Why Waterworld and The Postman flopped at the box office

nimblemarlin6 said:Then there was the absolute train wreck that was Renny Harlyn’s "Cutthroat Island"—you know, the one where Geena Davis plays the pirate captain. It’s actually this incredibly lush, grand pirate spectacle—honestly, visually it's great—but it just completely tanked at the box office. I’m pretty sure "Carolco" went belly up specifically because of that movie. Why did it fail? Who knows—the film is genuinely good.

"Waterworld" is a decent enough spectacle, I guess.
Actually, "The Postman" is even better in my book.

As for why "The Postman" flopped, it’s kind of obvious to me. Kevin Costner took the subject matter way too seriously—he played his character with a level of gravity that just didn't sit right with what the US audience was looking for.

I was reading in a now-defunct Hollywood magazine that there's this saying in Hollywood: "Never make movies with water, kids, or animals..."
That bit about the water applies to both "Cutthroat Island" and "Waterworld," though I bet that rule changed once "Pirates of the Caribbean" hit the scene...

Richard Wilson4 said:I was reading in a now-defunct Hollywood magazine that there's this saying in Hollywood: "Never make movies with water, kids, or animals..."
That bit about the water applies to both "Cutthroat Island" and "Waterworld," though I bet that rule changed once "Pirates of the Caribbean" hit the scene...

Sure, those pirates were a massive hit, but let's be real... Johnny is just Johnny 😉 , whether we're talking about the ocean, kids, or even the desert sands of Las Vegas 🙂...

redowl90 said:Film festivals??? 🙂

That’s a stupid comment!

Richard Wilson4 said:I was reading in a now-defunct Hollywood magazine that there's this saying in Hollywood: "Never make movies with water, kids, or animals..."
That bit about the water applies to both "Cutthroat Island" and "Waterworld," though I bet that rule changed once "Pirates of the Caribbean" hit the scene...

And Titanic.

Kate Torres said:That’s a stupid comment!

Why?

Richard Howard2 said:That is actually a rather astute question, and I have developed my own personal thesis regarding this matter.

I am referring specifically to high-budget blockbusters from the last fifteen years. In order to succeed at the American box office, these films simply cannot afford to be original in their core concepts.

If they fail to anchor themselves to some "external" universe—something that is currently trending or has long been etched into the public consciousness—they face the threat of total audience apathy.

Take the latter half of the 1990s; that era was definitively defined by disaster movies. Disaster was an incredibly potent trend back then, fueled by that general sense of impending doom at the turn of the millennium.

Then we move into the beginning of the 21st century, where concepts were almost exclusively harvested from established pop culture—ranging from the new Star Wars and Spider-Man, to Lord of the Rings, X-Men, Sin City, Batman, 300, and eventually Transformers, Cloverfield, Indiana Jones, Iron Man, and so on.

Every single one of them relies on an existing momentum; they are incapable of generating their own acceleration independently. (Of course, it goes without saying that they require such a foundation to maintain enough velocity to reach massive profits!)

Waterworld was conceptually unrecognizable. Any attempt to draw a parallel to Mad Max is incredibly forced and, frankly, a weak argument; that film was actually marketed as something quite distinct, a fairly unique idea in its own right.

The Postman serves as an even more extreme example of this phenomenon.

They lacked their own intrinsic "boost"—that specific catalyst required to drive revenue. If you look closely, you will notice that all these films (with a few exceptions, such as Titanic) derive almost all of their earnings from that initial surge during the first two weeks of release, after which the curve begins to plummet sharply. Without that built-in motivation, they would lose at least 70% of their commercial potential.

Just look at Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. At the time, it became the second highest-grossing film of all time worldwide. It is difficult to argue that the actual content of the film dictated that success—most people were deeply disappointed, quite frankly—rather, it succeeded because it rode the wave of the existing Star Wars brand and the massive fanbase that flooded the theaters.

Had Waterworld emerged from something deeply entrenched in pop culture, perhaps as a new adaptation of a powerhouse property (much like how Lord of the Rings was drawn from literature), it would have earned at least twice as much.

👍

Personally, I think all three are great. 🙂 But maybe the answer to why certain films succeed is simpler:

Most of the audience just isn't looking for anything deep!

David Price5 said:So many movies have flopped with critics but still turned out to be huge successes...

That’s a fair point. It's interesting how that works. Honestly, I've sat through plenty of absolute garbage that was way worse than Waterworld, yet those films still managed to pop up on the most-watched lists for a while.
As for Waterworld, I found it incredibly tedious. It felt slow, repetitive, and just plain slimy...🤷 I'd describe it as gloomy and boring, if I'm being honest.

swiftcobra15 said:👍

Personally, I think all three are great. 🙂 But maybe the answer to why certain films succeed is simpler:

I expected a bit more intellectual depth from you, frankly. There is a fundamental difference between a crowd and a collection of individuals. You could gather a thousand scientists and philosophers in a single room, and they would still behave like nothing more than a disorganized mob of idiots.

Christian Sanchez4 said:That’s a fair point. It's interesting how that works. Honestly, I've sat through plenty of absolute garbage that was way worse than Waterworld, yet those films still managed to pop up on the most-watched lists for a while.
As for Waterworld, I found it incredibly tedious. It felt slow, repetitive, and just plain slimy...🤷 I'd describe it as gloomy and boring, if I'm being honest.

