Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bloodrayne Officially Awful

Posted by Zonk on from the again-with-the-surprises dept.

Uwe Boll's latest attempt to kill the future of gaming movies is officially terrible, reports Next Generation. From the article: "Filmjerk: 'In his mind, [Boll] is Steven Spielberg; arranging danger and adventure on the screen with clarity and a roaring sense of excitement. However, the tragic reality is that Boll has all the artistic ability of the average 4th grade finger-painter.'" Update: 01/09 21:33 GMT by Z : 1up has a short and telling interview with Mr. Boll from this past weekend.

6 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. Dictionary Addition by Firewalker_Midnights · · Score: 5, Funny

    Boll: 1) v. To render unviewable "He really Boll'ed that film" 2) adj. In reference to a sight too horrible to look at "That image is just Boll!"

    --
    I Lost My Virginity While Waiting for BSD to Compile.
  2. Re:Wrong by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I beg to differ. Something is lost. No one will make a proper adaptation of a video game movie when a crappy one has already been made.

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  3. I can't understand! by Saiyine · · Score: 4, Funny


    How is that you think that this movie is so bad? It is at #37 place in this all time imdb chart!

    Uh? What do you mean with "bottom"?

    --
    Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
    1. Re:I can't understand! by Ben+Newman · · Score: 5, Informative

      You know, that theory still doesn't hold water for me. The way the German tax loophole worked (I say worked because it was recently closed) was this. The studios would sell a movie to a German holding company for, say 100 million, and then the holding company would lease the movie back to the studio for, say 90 million. Why would they be willing to lose 10 million on the deal? Because the money they put up is considered a capital investment under the old German tax law, and isn't taxable until it turns a profit, so instead of losing 40% of that money to taxes they only lose 10%. It's free money for both parties, but the thing to keep in mind is that it's completely removed from the actual box office receipts. It doesn't matter if the movie is a hit or tanks, the amounts are decided long before the movie is released, and no matter what happened the holding company always "loses" it's 10%, and the risk is still on the studios shoulders with just a little extra padding because of the loophole.

      So how does Boll exactly benefit from this? His movies are too low budget to benefit from this shell game, studios like doing this with big budget movies because it benefits from an economy of scale. Trying to make a $1 million off of a $10 million dollar movie doesn't work as well because too much of the profit margin gets eaten up with lawyer fees and the like. BloodRayne is his biggest budget film yet, and from what I can see it's right around $20 million which is not enough. German investors aren't going to directly invest in his films if they don't return at least 60% of their investment, and I don't think any of them have. I'm still voting on blackmail polaroids of various studio executives as the most likely explanation.

  4. David Hasselhoff by lupinstel · · Score: 5, Funny

    We gave the Germans David Hasselhoff, they gave us Uwe Boll.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
  5. ...and in other news by Androclese · · Score: 4, Funny

    A list of headlines that you could never have possibly guessed

    - iPods come in white

    - Sony to sell a device called "The Playstation"

    - Microsoft is a monopoly

    - IBM said to sell computers

    - SlashDot is read by people called "geeks"


    More obvious things at 11:00