Eric D. Snider

Clash of the Titanic

Snide Remarks #26

"Clash of the Titanic"

by Eric D. Snider

Published in The Daily Universe on February 9, 1998

Audio MP3

Download audio

Many of you have seen the film "Titanic," which is about a great big boat that sank like a thousand years ago that for some reason everyone is just now getting worked up about. Some of you -- I am speaking to the women here -- have seen this movie several times. And I would like to know why. Have the principles of film-making not been adequately explained to you, so you think there's a chance the movie will end differently if you see it again? Do you think this is a "Choose Your Own Adventure" movie? Because it's not. No matter how many times you see it, the boat is going to sink, and the same people are going to die, including the guy who falls and whacks his noggin on the railing on the way down.

I think this movie is entirely too long. The actual sinking of the Titanic took only four hours; the movie is easily three times that long. (Note to reader: From the following choices, select the "this-movie-is-too-long" line you like best and go with it.) Savings bonds have matured in less time than it takes to watch this movie. Many marriages do not last as long as this movie. I had to shave twice during this movie. Three Eastern European nations (Izikikstan, Checher, and Zknkkmnzxxk) were formed while I was watching this movie.

As a public service, then, I am offering my much-shortened screenplay which some ambitious film-maker can feel free to use as the script for a shorter version of "Titanic." All I want in return is a lot of money.

(Scene 1)
KATE WINSLET: Why, this is a fancy boat, isn't it?
KATE'S WEASELLY FIANCE: Yes it certainly is. Here is the art you asked for. It is by an artist named "Picasso." I am certain he will amount to nothing.
KATE: Ha ha ha. That is very funny to our '90s audience, because of course Picasso later amounted to quite a bit, after this boat sank.
LEONARDO DICAPRIO: Hello, I'm Leonardo DiCaprio. Perhaps you have seen the many Internet sites dedicated to the worship of me. You are very pretty.
KATE: Thank you. So are you.
LEONARDO: I know. Prettier than you, in fact. I am going to put on my "brooding" face now, to ensure that women will keep coming back again and again to see this movie. Later, my white shirt will be soaking wet.
KATE: While you're doing that, I will concentrate on standing here and looking pretty, to keep the men in the audience interested until the boat sinks and people start dying.
WEASELLY FIANCE: Excuse me. I do not like you, Leonardo, even though you saved my fiancee's life. I am going to sneer at you and treat you like dirt because you're poor, and then I'll probably be physically abusive to my fiancee, and then, just to make sure the audience really hates me, and to make sure my character is entirely one-dimensional, perhaps I'll throw an elderly person into the water.
AUDIENCE: Boo! We hate you! Even though all real people have at least a few admirable qualities, we have not been shown any of yours, and plus, you're trying to come between Leonardo and Kate, and so therefore we hate you! Boo! (Even though technically it is Leonardo who is coming between you and Kate. But Leonardo is handsomer than you, even though he is only 13, so we are on his side. Boo!)

* * *

(Scene 2)
LEONARDO: I'm glad we snuck away like this so that you could cheat on your fiance.
KATE: So am I. Even though I am engaged to him and have made a commitment to marry him, that is no reason why you and I cannot climb into the backseat of a car and steam up the windows together. The fact that I am the heroine of the movie will no doubt help the cattle-like audience forgive me of this, though they would probably be VERY angry indeed if my fiance were to do the same thing to me.
AUDIENCE: Darn straight we would! Moo! We mean, Boo!
LEONARDO: I agree. First I would like to draw you, though, so of course you will have to take off all your clothes.
KATE: But can a movie with five minutes of continuous nudity be at all successful in, say, Provo, Utah, where the audiences might not stand for that sort of thing?
LEONARDO: I would be willing to bet that for the first three weeks the film is in release, every single showing at Wynnsong Theater in Provo will sell out.
NARRATOR: According to Wynnsong manager Matt Palmer, that is exactly what happened.
KATE: All right, then. (sound of clothes hitting the floor)

* * *

(Scene 3)
FIRST MATE: Captain, we're about to hit an iceberg.
CAPTAIN: Great, I could use some ice for my drink. (sound of drinking)
ICEBERG: (hits boat)
FIRST MATE: That can't be good.
CAPTAIN: Bottoms up!
AUDIENCE: (silence)
FIRST MATE: That was irony, you fools.
AUDIENCE: Baa! Moo! Where's Leonardo?

* * *

(Scene 4)
LEONARDO: I have been informed that this boat is sinking.
KATE: That is terrible.
LEONARDO: Would you like to engage in some more immoral-but-justified behavior?
KATE: Certainly.
WEASELLY FIANCE: Excuse me, I --
WEASELLY FIANCE: (aside) I'm getting the raw end of the deal here. (to Leonardo) Listen, Leonardo, to cement my morally-dubious-yet-somehow-less-annoying-than-you personality, I am going to handcuff you to this pipe, here in a room that will soon be filling with water, due to the fact that we are sinking, which I believe has been mentioned previously.
LEONARDO: Why don't you just shoot me?
WEASELLY FIANCE: Because then you wouldn't be able to escape and save Kate from me. Of course, you're going to die anyway--
AUDIENCE: Don't spoil it for us! Boo!
LEONARDO: He's right, though. I am doomed.
AUDIENCE: Aww, look how cute he is when he's doomed.
WEASELLY FIANCE: I hate you people.

* * *

(Scene 5)
150-YEAR-OLD KATE: And that's when Leonardo rescued me from my evil fiance and helped me float on a board in the water. Of course, if it hadn't been for having to rescue HIM, I could have gotten on an actual lifeboat, and not frozen my legs nearly off. Anyway, he's pretty much dead now, and I'm well over a thousand years old, and who's making my supper? I need a bath. Turn down that Enya music, it's making my ears hurt. You kids today, with your loud music. Why, when I was -- hey! Don't you walk away from me, Mr. Snooty-Patootie! I'd turn you over my knee, if I had one. I'll beat you in the head with this huge diamond! Come back here!

(Fade to black; roll credits; play annoying Celine Dion song.)

Stumble It!


A couple housekeeping items, and then on to the big stuff. First, in scene 2, I had written "...that is no reason why you and I cannot have sex together." It was suggested that I change it to "...that is no reason why you and I cannot climb into the backseat of a car and steam up the windows together." I maintain that this change is actually dirtier than the first version; however, it's also slightly less blunt, since the "S"-word is avoided. Since I didn't feel strongly enough about it, I didn't argue with the suggestion, and I made the change.

The word "Checher," used as a new Russian republic, was borrowed from the great show "Mystery Science Theater 3000." In one of the older episodes -- with Joel, not Mike -- Joel used that word as a euphemism for poop. I've been fond of the word ever since.

Now then. This column received more reaction, both positive and negative, than any other column I had written to this point. It also proved to be by far the most widely read thing I'd ever written (and even now, more than a decade later, it's probably still up there). A couple weeks after publication, it came to my attention that this column was being forwarded via e-mail all around the country, as one of those funny anonymous e-mails you're always getting from your friends. As the forwarded chains have come back to me, I've been able to conclude that literally thousands of people all over the world have seen it.

Unfortunately, my name was taken off it at some point, and almost all the versions I've seen have had the joke about Picasso inexplicably changed to: "That is very funny to our '90s audience, because they know these priceless paintings will sink with the boat." My joke was a lot funnier.

Still, it's quite flattering that the "Titanic" column has been so popular all around the country, and not just at BYU. Especially considering I didn't think it was that great when I wrote it. Some of the jokes are too weird, I think, and some of them are just lame. In fact, I was afraid people who hadn't seen the movie wouldn't find it funny at all (the e-mails I've gotten have proved otherwise), and that because of its unusual format -- not a typical "Snide Remarks" -- people just wouldn't take to it. Obviously, I was wrong.

