Slashdot Mirror
Uwe Boll Smash!
Eurogamer has an interview with opportunistic license-killer Uwe Boll. In the interview, which is dominated by Boll's anger with game fans, he states that he's unlikely to see new game licenses for movies after he butchers Far Cry. From the interview: "In fact, it's not just confusing Boll - it's putting him off the whole thing all together. 'I won't say that I won't acquire another videogame licence in the future. But I'm not so eager to do it any more, to be honest. After Far Cry, maybe I'll go away from videogame-based movies. And everybody can be really happy about it.'"
We have been telling him this since he made his first movie.
Perhaps he could start making reality TV shows , The scripts would be better and the acting more convincing .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think Uwe Boll really showed his love today.
Oh, and the whole "I'm getting out of video game movies" thing is pretty cool, too.
What a nice after-Valentine's gift.
Boll says the point is that his movies get better as his career progresses - Dungeon Siege is "ten times better" than BloodRayne, which is ten times better than House of the Dead, and so on.
So, does that make each release 1 grade higher in the Richter scale or something?
The amazing thing about Boll is that he doesn't realize that his movies would still suck even if they weren't based on videogames. It's not the subject matter that kills them, it's his directing abilities.
This guy's the limit!
Might this be because he isn't bothering acquiring any new licenses since the German tax loophole is finally closed? (I believe that he had FarCry before the tax laws were changed)
Scene: CmdrTaco is sitting at his desk looking utterly depressed.
... ... it's too easy for them.
Enter: Zonk.
Zonk: Hey there, sport, why do you look so down?
*CmdrTaco remains silent*
Zonk: Still depressed about how your Valentine's date actually turned out to be a 38 year old Slashdot fan who still lives with his mom?
CmdrTaco: [dejectedly] Yeah
Zonk: Well, by golly, I know what'll cheer you up! Another Uwe Boll story on Slashdot!
CmdrTaco: Nah, the readers are tired of making fun of the same damned guy over and over
Zonk: Oh, come on! Then we'll put it in sectional content!
*Zonk finds an Uwe Boll interview that he hasn't posted before and runs the story*
Zonk: There! That should cheer you up! Just sit back and laugh as the replies roll in.
My work here is dung.
..there's at least one person in the world who thinks he makes awesome movies: Uwe Boll
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
"Before they judge, they should see the film, that's the first thing. Second, they should really try to compare it fairly, and not based on my name.
Ok, I saw Alone In The Dark. It was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Happy now?
I already know i'm going to hell, now i'm just trying to get cable down there.
"Let's be realistic, what is House of the Dead? House of the Dead is a brainless shooter, where you shoot zombies into pieces. So what are you expecting from the movie, Schindler's List?"
He might be saying something insightful about disposal culture here. Maybe Uwe Boll is secretly a postmodern hero, this generation's Andy Warhol.
Of course, I never cared for Warhol much either.
He also says his movies are successful "Not because I make the best movies on earth, but I make movies for a minimal amount of budget compared to what major companies are spending.
This is pretty brilliant, and I'd hope other directors would start catching on.
Primer was made on only $6,000. If it didn't use film stock, if we encouraged digital production, it would've been less. Hopefully some directors with a little more interest in story will learn from Uwe just how easy it is to make films if you do so with a little mind for economy. If we economize film production, we'll democratize it, and in the end, get better films. Eventually. Unfortunately, along the way, we'll also get more Uwe Bolls - bad storytellers that the market can't seem to squash.
My BS detector goes off whenever there are excuses for everything, and the excuses are always someone else's fault. "People don't understand my movies, game studios didn't back me up, game journalists slant everything, the haters are out to get me...." It reminds me of a saying: Just because no one understands you, it doesn't mean you're a genius.
While denying it at the same time. I'm a little tired of only getting questions from journalists like, 'Your movies were so badly received, blah blah blah.' I know tons of movies that were way worse than Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead." He doesn't actually say it's good. He just says "There sure are a lot of worse movies." Someone should tell him that being the best of the losers isn't anything to take pride in.
Let me get this straight.
We develop a fondness for a particular game. He gets the license then creates a movie that can only be described as a poorly-done "B" movie (yes, there are plenty of well-done "B" movies). Fans are greatly disappointed in what he did to the movie and by association the game. The fans voice their displeasure. Then he gets angry that fans are disappointed? What's wrong with this picture?!!!
What does he expect fans to do? Just say, "Oh, thank you! Thank you for converting a game to a movie that I was hoping more than anything to end right after the beginning credits started! We are so grateful!"
