If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Waterworld, the best movie ever about Kevin Costner drinking his own pee, might get remade. Well, one of the best   (forbes.com) divider line 52
    More: Amusing, Kevin Costner, Waterworld, drinking  
•       •       •

2011 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 27 Nov 2012 at 5:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-27 12:32:29 AM
I think SyFy's goal is just to troll science fiction fans.
 
2012-11-27 02:55:50 AM
I don't know if Waterworld is the best movie ever about Kevin Costner drinking his own pee.
I mean it's pretty good movie about him drinking his own pee, but not his best when you consider some of his other ones.

Consider:

Tinkles With Wolves
Message In A Bottle (and that message is REFRESHMENT)
Field of Streams
Tin Cup (directors cut)
Wyatt Burp

All fine films the whole family can enjoy.
 
2012-11-27 03:26:21 AM
Who's going to play naked Jeanne Tripplehorn in the reboot?
 
2012-11-27 04:12:09 AM
It wasn't that bad.
 
2012-11-27 05:35:15 AM
It wasn't that good either.
 
2012-11-27 05:38:16 AM

thismomentinblackhistory: It wasn't that bad.


corridor: It wasn't that good either.


it wasn't the best of films, it wasn't the worst of films....

/NATHAN FILLION AS HAN SOLO!!!
//CHRISTIAN BALE AS CORPORAL PRAWNZ!!
 
2012-11-27 05:46:17 AM
It's a great movie. Grand in scope and great acting all around.

I'm not too excited about a Syfy remake because they certainly aren't going to spend the requisite money to make sure the quality is anywhere near the spectacular original.
 
2012-11-27 05:52:18 AM
Which wrestlers will it star? Will it have the ghost Kevin Costner's career? Will the wrestlers be hunting said ghost? If none of those are true: I am not interested.
 
2012-11-27 05:57:51 AM
Best Kevin Costner movie ever, Big Chill. His best acting
 
2012-11-27 06:21:04 AM
i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-11-27 06:44:50 AM
I'll just leave this here.....

Link
 
2012-11-27 06:55:05 AM
FTA: Another 'Waterworld'? Believe It Or Not, Syfy

I believe it.

It'll suck naturally. If not because SyFy is making it, then because it'll be missing a key ingredient: Dennis Hopper.
 
2012-11-27 07:00:38 AM

Cheron: Best Kevin Costner movie ever, Big Chill. His best acting


I really, really liked Mr Brooks. I watched it before I knew who Dane Cook was, and I loved it.
 
2012-11-27 07:32:50 AM
Howe and his team at Syfy saw an opportunity for a different kind of science fiction film, one driven less by expensive stars and special effects than by storytelling.

Yeah, "Piranahbear vs Beaverconda" had a riveting story.
 
2012-11-27 07:36:05 AM

corridor: It wasn't that good either.


Oh, it had some really good elements. It's not "Ishtar" bad. It was just kinda long.
 
2012-11-27 07:41:11 AM

Mugato: Yeah, "Piranahbear vs Beaverconda" had a riveting story.


Just try and look away from this:

i161.photobucket.com

I challenge you!
 
2012-11-27 07:49:02 AM

dittybopper: Oh, it had some really good elements. It's not "Ishtar" bad. It was just kinda long.


Its biggest problem was that it tried to market the high budget as some sort of selling point. It was destined to be overrated.

By today's standards it's a mediocre action flick. Not exactly worthy of derision as you could certainly do worse, but it's the sort of movie that needs low expectations to impress.
 
2012-11-27 07:54:57 AM

dragonchild: Its biggest problem was that it tried to market the high budget as some sort of selling point. It was destined to be overrated.


Its out of control budget was largely because they shot it in the open ocean, something Spielberg warned them not to do (he should know). Luckily, SyFy will be shooting this in the kiddie pool at Adventure Island so they shouldn't have as many problems.
 
2012-11-27 08:05:40 AM

dragonchild: dittybopper: Oh, it had some really good elements. It's not "Ishtar" bad. It was just kinda long.

Its biggest problem was that it tried to market the high budget as some sort of selling point. It was destined to be overrated.

