Stop Uwe Boll From Making Movies

[Nightmare]

I actually already signed the petition about 2 weeks ago. The man is a moron and makes horrible movies, and I don't want him getting the rights to certain franchises and ruining them.

Granted the petition doesn't accomplish anything, since he won't stop making movies. He did actually say he would with a million signatures, but it was said in jest, and was done mostly for publicity to promote Postal. He's since gone back on it, I think, once he saw how fast the petition number was growing. The petition IS a meaningless exercise, but I personally believe pretty much all petitions are. Petitions about human rights, animal rights, or changing government policies almost never really accomplish anything beyond establishing a group in opposition to something, which is exactly what this petition does.

And hey, if I can be spiteful towards some moronic Hollywood rich-man, I'm going to sign the petition.

[Siberys]

Originally Posted by C Elegans

I actually don't know exactly when you are trying to funny and not, Sib, but I do think that you are very funny sometimes

I don't know anything else about this Boll except that he makes bad movies. You say he singlehandedly created a massive amount of stereotypes, which stereotypes and what are the negative effects of those stereotypes? How do these Bollian stereotypes differ from existing stereotypes in our society?

How about the big one, that video games turned into movies is automatically a bad idea. Not many people thought that before Boll came along, and now anyone who has seen his movies thinks this as if it were second nature.

Also...I've usually used smiley's when trying to be funny, in fact in the past 6 months to a year I've almost always done it that way. Furthermore a long diatribe disagreeing with DW should have been enough to know that I wasn't joking, especially considering how much longer you've been in SYM than me. I don't buy it when you say you didn't know.

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Siberys

How about the big one, that video games turned into movies is automatically a bad idea. Not many people thought that before Boll came along, and now anyone who has seen his movies thinks this as if it were second nature.

But that is not a stereotype, it's simply a correct observation based on empirical data. Everyone I know, and I know a lot of people who are seriously into movies, even a few who are professional directors themselves, thought the idea was so horrible so they just crunched when it became reality. Like DW points out, it cannot work because of the inbuild limits in current computer games. When you mentioned stereotypes, I thought you also meant that his movies contained immoral, degrading or discriminating stereotypes that were in some way harmful to human life. However, seing it's only about giving a really bad idea of how to make really bad movies a bad name, then I think it's really a parody

Also...I've usually used smiley's when trying to be funny, in fact in the past 6 months to a year I've almost always done it that way. Furthermore a long diatribe disagreeing with DW should have been enough to know that I wasn't joking, especially considering how much longer you've been in SYM than me. I don't buy it when you say you didn't know.

Honestly Siberys, no offence, but sometimes I find your reasoning so strange and off so I wonder whether you are joking, or really don't get it or is a completely diffent species. But that's another discussion, so let's leave it.

[Siberys]

It's not a stereotype to judge all video game movies in the same manner as you judge uwe boll video game movies? I fail to see how that isn't almost the purest definition of stereotype I've ever heard.

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by dragon wench

*sighs*

OK, let's honestly think about this...
The concept of making a movie out of a game....

I don't care if it is Boll or anyone else producing them, IMO it does not and can not work, period.

Games based on books or movies? Sure. But, it does not work in reverse.

The typical video game tends to be fairly thin on plot, and equally thin on personality development, the emphasis is almost entirely on action. It lacks the narrative structure required for a good movie, so what you end up with is many "fill in the blanks" between slaughtering-every-monster-in-sight scene.

The only game I can really think of that might have the potential to be turned into a decent movie is Planescape Torment, because it has an incredibly profound narrative. Beyond PS:T however, I just don't see it.
The reality is that any game (the above example excepted) is going to be garbage as a movie, it truly doesn't matter who is involved in its creation.

Umm... have to disagree with you. MOST games turns into bad movies, but there as some exceptions: Final Fantasy: Advent Children, Silent Hill, Mortal Kombat I and Resident Evil movies (those were very good actually, especially when compared to most zombie-horror movies) comes to my mind...

