This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Waterworld article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from Waterworld appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 May 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
"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)
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)
No, sorry - I'm pretty sure it is complete pants ;) Mark Richards 02:43, 19 May 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?--TeakHoken 91.7.26.16 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"effect"?! Also, have you ever heard of Archimedes and his principle? Modreamarin ( talk) 09:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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).
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.
The article states:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
^Kind of a silly 'argument'. The movie DID turn a profit eventually. You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing the movie to a HIT. It may not have been a HIT that grossed 3x its budget, but Waterworld was profitable. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.64.54.180 (
talk)
09:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Considering how big of a story this movie was (because of its enormous budget,back when it opened) it deserves a more in-depth article. Also, the cast section offers nothing new. I included an expansion tab. - SoSaysChappy ( talk) 06:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
So, let me get this straight. People have managed to pass down all nuances of the English language yet the fact (known by children all over the world) that Mt. Everest is the highest point on earth and it's location was completely forgotten? Seriously? You'd think once the polar ice caps randomly decide to start melting, knowing that Mt. Everest exists would probably be some useful information. If any movie deserves an "Inaccuracies" or "Implausibilities" section, it is this movie (the page for 2001: A Space Odyssey has one). When the Implausibilities section gets republished, I'd like to add the following:
It's only fair to deal with physics also, as the movie is supposed to base on science (i.e. climate change). Wikipedia teaches: "The mean height of land above sea level is 840 m" [1] This could be compared to the calculated water rise (70 m) in case of polar caps total melting. Even the often-referred 70 m is incorrect since it does not consider at all the eutectic phenomena of the lithosphere. The earth's upper astenosphere mantle is not rigid but fluid on which the lithosphere is floating. Any increase of the ocean weight (due melting ice) will push the ocean floor downwards correspondingly and the mantle fluid will eutectically rise the neighbouring continental crust floor. The overall effect due a total ice meltdown would be ca. 14 m sea vs. land level rise. With the exception of ice ages, the earth polar caps have been bare all the time. We now live an ice ace (quaternary period) which has lasted for ca. 2.5 My. During it the continental glaciations in the polar regions have existed uninterrupted. When it ends the caps will melt down but the continents do not disappear. They are billions of years old by now. They don't disappear even due plate tectonics since continents float on astenosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 ( talk) 14:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC) This entire section is off-topic chat and [[WP:OR|original research. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD ( talk) 17:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC) References |
Why isn't quoted " The Incredible Tide" by Alexander Hill Key, published in 1970s? Check it out on wikipedia. A notorious Anime was taken from it: Myiazaki's Future Boy Conan. 82.184.39.201 ( talk) 01:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I sign it "Andrea" since I don't hold an account in English Wikipedia...
"The atollers, fearful of him, vote to "recycle" him by drowning him in a yellow sludge-like brine pool."
I just do not understand, and am shocked, shocked that criticism and comments have been made here that call into question the plausability or hypothetical accuracy of a Hollywood movie. Does anyone seriously believe that the things that happen in a Hollywood movie especially one with lots of special effects couln't really happen. Oh come on, next you're going to try to tell me that an oversize giant gorilla couln't climb exterior of the Empire State building and bat airplanes out of the sky. I need to be told these things boys and girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.107.246 ( talk) 00:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Was this film inspired at all by the aquatic ape hypothesis? - Kylelovesyou ( talk) 04:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
If the sevel level was 28,000 like it has been said there actually might of been 3 dry lands then but very small thought there are two other mountains that peak alittle above 28,000 feet. K2 and Kangchenjunga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.75 ( talk) 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC) so maybe a drifter in the movie if they got really lucky would see a very small island maybe 100 feet high sticking out of the water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.75 ( talk) 03:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
For some reason this article stated that atollls are a type of island that no longer exists. I deleted it. The entire country of the Maldives is made of atolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.106.43 ( talk) 21:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Aren't atolls natural coral formations that the civilizations could theroetically use to build the walls and civilizations that were shown in the film? The article makes it seems like the atolls are man-made floating things... 98.207.255.59 ( talk) 19:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Black Death is the brand of Vodka the smokers have, not the brand of Cigarettes. I'll try to remedy the section best I can though. Aryeonos 71.94.63.105 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC).
