Let Uwe Boll Make a Movie Based on Your Game
1) Uwe Boll thinks his movies aren't trash, and I agree – He doesn't say that they are masterpieces, but in IGN's Dinner with Uwe, he says they aren't trash, and complains how people on the internet aren't fair to him and the IGN suck ups agree. Now, I think Uwe Boll is right in this regard (although IGN seems really spineless to side with that monster). Uwe Boll films aren't trash. They may be horribly awful steaming piles of crap, but I've had to pay to see them, so it is dissimilar in that regard to trash because people throw out trash, so you can get it for free if you go dumpster diving. It's probably more similar to a toilet you have to pay to use. You really have to go, and you see the last person using it walk out. That person was Uwe Boll, and he managed to get every last drop of poop on the toilet seat and none in the actual toilet. You spent your last euro (since as far as I know, they only have pay toilets in Europe. Here in America, we have freedom – freedom from entrepreneurs exploiting our natural bodily functions), and you really have to go, so you sit down on Uwe's foul toilet seat. I think that's a much better analogy than trash. Maybe Uwe will complain about my criticalness of his work in his next interview because he seems to like whining a lot.
2) Every movie based on a video game license sucks – They all suck including Uwe Boll's. “Super Mario Bros”? “Street Fighter”? I think Raul Julia died of embarrassment when he saw his performance in that film. I've seen them all except the straight to video “Double Dragon” (which despite having Alyssa Milano in it, has to suck since “straight to video” is always synonymous with crap). The best movie to video game translation was “Mortal Kombat”, which is hardly a great film. That's pretty sad. If someone is going to take a giant dump on your carefully developed IP, why shouldn't it be Uwe?
I don't know if you saw Doom (or read the novelization), but there was very little they could have done to screw Doom up. All they had to do was non-stop demon killing, or just have the Rock do his eyebrow thing for an hour and a half, and they'd have a great movie. Instead, there was all this psuedo-science trying to find out the cause of the stupid virus, and the brother and sister with troubled pasts reuniting under less than ideal circumstances. Here's a much better screenplay:
Scene 1 – Interior shot Mars base
Bystander: Oh no! The gateway to Hell has been opened!
Bystander gets mauled by a zombie
The Rock: It's time to kick some ass.
The Rock picks up a BFG and ad libs while slaying demons. The demons also kill a lot of innocent bystanders in very gory ways.
Fin
It's not a question of money. I'd sell that to Hollywood for $5. I think it's gross incompetence on the part of Uwe Boll and Hollywood in general on what gamers are looking for in a video game movie. We're looking for something VERY SIMILAR to the game. We don't want radical changes to the story. When they bought the license for Doom, there was demons on Mars. What did they have in Doom the movie? Well, it wasn't demons! They bought the Doom license so they could do a horrible first person segment. Let's take Bloodrayne for example. I like the story. It was cheesy and funny. Hot vampire woman fighting Nazis. Pretty straightforward, right? Somehow in Uwe Boll's twisted mind, it became a period drama set in the 1700s, and was mind blowingly awful. Here's some notes for you Uwe: “YOU SHOULD HAVE MADE BLOODRAYNE ABOUT HER FIGHTING NAZIS!” Maybe Uwe should spend his time listening to fans criticism rather than giving long and boring interviews whining about how nobody likes him and how we are all jealous of his success. Yep, you hit the nail on the head. We say your movies are bad not because they are bad because we envy you. We all desire in the bottom of our heart to be a director of horrible video game adaptations. I can't wait for Uwe Boll's Dungeon Siege because I'm sure it'll be the story of three pirates (one blind, one deaf and one mute) transported to a dungeon in the future, and they are the Earth's only hope for overthrowing the corrupt dictatorship. It seems like they just take the title of the game and guess what the game might be about rather than actually playing it and working from that.
