itself in real life.

Cameron's pricey ambition meant that the film would have to gross at least $350 million to break even, which put "Titanic" in a precarious position as the film was initially greenlit for $110 million, according to The Los Angeles Times. 

To make matters worse, there was a decline in movie theater attendance in the late '90s that was already scaring investors leading up to the big release of "Titanic." As writer Kim Masters' put it, "the film is bad for an industry whose costs are running so high that profits are all but vanishing."

"Titanic" was initially set to release on the 1997 Fourth of July weekend, a proven prime release date to maximize profits, but Cameron felt the film wouldn't be ready, and pushed the date back to December 19th. The film's major delays would scare investors and audiences alike. On April 27th, 1997, The Associated Press predicted:

 "A ship named Titanic has long been synonymous with disaster. Now a film named 'Titanic' is steaming perilously close to the same fate."

With a delayed release and an already bloated budget, the staggering runtime didn't help Cameron's case. The theatrical cut of "Titanic" clocks in at 3 hours and 14 minutes, a choice that baffled many in Hollywood.

On May 29, 1997, The Los Angeles Times published an article that featured insight from Phil Garfinkle, a senior vice-president of Entertainment Data Inc., who broadly claimed that his data shows that "anything over 2 1/2 hours [...] business goes down," counting exceptions as "unusual pictures." Looking back, the film's success is evidence that if there's demand, audiences will sit through a long film — but in Garfinkle's defense, that interest was clearly hard to gauge before "Titanic" would officially hit screens.

It's not just about the acceptance of the general audience, though. From an industry perspective, there were logistical and economic issues with releasing films with extended runtimes. The longer a film is, the harder it is to maximize the amount of showtimes and ticket sales per day. Garfinkle did have foresight in this regard, as he emphasized that the modern multiplex could offset the losses by showing the film on multiple screens at once, which also blocks out competing films from maximizing their showtimes. 

He's one of our more celebrated actors today, but shockingly, Leonardo DiCaprio wasn't seen as a bankable star by Hollywood executives during production of Cameron's epic. DiCaprio, a new industry hot-shot who was recently nominated for "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?," didn't want to read for the role of Jack at first, causing friction during the casting process.

Even after Cameron was finally convinced DiCaprio was the right actor for the role, the studios weren't convinced that DiCaprio could effectively play the leading man. "I had to sell him to the studio," Cameron said to ET in 2022. "And they were like, 'Based on what? "Gilbert Grape?" Come on, we're gonna hang this giant movie, romantic film on "Gilbert Grape?" Give me a break.' So, you know, then I had to talk him into it. But see, Leo wouldn't let me film [him reading]. So, I was like, 'OK, you just have to take my word for it.'"

Of course, there was the onset drama. The then-unresolved PCP laced chowder incident (yes, PCP laced chowder), stories about overworked crew and their "sweatshop-style" labor conditions, reports about Cameron's screaming tirades — all the negative attention lodged at "Titanic" eventually came to a boiling point. On April 19, 1997, the Los Angeles Times published a tell-all, which chronicled the cast and crew's woes working on set of "Titanic," describing it as a production "as strenuous as filmmaking ever gets." 

Even lead actress Kate Winslet voiced her disdain for the "Titanic" shoot, sharing her story of suffering from hypothermia and almost drowning. "If anything was the slightest bit wrong, he would lose it..." Winslet said. "You'd have to pay me a lot of money to work with Jim again."

"Down, Down, to a Watery Grave," reads the headline of film critic Richard Corliss' initial thoughts on "Titanic," published on December 8, 1997. He argued that the film "fails utterly" at a compelling romance, and relies on class caricatures over meaningful depictions of humans and their socioeconomic dynamics. "Ultimately, 'Titanic' will sail or sink not on its budget but on its merits as drama and spectacle," Corliss argued. "The regretful verdict here: Dead in the water."

Today, one might agree with Corliss' subjective thoughts on "Titanic," but it's clear that despite those criticisms, Corliss was wrong about the inevitable failure of the project. It's been 25 years, and Cameron's "Titanic" is still an enduring cultural and financial success. It's a juggernaut of a film that has not only pushed the limits of modern filmmaking, but also successfully told a story that touched the hearts of general audiences. 

Time and time again, James Cameron has proven the non-believers, from industry analysts to studio executives, wrong. Let's remember the success of "Titanic" before making judgments on what the filmmaker has next in store. There's a reason why we never bet against Jim.