The article mentions that an extended cut of the film is on Netflix but I did not find the film on Netflix at all. Maybe the Netflix reference should be removed. Dsyn22 ( talk) 06:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a bit of trivia. The tattoo map is written in Chinese (with a single Japanese character). Translated it gives the coordinates 86° 56' Latitude 27° 59' Longitude with no compass points. These coordinates are either in the Arctic Ocean or in the Southern Ocean depending on which compass points used, all four possible locations are around 6,000km from Mt Everest. The coordinates of Mount Everest are actually 27° 59'N Latitude 86° 56'E Longitude. Wayne ( talk) 02:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The movie is advertising the ultimate in Global Warming scare. The idea portrayed by Hollywood with this movie is that the end result of Global Warming is the melting of the Polar Ice Caps with enough water to cover the entire mountain ranges on earth. I view this movie as a Comedy, and very fun to watch. One cannot get mad at the movie on scientific terms, after all this is Hollywood! Kevin Costner and all his ilk live in a Looney Left-Wing fringe where some of them actually take this Global Warming issue to the ultimate FANTASY extreme. This is not Science Fiction! This is a Comedy/Fantasy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The hidden message of this movie is Global Warming by Hollywood. This issue brought up in the article would improve the contents of the Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The article makes numerous references to "dirt". What is meant is of course soil. I suggest that the ambiguous Americanism "dirt" be changed to the more correct "soil". 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 04:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this is it http://i.imgur.com/2KJ1Yh8h.jpg - prop mock up? Maybe something about it could be in the article. Huge prop.
86.139.150.100 ( talk) 12:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
“Leading the raid is ‘the Deacon’, captain of a derelict oil tanker, the Exxon Valdez, and the overall leader of the Smokers. They are known as such due to the crude fuel they create, using oil from the tanker to power their machines.”
Is this certain? I thought they were called smokers because there had been a huge cache of cigarettes aboard the Exxon Valdez and everyone aboard were chain smokers, even the kids. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 13:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The last sentence of the last paragraph of the intro section is a bit poorly worded "The film's release was accompanied by a tie-in novel, video game, and three themed attractions at Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Singapore, and Universal Studios Japan called Waterworld: A Live Sea War Spectacular, which are all still running as of 2015."
While the film's release brought about the themed attractions, accompanied implies that they were introduced at a similar time as the movie, but Universal Studios Singapore and Universal Studios Japan did not exist at the time. 180.232.68.82 ( talk) 05:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)pedant
(Moved from my talk page.)
Rather than undo your re-edit, I figured I'd talk to you about it directly.
I can understand and appreciate the desire to be accurate in the article, but the underwater city in question is self-evident given the landmark(s). If I look at another similar example: Planet of the Apes, we can see that at the end of the plot section, the article clearly states that Taylor (the main character) encounters the Statue of Liberty despite the movie never stating it by name. I'm not sure that adding a citation needed tag is appropriate there, just as I'm not sure it's really appropriate in the Waterworld article.
Plus, the self-citation seems tenuous at best. For example, there are multiple versions of this movie, and citing a specific time for the scene/frame in question is going to be inherently inaccurate.
Finally, I feel confident in saying I've read many upon many plot sections of movie articles -- I've honestly never seen a citation (much less a self-citation) within the plot section. If you know of one offhand, I'd be very interested in a link to it to see how the generally accepted format is. Jeffersonspark ( talk) 09:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there any source for the claim that the SNES release was only available in UK and Australia?
I had a copy of that game in Germany, with a German-language manual but English-language in-game text (as was very common for a lot of games at that time). -- Skyrock84 ( talk) 21:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is "mostly mixed" supposed to mean here - were some reviews NOT mixed? "Mixed" can surely only refer to the reviews as a whole (i.e. they weren't mostly positive or mostly negative), not to each review taken individually. Or is "mixed" perhaps being used here - wrongly - as a euphemism for "bad"? I think "mostly" should simply be deleted. 213.127.210.95 ( talk) 14:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I have hidden the broken tl until we can get it resolved.
I have also left out the original cn, as a ref has been provided, it just cannot be displayed yet as it is a broken template (or at least, appears to be!) Chaosdruid ( talk) 17:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
PortuGreek. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#PortuGreek until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Talk
19:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Article intro and plot body give different figures about how much the sea has risen, which is it? 199.7.159.31 ( talk) 22:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Claims has been swirling around the internet for a while that a significant reason for Waterworld's high cost and budget overruns was the damage or destruction of the Atoll set in a major storm, which required it to be rebuild at huge expense. This was even repeated (uncited) on a previous version of this page.
However, I have been unable to find any reliable sources for this. Nothing of the sort is mentioned in the documentaries included on the Blu-ray, or in period news articles about production difficulties, which are otherwise very frank about the problems encountered by the crew during filming.
I've taken it off the page since I can't find any evidence this particular story is true. Voteins ( talk) 18:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The plot section states that Dryland "is revealed to be the top of Mount Everest," but that detail was cut from the final version of the film. Would it be more informative to say something like " which is revealed to be the top of Mount Everest in the extended version"? Friendsfreak0 ( talk) 23:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Waterworld article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from Waterworld appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 May 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
"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)
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)
No, sorry - I'm pretty sure it is complete pants ;) Mark Richards 02:43, 19 May 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?--TeakHoken 91.7.26.16 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"effect"?! Also, have you ever heard of Archimedes and his principle? Modreamarin ( talk) 09:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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).
