關於 decision making process example ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

❗️重要：電檢處告示並不代表導演團隊立場
《佔領立法會》及《理大圍城》遭電檢處多番為難❗️
(Please scroll down for English)

香港電影、報刊及物品管理處要求《佔領立法會》及《理大圍城》片首加上聲明，我們要澄清這聲明並非創作人的意願。

《佔領立法會》及《理大圍城》一直為外界爭議度非常高的電影，導演團隊一直為真實紀錄各社會運動而不惜冒著各種風險，電影帶來的回響及反應大家有目共睹。

但！

香港電影、報刊及物品管理處（簡稱電檢處）卻利用各種手段，逼使導演們需要作出非本人意願的聲明！如果不跟從指引，電檢處便可以利用行政手段令放映無法進行！

電檢處要求作出之聲明如下：
《佔領立法會》:
「影片紀錄2019年7月1日立法會綜合大樓受到示威衝擊的嚴重事件，當中有部分描述或行為，根據現行法例可能會構成刑事罪行。」

《理大圍城》:
「影片紀錄2019年11月在香港理工大學及周邊地點發生的嚴重事件，當中有部分描述或行為，根據現行法例可能會構成刑事罪行。此外，影片部分內容或評論亦可能未獲證實或有誤導成份。」

影意志表示強烈不滿電檢處以下行為：
1.以保障各方為由，實屬保障自己之實來強逼修改影片
2.要求影片開首作出聲明，但不願表明此為電檢處要求
3.以不知明原因推翻由電檢處發出的證明書
4.未能按時發出證明書，並將責任推卸於申請者

以下為影意志與電檢處之洽商經過：

7月中時，影意志為舊版本影片申請電檢證明書。

8月7日（國安法生效約一個月後）
影意志首次收到電檢處通知，表示需要在電影片頭加入由電檢處發出之警告字眼。影意志清楚表示此字句並不是出自導演團隊意願，並不會修改影片。電檢處表示，若不跟從指引，有機會令行政程序時間增加。

9月3日（國安法生效約兩個月後）
影意志重新遞交申請，並於新版本影片中加入電檢處要求之字句，及標明此字句為電檢處要求。

9月8日
影意志收到電檢處通知，表示影片開首有不屬於此影片之告示字眼，要求刪改。影意志表示此要求不合理，電檢處不能在未執行檢視工作前便要求申請者進行更改；但對方亦一貫作風，以會引致檢視工作延誤等為由而要求進行修改。

9月9日
影意志立即按電檢處要求遞交新版本。

9月15日
影意志致電查詢電檢進度，對方則回應未能於本星期批核證明書。影意志表明早於9月3日已遞交申請，理應9月17日收到證明書；電檢處解釋因為9月11日才正式收到更新版本影片，當作9月14日才正式開始工作，故最快只能於9月21日發出證明書。(影意志：申請表已列明9月3日為申請日期，但因為電檢處內部審查緩慢而將責任推卸。）

9月18日 下午6時40分 （辦公完結時間為下午6時）
電檢處通知影意志需在片頭加上其提供的告示字句，並於9月21日當日交回新版本，否則未能於放映當日發出證明書；影意志重新要求要標示電檢處是發出告示者，並且需於放映當日收到證明書。電檢處回覆，告示並不能標明是電檢處發出，並且只能按照他們要求作出更改。

同時，影意志被告知原有舊版本的電檢證明書不能使用，因為新舊版本不可同時擁有兩張證明書（影意志不明所以，但對方亦無法列出清晰原因）

9月21日
直到放映前兩小時，影意志才收到電檢處發出的證明書，而《理大圍城》被評為III級，需作出退票手續。為觀眾帶來不便，影意志深感抱歉。

影意志及香港紀錄片工作者不希望為業界帶來錯誤先例，但亦不想真相任由香港政府扼殺、及默許歷史被政權改寫！為了能順利放映，影意志暫時接受此條件，但一定會繼續上訴！請大家廣傳此消息！多謝大家一直支持香港電影；煩請以後看電影出現奇怪告示，請大家不要誤會導演們！

*註1：在香港舉行之所有公開放映，需獲得由香港電影、報刊及物品管理處發出的核准證明書，方可進行放映活動；否則，實屬違法。

__________

❗️Disclaimer: The opinion expressed in the statement issued by The Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration (OFNAA) does not reflect the views of the director and the production team.

