Well, lads and lasses, despite summer still going strong and threatening to melt us all into sweaty puddles, I believe the time is right to end my little vacation and get back to writing.
But while this should be a somewhat happy time, it’s slightly marred by the fact that we’re looking at some stupid fan theories. And not only that, but it’s about Titanic, a topic we’ve looked at before.
Dave: And I’ve got some really good ones today!
Given what happened last time, you’ll excuse me if I’m not exactly brimming with confidence… But best not to waste any time and just get into it. What’s the first theory?
Dave: So, the first theory is that Jack is actually a ghost!
Right… Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but that sounds suspiciously like that theory about him being a figment of Rose’s imagination, doesn’t it?
Dave: No, no, he’s not a ghost throughout the ENTIRE story. He’s just a ghost towards the end when Jack and Rose are in the water!
Well, obviously. Silly me. And what undoubtedly overwhelming evidence is there to support that?
Dave: Well, after the ship sinks, Jack manages to find a piece of debris, which he gets to Rose for them to use as a raft. But before that, they get separated, and yet Jack manages to find Rose among about 1500 people screaming and thrashing, in time to save her. Perhaps Jack actually drowned and this is actually his ghost trying to get her to safety. This would explain why he didn’t make much of an effort to get onto the raft himself, and it also explains what he says to Rose, about how she’s “going to get out of this” and how she would go on to have kids and die at a ripe old age.
Hang on, what does that last thing have to do with anything?
Dave: Isn’t it obvious? Those predictions came true! He’s a ghost, and he has the power of precognition!
Oh good god, this is painful…
Right, so let’s start with the events right after the sinking. It is true that the two are separated temporarily. However, when the ship sank, they were standing on the stern of the ship, side by side.
So even if they were temporarily separated, they’re still likely to emerge within a relatively short distance. It is incredibly lucky for Jack to have found a piece of debris for the two of them, but it’s not exactly supernatural that two people would find each other in a crowd, and find a piece of flotsam after a shipwreck.
Then there’s the idea that Jack didn’t make an effort getting onto the raft. The problem with that idea is that Jack actually does try! First he gets Rose up on the doorframe, and then tries to climb up himself, but it starts to flip over, which is when he tells Rose to get up on it herself while he stays in the water.
And there’s his reassurance to Rose, his supposed premonition, about her having kids and living to a ripe old age.
The problem is, it’s leaving out the context of that quote, and why he’s saying it in the first place.
It’s some time after the actual sinking and most of the turmoil has (quite literally) died down.
And Rose tells Jack that she loves him, and Jack responds:
Jack: Don’t you do that. Don’t say your good-byes. Not yet, do you understand me?
Rose: I’m so cold…
Jack: Listen, Rose, you’re gonna get out of here. You’re gonna go on, and you’re gonna have lots of babies and you’re gonna watch them grow. You’re gonna die an old… an old lady warm in her bed, not here, not this night. Not like this, do you understand me?
He’s not saying it because he can see the future, he’s saying it to make sure Rose doesn’t give up hope. He’s saying it to make her believe that she will survive, so she doesn’t just give up and slip into unconsciousness. In such a state of hypothermia, staying conscious is an active effort, and if you fall unconscious, you are never waking up again.
This theory focuses on the first part of what Jack says to Rose, but ignores the part after, where he makes her PROMISE to stay alive.
You must do me this honor. Promise me you’ll survive, that you won’t give up, no matter how hopeless. Promise me now, Rose, and never let go of that promise.
And as we see later, Rose went on to have a long and happy life, full of adventures, having three kids and several grandkids. It’s not because of ghostly precognition, but because Jack sacrificed his own life to save hers, and his dying wish was for her to have a long and happy life.
Really, this theory only cheapens that entire exchange, to where rather than Jack sacrificing his life to ensure Rose not just survived, but lived a rich, full life… instead, it’s just the illusion of choice, and her free will is meaningless in the face of predetermined timelines.
And of course, this is ignoring that, going back to when they were separated after the sinking, when Jack finds Rose, she’s in the process of being drowned by a panicked passenger trying to use her as a flotation device.