His views of the modern gamer and modern movie-goer is clearly so low as to be insulting. I've seen productions from amateur (read: still-in-film-school) movie makers that were wonderfully written with really impressive cinematogrphy and editing; I've also been on the crew of indepenent films that were fun to film and fun to watch because the director had a solid vision of what the scripts were trying to project. (No, not porn. Seriously!) If film students and amateur film makers can make entertaining movies on showstring budgets, there really is not much of an excuse for Boll (or any director) who has lots of funding behind him not to create a movie that's at least watchable.
Unfortunately, there seems to be this distorted view within a lot of directorial circles that (HIGH PROFILE STORY or STORY WITH STRONG FAN BASE) + ACKNOWLEDGED STARS = GUARANTEED SUCCESS. I present as proof of this misguided belief Gigli, Bloodrayne, and Battlefield: Earth to name a few.
Hey, Boll, don't let the gamepad hit you in the ass on the way out.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
"I get bashed as the worldwide enemy number one in film-making by people who are working at Starbucks and who also want to make movies. It's ridiculous - it's completely idiotic because they're hitting on a guy who actually made it happen, but I started my career in the same position as anybody else," Boll argues.
Actually, we are bashing you because "you make it happen". Praise the lord that you are giving up on video game franchises.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Has anyone else seen the trailer for Dungeon Seige? Words cannot convey the levels of suckage this movie appears to achieve. It's got zombie NINJAS!
The real problem is that he doesn't even know why people hate him - which leads me to assume that he doesn't even read the criticisms and reviews of his movies. Well, I hope Uwe Boll reads this one, and it might clear it up for him. The problem is that he's obviously not a gamer. He doesn't seem to care about the game properties that he makes movies for, and he alienates the fans of those games, and all gamers in general. Gamers despise him because he seems to be hanging on to the coat tails of game licenses to make a quick buck and run - and he keeps doing it.
House of the Dead the game was about a HOUSE infested with zombies, and some detective type people going in and shooting zombies - not a great or original premise, but that's the game. That's what he should have worked around to create a better plot. House of the Dead the movie, though, was about a bunch of college kids who go to a rave on an island with zombies. How is that anything like the slim plot that was already in the game?
Alone in the Dark the game had a similar plot to House of the Dead in that there's a HOUSE and there's zombies - except this one had more potential to make a decent horror film, as even the name implies. But, Uwe Boll again scrapped everything that made the game what it was - except for zombies and monsters, and he made it into more of an action film.
In the interview, Uwe Boll complains that games aren't known for their stories anyway. Maybe he should play them once in awhile instead of hunting for the cheapest license he could sink his fangs into. Maybe get a license for Grim Fandango, or Beyond Good and Evil, or Pandora Directive, or Gabriel Knight instead of some mindless shooter, and he'll have more material to work off of. However, as his history has shown to not follow the source material at all (however slim that material may be), I wouldn't trust him with those licenses either.
If someone took Harry Potter and turned it into a teen comedy road picture taking place in the US, people would be pissed. So Boll shouldn't be surprised that fans are pissed that he doesn't stay true to his source material.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
The source material and its "shallowness" are irrelevant. There are writers who could take a very basic story and with enough creativity to create an entire arc that is still relevant to the core story.
There is a lot that could have done with, for example, Bloodrayne. The background on her character - half-human, half-vampire - is great fodder for some interesting character development. Note that in most sci-fi shows, characters of mixed races are the ones that often get the most intersting character arcs. Look at Spock, Troi, and Seven of Nine in the "Star Trek" series and how they often ran into problems with being a mixed race, whether that's from biological issues, prejudice, or something else. (Okay, Seven wasn't quite a mixed race, but you get the idea.) Rayne could have had a very interesting character arc in the hands of a good writer, which Bloodrayne: The Movie did not have.
Her vengeance against those who murdered her mother certainly could have been expanded to involve some interesting twists and turns, particularly with the Nazi-era background of the original Bloodrayne. Exactly how did her mother die? Murder? Consequence of being raped by a vampire? How did Rayne find out who was responsible? Was her mother's murder really what triggered her rage against fellow dhampirs or is there some long-forgotten memory that is subconsciously driving her? Add a bit of "Indiana Jones"-style action and the Bloodrayne movie could have been very well done.
Instead, we get a piece of schlock that was nothing more than the Bloodrayne name and blades with some blood and guts. Oh, and a very-easy-on-the-eyes babe. Hey, is that Ben Kingsley? That Ghandi guy? Well, that certainly gives the movie credibility! (Not.) It was poorly written, poorly directed, and poorly thought out.
The fact that its source was a video game cannot be more irrelevant.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
It had to be said.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Wait, I haven't seen House of the Dead, but is he saying that it was ten times worse than Blood Rayne!? That seems pretty implausible. I mean, it seems like "I'd rather gauge my eyes out with dirty shrimp forks than see this movie again" would be fairly close to the bottom of the scale.
