Despite Woes of ‘Waterworld,’ Big Movies Won’t Dry Up

With Hollywood’s most expensive movie poised to make its U.S. debut this weekend, industry executives are insisting that the $175-million “Waterworld” is a total aberration.

They say there’s no chance future movies will cost as much.

Uh-huh.

As one highly placed studio executive suggested: “It’s off the charts. It was a mistake. You’d have to be mentally challenged to make another film like that.”

That could be true. Or it could be a case of severe denial.

For instance, “Waterworld,” the futuristic Kevin Costner movie whose mushroomed budget was largely blamed on the difficulty of shooting a film on water, has not deterred other filmmakers. Right now, highly secretive director Jim Cameron (“True Lies”), who had his share of headaches years ago with the production of “The Abyss,” is writing a big-special-effects underwater adventure for Twentieth Century Fox, which will probably wind up being one of next year’s most costly movies.

The truth is, movies aren’t getting any cheaper. Studios are paying stars more than ever. Where A-list actors used to get $15 million tops (plus a percentage of the gross), recent $20-million deals with stars such as Jim Carrey and Sylvester Stallone have raised the roof not only on top actors, but on those with less “marquee value,” such as Kurt Russell.

As you read this, there are a number of $70-million to $100-million big-event movies in the making--those with top stars and special effects or story concepts that give audiences something they haven’t seen before.

Who’s to say that any one or more of those won’t careen out of control like “Waterworld”--which was originally budgeted at $100 million and reportedly grew to more than $175 million during production?

MCA Vice Chairman Tom Pollock has been quoted in the media as saying that “Waterworld” was “a good bet” at the price it should have been made at, which was just under $100 million.

*

That’s now a moot point. With its gross production overruns and marketing and distribution costs, the film’s ultimate price tag will be well over $200 million.

Studio heads agree that they are not about to stop making the big-event films--on the average of two per studio a year--but “we should be making sure we’re not letting them go out of control.”

Said a top studio production source: “Any time there’s a pending disaster, we all think, ‘I’ll never let that happen to me.’ Everyone is trying to convince themselves it won’t happen to them. “

More than one studio head has suggested privately that if “Waterworld” is profitable--which industry experts agree is unlikely--it would spell disaster for Hollywood.

“It would make it OK to spend that kind of money, when clearly it’s not,” an industry veteran said.

For many studio executives who are trying to hold down costs, the greatest fear is that a successful “Waterworld” would encourage others to spend as crazily in the future.

“Hey, if it makes money, why shouldn’t movies cost that much?” was one studio head’s response.

On the flip side, if “Waterworld” is a colossal flop, will it actually scare off studios from greenlighting movies in the neighborhood of $100 million?

“Either result is terrible for the business,” a studio chief said. “If the result is lousy, it won’t do anything other than scare people. If it’s good, it’ll reinforce bad behavior.”

Another senior studio executive said he believes people in his position are already having second thoughts about future big-budget movies: “I think people have been thinking twice for six months now because nobody wants to live under the kind of press microscope that ‘Waterworld’ created.”

“To my knowledge, nobody I know has greenlighted a $100-million movie since all this with ‘Waterworld’ began,” the source added.

*

There is a saying that any press, negative or positive, is good press. But if you were to ask the executives at Universal Pictures who have been involved in the scrutiny surrounding “Waterworld” whether that applies to their movie, the answer would be a resounding “No!”

The studio’s top executives are reeling from the publicity, convinced that the stories are often unfair and inaccurate and that the journalistic intent has been malicious. Never mind that they made the most expensive movie of all time.

Regardless of its fate, by this time next year “Waterworld” will be but a footnote in motion picture history.

There will be a new mega-budgeted monster in the media spotlight. And someone else running for cover.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Big-Budget Films in the Works

These are movies that are expected to cost $70 million or more before they’re completed.

Done or in production:

* “Mission Impossible” (Paramount). Star: Tom Cruise. Director: Brian De Palma.

* “Twister” (Warner Bros., domestic distribution; Universal, foreign). Stars: Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton. Director: Jan De Bont.

* “Assassins” (Warner Bros.). Star: Sylvester Stallone. Director: Dick Donner.

* “Cutthroat Island” (MGM/UA). Stars: Geena Davis and Matthew Modine. Director: Renny Harlin.

* “Money Train” (Columbia). Stars: Wesley Snipes and Woody Harrelson. Director: Joe Ruben.

* “Jumanji” (TriStar). Star: Robin Williams. Director: Joe Johnston.

Upcoming productions:

* “Starship Troopers” (TriStar/Disney). Director: Paul Verhoeven.

* “Daylight” (Universal). Star: Sylvester Stallone. Director: Rob Cohen.

* “Eraser” (Warner Bros.). Star: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Director: Chuck Russell.

* “Men in Black” (Columbia). Star: Tommy Lee Jones. Director: Barry Sonnenfeld.

* “Planet of the Apes” (Fox). Star: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Director: Chris Columbus.

* “Godzilla” (TriStar). No Star or director yet.

* “Mars Attacks!” (Warner Bros.). Director: Tim Burton.

* Untitled James Cameron underwater movie (Fox).