Slashdot Mirror
Why Does Uwe Boll Keep Making Films?
Kotaku Editor Brian Crecente has an article in the Rocky Mountain news discussing the seemingly unending wave of bad movies based on videogames being created by director Uwe Boll. From the article: "Gas Powered isn't concerned about his previous failures because his other movies were 'so low-budget,' he added. 'I think BloodRayne was his first budget over $10 million. The Dungeon Siege budget is over $60 million, so we have high hopes for the film.' Vince Desi has equally high hopes for Boll's upcoming film based on his game, Postal. Desi - outspoken founder of Running with Scissors, creator of what is considered the most violent mainstream game in history - contends things will be different when Boll creates a movie based on his game."
Duh.
Don't get me wrong, I love Dungeon Siege, and just recently started the Expansion, so as to delay my buying of the Sequel until it hits the $20 rack (I'm on a young programmer's budget). But I feel like a Dungeon Siege movie would suck worse than Dungeons and Dragons did.
Someone make a (good) Shadowrun movie already!
Bury me in mashed potatoes.
Basically his career continues because he is a guaranteed money loser. It boggles the mind.
God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
"Gas Powered isn't concerned about his previous failures because his other movies were 'so low-budget"
Isn't this roughly akin to the guy that's been divorced six times blaming all his ex-wives for the problems? It seems to me there's one common factor between all of Boll's movies (besides the fact they suck), and that factor is Boll.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Seriously... someone needs to ask why?
If I could get investors to pay me million to make silly films, I'd do it. I'd even try to make the scripts decent.
I don't see Boll's streak turning around on this one, either. Surely Todd Bridges would have been a better fit for Postal: The Movie, no? Maybe Coleman will be playing a gay cowboy or suicide bomber, and Boll is angling for a Golden Globe.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
"If you throw enough shit against the wall, some of it's going to stick."
Infinium is getting a few $mill, why not Boll?
Trolling is a art,
The money guy's thinking, "Fuck, this guy's right! My kid is always in front of those things! We gotta put some $$$ in and the budget's below $100 million - WE CAN'T LOSE!"
Mix in some Hollywood coke and Voila! - A film is being made!
What's the mystery?
Anyone notice from the trailer that BloodRayne's general appearance aside, the movie and game have nothing in common?
-
Mortal Kombat
-
Street Fighter
-
Super Mario Bros.
-
Resident Evil
-
Tomb Raider
-
Final Fantasy
A very mediocre to bad offering right? Now have at the Boll movies:-
House of the Dead
-
Alone in the Dark
-
Bloodrayne
What differences are between these and the previous ones? That's right, they're far worse! See, Boll just made the prior video game movies look like classics! What a guy!It's a conspiracy to make gaming look evil. Typical arguments about artistic value and freedom of speech cannot be used when considering Boll's work; it's just wholesale artless destruction of perfectly good franchises.
I'm not sure what is appropriate in this situation. Do we run him out of town on a rail, or tar and feather him?
Ed Wood, Ewe Bolle . . . quincidence? Come on now, films this bad are actually quite entertaining to watch. Anybody who doesn't believe me really needs to see GLEN OR GLENDA. Its an absolute riot. I for one plan to bring a troupe of gaming buddies to see BloodRayne and laugh it up. Mystery science theatre didn't make it through ten seasons for nothing.
only one everything
The solution is not to give this idiot more money. It won't result in a better film. Waterworld cost $175 million to make and bombed, while American Beauty cost less than 15 million and won several Oscars.
He hates video game movies, and in an effort to keep good movies based on video games from being made he searches out all investors willing to put money into a video game based movie and then makes a horrible movie to perpetuate the myth that all video game movies will be bad.
Mr. T carries a postage stamp in his wallet at all times on the back is a list of all the fools he doesn't pity
You need to see the movie 'The Producers' and it will explain everything. Basically he can make more money with a flop than with a hit. Combine that with a loophole in the German tax code and he is rolling in the dough. The guy is probably having so much fun making movies, combine that with no financial incentive to make the movie do well, and you have a guy who will just continue to make bad movies.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Funny, this article came out right as I was watching the Silent Hill trailer and pondering if it was going to be the first good video game movie that actually held true to the video game.
