The Sydney Morning Herald spoke to Kevin Costner, who insisted that the jury is still out on "Waterworld," which is being regarded as one of the most expensive flops in movie history.
"No, Waterworld was not a bad movie," Costner said. "Just because it had been ridiculed by the critics and had failed commercially didn't make it a poor film. In fact one day Waterworld would be recognized as what he had always believed it to be: one of the greatest science fiction adventure yarns ever made."
I personally do not think that "Waterworld" is that bad. In fact, I have seen it several times on TV and enjoyed it. Anyone that claims that the film lost money should know that its whopping $175 million budget (ballooned from $100 million) was made back overseas alone. Sure, "Transformers" cost less to make and so did "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," but worldwide, "Waterworld" ended up making $264 million and that's not counting DVD sales. It is hardly a flop.
Either way, the paper decided to test Costner's claim by comparing his film to a few other 'flops' like "Heaven's Gate," "Showgirls," "Alexander" and "Ishtar."
14 comments:
I know there were a ton of posts yesterday but I hope you guys checked out the Iron Man trailer, it really looks terrific.
Waterworld Rules!
From www.smh.com,
Costner's dripping yarn: sci-fi classic or total sinker?
You have to admire Kevin Costner's optimism. Back in 1983 he managed to look on the bright side when the director Lawrence Kasdan left what was meant to be his breakthrough performance in The Big Chill on the cutting room floor.
And he's still at it. In an interview with Channel Nine's Richard Wilkins about his new movie, Mr Brooks, Costner insisted the jury is still out on Waterworld, his 1995 action epic generally regarded as one of the most expensive flops in movie history.
No, Waterworld was not a bad movie, Costner said. Just because it had been ridiculed by the critics and had failed commercially didn't make it a poor film. In fact, Costner insisted, one day Waterworld would be recognised as what he had always believed it to be: one of the greatest science fiction adventure yarns ever made.
We thought we should test Costner's claim. Has Waterworld worn well? And how does it compare with some of the other films that have become bywords for the banal? Movies considered so awful when they appeared that most of us didn't even bother going to see them or hire them on video or DVD?
Our office poll reduced the "shockers' shortlist" to five: Michael Cimino's notoriously expensive Heaven's Gate; the screwball comedy Ishtar, starring Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman; Paul Verhoeven's soft-porn spectacular Showgirls; Oliver Stone's much-lampooned version of Alexander; and, of course, Waterworld.
Which of the five would emerge as the ultimate Hollywood howler?
HEAVEN'S GATE
Written and directed by
Michael Cimino
Released 1980
The case against: According to legend, Cimino destroyed United Artists with his profligacy during the making of Heaven's Gate. His second film as a director, The Deer Hunter, had won Oscars for best director and best picture, leading United Artists to give the former scriptwriter a free hand. Heaven's Gate rapidly went over its $US12 million budget, eventually costing an estimated $US40 million. By the time it was released, it had become a symbol of artistic irresponsibility - Cimino's preferred version was five hours and 25 minutes long. The money men insisted on drastic cuts, but the original theatrical version was still 3½ hours long. Cimino famously banned that version from release after its New York premiere. He virtually never worked again.
Today's verdict: At 229 minutes, the DVD version is fatally disjointed, with enormous gaps in the story-line. But it arguably should have been slashed even more, particularly the ponderous opening scenes at Harvard University and the ridiculous postscript aboard a yacht.
I liked Waterworld. Intriguing sci-fi; tightly told tale. Trim story. No big deal.
I'm very familiar with Heaven's Gate; I own the long version. I read the book about making it. I loved it in college (inflicted it on on my friends) and hate it now.
Both movies are interesting, because they're both so expensive for the same reason: Visually, they're both Peter Jackson/George Lucas "digital environment" movies, but they were made before CGI, so all that stuff is actually built.
That's what broke the bank for Waterworld and Heaven's Gate. The Warchowski Brothers could make Waterworld for 1/8th the cost today. Back then, they had to ACTUALLY BUILD the entire "atoll" and set it floating somewhere.
Ditto Heaven's Gate's sprawling 1890 towns of Casper and Sweetwater, Wyoming, which (in true Peter Jackson fashion) have breathtaking vistas of buildings and smokestacks and crowds going back and back and back into the distance, not because they're matchmoved composited environments but because they ACTUALLY BUILT ALL THAT STUFF. But visually both insanely expensive movies pre-sage the CGI era.
