Conference bookie::movies

    FYI, Waterworld may be an entirely different movie, but it's premise is
    that the glaciers have melted and the planet is now completley covered
    in water.
    
    It's also 125 million dollars _over_ budget!
    
    MJ

    >It's also 125 million dollars _over_ budget!
    
    Really?  I think True Lies, among the most expensive movies made to
    date, only cost eighty million bucks.  You'd think even the most
    brain-dead of Hollywood execs would have pulled the plug by this point.
    
    DFW
    

    I just read that $135 million has been spent overall on "Waterworld".
    I doubt it was budgeted at only $10 million.
    
    - Dave 
    

    Perhaps that should have been "It's also 125 million dollars, _over
    budget!"  I'm sure it was budgeted for at least $60 million, and no
    studio would let the tab run up to almost $200 million.

    re: .4
    
    Well, there was an article on the production by the Daily News in NY.
    They indicated because of the all the environment monitoring and
    restoration work, that this movie could easily top the $200 million
    mark. Move over "Heaven's Gate".

    
    L.A times has it at $160 million.
    Some scenes filmed in Hawaii.
    Studio stuff is very secret, under guard.
    
    They said it was a Road Warrior on Water movie. Supposedly KC doesn't
    talk a lot in the movie. Just grunts.
    
     
    
    

    
    	Somebody quit or got fired recently ... director or producer.
    

> Somebody quit or got fired recently ... director or producer.

	Geez Shawn, who is feeding you these 1/2 stories!?? :-)  I believe
	it was the director, and he quit.  Creative differences with Costner.
	The director and Costner have worked together before and have a love/hate
	relationship, and I believe they said he quit Robin Hood also?

    Yep.  It was the director, Kevin Reynolds.  He and Costner had a
    falling out on "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves", too.
    
    
    
    kim

    
    	I read this one a couple weeks ago, and just remembered that I
    	never posted it.  And this is all I could remember.
    

    Hi all,
    
    Is there a movie named "Water World??" with Kevin Costner starring
    init? Is this a new movie or am I way off here? ;^)
    
    thanks,
    Jan.

    
    	We keep hearing that there's a movie called that, but damned if I
    	know when the heck it's coming out.
    
    	I think they must be up to about $1B over budget by now.  8^)
    

    Saw some previews over the long weekend. Dennis Hopper plays a one-eyed
    monomaniacal leader of a floating village, KC plays the "Road Warrior".
    Plenty of sailing scenes. Looks like I'll want to see this one on the
    big screen even though it stars Costner, whose best role so far was in
    "The Big Chill". Oops, wrong note to rant against KC...
    
      John

	FWIW, the news is reporting the cost for this movie thus far
	as being $175M and that it will have to gross at least $500M
	worldwide just to break even.

	I've heard this film could open late this month???

    I heard on ET last night that they had to go back into the 
    water to shoot some additional film, underwater stuff...to 
    the tune of $1M. And that they are determined to make the 
    release date of July 21..23rd... round about there, but that 
    it will be right down to the wire.
    
    Sue

    
    
    FWIW Entertainment Weekly magazine has an article on the movie.   Costner
    on the cover.  Seems like a lot of headaches went into this movie!
       Forgot the release date.
    
    
    

    I've already vowed NOT to see it (if it ever comes out) because I'm so
    sick of seeing the trailers.  I swear *they've* been out since
    midwinter!
    
    Leslie

    
    USA premiere: July 28

    
    Entertainment Weekly sez this flick needs to take in 130 million
    domestically and 200 million elsewhere to break even.
    
    Bill

    Is that "Hollywood accounting" or actual numbers?

    
    -1
    
    The rule of thumb in Hollywood is that a film needs to gross double
    it's production costs to break even, so if WaterWorld cost $165 mil
    the numbers would be about right.  
    
    Bill

    
    Re last few
    
    Surely it doesn't matter how much it takes in a particular place, as
    long as it makes enough overall? 
    
    This all sounds as hyped as Hugh's hooker...
    
    Mark

>     Surely it doesn't matter how much it takes in a particular place, as
>     long as it makes enough overall? 

	See .12 (with focus on "worldwide" :-)

    
    Remember, it cost $165 to $200 million to MAKE the movie. Now they have
    to promote it. This probably will add about $50million to the cost,
    making the minimum it needs to recoup about $500 to $600 million. 

