It's an old oil tanker that was called the Exxon Valdez -- which can be seen on the transom of the ship as it sinks. The Valdez became famous in March of 1989 when the ship ran into the Bligh Reef in the Prince William Sound in Alaska, resulting in one of the United States' biggest and costliest oil spill disasters. The surrounding area was covered with crude oil leaked from the ruptured tanker, causing significant environmental damage that took years to clean up.
The ship's captain, Joe Hazelwood, was accused of causing the spill because he was reportedly drunk, a charge he was exonerated of in 1990. An investigation later found that the ship's radar was disabled and had been so for over a year but the Exxon Corporation had refused to fix or replace it saying it was too costly. The ship was also not fully crewed at the time, another cost-cutting measure by Exxon. Hazelwood himself was not at the helm at the time of the accident but rather his 3rd mate was steering the ship and hit the reef.
The portrait of the man the Deacon calls "St Joe" is Hazelwood himself.
The Valdez was decommissioned and sold for scrap in 2012 after serving under a few other names and for several other shipping companies. She was taken to the state of Gujarat in India and beached for breaking.
The ship's captain, Joe Hazelwood, was accused of causing the spill because he was reportedly drunk, a charge he was exonerated of in 1990. An investigation later found that the ship's radar was disabled and had been so for over a year but the Exxon Corporation had refused to fix or replace it saying it was too costly. The ship was also not fully crewed at the time, another cost-cutting measure by Exxon. Hazelwood himself was not at the helm at the time of the accident but rather his 3rd mate was steering the ship and hit the reef.
The portrait of the man the Deacon calls "St Joe" is Hazelwood himself.
The Valdez was decommissioned and sold for scrap in 2012 after serving under a few other names and for several other shipping companies. She was taken to the state of Gujarat in India and beached for breaking.
In a post apocalyptic world where every country and city on the planet got sunk after ice caps melted. The Mariner (Kevin Costner) a lone traveller arrives at an "Atoll" (A floating fortress) for supplies. However, The Mariner is arrested and sentenced to be executed when it is discovered that The Mariner is a mutant. The Mariner's execution is interrupted when The Atoll is attacked by evil pirates known as The Smokers led by Deacon (Dennis Hopper) and The Mariner escapes along with a woman named Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and her adopted daughter Enola (Tina Majorino) whom The Mariner reluctantly takes on as passengers. However, Deacon and the Smokers are soon in pursuit and are bent on capturing Enola. The Mariner learns why The Smokers attacked the Atoll and that they want Enola because Enola has a tattoo on her back and the Smokers believe the tattoo on Enola's back is a map which will guide them to a mythical island called "Dryland", which The Smokers seek to colonize. But, the Smokers soon catches up with them and captures Enola and they destroy The Mariner's boat and The Mariner decides to set out to rescue Enola.
It's a subtle hint about the Deacon being a golfer, or something like one after the cataclysm that submerged all the land on Earth. In the battle at the atoll, the first time we see him, the Deacon is holding a golf club. Presumably he learned about the game somehow and plays it on his ship. What he's concerned with is losing the depth perception that humans have allowing them to see in 3 dimensions. It can be very important to a golfer to have proper depth perception to play golf and the Deacon is worried that his game around the green or putting will be reduced by losing an eye.
The movie was heavily cut for the Theatrical Version. Several years later, the American network ABC aired a reconstructed Extended Version that ran more than 43 minutes longer than the original theatrical version, featuring scenes that were cut prior to the movie's theatrical release. Later on this version was released on DVD as well.
In short... no.
Much of the melting would make no difference at all to sea levels. This is because a lot of the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is sea ice (ice floats and the icebergs are floating on water). Most of this is already below the waterline - and the only reason a small percentage of an iceberg sticks out of the water is that ice is a bit less dense than water. As it melted, the berg would submerge completely, but the ice would also shrink by the same amount as it turned back into water. So the overall effect on the oceans would be zero, or at least very close to it.
What *would* matter is the ice that is on land melting, and that extra water running into the oceans. We don't have a perfect number for how much of this ice there is, but we do have at least a reasonably close approximation, and if all the ice on land melted it would raise sea levels by around 400 feet (122 metres).
Given that most of the world's population lives within 400 feet of sea level, this would indeed be a global catastrophe of unprecedented scale involving a horrific degree of death and destruction, and would effectively signal the end of human civilization as it currently exists. But it would still cover only a small fraction of the total surface. It is shown in a deleted scene that the "Dryland" they find at the end of the film is actually the top thousand feet or so of Mount Everest, which would indeed be the last place to flood if the ocean could rise that far. But in reality, a 400 foot sea level rise would leave the world with almost as much dry land as it has today, in percentage terms.
To give an example of how far the movie is from reality, consider that it shows the Mariner diving thousands of feet down to explore the sunken city of Denver. In reality a 400 foot sea level rise would leave Denver still almost a mile above sea level, and more than 1,000 miles (1,610 kilometres) inland from the coast.
Much of the melting would make no difference at all to sea levels. This is because a lot of the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is sea ice (ice floats and the icebergs are floating on water). Most of this is already below the waterline - and the only reason a small percentage of an iceberg sticks out of the water is that ice is a bit less dense than water. As it melted, the berg would submerge completely, but the ice would also shrink by the same amount as it turned back into water. So the overall effect on the oceans would be zero, or at least very close to it.
What *would* matter is the ice that is on land melting, and that extra water running into the oceans. We don't have a perfect number for how much of this ice there is, but we do have at least a reasonably close approximation, and if all the ice on land melted it would raise sea levels by around 400 feet (122 metres).
Given that most of the world's population lives within 400 feet of sea level, this would indeed be a global catastrophe of unprecedented scale involving a horrific degree of death and destruction, and would effectively signal the end of human civilization as it currently exists. But it would still cover only a small fraction of the total surface. It is shown in a deleted scene that the "Dryland" they find at the end of the film is actually the top thousand feet or so of Mount Everest, which would indeed be the last place to flood if the ocean could rise that far. But in reality, a 400 foot sea level rise would leave the world with almost as much dry land as it has today, in percentage terms.
To give an example of how far the movie is from reality, consider that it shows the Mariner diving thousands of feet down to explore the sunken city of Denver. In reality a 400 foot sea level rise would leave Denver still almost a mile above sea level, and more than 1,000 miles (1,610 kilometres) inland from the coast.
Powered by Alexa
- How long is Waterworld?2 hours and 15 minutes
- When was Waterworld released?July 28, 1995
- What is the IMDb rating of Waterworld?6.3 out of 10
- Who stars in Waterworld?
- Who wrote Waterworld?
- Who directed Waterworld?
- Who was the composer for Waterworld?
- Who was the producer of Waterworld?
- Who was the executive producer of Waterworld?
- Who was the cinematographer for Waterworld?
- Who was the editor of Waterworld?
- Who are the characters in Waterworld?Mariner, Drifter, Gatesman, Enforcer, Elder, Survivor, Priam, Boy, Banker, Helen, and others
- What is the plot of Waterworld?In a future where the polar ice-caps have melted and Earth is almost entirely submerged, a mutated mariner fights starvation and outlaw "smokers," and reluctantly helps a woman and a young girl try to find dry land.
- What was the budget for Waterworld?$175 million
- How much did Waterworld earn at the worldwide box office?$264 million
- How much did Waterworld earn at the US box office?$88.2 million
- What is Waterworld rated?PG-13
- What genre is Waterworld?Action, Adventure, and Sci-Fi
- How many awards has Waterworld won?6 awards
- How many awards has Waterworld been nominated for?15 nominations
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content