Talk:Waterworld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] "Notes"

The tangential similarities between Waterworld and Snow crash — "The good guy saves a girl from a big boat while being shot at" — hardly warrant an encyclopedia mention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.71.202 (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. There is no relevance to this association and the stories have far more differences than similarities. Furthermore there is one inaccuracy (The girl Hiro needs to safe on The Raft is his ex-girlfriend, not Y.T.) The note should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.180.226 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Should add that even if the polar ice caps melted completely, sea level would rise only 220 feet while in the movie it depicts over 28,000 feet. Granted 220 feet would be bad, but wouldnt even come close to covering all the dry land. If sea level were really 28,000 feet higher than today, when the Mariner and the woman dove to Denver 23,000 feet below sea level, they both would have been crushed to death by the pressure long before they ever got there.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

"If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt. "

This movie is King of the Global Warming hysteria films. "The Day After Tomorrow" would be a distant second with its -125F temperatures quick freezing helicopters in flight among dozens of other ridiculous scenes. The whole movie was ridiculous in the extreme, but it was still an entertaining movie. They should have set the movie on another planet to make it at least seem plausible.

 20:16, 24 March 2007   Anonymous

[edit] Map Logic

"The concept of a map showing the location of dry land is nonsensical given the literal lack of landmarks (unless it were a star / sun map)."

Still don't see how a star/sun map would work when it's impossible to determine your longitude. Lee M 01:54, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Good point, although knowing the latitude of the site would take a lot of the guesswork out of it, it would then be a 'simple' matter of cicumnavigating the globe at that latitude! I agree though - the whole film is a pile of pants. Mark Richards 15:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Actually the "pile of pants" here is just the notion that melting the ice caps would cover almost all of the land with water. Do a little arithmetic. The icecaps cover less than 10% of the surface. If they rise and average of 1000 feet above sea level then melting them should represent less than 100 feet of sea level increase. How much land is more than 100 feet above sea level? How much of the ice caps are 1000 feet above sea level? (I realize this is a simplistic line of reasoning, but keep in mind that ice is less compact than water due to differences in atomic densities in a cubic/crystal lattice vs. the amorphous liquid form. So I'm being conservative in claiming that every ten inches of ice above sea level might result in one inch of sea level rise; it's easy to see that even if the ice caps where a mile high all the way across we'd only get 500 feet of sea rise --- significant but not the end of land on earth unless this was somehow accompanied by massive global erosion to wash the land into the oceans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JimD (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Erm. Yes. I don't think the movie bears too much analysis on any front. Isn't there a page somewhere that tracks movies by how true they are to real physics? Mark Richards 19:53, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the movie is complete pants...if you don't try to analyse it too closely it's quite entertaining. Maybe one pant? Lee M 01:39, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

No, sorry - I'm pretty sure it is complete pants ;) Mark Richards 02:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the 'erosion' line of logic: I once read a really badly written science fiction book called Omega: The Last Days of the World, in which it was speculated that the world would wind up completely flat eventually, thanks to erosion. This was, of course, before they discovered continental drift, but maybe if the water level was higher it might well happen. Of course, it would take millions of years, and since the movie features on oil tanker, I don't think millions of years have passed. Unless they found a really good rustproofing process before the world ended. -Litefantastic 18:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good Gods! I hadn't planned to see this thing, and after reading this article I'm really glad I didn't. The plot implausibilities impossibilities would have driven me bats. I don't mind suspending my disbelief, but I don't want to have to hang it by the neck until dead.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reformat?

The sidebar entry "Starring" lists 15 people; surely they aren't all "stars" of the movie. Far down on the page, the "Cast" is only 7 people. I think that's clearly backwards, and the "Cast" list should be moved up to "Starring" while the current "Starring" list moved down under "Cast" (and expanded, as it is surely incomplete; there were way more than 15 people with speaking roles in the movie). Aumakua 09:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] B-29 reference

In the article trivia:

"The character Enola is named after the Enola Gay, the American B-29 Superfortress bomber airplane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in August 1945."