    
    
    	Re: COSTS... Always loved that bit from Hollywood.
    	Production costs super-inflated to lower the NET
    	and cut-down the payoff to any actors stupid enuff
    	to take a percentage of that. What is the story
    	on the $165 to $200 mill price tag on Water World??
    
    
    
    				Roger

    
    re: .25
    
    You're right about net vs. gross deals. On Forrest Gump, the writer
    took a percentage of the net. Also, Commander James Lovell gets a
    percentage of the net for Apollo 13. In regard to Apollo 13, I think
    we'll get to Mars before Lovell gets his first net check.

    
    Anybody heard how long this movie is 2hrs, 2.5hrs, 3hrs or more?
    
    Dave
    

    Actually I just heard about this movie recently.  Where was I? 
    The first I heard of this movie was about one week ago and I heard
    that it is a bomber...but that is only hearsay.  Anyway, I heard it
    is like a "water" based Mad Max type film.  But then again, we'll 
    have to wait and see.

    
    Yes, the writer was striving to create a Mad Max on the water. We'll
    know in a week. Believe it or note, they spent nearly $1M in the last
    few weeks shooting NEW scenes because the previews audiences really
    didn't like the current cut of the movie.

    I heard on the news this morning, that this movies has had very bad
    reviews from the American critics, and that they will be lucky to break
    even.  

    ... and that you can buy the video for $4.50 in Russia.
    It's just a rough edit and all the dubbing is done by one 
    monotonous announcer, but if you're gonna pirate a film,
    make it a water film!
    
      John

	Costner was on Letterman last night and said the final cost
	of the movie was $172M.  He said (with a straight face but
	we know better) that the movie was actually $28M *below*
	budget because it was budgeted at $200M (yea right!).

    
    newsweek says "waterworld" was originally budgeted at $100 million.
    
    also, the entire film community is quaking in their boots while
    awaiting the public's verdict on ww.  it seems that every time a
    "heaven's gate" or "raise the titanic" comes along and bathes the
    investors in red ink, the money supply dries up considerably for
    the entire industry.
    
    bill

> "heaven's gate" ....

	That reminds me of the other name some critics are giving to
	this movie (in addition to "Fishtar") which is "Kevin's Gate" ....

	Costner while on Letterman was already dismissing the critics
	by saying "I make movies for the people who go to see them, not
	for the critics".  So if this movie insults our intelligence then
	we can personally take it out on Costner ..... :-)

    Ads on TV now for Waterworld include excerpts from imaginary reviews,
    like Spy magazine used to generate with their Blurb-o-mat.
    
    If you're quick, see if you can read the source of the blurbs. It's fun
    to see which phony critic they invent. The ad says the critics love it,
    but of course the real critics haven't seen it yet. 
    
    They print these imaginary raves, then even read them aloud:
    
    	Critics are saying:
    
    	"Greatest Action-Packed Thrill Ride since Mad Max"
        	                  *****, **** Review
    
    	"Exciting Dynamic Action! Exploding Thrill-Filled Adventure!"
                                  *****, **** Review
    
        "Absolutely top notch! Ten stars!!!"
                                  *****, **** Review
    
    If you squint you can see that the review is from somebody like 
    
    				  Fenton Thwackum,
    				  Rave Reviews, Inc. Review     

    
    I don't think they're fake reviews. I think they are from lesser known
    critics who may be local to an area. I've seen these critics name
    before for movies which didn't seem to get the big critics to review
    them or review them favorably. I'll be watching Siskel & Ebert and
    other well know critics to see what they say.
    
    I saw an interview tih Jean Tripplehorn who said by the time she was
    finished, it wasn't the movie she signed on for. However, she did get
    to pick her body double for the anterior shot...

    True they use the raves of lesser-known critics when the famous ones
    don't like the film. Somewhere, no matter how bad, some critic must
    have liked it.
    
    "Great great movie!" -- Rock Flynn, Lynn Daily Item
    
    But that is once the film is released. The pre-release blurbs usually
    come from little publicity rags owned by the movie companies, that sit
    in piles in the lobby of the theatres. 

	WBZ Joyce K. last night said she saw Waterworld and said all
	she could say last night is she's smiling.  She'll be giving
	her review of it today/tonight (FWIW :-).

    Both the Globe and the Herald gave it similar good but not great
    reviews.  Both papers said it was worth seeing, however.
    
