MovieChat Forums > Waterworld (1995) Discussion > 500 years to form a beach at the top of ...

500 years to form a beach at the top of Everest?

posted 10 years ago by etienbjel
13 replies | jump to latest

Having studied geology, this one bothered me. I checked the goofs section to see if anyone else picked up on this but I didn't see anything. Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong:

It's been said that the movie takes place around 2500 AD (about 500 years from the day the movie was made)

If the ocean level rose to the top of Everest (let's just assume the massive amount of extra water was introduced from say, a crashed comet, and not from global warming-lol), then Everest would become an island surrounded by cliffs. It would take thousands or probably millions of years to form the beach that is shown at the end of the movie. Not only would the cliffs of Everest need to be eroded to sand size particles, but a sufficient base would need to be formed around Everest in order to hold and support the accumulation of the beach sediments. Millions of years, I think.

"They don't exist:
LOCH NESS MONSTER, FRANKENSTEIN, MAGNUM PI, NON-CATHOLIC GODS, DARTH VADER"

[–] wears-alan 10 years ago

2500ad ? Never heard that before!

Gentlemen, England will be playing 4-4-f---ing-2

[–] isaacjamil 10 years ago

Check it out on the Trivia section

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Leto II 10 years ago

It comes from the screenplay, I believe. Although not directly mentioned in the actual movie, a piece of data like this can still be legitimately used in the context of discussion, if it came from the writer(s)/production staff themselves.

[–] actionmanrandell 10 years ago

recently scientists discovered a massive ocean around 700 km under the earths crust that is 3 times the size of our ocean

[–] Michael_Richards420 10 years ago

dude shut up with that underground ocean *beep* every thread lol

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

dude shut up with that underground ocean *beep* every thread lol

I'm glad someone said what I was thinking.🐭

[–] Etherdave 10 years ago

Having studied Geology you should have been versed in the composition of glaciers, which includes massive amounts of pulverized mountain matter, nicely stratified through gravity and other processes. Anyone may observe this stuff left behind today's retreating glaciers; there's even a nice tour-bus to take you to most of them. The glacial terminus is often very beachlike in appearance, although not quite to the extent of what is portrayed in 'Waterworld'.

Any geologist would more likely point out that the depicted landscape cannot be in the Himalayas anyways, as it is of radically different geological composition. These are VERY SLIGHTLY regrettable visual shortcomings of a film whose cost overruns and production problems negated a more meticulous makeover of Hawaii into a post-apocalyptic Everest.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Vicenzo-VV 9 years ago

It looks like they just ignored everything you said and just shot the final scene on some existing island location. Lazy bastards.

[–] Kukapetal_1 9 years ago

I know, why don't we just suspend our disbelief so we can enjoy a dumb, post-apocalyptic action movie instead of trying to prove how smart we all are by pointing out every scientific inaccuracy? :P

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]