New WATERWORLD extended edition DVD

[taksraven]

WOW, a new EXTENDED edition of Waterworld on DVD. GREAT! Just what I always wanted, a better chance to view Kev's bald patch. Its a REALLY GREAT movie. The best cure for insomnia ever.

And talk about realistic and logical. Like the bit where they get attacked by the guys who are waiting underwater with their jetski's, wearing scuba gear. Like they just sit there all day waiting to attack.

And the BABE Jean Tripplehorn. Man, she is HOT!

And its GOT A MESSAGE!! We HAVE to look after the environment apparently. Who knew?

I'm getting my copy ASAP!!

Taksraven

[kaiotheforsaken]

I actually liked that movie, is it just DVD or is it Blu-Ray?

[ruskiiVFaussie]

Bloody aith it was a great movie, corny is some parts but overall enjoyable...

dunno about tripplehorny being a babe, Her eyes are as black as her soul! or something lol.

Edited November 5, 2008 by ruskiiVFaussie

[ShadowerV2]

corny

Speaking of corny.. I was waiting to use this line..

"And just this morning I had a sinking feeling. Now I know why."

[bsu legato]

IIRC, there was some moderately interesting stuff that got cut from the original movie. More interesting that the finished film, probably.

[lord_breetai]

I think the movie itself somes it up nicely...

"it does look like poo"

[areaseven]

Its a REALLY GREAT movie...

Fixed.

[boota]

Nope. Was very disappointed it wasn't a urophilia flick... with the budget they had it could've been. So nope.

[Graham]

Pass. crappy movie IMO.

Graham

[taksraven]

Nope. Was very disappointed it wasn't a urophilia flick... with the budget they had it could've been. So nope.

Yeah, how many cheaper (and probably better) films could have been made using its budget.

Its funny, everybody bags out Plan 9 from Outer Space as the worst film of all time, but when you consider its miniscule budget and low production values I think that a crappy "Big Budget blockbuster" films like Waterworld is much worse. Sinking that much money into it and the result is STILL absolute garbage? What a waste!

Taksraven

[ruskiiVFaussie]

hahah that's an awesome pic areaseven.

[areaseven]

Yeah, how many cheaper (and probably better) films could have been made using its budget.

Its funny, everybody bags out Plan 9 from Outer Space as the worst film of all time, but when you consider its miniscule budget and low production values I think that a crappy "Big Budget blockbuster" films like Waterworld is much worse. Sinking that much money into it and the result is STILL absolute garbage? What a waste!

Taksraven

It's true that Waterworld is a crappy movie, but unfortunately, it actually broke even at the box office. Now if you really want to talk about money wasted into absolute garbage, there's always Battlefield Earth collecting dust at your nearest rental store.

[Einherjar]

Reminds me when I saw the Universal Studios attraction. At least that didn't suck. Wish I could go back.

[Black Valkyrie]

Never really like, its just a popcorn flick. The basic idea is like Future Boy Conan.

[CoryHolmes]

I loved the idea behind the movie. The execution thereof, like so many other projects that fail to keep my interest, leaves much to be desired.

[Knight26]

Waterworld IIRC actually started production without a completed script, they built all these elaborate sets, costumes, boats, etc... without having a defined story beyond, the earth had been flooded by global warming. Then they started filming, made a lot of publicity and teaser shots to keep the studio interested and putting money into it before someone finally said, hey we need a writer for this. But at that point the damage had been done so they had to work in all these crazy things costner wanted, and even a script written by Joss Whedon, which was stripped and rejected couldn't save it. All in all waterworld was an overpriced POS, with little story and with what could have been a great moral lost.

[ruskiiVFaussie]

So costner was to blame? That... b a st id !!!

Edited November 6, 2008 by ruskiiVFaussie

[bsu legato]

Lets not forget that the film's first two reels are virtaully a scene-for-scene remake of The Road Warrior.

[sharky]

I was expecting more from a movie which was at the time the most expensive movie ever made. The brainiacs spent all their money building elaborate sets and literally hauling them out in the middle of the ocean to film. The could have made the same movie for far less IMO, and no one would have cared.

