4
My neighbor hated Waterworld so much I had to defend it
Last month at a backyard BBQ, my buddy Mark said Waterworld was a total waste of film stock and that nobody should watch it. I told him the world-building underwater was actually creative and the practical stunts were insane for 1995. Has anyone else here had to argue for this movie just because you liked one specific thing about it?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
josephl6720d ago
Blame the editors for cutting a ton of the character development. The original version was way longer, and the studio chopped it down to make it more of a straight action movie. I read somewhere that the director's cut adds back stuff about the smokers and their whole society, which makes the world feel more grounded. People forget how hard it was to film that much on water with practical effects, no CGI cheat codes back then. Give it another shot with the extended version, it actually holds up in my opinion.
1
jake_owens19d ago
Oh man, that's exactly what I've been trying to explain to people! So the extended version really fleshes out the Smokers as more than just cartoon villains? I always thought that was the weakest part of the theatrical cut, they just showed up to blow stuff up without any real reason. The original script had more about the economics of their society and how the whole floating world operated, right? That'd make the whole thing feel way less like a cheesy 90s movie and more like an actual survival story.
4
the_jason19d ago
no CGI cheat codes back then" is exactly why the movie is underrated. They built a whole floating atoll set and Costner literally sailed around the ocean. That's respect.
-1