The Tug of War with the OFNAA over “Taking back the Legislature" + "Inside the Red Brick Wall".

Although “Taking back the Legislature" and "Inside the Red Brick Wall" have not shied away from controversy, yet the production crew have always strived to objectively capture every social movement against all odds, and the films have received a wide swath of responses since their release.

Nevertheless, the OFNAA has gone out of their way to coerce the directors into making statements against their wills. When failed to oblige, they could face having their works barred from screening by the OFNAA with whatever administrative reasons they might come up with.

Therefore, Ying E Chi hereby express our strong discontent to the following actions of the OFNAA:
1. Force the films to be edited under the pretext of protecting everyone, but in fact, only to protect their own interest
2. Request an announcement to be made at the beginning of the film, yet refused to be declared as the one who demanded the announcement
3. Overturn the previous certificate issued by the OFNAA with unspecified reason
4. Fail to issue the certificate on time as promised, whilst shifting the responsibility to the applicant

The statement required by the OFNAA is as follows:
“Taking back the Legislature”:
“This film records the serious incident of the storming of the Legislative Council Complex on 1 July 2019. Some of those depictions or acts may constitute criminal offences under prevailing laws.”

“Inside the Red Brick Wall:
“This film records the serious incidents at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and nearby areas in November 2019. Some of those depictions or acts may constitute criminal offences under prevailing laws. Some of the contents of or commentaries in the film may be unverified or misleading.”

Here is how the negotiation between Ying E Chi and the OFNAA unfolds:

Mid-July
Ying E Chi filed an application for a Certificate of Approval for the old version of “Taking back the Legislature" + "Inside the Red Brick Wall".

7/8/2020 (A month after the National Security Law was enacted)
The first time Ying E Chi were notified by the OFNAA that a warning issued by them must be added at the beginning of the film. Ying E Chi then categorically declared that since the content of the warning does not reflect the will of the director, the films will not be edited as a result. The OFNAA responded by saying the administrative procedure might be delayed if their instructions have not been followed.

3/9/2020 (About 2 months after the National Security Law was enacted)
Ying E Chi handed in the application again with a new version of the films including the warning statement as requested, indicating that the warning is issued by the OFNAA.

8/9/2020
Ying E Chi were informed by the OFNAA to remove the statement at the beginning of the film as it does not belong to the film. Ying E Chi responded by calling out the absurdity of such request, as the OFNAA ought not to ask the films to be edited before they even review the whole film. Yet again the OFNAA demanded the changes to be made since it might cause a delay in the reviewing process.

9/9/2020
As a result, Ying E Chi submitted a new version at the first instance at the request of the OFNAA.

15/9/2020
Ying E Chi phoned in to enquire about the application procedure, since the application was made on the 3 Sep, so the Certificate of Approval should be issued on 17 Sep. However, the OFNAA replied that the Certificate of Approval would in fact not be granted this week for they claimed to have received the updated version on 11 Sep, so they could only have begun the reviewing process officially on the 14th, and thus the earliest time the certificate could be issued would be 21 Sep. (Note: Despite the official application date listed on the application form was 3 Sep, the OFNAA still tried to avoid the responsibility caused by their sluggish bureaucratic process.

18/9/2020 6.40pm (Office Hour ends at 6pm)
The OFNAA informed Ying E Chi that a statement PROVIDED by them must be included at the start of the film, and the new version must be handed in on 21 Sep, otherwise the Certificate of Approval would not be issued on the day of the screening. Ying E Chi again requested to indicate the OFNAA as the one who issued the statement, and that the certificate should be granted on screening day. The OFNAA, however, rejected to be identified as the one who issued such a statement, and insisted that all amendments can only be made subject to their approvals and requirements. At the time, Ying E Chi were informed that the Certificate of Approval obtained for the old version of “ Taking back the Legislature" + "Inside the Red Brick Wall" could no longer be used, as there cannot be two certificates for both old version and the updated version. (Ying E Chi, are deeply confounded by this sudden decision, but the OFNAA has failed to offer any clarifications.)