By today's standards it's a mediocre action flick. Not exactly worthy of derision as you could certainly do worse, but it's the sort of movie that needs low expectations to impress.


It's fun, in a low-brow way. I wouldn't mind a boat like that.
 
2012-11-27 08:34:04 AM
mad max on ice was fun but poor kevin took a lot of abuse on the budget. syfy could do a lot better by backing hungry upcoming film graduates and letting them show what they can do with tiny Cohen Bros budgets. you give those brothers $19 million they'll give you 40 farking incredible films. i love those sob's.
 
2012-11-27 08:36:54 AM

SkunkWerks: Mugato: Yeah, "Piranahbear vs Beaverconda" had a riveting story.

Just try and look away from this:

[i161.photobucket.com image 320x180]

I challenge you!


Reminds me of a scene from "Zombie Strippers".
 
2012-11-27 08:40:33 AM
I never understood the drinking your own pee thing. I mean if you can make a machine that can filter urine into drinking water, why can't you make a machine that can filter sea water into drinking water?
 
2012-11-27 08:47:25 AM

mechgreg: I never understood the drinking your own pee thing. I mean if you can make a machine that can filter urine into drinking water, why can't you make a machine that can filter sea water into drinking water?


Not only that, he had gills and could breath salt water. If he can breath salt water he probably has a high enough salt tolerance to just drink it.
 
2012-11-27 08:58:02 AM
Jimmy Crack Corn
 
2012-11-27 08:59:08 AM

karnal: Jimmy Crack Corn


I don't care.
 
2012-11-27 09:03:03 AM

dittybopper: karnal: Jimmy Crack Corn

I don't care.


The Master's gone away.

And Torgo is in charge.
 
2012-11-27 09:22:31 AM
Hey, I liked that movie.
 
2012-11-27 10:01:50 AM

mechgreg: I never understood the drinking your own pee thing. I mean if you can make a machine that can filter urine into drinking water, why can't you make a machine that can filter sea water into drinking water?


Less salt content in the urine to clog up the reverse osmosis filter. It could do salt water but urine makes for less work.
 
2012-11-27 10:06:04 AM
The book Flood, (warning: Spoilers) by Steven Baxter would make a vastly better movie. Hollywood Bonus: The book is long enough to make a movie trilogy, and it has a sequel that ventures into serious Isaac Asimov style sci-fi in case they want to go on and make a second trilogy.  Waterworld always bugged the shiat out of me because they never explained how the world drowned, and a story about people trying (and usually failing) to survive the world flooding is way more interesting than the aftermath.
 
2012-11-27 10:11:38 AM
Waterworld suffered from hype and high expectations, particularly when it was basically a remake of Road Warrior, but with ocean instead of desert, soil instead of oil, and smokers on jet skis led by The Deacon instead of marauders on motorcycles led by The Humungus. There was even a goofy inventor with a flying machine, a cute but retarded kid, and a love interest who ends up ultimately disappointed when the savior leads them to salvation and then abandons them to return to his lonely life of drifting.
That said, Road Warrior was a great movie, and so was Waterworld... but the budget for the former was $4.5m, while the budget for the latter was $175m, so without really adding something special, it was going to be overrated.
 
2012-11-27 10:13:03 AM

pheelix: Waterworld always bugged the shiat out of me because they never explained how the world drowned


You should probably rewatch the first 43 seconds. :)
 
2012-11-27 10:37:02 AM

Theaetetus: That said, Road Warrior was a great movie, and so was Waterworld... but the budget for the former was $4.5m, while the budget for the latter was $175m, so without really adding something special, it was going to be overrated.


It is funny that back in 1995 the fact that waterworld had a budget of 175 million was a huge deal and was reported in pretty much reported everywhere. By comparison The Dark Knight Rises cost around $250 million, and that was hardly a story at all.
 
2012-11-27 10:37:58 AM

Theaetetus: Waterworld suffered from hype and high expectations, particularly when it was basically a remake of Road Warrior, but with ocean instead of desert, soil instead of oil, and smokers on jet skis led by The Deacon instead of marauders on motorcycles led by The Humungus. There was even a goofy inventor with a flying machine, a cute but retarded kid, and a love interest who ends up ultimately disappointed when the savior leads them to salvation and then abandons them to return to his lonely life of drifting.
That said, Road Warrior was a great movie, and so was Waterworld... but the budget for the former was $4.5m, while the budget for the latter was $175m, so without really adding something special, it was going to be overrated.


