Movie Debate #117: Waterworld

[Reed Rothchild | 9,592]

[Tabonga | 2,344]

Pretty much - meh!  Some good ideas but they were handled pretty ham fistedly.  Just too many things that didn't gel into a very coherent world view.  

5

Edited April 6, 2023 by Tabonga

[TDIRunner | 2,779]

I watched it once as a kid and I rewatched it once as an adult.  I didn't hate it and it had a lot of potential, but it just isn't a great movie.  I think it's one of those movies that is worth watching just because it was such a big deal for a while, but don't expect anything amazing.  

[JamesRobot | 5,839]

Hard meh.  Crappy Mad Max on a boat.

[JamesRobot | 5,839]

4 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

Hard meh.  Crappy Mad Max on a boat.

[Link | 2,738]

Like Johnny Mnemonic, Waterworld was panned critically and not successful at the box office. There's nothing wrong with the production values, and while some of the acting is ridiculed, I don't think any of it is that bad. Both are just high concept sci-fi movies that were poorly marketed to the mainstream without an existing audience. Honestly, aside from the very high budget at the time, I'm not sure how Waterworld is so much different from Mad Max or Tank Girl. The poor reputation is not deserved. I haven't seen it very recently but I'm confident giving it an 8.

[Link | 2,738]

19 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

Hard meh.  Crappy Mad Max on a boat.

 

[Dr. Morbis | 2,092]

It's not nearly as bad as it's reputation, and I do really like Dennis Hopper as the bad guy, so I guess it's a 5 for me...

[Tabonga | 2,344]

A good movie (for obvious reasons) to compare it to is The Postman - a nuch superior film that had a pretty smooth narrative (aside from the funniest character getting eaten ^____^)  - had a much more believable narrative.  The Postman is pretty much everything that Waterworld should have been.

[AirVillain | 491]

Only watched it once, like a month ago. 

Great. 

Had no idea what it was actually about. I knew it was about a floating city, but dang... it's deep. Great 90's feel too. 

[Brickman | 4,019]

The only good thing about this movie is that it created the Universal show Waterworld, which I saw last December and it was really good and miles better than the actual movie  

[RH | 4,980]

I gave it first an 8 but then a 7.  The film on it's own isn't great but the practical affects make it worth watching.  I can't quite recall the specifics but I know in the realm of special effects, this is an important film.  I think it was a high budge film that relied almost entirely on practical effects, but it was such a flop, it started to drive all film studios to start to rely on more and more CGI vs Practical.  It, supposedly, was the end of an era where Hollywood preferred real over digital.  I know I've read that at some point, but I can't find a reference. I do know I read about that a very long time ago.  Regardless, it is a bit obvious when you look at it that way.  They spent a lot of money on huge set design and it did not pay off.  Things had to change.

[AirVillain | 491]

1 hour ago, RH said:

I gave it first an 8 but then a 7.  The film on it's own isn't great but the practical affects make it worth watching.  I can't quite recall the specifics but I know in the realm of special effects, this is an important film.  I think it was a high budge film that relied almost entirely on practical effects, but it was such a flop, it started to drive all film studios to start to rely on more and more CGI vs Practical.  It, supposedly, was the end of an era where Hollywood preferred real over digital.  I know I've read that at some point, but I can't find a reference. I do know I read about that a very long time ago.  Regardless, it is a bit obvious when you look at it that way.  They spent a lot of money on huge set design and it did not pay off.  Things had to change.

I can't recall many "special effects" in this film other than all the explosions. Which is a lot actually, haha. 

Of course, there's the actual filming of the Water City.... which plenty could be considered "practical effects" I'm sure because it had to look like they were in the middle of the ocean... and I think they did a pretty good job.

Edited April 6, 2023 by AirVillain

[Hammerfestus | 3,891]

I gave it a 5.  It’s not necessarily bad but I started to rewatch it recently-ish and I never finished it so…

[RH | 4,980]

32 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

I can't recall many "special effects" in this film other than all the explosions. Which is a lot actually, haha. 

Of course, there's the actual filming of the Water City.... which plenty could be considered "practical effects" I'm sure because it had to look like they were in the middle of the ocean... and I think they did a pretty good job.

That’s it.  The massive water tank for the boats, the boats, the big ship Dennis Hopper’s on.  There was a flying machine, and of course, all of the explosions.  There was a lot going on. It just doesn’t seem like it because a film like that today would be rather easy (comparatively) using green screens and a lot of post production work.

