Skip to main content

While Titanic was being filmed, studio executives started to panic, because the movie costs kept climbing. Director James Cameron refused to cut any corners to make them happy, but there was one expense he decided to forgo. He could have built a full replica of the doomed ship, but he opted not to — although the truth is that he didn’t do it to save the budget.

‘Titanic’ was filmed in many locations

where was titanic filmed
The movie “Titanic”, written and directed by James Cameron. Seen here from left, Leonardo DiCaprio as Jack and Kate Winslet as Rose. Initial USA theatrical wide release December 19, 1997. Screen capture. Paramount Pictures. | CBS via Getty Images

The actual ship Titanic was on its maiden voyage from England to New York when it sank in the icy waters of the North Atlantic Ocean. But most of the movie was filmed in locations far from the site of the actual disaster. 

According to The Cinemaholic, the early scenes of divers exploring the wreck were the exception. This part of the film was not only shot near the site of the disaster, but where it actually happened. They were filmed during an exhibition of the sunken remains of Titanic in the North Atlantic.

Most filming took place in a huge Baja California, Mexico production facility. A life-sized exterior of the ship was built in a tank, and other sets were constructed nearby. Some of the other scenes were shot in different areas in California, such as the massive Belmont Olympic Pool. 

Other filming locations include Vancouver, British Columbia, and Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Why James Cameron decided not to build a full replica

All of these filming locations didn’t come cheap. Titanic was notoriously expensive to make, clocking in at $200 million. Cameron was determined not to spare any expense, paying obsessive attention to details like having authentic dishes for the dining room scenes.

So it may surprise fans to hear that Cameron could have built a full replica of the doomed ship, but he opted not to. The problem with a replica would be getting all the shots he wanted when it was time to sink it. 

“We talked about literally going to the shipyard in Poland and building the Titanic,” he explained in an interview with GQ. “I said, ‘All right, great. So, they can build a Titanic for us for $10 million? Yeah, we should think about that. Now, if we sink it, how many takes do we get?’ ‘Hmm, one.’ You know what I mean? It’s like, ‘What if I want a second take?’ So, anyway, we decided not to build the Titanic as an actual floatable ship.”

Cameron knew that it was vital to get the scenes of the sinking ship right. By sinking a mock-up of the exterior instead, he could do as many takes as he needed to get the perfect shots. 

‘Titanic’ broke records for how much it cost — and how much it earned

Related

James Cameron’s Fight Over a ‘Titanic’ Painting Lasted 15 Years and Sparked a Debate in the Art Community

In the end, the cost to make the movie was astronomical. According to BuzzFeed News, the studio spent $1 million for each minute of screen time. But Cameron was steadfast about investing in doing it right. As the costs spiraled out of control, studio executives started to get nervous. They suggested that some of the scenes should be cut. But the director refused.

“If you want to cut my film,” he told the president of Fox, “you’ll have to fire me, and to fire me you’ll have to kill me.”

In the end, the expense was worth it. The movie earned a jaw-dropping $2.2 billion and won 11 Academy Awards. And they did it all without ever needing to sail a replica of the actual ship.

Best in Entertainment