PhilistinePictures — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 04:08 PM)

Would the movie have come in on a smaller cost, since he was a bigger name director and probably better able to keep Costner's ambitions in check? Or would it have still cost a fortune (most maritime action films do) but kept the naysayers and doom merchants at bay before release? There was a lot of poisonous pre-release publicity for this and involving the Oscar-winning director of Forrest Gump (renowned for many other FX-heavy hits like Back to the Future and Who Framed Roger Rabbit) could have put haters off dismissing its prospects so vocally before they'd seen it.
I'm not saying Reynolds didn't do a good job with the film we got; but I can't help wondering what might have been instead. Waterworld's +$250m global earnings would have been very respectable had the film cost $70m-100m like most action films of its generation.
The Job Interview Poem