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

Umm....

[BigDork1001]

... 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.

Sigh, movies eh

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

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.