Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BloodRayne Hits Theatres

Posted by Zonk on from the with-a-dull-thud dept.

Gamespot reports on the release of yet another Uwe Boll film, one that was not pre-screened to film critics. You just know that means quality. From the article: "While Boll's work is often decried by gamers and critics alike, there are preliminary signs of improvement on the part of the oft-maligned director. According to the Internet Movie Database's Bottom 100 ranking system, BloodRayne is only the 42nd worst movie ever made as of press time. Boll's previous game-to-film efforts, Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead, rank as the 38th and 22nd worst movies ever, respectively."

4 of 38 comments (clear)

  1. Wild West?!?! by BigDork1001 · · Score: 3, Informative
    I did a little surfing real quick, curious in just how bad this movie might actually be. It's worse than I could have imagined. Boll is already talking about a sequel of this movie (which I'm sure is going to be a classic) that will be set in the Wild West.

    A little info here. Not sure how accurate the info is though.

    --
    "Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
  2. No, that doesn't work. by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Okay, let's say that a German investor invests $100 in the $10 million movie (I like simple numbers), and it makes $1 million back. The investor gets his $10 and claims a tax writeoff of $90. How much is that writeoff? Let's say it's a 30% tax rate, so he pays $27 less in taxes.

    So the investor's investment of $100 has earned the investor $10, plus a $27 tax break. He's still lost $63.

    Instead, let's say that Uwe actually did a good job, and the movie makes $200 million. Even if the investor is soaked with, say, a 70% tax rate, he has made $130 on his $100 investment, which is, I would think, infinitely preferable to losing $63.

    I'm always amused at how folks think that investors do things to deliberately lose money for a tax writeoff. Unless you're cooking your books, you will never get a larger credit than the loss you took, which means that making money is always a better choice than losing it. If someone invested in Uwe Boll's movie, it's because they hope it will, in the end, make money. (Or who knows? Maybe they're just a huge Uwe Boll fan, but having seen some of his movies, I think the other reason is much more likely.)

    1. Re:No, that doesn't work. by Scarblac · · Score: 4, Informative

      It works like this: say, someone has a business and makes $10 million profit. He has to pay like 40% tax on it, so he only gets $6 million.

      Except he doesn't - he immediately invests that $10 million into a film, so he doesn't have to pay tax over it (there's a law that promotes investments in films, and it means the investor doesn't have to pay tax on that $10M at all - he gets to deduce the whole investment from his income). The film loses money and only manages to bring in $8 million, which is owned by the investor. The film didn't make any profit, so no tax is paid.

      Investor owns $8 million instead of $6 million. Net profit to the investor: $2 million.

      Your mistake is in your very first paragraph; the investor doesn't have a $90 deduction, he has a $100 deduction since it was an investment in a domestic film. And he doesn't get $10 back on his $100 investment, but something that's usually over the $70 he'd have after the taxes in your example.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    2. Re:No, that doesn't work. by Sancho · · Score: 2, Informative

      The way the GP wrote it, you could invest $100 and not pay taxes on that money until the movie made you more than $100. So he'd actually pay $30 less. (That's all for my nitpicking)

      Whether such an investment is useful depends upon the tax code, particularly if there are tax brackets. Investing in a sure loser could drop you to just below your current bracket, which, in some cases, means you earn more post-tax income. Heck, if the GP is right, and your investment is 100% deductible until it makes money, then even if the film simply breaks even, you're paying less in taxes.

      To extend your example, an investor invests $100 in a $10mil movie. The movie makes $10mil, so the investor gets $100 back. That money is (apparently) not taxed--only film profits are--so this is effectively a shelter. $100 of the investor's income for that year is not counted as income for tax purposes, even though he broke even on the investment. Even small losses could mean a net gain.

      I question whether this is an accurate representation of the law, but it's possible. Someone else mentioned that they were trying to close that hole, so maybe there's some truth to it.