The acting looks pretty terrible, but holy crap, actual recognizable settings, characters, and plot details. That's half of the reason I'd pay to see a video game movie -- to see it translated onto the big screen.
I went to the movie theater to go see a special mindight showing of "The Goonies" 2 weeks ago on the big screen, and as I entered with my gang of friends the girls takeing the tickets (super goth, super cool) were talking about blood rayne, the one said "Uwe Boll directed it, it sucks, I don't care what it's about" I started laughing so hard, she pointed at me and said "see, she agrees with me!"
Damn those Germans and their tax loop hole, thank God they fixed it.
"Just call me Girly Blank"
So the dozens of indie movie directors who produce some fine work on budgets that cant hit even a single million. Not one of them was considered... because?*
While the director Boll who has produced a never ending stream of diarrhea, and Blood Rayne, the film they mention as giving him a much bigger budget hasnt broken this trend, is making the film... Why?
Dont give me that 'hes been demonized' bullshit. Ive seen his films they are among the worst ive ever witnessed. Battlefield Earth is made to look average along side them. The critics may be too hard on him but the critics gave Predator a bad rating. The public still went, its still considered a classic action film. The same is not happening and hasnt happened with any of Boll's drivel.
Dont give me that 'He needs to be given a chance' bullshit. Hes already been given several and there are no signs that things are changing. My friends and I all gave him chances we have watched film after film by him. I even gave bloodrayne a chance knowing the slating it had already been given. This man is a walking cinematic disaster.
He had a crappy tax law to exploit before but even thats gone. There are no redeeming features for this director and the morons that have chosen him for their future projects need to come up with some better arguments than 'Well this time it might be different.' if they want there films to make it to more than a handful of cinema's.
*I am aware that there is a lot of crap in the indie film area but there are a few that really need the opportunities that Boll has taken and screwed up time and time again.
He has a hidden agenda with a certain US lawyer. Their goal is to ruin games by the means of making terrible movies based on them.
Maybe he just likes making movies, even if no one else can stand them.
How many romance novel authors pump out crap for years, wallowing in mediocrity. It pays the bills, and they might just be enjoying it anyway. Same hoes for tv shows that have jumped the shark as well.
Whoops, almost forgot: http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1401 398&sdm=web&qtw=640&qth=400
I'd like to comment, being a Chartered Tax Advisor in the UK - until recently we had similar rules.
First, it's not a "loophole". That suggests you're exploiting a flaw in the tax laws. It's actually a specifically targeted relief: the government explicitly says "Spend money on films, and we'll give you your tax relief up front". Because investing in a film is a capital transaction, you'd normally only get a deduction for the depreciation - but in this case the government allows you 100% in year one.
It's no more a "loophole" than going to a party to which you've been invited is "gatecrashing".
The trick is that you borrow money in order to put it into the film. You therefore get tax relief up front, without having to actually dip in to your savings. You don't actually save tax, you just save tax this year and pay a bit more later, so the benefit is in the cashflow and the time value of money (£100 now is worth more than £100 next year). Over millions of pounds of investment the value of the cashflow is quite high.
As far as the investor goes, that's it: job done. They don't care how well the film does: any profit goes to the studio, any loss is picked up by the insurance the investors take out specially.
That's what people object to: you save cash without taking a risk. Of course the fact that it pumps loads of funding into the film industry, which was the whole point of setting up the tax reliefs in the first place, seems to be forgotten.
The other myth is that the investors want the film to flop, as it means they get more losses. This is like someone cutting his head off to save money on haircuts. Think about it: to get a loss of £100 you need to spend £100 out of your pocket. This £100 loss saves you £30 in tax (at UK rates). So you spend £100 to get £30. That's as economically sound as buying groceries you don't want just to get the loyalty points.
So overall the point here is that investors want films they can invest in. The investors don't care whether they make money, but there are other interested parties that do want profits. No-one actively wants a loss.
Because idiots keep on giving him money!