At least Doom made an EFFORT to replicate the game on film. Yes, they changed the thing about hell to something about zombies. Yes, they forgot to put in a Cyberdemon.
But it still took place on Phobos, still got in shots of all the required guns and enemies STRAIGHT FROM THE GAME, and even had an ENTIRE SUBPLOT revolve around Sarge's search for the BFG-9000. There were plenty of in-jokes for fans, like Karl Urban's character being named John, a dead scientist named Carmack, and Rock's utterance of the three words we were all waiting to hear once he found the BFG - the computer monitor might call it the Bio Force Gun, but we at least got to HEAR it get called the Big Fucking Gun.
On top of that, I remember reading in an interview with someone from ID that the producers actually used art design from Doom 3 as a basis for the set design. You know what? It shows. The overhead lighting above doors, the fonts, everything seems ripped out of the game and come to life on screen - which is the WAY IT SHOULD BE.
Was Doom high art? No. But it was awesome, awesome Nerd Porn, which is exactly what a good video game movie SHOULD be, and my friends and I had a great time sitting in the theater picking out all the references to the game we know and love. Boll has yet to accomplish this.
Read Uwe Boll: Money For Nothing for a possible reason his movies are so bad. Short version: video game licenses are cheap, and German tax laws make bad movies a write-off.
So in his estimates, that means about 500 to 1000 people have seen his movies and less than fifty knew him before House of the Dead.
Based on the paltry box office results from his recent movies, I'd say that sounds about right.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
The problem is that none of the movie makers seem capable of respecting the source material. Doom is of course the worst offender. Doom the game had three elements and the movie had none of them. It has already been discussed enough but it is true for EVERY game movie.
It reminds me of the horror stories that happen when americans get their paws on british comedy. Hitchhikers guide anyone? Read up on Terry Pratchet with both his discworld series and Good Omens. Red Dwarf? The american pilot can be found if you got a strong stomach. It is not new either. Check the old british comedy Porridge. Oh and the americans ain't the only one to blame. There was a dutch version of it too. Truly horrible.
Nor is it just the americans doing it. There are foreign 'remakes' of "Who's the boss" that should have their producers shot for wasting good film.
Why does it happen? I don't know. What exactly makes you pick a very popular property and then take out those elements that make it what it is? Red Dwarf is 4 male losers in space. So why did the americans make one female? Discworld/Omen has Death. So why do you tell the writers to loose the skeleton?
Frankly I am not suprised that movie makers don't get games because they haven't been doing to well with anything else either. I am pretty sure that if a movie maker would get his hands on the game chess we would loose the black and white sides and instead it would be a small multi-colored rebel army vs zombies from mars because that is what the focus group told them sells.
Frankly Uwe Boll has a point, he may be bad but there a lot worse out there. Popular property == butchery in the hand of a filmmaker.
Perhaps he is right about game studios not doing enough. Would a modern Marvel allow Spiderman to be butchered like this? Probably not but none of the game studios seem upset with Uwe Boll. Rather then interviewing him interview the person reponsible for selling the license and ask them why they did not protect their title.
We had some interviews with the people from Doom but the only thing I got out of it was that they were happy to take the cash. They didn't seem to care one shit about what the movie would be like.
Perhaps it is a vicious downward spiral. Game movies are 'flops' so if you can sell the license you take whatever you can get rather then risk loosing essentially free income. BEcause the game studios don't bother to protect their property (how many property owners do? I think Pratchett and the Red Dwarf guys are among the exceptions for having turned down movie makers) then the movie makers feels compelled to 'change' the property to better fit focus groups.
If you want to understand why game movies suck study Doom. It is the simplest property requiring no quality actors to tell a complex backstory. You only have to put a guy in marine uniform on mars slaughtering demons. That is it. When you figured out why they could not do that then you have figured out why game movies suck.
Movie makers just can't seem to learn that when you take a popular property you do not get a 'free' audience. You get a whole lot of 'free' critics who will be checking up on every factoid. When George Lucas made Star Wars A New Hope he was free. Yet if you make a "star wars' game you do not get a free audience unless you manage to get everything right that makes star wars star wars. Say you made an MMORPG and suddenly decided that Jedi are not the asskickers of the universe but can be owned by a medic. Do you think that would still get you the millions of star wars fans as free customers? Ask SOE.
Same is true the other way around. You can use a popular property in a different media but you got to respect the source.
Back to Doom the feeling I get is that the makers should just have made a non doom movie. Everything said in every interview gave me the impression they didn't want to make Doom the Movie but that just someone thought using its name would help sell it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.