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."
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...
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?
-
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?
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.
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...)