Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Entertainment Games

Why Does Uwe Boll Keep Making Films? 116

Posted by Zonk from the wear-waders-this-could-get-stinky dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Does Uwe Boll Keep Making Films? More

Why Does Uwe Boll Keep Making Films?

Comments Filter:

  • Dungeon Siege (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kevin.fowler ( 915964 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @10:46AM (#14578903) Homepage
    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!

    • It's a truly original story, though! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tipa ( 881911 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @12:15PM (#14579960) Homepage
      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 actually liked Dungeons and Dragons a whole lot. The opening scene alone (with Protheon) is worth getting the DVD.

      Or are we talking about different movies ?

      • No, same movie ... you are just fscked in the head :)

        Seriously, the movie sucked. Yeah, there were some scenes that made me wince in pain less than others, but overall it blew. Hard.
        • The second Dungeons and Dragons movie (the one on Sci-Fi back in November, I think) was actually pretty damn good. The first one was bad, but it was mostly the fact that it had two comedians in it instead of decent actors.
          • Ah, I was unaware of a straight-to-tv variation. The first one was also bad due to the fact that the director was a newb. Total newb - first movie. Watch the special features on the dvd.
            • I had been expecting the first D&D movie to be FAR worse than it really was. When I said the Sci-Fi channel one was "pretty damn good", that means "at least twice as good as the first one", not "an academy award winning potential".

              They really should've cast someone, ANYONE, but Wayans in the first movie. Ugh.

              Rumor has it there's a sequel to the first one in development, not sure if it's a story line sequel, or if it'll just be another licensed D&D movie, but i doubt they'll post we

    • Re:Dungeon Siege (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ruhk ( 70494 )
      At risk of burning karma, I have to ask: wouldn't the source material have to be good before you could make a 'good' move based off of it?
      • Not really. A really crappy book or game could theoretically be turned into an awesome movie. I once bought an RPG that promised one of the deepest, most compelling plots available. Couldn't master the controls, and the graphics sucked. So maybe if someone took the plot and turned it into a book or a movie, it might have been cool.

  • German Tax Loophole (Score:5, Informative)

    by hambonewilkins ( 739531 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @10:46AM (#14578909)
    IIRC, I read an article (on slate?) that discussed Uwe's continuing career was the result of a German Tax loophole, and that companies looking to write off losses for the year would provide him funds for his various efforts.

    Basically his career continues because he is a guaranteed money loser. It boggles the mind.

  • What are they on? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by faloi ( 738831 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @10:48AM (#14578920)
    "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.

  • He's having fun? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @10:48AM (#14578930)
    And probably boning women on the level people here can't even imagine because he's a MOVIE DIRECTOR.

    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.

    • Yeah, the question isn't why he's still making movies, it's why people are still asking him to make movies after the financing loophole's been closed.
    • 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 think you just argued against your point. By making the scripts decent, wouldn't that make the movie almost watchable? And as a result, the movie would be better than what he makes? So, in essence, the point should be that he's really doing it for the money and not for "his art" because if he cared he'd attempt to make the movie a little better than when he started. Of course, maybe he'

  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @10:49AM (#14578933) Journal
    So far, only Gary Coleman has been cast for the movie, to play himself.

    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.

    • So far, only Gary Coleman has been cast for the movie, to play himself.

      >Maybe Coleman will be playing a gay cowboy or suicide bomber

      Which part of 'himself' don't you understand?
      • I was envisioning "himself" along the lines of Neil Patrick Harris playing "himself" in Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle.

        But, yeah -- I hit submit on the original comment and realized "Gee, some pedantic dweeb is going to use this to challenge my delicate, crystalline logic about Uwe Boll and Gary Coleman."

        • Oh, no worries. I shoulda included some sort of emoticon on there anyways (pending Cingular's approval, of course). Also, I suppose it's always possible that Gary Coleman really is a gay cowboy. A suicide bomber seems less likely, though...
    • I believe Gary Coleman had a small part in-game in Postal 2, and that he's doing this sort of thing again for the movie.
      • hehe...Gary Coleman, small part. It's a pun, get it?

      • Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Informative)

        by mahdi13 ( 660205 )

        I believe Gary Coleman had a small part in-game in Postal 2

        And what a great scene that was, you get his autograph and the police storm the mall to arrest Gary. So Gary gets all pissed off, pulls out an assault rifle and the fun begins!

        Gamers that have not played Postal 2 should really pick it up and give it whirl, just keep it away from the young children as it gets really weird quite often...unless you want to explain what a 'gimp suit' is to your kids :)

  • Simple (Score:2, Interesting)

    by grub ( 11606 )

    "If you throw enough shit against the wall, some of it's going to stick."

    Infinium is getting a few $mill, why not Boll? :)

  • Because he's getting financing. (Score:5, Funny)

    by IAAP ( 937607 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @10:50AM (#14578954)
    He goes to the finance guys and says, "Hey, this game sold x million copies! Just think how many tickets it'll sell! Luv ya babe!"

    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?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Duh! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ekarderif ( 941116 ) <benjamin@feng.gmail@com> on Friday January 27, 2006 @10:53AM (#14578990)
    Uwe Boll is making the current video game movie market better. I mean look at the pre-Boll movies (no specific order):
    • 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!
    • Rumor has it that two more Mortal Combat movies are in the works. What's even better is that these movies ingnore the second movie as if it never existed.