3) He's the only one who will buy your license – If someone buys your license, you get money regardless of how terrible the movie is. Uwe says all of his movies have made a profit (mostly because they cost around $20 million to make with $15 million advertising). So, you get free money for doing nothing! Besides, a few top licenses (Halo, Dead or Alive, and Silent Hill) no one is making movies based on games since they are beginning to realize that they all suck.
4) You get a lot of free publicity – Gamers everywhere will be talking out your game. Sure, they won't be saying good things, but there's no such thing as bad publicity, right? Maybe people will wonder if your game is truly as wretched as the Uwe Boll pile crap masquerading as a film. I bought “Alone in the Dark” to see if it was quite possibly as horrible as the film. It wasn't very good, but it was better than the film, which isn't saying much.
5) You'll gain a newfound appreciation for your voice actors – Let's face it. Most video game voice acting isn't all that great. Let's take for example the first lines in House of the Dead 2 “We're meeting G over there” in deadpan monotone. Or Goldman's oscillations in pitch on “We've got to protect the life cycle!” Both of those horrendous line readings are better than the guy that wears the yellow raincoat in “House of the Dead” the movie. Tara Reid as a bright archaeologist in “Alone in the Dark” was the worst casting since Denise Richards as a Nuclear Scientist in “The World is Not Enough”.
6) You'll gain a newfound appreciation for your writer – Again, “House of the Dead” has a horrible story. “Bloodrayne” is campy cheesy fun, but definitely not going to win any awards. These writers are at least better than the ones that write Uwe Boll screenplays. I'm not sure where he can find people that are that bad at writing, but my guess is he gets a bunch of 3 year olds drunk and sits them in front of a word processor.
So there you have it! Game developers of the world, get on your phone and call up Uwe today! What do you have to lose other than your dignity and self-respect?
posted by The BIG G at 7:19 PM
4 Comments:
I think it's kind of cool what you're doing in this blog, roleplaying the character of 'asshole'. I don't think most of your readership gets it though.
Maybe you could write some more anti-nintendo articles?
Correction: Uwe TOILETBoll should NOT be allowed near another game license EVER again, and here is why (to discredit any and all of your earlier points; I'm gonna have fun with this one):
1) It's not that Uwe T-Boll doesn't think his films are trash (and he doesn't), it's that he ACTUALLY insists that he's a good director even after 3 straight flops (yes, that's right, *3*! Now, don't you think we've given him enough chances by now, not to mention he's blown each one WAY out of the water?), and to top it off, he has the audacity to bash movie goers and critics who disagree (which is MANY people, to say the least), making him even more of an asshole and hated. Of course, you can deny this all you want (and I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL if you do), but I've read NUMEROUS interviews where he's been DIRECTLY quoted as slamming audiences and critics of his movies (ie: the ever-notorious "dumb audiences" excuse for why AitD bombed; OH COME ON, UWE! It's the only audience you've got, the only audience there IS! If it wasn't for us, you wouldn't even be able to sic us with your "marvelous" work to begin with. Take that into your pipe and smoke it, old man!) I swear, if people send you hatemail for sucking up to the Ed Wood-wannabe like this (a man who loathes cinema and film-making altogether; I mean, let's just face it: he doesn't care about the quality of his films, he's just out there to exploit German tax laws and make the next quick buck off of several failed game adaptions. Keyword: GAME adaptions, which'll leave many people with an assload of bad taste in their mouths by the end of it all), I must say that I'll have no sympathy for you whatsoever. Infact, you'll probably deserve it. The more opportunities he's given to ruin potent game licenses, the more we'll have to put up with the ToiletBoll's nonsense NOT ONLY during pre and current production, but POST produc... actually, make that POST RELEASE DATE, on the internet as well.
