Uwe Boll should do a movie for the game "Pong".

No he'd mess that one up too.

Quite true. One of the paddles would be a simple country girl, the other would be a corporate fat cat, and the ball would be the emo son of the fat cat caught between the world and expectations of his corporate father and his love for the girl

If Uwe Boll is allowed to make ANY more movies, i will officially lose hope in humanity and go and live on the moon

Maybe so, but the man also did an "adaptation" of Alone in the Dark. THAT could have been a good film, but he butchered it. Horridly. I'd say he's the early 21st century version of Ed Wood, but that is an insult to Ed Wood. At least Ed Wood enjoyed what he did, possibly thought he had talent even if he didn't and did it for the love of the artform, he was just exceptionally bad at his chosen artform, film direction. Uwe Boll best I can tell is in it for the money, knows he's not that good of a director, and could care less. Milk a title for all it's worth, then walk on. Why people keep funding him to make these abominations on film, I have no idea.

Uwe Boll is essentially a european tax shelter, as everyone who invests in his movies usually sees a giant tax credit for promoting a fine art (regardless of whether or not the film sees any sort of profitable return). When it comes right down to it, he's an awful director trying to have fun, make money, and offer a questionable tax shelter for rich bored people. I can't fault him for his capitalist spirit.

Speaking of alone in the dark though, you can't really tell me with a straight face that it wasn't a silly game (regardless of how terrible the movie was).

Or otherwise, he's butchered the idea of film as an artform into film as a tax shelter. My point stands, he's not doing it for the love of the art. Even directors who pump out cliched special effects blockbusters do have some love for the art usually, even if they know they are pumping out something to make money for themselves and the movie studio. And yes, most if not all artists want their work to sell, they want to make money but the love of the art is usually up there too. I have no problem with someone making money from a talent. I do have a problem with someone butchered an artform for the sole purpose of making money and/or providing a tax dodge. Uwe Boll is someone doing that.

And silly game or not, what game isn't to some degree silly? I still think a decent film from it could have been made. Alas, we probably won't see such, now that Uwe Boll has barfed out his abortion of a film about that game.

(EDIT: Edited out three words an overzealous message board censoring system censored. Leaving them with the word 'censored' in brackets would have changed the meaning of my post, so I edited them. For the record the words I used IMO were not vulgar at all. Oh well, c'est la poop)

That would be amazing.

Wouldn't be very hard finding actors for that one, with all them wooden actors in Hollywood.


There's even a BloodRayne 2... BloodRayne 1 is an Academy Award winner compared to that one.

Art and money are not mutually exclusive. While it is a nice ideal to have that all artists are proletarian Bohemians, shunning riches so that they may pursue art for its own sake, it is a relatively rare and modern one. Even Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper was created for the paycheck. That being said, I would like to clarify that Boll is by no means an artist of Leonardo's caliber; in fact, I think it's safe to say that Boll isn't a particularly talented artist at all. What is true though is that there is absolutely no shame in creating art (no matter how dreadful) for strictly monetary reasons.

As for butchering cinema... yeah, he's absolutely guilty. But he's allowed to do that. I for one have always felt that Quentin Tarantino is a hack director who wouldn't have a career if it weren't for the innumerable ideas of other movies that he steals... er, makes homages to. But at the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that as an artist he is absolutely allowed to conduct his art in not only the way he wants, but also in the way that will be most profitable for him and his patrons.

Back on topic though, if Uwe did make a Fallout game it would almost certainly be terrible. But really, could any one imagine a Fallout movie that wouldn't be awful? All the things we love about Fallout (dike jokes, pop-culture references, and outlandish violence to name a few) would have to be omitted to keep it from becoming something resembling an Uwe Boll movie. What we'd be left with then is a relatively bland and now cliched post-apoc film that wouldn't even be worth making because there wouldn't be anything distinguishing it from other films in the genre (I Am Legend, Mad Max, DefCon-4, Boy & His Dog, etc). Fallout is essentially a parody (a very competent and good one, I might add) of the genre. There really isn't any need to make a Fallout movie because on any given day I can pop in Beyond Thunderdome or DefCon-4 and get the exact same result.