And Jack decks the guy in the fucking face! He then drags Rose behind him to that piece of debris, and like I said, when he tries to get onboard, it starts to tip over.
I hate to tell you this, but all this is a bit tricky if you’re an incorporeal entity!
He demonstrably has mass and weight and physics and interacts with the world around him. In other words, there’s absolutely nothing to suggest he’s a fucking ghost! The only thing that points to it is “He is lucky”, which isn’t enough to prove it. And again, this theory would only weaken the story, even if it was true!
This is all of course on top of the fact that this theory also introduces a supernatural element to the story that up until now has had absolutely nothing supernatural or magical in it, for no adequately explained reason! Next theory.
Dave: Alright. The second theory actually has to do with Rose and Jack and that doorframe. You see, the theory is that both Jack and Rose could have fitted on that piece of debris!
Aah yes, this is a classic, though I’m unsure if it actually constitutes a “theory” as such. After all, it’s more of an opinion. But either way, let’s hear the arguments.
Dave: Well, the door is clearly big enough to hold the both of them, and if they had just tried, both could have survived. This has been demonstrably proven that with the right prep, it could be done. If they had tied Rose’s life jacket underneath the door, the door would have been buoyant enough to do it!
I actually agree with this idea. I’m not one to just dismiss empirical evidence when presented with it.
Dave: Wait, so you’re saying I actually found a good theory?
Well… No. The problem with this theory for me is that it is ignoring something very important: context.
On the surface, it might seem pretty straightforward. Basically, it boils down to ”If they had done [X], both would have survived”. But even if that is true, let’s look at that experiment, shall we?
The experiment was carried out by Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman, both of whom have had plenty of training, and who’s jobs by its very nature involves a great deal of problem-solving. The experiment was carried out under controlled conditions, in the San Fransisco Bay, with plenty of time to plan.
By contrast, Jack and Rose were 20 and 17, respectively. Two kids, with absolutely no survival training between them. They were floating around in the northern Atlantic Ocean, in water that was -4 degrees Celsius. They have just survived a catastrophic shipwreck, wherein they have watched as people drown or fall to their deaths.
So they are two untrained kids, who are likely in a deep state of shock, hopped up on adrenaline, and submerged in water below freezing temperature. Oh, and they are facing the very real possibility that they will both die here. Maybe, and I’m just spit-balling here… but maybe they’re not really in a mental state to do problem solving, and which they can’t be sure would work at all, and if it fails, they might lose the life jacket and be in even more dire straits than they were before, and which they might not actually be in a physical state to carry out, even if they did think of it.
It’s tricky, after all, to tie a knot if you can’t feel your fingers.
So even if the argument around the theory is true, all it does is allow for a smug “Ha, I know what they should have done”, which doesn’t really help anyone.
Again, not sure if this really counts as a fan theory as such, but I felt like we needed to bring it up, if only for posterity.
So let’s finish with another proper fan theory, just to make sure.
Dave: The last theory is that Jack Dawson is a time traveler.
Uhm… we already covered this last time, Dave.
Dave: I know, but this is an elaboration on that theory!
So we’re going to elaborate on a theory that didn’t work the first time? This feels like a bit of a waste of time, doesn’t it?
Dave: Come on, give it a chance. Now we actually have a REASON for why Jack went back in time!
Alright, I’ll humour you.
Dave: Ok, so what is another franchise that has a history of time travel? And where someone has to go back in time to save someone important to the future? Don’t you see? Titanic is a prequel to The Terminator!
…What!?
Dave: It explains why he was so keen on saving Rose! He was sent back because John Connor was determined to ensure a superior genetic makeup for himself, and he sent back genetically superior “fathers” through time, having mapped his own genome. Jacks and Rose’s night of passion resulted in her pregnancy and she gives birth to one of Sarah Connors parents!
