The Great Uwe Bol Debate

Rainy Night said:

There have been some threads here in the past concerning Uwe Boll and I came across this (it may be old news to some people)

There is an online petition circulating to stop Uwe Boll from making any more films. To sign the petition click here.

Of course, there is also a pro Uwe Boll petition. To show your support for Uwe Boll you can click here.

Click to expand...

Hey, wait a second -- all those names under the "pro" Uwe Boll petition --

U. E. Bowl

U. Eboll

Huey Bole

What's going on here?

NMS

will he challenge me to a boxing match if i petition for him to stop?

you think boll is bad, check out some uli lommel (sp) flicks. that guy makes boll look like cecil b. deville.

i wasn't aware there was a debate, much less a 'great' debate, lol. what's bad is even the 'fans' of boll mostly agree that his movies are skid marks on the underwear of moviedom. you look at them because the cast suggests that this one *might* be worthwhile. alas, you quickly come to the conclusion that he must pay his actors well and that rough drafts are seemingly okay to move right into production. (okay, his actors usually aren't exactly A-listers. i mean, meatloaf? he probably did 'bloodrayne' for free room and board. then you throw jason statham into the whole mess, and you wonder what the hell these guys were thinking, because statham is hardly washed-up and not making or a part of hollywood features with big name actors.)

anyway, i'm off to find some boxing gloves....

I LOVE UWE BOLL!

An Uwe Boll movie is like Seven-Eleven coffee. That's not really coffee, it's more like charcoal dissolved in urine. Likewise, an Uwe Boll movie is not really a movie. It's an orgiastic display of things he thought would look cool on screen when he was playing the game. It's like videogame porn (not to be confused with porn videogames).

See, here's the thing. After you've had Seven-Eleven coffee a few times, you know what it is. You know what you'll get. And when you go buy some, complaining that it sucks is like putting a big flashing sign on your head that says "I'm a retard". So you either stop buying it, or you stop complaining.

But Uwe Boll has marketing! Uwe Boll pushes your buttons. And he does it well. He puts out a preview that makes you say "HOLY CRAP I HAVE GOT TO SEE THAT MOVIE". He effectively puts you into a hypnotic state where you believe this will be a good movie. And then you go see it, and you go "OMG, it's an Uwe Boll movie, WTF?!" and the big flashing sign on your head comes on again.

And if you're a humorless, soulless person that can't look around at all the flashing signs on everybody's head in the theatre - including your own - and laugh... just shut up. You're not mad that Uwe Boll made a crap movie. You're mad that you fell for Uwe Boll's schtick again, even knowing what you know, even understanding that every movie he's ever made is utter garbage. You believed the hype, and you gave him your money, and now you don't think you got your money's worth.

Well, I do. It's an Uwe Boll movie! That's what I bought, that's what I got, I'm happy! And see the big flashing sign on your head? You're a retard. Look at me! No sign! Look at this theatre, full of people with big flashing signs - except me! I knew exactly what it would be, and it was fun. It's even more fun watching you people get mad about it.

I love the man. I see everything he makes. It's hysterical.

I LOVE SIMILES!

i do, i truly do: it's the hallmark of every cynic. too, you can hardly lay claim to loving camp without using the word 'like' when the opportunity arises. (here, folks, i'm learnin' y'all something. i've shown you how to write op-ed and 'humourous' newspaper articles using the call-back, now you know the foundation of writing your very own B-movie review.)

however....

we still need to see things the way they truly are. but first, i don't see anyone getting mad and no need to call us retards. especially from someone actually defending uwe boll.

we all know boll is a bad movie-maker. no one argues that. and there are plenty of us who love good bad movies for being good bad movies. i could expound on a long list of good bad movies and why i think they're effective at being so ineffective, and if that was the intention or not.

unfortunately, boll doesn't quite measure up to being a good bad movie-maker. and i don't think it's because there are glimpses of being able to be more than the sum of its parts (not to say there are over-abundances of these)... it's not because these recognizable actors appear to be purposefully delivering the worst performances of their careers... it's not because of a lot of things in and of themselves....