Ahh, but Waterworld doesn't have smegma crazies, or gay-boy berzerkers.
 
2012-11-27 10:38:36 AM

mechgreg: Theaetetus: That said, Road Warrior was a great movie, and so was Waterworld... but the budget for the former was $4.5m, while the budget for the latter was $175m, so without really adding something special, it was going to be overrated.

It is funny that back in 1995 the fact that waterworld had a budget of 175 million was a huge deal and was reported in pretty much reported everywhere. By comparison The Dark Knight Rises cost around $250 million, and that was hardly a story at all.


Inflation.
 
2012-11-27 10:39:38 AM

mechgreg: Theaetetus: That said, Road Warrior was a great movie, and so was Waterworld... but the budget for the former was $4.5m, while the budget for the latter was $175m, so without really adding something special, it was going to be overrated.

It is funny that back in 1995 the fact that waterworld had a budget of 175 million was a huge deal and was reported in pretty much reported everywhere. By comparison The Dark Knight Rises cost around $250 million, and that was hardly a story at all.


Inflation, how does it work?

$175 million in 1995 is like $255 million in 2011.
 
2012-11-27 10:44:59 AM

mechgreg: By comparison The Dark Knight Rises cost around $250 million, and that was hardly a story at all.


That's a bit of a disingenuous comparison because The Dark Knight Rises rode the coattails of a trilogy, whereas Waterworld was a stand-alone.

I get the feeling -- or rather, I hope for the sake of humanity -- that TKDR is going to age very badly. Once we get over this earthworm-like obsession with "grit" the next generation is going to scratch their heads over what we saw in it, much like how our elders thought a film adaptation of a musical about a street gang re-telling of Romeo and Juliet was a fantastic idea.
 
2012-11-27 10:48:34 AM
No "Better Drink My Own Piss" yet?
 
2012-11-27 10:51:13 AM

dittybopper: mechgreg: Theaetetus: That said, Road Warrior was a great movie, and so was Waterworld... but the budget for the former was $4.5m, while the budget for the latter was $175m, so without really adding something special, it was going to be overrated.

It is funny that back in 1995 the fact that waterworld had a budget of 175 million was a huge deal and was reported in pretty much reported everywhere. By comparison The Dark Knight Rises cost around $250 million, and that was hardly a story at all.

Inflation, how does it work?

$175 million in 1995 is like $255 million in 2011.


I get the inflation aspect, although I didn't realize would have increased prices that fast. Although what is more surprising is that a movie with a 175 million dollar budget in 1995 was a total anomaly that was almost a shock to people. But when you adjust that cost to the current values a movie that comes in at around 250 million is a lot more common and not really a surprise to anyone. I mean there were 6 movies with budgets over 200 million dollars in 2012 alone.
 
2012-11-27 11:23:14 AM

mechgreg: dittybopper: mechgreg: Theaetetus: That said, Road Warrior was a great movie, and so was Waterworld... but the budget for the former was $4.5m, while the budget for the latter was $175m, so without really adding something special, it was going to be overrated.

It is funny that back in 1995 the fact that waterworld had a budget of 175 million was a huge deal and was reported in pretty much reported everywhere. By comparison The Dark Knight Rises cost around $250 million, and that was hardly a story at all.

Inflation, how does it work?

$175 million in 1995 is like $255 million in 2011.

I get the inflation aspect, although I didn't realize would have increased prices that fast. Although what is more surprising is that a movie with a 175 million dollar budget in 1995 was a total anomaly that was almost a shock to people. But when you adjust that cost to the current values a movie that comes in at around 250 million is a lot more common and not really a surprise to anyone. I mean there were 6 movies with budgets over 200 million dollars in 2012 alone.


That's also because these things tend to "ratchet up".
 
2012-11-27 12:44:13 PM

Theaetetus: pheelix: Waterworld always bugged the shiat out of me because they never explained how the world drowned

You should probably rewatch the first 43 seconds. :)


Huh. I have no recollection of that. I must have been getting a beer or something.
 
