Talk:Waterworld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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 priority 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. Feel free to add your name to the participants 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"

SciFI showed the ABC version on June 21, 2007

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)

Where is your imagination? It is said that the temperature change is due to a shift in the earth's axial tilt. How can this happen? Most likely by a collision with a celestial body. There are celestial bodies like comets and ice asteroids, that consist at least partially of water. So imagine an meteor shower of these hailing on earth. Wouldn't that result in too much water? Maybe it also would trim Mount Everest, or bomb it into the ground. So Mt. Everest at the time of Waterworld is just 400 feet high?--TeakHoken91.7.26.16 16:09, 14 August 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

I agree. Enola = alone backwards, it's a hint that she's an orphan. Valerius Myotis 02:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[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)

Firstly, it's Homo sapiens, not "Homo Sapiens". Secondly, this isn't how evolution works, even remotely. Organisms don't somehow analyze their surroundings and shapeshift accordingly. It's whichever members of a gene pool are more likely to produce larger numbers of surviving, fertile offspring who in turn do the same that determines the course of evolution. This is why with all thr adaptations that whales have to life in the ocean, not a single marine mammal has ever evolved gills. --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor talk 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Who's business is it if the synopsis is too long in comparison to the other parts? It seems that Wikipedia is deploying a whole legion of nazis--synopsis nazis, trivia nazis, etc.--that serve to put a chill in the basic point to the Wikipedia.Godofredo29 (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2007 (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)

How do we know the underwater city is Denver? (AndrewAnorak 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

During the "underwater city" scene you can see the ruins of a structure that to some people looks very reminiscient of the "Cash Register Building" (Wells Fargo Center) in Denver (and I would agree there, the arced top seems pretty telling). Furthermore, the same scene ends with the two protagonists ascending from their dive along a row of ski lift ruins leading up a hill (underwater), which should be another giveaway as to the general area. 91.33.246.142 (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The true Waterworld IMAGE

got this picture from a webiste.this is an authentic image of what would happen if all ice melted. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicefree.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Not sure these maps are legit, from the following statement in that website: "it has NOT been proven that human-caused global warming is occurring, and in fact there is substantial reason to reject such claims. The best explanation for the evidence is that whatever global warming trend exists is mostly the result of natural influences like variations in the climate system and variations in solar radiation." Badagnani 00:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides that comment, I would have to say that the map is rather accurate. Anyway, according Al Gore His Holiness the first Pope of Globalwarminology in his film an inconvenient truth sea levels will only rise about a hundered feet if all the ice melts.

  • That ain't gonna cover the world with water.
  • All the ice has melted before.
  • You would need an ice moon of saturn to cover the world with water.
  • I hope you dont live near sea level. T.Neo (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checking for accuracy on likelihood of evolving gills

The article states:

The Mariner's "mutations", specifically his fish-like gills that allow him to apparently "breathe" ocean water, are extremely unlikely. Even mammals that live underwater, like whales and dolphins, did not evolve gills. It is not possible for a warm-blooded creature to supply itself with enough oxygen using only small gills [3]. Beyond that, the plausibility of developing an entirely new respiratory system without any larger gene pool having the same trait is also questionable.

