Waterworld (1995) | Starring Kevin Costner of Man of Steel and Batman v Superman fame

[Barnack]

On 2/3/2017 at 9:45 PM, aabattery said:

 

I think RDJ could get away with it, but only in Marvel movies. He had something crazy like 5 trailers on the set of Civil War, IIRC.

 

I doubt that, sure he will get a lot of money, but in term of asking for reshoot, be the director in charge of is marvel movie, have final cut and so on, I mean he did let the studio force Shane Black to change major element of is script of Iron Man 3 just because they thought they could sales more toys. Marvel and Disney in general would probably not agree to too much.

[Barnack]

On 2/3/2017 at 9:09 PM, franfar said:

It was #12 DOM for the year. A smaller budget would've cut the losses, seeing how the highest grossing film "only" got 191m. So it never would've succeeded

 

Rumors is that it didn't do any loss for the studio and was not a big money looser overall, like cited in one of the article in this thread:

Despite the inevitable bad reviews, the cast’s tireless counterpoint appeared to work. In the end, while not a blockbuster, Waterworld exceeded its reported $175 million production budget by $89 million, once international ticket sales were tabulated, and the film ultimately turned a profit after video and cable sales.

 

 

 

 

It could still have made a good ROI, it just needed to perform better on the domestic side. Marketing cost were not has high back then and some big movies in the 90's paid their production budget completely just with the TV first run, a different era.

 

Apparently according to the MPAA, in 1994:

Advertising, marketing and print costs increased to an average of $16.1 million per film (26.46 million in 2017 dollar)

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-03-08/business/fi-40252_1_average-cost

 

Today the average cost of marketing without print for a studio movie is probably around 40 million for the domestic release alone, it was of 36 million in 2007 the last time the MPAA tracked that data.

[Jonwo]

2 hours ago, Barnack said:

Today the average cost of marketing without print for a studio movie is probably around 40 million for the domestic release alone, it was of 36 million in 2007 the last time the MPAA tracked that data.

 

Going digital has saved a ton of money for distributors, I'm fascinated that TV deals could essentially pay off a production budget. Now, the big basic cable networks pay $20m for a package of films, at least FX and TNT do. Something like MCU, Star Wars etc likely cost more overall. I know in the UK, big franchises like Bond are sold separately from studio output.  

[grim22]

Jeanne Tripplehorn auditioned her butt double for the movie

 

http://ew.com/article/1995/08/18/jeanne-tripplehorn-says-no-nude-scenes/

 

Quote

Jeanne Tripplehorn said no to a nude scene in Waterworld. But that didn’t keep her from butting in when it came to a body double. ”I said, ‘I’m going to pick the person representing my derriere,”’ the actress recalls. Eventually, three finalists were ushered into her trailer wearing nothing but terry cover-ups. ”I said, ‘Ladies, drop the robes!’ We were all laughing so hard because the situation was so bizarre,” says Tripplehorn, who never abandoned her double on ship. ”I stayed by the camera and gave her a robe,” she says. ”If we were trying another take, I held the towel up. She was out there naked on a boat with mostly men. I really felt for her.”

 

[robertman2]

On 2/3/2017 at 9:28 PM, grim22 said:

 

From what I had read somewhere, Costner was unhappy that his hairline looked receding in the dailies. So he had the VFX company go back and paint his hair in in every single scene. That alone added to the budget as well.

 

Plus they had reshoots for which they built an island again.

Costner is secretly @MrPink?

[robertman2]

On 2/4/2017 at 0:10 AM, grim22 said:

The weirdest legacy of Waterworld is definitely that it got Costner interested in the Ocean and ecology and he ended up actually helping with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill cleanup through technologies he developed through that interest.

Too bad he couldn't save the movies

[Maxmoser3]

This movie was fucked from the start. 

