Why do so many reviews of this movie bring up the budget
I never knew how much the movie cost until reading those reviews recently
You would think everyone hating on this movie is an expert economist/accountant/businessman from how often they mention the money aspect instead of talking about the art

>>213052624 (OP)
I love this movie, especially the Ulysses Cut

>>213052624 (OP)
The budget thing was big news back in the day, because movies cost less. Another example: Titanic. Lots of talk about how much it cost to produce.

Also, people STILL talk about those numbers, with every capeshit movie. And no, it doesn't make more sense nowadays either.

>>213052624 (OP)
It is really weird. Not my money, couldn't care less, and doesn't impact the actual movie you watch whatsoever. The move is literally Mad Max but on water and it's perfectly enjoyable.

>>213052624 (OP)
kevin costner is a terrible actor (waterworld) and terrible director (robin hood)

>>213052624 (OP)
It's a rare case where the production of the film is more interesting than the film itself. I mean let's be honest it's a Mad Max ripoff and a Costner star vehicle, both of which aren't anything special. But the colossal budget, inconsistent tone, and scenery chewing performance by Hopper make you wonder what drugs they were on. Also it makes you wish the movie was good instead of just decent if it cost the equivalent of a billion dollars adjusted for inflation.

>>213054179
It's not "ripoff" it's a general story archetype. Apocalyptic loner scavenger befriends a town of survivors and helps defend them against murderous raiders. There can be hundreds of this type of movie and it's not a ripoff.

>>213052624 (OP)
I love this movie

Fuck you, I liked it.

>>213052624 (OP)
>>213053480
a huge budget like that used to be a massive selling point, because there was an expectation that you wouldn't spend that kind of money on something that wasn't extraordinary
people had higher expectations for movies back then
mindbroken zoomers literally can't comprehend this

>>213052624 (OP)
I hate this shitty film
In the 2000s they had nothing else to play but constant reruns of this shit.

And atlantis and treasure planet but only 40 mins of it. And played other shitty cartoons

>>213055333
Yep, before 2000 a large budget meant NEW technologies or special events in the movie that had big fucking impact.

Now in 2025 "record budget" is just inflation.
Haven't seen a movie in 20 years now that did something new.

>>213052624 (OP)
Better than Postman that's for sure

>>213053970
If that is true why is The Postman pure kino?

>>213052624 (OP)
It's a good movie. Critics are irrelevant and don't contribute. Don't deliver or discuss their invalid attention seeking opinions.

>>213055333
>a huge budget like that used to be a massive selling point
Sure, but in the case of WaterWorld, it was because they had to rebuild the sets multiple times after they got destroyed.

It was meant to be a cheaper movie.

I've seen the live show at Universal Studios twice. It's a lot of fun, and I don't think it'd be so popular for decades if there weren't something to like in the movie itself.

>>213056531
it was still marketed as the most expensive movie ever made so people expected more than some dopey b-movie

>>213056668
The show mogs the movie, which is a big pile of shit.

>>213056668
Does it have a big fish monster and underwater city?

>>213058289
it's just boats jumping over stuff while explosions go off
live kino

>>213052624 (OP)
Critics are obsessed with budgets. They also trashed John Carter simply because it cost a lot of money while it was a perfectly good movie.

>>213052624 (OP)
It was a different time.

Blockbusters mattered. And this had the makings of one but it weirded out normies. Also back in the day there was a cultural monoculture, including news, which decided if thing were outrageous or cool thing everyone should engage with. So they all started finger pointing to the budget in mind that it weirded them out.

>UGHHHHHHH WHO CARES ABOUT HOW A MOVIE DOES FINANCIALLY
Such a reddit crybaby opinion. Obviously you should care because if it makes money you will get more like it and if it loses money you won't.

>>213055477
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja8ypygveLY

>>213059007
Yes but that has no place in a review imo
And even if a hypothetical great movie loses money it would still be worth the sacrifice, if you could go back in time would you change a movie to be less awesome but make more money and have sequels?
btw I'm not a zoomer, but I'm not american and I had no idea the movie was marketed as expensive like that. It was on TV all the time so I assume most people liked it though.