This seems mostly reasonable, though I'm having trouble with the "developing an entirely new respiratory system" part. It's mine understanding that the gill structures of fish and ear structures of mammals are merely different specializations of the same early embryonic structure. The human ears have eustachian tubes which are apparently vestiges of our gilled ancestors; these tubes do not reach all the way to the lungs, but do not serve any apparent function, indicating that the basic gill structure possessed by fish is still present, in a reduced form, in humans. Theoretically, if a mutation caused the eustachian tubes to reach the lungs, and another mutation strengthened the muscle of the lungs to handle liquid and thus be able to extract oxygen from the water, wouldn't a person be able to breathe through its ears? Okay, so there would probably be some other hurdles to overcome in trying to re-active the underwater breathing equipment still found in mammals, but I don't see how an "entirely new respiratory system" would be necessary, when a slightly modified version of our current respiratory system would do the trick. --Þorstejnn 06:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually....it isn't as impossible as you think. Technically we all breathe water for 9 months in the womb. And there were experiments in the 1920's involving people being able to breathe underwater if the saleen (I believe) was at a super high level. However, survival rate of it was only 30%. Apparently getting out of the water was killer. It was on the discovery channel. (VRaptorX Tuesday June 26th, 2007)
Technically we don't breathe water for 9 months. A developing baby receives oxygen (and nutrients) from its mother's blood supply (which it's plugged into via the placenta). It does not use the amniotic fluid. --Plumbago 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but doesn't a baby still use their diaphragm muscles to move amniotic fluid in and out of the lungs? Or am I thinking of an old wife's tale? I know they are not getting oxygen that way, but they are exercising developing lungs. --EarthPerson 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you're probably correct on this point, but it's very far from having gills. IIRC, in the film, the Mariner appears to have gills behind his ears, and isn't using his lungs to breathe underwater. Cheers, --Plumbago 20:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is where his gills are in the film. I think it would make more sense if he was like other sea-going mammal, like a dolphin, but not with a blow-hole, just with an ability to hold his breath longer. The time it would take to evolve gills would be far longer than is shown in the film. (I completely missed the notion that he wasn't using his diaphragm and lungs to filter air from the water. Having gills behind the ears would allow him to (I suppose) gulp water in his mouth and expel it out the back of the head through the gills. But I think they'd be way too small for him to give an adequate supply of oxygen.) --EarthPerson 21:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section: dilution of the sea

I've marked this as dubious. 97% of the water on the surface of the Earth is seawater, only 3% is freshwater (ice, rivers, ground water, etc.).[2] Since seawater is about 10 times too saline to drink safely, there's no way putting that freshwater into the sea would dilute it enough. I have no idea how much water vapour is in the atmosphere. If there's enough to dilute the sea ten-fold, that would be impressive, but I'd personally need to see some academic reference to support that. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he's saying that if there were enough water to cover the earth (from any source, even, I suppose, extraterestrial), it would make the sea drinkable. Hes not saying that that much water is actually present on earth... User:gdavis 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Waterworld.jpg

Image:Waterworld.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implausibilities section

I've moved the Implausibilities section here because it looks like all original research. I don't really see the purpose of pointing out implausibilities in a work of fiction. I've moved it to this talk page until reliable sources can be found for these statements. --Pixelface 08:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see something similar to this included in every article on a work of science fiction, as science fiction ostendibly differentiates itself from fantasy based on being hypothetically possible (whereas, by contrast, fantasy is presumed to be impossible, which I personally find offensive and insulting, but that's another issue altogether). I'd like to at least see if we can't attempt to salvage this. I think the first order of business should be to mark what needs reliable sources, and what is original research. I've taken the liberty of adding {{Fact}} tags to statements that appear to be uncited research, and I've put sentences that definitely qualify as original research in bold. If this is inappropriate, please revert. --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor talk 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Plausible or not, it wouldn't change the fact that the arguments are original research without references. If the arguments are verifiable, then go ahead and try, but otherwise it has no place in Wikipedia. --76.214.199.83 (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implausibilities