Look at the link I just found:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1313237/

ZOMG! Please, not by Uwe Boll. :cryvaultboy:

I never said that art and money are mutually exclusive, if you're claiming such you misunderstood my comments. What I DID say is that most directors usually have SOME love of making a movie as an art, even if their first intent is a paycheck. AGAIN, I have no problem with someone making money from their talent. I even said that, to quote myself "I have no problem with someone making money from a talent.". I claim that Uwe Boll couldn't care less, he sees what he's doing as a job, period. If he could make the same amount of money digging ditches, he'd do so. He is someone whoring out an artform, period. That is shameful. An artist making money isn't shameful. As much as I find let's say a Thomas Kincade to be a terrible artist, and have no problem slapping a "McArt" label on his work, he at least seems to, at least at one time if not now, wanted to make art that he likes. His work is far from my tastes, but it is for what it is, well enough done. He has a talent, and he does try to make art, even if he then mass produces it to sell by the thousands like McDonald's sells burgers. Uwe Boll IMO doesn't even do that. He sees movie making as an assembly line process, period. Even if he HAD talent, he'd not do it for the love of art on any level, he'd just do it like he was mass producing cheap plastic parts on an assembly line. That is what is shameful, when someone gets to that level. That I feel is an insult to a real artist.

No...No... NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Like Bungie has been doing for the last few years. Joking aside, I don't think "real artists", whatever defines them as such, actually care about the hacks and Bolls of the world.

My point is this: It seems like most people only hate Uwe Boll's work because it is fashionable to do so, simultaneously fogetting that the games he makes movies about are stupid to begin with. The storylines are already vapid, the scripts are already hackneyed, and the acting is generally bad to begin with. Uwe is really nothing more than a giant really devoted fan with the means to film and distribute his fanfics.

I don't know if I am "most people" but I don't dislike Uwe Boll because it's fashionable to do so. I dislike him because he butchers an artform and doesn't seem to care if he does so. As an aside, although many of the games he adapted aren't ones I'd play, your evaulation of the games as being "stupid to begin with" is very subjective. Even if everyone on the planet literally agreed with your assessment, it's irrelevent since he makes no attempt to work with the material he's adapting. Although I don't know the man, I also disagree with your assessment of the man. Someone writing fanfic has a love for whatever they are writing about. I see no love of such coming from Uwe Boll, I just see someone milking a license for all it's worth, bleeding it dry.

As an aside, you almost seem to forgive Uwe Boll since he's making films out of games you deem stupid with vapid storylines. Would you forgive him if he made a film about a game, book or something else that you didn't find stupid and/or vapid? Again, your assessment of stupid and vapid is subjective. For many, they might not feel said games are stupid and/or vapid, and might be honestly offended that such a horrid film was made about a game they enjoyed and cherished.

Or to put it another way, it is possible to dislike the man, even if he's adapting what you deem to be vapid stories, for butchering an artform. He also has done work that wasn't adapted from any game or any other media and butchered it too. If someone's initial dislike of his work came from seeing one of those films instead, would their dislike of him now be valid?

I guess I won't make assumptions as to why people dislike Boll, especially based on subjective anolysis of the material he adapts. If you wish to do so, fine. I know why I dislike him, and I find my reasons valid. I know I'm not on some "hate Uwe because it's popular to do so" bandwagon.

You're making the assumption that a game's being stupid and/or vapid automatically qualifies it in my mind as being a worthless game. Take for example my favorite game (aside from Fallout 3) which came out of 2008... Saints Row 2. I love this game almost as much as I love a fresh BLT in the morning. The game is incredibly stupid, juvenile, and ridiculous but at the same time is the most fun I've had with a video game in a really long time. I also had a very similar experience playing the original Alone in the Dark, House of the Dead, and Bloodrayne. In fact, I loved Bloodrayne (the game) quite a bit BECAUSE it was stupidly violent and appealed to my inner 13 year old with all the briasts and "GI Joe's-in-the-backyard" storyline. Now let's say Saints Row is up for a movie deal; It wouldn't matter if it was directed by Uwe Boll or Brian de Palma... it would be an awful movie. There is nothing remotely cinematic about it, and in order to make it cinematic you would have to alter the concept so much it would cease to be truly "Saints Row".