save for uwe boll himself. we forgive the demented, self-delusionary ed wood and find a way to enjoy him. we let slide the unbridled goofballness of a william castle flick because he just wanted to have fun, and so let's have fun with him.

good bad movies *are* fun, but it's hard to find that today. there's a whole system set up to prevent these movies from existing outside independent film, i.e. cheap. and good bad movies are almost invariably cheaply made.

not so much with a lot of boll flicks. you can easily see the production value is there, albeit modestly so.

good bad movies often feature 'before they were stars' actors or actors completely off the radar. some so-called actors are comically inept, some are just worn out and could care less.

not so much with a lot of boll flicks. the actors are usually far from fresh, but often you don't have to cast your line back into time and tide to catch whiff of something broaching a quality production.

and you can almost see a movie that could have been more. of course, this required proper editing, and methinks boll has a hand at that, too. therein lies the problem: it's not that boll is a completely incompetent writer, nor is his directing style totally without merit.

boll slaps you across the face with his awfulness, though. his huge ego and arrogance aren't something everyone knows about just from watching a movie, but upon the first viewing of any of his movies you can see a distain for the art (this despite him probably enjoying making movies), and, worse, a contempt for the audience. yes, i say contempt because there's no other word for it. it's not utter incompetence. it's not a lack of money or actors or necessarily even stories.

B-movies are a lot of fun. that's their intention. in lieu of attempting to be fun, we derive fun out of making fun of them. this is how you enjoy good bad movies.

boll, though, removes the fun. we know his character, and we don't like it. we can't poke at the stories enough because they are at times lucid and make some semblence of sense (they're just mind-boggling dull. trust me, i can wait for 'bloodrayne 3'). it's hard to make unrelenting jabs at the production values because some set pieces really aren't that bad. what it boils down to he intentionally makes bad movies (and why shouldn't he? it's what he's friggin' paid to do!) that aren't bad enough to be truly terrible, but don't contain the proper attitude to merit being a 'good bad movie.'

and you aver that somewhere in this contempt we're supposed to find the meaning of fun, that 'it has worth if for no other reason than it's entertaining.' let me clue you in: we're not the suckers here, you are ~ these movies (i'm going to say from 'house of the dead' on) *aren't* fun for being so bad and, stay with me here, uwe boll *isn't* as terrible a writer/producer/director as he wants you to believe. his 'awfulness,' imo, is a calculated bottom-line approach. that is, he's actually a lot better than he wants you to think, and for that, i return his contempt (a good bad movie is fun because it's beneath contempt). you see, the joke really *is* on you after all.

for the record, i've never gone to see (assuming that's even possible) a boll flick. i initially heard how bad they were and had to see one for myself. sometimes i'll be in a hurry and think i'm getting a good bad movie off the shelf and it's one of his. like 'bloodrayne,' curiosity gets the best of me. i'll catch one on satellite on ocassion just because it's that or 'the soup' which is worth exactly one viewing. but, no, as much as i love good bad movies, it's impossible to watch one without studying it on an academic level on why it's bad and think to oneself that after all his experience this is the best he's able to do. like i said, this is how he makes money, and this is the brand of contempt he has for you.

but, if you enjoy boll flicks as much as you claim, perhaps you could whip yourself with your belt while you're at it and make it even more 'enjoyable.' rubbing popcorn salt into the wounds might induce orgasm in such cases.

i'm congratulating myself on not using any similes.



two muffins are in an oven. one muffin says to the other, 'boy, it's hot in here.'

the other muffin yells, 'aurgh! a talking muffin!'

The thing that bothers me with his movies is it's easy to see how great they could have been and so painful to see them fall so far.

preyer said:

we still need to see things the way they truly are.

Click to expand...

True! Start here:

i don't see anyone getting mad and no need to call us retards. especially from someone actually defending uwe boll.