  • In the extended version, a plaque is shown to them at the end of the movie, revealing that they are standing at the top of Mount Everest. While it is not possible for water levels to have risen so high[citation needed], it is still plausible for the air there to be breathable[citation needed]. Air pressure at sea level does not noticeably change as sea level varies[citation needed]. Even an unrealistic rise in sea level of 5 miles would decrease sea level air pressure by only around 0.25%[citation needed].
  • The concept of a map showing the location of dry land would have been nonsensical, given the literal lack of landmarks. Instead, the tattoo references "dry land" via coordinates in latitude and longitude, written in some variant of Chinese[citation needed] (as Gregor was able to interpret it with a China Airlines route map, and plotted his route using a sextant).
  • Everyone on the tanker smokes[citation needed], and cigarettes are considered a very valuable commodity. The presence of cigarettes in this setting is, however, extremely implausible, as most cigarettes[citation needed] have a shelf life of no longer than a few months, which would not be enough time for Earth's surviving population to forget that dry land ever existed.
I think the majority of this "implausibility" is simply a falsehood. Most cigarettes are already several months old by the time we buy them, and I've found cigarettes in my home that were very likely to be several years old, having been stuck under a piece of furniture, exposed to unpleasant conditions, and (obviously) outside the package; cigarettes thus treated might taste "musty" for the first drag or two, but the flavor has changed so little that one can still pretty easily identify the brand just by taste. --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor talk 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It is also implausible that there are still so many functioning machines, given the length of time suggested between the melting of the icecaps and the beginning of the story. Additionally, though the store of oil is shown, no refinery is shown.
  • The Mariner's "mutations", specifically his fish-like gills that allow him to apparently "breathe" ocean water, are extremely unlikely. Even mammals that live underwater, like whales and dolphins, did not evolve gills. It is not possible for a warm-blooded creature to supply itself with enough oxygen using only small gills [3]. Beyond that, the plausibility of developing an entirely new respiratory system without any larger gene pool having the same trait is also questionable.
I would also point out here that there is nothing to indicate the Mariner's "gills" functioned the same way as fishes' gills, so the statement regarding the plausibility of "developing an entirely new respiratory system" is flawed from the start -- lengthening the eustachean tubes so that they actually connect from their starting point inside the ears all the way to the lungs rather than stopping in the throat and strengthening the lung tissue and muscle, enabling them to expand and contract underwater, would probably be sufficient to allow a mammal to continue breathing oxygen even while submerged in water. I'm certainly not suggesting that we include such information, as this would be original research, but it demonstrates that even with a reference cited for the undoubted improbability of a mammal evolving gills, there's a POV issue, unless we can include a reference indicating that this would not require an "entirely new respiratory system", which we are unlikely to find. However -- the character Gregor does express a view of evolution ("I'd be surprised if there weren't others, and if there aren't, there will be eventually", implying that natural selection somehow causes random members of the gene pool to spontaneously begin sprouting whatever features might possibly be beneficial in the environment, a la X-Men or Poke-E-Man) that is fundamentally wrong and demonstrates a decidely crackheaded understanding of evolutionary biology, something we can easily cite a reference for and also link to the Wikipedia page on evolution. --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor talk 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Sea level" in Waterworld is apparently about 28,000 feet, seeing as the peak of Mount Everest is negligably higher than water level. This means the total area of dry land on Earth would be scarcely larger than an acre or two[citation needed] in Nepal and China (Tibet). Furthermore, the Mariner apparently dives under the ocean to Denver (elevation: 5,280 feet), which is implausible considering he would have to dive over 23,000 feet and withstand the ensuing pressure.
  • One of the workers on the tanker is an old man who floats in a small boat on the surface of the oil in the hold, presumably as a "level monitor" to keep the Deacon informed about the level of the oil. Any human attempting to do this would not be able to avoid breathing the hydrocarbon vapors that would be present in the airspace above the oil, and thus would become very sick or die.
  • At the end of the film, Helen offers a flower to the two skeletons in a spontaneous gesture. It is very unlikely that she could have acquired such a custom if she had never seen a flower.
My third and final coment: Neanderthals used to spread flower pedals over graves. While Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was a cousin and not an ancestor of modern man, this could have been, or in times since become, an instinctive gesture that is more biological than cultural. In any event, I doubt anyone would argue that making inferences about human behavior that take a POV on the nature versus nurture issue is something that this article should be aiming to do. --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor talk 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • At the beginning of the film, Costner's character urinates in a strange device producing drinkable liquid from his urine. Will anyone explain me, why couldn't the device be used to convert the sea water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.0.61 (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no way melting icecaps could totally cover the planet with water. In fact, the icecaps have totally melted in the past and there was still most of the land that we have today back then. If the Earth been totally covered by water where would the dinosaurs have lived?? T.Neo (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Midway through the film, Helen says, "Enola is like a mirror," but later on exclaims "...that reflective glass! You have things that people have never seen!" --24.97.30.210 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary

At some 1600 words, the plot summary was incredibly long and rambling. I'v replaced it with a shorter version adapted from this older revision. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Box Office flop

Although it would appear that the film made its budget back with its overseas takings, this is actually not true as a film needs to make three times its budget back to be considered a hit. This is because theatres take almost half of the film's gross and then there are marketing and distribution costs as well as immediate inflation costs to be considered. If Waterworld was made for $175m and grossed a total of $264m, that means that Universal would still not have recouped their investment. Therefore, the film was a box office flop.79.66.87.237 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)