2) So what? Just because all (well, most) of the past game-based adaptions have sucked doesn't mean they ALL have to suck, which they don't. For example, Silent Hill just came out last weekend and, for what it is (a, you said it, GAME-BASED ADAPTION, DUH!), it's been receiving very good press. I'd love to see Uwe Boll get the same kind of praise for his movies, fat chance of that happening, though. But if you want to get back on the subject of game-based adaptions themselves, of course no one was expecting Oscar-material out of them. Alls we expected was something that at least followed the game. As dumb as HotD's story is, there actually was a plot behind it, so by all means, FOLLOW IT OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES! Video games are the most popular thing right now, and have been that way for a long time, and by adapting games into films, you're choosing to open yourself to any and all criticism, so who's to say that you can honestly BLAME all these disgruntled game fans on the net for kicking Boll's easily-bruised ego like this? As for your argument of "we all have the deep desire in our hearts to be the directors of horrible game adaptions", well, I'm here to tell you right now: I would rather be a poster on the net (one of the many "game nerds", in his eyes, who complains about his movies) than a director who's hated by many people for destroying good things. By God, HAVE SOME SYMPATHY for large markets, you'll only destroy them by making the kinds of crapsterpieces Uwe TOILET Boll does.
3) Well FYI I would rather have there be no House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, or BloodRayne movie AT ALL than ones being made by some German hack who, for all we know, DELIBERATELY screws up when making his films just so he can make dough off of them through flawed German tax shelters (hence "all of his films making money"; EVERYBODY ELSE KNOWS THAT *ALL* OF HIS MOVIES HAVE BOMBED AND THIS IS THE *ONLY* REASON HIS MOVIES HAVE MADE ANY PROFIT!! THE FACT THAT YOU LISTENED TO BOLL'S BULLSHIT WHEN POSTING THIS BLOG JUST PROVES YOUR IGNORANCE! THIS IS THE SAME IDIOT/JERK/LYING S.O.B. THAT *SWORE* HE WOULDN'T USE GAME FOOTAGE IN HOUSE OF THE DEAD, YET YOU CHOSE TO BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS! NOW YOU'VE JUST PROVEN WHY YOUR BLOG IS NOT ONLY WORTHLESS, BUT IT MEANS NOTHING AS WELL!), and makes worse movies out of them than Battlefield Earth and Rollerball 2002 (two of the shittiest mainstream movies ever made in recent memory; ANYONE who so as much as even BOTHERED to watch those god awful films would tell you the same, but they're not as bad as Boll's movies. Such a shame, I didn't even think it was HUMANLY POSSIBLE to do worse... turns out I was wrong), and I'm sure I'm not alone on that front. Like these games had film-fit stories to begin with, hence anyone "wanting" to adapt them into films (quite ironic because several new faces are hopping to the game-adaptions scene, including Christophe Gans [Silent Hill] and Corey Yuen [Dead or Alive]. I guess we can flush this turd of an argument down the drain now, with THAT in mind). I could hardly imagine there being a movie about a laboratory-turned mansion and an evil scientist who threatens to overrun the earth with his self-made zombies. Alone in the Dark, on the other hand, had POTENTIAL to be good story-wise, but Uwe Boll wasted it by turning a mystery-horror into a half-assed shoot-'em-up action flick with slimy dog monsters who apparently go out during the day time... WAIT, I THOUGHT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE *AFRAID* OF SUNLIGHT! Yeah, go-fucking-figure.
4) Well, apparently companies who made this mistake EARLIER are actually BUYING BACK THE RIGHTS from Uwe TOILET Boll now (yay!). Eidos just recently bought back the rights for "Fear Effect" and Interplay/White Wolf supposedly bought back the rights for "Hunter: the Reckoning" (it suddenly vanquished from Uwe TOILET Boll's "upcoming projects" list on IMDb, and I wonder why, too [sarcasm]). Now don't you think there's a REASON for that?! Yeah, that's what I thought. I guess that really says a lot about the lack of credibility for your argument here. Oh, and since when was having MILLIONS OF ANGRY GAME/FILM FANATICS CALLING FOR YOUR HEAD and further diminishing the audiences for your future releases NOT considered "bad publicity" (WHAT publicity? Last I heard, BloodRayne flopped horrendously at the BO and was pulled within a couple of weeks from most theaters [it disappeared from my local theater listings faster than I could even make the decision of whether it was worth my time, my dignity, and my money to go see that heap of crap, and believe me, I'm good when it comes to decision-making, what does THAT tell you?], having grossed ONLY $1.5 mil on opening weekend. I hardly call that "publicity", unless you count the critics, which 98% of them said the same thing)? If you'll notice, each of Uwe TOILET Boll's new movies have been a bigger flop than the last, and it's because the word has gotten out that this man/hack can't direct to save his life... I, for one (one out of MILLIONS), couldn't agree more, hence us "envying" ToiletBoll. Oh yeah, I'm sure we all "envy" a man who's last 3 movies made many "worst-of" lists on movie review sites (IMDb, for starters) and who's only motive is to call audiences "dumb" for realizing just how blisteringly awful his movies are each time he opens up his mouth when doing interviews.
