JackFetch Posted October 8, 2007 Report Share Posted October 8, 2007 Uwe Boll's latest video game movie is based on the PC game Dungeon Siege. It has some big stars in it, and apparently the dvd is going to be a 3 hour long director's cut. http://www.inthenameoftheking.com/ The trailer: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v8018387kjKwTpj The cast: Jason Statham John Rhys-Davies Ray Liotta Matthew Lillard Leelee Sobieski Burt Reynolds Ron Perlman Will Sanderson Claire Forlani Brian J. White Kristanna Loken Burt Reynolds + Uwe Boll = gem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James D. Posted October 8, 2007 Report Share Posted October 8, 2007 I want to vomit. Jason Statham, Ron Perlman and Ray Liotta in a Uwe Boll movie? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Marv Posted October 8, 2007 Report Share Posted October 8, 2007 Maybe there's a small chance this might not be a total waste of film? This IS Uwe Boll, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted December 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2007 It's coming out January 11. I'm going to see it just for Reynolds and Leelee. I will not be spending money for it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Robinson Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 I’m so tempted to watch this just to see how much of a train wreck it is. Not that I’ll actually watch it in cinemas of course, but it may get a rental at some point. Hell, what’s next for Uwe? Tetris maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 Hell, what’s next for Uwe? Tetris maybe? Word has it that Jessica Alba is in line to play the square block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted December 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 I’m so tempted to watch this just to see how much of a train wreck it is. Not that I’ll actually watch it in cinemas of course, but it may get a rental at some point. Hell, what’s next for Uwe? Tetris maybe? Farcry and Alone in the Dark 2 are both in post production. Of course there is also Postal. He churns them out like they are on a conveyor belt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chops Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 I want to vomit. Jason Statham, Ron Perlman and Ray Liotta in a Uwe Boll movie? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. This is the first I've seen this thread and I have to agree with James. These three actors range from good, Statham, to great, Liotta,. Why would they possibly be connected to this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 I desperately wish I could find the link, because I think Uwe himself said it all: "If you loved Lord of the Rings, you'll like Dungeon Siege." (italics mine) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted January 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 It was by far my biggest movie with over a sixty million dollar budget. It took two and a half years to finish it. We have like thirteen hundred CGI shots in it. We shot four months, which is unusual for me, usually I'm done in two months of shooting. It was a big adventure to shoot that movie but the bigger adventure was the post production because it took one and a half years. We had a lot of different vendors. We had to fire many vendors to find the right ones for the more complicated CGI scenes. http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=18...amp;sectionId=7 Someone gave him 60 million dollars? Other strange things from the interview: Burt Reynolds asked to be in the movie. It's already out in Russia and Germany. It's the number 1 movie in Russia as of the interview. He doesn't think Halo would make a very good movie. He's possibly making a Hunter:The Reckoning movie. He made In the Name of the King because he couldn't make the Warcraft movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James D. Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 I love Jason Statham, but this movie looks incredibly over-the-top stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted January 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 John Rhys-Davies tells why he decided to be a part of the movie: "I'll be honest with you. The builders have not finished my house and I was going mad and I thought, this could be fun," the actor said. "'Who else is in it? Burt's in it? Oh, I'm on.' Let's go and see if we can make a success out of this one. Do I regret that? No, not at all, I think this could do well." Not exactly the purest reason to join a film, but at least he had nice things to say about his director: "I like Uwe very much. He knows what he wants. He is a remarkable producer. He hasn't fired me yet, and that's always a good thing as far as the actor's concerned." http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3165417 So he did it to get away from the stress of having a house built? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 It was by far my biggest movie with over a sixty million dollar budget. It took two and a half years to finish it. We have like thirteen hundred CGI shots in it. We shot four months, which is unusual for me, usually I'm done in two months of shooting. It was a big adventure to shoot that movie but the bigger adventure was the post production because it took one and a half years. We had a lot of different vendors. We had to fire many vendors to find the right ones for the more complicated CGI scenes. http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=18...amp;sectionId=7 Someone gave him 60 million dollars? He gets all of his money via overseas tax loopholes, which pay him back up to the budget of any movie he makes if it fails to make a profit (and none of his movies have), meaning, he has unlimited resource to keep making movies as long as he's still breathing. One of the many reasons I don't believe there is a God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted January 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 It was by far my biggest movie with over a sixty million dollar budget. It took two and a half years to finish it. We have like thirteen hundred CGI shots in it. We shot four months, which is unusual for me, usually I'm done in two months of shooting. It was a big adventure to shoot that movie but the bigger adventure was the post production because it took one and a half years. We had a lot of different vendors. We had to fire many vendors to find the right ones for the more complicated CGI scenes. http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=18...amp;sectionId=7 Someone gave him 60 million dollars? He gets all of his money via overseas tax loopholes, which pay him back up to the budget of any movie he makes if it fails to make a profit (and none of his movies have), meaning, he has unlimited resource to keep making movies as long as he's still breathing. One of the many reasons I don't believe there is a God. He talks about that in the 1Up interview. The tax loop hole theory is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James D. Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 I don't see how it could be false for the simple reason that his movies do not make much money in theatres. Bloodrayne grossed, what, $3.8 million in the US? I highly doubt DVD sales could be so exponentially high as to counteract the failures at the box office, but maybe I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted January 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Well, you might be right because I did some checking on his claims that his movie is doing so well in Russia and Germany, and he's a damn liar. He claimed that it's the number 1 movie in Russia and in the top ten in Germany. The actual numbers: Russia - #3 it's first week. #7 it's second week. Numbers not available since, but unless something huge happened it continued to go down. Germany - #39 it's opening week. Not on the charts last week. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Boll casts his films last minute. He catches actors in their off-time for a lot cheaper than their bigger films. Think about it? You're asking why Statham and Liotta would be in this film? Michael Madsen, Michelle Rodriguez and fucking Ben Kingsley were in Bloodrayne! Gandhi for God's sake! He pays well for a few weeks of shooting and, due to the glut of shit I've seen in some indie films in my day I think Boll's films are kind of good in an entirely unintellectual way. You have to respect the guy who makes 60 million dollar films outside of the American Studio system who is so successful inside America. Kudos to him. Dungeon Siege is going to fucking rock. It's going to suck, but it's going to rock! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 It was by far my biggest movie with over a sixty million dollar budget. It took two and a half years to finish it. We have like thirteen hundred CGI shots in it. We shot four months, which is unusual for me, usually I'm done in two months of shooting. It was a big adventure to shoot that movie but the bigger adventure was the post production because it took one and a half years. We had a lot of different vendors. We had to fire many vendors to find the right ones for the more complicated CGI scenes. http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=18...amp;sectionId=7 Someone gave him 60 million dollars? He gets all of his money via overseas tax loopholes, which pay him back up to the budget of any movie he makes if it fails to make a profit (and none of his movies have), meaning, he has unlimited resource to keep making movies as long as he's still breathing. One of the many reasons I don't believe there is a God. He talks about that in the 1Up interview. The tax loop hole theory is false. Shockingly enough, aside from being a bad filmmaker, he's also a liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 Shockingly enough, aside from being a bad filmmaker, he's also a liar. Do you have anything to back that up? My understanding of the tax loophole is that his backers get back everything they give through a tax break. They only pay Boll, and get profit if it does well, which they do. If it's just a constant cycle of non-profit filmmaking the backers wouldn't bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 "Maybe you know it but it's not so easy to finance movies in total. And the reason I am able to do these kind of movies is I have a tax shelter fund in Germany, and if you invest in a movie in Germany you get basically fifty percent back from the Government." - Alone in the Dark DVD commentary. "Boll is able to acquire funding thanks to German tax laws that reward investments in film. The law allows investors in German-owned films to write off 100% of their investment as a tax deduction; it also allows them to invest borrowed money and write off any fees associated with the loan. The investor is then only required to pay taxes on the profits made by the movie; if the movie loses money, the investor gets a tax writeoff." -wiki House of the Dead - Budget: $12 milliion Profit: Around $7 million Alone in the Dark - Budget: $20 million Profit: A little over $5 million Bloodrayne - Budget: $25 million Profit: $2.42 million Not accounting for DVD sales, but even then the gap is way too large. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 And he does very well on DVD sales due to the lack of involvement by studios. But, I still think the tax write-off is an unfair way of slamming Boll. If his films don't profit, he doesn't get paid. Plus, the Canadian Film Board funds filmmakers in much the same way up here. Boll's films are better than most of the shit coming out of Canada... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James D. Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 And he does very well on DVD sales due to the lack of involvement by studios. But, I still think the tax write-off is an unfair way of slamming Boll. If his films don't profit, he doesn't get paid. Plus, the Canadian Film Board funds filmmakers in much the same way up here. Boll's films are better than most of the shit coming out of Canada... That is an extremely scary thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 And he does very well on DVD sales due to the lack of involvement by studios. But, I still think the tax write-off is an unfair way of slamming Boll. If his films don't profit, he doesn't get paid. Plus, the Canadian Film Board funds filmmakers in much the same way up here. Boll's films are better than most of the shit coming out of Canada... If his films don't profit, he gets all his money back, is the point. And then just profits from the DVD gross. Meaning he has pretty much zero incentive to make good movies because he makes money no matter what. It's definately not an unfair slam on the guy. All the tax BS is not my main reasoning for it anyway. If he even looked like he was trying, fine, but I slam Boll because he makes really shitty movies based on a medium I happen to be more than a little fond of. I know it's cool to like him now because he's some kind of morbidly amusing cult figure, but, seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 I know it's cool to like him now because he's some kind of morbidly amusing cult figure, but, seriously. I like him because he makes movies that are successful outside of the HJollywood Studio machine and he does it with people who are very much part of that machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 I know it's cool to like him now because he's some kind of morbidly amusing cult figure, but, seriously. I like him because he makes movies that are successful outside of the HJollywood Studio machine and he does it with people who are very much part of that machine. So, it's all about fighting the power and has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of his movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.