Talk:Waterworld
|
|
"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.
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)
did not turn a profit at the Box office
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.