    NAZZ

	Well Siskel & Ebert both gave thumbs down.  One of the critics
	of PBS's Sneak Previews gave thumbs down and the other thumbs up.
	S&E both agreed Waterworld is basically a remake of Mad Max but
	on the water instead of the desert.

	Ebert thought the best line was when they said the name of the
	ship one group of people lived on was the Exxon Valdez.

	Also, prelim. figures do show this film being the top weekend
	grosser, but not with numbers one would expect for the most
	expensive film ever made ..... it gross around only $21 Milion.
	Even Casper I belived opened with bigger numbers ....

	Also S&E also thought it was disappointing that the script didn't
	explore much Costner's unique mutant gils that allow him to
	breath underwater.

    Well, I saw it and I have to say...I liked it more than I thought I
    was going to.  I don't think it will make its numbers...but it was
    a good action movie none the less.
    
    Plot:
    
    
     The movie starts out with Kevin's character, The Marinar (he has no
    real name) diving for goodies under water.  Everything in Waterworld
    is for trade.  Dirt is very valuable as is paper...even though it is
    is all wrinkled and ripped, mirrors, necklaces, resin....you name it
    and it is for trade.  The Marinar is fairly weathly by Waterworld
    standards, he has a fantastic boat, lots of dirt and he even has a
    little friut tree on his boat.  
    
    He meets up with another boat.  People who meet each other in passing
    on the water are called "drifters" and it is their policy to stop
    for each other and trade.  This drifter tells the Marinar about an
    Atoll which is a couple days away.  As they are talking, some Smokers
    (the bad guys) come up on them.  Both the Marinar and the drifter ready
    their boats for a quick get-a-way.  The drifter turns to the Marinar
    and shows him that he has stolen fruit off of the Mariner's fruit tree
    when he was underwater.  This gets the Mariner very mad and he damages 
    the drifters boat so the Smokers get him.
    
    The Mariner takes off the Atoll, where he uses his dirt to trade for
    a tomato plant and some shelves.  The girl running the "store" is 
    Tripplehorn's character Helen.  Some men are overheard talking about
    a little girl with a map on her back to the way to dry land.  The
    Smokers want the girl.  Helen knows the little girl is in danger and
    tries to keep her behind closed doors.  Helen is also working with
    an older, dottering man to get them off of the Atoll and find the dry
    land.
    
    The Mariner is on his way back to his boat, when some Chinese elders
    approach him.  They want him to get a young girl pregnant so they
    can get some different genes into the mix.  The Mariner says no.
    The elders don't understand how he could say no after being out
    to sea for so long.  They say he is hiding something...maybe he is
    a Smoker spy.  Havoic ensues and during the fight scene, he kills
    one of the elders men and it is discovered he has gills and is a
    "mutant".  The humans of the Atoll don't look at having gills as 
    a positive thing.  They want to have him killed for being a freak.
    
    The Mariner is sentenced to death by "recycling"--being put in some
    yucky pit.  He is in a cage suspended over the recycling pit.  As
    they are lowering the cage, the Smokers attach the Atoll.  
    
    Lots of good action scenes of the Smokers attacking the Atoll.  The
    whole place goes up for grabs.  The dottering older man Helen is
    working with accidently sets off his invention of a hot air balloon.
    Helen and the girl, Enola, don't make it in time to fly off the Atoll.
    In desperation, Helen and Enola rescue the Mariner and make him take
    them with him.  Again, lots of action in the rescue scenes.
    
    This starts the threesome on their journy of finding dry land and 
    fighting off the Smokers who want the girl.
    
    The Marinar is *mean*.  Helen and Enola have gone from the pot into
    the fire with this guy.  He wants to toss Enola off the side because
    he doesn't have enough Hydro (water) to keep them all alive.  Helen
    frantically tries to bargain with him to keep them both.  She offers
    sex to him but is replused by him which makes him more angry.  She
    holds an arrow gun on him and he drops are very heavy sail on her then
    hits her *hard* with an oar.
    
    Over the next days, Enola finds some crayons and proceeds to color
    his boat.  This makes him really mad and he says some pretty nasty
    stuff to her.  Enola has some of the best lines in the flim and does
    a great bit of acting.  She is like a psyhic, always drawing trees
    and animals there is no way she could have seen.  All over the
    Mariner's boat are little kid drawings.
    