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.
The article states:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
^Kind of a silly 'argument'. The movie DID turn a profit eventually. You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing the movie to a HIT. It may not have been a HIT that grossed 3x its budget, but Waterworld was profitable. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.64.54.180 (
talk)
09:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Considering how big of a story this movie was (because of its enormous budget,back when it opened) it deserves a more in-depth article. Also, the cast section offers nothing new. I included an expansion tab. - SoSaysChappy ( talk) 06:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
So, let me get this straight. People have managed to pass down all nuances of the English language yet the fact (known by children all over the world) that Mt. Everest is the highest point on earth and it's location was completely forgotten? Seriously? You'd think once the polar ice caps randomly decide to start melting, knowing that Mt. Everest exists would probably be some useful information. If any movie deserves an "Inaccuracies" or "Implausibilities" section, it is this movie (the page for 2001: A Space Odyssey has one). When the Implausibilities section gets republished, I'd like to add the following:
It's only fair to deal with physics also, as the movie is supposed to base on science (i.e. climate change). Wikipedia teaches: "The mean height of land above sea level is 840 m" [1] This could be compared to the calculated water rise (70 m) in case of polar caps total melting. Even the often-referred 70 m is incorrect since it does not consider at all the eutectic phenomena of the lithosphere. The earth's upper astenosphere mantle is not rigid but fluid on which the lithosphere is floating. Any increase of the ocean weight (due melting ice) will push the ocean floor downwards correspondingly and the mantle fluid will eutectically rise the neighbouring continental crust floor. The overall effect due a total ice meltdown would be ca. 14 m sea vs. land level rise. With the exception of ice ages, the earth polar caps have been bare all the time. We now live an ice ace (quaternary period) which has lasted for ca. 2.5 My. During it the continental glaciations in the polar regions have existed uninterrupted. When it ends the caps will melt down but the continents do not disappear. They are billions of years old by now. They don't disappear even due plate tectonics since continents float on astenosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 ( talk) 14:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC) This entire section is off-topic chat and [[WP:OR|original research. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD ( talk) 17:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC) References |
Why isn't quoted " The Incredible Tide" by Alexander Hill Key, published in 1970s? Check it out on wikipedia. A notorious Anime was taken from it: Myiazaki's Future Boy Conan. 82.184.39.201 ( talk) 01:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I sign it "Andrea" since I don't hold an account in English Wikipedia...
"The atollers, fearful of him, vote to "recycle" him by drowning him in a yellow sludge-like brine pool."
I just do not understand, and am shocked, shocked that criticism and comments have been made here that call into question the plausability or hypothetical accuracy of a Hollywood movie. Does anyone seriously believe that the things that happen in a Hollywood movie especially one with lots of special effects couln't really happen. Oh come on, next you're going to try to tell me that an oversize giant gorilla couln't climb exterior of the Empire State building and bat airplanes out of the sky. I need to be told these things boys and girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.107.246 ( talk) 00:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Was this film inspired at all by the aquatic ape hypothesis? - Kylelovesyou ( talk) 04:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
If the sevel level was 28,000 like it has been said there actually might of been 3 dry lands then but very small thought there are two other mountains that peak alittle above 28,000 feet. K2 and Kangchenjunga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.75 ( talk) 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC) so maybe a drifter in the movie if they got really lucky would see a very small island maybe 100 feet high sticking out of the water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.75 ( talk) 03:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
For some reason this article stated that atollls are a type of island that no longer exists. I deleted it. The entire country of the Maldives is made of atolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.106.43 ( talk) 21:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Aren't atolls natural coral formations that the civilizations could theroetically use to build the walls and civilizations that were shown in the film? The article makes it seems like the atolls are man-made floating things... 98.207.255.59 ( talk) 19:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Black Death is the brand of Vodka the smokers have, not the brand of Cigarettes. I'll try to remedy the section best I can though. Aryeonos 71.94.63.105 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC).