I don't disagree with you that Boll is shamelessly cashing in on franchises and ultimately making awful movies of stupid, but fun, games. My problem comes from the fact that in any Uwe Boll thread that pops up we have posters who will make it seem like Uwe has used the Holy Grail as a toilet and the Mona Lisa as toilet paper when that simply isn't the case. Even if we sat down Spielburg, de Palma, and Oliver Stone to work on it there would no way they could make House of the Dead or Bloodrayne watchable while simultaneously maintaining faithfulness to the game itself.

I suppose what I'm stabbing at here is that video games, in general, make awful movies. It doesn't matter if it's Uwe Boll, Paul Anderson, or my own Speilburg/de Palma/Stone fantasy. Fallout is no exception. Fallout has always been, essentially, half parody and half homage to movies that already exist. To make a movie about it, regardless of the director, would result in a highly derivative and uninspired movie. The only way it could be spared of that fate would be to have an almost entirely original storyline which moves away from what was presented in the games, and at that point it would be difficult to be recognized as definitively Fallout at all.

tl;dr
Is Uwe a shamelessly bad director? Certainly.
Are his movies unbearably awful? No doubt about it.
Were the original games touchstones of their genre? Let's not get too hasty...

Yes, but my point is that Uwe Boll doesn't even bother to TRY to make them watchable, period. Boll often deviates greatly from the basic plot or story of said games, for apparently the sole purpose of bleeding said games dry. Again I say this is subjective, but perhaps he is picking games that would be poor adaptations to movies, intentionally or otherwise. But he makes no attempt to even make a passable film from said games. Or to put it another way, a Speilburg et al would at least try to make a watchable "popcorn film/blockbuster" from a game Boll has adapted, even if they knew that's all they could do with the material. Boll IMO both lacks the talent to do so, nor the desire to do so. He just butchers the work, period. That is my point, he doesn't try to even work with what he does have, regardless of if it's an adaption of a game or something else. Most of his work has been game adaptations, but again he has done original work too, and he treated it in a similar manner.

To go back to one of my earlier posts, a "noted" bad director like Ed Wood didn't have the talent to make a good film, but he had the desire to try, and a love of the artform. I don't know if Ed Wood knew he made bad films, or if he honestly thought he was vastly underrated, but he at least tried to make something good, even if he failed miserably each time he tried. Uwe Boll doesn't even try, and that is where I have a problem with him. I can respect someone who lack talent and at least tries. I can't respect a hack who just bleeds something dry. The work he's adapting might not be the Holy Grail and the Mona Lisa, but he sure is using it as a toilet regardless. And even if the games are silly and vapid, they don't deserve to be used as a toilet in the way Boll does.

A little of the discussion, but if his films are so terrible and useless, why are we discussing the nature of his films?

Because now someone out there on the forums has read this forum and bought one of his DVDs for a laugh. And every time Mr. Boll sells a DVD, a puppy dies. I hope you're happy.

That would be an awful Tron ripoff I think.

[could still be amazing tho']

A bit off topic, but for those interested:

http://black20.com/black20-trailer-park/tetris-movie

And here's one for a http://black20.com/black20-trailer-park/uwe-bolls-contra

Postal was pretty good for a laugh, albeit in the same way telling "The Aristocrats" is.

That's perfectly on topic IMO
That is just what I'd expect Uwe's take on it to look like if he did one.
[Thankfully Alexey Pajitnov holds the sting tight on his game and would never let that happen ~we can hope.]

Simple, we're discussing the nature of his films so that we know what to avoid like the plague. If such wasn't discussed, some poor bum might buy a DVD of his or see a new release of one of his films in the theatre, and well, as you pointed out a puppy will die.

In fact, I kind of expect Uwe Boll to personally strangle said puppy and film it, keeping such as stock footage for future films and projects. (Okay, maybe I'm being a WEE bit sarcastic here...)