For reference, the film had a budget of $175m, which adjusted for inflation would be about $350m.  So this was not a small production.

Edited April 6, 2023 by RH

[AirVillain | 491]

20 minutes ago, Hammerfestus said:

I gave it a 5.  It’s not necessarily bad but I started to rewatch it recently-ish and I never finished it so…

Oof!! Didn't even finish it??? Dang.... harsh. 
 

4 minutes ago, RH said:

That’s it.  The massive water tank for the boats, the boats the big ship Dennis Hopper’s on.  There was a flying machine, and if course, all of the explosions.  There was a lot going on. It just doesn’t seem like it because a film like that today would be rather easy (comparatively) today using green screen and a lot of post production work.

For reference, the film had a budget of $175m, which adjusted for inflation would be about $350m.  So this was not a small production.

 

Ah yeah.... makes sense. 

While I was watching I was definitely like "holy shit" at the scale of it all. Some of the shots with Kevin Costner sailing his boat seemed to be him, so they either did a really good on with the movie magic or that muh was out there sailing around somewhere. That ain't cheap in itself, never mind having to throw in some jetskis and a bunch of explosions. 

Where the fuck is the crew? Yeesh. 

[Gloves | 11,843]

Never seen it. 

[Hammerfestus | 3,891]

10 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

Oof!! Didn't even finish it??? Dang.... harsh. 
 

 

Ah yeah.... makes sense. 

While I was watching I was definitely like "holy shit" at the scale of it all. Some of the shots with Kevin Costner sailing his boat seemed to be him, so they either did a really good on with the movie magic or that muh was out there sailing around somewhere. That ain't cheap in itself, never mind having to throw in some jetskis and a bunch of explosions. 

Where the fuck is the crew? Yeesh. 

It’s not that harsh really coming from me.  I rarely ever watch movies by myself.  I just don’t have the free time or attention span to sit down for 2+ hours and watch a movie from start to finish so anything I do watch is done in chunks.  I’ve never really been a movie guy.  I’ve only seen slightly more movies than @Gloves .   I just never went back to it.  

[Gloves | 11,843]

6 minutes ago, Hammerfestus said:

It’s not that harsh really coming from me.  I rarely ever watch movies by myself.  I just don’t have the free time or attention span to sit down for 2+ hours and watch a movie from start to finish so anything I do watch is done in chunks.  I’ve never really been a movie guy.  I’ve only seen slightly more movies than @Gloves .   I just never went back to it.  

Yo I've seen tons of movies dunno what you're talking aboot.

[Sumez | 2,995]

Somehow never watched this movie, but I love the idea. Whenever I finally get to see it, I want to see the fabled Ulysses cut, that supposedly restores most of the movie's original ambitions and helps it make a lot more sense.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,592]

10 minutes ago, Sumez said:

Somehow never watched this movie, but I love the idea. Whenever I finally get to see it, I want to see the fabled Ulysses cut, that supposedly restores most of the movie's original ambitions and helps it make a lot more sense.

Oh interesting, I didn't know about that.  Looks like the fancy Arrow release has both.

Time to watch for the sale @Deadeye

[DefaultGen | 5,436]

I love this movie. It's crappy Mad Max on a boat. One of my best friends gave me a sealed Waterworld VHS as a wedding gift. There's one licensed Virtual Boy game and it's Waterworld. It has its own pinball machine. It inspired a theme park stunt show that's been running for TWENTY EIGHT YEARS. That's 28 years since Waterworld has been relevant. It's a timeless pillar of American culture.

9/10

[G-type | 2,537]

One of my favorite guilty pleasures. I love the worldbuilding, the design, the stunts, Dennis Hopper!

[fox | 1,681]

In the opening scene, Kevin Costner drinks his own piss. 

As others said, the sets, the stunts, and a hammy performance from The Hop are excellent.

But the flip side is, half this movie is being trapped in a small boat with Costner playing a really unlikeable character.  He is just yelling at and abusing this young girl, and it is really uncomfortable.

[G-type | 2,537]

5 hours ago, RH said:

but it was such a flop,

It actually turned a decent profit... but relative to its huge budget, it was underwhelming... It's mostly the press was eager to take down Costner who they saw as arrogant.. They tried the same thing with James Cameron's Titanic, but that became such a runaway hit it washed away all the bad press.