[Siberys]

Final Fantasy: Advent Children, Silent Hill, Mortal Kombat I and Resident Evil

Advent Children, Mortal Kombat, and all three resident evil movies are mediocre at best. Granted, they aren't bad, but they aren't great either. Silent hill however, that movie was frickin great.

[dragon wench]

Originally Posted by Siberys

It's not a stereotype to judge all video game movies in the same manner as you judge uwe boll video game movies? I fail to see how that isn't almost the purest definition of stereotype I've ever heard.

Sib,
what we are trying to say here is that by their very nature video games *lack* the material that makes a good movie. It does not matter *who* is making them , it could be Elvis reincarnated, the man on the moon, my nutjob mother-in-law, or Mickey Mouse. The end result would *still* be the same.
Also, I have always been of this view, long before I ever even heard of Boll, so there's no stereotyping going on here.

Simply put >>
video games lack plot, they lack in-depth characterization, they lack structure. They do *not* translate to movies. It just is not possible.

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by Siberys

Advent Children, Mortal Kombat, and all three resident evil movies are mediocre at best. Granted, they aren't bad, but they aren't great either.

Well, that's matter of personal opinion, but those movies have/had quite big fanbase, so they can't be terrible, which counters the statement that movies based to video games can't be anything else than terrible.

[Siberys]

what we are trying to say here is that by their very nature video games *lack* the material that makes a good movie. It does not matter *who* is making them , it could be Elvis reincarnated, the man on the moon, my nutjob mother-in-law, or Mickey Mouse. The end result would *still* be the same.
Also, I have always been of this view, long before I ever even heard of Boll, so there's no stereotyping going on here.

And I completely disagree, and think that a lot of video games, even ones with very sparse and generic stories can be elaborated on, expanded upon, and gratified into a completely new and original story for a movie.

For instance, an elder scrolls movie, that has a LOT of material to work with, and can easily be made into a movie. So can Diablo 2 or titan quest, even though their stories are kind of lacking.

All video games have the potential to make a great story for a movie, it's really not as impossible as everybody thinks it is. But if Uwe boll keeps taking the role of making these video game movies, then yes, it is impossible. Just think of how many fanfictions are out there. A fanfiction is just a few steps away from being a movie script, and a fanfiction for many of the video games out there are actually quite good (just from my experience).

[fable]

Originally Posted by Kipi

Well, that's matter of personal opinion, but those movies have/had quite big fanbase, so they can't be terrible...

Oh, having a big fanbase is no guarantee against terrible quality. If you loko book into the history of popular culture, you'll find that a lot of contemporary garbage was extremely well-liked during its day. Cecil B DeMille's The Ten Commandments was a blockbuster hit of a film, despite being chessy, bloated, ridiculous, and overdone. Do you think Duke Ellington or maybe Tommy Dorsey led the most popular big bands? No, they were led by the likes of Guy Lombardo, Shep Fields, and Lawrence Welk. Large numbers of enthusiastic supporters elected Ronald Reagan, initiating the "me" generation of US politics. A big fanbase may come along with quality, or without it, but it more often than not means material pointed at the lowest common denominator. Make of that what you will.

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by dragon wench

Sib,
what we are trying to say here is that by their very nature video games *lack* the material that makes a good movie. It does not matter *who* is making them , it could be Elvis reincarnated, the man on the moon, my nutjob mother-in-law, or Mickey Mouse. The end result would *still* be the same.

But that is stereotyping. For example (this is fictional example, can't think better one without possibility to someone calling me racist, which I'm not), I know 20 wrestlers, and I think them all idiots. If I meet another wrestler, I'm thinking that he is idiot too basing my earlier experience, dependless on his actual personality, as I can't believe that there would come any wreslter who isn't idiot from current population.

My example has same baseline as this depate, and thus I call both of them stereotyping.

@Sib
I totally agree with you. Another example to add your list: BG series and Fallouts.