5) Whatever that means. Games hardly focus on story and character/plot development, anyway, as opposed to movies, which is MORE TALK, LESS ACTION than games, so why does it matter, anyway? If you're gonna take a bunch of grade-A actors (Ben Kingsley and Michael Madsen, and soon, Jason Stratham, Burt Reynolds and Ray Liotta as well) and make them do Razzie performances in your next disasterpiece(s)-to-be, chances are they aren't gonna help sell another copy or two of the game you "claim" (and I use that term loosely) to be basing your next movie off of. Infact, chances are they're only going to hurt it, not to mention you'll be throwing a ton of great (but wasted) acting talents's careers down the drain each time you do that. After all, voice actors for games don't have anything to lose because they're just that, voice actors for games that don't revolve much around dialog to begin with. Their job is simple, they hardly have to lift a finger, as opposed to full-fledged actors, who could use the proper recognition and praise for their work, and they're not going to get any for starring in Uwe TOILET Boll films, that much I can guarantee you. *sigh* I guess what I'm REALLY trying to say here is that, to have Christian Slater never do another film again, or, for the horny teen audience who will go to see movies just to see hot chics or steamy sex, KRISTANNA LOKEN (who I fantasize about quite a bit, to be honest), never do another flick or scene like the one in T3 to tickle their fancy again, just for a bunch of low expectations-set voice actors for videogames, is it REALLY worth it? Sadly (or not so sadly, it depends on which way you look at it), my answer is no.
6) Like I said, THESE GAMES WERE NEVER AWARD-WINNERS, BUT NONETHELESS THEY *HAD* STORIES BEHIND THEM! By sticking to the story, they'd at least have the fans of the games's backs while leaving the critics and non-game fans aside, with the exception that they'd MAYBE be able to win SOME of those other peeps over. Instead, Boll chose to have NONE of the above (save for a select few casual movie goers who don't know the first thing about what TRULY makes a movie good... in this case, Boll fans, the few-and-in-between ones there actually are) and totally RAPE the said franchises, leaving his name first on many of the said game fan's hit lists. As far as the writers for the games go, yes, their plots are stale, but so what? At least they actually MANAGE to sell a copy or two, whereas Boll's movies get pulled from theaters faster than a speeding bullet (*yawn* What in the HELL happened to BloodRayne? I must've been asleep all this time... oh yeah, that's right, MOST THEATERS PULLED IT BECAUSE IT SUCKED AND WASN'T GROSSING WORTH SHIT!)
So there you have it. Apologies go out to any of the aforementioned actors, or "stars", in this case, who may have been reading (not likely, though) and thus, offended by this comment. As always, it's not the actors who (albeit foolishly) chose to star in his movies in which I have a beef with, it's ToiletBoll himself which I have a beef with, and I'm sure as hell not alone on that front. All things considered (listen up, game companies who haven't yet foolishly forked over your licenses to this no-talent screw up), PLEASE STOP GIVING THIS MAN YOUR LICENSES! YOU'LL BE DOING THE GAME AND FILM INDUSTRY A FAVOR BY LEAVING HIM AND HIS QUEST TO RUIN MANY GREAT GAMES FOR DEAD! I MEAN IT!