I watched the movie, but I missed the connection. Can anyone explain this for me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeffersonRyan (talk • contribs) 23:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


I don't understand that either, as the Enola Gay was named for the pilot's mother. Seems more like opinion than fact. --198.53.165.84 04:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


On top of it, I think that the note "Enola is the English word "Alone" written backwards." added for me and deleted by someone at May, 09, makes a lot more sense to the plot (in my opinion) than the superfortress reference. May anyone verify this? JeffersonRyan

[edit] Confusing / did not turn a profit at the Box office

As it stands, the top paragraph gives conflicting data on the box office take. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rothul (talk • contribs) 00:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It sure does:
With a budget of $175 million, the film only grossed a meager $88 million ... In 2005 dollars, (USD), the budget for the movie was $229 million, and grossed $115.3 million at the U.S. box office and $229.9 million at the foreign box office, making a profit of more than $115 million.[1] PrometheusX303 12:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The film cost 175 million; its worldwide boxoffice was 264 million. So it made 89 million at the box office right? Wrong. The 264 million is total boxoffice receipts. The box office takes a sizable chunk of that plus tens of millions of dollars were spent advertizing the film. So even if the box office only took 30% (they probably took more) and a measily 20 million was spent on advertiznig (a very low figure for worldwide promotion) the film would have lost 10 million dollars. If the movie ever turned a profit it was after VHS, DVD, cable, and TV. But even that it even turned a profit should not be claimed without a source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.93.113.49 (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

Source cited and posted [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.200 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The source just gives the cost and gross box office. See the very simple math lesson above for an explination why that does not mean the film turned a profit at the box office. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.44.209.205 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed specific profit figures (along with the confusing template) and added a new source which explains it officially reached profit starting in 2002. --4.231.247.227 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, source removed; it was a mock news site. However, my removal of specific profit figures is still warranted.--4.231.247.227 21:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which is correct, but the top section notes a gross US Box Office of $88 million, as well as $115 million. In the notes section, the $88 million is re-iterated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.151.177.34 (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for beeing stupid, but does this make sense to have a detailled description about the profit/non profit of a movie in the opening paragraph ? This does not seem very encyclopedic to me.81.255.228.17 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Patently False" messagebox

I'm not sure why this box was added to the "Notes" section, as there is no mention of it on this talk page, but after a review of this section, nearly all the information seems quite accurate to me. The only item which I think requires citation is the claim that Enola's name comes from the Enola Gay, so I'm removing it until someone can give some evidence. Also, I suppose the claim that the amount of ammunition used by the Quadmount gun is unrealistic should have some source cited as well, but I won't remove it for now.

Aside from these two issues, this section does not seem to have any signifigant factuality problems (although I would question the premise of a "Notes" section - surely much of htis information would be better suited in a section entitled "Inconsistencies", though I'm not sure where the rest of the information should go) so I'm removing this Messagebox unless someone can give some justification for it. --Walkersam 20:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning added

Added spolier warning after considering spolier guidelines on article detailing the same —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.180.218 (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis rewrite of 04:56, December 15, 2006 by DiogenesNY

Hi, DiogenesNY. An excellent rewrite of my rewrite of the synopsis. I, myself, see no real problem with re-including the line (referring to the Mariner's mutation) "perhaps an example of the next stage of human evolution due to the new, environmental conditions which now prevail" some day.

When Gregor is talking to the Mariner about his gills whilst he's imprisoned in the cage at the atoll, he says to the Mariner that there will probably be "more of his kind" in the future. This suggests that some people in Waterworld (except, of course, the Deacon!) are aware of the possible processes of evolution on Homo Sapiens in generations to come. In other words, the Mariner isn't a "one-off" freak of nature; not simply a "mutant", but a bona-fide adaptation to a world without landmasses. Cheers!.

Gardener of Geda 11:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note regarding Denver

The first note states that: "The underwater city the Mariner shows Helen is actually Denver, Colorado (which, at an elevation of one mile, would not be jeopardized by melted polar ice caps as noted above)."

I don't see any reference to this above. 82.41.202.199 12:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/t/Talk%7EWaterworld_bbf1.html"