[Mr March]

How could this turd have made enough money back to justify expense on a new extended edition? It was one of the biggest flops in the history of film. Amazing. Or perhaps, this is a grab at trying to break even

It's funny that we always hear people cry about how awful a certain movie was or that they just saw one of the worst movies ever, but it's rarely true. But Waterworld is an example that actually fits the honor of "one of the worst ever films". Plan 9 From Outer Space, Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Glitter, Showgirls, Waterworld...this Costner-infected plague has indeed earned it's place among the stinkers

[kaiotheforsaken]

I think Battlefield Earth was probably about the worst thing I have seen by a large margin.

[Einherjar]

It's funny that we always hear people cry about how awful a certain movie was or that they just saw one of the worst movies ever, but it's rarely true. But Waterworld is an example that actually fits the honor of "one of the worst ever films". Plan 9 From Outer Space, Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Glitter, Showgirls, Waterworld...this Costner-infected plague has indeed earned it's place among the stinkers

Don't forget Manos: The Hands of Fate.

[PetarB]

I actually really enjoyed the movie, despite the panning it received. But I have spent more time than most actually living and sailing on the ocean, so I may be biased!

[electric indigo]

Do your math, guys.

Widely considered to be one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time, although it grossed $255 million from a $175 million budget.

[bsu legato]

Do your math, guys.

You should check your math before you say things like that. FORBES lists a budget of $231.6 million, which is closer to what I remembered hearing back in the day. They give a BO figure of U.S. Box Office: $61.2 million and Foreign Box Office: $145.9 million. Of course, none of this accounts for the ad budget, which is usually Hollywood's dirty little accounting secret.

[Mr March]

I'm uncertain where Waterworld stands. Most sources are giving conflicting numbers. Regardless of the accuracy of the numbers, there are two very important factors to consider before running to the numbers and thumping one's chest on the forums

First, studios only earn a little over half of the box office gross of any film; the other half is taken by the theatres. In the case of Waterworld, Universal only earned $44 million domestically from the film even though it earned $88 million.

Second, marketing costs for major summer movies range anywhere from $10 million to well over $50 million. Marketing costs are also NEVER included as part of the budget and studios rarely release the numbers. For a major studio production like Waterworld, with one of the biggest budgets of all time up to that point, you can bet the marketing costs were huge.

That's roughly $100 million lost off the world wide gross, and that's not taking into account the cut international theatres take for themselves.

That leaves Waterworld with a budget of $175 million while taking in $164 million world wide WITH THE CAVEAT of international theatre cuts.

As far as I can tell, BOMB!

[electric indigo]

You should check your math before you say things like that. FORBES lists a budget of $231.6 million, which is closer to what I remembered hearing back in the day. They give a BO figure of U.S. Box Office: $61.2 million and Foreign Box Office: $145.9 million. Of course, none of this accounts for the ad budget, which is usually Hollywood's dirty little accounting secret.

The Forbes side you linked to gives me different figures: US BO 116,8 million and foreign 232,9 million. Now I'm very open to somebody convinving me that the movie bombed, but please try harder.

I understand that the movie did not make the most of it's budget (besides being generally lame), but it's nowhere near the financial desaster that it became a synonyme for.

[taksraven]

I was expecting more from a movie which was at the time the most expensive movie ever made. The brainiacs spent all their money building elaborate sets and literally hauling them out in the middle of the ocean to film. The could have made the same movie for far less IMO, and no one would have cared.

Its like when T2 was released and I think at the time that it was touted as being the most expensive film made up until that point, but at least you could see where all the money went AND it was worth it, being an enjoyable movie and quite possibly a contender for one of the best sequels ever.

And the CG in T2 STILL rocks by todays standards. Brilliant stuff.

Taksraven

[taksraven]

Of course, none of this accounts for the ad budget, which is usually Hollywood's dirty little accounting secret.

You are right about that, I think that the ad budget for some of these "blockbusters" must nearly equal or surpass the actual production budget.

The best profit I ever heard of was the LOTR trilogy where the profits for the first film were roughly equal to the production costs of all three films. (correct me if i'm wrong) So in other words the last two films were essentially making pure profit when they were released.

Taksraven