The first real problem with all the e-mail forwarding developed on March 10, 1998, when I received an e-mail from a co-worker. A friend had sent it to her, saying a writer friend of his parents had written it. "It" was my "Titanic" column, with several changes. Obviously, the friend of the parents of the guy my co-worker knows did NOT write it; I did. I never did get to the bottom of this. If you would like to read the plagiarized version -- it is rather interesting to see the changes he made, and it was circulated somewhat widely -- you can find it here.

More problems developed on March 24, when the inevitable finally happened: Someone forwarded me this column, it having been forwarded to her by someone who CLAIMED TO HAVE WRITTEN IT HIMSELF! This incident, which is called plagiarism and which is still illegal in this country, is still under investigation.

But it didn't stop there. Following a tip given to me by an anonymous informant, I did an Internet search on the Alta Vista search engine. I discovered about 30 websites on which this column had been posted. All but two of the people had posted it without giving me credit; two or three of them even claimed to have written it themselves! Subsequent searchs over the next year or so uncovered literally hundreds of Web sites on which this column was posted.

(For the record, the following three people have each, at some point, claimed authorship of this column: Maren Connolly, D.C. Rouseau and Laura Varner. Kenneth R. Gilland's name was put on it at some point, but after he was publicly accused of plagiarism, both on this Web site and in the first "Snide Remarks" book, he contacted me and informed me that he never claimed to have written it. He merely forwarded the e-mail to some friends, and someone along the way mistakenly attributed it to him. So he is exonerated.)

Thus began an e-mail campaign that continued for quite some time. I would find these sites, track down their creators, and set them straight as to who wrote the piece. I would then insist they either remove the article from their site, or else give me proper credit. Most gave me the credit; a few simply, lazily, removed the column from their site. A few more, even more lazily, ignored my e-mail.

When the first "Snide Remarks" book was nearing completion, I began e-mailing all the sites again, this time telling them they had to remove the piece -- merely giving me attribution wouldn't be enough. For copyright reasons, we couldn't have the article floating around the Internet, attribution or no attribution.

All of this Internet policing caught the attention of Andy Riga, an Internet columnist for the Montreal Gazette. He interviewed me via e-mail and printed a very good column about the whole thing on July 29, 1998. It used to be online, but the Gazette apparently doesn't keep things there forever, because it's gone now.

As for people's reaction to the column: Obviously, many, many people liked it, well enough to steal it. But of course, some people were bothered by it too. Some of them had exactly the reaction I thought I would get from certain females in the population. Here's the first letter I got, exactly the way it was written, typos and all:

I thought "Titanic" was the best movie I've ever seen and even though you may not care what I think, your column kind of hurt. I've only seen it once, due to the immodest scenes (I wasn't warned about them beforehand), but what is wrong with seeing a movie more than once if you really like it? How many times have you seen "So I Married An Axe Murderer" or "Billy Madison" or "Tommy Boy"? I'm sure more than once. [That's true, except for "Billy Madison," which I got half-way through before realizing it wasn't funny.] Those are great movies and we see them more than once because they just seem funnier every time. "Titanic" may not be funnier every time people go see it but it just gets better because you understand it a lot more than the first time you saw it. Anyway, I'm not mad at you because you still tell the truth and you are still very funny, sometimes.

PD: No te preocupes, todavia me caes bien.

(The last bit is Spanish for "Don't worry, I still like you," more or less.)

If your feelings can get hurt just by being told that seeing a movie more than once is silly, then I think your feelings are too easily hurt. However, this girl must have gotten over it, because she bought a copy of my book -- which contained her letter -- and had me sign it when I did a book-signing at the BYU Bookstore in September 1998.

I then received this e-mail, written by two girls who did NOT come to the book-signing. I am reprinting this exactly as I got it. I have italicized the parts of the letter I like best:

Usually my roommate and I read your column and laugh, but this time, you went too far with your attack on Titanic. You for one, criticized girls for seeing movies over and over. They don't just see Titanic, there's a little known fact there that girls have feelings more than typical guys do, and they happen to enjoy movies that catch their attention. Some people have noticed Titanic more, it is a movie that not only shows a nice love story, which girls happen to love, if you haven't noticed, it is also a history of a very important event in history. It is good for people to know this, and to see this history, to realize the mistakes that people make, in order that they are not made again. So maybe the love story isn't true, with Rose and Jack, but it added to the dramatics of an actual story, and we feel that it is important that people see this. If you are offended by the sex scene in it, I can see how that could be, that is not the whole movie. Having Rose sketched naked isn't the whole movie either, and people seem to only see that, and not realize the truth. Many more points are shown, the actual sinking, the amount of deaths, and the prized things that were associated with it. In your criticizing of Leonardo DiCapprio, it seems as though you are jealous of his looks, or of the fact that girls happen to enjoy seeing him act. This shows that possibly you are jealous of an actor, which would be quite natural of a guy who has been in tons of movies, and made more money than you will in your whole life. He also has more girls swarming over him than you could ever imagine. Sorry if you don't like this movie, but we feel that maybe you shouldn't be so critical of it when so many other people enjoy it.

This letter, which by the way was signed by two freshman girls -- it took TWO people to write this letter -- just irritated the heck out of me. Such immature arguments, such emotional knee-jerk reactions, such, such a lot of things. So I wrote this letter in reply:
I'm glad you guys normally enjoy my column.
"Having Rose sketched naked isn't the whole movie either, and people seem to only see that, and not realize the truth."

Which truth is this? The truth that the naked sketching part did NOTHING to further the love story between Jack and Rose, and was used only as an excuse to show someone naked? The truth that Mormons will go see ANY movie as long as it's not rated R, regardless of what's in it? The truth that many of these same Mormons would be highly offended if they saw the same exact nudity in a rated-R movie, but since it's PG-13, that makes it OK? These are the points I was trying to make in the column.

"In your criticizing of Leonardo DiCapprio, it seems as though you are jealous of his looks, or of the fact that girls happen to enjoy seeing him act."

Ah, see, you've hit on an interesting point. While I certainly wouldn't mind looking like him (well, maybe a little older), what I don't like is how so many girls -- we're talking about the high school girls, mostly -- think he's this great actor, when what they mean is, he's really good-looking. They have NO IDEA whether he's actually talented or not, all they care about is his looks. I'm tired of people in all areas of society being judged solely on looks, and having good qualities attributed to them simply because they are attractive. ("I think he's cute, therefore he must be a great actor.") Leonardo's appearance has no bearing whatsoever on his acting talent, which is marginal.

"Sorry if you don't like this movie, but we feel that maybe you shouldn't be so critical of it when so many other people enjoy it."

Sorry if you don't like the column, but I feel that maybe you shouldn't be so critical of it when so many other people enjoy it.

Are you saying I have no right to criticize a movie if a lot of other people like it? That I should adjust my opinion according to what the voice of the people says? I wasn't trying to put forth the idea that EVERYBODY didn't like it; just that I didn't.

A lot of people liked the "Titanic" column. In fact, I've gotten more positive e-mail about it than I usually get about other columns.

As is often the case, you've let your emotions take over and dictate for you what's funny and what's not. If you had agreed with me, you'd have found the column funny. Since you disagree -- and since you have such strong emotions about the movie -- your emotions are refusing to let you find the column funny. I can make fun of anything else, and it's all in fun. But as soon as I touch your precious Leonardo -- now it's not funny anymore! Now it's unfair and mean! Now I'm just jealous! I've never been jealous of the other people I've made fun of, but now all of a sudden my motives for writing humor columns have changed. Now I'm in it to tear down the people who are better than me! You've discovered my secret! Aaaah!