(PS, if you're reading this, if you want to get back at me for totally and reasonably blasting your ideals with this comment, you can e-mail your responses to me at twheadhunter@aim.com. Not that they'll hold any truth to them let alone prove any of these redundant points of yours, but it just *might* make you feel better)
Anonymous #1: Your wish is my command! Come play with my Wii!
Anonymous #2: Thanks for writing so much. In the "IGN Dinner with Uwe" video, he claims that his films before doing video game adaptations were quite good, and people should see that before critizing him. So, I can't say with any certainty he's a bad director, since I haven't seen those films. Yes, Uwe Boll is quite negative, and hates people who bash him, but honestly, would you react any differently? If you poured your heart and soul into a work of art and people called it trash, wouldn't you be pissed? I think Uwe Boll has the patience of a saint to not go on a murderous rampage and slay all the movie critics in the world. I think you've clearly missed the point of this article. Maybe you should read more carefully. I did say this: "They may be horribly awful steaming piles of crap, but I've had to pay to see them, so it is dissimilar in that regard to trash". So, I am saying they are horribly awful piles of crap. I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension skills, which may be a bit weak because the American public school system sucks, so I don't fault you for that.
2) Silent Hill got pretty terrible reviews. I haven't had the misfortune to see it yet, so I can't say it's any good, but I strongly doubt it. Honestly though, I think the plot and acting in "House of the Dead" was on par with the video game. I have no idea why Goldman's voice cracks when he says "You have to protect the LIFE cycle", in House of the Dead 2. Maybe you aren't remembering the games correctly, but they all had horrible plots and even worse voice acting. Who cares if he changes it up a little? It's still in the spirit of House of the Dead.
3)Again, in IGN's "Dinner with Uwe", he denies that he was just exploiting the tax law loophole, which they now have closed up. He's still able to finance his films. He claims they are quite popular for DVD sales and in Europe. Although, since he hates getting made fun of on the internet (as most of us do), I believe he’s considering not doing any more game adaptations after he finishes the ones he already has the licenses to. Clearly you didn’t see “Gigli” because I bet that was worth than both of your examples and is worse than EVERY Uwe Boll movie combined. Also, you’re just proving your ignorance about films. “Dead or Alive” is produced by Paul W.S. Anderson, not Paul T. Anderson, who directed the fantastic “Punch Drunk Love”, but the guy behind “Resident Evil” and “Mortal Kombat”, both not very good movies as far as I’m concerned. Also, “Dead or Alive” has an absolutely insane plot as far as I’m concerned. If you want to find out about it, you actually have to read the instruction manuals, and it’s still quite ridiculous anyway, so who the hell cares? He’s directing and producing “Castlevania”, so it’ll be sad to see him take a giant dump on Konami’s classic.
4) I’ve never heard anything about companies buying back rights. Can you forward me a link? Both movies (including Hunter: The Reckoning are on IMDB. I can’t imagine someone else has bought the rights that quickly. They probably don’t say Uwe Boll is directing them because he theoretically could get someone else to direct them. Unlikely, but possible.
5) Someone was telling me to sell your copy of “Silent Hill” on ebay now because people are checking it out after the movie, even though the movie got horrible reviews. I hope Kristanna Loken never does another film again because she’s not a good actress, and I don’t find her to be attractive. Uwe Boll is all about catering to the horny teen audience. He knows what you guys want to see in a film. He complained that Tara Reid wouldn’t do nudity in “Alone in the Dark”, but I believe she did nudity in an earlier film, so I found that kind of funny. Maybe Uwe wasn’t able to pay her enough to get her naked. Also, that sex scene in “Bloodrayne” was so bad, forced, awkward and uncomfortable, I can’t imagine anyone becoming aroused from it. Again, I hope Christian Slater never does another film. I was wondering how Uwe Boll found him because he seemed to drop out of the limelight, and no one missed him.
6) All in all, a bad story is a bad story. Uwe Boll’s stories are worse than the games yes, but would the bad stories from the game made any better of a movie? Probably not, especially if Uwe Boll were making the film.
