Kevin Costner - He built it, and BP came.

[jadebox]

BTW, I'm not suggesting that these machines, if they actually work, wouldn't be useful. But, they aren't going to work miracles on an oil spill of this magnitude. I afraid some people might think that you could turn on one of these machines and clean the entire ocean in a few days. That's just not realistic.

-- Roger

 

[gnome]

Then they better get started.

"In that case," the King stated, "You'd better plant it this afternoon."
(something like that)

 

[GreNME]

It's not the same cobbled-together machine he used to turn his whiz into drinkable water in Waterworld, is it?

Because that thing didn't look too sturdy.

I read one interview with him where he mentions that he and his partner (brother?) got the idea when Costner was doing Waterworld.

Imagine that: something positive coming from that waste of celluloid.

 

[r-j]

A short term effective use might be to boom off critical coastal areas and remove the oil that gets through or has already gone to the shore.

It's screaming madness that they don't have machines to do just that. Already built. On hand. Just in case.

Again, I bet money that not only Alaska, but everywhere in the entire world no oil company has equipment already ready, just in case of an oil spill.

No way to simply remove oil from water.

Criminal. They make billions and billions every year, but not a dime for equipment to act in disasters.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Wow, Costner might make more from this invention then has in his film career since 1992...

And with much more justification.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I read one interview with him where he mentions that he and his partner (brother?) got the idea when Costner was doing Waterworld.

Imagine that: something positive coming from that waste of celluloid.

He actually bought the idea from the U.S. Government, but there was that machine/device in Waterworld that purified water taken from urine and such.

 

[Tricky]

Any reports yet on how they're doing? I realize they're untested technology, or at least, untested on something of this magnitude, but I'd be interested to see if they've made any kind of difference.

 

[Tricky]

He actually bought the idea from the U.S. Government, but there was that machine/device in Waterworld that purified water taken from urine and such.

I'll never forgive Costner for destroying "The Postman", an absolutely wonderful book by David Brin. Costner, or the director or both, completely reversed the meaning of the book, and left out the most important part. What was left was crap. So he damn well better clean up some waste from other people's mistakes, because he's left enough there of his own.

 

[quadraginta]

I'll never forgive Costner for destroying "The Postman", an absolutely wonderful book by David Brin. Costner, or the director or both, completely reversed the meaning of the book, and left out the most important part. What was left was crap. So he damn well better clean up some waste from other people's mistakes, because he's left enough there of his own.

It seems to be quite fashionable to beat up on Costner, at least if this thread is any example, but I'm really unclear why. In general I tend to find his work acceptable, at a minimum, and more often than not well beyond that.

Perhaps it would be interesting to read some of David Brin's own thoughts on the movie. With caveats, he seems to be more forgiving than you, maybe even laudatory in some regards.

In fact, I found many Costner/Helgeland innovations to be rather clever! A few were even deeply moving. (Lord only knows how they expected me to react, or if they cared. I have an impression they were rather surprised when they finally learned my overall attitude, as if for some reason they had been bracing for a rather different response.)


Above all -- and for this I will forgive a thousand slights -- they rescued the "soul" of the central character, making The Postman once again a story about a reluctant hero, a liar who slowly comes to realize his own value, and the importance of hope.

...

And yet, all told, Cheryl and I came away more pleased than unhappy with what Costner created. Despite many flaws, it's a pretty good movie -- if you let yourself get into it. One that deals with important issues and is more faithful to the book than I expected at any point in the last decade. Costner's postman is a man of decency, a callused idealist who has to learn the hard way about responsibility and what it means to be a hero. The movie is filled with scenes that convey how deeply we would miss the gracious little things, if ever they were gone. In fact, it includes some clever or touching moments that I wish I'd thought of, when writing the book!

...

In sum, despite many disappointments, I have to say that I'm not ashamed to be associated with The Postman movie. Yes, the book is much better! ;-) And yes, the film might have benefited a lot if the director ever had a few brews with the guy who told the original story. Yet there's something deeply likable about this film, despite its flaws. Above all, in these days of rampant and contagious solipsism, with so many people claiming to despise a civilization that has been so kind to them, this movie's overall message needs to be heard.

Somewhat to my surprise Brin seems to have a bit better opinion of the movie than I did. (I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your comments. ) But I'm afraid, under the circumstances, that I must defer to his authority on the subject.

 

[Tricky]

Somewhat to my surprise Brin seems to have a bit better opinion of the movie than I did. (I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your comments. ) But I'm afraid, under the circumstances, that I must defer to his authority on the subject.

They paid Brin a lot for the movie rights, and it was his first (and only) book that was made into a movie. What was he supposed to say? So I'll continue to beat up on... well... Costner is really not at fault here. He didn't write the screenplay that was so egregiously awful, emphasizing the fights but rewriting the most important fight, and completely ignoring two of the three most important characters. And the best message of the story.

At least it left Costner plenty of time for inventing, so maybe there's an upside.

I don't want to talk about the movie any more. It's too painful. Back on topic.

Kevin, I hope your machine sucks as much as "The Postman".

 

[ZirconBlue]

Rather than ask, "has KC been in any good movies?" a more pertinent question may be, "Has KC been good in any movies?" He has always struck me as very bland.

Again, Silverado.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Did you guys really dislike Waterworld, or do you just say you didn't like it because that's what you're supposed to do?

I thought it was a pretty good flick.

 

[r-j]

I thought he was great as Thomas J. Murphy.

 

[Nosi]

Not really foresight, since it was inspired by the Exxon Valdez. But one wonders why this hasn't been developed to a much higher level by people/companies/governments with tons of cash.

Tons of cash yes, but it took an actor with a ton of heart to make this work.

 

[r-j]

Story about the machines

Costner: BP Ordered 32 Machines

In testimony before the Congress last week, Costner acknowledged the improbability of his involvement.
"It may seem like an unlikely scenario that I am the one delivering this technology at this moment in time, but from where I'm sitting, it is equally inconceivable that these machines are not already in place," he said.

I have to agree. These oil companies are either stupid or evil, depending on how I look at it.

An actor is smarter and better prepared than all the oil companies in the world. It's criminal.

 

[quadraginta]

Did you guys really dislike Waterworld, or do you just say you didn't like it because that's what you're supposed to do?

I thought it was a pretty good flick.

I thought it was good fun. For movies of that sort I'm not sure what more should be expected.