Thanks for the great e-mail. I'll post it to my website (without your names, don't worry), so others -- with a sense of humor -- can see it.


Obviously, I wasn't feeling very tactful or diplomatic when I wrote that, and I knew it would just upset them more. But I couldn't let the opportunity pass without at least trying to set them straight in some of their logic. I didn't want them to think I agreed with them, and I couldn't find a nicer way of putting it. (Admittedly, I didn't try very hard.)

Why on earth did they take my column so personally? The fact that they could even get so worked up over a column that makes fun of a MOVIE indicates that these gals were letting their emotions do their thinking for them.

Anyway, they both wrote back to me, separately this time. Here are the unretouched letters, with a lot more typos than before, suggesting that maybe they really DID need to write together instead of separately.

As for me I DO find your colemn humorous in some ways. But it's not just Leondardo. The movie in general is a good movie. And Leonardo is a good actor. HE has been in many other movies other than Titanic and girls still see him. They don't just drool over him in Titanic. He has a good acting style and his looks are just a bonus. Personally I don't see how making fun of anyone or anything can be humorous to you. I guess I am just the type of person who doesn't critisize. I am not critisizing your article, I am just commenting on it. [Ah, thanks for the clarfication.] Which may be what you are doing in your articles. I just hope you know that there is a boundary line, and that can hurt alot of people. You commenting on any mormons going to see a movie because it is PG13 and not caring what is in it, well that hurts me alot. I actually do take percaution in the movies that I watch. Maybe not everyone does, but alot of people do. I am hurt by your email, and I chose not to read your colemn any longer. Not that this will mean alot to you, but just know that somewhere in the world you have hurt an individual. That individual would be me. I am sorry if you think other wise, but that still doesn't accout for your remarks made towards me. You are actually looking down upon me for seeing that movie, well I don't feel that I need you to judge me. But thanks for the concern anyway. Good luck in the rest of your endeavors.

I'm not sure why she felt I was attacking HER for seeing the movie. For crying out loud, I saw it too. Maybe my thing about how Mormons will see movies just because they're PG-13, regardless of their content, was too general for her. I really didn't mean to say that ALL Mormons are like that; just some of them, and perhaps you could even say Mormons in general. At any rate, I certainly didn't mean to single her out. Oh, well. The other girl seemed to take it the same way, I think, though she handled it in a far less mature manner:
I was very offended by your reply, and very hurt, because of the way you judge. Your comment of "The truth that Mormons will go see ANY movie as long as it's not rated R, regardless of what's in it" really wasn't a truth. For your information, I grew up in a strong household, where my parents had to see any movie rated PG-13 before I or any of my siblings could. There are many movies that I haven't seen just because of things that are in them. You are implying that Mormons go to any movie, just as long as its rated something lower than R. I must disagree with you there. How dare you just stereotype that idea.

Leonardo DiCaprio is a good actor, and I remember watching him act in TV shows since I was young. He is not on the screen just for looks, and obviously you would know this is if you had any knowledge of his past with acting. I don't care for the looks. I care how he is able to show emotions, and to portray himself. You assume that all people just like him because of his looks, and you are extremely mistaken there. Your comment of "I think he's cute, therefore he must be a great actor.", show's that you have no clue what is going on in girl's heads.

And as for your comment that Leonardo's acting talent being marginal, I see him in a whole lot more movies than I've ever seen, um, well, YOU in. So obviously he has a talent more than you do, hu? [Oh, yeah?! Well how many newspapers does Leonardo write for? Hu? Hu?]

How dare you say that I've "Let your emotions take over and dictate for you what's funny and what's not." You have no idea what my emotions said about that movie, or about your column. The main reason we wrote you an email was for what you said about the MOVIE. Not about Leonardo DiCapprio. [Then why did you spend the last two paragraphs so vigorously defending him? And are you somehow less emotionally wacky for writing me angry mail about a movie than you would be if you were writing about an actor?] You ought to re-read things before you go and try and put someone down, which is exactly what you have done by stereotyping high school girls, and Mormons, and myself. You don't even know me, how dare you try and assume you know what I think. For myself, I will no longer read your stero-typic column, for I feel no need to see you find pleasure in putting others down. Isn't BYU a place we come to build people up? I guess it is in all ways except for Eric Snyder's opinion column. [Or even in Eric Snider's, for that matter.]

These three letters are some of most favorite letters of all time.

I mentioned earlier that this column was forwarded to people all around the country. One of those recipients sent me this e-mail message. I have not added anything to it; all parenthetical remarks were in the original:

I received this publication via email forward. I usually find the material emailed to me amusing, but not this time.

I've seen this movie 5 times, NOT to think the movie will end differently, and NOT to look at Leonardo DiCaprio OR his TERRIBLE acting. I find it to be a perfectly accurate portrayal of what actually happened, and who was on board [with the exception of Rose and Jack, of course]. But in your little "I hate Titanic" rant, you did make several large-scale errors. The movie is only 3 hours and 14 minutes long. This is not quite as long as "The Stand" or "Schindler's List," both of which are equally as interesting. Gloria Stewart [old Rose]'s character is only 100 ["101 next month"], and it ONLY took the actual ship 2 HOURS AND 40 MINUTES to sink from the collision point, not 4 hours[and according to your calculations, the movie is 3 times as long as 4 hours, or 12 hours? I THINK NOT]. It struck the iceberg at 11:40 pm and finally went under at 2:20. So you're WRONG. Whether you meant this as a joke or not, please get the facts before you plan on insulting people who appreciate good cinematography, and maybe you can learn to appreciate the wreck and be respectable of the 1500 people who DIED in 1912. Show some RESPECT for crying out loud.
[oh and if you actually wish to LEARN something, you can check out for the RMS Titanic Inc website.

The letters just kept coming. This one is again reprinted exactly as it was e-mailed to me, including the 4,832 commas the writer used instead of other, more appropriate punctuation. I have italicized the parts I like best.
Actually it took 2hrs.and 40 minutes for Titanic to sink, so that leaves about 40 minutes for "extras". I feel you are completely titled to your own opinion, Titanic is a big part of history, It is one of the event that made the world the way it is now, and you treat it, with such little respect, I am so amazed by how well this film captured Titanic, the losses, and the lifes of those aboard. I think Titanic was a wonderful movie, it's not just because of Leonardo DiCaprio, I think he is a good actor, and Kate Winslet was amazing in it, It's wonderful because it's a true story, it's romantic, funny, there's action, and it almost all of it happened, so what if "Jack" and "Rose" were not real characters, it was a wonderful way of putting it all together, and who knows, the story might be real...Maybe there was a love triangle on the ship, if you only knew how close to home this movie has hit with people, you might think twice before putting it down so much, this movie is important to people, because it portrays real human emotions, and the fact that life is important, and that part where rose was painted in the nude I thought it was a beautiful scene, it was just a painting, art. I think people who are offended by this movie, those scenes, should just not see it.

And I think people who are offended by my column should just not read it. In reference to her "if you only knew how close to home this movie has hit with people," that's exactly the reason why I DID make fun of it: because the movie hits close to home. For many people -- some of these letter-writers included -- "Titanic" was the emotional pinnacle of their entire lives. If nobody cared about the movie, a parody would have been pointless. But you knew that.

