Back in '97, Titanic didn't just set sail on the big screen-it made waves.

James Cameron's juggernaut of a movie came packed with a colossal set that took over a year and a mind-boggling $200 million to build, and it became as legendary as the ship it was based on. Fast-forward to now, and Titanic is still making headlines for reasons even Cameron couldn't have predicted. After the viral news of the Oceangate submarine's tragic voyage to the wreck this year, interest in Cameron's Oscar-sweeping epic skyrocketed, with Netflix (cleverly, some might say) picking up the streaming rights days later.

But here's the thing: Titanic was a wild risk on paper. Was he using a historical disaster to tell a fictional romance? It’s not the usual recipe for Hollywood gold. But Cameron spun it right with Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose (Kate Winslet), crafting a love story so intense it practically melted that "unsinkable" ship. And he did it with style. The mammoth replica of the Titanic wasn't just for show-Cameron ensured it could tilt and sink on cue. He even filmed some critical scenes on actual ships (because sound stages are for land lovers).

Oh, and the payoff? Titanic's box office was a tidal wave. Opening weekend was a solid $29 million, but by the end, it clocked a then-staggering $600 million stateside and a global gross of $1.8 billion. Not bad for a film that needed a solid $650 million to break even. Throw in a couple of re-releases-the 2012 3D reissue alone raked in $350 million-and Titanic has climbed to a breathtaking $2.3 billion worldwide.

The crown? It sat atop the box office throne until 2009, when Cameron one-upped himself with Avatar, now at nearly $3 billion. And even as Endgame and Avatar: The Way of Water briefly overtook Titanic, the 1997 classic stands tall as a record-breaker and pop culture iceberg. It's more than a film; it's a phenomenon that won't sink.

When Elizabeth Olsen Claimed She'd Be 'Proud' To Be Fired By Marvel After Horrible Filming Experience As Wanda