[John Rambo]

On 3/24/2017 at 3:28 AM, Barnack said:

 

Rumors is that it didn't do any loss for the studio and was not a big money looser overall, like cited in one of the article in this thread:

Despite the inevitable bad reviews, the cast’s tireless counterpoint appeared to work. In the end, while not a blockbuster, Waterworld exceeded its reported $175 million production budget by $89 million, once international ticket sales were tabulated, and the film ultimately turned a profit after video and cable sales.

 

 

 

 

It could still have made a good ROI, it just needed to perform better on the domestic side. Marketing cost were not has high back then and some big movies in the 90's paid their production budget completely just with the TV first run, a different era.

 

Apparently according to the MPAA, in 1994:

Advertising, marketing and print costs increased to an average of $16.1 million per film (26.46 million in 2017 dollar)

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-03-08/business/fi-40252_1_average-cost

 

Today the average cost of marketing without print for a studio movie is probably around 40 million for the domestic release alone, it was of 36 million in 2007 the last time the MPAA tracked that data.

So it collected a share of 115M from DOM+OS. Fair Enough, but how did it recoup remaining 60M considering no break up is given for TV rights and other stuff?

 

[Barnack]

8 hours ago, John Rambo said:

So it collected a share of 115M from DOM+OS. Fair Enough, but how did it recoup remaining 60M considering no break up is given for TV rights and other stuff?

 

I'm not fully sure what you are asking there. (It had much more than just 60m to recoup, that movie total cost was over 250m

 

Every revenue stream in that picture is put into other revenues and by seeing the presence of round number I would imagine it is deadline with studio people of the time estimating them by using the rule of thumb formula for a movie of that genre that had that type of life on TV.

 

37% of your revenue from theatrical was probably about the average for big release of that era.

[filmlover]

On ‎3‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 8:55 PM, grim22 said:

Jeanne Tripplehorn auditioned her butt double for the movie

 

http://ew.com/article/1995/08/18/jeanne-tripplehorn-says-no-nude-scenes/

 

 

[John Rambo]

On 5/30/2017 at 8:50 PM, Barnack said:

I'm not fully sure what you are asking there. (It had much more than just 60m to recoup, that movie total cost was over 250m

 

Every revenue stream in that picture is put into other revenues and by seeing the presence of round number I would imagine it is deadline with studio people of the time estimating them by using the rule of thumb formula for a movie of that genre that had that type of life on TV.

 

37% of your revenue from theatrical was probably about the average for big release of that era.

Production budget is 175M. So i said it recouped 115m through theatrical run and remaining 60 how did it recoup? Im confused regarding amounts mentioned in that pic is it in 000s? 

[Barnack]

I will try to explain those number has I understand them, only the first column of number are an estimation of what probably happened, the 2 second column are just a way to put those result in today context.

 

The number are in thousand yes.

 

Here the number

 

Source of revenue:

Theatrical revenue (what goes to the studio from the theater ticket sold): 115.391 million

Other revenue (vhs, tv, airplane, etc...): 190 million

Total revenue: 305.4 million

 

Source of expense:

P&A (cost of prints and marketing of theatrical release): 90 million

Others dist costs (making, shipping vhs, marketing of home video release, etc...): 49 million

Production budget : 175 million

Total cost: 314 million

 

They estimate the movie lost a small amount of 8.5 million (305.4 million in revenue - 314 million in expense), but that all the lost were absorbed by the co-financier that gave more to the movie financing that they received, the studio making a small 12 million or so profit, co-financier loosing around 20 million or so.

 

Usually co-financier on a movie take a bigger risk that the studio of not making their money back, the distributor of the movie tend to pay themselve and distribution expense first before starting to share revenue to others.

[BOOYAH SUCKAS]

Dont know why people hate this movie so much.... Sure its cheesy but I always found it to be a fun intriguing movie. The premise is certainly very interesting, and admittedly they could have done a little more with it but its enjoyable for what it is. 

I'd argue that the postman was far more damaging to costner's career as that movie was a complete flop.

