|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,774
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,774 |
I thought his name was Buttgouge?
The Postman was pretty good. I liked WaterWorld, as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,833 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,833 Likes: 1 |
Great...now I can't watch Dances With Wolves without thinking of that butthole surfer. Go to amazon and pick up a copy of a book called "Scalp Dance". It will help get your mind right.
"Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants". --- William Penn
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 26,389 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 26,389 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 615
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 615 |
I thought his name was Buttgouge?
The Postman was pretty good. I liked WaterWorld, as well. Waterworld sucked!! And if I recall correctly it lost a TON of money... ETA: I stand corrected, I guess it did make a little money. From Wikipedia: Due to the runaway costs of the production and its expensive price tag, some critics dubbed it "Fishtar" and "Kevin's Gate", alluding to the flops Ishtar and Heaven's Gate, although the film debuted at the box office at #1. With a budget of $172 million (and a total outlay of $235 million once marketing and distribution costs are factored in), the film grossed $88 million at the North American box office. The film did better overseas, with $176 million at the foreign box office, for a worldwide total of $264 million. However, even though this figure surpasses the total costs spent by the studio, it does not take into account the percentage of box office gross that theaters retain, which is generally up to half; but after factoring in home video sales and TV broadcast rights among other revenue streams, Waterworld eventually became profitable.
Last edited by JTman; 12/30/19.
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 14,721 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 14,721 Likes: 2 |
Even birds know not to land downwind!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,078
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,078 |
No surprise here.
Costner always seemed kind of douchey to me. Never very convincing in the manly movie characters he has played.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,774
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,774 |
I thought his name was Buttgouge?
The Postman was pretty good. I liked WaterWorld, as well. Waterworld sucked!! And if I recall correctly it lost a TON of money... ETA: I stand corrected, I guess it did make a little money. From Wikipedia: Due to the runaway costs of the production and its expensive price tag, some critics dubbed it "Fishtar" and "Kevin's Gate", alluding to the flops Ishtar and Heaven's Gate, although the film debuted at the box office at #1. With a budget of $172 million (and a total outlay of $235 million once marketing and distribution costs are factored in), the film grossed $88 million at the North American box office. The film did better overseas, with $176 million at the foreign box office, for a worldwide total of $264 million. However, even though this figure surpasses the total costs spent by the studio, it does not take into account the percentage of box office gross that theaters retain, which is generally up to half; but after factoring in home video sales and TV broadcast rights among other revenue streams, Waterworld eventually became profitable. You stand corrected about it sucking also, because it did not suck.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 615
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 615 |
I thought his name was Buttgouge?
The Postman was pretty good. I liked WaterWorld, as well. Waterworld sucked!! And if I recall correctly it lost a TON of money... ETA: I stand corrected, I guess it did make a little money. From Wikipedia: Due to the runaway costs of the production and its expensive price tag, some critics dubbed it "Fishtar" and "Kevin's Gate", alluding to the flops Ishtar and Heaven's Gate, although the film debuted at the box office at #1. With a budget of $172 million (and a total outlay of $235 million once marketing and distribution costs are factored in), the film grossed $88 million at the North American box office. The film did better overseas, with $176 million at the foreign box office, for a worldwide total of $264 million. However, even though this figure surpasses the total costs spent by the studio, it does not take into account the percentage of box office gross that theaters retain, which is generally up to half; but after factoring in home video sales and TV broadcast rights among other revenue streams, Waterworld eventually became profitable. You stand corrected about it sucking also, because it did not suck. Haha.... IMO it SUCKED... which means your taste must really SUCK!
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
|
564 members (17CalFan, 160user, 10Glocks, 10gaugemag, 12344mag, 1beaver_shooter, 56 invisible),
2,315
guests, and
1,208
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,517
Posts18,490,928
Members73,972
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