As far as I know nobody else has ever realized this or written it down. But then, most people haven't seen Waterworld or Heaven's Gate.
I've never seen Heaven's Gate and based on your hatred for it I'm not so motivated. That's really interesting about the sets. It makes me think of films like Spartacus where you saw an army of thousands, and there really was a thousand people in the scene (unlike Lucas' Clonetroopers, for example). I always have mixed feelings about models/CG when it comes to spaceships. While I love the look of all the CG stuff, the models still feel more real to me.
I just finished re-watching Sith and, with all due respect, that's just wrong. There is just no way to tell which are the models and which are the digital ships. I have John Knoll's definitive hardcover "Creating the worlds of Star Wars" book and I've gone through it many times, and I'm surprised at how often I get it wrong in terms of what's digital and what's physical. You just don't know what you're seeing until you go check. (Sith is the most visually advanced movie of any kind I've ever seen, I've decided).
People who complain about "the digital people" get this wrong too: they simply aren't aware of how often they're seeing good digital people and don't know it. For example, in Attack of the Clones, in the duel between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett on that platform in the rain, Obi-Wan is only Ewan MacGregor in the closeups: ALL of the shots of him being dragged around on cables or fighting or dropping off the side use a 100% digital Obi Wan. You just can't tell. It's impossible.
(This is not true of the far crappier effects in, say, the X-Men movies, by the way.)
I agree about Sith. That opening space battle is flawless and you're right, CG really has advanced to the point where you can't tell the difference. I guess I was thinking more of STNG, when CG was more in its infancy. I still think there is a ways to go before CG armies look like the real thing. For some reason some of the CG characters seem to "jerk" in a strange way - this is especially noticable when they're jumping off something (think clonetroopers jumping off the transport ship during AOTC). Believe me I'm not complaining, I love it all!
The CGI in Next Generation is exactly as bad as the optical effects in original Star Trek.
The mocap of clone troopers in Clones was based largely on ILM employees jumping around etc. For Sith, Lucas told John Knoll that it looked a little goofy so they got some actual soldiers to do the mocap and it looks much better.
The crowds in Sith are perfect. I just watched them back to back and, like I said, I was absolutely astounded at the quality of the material in Sith. I reiterate that it's the most advanced motion picture ever made (in terms of the fusion of high-art aesthetics, photographic beauty, compositing, CGI and design).
The crowds in Two Towers have some problems. Those problems are pretty much solved in Return of the King. Lucas' eye for that stuff is just a LITTLE BIT better than Jacksons.
You can tell where my head's at, since I'm turning EVERY SINGLE THREAD into a discussion of CGI.
I love the romance of building spaceship models and moving them around on mechanical armatures against bluescreens, but nevertheless I am forced to admit that what I call "romance" is really a lot of unnecessary time and money these days.
CG spacechips are as good as models, and I think that's the first CG thing that really stepped up and replaced its antecedant. There are space battle sequences towards the end of Deep Space 9 that still blow me away.
And Waterworld rules! I've met a lot of people who badmouth that flick having never seen it; it's like it was willed to be a flop by the people who talked of the excess before it opened, and nobody ever mentions the fact that it made back its money.
I thought the CG in Transformers was nothing short of amazing. That huge battle in the end blew me away.
Right on, Octo, Waterworld rules!
It simply can't be as good as the CGI in Sith. It's just not possible.
Actually, what the hell do I know; I haven't seen it. Maybe it's that good.
Spielberg, meanwhile, makes the best use of ILM possible for anyone who isn't George Lucas. I'm thinking of the Higgins boats ("Change the davits!") and Destroyers and dirigibles off Omaha Beach in Saving Private Ryan, the submerged New York in AI, the World Trade Center in Munich, etc. And the Martian tripods of course.
Octo and I had a big fight about Waterworld 11 or 12 years ago. He defended it even then. He's a true Waterworld loyalist.
Um....I never saw it, I admit. Our fight was about Hollywood excess, not the actual quality of the movie. It will be interesting to see if we fight about any other stupid b.s. that really has no bearing on our actual lives at all this time around.
I doubt it. Age has dulled our fighting claws.
I'd say you're bound to still have some discussions about stupid b.s. stuff.
It's more fun to argue about stuff that doesn't really bear on actual life anyway!
igoI forgot to make clear that I LIKED WATERWORLD. I knew we were in for a good time when the painting of the Earth in the Universal Pictures logo flooded itself.
Post a Comment