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."

11 of 38 comments (clear)

  1. Umm.... by BigDork1001 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ... you think that the movie industry would learn their lesson. They bitch about low profits and declining audience attendance and then they release pure, total crap. No kidding sales are down. No one wants to see pure garbage like this.

    Find better directors, make better movies, get some original ideas and poof, better profits.

    --
    "Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
    1. Re:Umm.... by cgenman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      House of the dead had a 7 million dollar budget and grossed 11 million in domestic box office. Add in overseas numbers and DVD sales, and you have what the industry considers a real winner.

      What happens next is, of course, the problem. A: people watch the movie, are terrified by how bad it is and don't come back. B: With a success under his belt, Uwe Bowl is given 20 million dollars to make his next movie, with is also drek but doesn't have the charm of a low-budget film. C: Anybody who didn't see the first movie goes in to see the second movie, realizes how bad it is, and doesn't come back.

      In essence, you have hollywood investing in people who can sucker the largest audience into bad films.

      BTW, I just posted this to the IMDB forums, but might as well share here. This is the poster for the movie. This is a quick photoshop edit of the poster to make it look like the character from the game. The actress was more than capable of pulling off the role, but without competenet direction, cinematography, and costuming she didn't have a chance.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    2. Re:Umm.... by fireduck · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You are under the mistaken belief that Uwe Boll makes movies to make a profit. He doesn't. Apparently German tax laws are quite screwy and investors get to write off all of their expenses. Here's one site that explains the idea:
      When you disseminate all the boring legal business law surrounding it the bottom line is this - the German investors in a movie only pay tax on any RETURNS the movie makes, their investment is 100% deductible, so the minute the movie makes a profit, said investor has to start paying tax. Plus the investors can actually borrow money to put towards investment and write that off too.

      So, Boll doesn't make movies to make money. He makes them to lose money.
  2. 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
  3. Howard Tayler of Schlock Mercenary by ceejayoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Howard Tayler of Schlock Mercenary has a hillarious review.

    Best bit, IMO:

    I'm not trying to tear this movie a new anal orifice. I assure you, the film already has SEVERAL, and it defecates simultaneously through all of them. You don't want to get any of this on you.

  4. Sigh, movies eh by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I mean, I can understand some game movies. They are usually made about BIG games that had a lot of influence. I played bloodrayne 2. It is not in that class. Not by a longshot.

    Now I don't want to get all the bloodrayne fans at me but lets be honest here. It was a cheap action game surviving on sex and gore. Not that there is anything wrong with it but compare it to Tomb Raider, Dungeon & Dragons, Doom, Super Mario, Street Fighter it becomes clear that Bloodrayne does not belong in that list.

    So I don't know how you could ruin it. Hot girl, in skimpy customes slaughtering men and equally scantily glad females in gory ways with plenty of blood soaked skin. Throw in some stuff about vampires and you should be done. It does not have a strong intelligent lead, it does not have an extremely complex game history, it does not play on mars and have expensive CGI demons, it does not have simple fun gameplay that cannot translate to a script, it does not have a cast of two dozen players who have to be squeezed in.

    And yet the reviews all seem to conclude that even this game to movie can be ruined. No I haven't seen it. I am weak and am still recoverning from the last Star Wars Nasty.

    But I am thinking that we are all wrong. Uwe Boll is not the next Ed Woods. Ed Wood knew he was a hack and as far as I know all his movies were cheap to make. Uwe Boll must either be a millionaire or he actually does make enough on his movies to fund his next project. The only reason I can see someone invest in a movie produced/directed by a known failure is if it is for tax reasons.

    People who says movies and games are coming together are right. Uwe Boll is doing it. Sadly what we hoped would be a loving encounter under moonlight has turned into a rape scene.

    Oh well, at least this reinforces my believe that it is okay to pirate movies and steal actors money. People with no morals about appearing in movies like this deserve to starve to death.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  5. Winner of the Ed Wood Career Achievement Award by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Funny

    If he keeps this up somebody will make a movie of his life story.

  6. 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.

  7. This is the best movie I've ever seen. by Ekarderif · · Score: 2, Funny

    It has a vampire AND an explosion!