In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale


JackFetch

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.