Ok, I’ll give you this, the theory is quite detailed. It’s absolutely idiotic, but at least it’s detailed…
So let’s break this down. Now, if Jack’s mission is to impregnate Rose with his genetically superior DNA, then that would require him to… you know, be a genetically superior human specimen. And frankly, I question that, seeing as Jack is kind of spindly and scrawny. Kyle Reese at least was a rough and seasoned warrior. I also question him being a genetically superior specimen, but he does at least have some physical traits you might want in a warrior.
But mainly, the problem with this theory is that I don’t see any actual EVIDENCE to support this idea. Just lots of speculation! We’ve no evidence Rose is in any way related to John Connor.
That means that regardless of the elaboration, we end up with the same problem as with the original theory. What is the proof that Jack is a time traveler?
Dave: Well… he didn’t have any money to pay for a ticket, which is why he had to gamble for it.
Which proves that he is poor, not that he’s from the future. In fact, if you travel back in time, especially if you’ve got a very specific mission on board a famous ocean liner, wouldn’t it be a good idea to actually plan ahead when it comes to money and make sure he didn’t have to gamble for a ticket, potentially lose and completely FAIL said mission?!
Dave: Well… maybe records weren’t available to allow that?
Oh, so records exist after Skynet obliterates the world for John Connor to trace his family tree back three generations and know that his great grandmother was aboard the Titanic… but there’s no records of the stock exchange or anything like that?
I’ve said it before when I covered that theory about Brave, but it’s worth repeating: If you travel back in time, the first thing you’d do if you had any brains is figure out a way not to be poor! You can literally benefit from hindsight!
So that doesn’t really ring true. His dialogue, as I’ve said, could be explained by Rose misremembering things. After all, she herself makes a reference to Sigmund Freud’s studies regarding male genitalia… which wasn’t published until 1920, 8 years after the movie takes place.
Dave: Aha, but Jack also has a rucksack!
…Yes. What about it?
Dave: That rucksack is a design that was made for the Swedish army in 1939!
…Ok, and you think this validates the theory?
Dave: Absolutely!
…Do you really need me to explain to you why this idea doesn’t work? Do you honestly not see the problem with this?
Dave: What are you talking about?
Firstly, I’m not sure Jack is actually using a 1939 army backpack. From what I can see, it looks more like a large canvas sailor’s bag. It doesn’t seem to have pockets or straps, only a large rope on top, for carrying over the shoulder.
But even if he actually has an army backpack from 1939… that’s something that strikes against this theory.
Dave: What? How!?
Well, the army backpack is a large canvas bag. Canvas is a type of thick cloth.
Dave: Yeah. And?
Remind me… In the Terminator universe, what happens to cloth when you travel through time?
Dave:…Oh.
That’s right! Inorganic matter cannot be sent through time! Hence why when you arrive, you’re naked!
And even if it could… why the hell would John Connor send Jack Dawson into the past from the post-apocalyptic future with a fucking canvas bag?! Out of ALL THE THINGS Jack might need in 1912, he doesn’t get money or supplies… he gets a bag! Just… why!?
Dave: Uhm…
Or is the implication that Jack stopped in the 1940’s, and picked up the bag there, before moving on? You know, that thing that isn’t possible?
So really, we end up back at the same old problem with the original theory. If Jack is a time traveler, why did he go on the Titanic?
Why the hell would he deliberately go on a voyage that is ONLY FAMOUS because it ended in disaster?! Why didn’t he do anything to avert that disaster? If he’s sworn not to interfere, why did he save Rose? Either he is allowed to interfere, in which case he could also prevent the ship from sinking, or he’s not allowed, and should have let Rose jump. Otherwise, saving Rose only makes sense if something else, outside the established timeline, is what leads to her attempted suicide.
I’d go on, but this is all stuff we’ve gone over once already!
So well done, Dave. Your elaboration of an already idiotic fan theory, meant to EXPLAIN IT, has somehow managed to make the whole thing make even less sense!
Now, I think I’ve had enough Titanic-theories to last me several lifetimes. Much like the real Titanic, they seem strong and impressive and reliable, but they end broken and sunk far below the waves because they don’t hold water.
It’s rather poetic, in a way.
Devil in the Details 