Waterworld

Its a shame, he's not a bad actor, just not a very memorable one
He generally always plays "No nonsense everyman" in every movie he's in, not a lot of wiggle room for anything amazing to happen.
I think he's just one of those guys who's just there for the paycheck, like Henry Cavill. Goes in, does a good job with the material he's got, then moves on to the next thing.
I can respect that

Attached: comfy (2).jpg (480x360, 17K)

It didn’t bomb lol. It just didn’t meet the sales target. Everyone I’ve spoken to loved it when it came out. It’s mad max in the water ffs,what’s not to like.

Just a Mad Max rip off but I really enjoyed it.

Attached: 2411778_0.jpg (630x630, 60K)

The waterworld ulysses cut is legit a good movie, the meme about the original cut being bad has some merit, but more people should give the extended cut a shot

The problem isn't Costner, his character just isn't that heroic (which makes sense)
audiences are fucking dumb & couldn't wrap their heads around a water version of Mad Max not being the nicest guy

the big issue is they spent around $300 million (the movie went way over budget, which isn't reflected by the "official" budget) to make wet mad max. mad max wasn't the most successful movie either, so making a $300m version was pretty silly.

Its no Dune.

Let's face it, it was a B-movie with an A-movie budget. I like it but let's not pretend it's anything else.

I think people should give this movie more credit. They have no idea how insanely difficult it is to film a movie where 99% of the scenes are on the ocean.
Imagine the kinds of obstacles the crew must be facing with providing power and electricity to all of the cameras, lights, sound equipment, etc. and the lengths they needed to go to make sure the the equipment doesn't get damaged by water.

Francis Ford Coppola lost so much money just replacing destroyed equipment when filming Apocalypse Now in the rainforests. Now imagine that but magnified tenfold with Waterworld.

>make a multi-million budgeted giant floating island
>forget to install bathrooms on it

my only issue with the Ulysses cut is that it reuses several scenes of the mariner and his catamaran, understandably so cuts from day to night or scene to scene have more continuity but they come with a price and break immersion.

otherwise, the 3hr or so run time went by smooth and didnt otherwise feel bloated.

I don't think anyone doubts this movie was hard to make. The problem is people didn't like it. And they're not going to say they like it just because it was hard to make when they're not entertained

If you fail at something difficult, you don’t get credit for trying.

The movie didn't really fail. It has a sizable cult following and general opinion on the movie has mellowed over the years.
Cope.

It failed to make money and the “cult following” are morons.

The movie is literally nothing more than wet mad max. Except with less grit and less interesting set pieces. If you somehow saw it before mad max, you might be excused in thinking it’s something other than a weak copy, but that’s thinking you’d need to shed once you’ve seen more than one movie.

I always thought it was shit. It's like someone wanted to make a Road Warrior sequel but couldn't get the rights, and somewhere during pre-production he went "woah, wouldn't this be cooler if the world was an ocean instead of a desert?" I understand the effort behind it, with the set pieces and everything, but it really is no page turner, especially with the script.

Attached: 1513341834627.gif (542x300, 3.99M)

It wanted to be too many things. It could have been interesting science fiction about a flooded world, if they hadn't tacked in the generic action plot.

>The movie is literally nothing more than wet mad max.
Congratulations on pointing out that the movie knew exactly what it wanted to be and set out to be exactly what it aimed to be.
I'm sure you pat yourself on the back each time you point out the obvious, you woman.

See Excusing spending hundreds of millions to make a b-movie doesn’t change the fact that was a pretty stupid idea.

Add The Abyss, ultimate cut is coming at the end of the year i think

Reminder: Kevin Costner demanded that the CGI team give him fake digital hair to cover up his balding hairline.

Also, I was so disappointed that Tripplehorn had a body double for her nude scene.

The abyss was a case of the theatrical cut being practically incomprehensible garbage after a certain point.

Please be trolling.

Fuck yes. I honestly don’t the hype about the movie being shit. I haven’t met anyone who didn’t like it.
M’lady

It’s a great movie.

>It's a shame that people dismiss Waterworld as a massive failure.
Who does?
Some journalists back in the mid 90s?

No one has shit-talked waterworld for 20 years user.

A sequel seems very likely given Kevin Costner's willingness to do anything for money combined with millennial nostalgia and the availability of CGI to do a lot of the action sequences.

Where did the smokers buy their cigarettes?

fuck you i liked it

The stunt show at Universal is unironically much better than the actual movie.

So the Deacon was probably dead in a day or two anyway due to the infection in his eye, right?

Attached: 3237bfb0-1555-0133-f50b-0e18518aac2f[1].png (1292x745, 867K)

first two posts best two posts
anyone who says otherwise has terrible taste in kinos and need to be slowly tortured to death

I love that the idiots complaining about how expensive it was and how foolish he was for creating a real set (like the movie costing money makes it a bad movie somehow) are also the same losers who cry about CGI.