    At one point, Enola walks up to the Mariner and says, "You're not so
    tough.  How many people have you killed?  10, 20?"  The Mariner,
    "Including little girls?"  Enola, "You wouldn't be so ugly if you cut
    your hair."  Mariner, "You talk **all the time**!!!!  I'm sick of it!!"
    He tosses her off the boat to drown.
    
    Helen gives the Mariner one of the best slaps in the face I've ever
    scene in a movie.  It looked like it really hurt and jumps off the
    boat to save Enola.  The Mariner is all ticked off but goes back to 
    get them.
    
    The Smokers are back.  There are a couple of them in a plane firing
    down on the threesome.  The Mariner jumps down below in the cabin of
    the boat to look for a weapon.  Helen misinterprets that as he is a
    coward to fight and she goes for the gun at the head of the boat.
    She fires and is a good shot.  She gets the pilot of the plane with
    a flying arrow but the arrow has a cable attached to it which is
    attached to the boat.  The plane now is like a kite, flying closer
    and closer to the boat doing lots of damage--again great action shots.
    The Mariner manages to free the cable so the plane goes whipping off
    into the water and boy is the Mariner *mad*.  He doesn't like anyone
    touching his boat and she has managed to wreck it.
    
    He whips out his knife and grabs Helen, throws her down and with her
    screaming and Enola watching he proceeds to stab at Helen.  He only
    cut her hair off, but with his temper, he could have carved her up.
    Enola screams at him, "she said she was sorry...your suppose to say
    something back!!!"  He turns to her, notices she has a crayon which
    she is not suppose to have and the next scene shows both Helen and
    Enola with new shorter dos.
    
    Helen wants to know when they will reach dry land.  The Mariner doesn't
    understand how she can believe in something she never saw.  She
    believes and tells him "you have been there".  He says he has never
    been there.  She doesn't understand how he can have dirt and all the
    unsual stuff if it didn't come from dry land.  He takes her under the
    water in some kind of bubble thing.  He takes her down, down, and down
    to an underwater city (good special effects).  
    
    When the reach the surface again, the Smokers have taken over the boat.
    Enola is hiding, but the head Smoker, Dennis Hopper, tricks her out.
    The Smokers have Enola and the Mariner and Helen jump over the side.
    The Smokers burn his boat and he and Helen stay alive underwater
    becuase the Mariner is breathing air into Helen.  Later, they are back
    on the wreckage of the boat.  The Mariner is bummed out because his
    boat is ruined and Helen is bummed out because Enola is gone.  Helen
    is sure they are going to die.  She and the Mariner make love on the
    wreckage.
    
    The old man who left them behind in the hot air balloon finds them.  He
    takes them to were a hand full of survivors fromt the Atoll are.  The
    Mariner knows Enola really has seen dry land because he finds one of
    her drawings of at tree looks like the cover a National Geographic he
    found.  He wants her back not just for the map, but because they are
    now friends. 
    
    Dennis Hopper and company are getting no where with Enola.  She does a
    good job of spooking them about the Mariner coming to get her.  She
    tells Dennis Hopper, "He's even meaner than you!!!"  
    
    The Mariner blows up the Smoker ship..the EXxon Valdez.  He saves
    Enola....lots and lots of action shots and explosions and fire balls.
    
    The are on the hot air balloon, the old man and the Mariner figure the
    map is upside down.  By reversing the numbers they figure out where the
    land is.  
    
    They fly for a long time and finally find land.  It is beatiful.  The
    find a bamboo hut where apparantly Enola's parents are...Helen is not
    her mother.  And they hear and see all the wonders of dry
    land...flowers, birds, horses....
    
    The Mariner doesn't feel right.  He leaves them.  Enola and Helen
    watch him leave from a cliff.
    
    I left out some of the smaller scenes in the interest of time.
    
    RS

    Checked it out this past weekend.  All the claims that is was a "Road
    Warrior on Water" were accurate.  A bit degrading to women at times.  A
    bit too predictable at other times and it often stretched hero/rescue
    scenes FAR beyond what was believable.  I atually heard outright
    laughter "at" the bungi-jumping rescue thing from the baloon.  And the
    ending was just too much.  
    
    Good action.  Poor Sci-Fi.  Fair Comedy.
    
    IMO, Dennis Hopper did the best job of acting.  KC was OK but not
    exceptional.  
    