21/9/2020
Not only have Ying E Chi just received the certificate on the day of the screening from OFNAA, but at the same time we have been notified that "Inside the Red Brick Wall” has been classified as a Category III Film, and therefore need to make the refund arrangements.

We are profoundly sorry about the inconvenience caused.

It is not the wish of Ying E Chi and Hong Kong Documentary Filmmakers to set the wrong example for the industry, yet we would hate to have the truth to be buried by the Hong Kong Government or to let those in power rewrite the history. Ying E Chi have compromised for this instance in order to facilitate this screening, we, nevertheless, will keep on protesting, so please spread the words and make our story known. Thank you for continuing to support Hong Kong films, and from now on please do not be misled by any bizarre statements in movies and misunderstand the directors.

*Note: Under the Film Censorship Ordinance (Cap 392), a film intended for exhibition in Hong Kong at any public place has to be submitted to the Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration for prior approval. Failing to comply with such requirement may constitute a criminal offence.

【Under the "New Normal", What's the Darkness and Light for Our Favourite Online Stores? -- 新冠肺炎疫情改變了我們的生活和工作方式，以上是我對線上產業的一些觀察】

COVID-19 seems to make our old shopping experience a blur. And our new online shopping habits are formed under the pandemic.

I remember vividly, the first time that I could go to the Canberra Centre when restrictions have been lifted, I found that my shopping habits and desires have changed completely. Before COVID-19, I was very found of shopping for clothing, accessories and taking a look at what’s the latest at the Flight Centre shop front. Now, I am no longer interested in buying anything that’s “non-essential”. But when it comes to online buying, our household weekly shopping has almost shifted entirely to online order and home delivery services.

There are millions if not billions of people are changing their buying habits like me. During COVID-19, health and safety is the top concern and priority in life. Furthermore, there are isolation restrictions, social distancing measures and working from home practices put in place in many countries across the globe. Consumers have been making the conscious decision of avoiding public places or anyplace that is crowded to reduce that chances of getting infected by the virus.

The below data demonstrates the impact that COVID-19 has for eCommerce across the globe. This pandemic not only changed the way we live and work, but also fundamentally altered the retail industry.

~ Australian ecommerce grew more than 80 per cent year on year (YOY) in the 8 weeks after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared by the World Health Organisation.
~ U.S. retailers' online year-over-year (YoY) revenue growth is up 68% as of mid-April, surpassing an earlier peak of 49% in early January.
~ There's been a 129% year-over-year growth in U.S. & Canadian e-commerce orders as of April 21 and an impressive 146% growth in all online retail orders.
~ China’s online grocery market can expect to grow 62.9% in 2020 to 264 billion RMB compared to a 29.2% growth last year.

In my opinion, there are very real challenges for e-commerce business, but at the same time, there are promising opportunities as well. E-commerce businesses must get ready to face the light and darkness of the age of COVID-19.

I would like to highlight one key aspect that businesses have to consider. It is digital transformation. If digital transformation is not done fast enough, it might result into the collapse of the business under COVID-19.

“Digital transformation: A staged programme of business improvements to people, process and tools used for integrated digital marketing to maximise the potential contribution of digital technology and media to business growth”

There are online stores and retail businesses which are experiencing strong growth under COVID-19, yet others are bumping into troubles. For example, while major shopping centres suffer but an online doctor service, Prime Medic which was launched last year has grown 1000 percent. Sofi Spritz, Australia’s largest independent pre-batched cocktail business, its online sales were up 300 per cent. While the famous active wear brand, Lorna Jane has been fined almost $40,000 over claims that its products could protect again coronavirus, and this might have a negative impact on the brand’s reputation and might affect sales online.