QED
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Uwe Boll is a well known joke, especially based on the fact that the House of the Dead blew hard. Let's put it this way, the House of the Dead 3 game for Xbox had a preview of the movie that did more to dissuade you from seeing the film than it did to pump any interest. this webcomic at www.onezumi.com poked fun at what stupid levels he'd sink to if ANY videogame was up for movie treatment. (the little prince is shaking in fear somewhere....)
That is more or less true of all his game-movies. House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark had nothing to do with their source material either.
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2649
Good god that was a shitty movie...
A farmer takes up the sword and shield, gathers companions and heads off to defeat ultimate evil? What's NOT to like!?
This movie has SO MUCH POTENTIAL!
WATCH as our hero gets STUCK BEHIND A ROCK!
THRILL as the adventurers are forced to walk an extra mile BECAUSE THEY CAN'T CLIMB A ONE FOOT RISE!
SCHEME with our hero after he dismisses a much-loved friend because he just met someone with BETTER STATS!
GASP as the group spends tense hours REARRANGING THE MULE'S PACKS!
And as a special bonuses, preview audiences will get a mannequin that watches the movie for you while you GO DO SOMETHING ELSE! (DS1 pretty much played itself...)
I was talking to a friend of mine about the movie "Bloodrayne" before it came out. I told him that I was looking forward to it. My friend wasn't excited about the movie at all, since "Uwe" was involved. At the time I was unfamiliar with who Uwe was; so my friend enlightened me by naming every crappy movie it was my misfortune to have ever seen. I went to see Bloodrayne anyways; because I thought there was no way Ben Kingsley or Meat Loaf would get involved with a crappy movie. Boy, was I wrong! :(
Hollywood needs to quit wading in the shallow end of the creative talent pool.
"Put your message in a modem, and throw it into the cyber-sea." - Rush
In Australia in 1981 the govt introduced Division 10BA, allowing 150% of the investment in a movie to be written off as a tax deduction. Along with a few good movies (eg Mad Max and The Year of Living Dangerously, bringing Mel Gibson to stardom), this led to a lot of very bad movies, packaged by tax consultants, with the sole aim of getting a movie in the can to satisfy the tax requirements, regardless of any saleability. With no deductions available for promotion these would turn up, if at all, late night on TV years later. The abuses became so blatant that the deduction wa reduced in subsequent years, till in 1988 it was a relatively sane 100%.
Sorry Kroduk, I need a healer. I'm going to have to let you go.
KRODUK SMASH. Kroduk wish you leave crappy ranger Ulora in crypt.
Bury me in mashed potatoes.
To quote Wikipedia,
"The law allows investors in German-owned films to write off 100% of their investment as a tax deduction; it also allows them to invest borrowed money and write off any fees associated with the loan. The investor is then only required to pay taxes on the profits made by the movie; if the movie loses money, the investor gets a tax writeoff.
While Boll has received a lot of negative publicity regarding this funding method, he was actually one of the few directors to use the tax shelter as intended. His films were financed, produced, and directed by a German company, which was the initial intention behind the tax shelter: to provide incentive for German companies to invest in entertainment properties."
So don't expect the new legislation to change anything- "Boll's activities appear to be well within the legitimate usage of the tax shelter."
So here's the thing. He's not going away, but he still has no reason to even try to make money off any film he produces. He *wants* his films to *lose* money. Why, why, considering his questionable motivations and proven lack of directorial ability or profit-making ability, are companies still willing to trust him with these licenses? These people *can't* be that clueless, and I'm suspicious of their intention to actually produce any sort of watchable cinema. Seems more likely to me this is just more cynical cashing-in on the weird German legal situation.
One explenation could be taking a longshot. If you got money to burn you can afford to bet on an outsider. If it is the loss you expect then well who cares but if it wins you clean up.
This however only works in bets where an outsider can have a profit margin or 3000%. An Uwe Boll movie is never going to do it. Sure George Lucas recooped his own original investment back many many times but surely nobody believes that Uwe Boll is the next George Lucas? Anyway GL made good movies before Star Wars.
Other motive could be the fun of being in show business. Spend a million and get to hang out with the big stars. Possible but unlikely, anyway the stars ain't that big.
