Wow, very interesting article

[sspunisher]

I guess this "hit home" a bit because I just watched this movie (Alone in the Dark) about a week ago. It really was a BAD movie. But reading this article opens your eyes a bit, makes you realize the people who you have to deal with in this business.

This man was so sure of what he needed to make his script better, and completely insisted on what he wanted so aggressively, but then you look at his movies and your amazed at how bad they are.

I did find some gratification after i went to EOnline, and checked Uwe Boll's movies, House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark...both reviewed with big fat 'F's'

Anyway, sorry for rambling, here's the article.

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2649&p=

[StephieM]

Yeah, this article pretty much sums it up. When I'm watching a really bad movie like "House of the Dead" or "Alone in the Dark" I catch myself thinking "Man, how do these movies get made? I can write something better than that." But it's not the script that was bad, it's the person that directed the movie. You get a bad director, and sadly the screenwriters get smeared for it.

I just watched "Alone in the Dark" two days ago. From the moment it started I knew it was going to be a really bad movie, needless to say, I didn't finish watching it. I had no idea the man that directed it was the same man that directed "House of the Dead". That movie was completely awful. Instead of being scared I laughed through most of it, and I wasn't just laughing, I was crying with laughter. I have no doubt that if I read the scripts I'd be far more intrigued.

Steph

[LloydBrown]

I catch myself thinking "Man, how do these movies get made? I can write something better than that."

Michael Stackpole said in a seminar that he's sure that publishers (and I assume this goes for movie producers, too) release bad books (and movies) intentionally so that people will say to themselves "I can write better than that!" He calls them "seed novels."

So now I always dread being published just so a publisher can have a seed novel. Thanks for the hangup, Mike. ;)

[Enigma]

Michael Stackpole said in a seminar that he's sure that publishers (and I assume this goes for movie producers, too) release bad books (and movies) intentionally so that people will say to themselves "I can write better than that!" He calls them "seed novels."

I don't know who Stackpole is or what he claims to be, or what he's selling, but that remark is so far outside reality/reasoning/logic/sanity/ that it's, well, stupid. Surely he was kidding.



The answer to why so many bad movies get made should be obvious. It's certainly logical, and contained in one word - MONEY! Or, if you wish, "... He who has the gold makes the rules, and the movie...," he thinks is good.



I was curious about the same thing not too long ago, so I did a little investigating; I took down all the corporate names I could see on a certain film’s credits and elsewhere, and checked them out with the State Secretary's office to see who the corporate officers were, and then matched those names against the names shown on the film's credits - executive producer(s), producer(s), director, writer(s) and talent. Care to guess what I found? Bingo!



Earl Owensby of EO Studios in Shelby, NC raised money, produced, directed, stared in, I don't know, a dozen Elvis knockoff films. By his own admission, they were bad, causing millions to probably say, "... I can write a better movie than that!" BUT, they each returned 3.5 times or better, the negative cost! Don't that kick yer hat in the creek?



There's a "producer" in Orlando who wants to make a film, rather he wants to make one of his own scripts. I've read it (actually only ten pages before I threw up). It sucks, and that's by my somewhat lacking standards! Any idea of how he's raising the money for his, "... Oscar winning production?" I checked. Porn! That's way over the line as far as I'm concerned, but that's the way the world turns today.



Personally, I like the old-fashion tax avoiders!



This is a true and funny story; There was a horror film that came out about 25 years ago. It was supposed to lose money. At the time, the law allowed 128% declining balance depreciation, accelerated depreciation (five years), 8.2% investment tax credits, plus the usual capital profit/loss write-offs. Sell it to yourself every five years, and do the math.

They hired a producer/director that had never done anything even he would admit to. BUT, the thing was so bad it became a cult film and made millions. 500 prints are still on the circuit!

The investors weren’t happy. So, they had him make another film, to make up the profits with loses. Yeah, that one was so bad it made money too. That guy couldn't lose for winning.

As a last resort, they paid a fortune, at the time, for the film rights to a first novel from an unheard of writer, and wouldn’t you know it, that one became an even bigger block buster and the writer is now a household name, commanding $12 million a pop for novel and film rights.

As a last resort, the investors "fired" the producer/director/writer, and purchased a building on Wilshire Blvd, supposedly to house the artifacts of the original film that caused them so much trouble.


So, there’s money in bad films. Bean-counters rule, dude! Go figure.

[Richard]

He's doing a big screen version of the game 'Far Cry' - which is one of my favourite games of all time. He's going to ruin it.

Pssst: It's called 'The Island of Doctor Moreau'.

Anyway, at least there's a plot to use in that one. Christ only knows what he was thinking when he bought the Dungeon Siege license. And I'd point out that the scripts of both Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead were truly godawful pieces of crap, even including the Boll Factor.

[TheRuleofThirds]

I usually don't really restrict myself to what kinds of movies I become a fan of, but it's always assuring to know that no matter how many lame movies I like, there's still ones that are lamer.

For instance, the Rambo trilogy. I love Rambo. I think the movies were made pretty well and would even use them as models for action movies and to a minimal extent, character development. After that, I like Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. Although I think if Paul Reubens wasn't a weirdo, it'd be perfectly normal to watch PW. But Reubens removed, Tim Burton made a masterpiece. I even heard a composer talking about how Danny Elfman's score was revolutionary because it was so whimsical and silly and it made film scoring cool. And I guess by that, he meant you didn't have to be a Juilliard grad to score movies.

About Boll. You know, while better movies could be made...it just seems like the investors don't want to make them. If you went to the people backing Boll with an idea you were willing to write and direct, and it was a fantastic idea that you could turn into gold, they still wouldn't want to touch it. What's even worse is that Uwe will probably never see the error of his ways.

[Richard]

Boll works with a whole ton of grants and other funding. He doesn't need his films to be any good to make money - the trouble is, he keeps buying licenses from everywhere and dragging a whole industry through the mire with him.

[Boo_Radley]

On most of the horror film websites I frequent (there are quite a few) Uwe Boll's a bit of a running joke; after House of the Dead was released to MASSIVE jeers amongst horror fans (the flick was a celluloid equivalent of a lump of dog poo which has sat in the yard too long and turned white) Boll released a statement defending his "masterpiece" tooth and nail. Needless to say, as a filmmaker he could stand to learn a thing or two from Ed Wood, so that should give you some insight into his "skills".

Incidentally, Boll is also directing a film version of the video game Bloodrayne. Expect another bottom-of-the-barrel crap-fest, and likely another hissy fit from Boll.

[Ivonia]

It certainly does make one wonder why game companies are giving him these licenses and having him turn out really crappy movies that don't make much money for them.

I certainly wouldn't want him making a movie off anything I create. If I couldn't direct it myself, I'd insist that they hire someone competent and that hopefully understands the script.

[TheRuleofThirds]

Is it just me or does it seem like compared to the variety of stories that get made into moveis...video games are really not exploring the potential of the medium and the technology for great storytelling? I mean how cool would it be to play a video game where you were the president of a country and you had to talk your way through various international talks with countries that wanted your head on a platter? No shooting...just diplomacy. For that matter, playing a game where you keep your g/f from breaking up with you would be just as challenging. Guess that's too much like life to be good. Seriously, though...it seems like there ought to be more you can do with a video game besides kill and destroy. I know they've got trivia and game board/show games, but they just don't cut it.