How Deep Is Universal Into ‘Waterworld’? : Movies: Chairman Tom Pollock denies the price tag is $100 million for a futuristic ocean drama starring Kevin Costner set to be filmed off Hawaii this summer.

Universal Pictures is planning to buck the recent industry trend of trying to pare back huge budgets and embark this summer on a Kevin Costner film called “Waterworld” that, according to film industry sources, is projected to cost $100 million.

The staggering price tag is confirmed by several sources on the lot but is hotly disputed by the studio’s chairman, Tom Pollock, who contends the budget is actually closer to $65 million.

“We’re making the film at this budget,” Pollock insisted. “It’s irresponsible to say that a film costs any number, much less something as outrageous as this, when the movie hasn’t even begun. People like to bad-mouth other people’s movies before they are started.”

But one source at Universal confirmed that the numbers for “Waterworld” are already “off the boards” and that studio executives are trying to keep the data close to the vest. This source said $100 million is a strong ballpark figure. In fact, sources said there has been speculation for several weeks that if costs on “Waterworld” soar too high, Universal would simply pull the plug, but that is not under consideration now.

“Oh my God--good luck getting your money back,” said Don Rudkin, managing partner of the communications division of the Hollywood consulting firm Deloitte & Touche, of the $100-million figure. “I wouldn’t (go forward with such a huge budget); it’s such a crapshoot to begin with. We already proved this with Schwarzenegger (in “Last Action Hero”) that a big star can’t always carry a picture. . . . You’re not even factoring in cost of prints and ads and marketing. If I was a Universal shareholder, I’d be concerned.”

*

If the size of the projected budget is true, “Waterworld” would become one of the industry’s most expensive films. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s next film, “True Lies,” reportedly cost $120 million and will be released by 20th Century Fox this summer. But unlike that film or the “Terminator” films, “Waterworld,” an apocalyptic adventure film, is not expected to have state-of-the-art special effects.

Its huge budget would seem to fly in the face of recent concerns in Hollywood over overblown expenditures. Before the cameras rolled on Eddie Murphy’s “Beverly Hills Cop III,” for example, Paramount Pictures chief Sherry Lansing called a temporary halt to production when she became alarmed that costs had climbed into the $70-million range. The film, now with a smaller budget, is scheduled to open May 25. And earlier this year, United Artists reportedly decided not to renew its option on “Higgins and Beech,” a Korean War drama starring Richard Gere and Michelle Pfeiffer, because filming in Korea or China would have caused the budget to climb to between $40 million and $50 million.

Another reason for some concern about a high budget for “Waterworld” is that the film does not have huge above-the-line expenditures since Costner, who will receive $14 million, is expected to be the only big-name star. Its director is Kevin Reynolds, who directed “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves,” which also starred Costner.

Without special effects or huge star salaries, the only thing that could make “Waterworld” so phenomenally expensive, sources say, is that it is to be filmed on water.

The film, described as “ ‘Road Warrior’ on water,” is set in the future, when the polar ice caps have melted, deluging the earth. A group of rag-tag good guys living on top of the ocean fight bad guys who have oil and power. Costner plays a character called Mariner, who has gills and fins. Some have already nicknamed the movie “Splash II” for Mariner’s mermaid-like attributes.

A set is being built in Kawaihae Harbor on the west side of the island of Hawaii. Filming could begin as early as mid-June.

Pollock would not discuss the film’s budget in detail, but Largo Entertainment, which originally had the “Waterworld” project a year ago, forfeited the picture because of anticipated budget overruns. One former Largo source, who had been involved with the project at the time, said the budget back then was expected to be about $65 million to $70 million. And that was merely a projection.

“Shooting on water is one of the most expensive endeavors you could ever undertake,” the source said. “With water, you have terrible problems: the color of the water and light on it constantly changing, the winds blowing in the wrong direction, waves can change in an instant. And, in a place like Hawaii, you run the risk of hurricanes. There’s no way you can really predict anything. We finally had to pass.”

Pollock himself doesn’t dispute that unforeseen circumstances could make production costs go up.

“It is possible that things can go over budget,” he said. “You’re on the water and things can go wrong.”

He also said he is “keeping his fingers crossed” that another hurricane doesn’t hit the Hawaiian islands as Iniki did in September, 1992, while Steven Spielberg was filming Universal’s “Jurassic Park,” causing widespread destruction.

“If the weather is bad, then that is a problem with shooting on water,” Pollock said. “Other than that, I don’t think it will cost a penny more than the price at which it came in.”

Pollock denied that there have been any mishaps to date with “Waterworld” that have caused costs to climb.

According to a Universal source, part of the sets under construction have already sunk once. They were large pontoons flown in from France that were supposed to hold everything up, but the crews managed to retrieve them, the source said.

“No such thing ever occurred,” Pollock said.