新冠肺炎疫情改變了我們的生活和工作方式，這篇文章是我對線上產業的一些觀察，和你們分享。

閱讀全文👇👇👇
https://www.joyceseestheworld.com/post/under-new-normal-what-s-the-darkness-and-light-for-our-favourite-online-stores

💜 還有，如果你想知道Joyce的英文學習之路，用最簡單有效的方法讓你英文聽說讀寫都很快可以上手，達到能夠商務溝通以及工作的話，記得在這篇文章留言給我 ~ 不要害羞喔😘

Joyce看世界就是不一樣，同名網站，持續給大家帶來最優質的內容，記得點擊訂閱喔：

💜 https://www.joyceseestheworld.com/

90 days writing challenge - Day 15

*******
IG: @joyceseesozandtheworld

#只要我們閃閃發光大家都會看到我們來自的地方
#大鎖國時代你必須主動規劃自己的幸福和前途
#你要的幸福自己做主
#Joyce聊成長
#Joyce聊遠距工作
#Joyce聊在家工作
#Joyce聊態度
#Joyce的國際工作生活規劃課程
#Joyce的遠距工作生活規劃課程
#我們都能擁有一點點不平凡
#另類成功
#另類youtuber
#WishtoWow
#知識型網紅
#複合型人才

👉Joyce的不公開社團：Joyce的國際工作情報站
https://www.facebook.com/groups/joyceseestheworld
👉Joyce的IG：@joyceseesozandtheworld
https://www.instagram.com/joyceseesozandtheworld/
👉Joyce的不公開社團：Joyce的異國戀情分享園地
https://www.facebook.com/groups/joycetalkscrossculturalrelationship

【水世界】的前製設定與現場劇照

WATERWORLD (1995)
In celebration of today’s anniversary of this wet mess/epic. Let’s celebrate the hard work this crew put into bringing this world to life. Water movies are never easy but when it comes to this movie anytime you bring it up and a crew member from it is in earshot, the stories pour out. Not always bad, I know a AC that said he had a blast, he loved the boat rides out and all the camaraderie the crew had to have to get thru it. To all the crew that helped bring WATERWORLD to life, We salute you and thanks for the memories. I personally enjoy this hot mess of a movie, it’s one of the last ones of its kind...done practically...in a way.
let’s take a deepest of dives into WATERWORLD

The director, Kevin Reynolds, knew there would be problems before production had even started, “During pre-production. Because having never shot on water to that extent before, I didn’t really realise what I was in for. I talked to Spielberg about it because he’d gone to do Jaws, and I remember, he said to me, “Oh, I would never shoot another picture on water”.
“When we were doing the budget for the picture, and the head of the studio, Sid Sheinberg, we were talking about it and I said, “Steven told me that on Jaws the schedule for the picture was 55 days, and they ended up shooting a 155 days”. Because of the water. And he sat there for a moment and he said, “You know, I’m not sure about the days, but I do know they went a hundred percent over budget”. And so, Universal knew the potential problems of shooting on water. It’s monstrous.”
The film began with a projected budget of $100 million which had reportedly increased to $175 million by the end of production. The principle photography had overrun for at least thirty days more than originally planned due to one major decision.

Whereas today they would film in water tanks with partially built sets, employing green screens to fake the locations, back in 1995 they decided to build everything full size and shoot out on the ocean.

This causes extra logistical problems on top of those that already come with making a major action blockbuster. Cast and crew have to be transported to sets. The camera boats and sets float out of position and will have to be reset between takes taking up valuable production time.

The first draft of Waterworld was written by Peter Radar, a Harvard graduate who wanted to break into the film business. His contact in the film industry was Brad Kevoy, an assistant to the legendary director Roger Corman.

Roger Corman is best known for making films very quickly on a small budget. He also liked to give young talent a chance to direct and write their own films. Brad informed Peter that if he could write a Mad Max rip off, he would arrange to finance and let him direct the picture.

Radar came back and pitched the idea for what would become Waterworld. Kevoy took one look at him and said,

“Are you out of your mind? This would cost us three million dollars to make this movie!”
So Radar kept hold of the idea and decided to re-write the script but, this time, going wild. He wrote what he wanted to see on-screen, limited only by his imagination, not a real world production budget.

He managed to get the newly written script shown to a pair of producers with whom he had made contact with. They loved it and ironically they passed it onto Larry Gordon. He shared the enthusiasm saying it had the kind of cinematic possibilities he was looking for. A deal was signed on Christmas Eve of 1989.