The article mentions that an extended cut of the film is on Netflix but I did not find the film on Netflix at all. Maybe the Netflix reference should be removed. Dsyn22 ( talk) 06:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a bit of trivia. The tattoo map is written in Chinese (with a single Japanese character). Translated it gives the coordinates 86° 56' Latitude 27° 59' Longitude with no compass points. These coordinates are either in the Arctic Ocean or in the Southern Ocean depending on which compass points used, all four possible locations are around 6,000km from Mt Everest. The coordinates of Mount Everest are actually 27° 59'N Latitude 86° 56'E Longitude. Wayne ( talk) 02:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The movie is advertising the ultimate in Global Warming scare. The idea portrayed by Hollywood with this movie is that the end result of Global Warming is the melting of the Polar Ice Caps with enough water to cover the entire mountain ranges on earth. I view this movie as a Comedy, and very fun to watch. One cannot get mad at the movie on scientific terms, after all this is Hollywood! Kevin Costner and all his ilk live in a Looney Left-Wing fringe where some of them actually take this Global Warming issue to the ultimate FANTASY extreme. This is not Science Fiction! This is a Comedy/Fantasy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The hidden message of this movie is Global Warming by Hollywood. This issue brought up in the article would improve the contents of the Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The article makes numerous references to "dirt". What is meant is of course soil. I suggest that the ambiguous Americanism "dirt" be changed to the more correct "soil". 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 04:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this is it http://i.imgur.com/2KJ1Yh8h.jpg - prop mock up? Maybe something about it could be in the article. Huge prop.
86.139.150.100 ( talk) 12:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
“Leading the raid is ‘the Deacon’, captain of a derelict oil tanker, the Exxon Valdez, and the overall leader of the Smokers. They are known as such due to the crude fuel they create, using oil from the tanker to power their machines.”
Is this certain? I thought they were called smokers because there had been a huge cache of cigarettes aboard the Exxon Valdez and everyone aboard were chain smokers, even the kids. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 13:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The last sentence of the last paragraph of the intro section is a bit poorly worded "The film's release was accompanied by a tie-in novel, video game, and three themed attractions at Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Singapore, and Universal Studios Japan called Waterworld: A Live Sea War Spectacular, which are all still running as of 2015."
While the film's release brought about the themed attractions, accompanied implies that they were introduced at a similar time as the movie, but Universal Studios Singapore and Universal Studios Japan did not exist at the time. 180.232.68.82 ( talk) 05:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)pedant
(Moved from my talk page.)
Rather than undo your re-edit, I figured I'd talk to you about it directly.
I can understand and appreciate the desire to be accurate in the article, but the underwater city in question is self-evident given the landmark(s). If I look at another similar example: Planet of the Apes, we can see that at the end of the plot section, the article clearly states that Taylor (the main character) encounters the Statue of Liberty despite the movie never stating it by name. I'm not sure that adding a citation needed tag is appropriate there, just as I'm not sure it's really appropriate in the Waterworld article.
Plus, the self-citation seems tenuous at best. For example, there are multiple versions of this movie, and citing a specific time for the scene/frame in question is going to be inherently inaccurate.
Finally, I feel confident in saying I've read many upon many plot sections of movie articles -- I've honestly never seen a citation (much less a self-citation) within the plot section. If you know of one offhand, I'd be very interested in a link to it to see how the generally accepted format is. Jeffersonspark ( talk) 09:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there any source for the claim that the SNES release was only available in UK and Australia?
I had a copy of that game in Germany, with a German-language manual but English-language in-game text (as was very common for a lot of games at that time). -- Skyrock84 ( talk) 21:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is "mostly mixed" supposed to mean here - were some reviews NOT mixed? "Mixed" can surely only refer to the reviews as a whole (i.e. they weren't mostly positive or mostly negative), not to each review taken individually. Or is "mixed" perhaps being used here - wrongly - as a euphemism for "bad"? I think "mostly" should simply be deleted. 213.127.210.95 ( talk) 14:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I have hidden the broken tl until we can get it resolved.
I have also left out the original cn, as a ref has been provided, it just cannot be displayed yet as it is a broken template (or at least, appears to be!) Chaosdruid ( talk) 17:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
PortuGreek. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#PortuGreek until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Talk
19:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Article intro and plot body give different figures about how much the sea has risen, which is it? 199.7.159.31 ( talk) 22:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Claims has been swirling around the internet for a while that a significant reason for Waterworld's high cost and budget overruns was the damage or destruction of the Atoll set in a major storm, which required it to be rebuild at huge expense. This was even repeated (uncited) on a previous version of this page.
However, I have been unable to find any reliable sources for this. Nothing of the sort is mentioned in the documentaries included on the Blu-ray, or in period news articles about production difficulties, which are otherwise very frank about the problems encountered by the crew during filming.
I've taken it off the page since I can't find any evidence this particular story is true. Voteins ( talk) 18:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The plot section states that Dryland "is revealed to be the top of Mount Everest," but that detail was cut from the final version of the film. Would it be more informative to say something like " which is revealed to be the top of Mount Everest in the extended version"? Friendsfreak0 ( talk) 23:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)