No that leaves either complete stupidity on the investors part or some kind of way they actually profit by having the movie tank.
Perhaps it is all a simple money laundering deal.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
OK... so thanks to boxoffice mojo we know the following:
House of the Dead
Production Budget: $12M
Marketing Budget: $10M
Gross: $13M
Alone in the Dark
Production Budget: $20M
Marketing Budget: unknown (probably approx. $10M)
Gross: $6.4M
Bloodrayne
Production Budget: $25M
Marketing Budget: $22M
Total Gross so far: $2.4M
That's right friends... the gross of Uwe Boll's films is inversely related to his budget.
Therefore, the reported $60M budget for Dungeon Siege means it will gross a total of 8 dollars and 50 cents as Boll is forced to purchase a ticket to his own premiere.
Peter Jackson screwed Hollywood by making better movies just by getting more money thrown at him. Now the studios are trying to find the next Peter Jackson and this guy's riding the wave.
How the hell does he keep getting these properties?
Granted, Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead were essentially games that have a small, hardcore fanbase. They're niche titles. The rest of us gamers more or less just latched on because "Hollywood screwed up another game-based movie! Argharghargh!" But with Bloodrayne and Dungeon Seige, we're starting to get into mainstream territory. And Metal Gear? Criminy!
Why Does Uwe Boll Keep Making Films? It's the same as asking Why Does Kevin Costner Keep Acting In Films? Good God, all we need now is for Kevin Costner to star in a Uwe Boll production. The condensed amount of vapidity and suckiness that would create would probably tear apart the universe...
and what he does is make bad movies
Yeah his movies suck, but if you erased him and his movies from history, you still have movies based on lousy derivative Stephen King novels, and so-called "horror" by John Carpenter and Clive Barker. Seriously, when I hear any of those three names are involved in a supposed horror/thriller/suspense movie I know what to expect: Derivative drivel.
I call dupe http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/30/ 1847216
keyboard not found! press any key to continue...
The only thing worse than a movie based on a video game is a video game based on a movie. If you've ever played Jaws or Friday the 13th on the NES, you should know this.
...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
Same reason George Lucas shat out Star Wars episode III. Even after episode I, enough people went to see episode II that III was inevitable.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I didn't realize I saw one if his movies until I began reading the article, and remembered how boring and predictable Alone in the Dark was, so I scanned the article. Sure enough, he made it. It wasn't low-budget bad. It was terrible plot-line bad. I started it expecting to see something half-way decent (Resident Evil has Spoiled me), but it was the worst movie I have ever seen. The best part was the spoken text at the beginning describing a key idea of the AitD world. If all his movies are this bad, he should be immediately refused by all publishing companies, banks should be ready to forclose on his property, and he better brace for impact.....
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
An hour on the phone with Boll can leave you thinking that perhaps you were wrong after all, perhaps his movies - even those that cast Tara Reid as an archaeologist or tell the story of zombies hanging out at a rave - aren't that bad, just misunderstood.
"He's very personable, very honest," Carle said. "He's quick to laugh, he's a fun guy to hang out with."
Schramm, whose company distributed BloodRayne, said he was so charmed by Boll that he ended up putting some of his own money into promoting the film.
"He is so serious about making sure his investors are taken care of, that his actors are taken care of . . . he's more interested in that than anything at all," he said.
All of this just sounds like Boll is nothing more than a regular conman than anything else, except he doesn't run after taking your money. He just happens to be unsuccessful at it, like he is at making movies.
I don't believe this is the whole thing though. I remember him rambling on about how he wanted in BloodRayne to tell her story of where she came from, and that's why it's nothing like the game. And very seriously wanting to continue telling her story through time...the next era being Western. He was dead serious. Also, there is an article telling of the adventures the original screenwriters for Alone in the Dark and their encounters with Uwe Boll. Damn funny, and shows how nuts the guy is! Read it here.
If anyone needs me, I'll be in the Angry Dome.
Doom == Resident Evil on Mars. Super Mario Brothers = well ... lets just not go there.
They're making a movie version of Postal? What's next, Carmageddon? Galaga? Doom? Oh wait...
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert