|
Post by Peschi on Sept 30, 2006 10:21:36 GMT -1
For those who have seen this film, why was it such a flop! i thought it was briliant!
|
|
|
Post by gtnffc on Sept 30, 2006 10:22:56 GMT -1
It's ok, nothing special but not quite as bad as we are led to believe.
Films are termed as 'flops' when the takings are compared to the cost of making - this was an extraordinarily expensive film to make because of the water!
|
|
|
Post by Peschi on Sept 30, 2006 10:23:43 GMT -1
true but i enjoyed it none the less!
|
|
|
Post by gtnffc on Sept 30, 2006 10:25:08 GMT -1
I know many people who have enjoyed it - as I said, being termed a 'flop' doesn't mean it was crap, just that the money made vs cost to make comparison is not favourable!
|
|
|
Post by Peschi on Sept 30, 2006 10:26:59 GMT -1
ok cheers, just seems a shame they make it sound bad.
|
|
|
Post by Dr LuKas on Sept 30, 2006 10:51:06 GMT -1
They called it a flop because it didn't live up to what it probably should have. It cost a ridculous ammount of money to make and it took years to make also.
It's an alright film but I wouldn't say it was briliant.
|
|
|
Post by Greenday Everyday on Sept 30, 2006 10:55:01 GMT -1
Was it spring water or something? Could they not just use the big wet bit to the west of Hollywood, the Pacific I think its called.
|
|
|
Post by gtnffc on Sept 30, 2006 10:56:36 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by gtnffc on Sept 30, 2006 10:57:29 GMT -1
One of my favourites!
Carrie (1988): A Broadway musical adaptation of Stephen King's novel of the same title, starring Betty Buckley, closed after only five performances and 16 previews. One of the many problems plaguing the show was the bucket of pig blood used in a climactic scene in the film
LOL
|
|
|
Post by embarossed on Sept 30, 2006 16:08:29 GMT -1
I think it cost in excess of $80million and due to that was expected to be amazing. I went to see it at the cinema in London with one of sister's housemates. She was Spanish and her English was absolutely dire and the whole experience was surreal to say the least. For that reason alone, Waterworld has a strange little place in my heart. Nowhere near as bad as it could have been but completely removed from the greatness it could have achieved.
|
|
|
Post by The Lucky C on Oct 14, 2006 22:31:58 GMT -1
it was shit. but not kevin costners worst film, heavens no.
that belongs to the postman.
|
|
|
Post by Super Danny Webber on Oct 14, 2006 22:34:43 GMT -1
never seen waterworld I thought war of the worlds was a major flop
|
|
|
Post by The Lucky C on Oct 14, 2006 22:36:39 GMT -1
never seen waterworld I thought war of the worlds was a major flop admittedly, two quite different films. i didn't mind WOTW apart from the end. the aliens came to conquer earth, but forgot to pakc paracetemol? silly fuckers.
|
|
|
Post by Super Danny Webber on Oct 14, 2006 22:41:23 GMT -1
never seen waterworld I thought war of the worlds was a major flop admittedly, two quite different films. i didn't mind WOTW apart from the end. the aliens came to conquer earth, but forgot to pakc paracetemol? silly fuckers. thats why I consider it as a flop, I was really getting excited towards the end then that happened, my opinion of Spielberg really went down after I saw that
|
|