CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Waterworld vs Episode 3...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Waterworld vs Episode 3...

post #1 of 13
8/10/08 at 8:47am
Thread Starter 
So I'm watching tv on this fine southern hemisphere Sunday evening and Star Wars Episode 3 is playing in direct competition with Waterworld.

Both are films I watched once in the cinemas and haven't seen since. Both are films widely regarded as artistically suspect in one way or another.

...and heres whats actually shocking me...

Water world is vastly superior. Better written, better directed and better acted.

The prequels finale is much flashier, more colourful and pretty to look at, but then so was Lost In Space. Besides being a poor mans Mad Max 2 on water, Waterworld actually holds up surprisingly well (and it has The Hopper and Jean Tripplehorn).

A pretty depressing revelation and state of affairs for this once-rabid child of the '77 generation and considering the box office receptions both films recieved, very interesting.

That said, I really want to sit down and give Waterworld a proper chance again now.

Maybe Lucas should have gotten David Twoey to re-write the prequels...
Reply
post #2 of 13
8/10/08 at 9:01am
Waterworld wins. It has no shortage of bad/cheesy moments, but then again, Episode 3, despite being the best of the prequels, has an abundance of them.

Really weird films to compare to one another though. How about Waterworld vs. Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome? Waterworld still wins, despite some bad-ass stunts and vehicles.
Reply
post #3 of 13
8/10/08 at 9:24am
Thread Starter 
It was simply the 2 of them being in direct competition on telly that made me do the direct comparison, along with the fact that I was watching both for the first time divorced from the hype that surrounded both upon their release (both negative and positive). Im just really surprised, once you have the perspective of a little distance from that hype, how surprisingly well the film that broke Kevin Costners career holds up and how much Ep3 really doesn't and s downright painful at times - especially when you have to watch very very good actors like MacGregor and Portman wither on the vine trying to make their clunky dialogue and scenes try and work artistically.
Reply
post #4 of 13
8/10/08 at 9:25am
I really like Waterworld. I like The Postman too. I am a post-apocalyptic Costner fan. Pray for me.
Reply
post #5 of 13
8/10/08 at 12:54pm
I think Waterworld is a blast. Of course, it had no decades-long mythology to wrap up/screw up/sully, either.

Plus, it has the whole practical stunts vs. complete CGI cartoon effects thing going for it also.
Reply
post #6 of 13
8/10/08 at 1:06pm
If Waterworld had only cost $50 million, it would have been looked on as a sleeper hit, a cult classic. Once the story of the film became about the $175 million budget, it was doomed, no matter how entertaining it might be.
Reply
post #7 of 13
8/10/08 at 1:52pm
Waterworld is a complete piece of garbage, there is no comparison at all.
Reply
post #8 of 13
8/10/08 at 2:29pm
I think Waterworld is a lot of fun, what I really want to see is the Kevin Reynolds directors cut. Since we're going to get a tweaked Sith down the line whether we want it or not, I'd rather check out the WW DC.
Reply
post #9 of 13
8/10/08 at 3:43pm
WATERWORLD indeed sucks, but it's a blast on a campy level. (Have never seen the extended cut) Costner is quite good though as a post-apocalyptic asshole; an almost villian role. Its just the people wanted Mel Gibson's Mad Max, and this ain't THE ROAD WARRIOR (or even BEYOND THUNDERDOME).

<The Costner-Reynolds relationship must have been an interesting one>
Reply
post #10 of 13
8/10/08 at 3:46pm
Waterworld wins by default because it's not a Star Wars prequel.
Reply
post #11 of 13
8/10/08 at 4:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Strange View Post
I really like Waterworld. I like The Postman too. I am a post-apocalyptic Costner fan. Pray for me.


I like them both a greatly, also. The problem the postman has, which most people seem to miss is that it a late 60s early 70s apocalyptic story like Solant Green, Logan's run, and Planet of the Apes.
Reply
post #12 of 13
8/10/08 at 4:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eenin View Post
The problem the postman has, which most people seem to miss is that it a late 60s early 70s apocalyptic story like Solant Green, Logan's run, and Planet of the Apes.
Ah, but out of the three only one of those films is actually great tho.
Reply
post #13 of 13
8/10/08 at 4:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Eaton View Post
Ah, but out of the three only one of those films is actually great tho.
true, but they are all fun to watch.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Waterworld vs Episode 3...