    Anyway...
    
    **/4 

    I liked it.  But then I'm a fan of the "Mad Max" movies.  I thought
    Kevin was in fine form and I loved his boat.  It could do more things
    than a Swiss Army knife.  The expanses of water were very relaxing and
    cooling to see on a hot day.  I found it to be romantic, swashbuckling,
    and thrilling.  A little overdone on the action sequences but hey,
    that's Hollywood.  I almost expected to see those overpowered rusty jet
    skis the next day when I went to Misquamicut beach.  

    I saw Waterworld this weekend (along with 3 friends).  We all enjoyed
    the movie very much.  I think it was #1 at the box office last weekend.
    Unfortunately, I don't think KC will make back all the money they put 
    into it.  I definitely think it is the kind of movie you need to see
    on a big screen (much like "Dances with Wolves").  
    
    Anyone else see it?
    
    Mo
    

> I think it was #1 at the box office last weekend.

	See .40 in this topic (3rd of 4th paragraph down)

    
    	He'll have to hope that "word of mouth" increases the box-
    	office draw for the coming weeks.  Typically the 1st week
    	[or possibly 2] is the biggest week for turnouts.
    

    I had hoped to like this movie a lot more. I'm not scientifically
    knowledgeable enough to know whether there is actually enough water in the
    world to so thoroughly cover the continents, but it's a fascinating
    premise. The movie is definitely "The Road Warrior" on water, which is not
    intrinsically a problem, because I liked that movie a lot. No, the problem
    is that Waterworld is logically inconsistent. As envisioned, it's so full
    of holes, it's a wonder the water didn't all drain away. Certainly, its
    plausibility did and that was a major disappointment for a science fiction
    enthusiast like me.

    It was, however, still relatively entertaining, frequently humorous, and as
    far as action-packed adventure goes, explosive enough. I loved Hopper as
    the villain, and I even rather liked Costner as the decidedly anti-heroic
    hero, though there were times I got the impression he thought he was still
    performing in "Dances With Wolves". One thing's for sure: I definitely
    wouldn't want to go fishing with the Mariner! ;)

    Normally, I'd say one could wait for the video, but I think this film
    will definitely lose something on the small screen. I recommend seeing
    it in a theater, but don't pay full price if you can avoid it.

    John
    

    
    	Considering that 3/4 of the globe's area is water, if you
    	transferred 1/3 of that [1/4 of globe's area] you could cover
    	the continents.
    
    	Of course, the oceans wouldn't be as deep as they are now, but
    	it could be done.
    

    You could cover the continents with water by making the oceans less
    deep? 

    
    	I'll only be on this planet for a short time, so I really don't
    	have time to explain.
    
    	Maybe my colleagues on the next mission can go over the details
    	with you.
    

	Maybe what Shawn meant is that the ocean depth over what is now
	land would be not as deep as today's present oceans (however it
	would imply that the future depth of today's oceans will be deeper).

	Remember that parts of the United States were once underwater
	(from emperical evidence of course, I've no first hand knowlege :-).

    Saw this the other night - EXCELLENT movie.  You can compare it all you
    want to "Mad Max" as far as the story goes, but the depth, ambition,
    and special effects are much greater in this movie, not to mention the
    acting.  The action is tremendous, especially in the attack on the
    atoll by the Smokers.  Jeanne Tripplehorn is fabulous, as is the young
    kid whose name I can't remember.  Costner plays the Mariner just right. 
    I found his surly demeanor right on target.  There were a few nits I
    could pick (such as where did the cigarettes and matches come from),
    but as pure entertainment this is one fun ride.
    
    9 out of 10
    
    NAZZ 

    Re: .48        

    I'm afraid it's more a question of volume than area. I really don't
    recommend analyzing this film too much. I have a bit, and have concluded
    events depicted in it are simply impossible. Still, while I was watching,
    enough was done to encourage me to suspend my disbelief that I could remain
    entertained. I don't object to this movie the way I objected to "Stargate",
    for example. It could have been better. It could have thoroughly involved
    me no matter how fantastic, but I would have to say it was just good enough
    to remain entertaining.

    By the way,

    <spoiler warning>

    I was watching something on TV, and the city is supposed to be Denver. It's
    still true he would have killed her, dragging her down to street level in
    Denver, but at least they knew they had to pick a city that was rather
    elevated compared to most cities, or he never would have been able to find
    it. Really, he would have been lucky to find a Tibetan monastery.
    