Another letter, this one more in reference to my not-so-kind handling of the letter from those two freshman girls earlier:

I am writing you about your article "Clash of the Titanic." I thought that your re-written script was very funny. However, it was very immature of you to make the assumptions that you made about people. I'm sure that it is very easy for you to bash a bunch of teenage girls that might not have the best writing skills, but in reading their letters and your article, I found that you are no different from them. [Okay, so maybe you can portray your feelings a bit more eloquently than they.] You ask why people - or, according to you, women - see movies (Titanic, in particular) more than once. Have you not ever read a book more than once? Have you not rented the same movie several times for the mere fact that you enjoy it? I have seen Titanic three times. Granted ten hours is a long time to devote to one movie, but I saw the movie three times because I liked it a great deal. I didn't do it to see Leonardo DiCaprio (who, is handsome, but is nothing more than an underdeveloped boy). I didn't do it because I'm a woman. In fact, I know many males that saw the movie more than once. I did it because it was an event. The movie is to me like many of the great classics. Of course I knew that the outcome would never change. I did not spend the $27 dollars for the suspense. I just loved the movie. True, it was not a comedy like Tommy Boy or Billy Madison, but it gave me the same pleasure that these movies do. I left the theater, eyes gushing, with a sense of happiness every time. I did enjoy the love story, but I also enjoyed the knowledge gained. I think about the poor people on the boat, and all of the chances the crew had to prevent this tragic accident. I think about the horrible way that the upper-class people turned away their fellow human beings because they had dirty hands. I realize that the movie did not completely follow the historical facts, but most movies never do.

You may not have enjoyed the movie yourself, but that is no reason to rudely (and immaturely) degrade those that did. I could easily make fun of you for seeing Tommy Boy more than once, but that would not be respecting your right to your own opinion. I loved the movie, but I also enjoyed your synopsis. I don't feel that you were attempting to offend anyone with it, but some of your remarks were too much. Perhaps your only joy comes from cracking jokes about others, but I hope you see that that makes you no different from the teenagers you wrote about. Anyone could easily joke about your "lack of a life." I mean, you sit around re-writing movies and getting into verbal arguments with young children. [Well, yeah, but I get paid for it.]However, I respect your opinion. I enjoyed your article. I just caution you to be more aware of what you write. Some of your statements could really offend people (Mormons, women, you know).

On March 12, I finally got an angry "Titanic" letter from a MAN! I was so excited. The subject line on the e-mail was "Titanic," and the letter said only that I was an illegitimate child (well, he used a slightly harsher word), and that my private parts had some serious problems in regards to their location, and well, there's really not a polite way of explaining what he said. I responded and thanked him for his concern about my private parts. That's when he wrote back with this (it will help you to know that he is British):
The only reason you act so macho man when it comes down to Titanic is that you are afraid of showing your real emotions. Deep down feel for those 1000 odd people who froze to death in water, 4 degrees below but you think yourself too high and mighty to show any sort of recognition. You probably went to see the film with your bird (if you have one, which I highly doubt) who cried her eyes out. You thought to yourself, look at the weakness in here, but the fact is, YOU are week, as you can't feel for those people who died and what a sad thought that is. And by the way Kate Winslet is one of finest actors I know. She based her character on how she felt when her boyfriend for four years died of bone cancer in 1995. She is a girl with determination and strength, where you some sort of SAD BASTARD who's got so many ants in his pants, he cant sit through a three hour film. Arrrrr was it too long for, did you need to go for a pee pee stop in the middle, or did you [have an accident in] your pants and have to change your nappy. You sound like a spoilt brat and an unachiever. I will respect your criticism when you can achieve the smallest fraction of what Kate Winslet has managed to achieve. You're a sad GIT who thought, "I will be different and slag off one of the best films of all time". The fact is you stand-alone. So go ahead and act a fool cos that is what you are.

P.S. You are obviously not British!!

He is correct in saying that I am not British; this of course is evident in the fact that I brush my teeth regularly.

With his e-mail, he was kind enough to send this picture of Kate Winslet, whom I actually find very attractive and talented, and whom I have defaced merely out of immaturity.

Alt text
Kate Winslet

The next e-mail came from an anonymous student at Southwest Texas State University. The writer does not identify its gender, but I assume it's a guy because of the way he writes. He addresses me as "Ed," probably because my e-mail address began with "edsnider," and he didn't realize the "ed" represented my first two initials. It's a common mistake, and I don't think he's stupid for making it, particularly not when he presented so many better reasons to think he's stupid:

Dear Ed..after wasting a few minutes reading your watered down attempt at making a joke I decided that i should let you in on how mis-informed you are.....First of all the titanic was arguably one of the most tragic events that took place this century.and the people that died on that fateful day in 1912 would probably regard you as an 'ass' or mabey an 'arse' because you are indeed an ass. But that is beside the point..the thing you should realize is that you are not funny and you will probably never be funny it is perhaps in your best intrest to abandon all future attempts in writing any type of literature that is supposed to have any substance - leave the titanic jokes to Letterman or Norm should try to spend the rest of your weekend looking for a new occupation as a book keeper or insurance salesmen ----may god have mercy on your pathetic frustrated soul

On Sept. 8, 1998, The Daily Universe reprinted this column in honor of "Titanic" being released on video, and also in honor of the fact that the column was in my book, which we really wanted people to buy. Along with the column, we also ran a story about all the attention it received -- being e-mailed around the world, plagiarized, etc. The reprint prompted only one angry letter this time, but it's a great one. It was hand-delivered, not e-mailed, and typed on a typewriter. It was signed with a fake name and there was no return address of any kind. (You can always tell that a person has strong convictions when they don't want you to know who they are.) Here's the letter, exactly as it was typed:
Dear Mr. Snider:

I am not a de Caprio fan, but I have seen "Titanic." If this means I am going to hell because I viewed the uncut, uncensored version, so be it. [There was, at this time, much media attention given to a video store in American Fork, Utah, that would, for $5, edit out the nude scene and the sex scene from your personal copy of "Titanic." It would appear that the letter-writer is referring to that, and to the furor over whether a movie should ever be edited, blah blah blah.]

I have read your article about the "Titanic." So? If what you wrote was an attempt at humor, it should have gone down with the Titanic as well. [Ha! Good one!] Humorous? No, it was more like stupid, contrived, dopey, or a waste of time and good newspaper space.

All your whining about getting credit for the "article" [um, funny or not, I don't think there's much question that it WAS an article, though her quotation marks around that word would imply otherwise] sounds more like an effort to bring attention to sell your lame [oh, so she's read it, then] humor booklet.

Your so-called writings [again, like them or not, I think we can safely say that the things I've written ARE writings] during your time at B.Y.U. have been stupid. Your picture even looks stupid. [Ouch!] To think tithing money, etc., went to support the Daily Universe and garbage like yours. Ugh!

Just leave, and take your nonsense with you.

T.E. Richards
A Non-fan

Woo! Man alive! That was a scorcher, no? This person's main complaint seems to be simply that the article wasn't funny -- but since when does something being unfunny prompt such passionate, hateful responses? This woman's got deeper issues than just not thinking I'm funny. I don't think I'm funny half the time, but I don't hate me nearly as much as she does.

I should explain the "tithing" remark. BYU, being owned by the LDS Church, is largely subsidized by tithing funds from the church. (The LDS people are pretty good about making their donations. That's why everyone thinks the church is rich.) This subsidizing helps keep tuition remarkably low, around $1,300 per semester at this time.

The truth is, though, that The Daily Universe is 80 percent self-sustaining (or at least it was at this time; I assume it's about the same today). We paid BYU for our office space, we printed the paper off-campus, we paid almost all of our own bills. So if any "tithing money" went to publish this column, it wasn't much. And even if was -- so what?

In July 2003 -- more than five years after the column was initially published -- I received this angry e-mail from someone named Nikki:


My first thought was that this was a fake angry letter. I get those often -- more often than real angry letters, in fact -- from people who either are hoping I will mistake the fake letter for a real one and immortalize it on my site, or from people who just think it's funny to write parodies of angry letters. I assumed this was one of those. So I wrote back and said, "Thanks for the funny e-mail." I figured if Nikki was not for real, she would realize I'd caught on and drop it. But her response made me think she was probably for real after all:

So there you go. Further evidence that we have failed as a society in teaching people not to be idiots.