Click to expand...

What? When did I defend Uwe Boll? I never said there was anything good about Uwe Boll's movies. I said I, personally, like them. I said he marketed them well, and pushed people's buttons effectively, but that's like saying somebody tells really good lies.

Oh noes, a simile! Run!

unfortunately, boll doesn't quite measure up to being a good bad movie-maker.

Click to expand...

"We still need to see things the way they truly are." I did not say that Uwe Boll is a good movie-maker. I said he markets well. Apples, oranges, famous potatoes.

and you aver that somewhere in this contempt we're supposed to find the meaning of fun, that 'it has worth if for no other reason than it's entertaining.'

Click to expand...

No, no, no. "We still need to see things the way they truly are." I did not say that. Nobody here said that. You made it up. I did not "aver" that anyone else is supposed to find anything.

I just stated outright that I like Uwe Boll's movies. That's it! That's all! I like them. What should you think? Why, whatever the hell you want. I don't care.

let me clue you in: we're not the suckers here, you are

Click to expand...

Or so you think, holding me in sufficient contempt to blatantly tell outright lies about what I said. To me, the very authority on what I said. But I caught you. More than once, in fact. "We still need to see things the way they truly are."

uwe boll *isn't* as terrible a writer/producer/director as he wants you to believe.

Click to expand...

"We still need to see things the way they truly are." I never said he was. I said the movies are bad, not that he couldn't do any better. And I never said they were good because they're bad. I said I like them.

You can think whatever you want of them.

think to oneself that after all his experience this is the best he's able to do.

Click to expand...

But that's not the case. Remember? "Uwe Boll *isn't* as terrible a writer/producer/director as he wants you to believe." This isn't the best he's able to do. It's just what he does. "We still need to see things the way they truly are."

I like it. I don't care why he does it, although some people care an awful lot.

like i said, this is how he makes money, and this is the brand of contempt he has for you.

Click to expand...

You know, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see much evidence of "contempt" in the consistent and reliable production of things I like. "We still need to see things the way they truly are."

but, if you enjoy boll flicks as much as you claim, perhaps you could whip yourself with your belt while you're at it

Click to expand...

No, no, NO. You have to get someone else to do the whipping, so you can concentrate on the movie. Preferably in a suspension harness.

i'm congratulating myself on not using any similes.

Click to expand...

"We still need to see things the way they truly are."

Do you see the irony in that sentence? I keep quoting it. Seeing things the way they truly are means not inventing your own arguments that you wish other people said, so you could say something condescending and look important on the internet. It means responding to things people actually said, with things that are actually true.

It does not mean avoiding simile. That's like refusing to use metaphor.

You can't really argue with my position on Uwe Boll's movies, because it has nothing to do with you or with Uwe Boll or with the entertainment industry. My position is that I like Uwe Boll's movies. Not that he has some redeeming quality you can't see, or that the movies fall into some special category you don't appreciate, or that your failure to like them is somehow incorrect. I just like them. What's to argue?

If you don't like them, and you knowingly watch them anyway, and you then get angry about it - you're a retard. Want to argue with that? Feel free. But notice the word in bold up there? It means something. If you don't understand what, go home.

I see completely what Preyer is saying and don't really see where you are coming from.

And repeating the same thing over and over just tends to get obnoxious. Carry on.

And just because you watch a movie by a person with a bad track record and hope for something more, doesn't mean you're automatically a retard, just means you HOPE that he actually did something right.

Calling people retards for being movie buffs and expecting to see a good movie from an awesome trailer isn't going to exactly win anyone to your side of thinking either.

CDarklock said:

If you don't like them, and you knowingly watch them anyway, and you then get angry about it - you're a retard. Want to argue with that? Feel free. But notice the word in bold up there? It means something. If you don't understand what, go home.

Click to expand...