2012-11-27 02:03:37 PM
someone forgot that most of the cost over runs were logistical issues. and that there is no place to film this, unless it's all blue screen.
 
2012-11-27 02:26:39 PM
PAEPER


You can't top that.
 
2012-11-27 02:43:22 PM
www.cinemareview.com

Ford Lincoln Mercury frowns.
 
2012-11-27 04:07:38 PM

mechgreg: dittybopper: mechgreg: Theaetetus: That said, Road Warrior was a great movie, and so was Waterworld... but the budget for the former was $4.5m, while the budget for the latter was $175m, so without really adding something special, it was going to be overrated.

It is funny that back in 1995 the fact that waterworld had a budget of 175 million was a huge deal and was reported in pretty much reported everywhere. By comparison The Dark Knight Rises cost around $250 million, and that was hardly a story at all.

Inflation, how does it work?

$175 million in 1995 is like $255 million in 2011.

I get the inflation aspect, although I didn't realize would have increased prices that fast. Although what is more surprising is that a movie with a 175 million dollar budget in 1995 was a total anomaly that was almost a shock to people. But when you adjust that cost to the current values a movie that comes in at around 250 million is a lot more common and not really a surprise to anyone. I mean there were 6 movies with budgets over 200 million dollars in 2012 alone.


What's changed is big films have basically become long play ads for merchandising which is where the real money's been in Hollywood for a decade. $250 million is pocket change for a franchise film that will probably pull several billion in toys. In Waterworld's day budgets that large were exceedingly uncommon because the film basically had to make the money back from the box office and home video (thus it was very likely not to make close to the budget). Titanic wouldn't have covered Waterworld's budget (because theaters get most of the box take after 4-6 weeks in most cases).
 
2012-11-27 06:45:04 PM

dragonchild: mechgreg:
I get the feeling -- or rather, I hope for the sake of humanity -- that TKDR is going to age very badly. Once we get over this earthworm-like obsession with "grit" the next generation is going to scratch their heads over what we saw in it, much like how our elders thought a film adaptation of a musical about a street gang re-telling of Romeo and Juliet was a fantastic idea.


Hey! West Side Story is still great.
 
2012-11-27 07:01:38 PM

dittybopper: Ahh, but Waterworld doesn't have smegma crazies, or gay-boy berzerkers.


Or studded leather codpieces. Those are important if you're going to survive in a world gone mad
 
xcv
2012-11-27 07:27:49 PM

pheelix: The book Flood, (warning: Spoilers) by Steven Baxter would make a vastly better movie. Hollywood Bonus: The book is long enough to make a movie trilogy, and it has a sequel that ventures into serious Isaac Asimov style sci-fi in case they want to go on and make a second trilogy.  Waterworld always bugged the shiat out of me because they never explained how the world drowned, and a story about people trying (and usually failing) to survive the world flooding is way more interesting than the aftermath.


A few years after the book series was released, there were a couple popsci news articles on massive, underground 'oceans' that would have been a great promotional tie in.

But how would it translate the screen? The series takes places over decades (before it even gets into the tie-in novellas.) Characters disappear for years at a time, new ones pop-up. The big picture will get reduced to a few action scenes of people panicking against water. The Tibetan cannibal fiefdom would look like The Road meets Mad Max.
 
2012-11-27 07:40:41 PM
If you're going to remake movies, you'd might as well remake the bad ones. If you remake a good movie, there's not as much room for improvement.
 
2012-11-27 08:56:12 PM

TommyymmoT: I don't know if Waterworld is the best movie ever about Kevin Costner drinking his own pee.
I mean it's pretty good movie about him drinking his own pee, but not his best when you consider some of his other ones.

Consider:

Tinkles With Wolves
Message In A Bottle (and that message is REFRESHMENT)
Field of Streams
Tin Cup (directors cut)
Wyatt Burp

All fine films the whole family can enjoy.


You forgot The Pissedman, where he also drinks Tom Petty's pee.
 
2012-11-28 04:22:14 AM
Hmm I see a dolph ziggler vehicle. That man can sell anything.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report