Alt text

You know, I'd like to say something else about "Titanic." Along with all these angry letters, I also got many, MANY letters from people who said, "Right on! I hated 'Titanic' too!" I became the poster boy for anti-"Titanic" sentiments -- quite literally, as evidenced by the photo illustration a reader named Mike Booth sent me, which I have since had enlarged to full poster size. But you know what? I never said I hated "Titanic." I said it was too long -- a belief which I will take with me to the grave -- and I pointed out some moral problems I had with it, as well as some of the bad writing. Beyond that, all I said, or even implied, was that the movie was not as good as everyone seemed to think it was. That doesn't mean it's bad -- that just means it's not a Classic, or a Masterpiece. Certainly not worthy of 11 Academy Awards.

So that's all I was saying. Not that "Titanic" was a terrible movie; just that it was a so-so movie. To some people, though, calling it "so-so" was an unforgivable crime. And I will be amused by those people until the day I die.

Post script: Eventually, I saw "Titanic" a second time. It was in the dollar theaters in mid-summer 1998, and I wanted to see if I really hated it as much as everyone thought I did. So I went with a friend, with the main intention of mocking it and jotting down the worst parts of the dialogue. We did both of those things, but I'll be honest: I enjoyed the movie. It entertained me the first time, and it entertained me the second time. My stated opinions of it -- morally dubious, poorly written, too long, not worth all the hype -- still stand. But I will reaffirm here that I didn't think it was terrible. Happy now?

Post-post script: The "SnideCast" recording playable at the top of the page was produced for a home-made CD I put out in 2000 called "Snide Remarks: The Album" (long since unavailable). The voices are, in order of appearance, myself, Lisa Valentine Clark, and Randy Tayler. Engineering and mixing were by Mike Masse.

This item has 69 comments

  1. matt says:

    your web site sucks

  2. Cara says:

    I gotta say, even though Leo is gorgeous in that movie and I love the Titanic.

    You're column is entire truthful and I find it to be funny. Keep up the Snide comments!

  3. Mackenzie says:

    Is there any way I could get the newspaper this was published in?

  4. chantelle sparkes says:

    i always cry on titanic

  5. kaitlyn says:

    why would you take that picture and moke it like that ... thousands of people died on that ship.... this web site SUCKS

  6. sophie says:

    Then stop reading it!! or is that a too simple solution??? I found it so boring that I couldn't even get past the old woman at the beginning!! I mean it hardly shaped the world!! Please, don't get me started!!! oh and 15!! and I still have better opinions!

  7. sophie says:

    the movie not the column FYI :D

  8. Julia says:

    that is so rude! do you have any idea how many people died? 1,500! you are such a jerk! how would you like to slowly freeze to death in the middle of the ocean than have people make fun of it! i can't beileve you could be so heartless! it is not funny at all! and just to let you know, Eric, if your heart didn't break at the end of that movie, i asure you that you do not have one! think about that!


  9. caiti says:

    I have an idea, how about you go outside take a large tree and shove it up your a**!!

    Thousands died and you make fun of it???


    MY GRANDMA AND MY UNCLE (my mom wasn't born yet)


    my grandma tells me stories of that day so it's like i was there, and i feel personaly attaked by this article. my granpa has a message for you: rot in h***!!!



  10. scienceteachermommy says:

    Love your site. I wasted an hour on it today by stumbling to it from a blog called "Nemesis." I especially loved the Titanic stuff. I don't think I could ever watch it again because of the horrific dating experience I had the night I saw it. (Let's just say my date was a little TOO inspired by the morally ambiguous behavior of the characters.) I cried--good grief, I'm human--through the last thirty minutes, but the whole time I'm thinking, "For the love of all that is holy! Sink already!" The deep emotion inspired by the movie was only matched by Celine Dion's ultra-Diva performance at the Academy Awards wearing that ridiculous necklance. Hee Hee

  11. Jill says:

    Ha! What a great time I had reading all these silly comments from silly people who had NO idea what they were talking about!

    'I love Titanic, therefore YOU must love Titanic, because why would any NORMAL person's argument differ from MY far-superior one?'

    I've only just found this site Eric, but I already love it :) Keep up the great work!

    And to the people out there like Caiti, at least put forth your argument properly without resorting to childish name-calling and bad spelling. People are FAR FAR more likely to take you seriously that way. Though I suspect it's because you actually have NOTHING interesting to say...

  12. Lisa says:

    I came back to re-read this classic Snide Remarks and found that it was even better than I remembered, what with all the comments. My favorite is the person who bleeped out their own expletives. It really undermines the all-caps yelling. I thought at first Eric had added the *** to make the website worksafe, but I doubt he would have a problem with the word "hell".

    I saw the movie for the fist time in the home of a family who adored it. It was very annoying having them keep asking me if I'd noticed some little detail or checking my face to see if I was having the same emotional response to some scene. It has been close to a decade but I can still see my friend's dad's face lit up in a quasi-religious experience. When the movie ended I had to imply that I liked it more than I did. The truth is the love story bored me.

  13. Mike Norton says:

    Haven't seen this movie, don't plan to. I'm just amused at all the people who curse at Eric (especially those who censor their own cursing) for mocking a movie. It's a MOVIE!

    I feel prompted to remind the more childish among us that at no point did Eric ever mock the actual sinking of the Titanic, nor did he attack those who perished in 1912. He mocked a movie. Why get so upset about it?

  14. Daniel Atamanczyk says:

    'Clash of the Titanic' is true classic American literature.

    The comments on this website show how your wonderful Titanic article continues to bring out the best in your readership. I am amused, as well as bemused, that some will have gone through your article, and your post comments, gain a little insight into your thought process, and still post irrational comments on how you mock the tragedy.

    Keep up the good work, I love your writing!

  15. Christina D says:

    This cracks me up... all these little teenagers taking it personally that you wrote a parody of the movie. As if making parodies implies that you don't care that people died when the Titanic sank. Or as if someone who didn't like the movie is evil, because they apparently don't care about the Titanic's tragedy.

    Not so! Not liking a somewhat historically-based movie doesn't mean you don't care about the events that happened. It means that you didn't like the way it was portrayed. And Eric states at least 5 billion times that he liked the movie fine, it just was long... etc.

    I didn't particularly like the movie myself, but I do feel sad that the Titanic tragedy happened and all those people died. I also am sad that some of their descendants can't write very coherently or read very well.

    Good times, good times.

  16. Kristen S says:

    Some of their descendants can't write or read well? More like all of them - reading through these hilariously misguided comments, it's safe to hypothesize that the Titantic was transporting a vast collection of elementary school grammar books in addition to it's star-crossed lovers. I hate movies like Titanic and Peal Harbor that take real life tragedy and trivialize it, telling it from the perspective of a two-dimensional dime store romance. Lame. A documentary on the Titanic will make me tear up, but the saddest moment in the blockbuster Titanic is when all those dishes break as the boat turns sideways. All that fine china, lost to the uncaring depths! Oh the horror, the horror...

  17. marie says:

    haha. i laughed. i hated titanic. i'm a girl, i don't care. kate winslet is ugly and needs to lose weight. (i'm not saying that just cuz she's not 80 lbs she's fat, i'm saying she needs to lose weight because she really needs to. 300lbs is not voluptuous. voluptuous is 38 bust, 28 waist, 42 hips. CURVES, not jelly rolls.). the fiance abused her, but she slept with some other guy while she was engaged. AND. she's ugly. AND. the movie sucked.