      When will they make a pacman movie starring Richard Gere?
    • Mortal Kombat -- original was okay, sequels sucked.
      Street Fighter -- SO bad
      Super Mario Bros. -- Bad, but not as bad as Boll's stuff.
      Resident Evil -- Excellent
      Tomb Raider -- Loved them
      Final Fantasy -- great

      Bolls movies have no redeeming qualities. It would have been nice if someone had made a movie based on Max Payne. Great storyline with more than just action.
    • Dont forget Wing Commander [imdb.com]. So bad I walked out and demanded a refund - the only movie that has ever moved me to do so.

      Here's a sample: the main spaceship is a sort of "aircraft carrier" that carries fighters. So far so good, only the scriptwriter apparently did his research by watching old WWII films. In one scene there is a fighter on the deck, damaged beyond repair, and the crew push it off so others can land. After they clear it off the deck the fighter falls over the side, like it would if it we

      • And what was up with the weird, green, kitty-cat aliens? They were some of the worst animatronic puppets I've ever seen.

        And why would a bunch of fighter pilots suddenly become GRUNTS??? When I was in the Marines, the pilots never went anywhere NEAR an actual close quarters battle... They bombed the crap out of the enemy from thousands of feet in the air, and LIKED IT THAT WAY.

        Sheesh is right!

        By the way, about the black chick who got pushed over the side, I didn't see why they didn't just drive the little tr

  • Boll is in it with Jack Thompson (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Beer Moon ( 894244 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @10:59AM (#14579054)
    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?

  • GLEN OR GLENDA (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rowan_u ( 859287 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @10:59AM (#14579055)
    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. [imdb.com] 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.
    • To be honest, there are worst b-movie directors out there.

      Uwe Boll is even worse than them because of his intense and blinding mediocrity. I love Ed Wood and MST3k-style badfilm, but Uwe fails at being an *entertaining* failure.

      It's like grading school papers, instead of laughing at horrible (but original) writing, this is the lazy student who clumsily plagiarizes without understanding any of the source material.

      The result is awkward, disjointed, and not even entertaining for its failings.
      • Watch 'Robot vs. Mummy' and then tell me that you still love MST3k. I haven't watched it since, and will never forgive them for that. Nor will I forgive the bastard that made me watch it.
        • Well, that was their second cable-broadcast episode ever. Some of the KTMA episodes were even worse like #5 where Trace and Josh didn't make it in and Joel was (sparsely) riffing by himself. However, you can't hold that against them when they made 10 years of mostly great (sometimes insanely great) shows afterwards.

          Or maybe I'm missing your point?

          • Indeed, making fun of first-season episodes isn't really fair. If you really want to talk about a bad episode of MST3K, try the one for Castle of Fu Manchu. That one was so brutal that they even made fun of how bad it was during all of the host segments.

            Rob
    • I agree, bad films are very entertaining. I dont know if I would consider Ewe Bolle on the same level as Ed Wood though. Ewe Bolle movies are so bad that they are funny, but Ed Wood movies are so bad that while still funny, they become art. 'Glen or Glenda' is good (or rather so bad it is good) but Plan 9 from Outer Space (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052077/ [imdb.com])is his best (worst) movie IMHO.
    • It was after reading this sort of comparison that I decided to rent House of the Dead. Don't believe it. The film is soul-less.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • It has some of the same designers working on the film as well, even the sound designer/composer's on the production team!

      I'm pretty psyched about it, even if it's poor acting-wise, the scenery and atmosphere seems "alive" enough from what I've seen so far.
    • Amusingly enough, Silent Hill was filmed in Hamilton, Ontario, the same location where Resident Evil 2 was filmed.
  • 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.

  • Inexcusable trash (Score:2, Insightful)

    by xtieburn ( 906792 )
    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

  • Hidden agenda (Score:4, Funny)

    by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @11:16AM (#14579231) Homepage
    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.

  • Explanation of the tax position (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27, 2006 @11:20AM (#14579283)
    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.
    • FACT: All Uwe Bolls movies made a HUGE loss not even coming close to recouping investment. So why do investors keep trying?

      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

    • 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.

      Maybe its because they are actually only spending £20 and claiming it to be a £100 and get the £30 back.

      Either way there has got to be some fancy book cooking involved.
    • Arguing about whether it is a "loophole" or not is a semantic argument. You aren't arguing about the issue; you are arguing about a dictionary entry.

      Get back to the issues at hand, please.

      Many people, including myself, use "loophole" to describe any obscure rule whereby someone can gain an unfair advantage. Intentionally profiteering from making bad films via a tax rule that 99% of people don't know about qualifies as a "loophole" in my, and many other peoples' books.

      And remember: "Unix" isn't in M


  • Because idiots keep on giving him money!

    QED

  • 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 [onezumi.com] 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....)
  • 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! :(
  • It was an interesting article on why he does things the way he has been, but it doesn't answer the Big Question:

    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.

  • 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...
  • 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.
    • And if you've ever played Chronicles of Riddick (the Xbox game), Spiderman 2, or King Kong, you'd realize this rule used to hold true but no longer necessarily does. Chronicles of Riddick the game was about 20 times BETTER than the movie, actually, because it wasn't full of that intensely strange costume design.
    • What about a game (Street Fighter: Real Battle on Film) based upon a movie (Street Fighter) based upon a video game ( Street Fighter 2 )?
    • >The only thing worse than a movie based on a video game is a video game based on a movie.

      Oddly enough, though, a lot of the Star Wars games are quite good.. I say oddly because I personally never really thought Star Wars was all that great (and don't get started on bashing episodes 1-3; I meant the originals, too).
  • 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,

  • 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

  • I don't believe this is the whole thing though. [g4tv.com] 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 her [somethingawful.com]
  • They're making a movie version of Postal? What's next, Carmageddon? Galaga? Doom? Oh wait...

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close