Talk:Uwe Boll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uwe Boll article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives

/Archive1


Contents

[edit] Neutrality Issues

I have added the box after reading through the article thoroughly. The words "Boll alleges" have been placed before anything favourable, as have unverified comments about the script for Alone In The Dark. Someone needs to go through the article and level the playing field - this page has been hijacked by Boll bashers. Jamezcd 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest making a fresh start by deleting everything in that article and re-type it so it gives a neutral point of view. For a start, the main article on him should consists of his early life, finance, writings and quotations ONLY. Critcisms about Boll can be a seperate article or be left out altogether.
That can be done, but carefully. What needs to be done is the page needs to be re-written from scratch on someone's subpage in their userspace, and when it's done, link to it here and we can discuss whether it should replace the current version. --InShaneee 15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think starting from scratch is entirely necessary. The "Criticism" section needs work but I disagree that it should be removed entirely. These are some of my thoughts on possible improvements.
  • The IMDb subsection doesn't belong there. There's some informative stuff there that I'd be loathe to just throw away, but I wouldn't know where else to put it. I just know it doesn't belong in *this* article.
  • That said, instead of writing one's own op-ed in order to justify the statement "Detractors allege that, when adapting a video game into a movie, Boll will change the plot, setting, and anything else that he deems necessary" in Wikipedia, link to an op-ed that makes this allegation. Then instead of duplicating all the points the op-ed should be making (re: House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, BloodRayne) people could just go and read the reference.
  • The "Critic boxing match" section also belongs in its own articles. I don't think an "Uwe Boll critic boxing match" article (or something similar) is out of place.
  • The "Response to Criticism" section also doesn't belong here. The well sourced stuff is valid and is another of those informative things I wouldn't like to throw away but don't know where to put.
  • I don't see a "Quotations" section under any other biographies. I do see links to WikiQuote in good 'ol George dubya's wiki page though and that might be a good example to follow.
  • Both Spielberg and Dubya's pages have a "Trivia" section. This could be a nice place to link to the boxing match and mention the awards that he's won. Awards presented to Alone in the Dark, Tara Reid and Nightwish belong on their respective pages (and can be cross-linked from there, i.e. Alone in the Dark to Nightwish and Tara Reid and vice versa).
On a personal note I'm a bit sad about Nightwish's Stinker Award. I'm quite a fan and "Wish I had an Angel" isn't that bad a song. I'm sure there must be worse stuff out there that's used in movies :-(
Also: Can I get an indication as to why my linking Brooke Burgess' blog post to the "Outcome" subsection of the "Critic boxing match" section was removed (besides the fact that the whole section doesn't belong in this article)? Was it not good, did I somehow write something POV? If I did please be specific about what I did wrong that I may not make the same mistake. This question is directed at InShaneee as she did the revert. The Extremist 11:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
In the vast majority of cases, blogs should not be linked to. --InShaneee 14:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You can't be neutral when it comes to Boll, he's so mediocre. Klow (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Box Office Results

Can we at least have some common sense and mention how poorly a number of his movies have done at the box office ? According to IMDB, Bloodrayne cost $25 million and made $2.5 back, and Alone in the Dark cost $20 million and made $5 million. Whilst im sure everyone has their own opinion on the man and also his movies, the facts are some of them have done very poorly. for example:

Movies directed by Boll have not achieved the kind of box office returns one expects from a typical Hollywood film.

this is completely incorrect. the movies have been financial falures.

and BloodRayne (budget $25 million[3] ) topped $2.42 million.

this movie made 1/10th of what it cost. It didnt 'top' anything. Can we stop the knee jerk wikipedia reaction of trying not to offend anyone even if we simply present facts.
--Dem 11:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Err..these are not hollywood films, boll used the german film investment system, which allows him to essentially not lose any money for anyone, and at the same time reap the real profits for his investors, when the films later reach the much more profitable dvd rental phase.If losses outweigh profits, then the investors get their money back by having their tax returns written off until the lost value in investment is reached, if they do profit, everybody wins.

In reality only the german government stands to lose money, and it's not a huge loss, for every 10 uwe bolls there is at least 1 aspiring german filmaker who gets the money to create something sweet. This stimulates the german film industry, which is kind of the idea behind the scheme.

Regardless, uwe boll has popularity (yes even bad popularity is good in the entertainment industry) so he will continue getting support from film investors, because he scores the more well known actors, despite his reputation, and actors contribute to a film's success, if not initially, then on the rental shelves.

