BloodRayne Hits Theatres

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."

Comments

Wild West?!?!

[BigDork1001]

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.

No, that doesn't work.

[KingSkippus]

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.)

Re:No, that doesn't work.

[Scarblac]

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.