As further script rewrites progressed, it became clear that Waterworld was too big for the Larry Gordon’s production company to undertake by themselves. In February 1992, a deal was signed with Universal Pictures to co-produce and co-finance the film. This was now six years after the first draft had been written.

Universal had signed director Kevin Reynolds to Waterworld. Whilst he was finishing his latest film, Rapa Nui, pre-production for Waterworld was already underway.

The decision was taken that the largest set for the film, known as the atoll, would be built full size. The atoll was the primary location for film and in the story served as the location for a small population of survivors.

The logic behind this decision was due to the high percentage of live action filming required in this location, as well as a huge action set piece. No sound stage would be big enough to incorporate this number of scenes and it was crucial that we see the mariner sail his boat into the atoll, turn around and set out again. A full-size construction was the only way to go as the use of miniature and special effects would be impractical.

The next problem was deciding where to build this huge set. After much research, Kawaihae Harbour in Hawaii was chosen as the location. The atoll could be constructed in the harbour and rotated when needed thus allowing for open sea in the background. Later towards the end of principle photography, the atoll could be towed out into the open sea for the filming of the big action sequences which would be impractical to shoot in an enclosed harbour.

Director Kevin Reynolds also discussed the possibility of using the same water tank as James Cameron’s The Abyss, which had filmed there around five years ago,

“We had even entertained the notion of shooting at that big nuclear reactor facility where they had shot The Abyss, to use it for our underwater tank. But we found it in such a state of disrepair that economically it just wasn’t feasible. We didn’t have as much underwater work as they did. Most of The Abyss is interiors and underwater and model work, ours is mostly surface exterior.”

The production company had originally envisioned building the atoll by linking approximately one hundred boats together and building upon this foundation, just like the characters in the film. The production crew set out to search Hawaii and get hold of as many boats as possible.

During this search, a unique boat in Honolulu caught their attention. Upon further investigation, they discovered it was built by Navitech, a subsidiary of the famous aircraft production company, Lockheed.

They approached Lockheed with the strange request of figuring out how they could build the foundations of the atoll. Lockheed found the request unusual but didn’t shy away from the challenging. They agreed to design the atoll foundation and Navitech would construct it.

Meanwhile, an 11ft miniature model of the atoll was sent out to a model ship testing facility in San Diego. Scaled wave tanks are used to determine the effects of the open sea on large scale miniature models of new untested ship designs. This would help determine what would happen with the unusual design of the atoll when it was out of the harbour.

The atoll, when finished, was approximately ¼ mile in circumference. It took three months to construct and is rumoured to cost around $22 million. As the atoll would be used out on the open sea, it required a seafaring license. Nothing like this had been done before and after much deliberation, it was eventually classed as an unmanned vessel. This meant that all cast and crew would have to vacate the set whilst it was towed into position. By the end of production, the atoll was towed out to sea a total of five times.

Shooting out on the open sea presented a series of logistical problem as Reynolds describes,

“We had an entire navy, basically – I mean, this atoll was positioned about a mile off-shore in Hawaii, it was anchored to the bottom of the ocean so it could rotate. What you don’t think about are things like, you’re shooting on this atoll to maintain this notion that there’s no dry land, you always have to shoot out to sea. Away from the land. So we chose a location where we had about a 180 degree view of open water. Nevertheless, any time when you’re shooting, there could be a ship appear in the background, or something like that, and you had to make a choice. Do I hold up the shot, wait for the ship to move out, or do we shoot and say we’re going to incur this additional cost in post-production of trying to remove the ship from the background.

And at that time, CGI was not at the point it is now, it was a bigger deal. And so, even though if you’re shooting across the atoll and you’re shooting out onto open water, when you turn around and do the reverses, for the action, you had to rotate the entire atoll, so that you’re still shooting out to open water. Those are the kinds of things that people don’t realise.

Or something as simple as – if you’re shooting a scene between two boats, and you’re trying to shoot The Mariner on his craft, another boat or whatever, you’ve got a camera boat shooting his boat, and then the other boat in the background. Well, when you’re on open water things tend to drift apart. So you have to send lines down from each of those boats to the bottom, to anchor them so that they somewhat stay in frame. When you’ve got a simple shot on land, you set up the camera position, you put people in front of the camera and then you put background in there. But when you’re on water, everything’s constantly moving apart, drifting apart, so you have to try to hold things down somewhat.