95% of hollywood films also loose tens of millions initially, but it is made up later. Vlad Dracula (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How he makes his bad movies

Just FYI, part of his success is due to the fact he is a German film director who predominantly bases his work financially out of his home country. Germany for the longest time has had rather unique laws towards films as investments and tax write offs that have only recently even been readdressed by it's legislature. Essentially it is possible to make a German movie that does terrible and still make money for the investors by careful accounting and tax practices, though the movie must to some extent be able to potentially be considered seriously (which by default all official movie adaptions of games pretty much are). This is why the man continues to recieve all the work he does in video game adaptations, he is famous (infamous?) for his ability to always find additional investors in any project no matter how risky a bomb. I'm putting this here so someone who understands it better can put it in the main article, while I know that it happens, I do not know enough about the laws to include it an an encyclopedic article proper. [Tuesday, 23 January 2007 16:33 GMT]

01/16/2008~ For a good example of what he was doing, check out the movie "The Producers". Under the concept, he can be richer from a flop of a film and in hot water if he makes a success of a film. So people who are absolutely dead set against seeing his movies only make him richer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.130.5 (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archived

I've archived all except the last topic on the discussion page. -TheHande 16:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy/Criticism

Uwe Boll has sparked plenty of criticism, so it seems like we should be able to get good sources for that criticism. Imdb forums do not fall into the category of good criticism. While the boxing fiasco clearly makes his internet detractors relevant, the article has been giving the forums far too much credit. Mention internet forums, but don't make them the basis of the article's criticism. --Beaker342 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it funny that the creator of Metal Gear freaked out at the prospect of his movie being made by Uwe Boll. - Thekittenofterra 14:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

http://games.slashdot.org/games/08/04/22/1246254.shtml references a good article on Bolls rejection by Blizzard for a World of Warcraft movie. Their quote "We will not sell the movie rights, not to you...especially not to you." Considering the overall quality of the existing article, I'll let someone else add this that can articulate better than I can  :) 199.80.142.174 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

When I looked at this page, I was half expecting a huge rant on why Boll is a bad director and how he utterly rapes his licenses, etc. But I was glad and somewhat pleased to see a well written article. Good work guys. Kirbysuperstar 12:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No one has added What Stuttering Craig and Handsome Tom of Screw attack.com did about the new Far cry film /unregistered user/fan of Screwattack.com

I know; it's pretty incredible. This page doesn't even need to be protected; that's how amazing it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticLyman (talk • contribs) 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Maligned"

I don't think the use of the word "maligned" is proper in this article, as it implies that the statements are made with malice and often untrue. Perhaps it should be replaced with "panned" or some similar word that lacks the connotations associated with "maligned". --64.218.89.101 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree actually, it isn't quite the right word. What would be better? I rather like "excoriated", or perhaps "berated"? Or even "lambasted"? :-) DWaterson 21:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why hasn't this article been flagged?

This article in no way upholds the neutrality any Wikipedia article should hold. Before almost any Boll statement is "claims" or "alleged." There are no quotes from Boll himself, only from reputed movie critics who participated in the boxing matches. It gives the clear impression that Boll only claims or alleges, and all others quoted (I know, even the one(s?) defending him) are giving statements of truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Budash2 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

I think it's as neutral as it can be considering the subject, Uwe Bowel Movement. Electricbassguy 11:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Doctorate in Literature"?

Forgive my bias, but I find it a little hard to believe someone as fundamentally inept at communicating a story as Uwe is has a doctorate in literature. Could we possibly get a source for this claim? -- Grandpafootsoldier 10:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't find that the least bit unbelievable. He's studied at two universaties and he's written two books. Mind you that though he's educated in literature it does not affect anything he does in the film industry. -TheHande 21:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Even still, a source would be appreciated. -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
On metafilter the link http://www.amazon.com/dp/3893992162/
is posted. This is claimed to be his doctoral thesis.
The German version of the article cofirms this and further links to a page of the German Nationalbibliothek. On this page we see that he has indeed published this book: http://dispatch.opac.d-nb.de/DB=4.1/LNG=DU/LRSET=1/SET=1/SID=72fe8cd5-3/TTL=1/SHW?FRST=4
It is listed as a doctoral dissertation ("Hochschulschrift: Zugl.: Siegen, Univ., Diss."). It is relatively clear that this claim is true. Of course you could insist on ringing the Uni Köln and asking them, but we have proof that he has published a dissertation, which is probably enough.

[edit] Give The Guy Some Respect

Why cant those criticts at least give the guy a lil bit of respect. So what if the graphics are bad or what ever and so what if its a bad film. At least he actually made a film and it appeared in cinemas. I Mean give the guy some credit he has done a good job even though most critics dont think so but who gives two shits? I Think uwe boll doesnt get the respect he deserves. He just makes Films Into Video game adaptions so why cant people just accept it? Hes just a director Like Quentin Tarantino Or Martin Scorcse. Just leave the Guy alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ian-turner77 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

The criticts say what they want. It's their job. And I like it that way. --84.231.187.95 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He gets more than he deserves. He's said himself that the german government will pay most of your expenses when you make a film (or something to that effect), and he rakes in cash whether the movie does well or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.188.237 (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

He's not a humble person, that's for sure. 06:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

definitely not humble, but its his act. Seriously, he's not nearly as bad of a director as the internet geeks make him out to be.