    
    	If, in a futuristic society, the continents have all begun to
    	"melt" towards the middle of the earth, they might have sunk
    	down low enough to permit the water to cover the land area.
    
    	But I agree ... it's only a movie, and really doesn't need to
    	be analyzed to death.  And it's a Kevin Costner movie, to boot,
    	so any analyzing we're doing is definitely more than he did to
    	make the thing to begin with.  8^)
    

    Re:-.1

    As far as the creation of Waterworld goes, I agree with you. I can't
    really be sure what volume they actually had to fill. The weight of the
    water as it slipped into place, might have been sufficient to compact
    the land into a smaller volume. It could have sank into the mantle
    while it was being submerged. There also could have been significant
    effects from erosion.

    Frankly, I think Costner's and Hopper's performances, the special
    effects, and especially the humor, carried this movie into the realm of
    entertainment, even when it contradicted science.

    It's an OK movie. I'm glad to have seen it. But it's not even a great
    moment in cinematic history, let alone art. It passes. It's worth
    half-price admission.
    
    John

	I just heard that Waterwould was the top grosser for the 2nd weekend
	in a row.  However it's good news and bad news.  While it was the
	top grosser, it grossed (estimated) only $12.8M.

	That's only about $34M so far, still a long ways to go just to match
	the films costs, never mind to break even ..........

    
    I saw WW this weekend.  I just loved it!  I am a Mad Max film lover
    (the real ones/not thunder dome) and I thought it was alot better then
    MM.  I feel that WW is a movie in it's own.
    
    I loved the sets, views, FX's and all the acting - the little girl
    stole the show and Kevins stunts were top-notch in my book.  There was
    no bad language and only one bum shot - SUPER MOVIE.  Go see it on the
    big screen - the music was excellent and perfect for every shot
    
    LKP

    It was fun.  It's basically "Road Warrior on Water", and it filled all
    the requisite cliches as expected.  I rather liked the Swiss Army
    Trimaran myself, along with the "Cypress Gardens From Hell" attack on
    the good-guy Atoll. Kevin Costner played, well, Kevin Costner, and 
    Dennis Hopper played Dennis Hopper (who doesn't look half bad bald) and
    the kid was cute but not overly so.  Jeanne Tripplehorn got to deliver
    one of the better movie slaps I've seen.
    
    There were, of course, plot holes big enough to drive a jetski through,
    and not everything made perfect sense, but what the hell.  I did
    wonder, with all that money, why some of the effects shots were
    relatively poor.
    
    Fun though.  Nice soundtrack.  
    
    *** out of ****
    
    kim

    
    	Jeanne Tripplehorn can slap me any day.
    
    	8^)
    

> Jeanne Tripplehorn can slap me any day.

	Would that be your "Basic Instinct"? :-)

    
    my wife and I saw it at the weekend and we both liked it!There was a 
    ton of similarities between this and Mad Max but the Mel was better
    than Kevin!
    
    good points!
    
    the young girl
    Dennis Hoppers lines
    the sets(you can see where the money went)
    
    
    bad points!
    
    unoriginal story
    
    over all I must say ...yes!I like it!
    
    2.5/4

This weekend, playing Trivial Pursuit, we learned of another inaccuracy
in Waterworld: The Exxon Valdez was renamed the Exxon Mediterranean after the
Alaska incident.

    I thought the story line was good.  Some boring parts.  And a bit hard
    to believe.  Granted I know this takes place a few thousand years
    after the ice-caps had melted.  But why wern't there people on the dry 
    land already?  And why did they show Kevin as adapting to the
    enviornment as evolving into an amnfibian (s/s).  It would be much more
    beliveable and politicaly correct, if he was able to adapt by holding
    his breth for a longer period of time.  For example dolphins, whales,
    and seals.  After all they were mammal's and that would be the next step
    in there evalution, rather than skipping an important part of history.
    Never the less go see it if you haven't already.  It is interesting and
    some what stimulating never-the-less. 

>     And why did they show Kevin as adapting to the
>     enviornment as evolving into an amnfibian (s/s).  It would be much more
>     beliveable and politicaly correct, if he was able to adapt by holding
>     his breth for a longer period of time.  For example dolphins, whales,
>     and seals.  After all they were mammal's and that would be the next step
>     in there evalution, rather than skipping an important part of history.
>     Never the less go see it if you haven't already.  It is interesting and
>     some what stimulating never-the-less. 

