Incredibly good and incredibly unrealistic film

WyreWizard · August 31, 2006, 03:26:25 PM

We must all give kudos to Kevin Costner for creating an incredible film. 11 years ago, he created and released a film which had a great story, but was unrealistic in the extreme. Now this doesn't qualify as a B movie because it had a total budget of over $200 million. I feel that B movies have a budget of under a million. Now the movie I am talking about is 1995's Waterworld. Yes, I know you've all seen Waterworld and most of you like it. The story was very well-written. However, the writers of this film never studied much in their geography and biology classes. The setting for this film is impossible and I'll tell you why:

1. There is no way possible that every landmass on Earth can be submerged under water. The fact is there isn't enough water on Earth to sink every landmass. That one scene where Kevin is diving underwater to the sunken remains of Denver Colorado makes me laugh. Denver is too high up on land and too far inland to be submerged. Now if we melted all the ice and extracted all water from underground, how much would our lands sink? 20 or 30 feet at most. But this film shows that all land has sunken hundreds of feet! If I were one of the writers of this film, I'd destroy the Earth and put them all on a planet that is covered in water like what they have in the TV show Stargate Atlantis. That would be a lot more believeable to everyone.

2. If every landmass on Earth is submerged underwater, how is it that every human being is alive?
With all that water, the Earth becomes onlivable to land-dwelling creatures. That water creates a lot of humidity, rendering the earth unlivably hot. Also, the excessive amount of water would create other problems as well. You all know what El Nino is. That's when the surface of the pacifi ocean heats up and influences weather patters worldwide. Well imagine the El Nino on an all-water Earth. Forget hurricanes, you'd have hypercanes flying over the Earth's surface nonstop. There would be no landmasses to stop them. Earth would essentially become like Jupiter.

RCMerchant · August 31, 2006, 04:03:34 PM

Ya know,regardless of the sense of this film...it STILL SUCKED. If it made scientific sense...it woulda sucked.If it cost 10,000 billion dollars-it would suck. If Jack Nicholson,Robert DeNiro,and Traci Lords starred in it..it would suck.It just was DULL.And I like Dennis Hopper. Amazing! I actually agree with Wyre Wizard!(Don't think I wanna swap spit,OK?)

RCMerchant · August 31, 2006, 04:03:36 PM

Ya know,regardless of the sense of this film...it STILL SUCKED. If it made scientific sense...it woulda sucked.If it cost 10,000 billion dollars-it would suck. If Jack Nicholson,Robert DeNiro,and Traci Lords starred in it..it would suck.It just was DULL.And I like Dennis Hopper. Amazing! I actually agree with Wyre Wizard!(Don't think I wanna swap spit,OK?)

Doc Daneeka · August 31, 2006, 04:18:13 PM

Ya know,regardless of the sense of thi- Oh wait...

Anyway, I actually liked Waterworld despite it sucking and being so illogical, (global warming, bah...) a true epic! (No sarcasm here)

RCMerchant · August 31, 2006, 05:18:30 PM

I FELL ASLEEP.NUFF SED.

Neville · August 31, 2006, 06:10:28 PM

I sort of like the first act, it's both serious enough and chessy and creative enough. Then it sinks (no pun intended) to a really dumb and childish level somehow.

If you want to start asking questions that will drive you insane about the movie, consider this one: How come it has passed enough time from Apocalyse to people forget there was land, to allow mutants to evolve from humans, but there are still cigarettes around?

Ed, Ego and Superego · August 31, 2006, 06:23:47 PM

I liked the first half as well. The world-building and mood setting was pretty good. Then the Dennis Hopper "moroboat" gang showed up and I lost interest. I expected a guy in bindage leathers and a mask to show up and gesticulate.
-Ed

Alan Smithee · August 31, 2006, 10:46:59 PM

This movie has one thing going for it: it ws head of the global warming fad than most of Hollywood was at the time..

peter johnson · August 31, 2006, 11:38:35 PM

Umm . . .
Er . . .
Well . . . I'm sorry, but . . . Okay, never mind --
peter j.

Alan Smithee · September 01, 2006, 12:28:51 AM

Well put.

Ash · September 01, 2006, 01:16:17 AM

The only dialogue I can ever remember from this movie was when the weird guy who wants to trade stuff with Mariner says, "It's paaaaper!" and sniffs it.

dean · September 01, 2006, 04:55:22 AM

Bah, Waterworld was terrible. Mad Max on water, and all that stuff.

And I still enjoyed it. As annoying as he is, I actually have a soft spot for Kevin Costner movies.

I don't really know why though, which does scare me.

Yaddo 42 · September 01, 2006, 05:11:15 AM

Just remember, Roger Corman passed on producing a film from the script at an earlier time, because the estimated budget of $5 million was too rich for his blood and his possible return. His film I would have liked to have seen.

Count me in with the bored set on this one. Costner and scifi just seem like a bad combo to me. Another film I've given multiple chances to but always change the channel at a commercial break and forget to come back.

The Burgomaster · September 01, 2006, 06:47:34 AM

I like the part when Costner drinks his own pee.

Fearless Freep · September 01, 2006, 07:19:11 AM

I enjoyed this movie. I think it started out great but kinda fizzled out.