>Practical effects galore>Jaw-dropping set design>Fun set pieces>Nifty world-building>Over-the-top Dennis Hopper as the crude leader of cigarette-obsessed pirates>Somehow is viewed as one of the worst movies of all time just because it didn't make the ridiculous amount of money the studio wanted
You forgot the part where the main characters are very boring and unengaging
First time I saw a girl's naked butt.
yeah
>>222777410Yet a year earlier you had Forrest Gump that consisted of Tom Hanks playing a retard doing random stuff.
More like it didn't make the ridiculous amount of money the studio invested in it, it was supposed to be a major blockbuster à la T2... highest-grossing movie in '95 was Batman Forever btw lmao
Could the "hey look at me pretend not to understand something" meta fucking die already.
>>222777384The Marvels is the biggest flop in film history but nobody ever mentions it. Waterworld was at least practical. Didn't like the ending, though. He could have stayed and just gone fishing whenever he felt the urge.
>>222777459Universal did intend for it to be a big name franchise though which meant him staying would prevent sequels.
>Practical effects galore>Jaw-dropping set design>Fun set pieces>Nifty world-building>Over-the-top Will Patton as the crude leader of race-obsessed raiders>Somehow is viewed as one of the worst movies of all time just because it didn't make the ridiculous amount of money the studio wanted
>>222777384It's a solid 8/10 movie and I don't get the hate.My theory is that postapo movies with manly men and weak bitches were supposed to be extinguished, according to some proto- ESG idea, and Waterworld broke this new kike agreement. The only problem I have with it is the melting glaciers end of world propaganda. Cut it out and it's OK.
>>222777410And drink their own recycled piss.
>>222777384It’s a fun, exciting movie. Saw it in theater and loved Jeanne Tripplehorn’s booty.Looking back it’s a total ripoff of Roadwarrior right down to the villains death scene. Whatever, still liked it no regrets.
>>222777384This was better. Also, Solider with Kurty Russell
>>222777533Genuine Question: As difficult as the process of desalinating seawater and making it drinkable is, is it really THAT much MORE difficult or complicated than what must be required to recycle literal human piss into drinkable water?That part of the movie always stuck out to me. If they have the technology to manage doing the latter, then surely it would be just as easy, if not easier, to do the former, right?
>>222777517But it's like a solid 4/10 movie. You can view it as either a kids movie or an ironic/Dennis Hopper movie. It's not a great adventure movie with only sailing and a bleak nightmare world. There is nothing really fun about it.. maybe if all quips were water based or something I don't know. I mean I still watch this shit at times but I just wish I was really high every time.
>>222777636Then why do astronauts recycle piss rather than desalinating space water? Checkmate, retard
>>222777517>The only problem I have with it is the melting glaciers end of world propaganda.What other explanation would you have given to the world being underwater?
>>222777636The action sequences are good I think. Lots of cool detail in the setpieces too. It's a movie best watched in clip form.
>>222777610I assume their piss conversion process isn't actually as efficient as you think
>>222777459>He could have stayedIt's a mad max on water movieHe can't stay or you won't get a second movie
>>222777384Standards for films were a lot higher in the '90s.A 3/10 film from the '90s is an 8/10 today.
>>222777670I would leave it up to the imagination, because it's the best way to have something cool while not making a fool of yourself or getting stuck in technical details irrelevant to the story.The best way to rationalize it would be a geophysical disaster that caused some parts of the earth crust to sunk down, while others got elevated. But then we would have new continents, not a tiny archipelago. And everybody would know they are there, because of bird migrations or whatever.
>>222777429Forest Gump had a charming simplicity.The story kept you engaged because it had 20th. Century Zeitgeist with forest bumbling through the decades that are still part of our collective memory. It had a narrative and emotional core that worked.Waterworld had none of that. The "dry land" chase was uninteresting, everything featured the same ocean vistas. Getting chased by bad guys on jetskis? Yawn. Forest gump in vietnam was much more tense.And the nail in the coffin of waterworld was that none of the main characters were likeable or interesting. All set designs are in the service of nothing.Forest gump becoming a shrimp fishing millionaire was a better boat story than this dogshit.
>>222777636>It's not a great adventure movie with only sailing and a bleak nightmare world.So you didn't even bother to watch it.
>>222777384I like Kevin Costner but this movie really is terrible
>>222777610They could have just used reserve osmosis tbf
>>222777856>The best way to rationalize it would be a geophysical disaster that caused some parts of the earth crust to sunk down, while others got elevated.Can that happen suddenly? I know the Himalaya and other big mountains were created like that but I think that takes millions of years.
>>222778055No idea, I stole it from Szukalski.
>>222777384>Somehow is viewed as one of the worst movies of all time just because it didn't make the ridiculous amount of money the studio wantedit's not though every person i've talked to about it like it
>>222777384>TitsIf I remember correctly.
>>222778148Why would the Sun hibernate? I know it has periods or more and less heat but not extreme low heat that we can call hibernation, cooling so much that can affect the temperature of Earth's core.
>>222777517The proto-brain of a chudservative, ladies and gentlemoids.
>>222778234It's just some /x/ tier idea for his mythology of a global deluge. The man was an artist and it's from his art album.
>>222778055>Can that happen suddenly?All volcanoes are EXACTLY that
>>222777670>The only problem I have with it is the melting glaciers end of world propaganda.>What other explanation would you have given to the world being underwater?Canonically, it was a failed attempt at harvesting comets.
>>222778899Where did you get that from?
