At this movie "bombing"
I honestly had no idea.. I saw it when I was younger with my dad, and we thought it was simply amazing. Everyone I've known that's seen it has loved it. What do people not like about this?! It's literally one of a kind lol and Kevin is an absolute bad ass
Iam guessing the movie showed to much truth about what humans are doing to the planet to cause such an event or how the producers never really pointed out where the mariner was actually from also how the world gotten to a point where it nearly wipe out 98 percent of life during the great delunge. I always asked my self why the movie never explain enola parents got to my everst or if their were other people living on the island or just around the other side theirs a lot of questions that need to be answered but never explain
shareBombing refers to the amount spent/earned not necessarily how good it was. After spending nearly $300 million to produce and market it, apparently the net profit was only $8 million. According to what I've read, a movie generally needs to earn more than double its cost to be considered profitable.
My wife and I just watched it for the first time since we saw it as kids and thought it was ok. Had we paid to see it, we wouldn't have felt like we wasted money.
Well if it had a net profit of $8 million it was profitable.
shareWell if it had a net profit of $8 million it was profitable.
"NET" means, what you made after what you spent, (as in net of expenses). So, if it had a "net" profit of $8 million is was, indeed, profitable.
share[deleted]
and, just because you included a definition of profit, here's one of "net"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/net
In the future, understand what you're talking about before trying to educate others on it.
by Theshornwonder and, just because you included a definition of profit, here's one of "net"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/net
In the future, understand what you're talking about before trying to educate others on it.
by briand10 After spending nearly $300 million to produce and market it, apparently the net profit was only $8 million. According to what I've read, a movie generally needs to earn more than double its cost to be considered profitable.
now go lookup "Pedantic"
shareA lot of moviegoers were expecting it to have more depth (no pun) coming from the guy who did Dances with Wolves. I think people were caught off guard when it turned out to be more like Mad Max.
shareExcept Costner didn't direct Waterworld Kevin Reynolds did. Reynolds directed Costner on Robin Hood.
shareIt's a case of not living up to the hype. They made a big deal in the marketing about the production cost but a lot of that was due to the weather especially the hurricane. After all the hype people went and got Mad Max on jet skis.
shareThat was exactly what was being advertised wasnt it?
"Mad Max on jet skis"
Nah, more like Beyond Thunderdome on jet skis when what we wanted was Road Warrior on jet skis. It was not good and that is why it is regarded as not good.
The explanation about people not liking the truth of what we are doing to our planet for not liking this movie is stupid. I'm an environmentalist and I hate that people are ignoring what we are doing to this planet. First of all, the movie is inaccurate in its depiction of the rising water levels. If the ice caps were to melt the water would not overtake the Earth. The movie is cheesy with characters that have no likeable qualities. It has action scenes but is otherwise slow and boring and runs way too long. The story has more than a few plot holes and the dialogue is poor as well as the acting. The only thing decent about it are some of the technical aspects such as the sound and special effects and even then this movie doesn't come to mind when you think about the best films in those categories. So, while some may find it enjoyable it is far from being a great movie. Average if nothing else.
shareComing from someone who actually made a list called "The 25 Best Episodes of The Powerpuff Girls", that means a lot to me.
shareYes I was baffled too!
shareAt tbe time that this film was released, K Costner was hot with huge hits like dances, bodyguard, robin hood all under his belt. This film had a huge budget and had high expectations but critics didnt like the sci fi/ post apolocalyptic thing and wanted more of the same of previous films. In retrospect this film isnt as bad as was made oht to be at the time. Just my 2 cents
shareI reckon it was down to continual news stories of it going overbudget , in time and money.
for some reason people inferred that would make the film rubbish , and once they had that mindset , thats what they saw.
[deleted]
I agree on all 3 . They dont really affect the film that much. Re the map , at least they put it on something waterproof - but something that also floated would have been even better !
The dry land thing, well , theres no way in hell theres enough water to flood the planet to 29,000 feet , even with the ice caps , thats some Noahs Ark type tall tale right there ....
[deleted]
I remember it was this exactly. They went over budget, the set sank and they couldn't shoot for a month because of a hurricane, Costner had a beachfront house that cost like $50k a night the entire shoot, he was caught having an affair with a, no joke - hula dancer so his wife divorced him, plus the director left due to Costner's ego. All before the movie came out.
People, myself included, were surprised to haveliked it. It did actually quite well and would have been a huge success if it had been kept at the budget it was originally set at.
I finally watched the film for the first time a few months ago. After years and years of hearing about how bad it is, I decided I needed to evaluate it for myself.
It's not a bad movie. I didn't love it, but I didn't dislike it either. It's certainly imaginative and has some nice set pieces. One day I may get around to watching the Ulysses Cut.
Agreed! I actually enjoyed it, definitely a fun movie and not one to be taken seriously but entertaining :)
sharewhy would a film going over budget make you surprised that you liked it?
That mindset is why the movie failed.
People thinking "ooh its taken longer than they thought and cost more than they thought - it must be rubbish"
I dont get the logic, I would conclude it must be brilliant if its had lots of money and time spent on it.
Not about the budget per se, but because it was so riddled with bad hype. There were stories after stories coming out during the production of it that there was a stigma around it months before it came out.
However, why would it be brilliant because it had lots of money and time spent on it? Tons of movies have lots of money and time on them and are complete busts.
"riddled with bad hype"
Thats what i'm saying , before anyone s seen the film how can they make any judgements?
All we knew was it was massively expensive, and not keeping to budget.
Still sounds awesome to me!
"..and are complete busts."
totally true , but when you've got nothing else to go on the huge amount of money should be a good sign, especially for that sort of film.
Saying that , these days it would put me off , I'd think "oh 200m on fx and no story"
Ans also i recognise zero budget films can be good too e.g
Clerks
The Man From Earth
Yeah, it's odd, right? I always thought if someone sank a bunch of cash into a movie it must be good. High production values, clean FX, etc. However, I avoided Mortal Engines and John Carter because I just kept hearing they were just a crap script with mediocre CGI. Nothing worse than that IMO.
Budget doesn't mean anything if you're doing a straightforward movie with a fantastic script. I enjoyed Reservoir Dogs and 95% of that took place in a warehouse.
I didn’t know much about the hype or the budget. I just saw the movie and was left unimpressed. There were several cool action scenes, but the plot itself was idiotic. They tattooed a map on the girls back. Of all the things you can do with vital information, tattooing it on someone makes no sense. It has to take a lot of time and difficulty, compared to writing on paper. And why would you want a map that can walk off and get lost on its own. Not to mention that the whole world is water, so how do you even draw a map.
sharePaper was extremely rare. But one would expect ink to be equally rare.
Waterworld was bad 4/10.
Woman: "Her soul is like a mirror"
-20 minutes later, Woman is rummaging through Costner's loot and finds a mirror.
Woman: "What's this?"
I didn’t remember the mirror business. In their defense on that one, I have seen people repeat sayings that they did not understand. Like referring to a carbon copy, but they have never seen carbon paper.
shareThat map did suck. They just tattooed a big blue square on her back.
share