  18. Alasdair says:

    I just saw Titanic for the first time, and thought it was terrible. This review is entirely right: it's at least two hours too long, poorly written, and extremely dull. I honestly cannot believe anyone actually sat all the way through that movie in the cinema, because it was such an ordeal for me to get through it just on television. I didn't pay anything to see it, and I still feel like I was cheated.

    Anyway, great column. That it somehow offended so many people is all the proof you'll ever need of the heights of human stupidity.

  19. whome says:

    I loved the SnideCast. It's been a while since I revisited this article, and it's still great. I find it interesting that people argue that you are not showing respect to those who died on the Titanic, while the same thing could be said of the film itself. It was as if the filmmakers figured the story of the Titanic was so boring that they had to include a made-up soap opera to interest the audience.

  20. Mekkin R. says:

    I laughed through the entire movie. This seems like a really heartless thing to say, but I couldn't help it. I find it funny that many people seemed to be offended by Eric's column because so many people died on that ship. Just in case you are confused, I will clarify. No one died in the making of this movie. No one died in the making of a parody of this movie. So you can all rest easy tonight.

    Yes he may say some immature things, but Snider writes something called Snide Remarks. You think they pay him to be sensitive and mature? Think again. I love Snide Remarks! Keep writing not funny stuff that everyone thinks is so not funny that they keep passing on!

    Mekkin (A teenage girl)

  21. Lily says:

    Wow. Great stuff. I've never seen 'Titanic', but now I want to watch it just to see how close your script came to it. I did see the musical, and a fine rendition it was, but now I have to see what is fact and fiction about Leonardo Dicaprio.

    Now, as to you people posting thar, most specifically those yelling at this fine, if overly-sarcastic, writer for apparently making fun of a tragedy. Guess what, oh happily slandering folk, he wasn't! This Snidest of writers was actually making fun of a movie that was apparently so cheesy, some thought that the MOVIE was making fun of the TRAGEDY! Now, I haven't seen it, so I apologize for that previous comment if in fact the movie did represent the tragedy in a respectful manner, but please allow some room for those who react to a satire of a tragic event, even if they release it through humor.

    I'M NOT THROUGH YET! Excuse me as I berate the people who simply say that the movie 'sucked'. Oh, I am so TEMPTED to comment on how this is a fine example of how people will say anything to be on what they think is the right side. However, some of you might actually think that it 'sucked', but still. If you think this movie was unrespectful, SURELY there is some other way to explain your feelings towards it than merely exclaiming, 'it sucked'. And thank you, 'marie', for noting that the movie sucked because the main heroine was fat. That really instills hope for the human race in me.

    I sincerely apologize to those who actually gave a valid thought towards this article and think that they are victimized by this post, and I apologize even further pride in even thinking that someone might be offended by this one person they have never met.

  22. Chris says:

    I have to go back to #9. She says that her grandma AND uncle were onboard the ship, because they sailed (those lifeboats had sails?) away and watched her grandpa die.

    First of all, if her uncle was on the ship, then, assuming he was a year old at the time, he would have to be 96 today, which means this woman is probably around 50 to 70 years old. It's hard for me to imagine someone that old getting on this website and posting a reply of that nature.

    Secondly, she states that her grandma tells (not told, TELLS) her stories of that day, implying that she's still alive. I don't know when that reply was written, but even if it was written in 1998, her grandmother would have to have been 86 + however old she was when she had this woman's uncle (let's be conservative and say 18) = 104...again assuming her uncle was a newborn on the ship.

    Bottom line: #9 could've been joking, but was more than likely lying.

  23. Kaitlin says:

    I've seen the movie countless times. It's one of my favorite movies. I'm rather sadistic though. My two favorite parts are when the guy falls off the back of the boat and hits the propeller, and when Jack dies. It's hilarioius.
    "I'll never let go Jack." Then she literally breaks his hands off of hers so she can be free.


  24. jorge says:

    omg people he's not making fun of the people who died!!! u guys are so stupid

    he's making fun of the movie THE MOVIE!!! i think that this movie was serioisly long and that parts of it were just bonus crap that they put to make the actual story more interesting. but i mean come on people you guys know that this movie was way to long for the hour of the people drowning that was the only part that really mattered!!!

  25. Ian says:

    Man, Eric. I feel for you, really, I do. It must be frustrating for people to NOT get what your column is really trying to get at, and instead bash you nationwide for all sorts of things they assume you said.

    As I read this terribly funny article, I notice that the main beef that people have with your Titanic-bashing is this:


    But you know, there is a major difference between saying "This movie sucks, and Leonardo should get wasted" and saying "Those dudes who were on the Titanic suck, good thing they got wasted".

    Disrespecting the dead (God bless their souls) and disrespecting the idiot director are two very different things. Flipping off the dead, and flipping off the idiot director are two very different things. Blowing the dead a raspberry...(never mind, you get the point)...

    Maybe you should touch on this aspect if ever you update this article. And in the meantime, keep the snideness flowing.

    A Fellow Acolyte of the Cult of Snide, Sarcastic and Sardonic Remarks

  26. Tyler says:

    Does anyone else think it is ironic that #9 tells our host to shove a tree up his a** and rot in hell... then signs the posting "love, Caiti"

  27. Renzo rollin inna benzo says:

    Funny stuff

  28. AI Pacino says:

    Are you serious, people who get offended with relative who died on the Titanic?

    The column was making fun of the movie which portrayed a fictional lovestory that took place on the Titanic, not the actual sinking of it. I seriously doubt Snider was intending to joke about the ACTUAL people who died or the ACTUAL ship. I am very sorry that your relatives died, I am very sorry for all people who died in the sinking of the actual Titanic. The only thing is that this movie isn't really about them, it's about Rose and Jack, and although the Titanic did really sink, and there are some historical accuracies in this movie, by making fun of it the column is in no way disrespecting your relatives or this horrible disaster.

  29. Richard says:

    I liked the movie "Titanic"; I loved this article. I think it's about the funniest thing I've ever read. If you like this sort of writing then check out National Lampoon's "Board of the Rings." It was out of print, but I'm confident that it's been resurrected after the popularity of the movie version of Tolkien's classic trilogy.

    Eric, I hope you find great success and joy in writing.

  30. Joe says:

    I heard that some of the actual people who survived the Titanic disaster didn't like the movie becuase it made them look undignified - all that screaming and the like.

    Well to me, it's still the best movie with this message: Poor safety requirements for cruise liners is the suck.

  31. Gary Weber says:

    I enjoyed your column when I first received it in email form around 10 years ago. While I enjoyed the movie too, my then-72-year-old mother stated, "They did not behave that way in 1912!" She was refering to the sex scene in the back of the car. That is a 1950's rock & roll era invention. Your moral points are well taken and well founded, if one has a moral standard. Why must senseless nudity and gratuitous sex have so much play in a movie? Kate Winslet looks fantastic, but honestly, why?

  32. molly says:

    this has already been said, i'm sure, but i'll just say it again: he isa not making fun of hundreds of people dying, he is making fun of a movie. They are two entirely separate concepts; furthermore the sinking of the titanic is not "one of the most defining moments if the 20th century"; it was entirely overshadowed by the first and second world wars, the cold war etc. Did any of you even know it had happened before you saw the movie?

  33. Rebecca says:

    I LOVE THIS COLUMN!!! I think the titantic should be R. it's a stupid movie

  34. AWOL says:


    I wanted to find a copy of your book "Snide Remarks". Considering it is out of print I figured Amazon would be a great place to find copy. It's nearly $100! I never knew you were in such high demand.