I'm going to momentarily interrupt The Great Uwe Bol Debate to formally request that the "you're a retard," "just shut up" and "go home" comments cease. Don't care how it was originally intended, it's not appropriate so either state your case without this crapola or don't bother.

like i said, boll makes bad movies on purpose. the problem is that they're not 'good bad movies' for the reasons i listed above, and that's what prevents anti-boll-ites from enjoying them, imo. but were it not for a loophole in the german tax system, his career as a movie-maker wouldn't exist. or it would exist as a man who is a schlockmeister, and for that i would be able to enjoy his movies. then the problem arises of him having no real reason to do bad movies with the actors and financial backing he gets and has at his disposal. at best he can be called a master at exploitation, but he's not really even that.

a good bad movie is a treat. boll can't even deliver on that level, though. they're simply not bad enough to be that good, and certainly aren't good enough to be good, either. i don't buy into the idea that you can set out to engineer a good bad movie and appeal to but the smallest of niches any more than i can sit down and attempt to write a movie specifically meant to win best picture. if i did, i would fail, and miserably. but if i kept writing them and someone was fool enough to keep making them, the masses would be onto my game. a small percentage of people would argue in my favour and call other people names on my behalf, though. (or if you're george lucas, you have a legion of apologists defending bad movies like the prequels. 'but, preyer, lucas has said it's a kids movie!' sure, most kids movies have decapitations, hands sliced off, a room full of brats massacred, legs lopped off and faces melted away all in the same movie, right? i don't buy into lucas' bullshit, either.)

yeah, i think i'm seeing things for what they really are. i wouldn't have said them if i didn't feel that way. ironic, no, that without any shred of evidence supporting your claim of 'anger' on our part (but that has to be directed towards my comment), an awful lot of vitriol is being spewed out by the guy who's supposedly just trying to have a spot of fun?
'Seeing things the way they truly are means not inventing your own arguments that you wish other people said, so you could say something condescending and look important on the internet.' irony, thy name is cdorklack.

'What's to argue?' ~ okay, then what's to argue with my position then? you rather beg to be argued with when you call people humourless, soulless, retards, then have the nerve to pretend that you're the one offended. no, i can't argue that you like them any more than you can convince me that i like mushrooms. i will, however, debate on the same level, as low as the other person wishes to take it. you're not dealing with a 'high road' kind of person here.

and marketing? i must have missed something, because i don't remember ever seeing a trailer or commercial or advertising of any stripe hyping a boll movie. not even on a DVD preview section (with the vague possibility i'd seen one for 'house of the dead'), so since i don't know where you hang out or what you watch that you've been dumped on by this marketing blitz, and that i've never seen it, i'm unaffected by something i have doubts really exists.

and if i'm inventing my own argument, i think it's a damn good one. then again, what do i know, i'm just a humourless, soulless, retard wearing boxing gloves trying to figure out how to eat these damn screaming muffins. (gawd, i love call backs.)

preyer said:

'What's to argue?' ~ okay, then what's to argue with my position then?

Click to expand...

Well, let's see:

you rather beg to be argued with when you call people humourless, soulless, retards, then have the nerve to pretend that you're the one offended.

Click to expand...

I didn't say humourless, and I didn't say soulless. Neither did anyone else.

I'm offended because you're accusing me of saying things I didn't say, and I do believe I have every right to argue that I didn't say them. Furthermore, you aren't confusing my arguments with someone else's - you're just making things up and pretending they happened.

I don't have a problem with argument. But argument is not inventing things to argue about; it's responding to the actual statements someone else made. I never said ANYONE here was a retard. I said the people who are angry in the theatre after an Uwe Boll movie are retards. And if you can't tell the difference, may I humbly suggest you make at least some effort to figure it out before you invent something else I didn't say?

Your argument to date is a non sequitur. Uwe Boll doesn't make good movies? Well, gee, I never said he did. So you'd win, if there was someone on the other side of that argument, but there isn't.

Who would have thought that a thread about Uwe Bol would end up locked? I think for all concerned, the moral of this story is word choice matters.



*adds Rainy to list of enemies.