[GroceryGuru]

I remember a scene from that film, where soil and sand are as valuable as gold where characters take some out of a jar and pour it back in, enjoying the feel of having some on their hands. The wind carries enough off that the jar is now less full and no one cared. I laughed inside knowing that I would have to suspend too much disbelief to enjoy this film. 

[SteveJaros]

I remember the whole Waterworld hysteria of 1995. The anticipation for this film was like for Titanic two years later, it was all negative stories about the bloated expenses, massive cost overruns, and Kevin Costner being a difficult prima donna. The critics and press skewered the Waterworld production mercilessly about these things before the film ever came out, the negative expectations about Titanic were actually pretty mild by comparison.

 

Truth is, it wasn't nearly the disaster - artistically or commercially - that was anticipated. I recall seeing it in theater on opening day and thinking "not very original, basically Mad Max on the ocean, but entertaining nonetheless". And IIRC it did decent box office as well. 

 

In the end, the big negative hype kind of fizzled out because it didn't end up being the abject studio-killing and career-killing failure the media was poised to make of it.

Edited November 30, 2017 by SteveJaros

[RichWS]

I saw this at the old Criterion Theatre in Times Square with my grandfather. For tourists, that's where the Toys R Us is. 

 

Also, I owned the novelization.

[incognitoo]

Old thread, but who cares. ;o) I love this movie. From the sets to the story to the acting, it does not fail me. Plus, Costner did not shy away from playing an asshole protagonist (much alike Cruise at the beginning of Edge of tomorrow) - making his later blooming friendship with Enola all the sweeter. And then the great ending - against all cliichés I was awaiting. One of the several movies I view once a year and never get bored of it.

[Porthos]

On 11/30/2017 at 7:41 AM, SteveJaros said:

I remember the whole Waterworld hysteria of 1995.

Ah, memories.

 

People like to snicker over what's happening/happened to Solo, and they have every right to do so, but THIS was a film that got savaged all over the place in the press for it's behind the scenes drama and its ballooning budget.  This had one of the most toxic buzzes leading up to a release for a movie as I have ever seen, and that includes all of the drama over recent WB flicks.

 

Actually puts a lot of the drama in perspective, really.  I think only Fant4stic Four even comes close in recent times, and that still isn't in the same ballpark, IMO.  And, as said, it's not as if it totally tanked.  Underperformed?  Absolutely.  But it didn't implode.

 

Just something for all of us punters to keep in mind when we hear stories about Troubled Productions.

[SteveJaros]

6 hours ago, Porthos said:

Ah, memories.

 

People like to snicker over what's happening/happened to Solo, and they have every right to do so, but THIS was a film that got savaged all over the place in the press for it's behind the scenes drama and its ballooning budget.  This had one of the most toxic buzzes leading up to a release for a movie as I have ever seen, and that includes all of the drama over recent WB flicks.

 

Actually puts a lot of the drama in perspective, really.  I think only Fant4stic Four even comes close in recent times, and that still isn't in the same ballpark, IMO.  And, as said, it's not as if it totally tanked.  Underperformed?  Absolutely.  But it didn't implode.

 

Just something for all of us punters to keep in mind when we hear stories about Troubled Productions.

 

Yes, Waterworld was different from F4 in that the drama about F4 was confined more to a niche comic-book fan segment of the movie media and public whereas Waterworld, starring arguably the biggest actor on the planet at the time, attracted much more mainstream-media heat.

 

In that, the toxic buzz around it was akin (but worse) to what we saw two years later before the release of Titanic.

 

In both cases, the media was poised for a Heaven's Gate level catastrophe, and in neither case did they get it - with Titanic the exact opposite of course.

 

 

[La Binoche]

On 3/30/2017 at 5:55 PM, grim22 said:

Jeanne Tripplehorn auditioned her butt double for the movie

 

http://ew.com/article/1995/08/18/jeanne-tripplehorn-says-no-nude-scenes/

 

 

She wanted a butt double after doing Basic Instinct?