  35. Duane says:

    I have been "stalking" your blog for several years now. I didn't know you wrote that script. I must admit that I did receive it in my email while at SUU and then sent it to someone at BYUH. I am guilty for passing it on in 1998.

  36. Corynn says:

    To those who complain because people died on the Titanic... keep in mind: this isn't a parody of the ship sinking; it is a parody of the movie. These three characters did not exist. Calm down.

  37. Patrick says:

    I understand that the column is a parody of the film ( and a good one at that), but I would have been a much better read if the writer actually took some time and came up with facts of the actual Titanic that were correct. The actual Titanic took two and a half hours to sink, not four; and the film is 194 minutes or 3.2 hours long. Also, if someone actually thinks that women were the only people who saw Titanic, then they are pretty inept. I don't think the female sex alone could make this film gross $600 million in North America and over $1.8 billion worldwide. Titanic appealed to everyone when it came out. Men, women, children, and prepubescent teenagers made up the audiences. That is why the "backlash" is so prominent now. The film's unprecedented success is its achilles heel. 'Titanic' was a monster, both critically and commercially (hence it being the highest grossing film ever and the film to win and be nominated for the most Oscars). The countless parodies and "snide" remarks are a testament to the gargantuan success that 'Titanic' attained, and still attains over a decade after its release. The sheer number of passionate responses, both positive and negative is a symbol of how big this film really was, and still is.

  38. dave says:


    You're like a God to me.

    I love these letters. I'm not sure why I read them with the same enjoyment I get from watching American Idol loosers who suck at singing when they yell, "I hate you Simon! Just you wait, I'll be famous and you'll be sorry."

    Well done, Eric.

    And for you loosers who are deeply offended by Eric's take on this ... there's a book you should read. It's called "Feeling Good" by Dr. David Burns. It teaches you how to control your emotions, and teaches the principle that feelings don't validate what it is that you think. In fact negative feelings and needy feelings (what some of you mistake for love) only make you more stubborn and less open to the truth. Now, get reading. You'll find used versions on for under $5.

  39. AEM says:

    Of course, some of those American Idol losers who scream at the judges end up offing themselves in front of Paula's house. Perhaps Eric should consider a security guard... ;-)

    Great site, Eric. Came for the "Twilight" parody, found the old "Titanic" article. Keep up the funny work.

  40. belinda says:

    You people are very messed-up in the mind. The Titanic is a very tragic happening. You have no heart a**HOLE

  41. B Rad says:

    Wow. [Sarcasm alert] Some people really know how to detect sarcasm, satire and parody. [End sarcasm alert]

  42. Jeremy says:

    Man, this site is awesome... the articles are funny, and there are tons of stupid, offended people that post hilarious emotionally charged comments on it... How did I not find this site earlier?

  43. Jaire says:

    I'm beginning to wonder if all these people going 'You mocked Titanic! You have no respect for history/people/etc!' realize that the movie they're defending was made by people whose purpose was to exploit the tragedy to make money...? Ah - oh well.

    I read this ages ago and never commented, but now I'm older and wiser. Or just older. Anyway, point is: I love the article. And I love the hate mail bit after it. And people need a sense of humor.

    And I'm done.

  44. Chelle says:

    Ummm....I happen to like the movie Titanic. I didn't appreciate you making fun of it. 1500 people died on the sinking of that ship. I have researched the sinking of the Titanic thouroughly and do not agree with your dumb website. It sucks and should be taken down.

    Have a nice day.

  45. JapanSniderFan says:

    Man, you really touched a nerve amongst women. Apparently this movie was much more important than I thought. It seems as if many people consider this MOVIE to be a valuable historical document.

    I was on my mission in Poland when the movie was released and the hype was huge. I came home and eventually saw my Mom's edited version once and was less-than-impressed. Maybe Leonardo is that much more captivating on the big screen.

    I only watch great movies (like UHF :) more than once.

  46. Valerie says:

    haha. I love all the comments from people who are still offended and upset about this article, even after all of Eric's teasing of the angry letters.

    But I need to object to them blaming Eric for being "heartless" about the tragedy of the Titanic. Do you think Hollywood made this movie in honor of all the poor innocent souls who died when the Titanic sank? No, they made it to make money. Same thing with that awful Pearl Harbor movie, or Blood Diamond, or Hotel Rwanda, or most any fictional movie made about a historical event where lots of people died. If these movies raise awareness about the tragedies they dramatize, then great! But that's not why they're made. They're made first and foremost to generate profit for major Hollywood studios. Eric isn't disrespecting the people who died by making fun of the movie Titanic, so chill out.

  47. Hoosh says:

    I just found this site, and had to post here even if the original post is very old. First, I've spent the past three days reading tons of Eric’s old posts, and I must just say Eric you are hilarious. Second, I really wish I could meet all the people who wrote to and about this article claiming it was rude and what not, because I would love to laugh at them in their faces. (I'm an ass, deal with it) The fact that anyone is worried about the people who died on this ship being offended, I'll never understand. I remeber being a little guy and going to see this twice in theaters (I was 11), I went cause my family liked it, and I remember enjoying it. Like Eric has said though this movie was never more then just so-so, and never deserved 11 academy awards. The only thing I don’t get from all these comments is the talk about the nudity. Like I said I was only 11 when I saw it, and even as a little horny 11 year old I don’t recall the nude scene being much of a big deal. Though I have picked up from reading this site that Eric and probably many of his readers are Mormons, and im assuming that’s what all the talk about that is. I'm an Agnostic, and personally nudity doesn't fall into my category of morally reprehensible. Regardless; all in all Eric I think you are amazing and just needed to say it, and even your fan base (minus the haters) seems to be a bright group of people. It’s not every day you find a site on the internet that has an intelligent forum community. Glad to consider myself a fan.

  48. Dayna says:

    I remember being a lowly freshman and enjoying the article when it was originally published. I never realized when I found this site I could have that enjoyment again but alas, once again my day has been made by Eric Snider and people who just don't get it! I love it--keep it coming!

  49. Annaliese says:

    Well Titanic happens to be my favourite movie, I have seen it over 80, which when put into hours is longer than the boat itself lasted. But put my obsession aside i LOVED this article blog thing whatever you want to call it. I was pissing myself rolling on the floor laughing... literally, well, maybe not the bit where i was peeing my pants but it was hilarious! Thanks so much, those losers up there need to get a sense of humor :)

  50. Rima says:

    whoooo caaaares what titanic is all about (post the 1.8 B :P )

    if it weren't successful it wouldn't have won 9075475620 awards. simple . when i receive poorly-written angry letters from teenagers, i just ignore them. won't bother put myself in the same court and reply.

  51. Kyle says:

    Bro, I wouldn't ever want to get into an argument with you. You'd win, even if I were right. Great article by the way, as are all the others that I've read. Keep em' coming.

  52. Jim says:

    Holy ****.

    Guess what everyone? 1500 people died when the TITANIC sank!

    Guess what else? This movie still sucks.

  53. Alex Hill says:

    I completely agree i mean who the hell cares about the stupid titanic. i mean hell it was like 'a thousand years ago.' And whats all this Hitler and Holocaust crap... i mean that was what? like 500 years ago. Dont even get me started on that whole stupid thing some people like to call the war in Iraq. i mean jeez that was like what? 300 years ago... psh. seriously. people need to get over that stuff.

    Ps if you dont see the sarcasm in that... you are retarded.

  54. Kaela says:

    I love this article, there are so many great things about it. My personal favorite thing is realizing how many people simply don't have what it takes to laugh. Did those people actually put the time into doing research to find out how many ways the article was inaccurate? Did they honestly think it was 12 hours long and felt the need to verify? Are they completely blind to the sarcasm that made this whole thing funny? Obviously.