I don’t want “to get back at you”, but I’ll gladly e-mail my responses to you. I don’t do that for my own pleasure, but for yours. Please contact me through the blog rather than via e-mail, so you can “educate” my readers on Uwe.
-The BIG G
1) Well apparently you wanna play that "critic review" game with me, so by God, that's what I'll do. Notice how most of his movies on IMDb (even his NON game adaptions, ALL of which are in the IMDb Bottom 100, and I wonder why, too [sarcasm]) have a rating of 3.something stars or less out of 10, and he averages only 2.79 (which, on IMDb's rating system, would average out to be 2.8 */10). Pretty lackluster average (to say the least), wouldn't you say? Also, I DID read that first part, about his films not being trash, it's just I disregarded it earlier because what's even MORE startling than that is the fact that he actually insists his craptacular movies are good and continually flames audiences and critics who see differently, but now that you mention it, his films not being trash "because we paid money to go watch them", doesn't that just give us MORE of a reason to hate him, since we wasted our hard-earned money (not to mention time) and celluloid on a film that ACTUALLY bests Rollerball 2002 on the crappiness scale (yes, I said it, the 2002 version of Rollerball. That's actually pretty sad when you can't even make a better movie than that pathetic excuse for a film)? Just ask yourself that. On the other hand, I DID manage to rent House of the Dead for free with my BlockBuster Rewards, and STILL felt ripped off (yes, that's how bad it was), so in my situation, it WAS considered "trash". Not that it matters, but it is in some way nonetheless (for me, anyway).
2) Right, it got downed by CRITICS. I won't take that away from you... but if you'll notice on message boards and movie review sites across the net, it actually got somewhat of a mixed reaction from the MOVIE GOING public (those were the people I was emphasizing the whole time, not the critics). So it may not be a blockbuster hit, but hey, it still got a much better critical reaction than any of Boll's movies, which was generally panned by both critics AND movie reviewers/users/net movie goers. Silent Hill got it's share of flak from the movie going audience as well, but it didn't even manage to taste a mere sliver of the kind of critical backlash each of Boll's adaptions got (wierd how I bring this up, though; some people on the internet are arguing that House of the Dead WASN'T a flop because it just *BARELY* broke even, even though the critical reaction for that movie was BEYOND horrible, WAY worse than the kind of treatment Silent Hill got from critics/movie goers, yet OTHER game-based movies like Resident Evil's 1 and 2 and more recently, Silent Hill are arguably flops even though they all MADE their money back at the BO for this reason, and, GET THIS, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR GERMAN TAX MONEY! Now, I won't be the one to say that Silent Hill was a success in some small way, but compared to Boll's 3 game-based adaptions [each one a bigger flop than the last], Silent Hill is a blockbuster hit, and when I said "it's receiving very good press", I meant, for a GAME-BASED movie, hence when I said "for what it is". Of course no one was expecting the critic and user reviews of it to rise through the roof, or anything, but it could've been a whole lot worse), but, anyways, moving on. You say the games had their share of trouble? Well, of course no one would ever argue that any of the games had halfway decent story or voice acting, not even me, but to say that the movie's was any better is like trying to disprove the Law of Gravity: no matter what you do, it just won't work. Notice how, in the movie HOUSE of the Dead, there's nothing but an island and an old shack, and the movie clogs up the entire running time just for the "kung fu specialist" and "sudden marskmen" teenagers to finally get to it, even though they were already on the island WITH the mine at the beginning of the movie. Talk about slow-pace and lack of progression as far as story goes. That reminds me, this movie had none. I also don't remember there ever being a rave in the game, either. So say what you want to about the games and the movie, the movie had about as much to do with the game as Paris Hilton does with being a real Hollywood star: 0.