He's awesome on Better Call Saul.

So do I and really hope for sequel one of these days using all the advancements in technology since then. And I don't mean CGI. A new Waterworld world would be an amazing vehicle for drone photography, HDR, video stabilization, 60 fps, 10 bit color, all that stuff.

The plot is also very open and easy to write as well. Even with the discovery of dry land at the end of the first movie, it's not like the waters are going to disappear next week, next month, or even in a thousand years. Waterworld goes on, and there are thousands (millions?) of people who still struggle for survival every day. Waterworld 2 could tell the story of humanity beginning to recollect into something like a real civilization again, this time on the world ocean.

Kevin Coster need not be involved. I think the movie can be bigger than him.

Attached: DJI_0076[1].jpg (2048x1150, 373K)

Me too, I saw it theater when I was a kid and it blew me away. It'll always have a special place in my thoughts

>Kevin Costner never got much respect for his roles
Dances with Wolves won the oscars for best picture and best director, and he was nominated for best actor.

*surpasses kino*

Attached: MC2_Waterworld_Universal.jpg (1920x1440, 1.28M)

Cast Waterworld 2

We need
>the hero (most likely female)
>the chick (most likely male)
>the kid (most likely black)
>the old guy (most likely homosexual)
>the old woman
>the bad guy (white guy)

Attached: maxresdefault[5].jpg (1280x720, 92K)

fuck yes

Mad Max: Fury Road is basically Waterworld: Desert Sands, basically. Same idea, same cinematography in many respects, just no fuckin' water that mattered.

In some ways yes. Immortan Joe is more like the Deacon than anything we saw in previous Mad Max films, even including Auntie Entity.

the problem is they overblew a budget on a massive set, which fucking drowned and they had to scrape bits and pieces to make what we got
costner using a helicopter just to take a leak everyday did not help

In some odd way I feel like Avatar was more of a sequel. Which, if you think about it, is a post-apocalyptic movie. We just don't get to see what a shit-hole Earth has turned into.

Yeah, pretty much.

When was the last time someone who won the academy award for best picture and best director starred in the most expensive movie ever made, but did not direct the movie themselves?

seen that show twice. easily the best thing at Universal.

It's just Mad Max in sea

>Yea Forums proves it's patrician taste once again

Attached: Waterworld. 1985.Ulysses Cut. NNMCLUB.mkv_snapshot_02.28.46_[2019.08.04_17.27.09].jpg (1024x552, 213K)

Avatar 2 is supposed to be heavily ocean based.

Sort of. It has some pirate movie tropes going on too.

>the hero (most likely female)
daddario / jodelle ferland / jaimie alexander / kat dennings
>the chick (most likely male)
ezra
>the kid (most likely -----)
jack grazer
>the old guy (most likely homosexual)
jim caviezel
>the old woman
judi dench
>the bad guy (white guy)
ryan gosling

Attached: goose mlk.jpg (521x767, 34K)

it finally turned a profit on home video if im not mistaken

>Mad Max wasn't the most successful movie
Wasn't it the highest grossing independent film until Blair witch?

yes

The whole fiasco surrounding it was just a hatchet job on Costner.

Goose is underrated as a villain. He can be unnerving when he wants to. Only thing is for him to work you have to get pretty dark in tone. But maybe that's what is necessary if you want to do something new instead of just having another cartoon villain like Dennis Hopper.

Attached: 42905ab812e31fbfe25a33258fed9d07[1].jpg (500x500, 39K)

absolutely based

>Waterworld 2 could tell the story of humanity beginning to recollect into something like a real civilization again
Costner made that movie tho

Attached: 300012.jpg (509x755, 97K)

Kat Dennings would burn to a crisp

ill do you a solid, ryan would set her on fire to set the tone of the movie and Antje would become the new heroine hows that sound

>With the tally rising, Universal could have considered pulling the plug. By then, however, the producers were in it for about $20 million, mostly because the actors’ pay-or-play deals had kicked in. So on June 27, 1994, the adventure began. “The winds were terrible,” says one crew member. “Some days we couldn’t shoot at all.” Shots were often ruined by other boats on the horizon, and angles from inside the atoll sometimes caught glimpses of mountains in the distance — a Waterworld no-no. An effects crew, operating in an expensive postproduction crunch, had to correct the glitches by computer.

This would explain why some shots of the 4k release are very soft. It's because they used a digital intermediate for those shots, and it was probably no more than 1080p when finished. They could go back to the negatives and redo these effects, but I guess they just don't care to.

So what the fuck was that other idiot talking about mad Max not being profitable?