	What makes you think those mammels would be the next step in forward
	evolution of humans?  Also keep in mind that from what I've read/heard
	that the human fetus goes through a stage of development where it has
	gils..... (also keep in mind that it's said that 95+% of the genetic
	human DNA is either redundant or currently unused, leftover from
	our evolution)

    >And why did they show Kevin as adapting to the
    >     enviornment as evolving into an amnfibia
    
    This is a whole other movie in it's self.
    
    Besides, it leaves room for part 2 :-)

    No where in the world has any one come up the theory that we evolved 
    from fish.  Yes we can breath ambnieotic fluids (s/s).  Witch I might
    add is only 62% water.  If it were true that we already went through
    our evoulution of being able to breath in water, and have gills as you 
    would say.  Than from all of your reading of science mags. you would
    also find that we evolve just like everything else in the universe.
    And to take a big step back in time would be impossable.  We evolve not
    devolve.  One more thing about the gills behind the ears.  He would of 
    died after he was under water for 10 min.  Fish take water into there 
    mouths and force it through there gills, than the oxygen goes to the
    lungs.  If he was trying to breath from behind his ears, his head would
    of blowen and he would not be able to hear a damb thing.  The more
    logical place to put the gills would of been behind the jaw line.
    But seeing how this will never happen this whole movie takes place on a
    diffrent world entirely.

> Title: Wrong.

	No, you are wrong :-)

> No where in the world has any one come up the theory that we evolved 
> from fish.

	I didn't say we did.  However you are wrong big time here.  Most
	evolution theories I'm familiar with all have life originating in
	the sea (the primoudal [sp?] soup if you want to call it that)
	and through mutations (ie. evolution :-) started crawling from
	the sea onto the sea shore, etc etc.

> If it were true that we already went through
> our evoulution of being able to breath in water, and have gills as you 
> would say.

	Again, I never said humans, or anything which today we classify
	as a mammal, once were able to breath water (we certainly can
	"breath *in* water" however :-).  What I said is that the genetic
	information has currently unused info on how to grow gils.  And
	that if you watch a human embryo's development you'll see what
	some believe appear to be gils (I don't know if it's ever been
	proven, especially since research on human embryo's in this
	country is hindered by the religious right :-).

> you would also find that we evolve just like everything else in the universe.
> And to take a big step back in time would be impossable.  We evolve not
> devolve.

	A rose by any other name is still a rose.  Ie. you are correct that
	the process is call evolution, regardless of appearance of de-evolution.
	However you would be mistaken to imply that because we most likely
	along the evolutionary chain evolved from water breathing creatures,
	and eventually evolved instead to air breathing creatures (probably
	with an amphibious stage in between), that we couldn't evolve into
	amphibians in human form.

	Given that we still carry tons of unused genetic information, which
	most likely includes a gil like apendage, it's not far fetched that
	given applicable genetic mutation(s) that those genes are turned on
	(if one were talking about evolving gils from scratch then the
	possibility is extremely low, given how close in the future [relatively
	speaking] this movie takes place).

> One more thing about the gills behind the ears.
> The more logical place to put the gills would of been behind the jaw line.

	Well that's a small nit seperate from the issue of whether it's
	even possible.

    > the writer was striving to create a Mad Max on the water.
    
    I liked Jay Leno's comment: put a fish tank in front of an old Mad Max
    movie, and you have Waterworld :-]
    				Jim

    On the devolution theme: here's how you can get where you started by
    going forward:
    
    fish --> lungfish --> reptile --> mammal --> seal --> porpoise
    
    True, the porpoise doesn't breathe water, but it lives its life there.
    
    Probably the bigger problem with equipping a human with gills would be
    that warm-blooded creatures have bigger demands for oxygen that cannot
    be met by gills. In this case, perhaps the guy in the movies had gills
    to extend his time underwater, rather than allow him to stay there
    long-term. I don't know, because I haven't seen it; in any case, it
    sounds as if this movie does not bear close inspection as far as
    scientific plausibility goes.
    
    Also, putting gills on a human in a couple thousand years is pretty
    quick work for evolution. It was more likely a result of genetic
    engineering.
    				Jim

    I saw this over the weekend. Not bad if you suspend disbelief.
    There were maybe 10 others in the theater. But then, it was the
    Saturday noon matinee.
    