3) Sure, you can choose to believe what he says in his interviews (I, for one, advise STRONGLY against it, and you're about to read why here), or you can choose not to. The ball is in your court there, but seriously, Uwe Boll is, without question, the BIGGEST liar to ever be considered for interviews. I could give you NUMEROUS examples of the things he's lied about in them, like, for starters, he not only pleaded, but PROMISED that there wouldn't be any game footage in the HotD movie. Well, we all learned the hard way (and I use that term loosely) that that quite clearly wasn't the case with that film, but that's not all! I've detected so many of Boll's lies in all of the interviews I've read of him, it's not even funny. As for Gigli being worse than all of Boll's films combined (or worse than Rollerball 2002 and Battlefield Earth for that matter), yeah, I guess that's why HotD, AitD, AND BloodRayne are all rated LOWER than it on virtually every movie review site (IMDb, Yahoo, etc) on the net. Seriously, popular opinion rules all when it comes to movie going: if 95% of film goers think that said film sucks (in this case, Boll's movies), then it's pretty safe to assume that it does, no questions asked. Also, I never said Paul WS Anderson wasn't going to be involved with the "Dead or Alive" film, and hell, I never even mentioned anything about Paul T Anderson (whose a much better director that the former, but that's neither here nor there, so). The reason I put Corey Yuen's name down for it is because he's the DIRECTOR for it. Everyone knows that that is what makes up... well, not necessarily ALL of what's in store for said movie in production, but a pretty large chunk of it. The Exec Producers are actually the ones that call the shots, and it at least has the Exec Producer for the Punisher, Transporter 1 and 2, and Kiss of the Dragon (an okay movie in my book; it at least had decent fight scenes in it) behind it. On the other hand, the other 2 Exec Producers aren't worth a damn in any way, especially not Daniel S. Kletzky, who was the Exec producer for Resident Evil 1 and 2, Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within and *gasp* House of the Dead. I personally don't see how the 3 of them are gonna co-exist for that movie, but it's not to say that that game had much of a chance to make a good movie to begin with, I won't deny you that. Still, I don't see how it could be any worse than HotD (the movie, not the game), which had more or less of a lack of story.
4) Well, it's been confirmed on bollbashers.com that Fear Effect has been cancelled, and for whatever reason, Hunter: the Reckoning suddenly disappeared from Uwe Boll's "Coming Soon" list as well. Either it's misinformation or they're the only ones who are aware of it at the moment, but Fear Effect HAS, indeed, been dropped for sure, and if there is a God, so has H:tR.
5) That's exactly the problem with him: is that his movies are ALL about gratuitous sex and nudity (among other things, which are irrelevant towards making a good film as well, like pointless gun fights and car chases, and slimy CGI dog monsters in AitD). A turn-on is good to have once in a while, but it's not something people pay $6.50 SOLELY to see. If they wanted that, they'd just go out and rent some porn, or something. I'm sure that would be much more fullfilling than ANY of Boll's movies. Infact, carrying on to what I said earlier about his inability to direct worth shit, it seems he can't even get THAT right. Notice how Tara Reid randomly wakes some guy up and fucks him, with her BRA on, in AitD, and Rayne's sex scene was random and clothed as well (save for when that one guy got to rub her tits, but still, everything else about it sucked and wasn't even softcore worthy). Infact, I can actually relate to that: I saved myself the horror of watching the movie, as a whole, and just watched the sex scene by itself online instead, and I wasn't aroused by it one little bit. You're absolutely right: Boll can't entertain audiences with constructive action sequences OR turn anyone on with his so-called "gratuitous sex scenes".
6) Well, that's why they say that, if in doubt, never ever try to do something. Granted, I don't think the game's stories would've made for good movies, either, but at least it wouldn't be a TOTAL loss for those who were actually fans of the game who went to go see it. After all, I would rather have there be a laboratory-turned mansion with realistic-looking zombies awaiting the characters inside of it than an island and an old-mine with actors in halloween costumes pretending to be "scary" and "intimidating" guarding it, not to mention an Immortal God zombie whose cause of death includes getting his head crushed by a girlwhosesupposedtobedead's foot.
Post a Comment
<< Home