Take Armageddon, for example. It is the very definition of stupidity, yet it made an insane amount of money.

Richard Howard2 said:Take Armageddon, for example. It is the very definition of stupidity, yet it made an insane amount of money.

True. But let's be honest, Armageddon had an incredible main theme.☕ That's basically half the battle won right there.

To me, both movies were just... alright.
Nothing to write home about...

Honestly, I found Waterworld to be a bit of a letdown; the whole thing felt somewhat juvenile to me, almost like it was made for kids.
On the other hand, I thought The Postman was actually a pretty solid movie. 👍

Watching Waterworld, I immediately thought, "this is just Mad Max on water." The costume design and the general vibe are almost identical—that whole post-apocalyptic wasteland setting after an ecological collapse. I tried watching it twice, but I couldn't get past the thirty-minute mark both times; it just felt exhausting. Maybe it's because Costner has never really done anything for me as an actor. I guess there’s just nothing particularly striking about him.

Richard Howard2 said:

I expected a bit more intellectual depth from you, frankly. There is a fundamental difference between a crowd and a collection of individuals. You could gather a thousand scientists and philosophers in a single room, and they would still behave like nothing more than a disorganized mob of idiots.

Well, I suppose I'm the one who decides whether or not to buy a ticket and head to the theater?😕
I don't see how anyone else could influence me (or even make the call for me).

I think those of us who used to sail under completely different stars experience movies quite differently than everyone else.

redowl90 said:Has anyone else actually considered that we might just be talking about bad movies here? Waterworld has a disastrous story and a plot that makes zero sense. Most importantly, it’s just plain stupid. It features one of the most irritating villains ever put on screen and the acting is pretty terrible.
Not to mention the lead character being a mutant, and that forced attempt at some kind of failed unhappy ending.

I didn't see The Postman in theaters; I caught it on VHS. Before watching, I had heard nothing but the worst things imaginable, so I think my brain just created a reverse effect, making the movie seem less bad than it actually was.
But if you really think about it, the story told in that film is incredibly naive. It might fly for the book it's based on, but for a movie, it's a bit much. Plus, it has a terrible villain who feels way too forced.

These two films are actually quite similar and they really tanked Kevin Costner's career (which sucks, because I've never thought he was a bad actor), so it's no surprise both were flops.

Everything said above is an exaggeration... though I will say Costner did bounce back later as a director (with the Western Open Range) and as an actor (he was great in Mr. Brooks, and I heard there might even be a sequel)... To me, Costner is like Nicolas Cage, who also had massive failures (like The Wicker Man) but also huge hits throughout his career... either way, both of them remain right at the top of my list of best actors.

analogbison said:Everything said above is an exaggeration... though I will say Costner did bounce back later as a director (with the Western Open Range) and as an actor (he was great in Mr. Brooks, and I heard there might even be a sequel)... To me, Costner is like Nicolas Cage, who also had massive failures (like The Wicker Man) but also huge hits throughout his career... either way, both of them remain right at the top of my list of best actors.

Look, man, personally I really dig Costner, but unfortunately, you just can't today say he's part of that A-list American actor crowd... 👎

Well, that’s an interesting question. It seems audiences here and there are acting completely contrary to what the marketing departments expected. These kinds of collective shrugs and walk-aways suggest that the idea of the audience being a bunch of mindless drones controlled by advertising isn't actually true. It looks like the relationship between those "evil film corporations" and the public is a bit more nuanced than the usual assumption that people will just swallow whatever Hollywood serves up on a silver platter.

analogbison... just thinking out loud here... things feel different lately... almost like we're all waiting for something that hasn't quite arrived yet... anyway... hope everyone is having a good one... kaže:
To me, Costner is kind of like Nicolas Cage...

Hehe, it’s honestly wild... I was just sitting here thinking the exact same thing, how Costner compares to Cage... 😁Just a joke, really... but those characters are practically identical... 🙂

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, man, personally I really dig Costner, but unfortunately, you just can't today say he's part of that A-list American actor crowd... 👎

Is it true that between roughly 1987 and the release of Waterworld, he knocked out a massive string of absolute classics—think No Exit, The Untouchables, Perfect World, and even Dances with Wolves? It really feels like his career hit a bit of a slump afterward, largely because of Waterworld, and then as a director, because of The Postman (though, in my honest opinion, The Postman wasn't actually that bad). I’ll admit, I actually removed him from my list of all-time great actors for a while there. However, about two years ago, I sat down to watch Open Range, and I was genuinely impressed by how much he brought to the table, both behind the camera and in front of it. Then I watched The Guardian, and once again, he was just excellent. To top it all off, after seeing Mr. Brooks—which, quite frankly, might be the best thriller I've seen in the last year or two—I'm officially putting him right back at the top of my list.

Costner is the real deal—honestly, better than Cage. Take "Open Range," for instance. Who even makes movies like that anymore? It feels like in "The Postman," Costner’s sense of patriotism—all that sentimentality and waving the American flag at the end—was actually completely sincere. I could totally see a movie starring Costner alongside John Wayne. 🙂Costner just missed the mark on the era a little bit.