    I thought it was cute the way they tied the start of the movie into the
    Universal logo.
    
      John

	Well Waterworld is no longer the top film.  It's not even #2!
	This weekend it only grossed $8.6M, just enough to *tie* for #3!

	Total gross so far is only $60M.  I'd say this officially qualifies
	calling it a flop :-)

    
    	And what a fitting p_n for that entry, John.  8^)
    
    	The new Michelle Pfeiffer movie "won" with $14.something grossed.
    

    Waterworld:::
    
    What's everyone else's opinion?  I thought it was very much
    drawn out and was over-rated for all the publicity and
    money spent on this one.  Kevin Costner did a great job
    but it still was mediocre.

    I rented Waterworld this weekend and now wish that I had seen it on a
    big screen.  I thought it was a pretty good action movie and could
    easily recognize the difficulty and expense that must have been
    incurred during the filming.  Just the atoll set itself must have cost
    a fortune.  Thought that Kevin did a pretty good job - he'll never be
    accepted as a serious thespian, but I think he always does a credible
    job in the roles he picks.  His next movie (forget the name, but he
    plays a semi-pro golfer and stars with Rene Russo) looks like he is
    trying to play the same kind of character as he did in "Bull Durham"

I bought the laser disc and watched this for the first time last week. I enjoyed
it a lot, it thought it was one of the better action films I've seen in the
last few years. BTW, it will make it's cost back with some profit. First run
US release is just a part of the total package in film profits.



Randy

    We saw this with friends a few weeks ago and everyone liked it. I agree
    - seeing it on a big screen would have be great. 
    
    Several inside jokes (captain hazelwood, valdez, etc). 
    
    Liked the acting, didn't always like the characters and it's certainly
    a depressing place to live! Wish I had a sailboat like that with all
    the spiffy contraptions!
    
    And I did hear on ET some time ago it did make money - more from the
    non-US markets.
    
    janetb.

    
    Yes, the question of whether a movie makes money seems to be only what
    the movie makes in America. We are so US-focused. I think movies are
    one of our best exports. 

    re .77
    
>    Yes, the question of whether a movie makes money seems to be only what
>    the movie makes in America. We are so US-focused. I think movies are
>    one of our best exports. 

    It also might depend on who is suing for a part of the profits, as Art
    Buchwald did for Coming to America. He argued it was based on his short
    story. The studio argued that it was a coincidence. The studio played
    with the numbers so deftly that they showed the movie lost money so 
    they wouldn't have to pay him. But we all know the movie was a big hit. 

    Lisa

	Well I finally caught this on video.  First video I rent in
	five months, and what a mistake I made picking this one :-(

	Where was all the action for a so-called action film?  Only
	a couple of action scenes in the whole film, and the first
	action scene (in that trading port) I've already seen most of
	it via all the advertisements for the film way back when.
	And the final action seen on the big tanker was IMHO very lame.

	And Costner once again proved he only has one mono-tone acting
	voice he uses in most of his films (the only time he actually
	used other voices was in Dances with Wolves).

	The critics were right about this one.  I'm just wondering
	what the account number is for the Swiss bank account that
	Costner is hiding all the money in that he supposedly spent
	that the investors paid for this mess ......

     I caught this "action" movie the other day. Now I wish I missed it.
    The only thing about this that was any good was Dennis Hopper and
    that's it. Do yourself a favor if you haven't seen it, DON'T!
    
    
                                          Lil Ed

    
    
    It wasn't that bad!! just a repeat of Madmax 2 beyond thunderdome.
    
    Chris
    :)

    
    Caught this one on video over the weekend.  Just an alright movie in
    my opinion.  This movie could've easily have been a 1/2 hour shorter.
    Lots of plot holes, some easier to digest than others.  The sets were 
    pretty cool for the most part.  I found the constant water scenes to
    be somewhat claustrophobic in feel after a while.  I found myself
    watching the clock during the last 45 minutes or so.
    
      Lv

    
    What I want to know is:  where on earth did the smokers get all their
    cigarettes from?  they must have had thousands of packs....
    
    
    
    I.

re:        <<< Note 739.57 by PCBUOA::LPIERCE "Do the watermelon crawl" >>>

> There was no bad language

Did we see the same movie?