Titanic Gamble James Cameron caused everyone to think about it to fail (including him)

James Cameron’s “Titanic”, when it is adjusted for inflation, is one of the most profitable films of all time and is only exceeded by Cameron’s own “avatar” and Victor Fleming’s pro-Confederatia epic “disappeared with the wind”. Even when it is not adjusted for inflation, however, “Titanic” is still up there, behind only the first two films “Avatar” by Cameron and Joe and Anthony Russo “Avengers: Endgame”. Even the Chinese mega-hit in 2025 “Ne Zha 2” did not quite go beyond the romantic epic of Cameron at the box office at the time of the editorial staff.

Those who watched films in 1997 and 1998 remember the overwhelming phenomenon. “Titanic” lasts 195 minutes, but scads of people saw it repeatedly in theaters. He swept the Oscars, winning 11 of his 14 nominations. His soundtrack was huge. “Titanic” opened its doors on December 19, 1997 and was film No. 1 at the box office every week until the release of “Lost in Space” … the following April. The world would see nothing so huge before the next Cameron film in 2009. We can no longer speak of “Titanic” without mentioning first how extremely popular it was. For many years, it was the top of a certain type of Hollywood cinema.

It is therefore difficult to imagine that “Titanic” should become a huge bomb during its production. The film, as many know, was the most expensive film ever made at the time, with its 100 million dollars’ balloon budget already gigantic to just $ 200 million. Even the goard of the notoriously expensive 1990s “waterworld” had not been that Dear. The film was so over-budget, in fact, that Cameron recalled that the planning of his career was over when he was still doing so, convinced that “Titanic” could never become profitable. It is out of pure chance that it became the phenomenon he made, which ultimately hung more than $ 2 billion at the world box office.

Indeed, Cameron mentioned several times, especially in a video interview with CNN to mark the 25th anniversary of the film, that he did not even think that the film would even break. “Titanic” was the biggest bet in Hollywood to date.

In the interview with CNN, Cameron was Frank, recalling the arc of despair that the crew of the film felt during the production:

“We didn’t think it was going to earn money. Honestly. We went there, and we […] had gone from “we never work again” to “we are likely to get back to work, as long as we never make another film like” Titanic “.

Cameron was also frank when he spoke to Wired in 2009. He, with all the others who followed the development of “Titanic”, remembered the budget for bloating and missed deadlines. It is true: “Titanic” was initially supposed to be a summer outing, but he ended up being pushed back in December 1997 to give Cameron enough time to finish the shooting and the edition of the film. Cameron, meanwhile, was just as worried as the film’s financiers, feared that he was making a film that could not sell tickets. As legend says, Cameron has kept a razor blade in his office, with an embarrassed note that said: “Use only if the film sucks.” It was not a sign of depressive ideation, but it was an indication that Cameron faced disastrous issues. As he said:

“When we turned” Titanic ” […] We just tried to understand how much money we were going to lose. […] I just realized [when talking to a friend] I made a 200 million dollar chick film where everyone dies. What did I think I think about? […] I will have to rebuild my career from zero. “”

Everything that costs as much these days is generally considered to be a “safe thing”. When a film “Star Wars” or a Marvel film costs 200 million dollars, it is considered a relatively low risk investment, because these films have generally made a profit (at least in the last decade). When Cameron was “Titanic”, however, this kind of expenses on a film was unknown. “Titanic” had to be a success, otherwise the careers would finish and the companies would close.

More than $ 2 billion later, the risk had been absorbed.

In particular, a Washington Post article published in May 1997 cited some leaders of 20th Century Fox who were wary of the “Titanic”. The article observed that Paramount (which managed the interior distribution of the film) and Fox (which managed international deployment) should be standing in Cameron at this stage. After all, $ 200 million was far beyond the point “Cut and Run”. Tom Sherak, the leader of Fox at the time, even became existential on “Titanic”, saying:

“The main thing is that no one wants to spend this kind of money, but that is how it turned out. […] If it turns out to be epic, it will make money. But there will always be this conversation on: Is it too much money? Should it be done? ‘”

“Titanic” turned out to be epic, but the question remains: is it too much money? The post, in 1997, already noted that Hollywood adopted a bigger “is a better” mentality “. It was a year during which the immense blockbusters of the day included “The Lost World: Jurassic Park”, “Men in Black”, “Air Force One” and “Liar Liar”. The films became more and more expensive to do, but “Titanic” seemed to cross a line. If only the studio leaders of the time could have seen the excessive overabundance of the late 2010 and the early 1920s. Simply look for the “Jurassic World” film budgets. Or the new “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” films. Or the fifth film “Indiana Jones”. Heck, look at the non-couples of the trash like the Russos Netflix film “The Electric State”. Or expensive bombs like the suite of Todd Phillips “Joker: madness to deunt”. The money is burned regularly.

Can a line be crossed? Hollywood seems to try to brake her expenses, because even superhero films and “Star Wars” films are no longer safe. But the industry will only continue to be encouraged to be irresponsible only if even a tent tent out of 10 out of 10. 1997 was only the beginning. The present is so much larger.