The rest was effectively written off as part and parcel of a multi-billion dollar company takeover.īottom line: even without the accounting work, Waterworldwould have turned a modest profit for Universal. It’s estimated that Universal, emerging under its new Seagram parent, ended up paying just $12m for Waterworld. By the time the film made it into cinemas in the summer of 1995, it would have written many more. That, then, was the post-production expenses on the film.
In fact, Seagram, and thus Universal, was only liable for spending that took place on the movie after June 5th 1995, when the deal went through. as one of the worst conceived and executed movies ever, Waterworld tops our list. This isn’t uncommon when one company buys another, but Seagram ensured that the production costs for Waterworldwere mainly footed by Matsushuita. Im really not quite sure why exactly this movie cost so much money. Under the terms of it, MCA’s previous owners, Matsushuita, agreed to hold on to $1bn of Universal’s then debts. However, Seagram was canny with the deal.
Well, it bought 80% of it, but that gave it control of Universal. Waterworld: Ridiculous amount of people allowed in, profits now clearly being put before customers enjoyment and experience - See 3,623 traveler reviews, 166 candid photos, and great deals for Stoke-on-Trent, UK, at Tripadvisor. Parent company MCA Inc was bought by the Seagram Company just after Waterworldwrapped production. Months before Waterworld entered multiplexes two decades ago, the movie already seemed doomed.The Kevin Costner-led production, which envisioned a future Earth where the polar ice caps have melted. This is rarely talked about, but at the time that Waterworldwas in production, and running heavily over budget, Universal Studios was in the process of being sold.