And these are simple things that you don’t really realise when you’re looking at it on film. But logistically, it’s crazy. And each day you shoot on the atoll with all those extras, we had to transport those people from dry land out to the location and so you’re getting hundreds of people through wardrobe and everything, and you’re putting them on boats, transporting them out to the atoll, and trying to get everybody in position to do a shot. And then when you break for lunch, you have to put everybody on boats and take them back in to feed them.”

The final size of the atoll was determined by the size of the Mariners boat, the trimaran. The dimensions for the trimaran were finalised very early on in pre-production, allowing all other vehicles and sets to be sized accordingly.

Production required two trimarans boats which are so called because they have three hulls. The first was based on the standard trimaran blueprint and built for speed but also had to accommodate a secret crew below decks.

During wide and aerial shots it would have to look like Costner himself was piloting the boat. In reality, a trained crew could monitor and perform the real sailing of the boat utilising specially built controls and television monitors below deck.

The second trimaran was the trawler boat which could transform into the racer through the use of special practical effects rigs. Both of these boats were constructed in France by Jeanneau. Normally this type of vessel requires a year to construct but production needed two boats in five months!

Normally once the boat had been constructed, Jeammeau would deliver it on the deck of a freighter, requiring a delivery time of around a month. This delay was unacceptable and so the trimarans were dismantled into sections and taken by a 747 air freighter to the dock Hawaii. Upon arrival, a further month was required to reassemble the boat and get them prepared for filming.

sets recreating the inside of the tanker were built using forced perspective in a huge 1000ft long warehouse which had an adjoining 2000ft field. In this field, they built the set of the oil tankers deck, again constructed using forced perspective. Using the forced perspective trick, the 500ft long set could be constructed to give the impression that it was really twice as long.

There’s more to a film than just it’s sets and filming locations. Over two thousand costumes had to be created with many of the lead actors costumes being replicated many times over due to wear and tear.

This is not an uncommon practice for film production, but due to the unique look of the people and the world they inhabit, it did create some headaches. One costume was created with so many fish scales the wardrobe department had to search the entire island of Hawaii looking for anyone who could supply in the huge quantity required.

Makeup had to use waterproof cosmetics, especially on the stunt players. As everyone had a sun burnt look, a three-sided tanning booth was setup. The extras numbering in their hundreds, with ages ranging from six to sixty-five, passed through the booth like a production line to receive their spray tan. The extras then moved onto costume before finally having their hair fixed and becoming ready for the day.

In some scenes, extras were actually painted plywood cutouts to help enhance the number of extras on the set. This can easily be seen in one particular shot on board the Deez super tanker.

Filming on the water is not only a difficult and time-consuming process but also very dangerous. It’s been reported that Jeanne Tripplehorn and Tina Majorino nearly drowned on their first day of filming.

Waterworld’s star Kevin Costner reported having a near-death experience when filming a scene in which the mariner ties himself to his catamaran to survive a storm. The pounding water caused him to black out and nearly drown.

Unbeknownst to most of the crew, Kevin Costner’s stunt double was riding his jet ski across 40 miles of open ocean between his home on Maui and the film’s set on the Big Island. When he didn’t show up for work one day, the production team phoned his wife, who informed them he had already left for work. The stunt double’s jet ski had run out of gas halfway through his “commute” and a storm had swept him farther out to sea. It took a helicopter most of the day to find him. The stunt doubles name was Laird Hamilton.

As well as the logistical problems of creating a film of this scale and on water, they also had to deal with the press who seemed intent on wanting the film to fail. Director Kevin Reynolds discusses the situation,

“It was huge, we were constantly fighting – people wanted to have bad press. That was more exciting to them than the good news. I guess the most egregious example of that that I recall was that the publicist told me that one day…we’d been out the day before and we were doing a shot where we sent two cameras up on a mast of the trimaran and we wanted to do a shot where they tilled down from the horizon down to the deck below. We’re out there, we’re anchored, we’re setting the shot up and a swell comes in, and I look over and the mast is sort of bending.