    People are just silly, they take themselves too seriously. Because they loved the movie anything but a shining review is crap. Because they're female and it mentioned females going to movies more than once, this whole thing is crap. Because they're feeling slightly guilty for watching this movie they now feel the need to defend it and get way defensive, this is crap. Calm down, take a midol and have a good cry, then laugh at yourself for being so silly. (I can say that because I'm a girl and I didn't love, but didn't hate the movie)

  55. Myque says:

    I'm confused. If you are going to be offended by something mocking an event where 1500 people died, shouldn't it be that the event wasn't considered interesting enough to make a movie about? The writers instead needed to create a fake love story for people care about, rather than going into the story of the actual people who had actual lives and actual people that cared about them. I would think that far more disturbing.

  56. Meilssa says:

    I read this when it was originally written more than 10 years ago. I remember that I laughed my face off. I also remember laughing at the offended responses. That people would get so worked up about it was hilarious!

  57. John says:

    I read the column and laughed a lot. Then I got to the angry letters and comments. I kept laughing, but I was also wondering why these people felt the need to verbally abuse someone whose only "crime" was to write a sarcastic column about a movie. Frankly, that's the kind of anger I'd reserve for someone who'd murdered my entire immediate family. I'm also intrigued by the people who said that Eric was somehow disrespecting the dead or making light of the tragedy. I'd like to point out, as others have done, that he was mocking Jack, Rose, and the Weaselly Fiance, who are fictional characters. He was NOT making fun of the passengers of the Titanic, nor was he mocking the actual tragedy. In closing, I just want to reiterate something which quite a few people apparently missed: it was a SARCASTIC column. I'll admit that it can be hard to pick up on sarcasm when it is being read and not heard, but when the name of the column in question is Snide Remarks, what do you expect? Seriously.

  58. Spencer says:

    I agree with #55 and the other person who made a similar remark about 20 comments ago. I was on my mission in Chicago at the time this movie was released and had to look at a huge billboard advertising the movie on 101st street. It sure seemed way hyped back then. A family from El Salvador was watching it once when we went to visit, and it reminded me a lot of the Spanish novelas (soap operas) from the very little I saw. Maybe that's why it appealed to such a broad audience = so sappy. I'm grateful that I have not seen it and that my wife did not like it either.

    I actually read a real book about the tragedy a long time ago. It was very tragic and underscored the hubris of mankind: "O the vainness and foolishness and frailties of man."

  59. Jenny says:

    I'll just start off with a few random remarks.
    I like Titanic. I've seen it twice. I'm a teenage girl, but I think Leonardo DiCaprio is kind of funny looking--but talented, sure.
    But even though I like Titanic, have seen it twice, and am a teenage girl...
    I thought your column was hilarious and wasn't offended by any of it.
    I mean, really? People? This is a movie that was made 13 years ago and... wasn't real. For the girl who was so offended because her grandmother was on the Titanic when it sank... he didn't even make any critical comments about the actual sinking of the ship. He was talking about the MOVIE. Was your grandmother on the movie?
    I honestly don't understand why a movie is worth getting so worked up about. "Oh Mr. Snider, I can't believe you insulted Titanic. How dare you! I know you're a movie critic, but please stop criticizing movies!" (That was a fake quote, of course. So no reference.) I can see how you might get mad at him if he insulted your family, or, well, something that MATTERS. But this is a movie.
    ...A movie.

    And finally, for all of you who are so scandalized by this statement: "The actual sinking of the Titanic took only four hours; the movie is easily three times that long."
    Obviously he didn't really think the movie was 12 hours long.
    You know, I think I once heard of this thing called an exa.. uhm, let me think, an exat.. no.. YES! An exaggeration. That's it. But no, wait. That can't be what he was doing. He must have been serious. Or maybe he thought 3x4=3. That must have been it.

    Anyway. I just wasted about ten minutes of my life ranting to people who probably will just look at this comment, think it's too long, and pass it by to read the next one that's only two sentences. But hey, I feel better.

  60. John D says:

    I watched Titanic once and decided it was boring and overrated. Maybe it's just me, but I think Cameron does his best work when he's directing movies like Aliens, True Lies, and The Abyss. Those three movies are, in my opinion, better than Titanic.

    To the previous commenter: You make some good points, and I am happy to see a member of my generation who is capable of using complete sentences and proper grammar to express herself.

  61. roxie says:

    wow. people really are dumb. I didn't like Titanic, and your script is spot on and hilarious. People just need to get over themselves and learn to take a joke

  62. Jon says:

    I was telling a friend about this hilarious review of Titanic that was printed in the student paper when I was a student at BYU. I was happy to find it again with a Google search: "Titanic Daily Universe". I still have not seen the movie, but I did read Clash of the Titanic several times. It always ends the same.

    P.S. I also saw it printed in The Quad City Times, without attribution in 1998. The columnist said he got it in an email and it was so funny, he had to share it.

  63. Russ says:

    I have also read Clash of the Titanic several times. And it always ends in the same great way.

  64. Brittany says:

    Hahaha! Even as I am a huge fan of the movie, this made me laugh out loud. haha Audience:Baa! Moo! Where's Leonardo?

  65. Josie says:

    I am frightened by the amount of people who are saying "OMG U MADE FUN OF A TRAGEDY HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO FREEZE AND SINK AND DIE OMG MONSTER!??!?" Seriously frightened. Because picking on a movie loosely based on an event is not picking on the event itself. I am frightened by the amount of people who think it is. Terrified.

    Saying "Titanic" was an average-ish movie undeserving of so much acclaim and awards (with which I agree) is not saying "The historical sinking of the actual Titanic is laughable, and I laugh and scoff at it. *Scoff scoff*" I mean holy *********.

    By that logic, all of you who love "Titanic" and think it's the best movie ever must also love the historical event of the Titanic's sinking and think it was just the best thing to ever happen in history. YOU GINORMOUS TOOLS.

  66. snorky says:

    This was probably one of the very worst films I've ever seen in my entire life. it's right up there w/ :Valley of the Dolls" and numerous others.

    It just a damn shame that crap like that even gets recognized at all, much less an academy award!! What that clarifies is simply that "thee" academy awards are nothing but a spoof, racket and downright fake yet it's the ignorant public who suck it in. You know:"Leep em dumb"! Now it's tagged unto the arts as well. Hollywood's feet of clay were clearly shown w/ that humdinger!!
    James Camermon is nothing but a big goof. The King of Egomaniacs!! How could he parade w/ the trophy for making garbage? I'd really hate to think he knows no better. But, he does, indeed that greedy phony does yet he doesn't care how it makes him appear just as long as he gets his $$$$. That's it Jimmy, keep em dumb!!

  67. Katie says:

    I went to a retreat, and they said we were going to play a game. "Oh, fun!" I thought. But no. It was a fake talent show, and I was assigned to be an actress and re-enact the sinking of the Titanic. "NO WAY!," I thought. I'm an engineer, not an actress. Then about 5 seconds later, I remembered this column, looked it up to remind myself of the best parts, and 'performed' it by myself. I gave attribution to you, of course. Everyone LOVED it! Thanks to you, I was awesome :-)

  68. baguioboy says:

    I still love that "Moo! We mean boo!" part.

  69. John P Gambee says:

    Loved Snide Remarks. Hope you are doing well Eric!

Add your comment:

The following HTML elements are allowed: <span class="spoiler">content</span>, <strong>, <em>, <a>, and <img>.

Before posting, please read the rules.

Subscription Center

Eric D. Snider's "Snide Remarks"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly humor column, "Snide Remarks." For more information, go here.


Eric D. Snider's "In the Dark"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly movie-review e-zine. For more information on it, go here.

Visit Jeff J. Snider's website | Diamond Clarity Chart