There’s a scene in Waterworld where the Mariner and his companion travel under the water to a sunken city. Wikipedia says it’s Denver, but I’m not clear how that conclusion is being drawn. I just watched the scene and I don’t see the word “Denver” on anything, nor do I see recognizable landmarks. There are ruins of a ski lift nearby, but that doesn’t mean anything - the city just as easily could be Salt Lake City or Boise or Lucerne.
Does the source material make this clear? Or am I missing an obvious visual clue?
Here come words I never thought to say: I think I’d like to see that movie again. I remember that I liked it at the time, and I’ve obviously forgotten a lot.
I saw it once, at the cinema. My recollection is that it wasn’t in any way terrible, just a mediocre popcorn flick.
I have never understood the criticism of this film. It was never meant to be great cinema, but it was at least equal to Costner’s Robin Hood, and on par with Broken Arrow, Twister or similar popcorn action flicks of the day. The mid 90s were not a good time for popular movies but Waterworld was no worse than its competition.
The only part I didn’t like was the Exxon Valdez fitted with galley oars. How fast could man have evolved gills and still re-condition a sunken tanker?
It wasn’t that the movie was excessively bad, per se, a lot of the criticism was directed at the extraordinary budget, set issues, and Kevin Costner’s then-peaking ego.
Oh, it’s not that bad. It’s main negative hype comes from its huge budget, which does not match the quality of the movie. Titanic was heading the same way during its production, but people loved it so we forgot about that.
Waterworld is a colid C+ movie. Hardly terrible. Watchable. Even kind of good in parts. But flawed in a lot of ways.
It did. I mean, take Adam Sandler’s Jack and Jill. Cost $79 million. Looks like it cost $10 million. Waterworld cost $172 million. Looks like it cost…well, a lot, but hard to guess how much it looks like. They didn’t waste all the money, anyway.
Remember that at the very end, the only island they found was the top of Mount Everest. That’s more than five miles above sea level, so either a whole lot of water came from somewhere or all the mountains sank.
For me, the stupidest part of the movie was that they referred to gasoline as “go juice” or some equally inane term. Really? The earth is flooded and the word gasoline ceases to exist? Sorry - I can only suspend so much disbelief.
If dirt was a commodity so rare and precious it was used as currency, why was everyone always dirty? It’d be like everyone now walking around covered in gold dust.
In the movie, this island was literally the only dry land on the whole planet, and there was a marker or something that indicated it was the absolute peak of Everest. (It’s been years since I saw the film, so I don’t remember how we were told this was Everest.) Other mountains in the same range (K2 and so forth) differ in height by a thousand feet or so (about 28,000 for K2 vs 29,000 feet for Everest). So in the movie, the oceans would have to be 5.3 miles deeper than they are now. I don’t have the time to figure out the volume of additional water that would involve, but it’s enormous. (More than the amount of water already on Earth, perhaps?)
I was always meaning to ask this (I guess in GQ) - how much of Saturn’s rings (which I think are mostly ice?) would have to hit the Earth to get the required water?
It definitely is going to need an outside source - the largest global warming/melting ice-cap number I recall is maybe 2 feet.
Anyone want to do the math on the volume of water needed to increase the depth of the oceans by five miles or so? We can assume, for simplicity’s sake, that all land on earth is at sea level.