[edit] Financing section

Why the whole "Financing" section has been removed the 23rd of March 2007 at 23:41? It was quite an interesting paragraph.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gynsu2000 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-08

Looks like it was deleted by an IP which had performed vandalism immediately prior, at any rate, it was deleted without explanation. I'll add it back. 71.116.89.88 02:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, this doesn't make sense to me:

Because of this, in January 2006, as had been expected for several months, the German legislature changed the country's tax laws to eliminate the tax shelter. It is not known if this will have any effect on Boll's funding as the new laws only seek to punish investors who are abusing the law for tax purposes...

Well, what is it? Do the new laws eliminate the tax shelter or just punish investors abusing it? They sound like completely different things. Razordu30 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this section has been deleted again. There's a source over here, if that would help. If true, and especially if there are actually efforts in Germany to close this tax loophole inspired by Uwe Boll, this would be a good thing to add to the article. Esn (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. I'm blind. For some reason, I expected this to be in the "Controversy" section. Esn (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] "Raging Boll" section/essay

Not sure about the entire section, but this section head seems very biased, by using a witticism to mark it. I think it needs a rewrite, perhaps trimming, as the article needs to be a summary of the director, not a "scandal sheet." - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Raging Boll" comes from Boll himself. It was the nickname he chose for his in-ring persona as part of the whole "box the critics" stunt. It is therefore not unfair to use it as a heading for a section on this promotional stunt since it was in fact a large part of the stunt itself. Alcohol paul 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Alcohol paul" is right. Will be removing the neutrality tag as stale clutter. Cosh (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uwe's Hate Mail to Wired

Uwe Boll gave a statement about the hate mail he sent to the guys at wired.com in german game review magazine "GameStar": http://www.gamestar.de/magazin/special/kino/postal_der_film/1473883/postal_der_film_p4.html

It translates to about this: "I guess this [email to wired.com] was a mistake. On the other side, he [the wired.com review writer] really didn't need to publish that email. I still stand up on what I said, because, after the San-Francisco screening, he walked right up to me, said "great movie!", seemed deeply impressed and made an interview with me which he recorded on tape. The next day, he published a slating review. I think that's a very impudent behavior. He could just have come to me, told me that he didn't like the film and asked if we couldn't have done the interview anyway. That would have been different. But lying to me and mocking me like that really pissed me off. Before going, he told me to visit the website [wired.com] the next day, he'd do a great review. When I read the review, I kept asking myself whether this was the same guy. And so I wrote this email saying: "Hey you son of a bitch you. Man, you can't be serious!". There has to be some fairness."

91.34.57.48 14:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC) i feel sorry for the guy now69.220.1.137 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of films needs updating?

The article states that "He has announced plans to produce adaptations of Postal, Legacy of Kain, and Far Cry". Hasn't at least "Postal" been made by now? 62.181.255.64 (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That and I can't find any information anywhere about this "planned Legacy of Kain" movie. It's not listed on IMDB, Boll's website, nor do I see mention of it in any of the links used as citations. Where then, does this rumour come from? RazerWolf (talk) 07:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

theres his new film postal http://www.movieset.com/postal that needs to go up, hope we can get it up there. Blue.alphabet (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That might fit into the Postal article somehow but does not belong in this one. Wryspy (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uwe Boll Will Quit Making Movies with One Million Signatures

http://www.petition online.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?RRH53888&1

http://www.fearnet.com/MCNewsDetailPage.aspx?catid=30&mid=13788 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.12 (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This above Fearnet article is the original source for Boll's quote, not the Guardian as the Wiki page says. I know because I did the interview!Batgrrlnyc (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2008

perhaps this should be added to the criticisms section? -121.217.10.254 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Better link? - http://www.petition online.com/RRH53888/petition.html

That's exactly what I was thinking. I think I hit the wrong button somewhere, oops. Evilsmoo (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't quite know what would need to be done to whitelist that link, as wikipedia seems to like ipetition, yet not like petitiononline. Evilsmoo (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} I don't really know why this article is even protected, as the protection was requested by a user who's been banned for spoof accounts and abuse, but under the "Retort" section, it should cite this video: [[1]]. Gilamobster42 (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

N Not done In four days (or whenever someone autoconfirmed comes along) you'll be able to do it yourself. If you think the page should be unprotected, try WP:RFP. Happy‑melon 10:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

At least two persons have already counter-protested the present petition thus far, signing with such statements as "please keep making cool videogame movies" and "I LOVE YOU UWE BOLL YOU ARE TEH BEST," however these have remained isolated cases

As funny as this is, does this really belong in a wiki article? Feudonym (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Bay challenge

Since it hasn't been added, and the article is locked, i figured i'd post here.

Boll issued a boxing challenge to Michael Bay today http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlJ3VLGDOVE

Everyone who reads CAD is going to suggest this, so i hope someone'll get it done.

K!netic (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)