uwe boll:"my movies sucks cuz is the games fault"

[<RJMC>]

In response to several questions that essentially distilled to, "Why do you keep making bad movies?" Uwe offered several explanations.

First, Boll said that the stories in his films are lacking due to the fact that his source material isn't good to begin with, offering up House of the Dead as an example. He went on to say that Sega had approved the film's script, and that it ended up making $80 million worldwide, yet alone took about $7 million to make.

Boll also claimed that because his movies continue to make money, they are therefore a success. In the case of Bloodrayne, he said that the movie diverged from the game so drastically because it was intended to be a trilogy. As such, he wanted to fill in back story for the character with the first installment.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6177606.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0

"hi I am uwe boll and I ma rebel"

 

[Fliko]

Well, he's right in the fact that generally games don't script well into movies.
He's a smart man, he makes a lot of money for making badly written movies.

 

[Goose]

Well, he's right in the fact that generally games don't script well into movies.

Doom is a perfect depiction of this statement.

 

[knut]

So if these games don't have good stories to begin with, Uwe, then why do you keep on turning them into movies?! This is such a perfect example of trying to swindle out of the blame.

 

[Fliko]

So if these games don't have good stories to begin with, Uwe, then why do you keep on turning them into movies?! This is such a perfect example of trying to swindle out of the blame.

It's for the money!
He's got an audience stupid enough to try to even buy these movies, and he abuses the fact.
If you had a chance at easy money, wouldn't you take it?

 

[knut]

Yeah, I know, but it's the fact he tries to pussyfoot around admitting to how much of a money grabber he is by saying it's the games he took the material froms fault, not him just being a generally shit director.

If it was something I enjoyed then yes, I'd take it. Otherwise, no. I can't stand doing work for something I don't enjoy. My science and maths results for High School speak aloud for that one.

 

[Goose]

He honestly doesn't make that much. He probably pays more for the movies than he actually makes off of them.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

Nope he makes money through some german tax loophole where bad films will get him more money than good films.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Heh, and he's said before in other interviews that the only reason he uses games as source material is because of the in-built fanbase, ie - easy money.

Shameless, much?

 

[Jintor]

WHY DOESn'T GERMANY CLOSE THAT DAMN LOOPHOLE ALREADY?

 

[L3adCannon]

I would do the same exact thing, make money.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

WHY DOESn'T GERMANY CLOSE THAT DAMN LOOPHOLE ALREADY?

QFT. :frown:

I like how Gamespot calls this bufoon a "controversial" filmmaker. LOL!!! No, he just sucks. Pretty simple. Sucking does not mean you're controversial...the controversy is that you keep finding fools to distribute your unmitigated crap.

 

[Sulkdodds]

He's a swindler and fundamentally dishonest. But we knew that already. Even if he was serious (and knowing him he probably is semi) he'd just have revealed himself as a complete moron, if it weren't apparent before.

See, in 90% of cases, nobody cares about the game's storyline.

Some games have good, even brilliant plots, in which case the story is a central element. But for most games, the story is rubbish, an excuse, and the real key elements of the source material lie elsewhere.

Take the first Half-Life. Lab accident. Aliens invade. It's not groundbreaking stuff. The important thing is the manner in which that story is delivered. The elements which need to translate into a Half-Life film are: 1) that high-concept premise - an ordinary day at the lab goes completely wrong, 2) the sense of sheer chaos after the facility goes tits-up; the scripted sequences which give you the perfectly orchestrated destruction of an entire facility, the humans trapped in the middle of virtuoso battles 3) the desperate brutality of the action, 4) the immersiveness, the unflinching honest first-person perspective (which I would translate into an almost documentary verite cinematography.

Take the Doom movie. Who cares about the storyline? Look at how The Doom Comic, with its central psychopath, is the perfect Doom adaption, even though the actual game had no protagonist. It's got the frenetic and visceral action, the ridiculous hellbeasts, the sick sense of humour, and it's even got the self-consciously shallow mechanics down pat - find gun, kill monsters, find bigger gun, kill bigger monsters. Comic Doomguy just is what playing Doom is like. It's the attitude that matters!

Take Hitman - the plotlines are workaday, in terms of both the whole-game-arcs and the little mission-specific explanations. What's more important is the general moral murk of its universe, the ornate, baroque complexity of the set-pieces, the silent, impossible, invisible grace of the Hitman - he is death itself, completely unstoppable and completely without mercy (and sometimes he takes on absurd disguises). Who cares about all that clone bullshit?

The story is only important when it's an integral part of what makes the game good (as in Half-Life 2, Warcraft 3, Hostile Waters). The makers of Tomb Raider understood this, because even if it wasn't that brilliant a film, it 'got' the game spot-on.

UWE BOLL 4: ENTIRELY UNCONVINCING

Oh man, how much better would just a movie adaption of the Doom Comic have been?

 

[Darkside55]

I dunno, it's debatable whether I'd enjoy, "Who's a man and a half? Oh yeah, I'm a man and a half! Here comes the night train!" more than the Rock saying, "I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO DIE!" It's an unpopular opinion but I thought Doom was a really good game-to-film translation. I couldn't really ask for more there.

You know, though...I think I might watch Postal. Saw that clip, the one with the terrorists, and it was funny.

 

[Sparta]

I'd like to see a documentary on Uwe Boll as he makes his next film. It would be hilariously awesome. And i'm sure he'd punch out the director of the doco afterwards for making him look like a fool.