@Fable
You have a point there, but then we come to the question, how we determine the quality? Is something terrible because certain people claims so, or if we study the phenomeon several years after? Should we take into account the support is has got? Also, if something, in this case movie, has very large fan support, can it still be terrible, as there are lots of people who liked it?

[dragon wench]

You know Sib, (and Kipi too ) I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't think either of us are going to be persuaded the other is right


The other thing is, but why even worry about games being turned into movies?
There are so many potentially interesting themes or concepts upon which to base a move... So why find inspiration in something as generic as a video game?
You'd be better off watching a bunch of campy old spaghetti westerns, which had the same kind of sharply delineated black/white, good/evil, right/wrong dichotomy.

[C Elegans]

What movies you think are good is of course a question of taste, but still:

Originally Posted by Kipi

I know 20 wrestlers, and I think them all idiots. If I meet another wrestler, I'm thinking that he is idiot too basing my earlier experience, dependless on his actual personality, as I can't believe that there would come any wreslter who isn't idiot from current population.

My example has same baseline as this depate, and thus I call both of them stereotyping.

To continue you example, let's say that all wrestlers have a genetically determined brain disease that makes their cognitive abilities lower than healthy people. Then it is not stereotyping but just a fact to say that wrestlers are more stupid (or in a nicer way, have lower cognitive abilities) than healthy people.

My reasoning is that movies based on computer games, so far, must be bad because of the innate errors in computer games. But as I said, I do not exclude that in the future, we may get computer games with qualities that makes it possible to make good movies out of them. That would be analogous to say that in the future, we may have smart wrestlers thanks to genotherapy that can alter their faulty code.

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by dragon wench

You know Sib, (and Kipi too ) I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't think either of us are going to be persuaded the other is right

True, though my intentions actually weren't to persuade any of you to change you opinion. Just pointing out that I disagree with you, and wanted to give some explanations why so that no-one can come to me and state that "You disagree with us, but you don't give any reasons why you do"

The other thing is, but why even worry about games being turned into movies?
There are so many potentially interesting themes or concepts upon which to base a move... So why find inspiration in something as generic as a video game?
You'd be better off watching a bunch of campy old spaghetti westerns, which had the same kind of sharply delineated black/white, good/evil, right/wrong dichotomy.

Actually, I'm not worried about games being turned to movies as long as there is possibility that the movie could be good. And... as this thread is, after all, about games turned to movies, I wasn't touching the side of other concepts being inspirating movies...

Oh, and to get closer to the actual topic of this thread, I agree that Boll shouldn't made any more movies, dependless where it's basing, as so far I don't know any good movie from him. And unless Boll is going to prove me otherwise, I'm sticking on that opinion.

Originally Posted by CE

To continue you example, let's say that all wrestlers have a genetically determined brain disease that makes their cognitive abilities lower than healthy people. Then it is not stereotyping but just a fact to say that wrestlers are more stupid (or in a nicer way, have lower cognitive abilities) than healthy people.

My reasoning is that movies based on computer games, so far, must be bad because of the innate errors in computer games. But as I said, I do not exclude that in the future, we may get computer games with qualities that makes it possible to make good movies out of them. That would be analogous to say that in the future, we may have smart wrestlers thanks to genotherapy that can alter their faulty code.

You have a good point there. But also, how can we be sure that games even sold today doesn't have potential to be turned to good movie unless someone with good abilities try to do so? And I'm not counting Boll among those who have those abilities...

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Kipi

@Fable
You have a point there, but then we come to the question, how we determine the quality? Is something terrible because certain people claims so, or if we study the phenomeon several years after? Should we take into account the support is has got? Also, if something, in this case movie, has very large fan support, can it still be terrible, as there are lots of people who liked it?

How to determine the quality of art was recently discussed in another thread:
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/sp...pam-97752.html

As I mentioned in that thread, the quality of art can be judged by for instance the skill demanded to produce the work, the degree of novelty, the degree of impact on the field of art and influence in other areas ie politics, society, development etc, whether it is genre creating or genre defining etc.