Log in

No account? Create an account
Man, we haven't had a good bitchin' in a while, have we? Well, I got… - Bitch bitch bitch [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
mr feeny's house of snark

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Apr. 13th, 2006|03:40 am]
mr feeny's house of snark
Man, we haven't had a good bitchin' in a while, have we? Well, I got one for ya!

First, an explanation: I hate Uwe Boll. This is a strange hatred, especially for a filmmaker, because I've only seen one film of his. Usually, when it comes to disliking a filmmaker, I would've seen at least two or three of his films before making a complete judgement on my part. I did that with Tarantino, and I've done that with Tony Scott. However, Uwe Boll is a special case. He's somehow made a movie so laughable bad, that I cannot fathom myself to ever as much touch the case which carries a DVD of his movie. Hell, I wouldn't even give it the satisfaction of being downloaded! There's also another good reason: he's whiny. In this article, Boll bitches and moans about how horribly "oppressed" is by all those who dislike his work. He's done this several times before, but the more I see it, the more funny it is.

Second, I'm going to take some quotes in the article and reply back to "Dr." Boll, whether he reads this or not.

"The dangerous thing right now is that a lot of people bash me without thinking about the movies. It's fashionable to hit on Uwe Boll, and this is what I don't get. And I don't get why this comes so harshly from the games press," Boll says.

Don't flatter yourself. It's not "fashionable," it's just fun! I mean, when you produce a classic stinker like House of the Dead, what the fuck do you expect?

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.

...Which isn't saying much, is it?

"People say BloodRayne has a very bad IMDB rating - yes, but how many votes of zero points were made before the movie was out, by people who hate me but haven't even seen the movie?"

I think that happened when you put two actors like Michael Madson and Michelle Rodriguez in a period piece. That pretty much spells "disaster," don't it?

"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?"

No, but we do want a well made and entertaining zombie movie. George Romero's done it, Lucio Fulci's done it, and Zack Snyder (an up-and-comer) was able to do it. So, please, don't use such a shitty argument to cover the fact you just can't direct worth a damn. Be a man and admit it - it was bad.

Us games journalists, Boll argues, should be pleased that videogame-based movies are getting made at all. "It's tough to convince someone from the studio system to believe in a videogame-based movie. It's way easier to have a great book or to have a comic book [as your source material], because these studio guys, they know Spider-Man, Batman, that kind of stuff."

It's difficult to really be thankful when you happen to completely ruin those franchises. But that leads to another question, why did you choose those particular games, of all, to be made into movies? House of the Dead? Alone in the Dark? BloodRayne? One of these games were either completely disposible, never popular in the first place, or only have something of a cult audience. You aren't trying to make a movie from a particularly popular game franchise, just a bunch that no one gives much of a shit about anyway.

But that isn't the point. The point is that it isn't the fact you're getting these movies made as much as the fact as how you made them. No matter what the intent, if the film sucks, it sucks.

According to Boll, he's fallen foul of this on more than one occasion. "Sega did nothing for House of the Dead, and Atari did nothing to support Alone in the Dark. They developed Alone in the Dark part 5, parallel to my movie, and then they closed the LA facility and never finished the game. And I was standing there alone in the rain with my movie..."

Again, how the hell can you blame them when you've done such a poor job making the movie? Maybe they didn't want to try and promote the movie along with the games because it was more of a risk than they were willing to take, especially when those risks involves quite a bit of money. But, again, this goes back to the point of making films based off near-dead game franchises rather than one the creators would actually care about.

"I'm in the movie - Uwe Boll will play a minor part. I get killed by my 'Boll haters'," he explains. So will he be getting real, er, Boll haters to play themselves? "Absolutely! I don't have a problem with that," Boll says. "I think I'd get thousands of extras doing that, coming to the set to track me down and lynch me!"

Wow. You're actually doing something right! Color me surprised.

"So if people are writing on the Internet about how my movies were big failures, it's because these people are amateurs and they have no idea of the reality of film-making and film selling.

So, you're not allowed to be criticized either? Grow up. You're working in an industry where you'll, more than likely, be criticized. Why don't you, an adult, just ignore it if it annoys you so much? That's what grown-ups do.

"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.

That logic is profoundly stupid. So, no one can criticize you because they haven't made a movie themselves? I guess this means all those "fans" you like to mention so much are incorrect as well, because I'm sure they haven't made a movie either. You don't care though. The only reason you make a comment like this is to try and convince yourself any criticism that you get from whatever source must be wrong.

I mean, I know it's really difficult to comprehend, but maybe that criticism is coming from people who know how movies work and have seen your movie. Even if they don't know how to make a film, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you don't know what you're doing either.

"Now people are getting hired as directors at 20 years old, coming from film school and getting 100 million bucks for their first movie. If people think that this is a good situation, that I'm the worst enemy in film-making and a completely talentless idiot, it's their decision."

I can tell that's a trick question: it's both.

"Maybe this is bad news for the Boll enemies, but while there are a few thousand people trying to crush me on the Internet, there are millions of people who buy the product."

There are also a dozen million more people who can profess to hating your work outside the internet, too, if you already haven't noticed.

Besides, there's always bound to be idiots who like everything...