And I turned to the boatmaster and I said, “Bruno, is this safe?”. And he looks up the mast and he goes, “No”. So I said, “Okay, well, we have to get out as I can’t have two guys fall off from 40 feet up”. So, we had to break out of the set-up, and go back in a shoot something else and we lost another half-day.

Anyway, the next day the publicist is sitting in his office and he gets this call from some journalist in the States and he goes, “Okay. Don’t lie to me – I’ve had this confirmed from two different people. I want the facts, and I want to hear about the accident yesterday, we had two cameramen fall off the mast and were killed”.

And, he goes, “What are you talking about?”. And he goes, “Don’t lie to me, don’t cover this up, we know this has happened”. It didn’t happen! People were so hungry for bad news because it was much more exciting than…they just said it, and you know, it hurt us.”
Upon release, the press seemed to be disappointed that the film wasn’t the massive failure they were hoping it to be. Universal Studios told Kevin Reynolds that one critic came out of an early screening in New York and in a disappointed tone said,

“Well, it didn’t suck.”

It is true that during principle photography the slave colony set sank and had to be retrieved. However due to bad press, the rumour became much bigger and to this day when you mention the sinking set, most people assume it was the huge atoll.

During production, press nicknamed the film “Kevin’s Gate” and “Fishtar”, referring to 1980’s box office failures Heaven’s Gate and Ishtar. Heaven’s Gate failed so badly it led to the sale of United Artists Studio and has become synonymous with failure in Hollywood.

As well as the exaggerated set problems and other various production rumours, there were also difficulties with the script. In a risky move, the film was green lit and moved into production without a finalised script.

The final total is a reportedly thirty-six rewrites. One of the writers involved was Joss Whedon. Joss had worked on many scripts before becoming a director having being at the helm of both The Avengers and the sequel Avengers: Age Of Ultron. He described his experience on Waterworld as,

“Seven weeks of hell”
Everything came to a head just three weeks before the end of principle photography. Kevin Reynolds who was an old friend of Kevin Costner allegedly walked off set or was fired. There was no official statement on what happened.

When Reynolds left the production this event caused many changes to be made. Composer Mark Isham had already composed approximately two-thirds of the film’s score by the time Reynolds left and that event ultimately caused him to leave production. As Mark describes in this interview excerpt,

“Kevin Reynolds quit the film, which left me working for Kevin Costner, who listened to what I had written and wanted a completely different point of view. He basically made a completely different film — he re-cut the entire film, and in his meeting with me he expressed that he wanted a completely different approach to the score. And I said, “oh let me demonstrate that I can give that to you”, so I presented him with a demo of my approach to his approach, and he rejected that and fired me. What I find a lot in these big films, because the production schedules are so insane, that the directors have very little time to actually concentrate on the music.”
Rumours report that Costner took control of production. He directed the last few weeks of principle photography and edited the final cut of the film that was released in cinemas.

Reynolds discusses his surprise at discovering that one of the most famous scenes from what is known as the extended version, was left on the cutting room floor,

“…it would have differed from what you saw on the screen to some extent, and one of the things I’ve always been perplexed by in the version that was released, theatrically, although subsequently the longer version included it, and the reason that I did the film, was that at the very end of the picture, at the very end of the script, there’s a scene when they finally reach dry land and The Mariner’s sailing off and he leaves the two women behind, and in the script they’re standing up on this high point and they’re watching him sail away, and the little girl stumbles on something.
And they look down and clear the grass away and that’s this plaque. And it says, “Here, near this spot, 1953, Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary first set foot on the summit of Everest”. And that was in script and I was like, “Oh, of course! Wow, the highest point on the planet! That would have been dry land!”. And we got it! We shot that. And they left it out of the picture. And I’m like, “Whaaat?!”. It’s like the Statue of Liberty moment in Planet of the Apes. And I was like, “Why would you leave that out?”

Written by John Abbitt | Follow John on twitter @UKFilmNerd

If any the crew cares to share any of their experiences on it please comment.
Thanks for reading
If you want more deep dives visit
https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewstories/?ref=share