Stop Uwe Boll From Making Movies

[fable]

Originally Posted by Kipi

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?

Some things are a matter of personal taste, and some of cultural taste. But there are also objective criteria we can employ to evaluate the arts based on craft. For example, when Bela Lugosi died during the filming of Plan 9 from Outer Space, director Ed Wood got a stand-in who didn't look remotely like Lugosi, and was much taller. He just moved around a great deal with a cape over his head. This is a blatant example of bad craft, but still an example of the kind of thing we can look for in a film's direction and writing.

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?

Something can be terrible, even if a great many people like it. ABBA, anyone? Reality tv? Or are you a big supporter of TV evangelists, Fox News, and Silvio Berlusconi?

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Kipi

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...

I wouldn't say it's totally impossible, but if that happened, it would be in the same line as making a good movie with Barbie dolls, ie it would be a concept so far from the original so the expression "video game turned into a movie" would not at all be fitting anymore, not even "movie based on..." but rather "movie using this as an instrumental symbol...".
Let's say a really great director like Ozu, Keige or Kubrick made a movie using Barbie dolls. That movie would not be about the actual Barbie doll in the manner she is produced, with the characteristics that she actually has and the values they transfer. In the same manner, no great director would make a brilliant movie out of any existing computer game as it actually is, although it is fully possible to use video games, barbie dolls, Teletubbies or Big Brother in an abstract, symbolic, instrumental way to convey a message about something completely else. Then it's no longer a move "based on a computer game and even less a "game turned into a movie".

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by fable

ABBA, anyone?

ABBA was not so bad musically, from a pop music perspective! And the girls could actually sing. Sweden has produced much worse - what about Max Martin, producer and song writer for Britney Spears and Back Street Boys?

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by C Elegans

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

Ah, seems that I have missed that thread. That's what you get when you are too busy to check the forums well regulary.

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.

By those definitions, if we were talking about art (which, in some way movies and games could be counted as), wouldn't influence to large population in a way that that population forms a group of fans turn it to good art? Or at least mediocre? As I understood from that thread (made only quick overall look on it, reading it fully with better time) and as my mind tells me, even though not everybody likes something, if the thing, in this case movie, affect positively to population it can be claimed to be "good"? By this I mean that IMO something can't be claimed universally terrible if it has positive affection to part of the population, which then returns to the point that not all movies based on games can be labeled terrible, which then contradice the claims that movie based games are automatically terrible.

I hope the point I try to say above is understandable, as my mind ain't working even nearly full capacity. It's nearly 5 a.m. here after all...

[fable]

Originally Posted by C Elegans

ABBA was not so bad musically, from a pop music perspective! And the girls could actually sing. Sweden has produced much worse - what about Max Martin, producer and song writer for Britney Spears and Back Street Boys?

Many decent singers sing garbage, but ABBA sang pure pablum. Even their harmonies have no edge. They're so unbelievably white that only Scandanavia could unleash their abilities on the world. No comparisons with Spears or BSB are possible, because the latter pair are sex objects. It's difficult to imagine, based on their songs, that anybody in ABBA ever had sex in their entire lives, despite claims to the contrary.

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Kipi

By those definitions, if we were talking about art (which, in some way movies and games could be counted as), wouldn't influence to large population in a way that that population forms a group of fans turn it to good art? Or at least mediocre? As I understood from that thread (made only quick overall look on it, reading it fully with better time) and as my mind tells me, even though not everybody likes something, if the thing, in this case movie, affect positively to population it can be claimed to be "good"?

It's nearly 4 am here as you know, so I'm not in a better shape than you and I may be able to give a better answer tomorrow, but anyway: what I meant in the other threat was not that popularity, ie how many likes something is a good measure of the quality of art, what I meant was that "importance", impact, could be used as a measure since I think impact on society is one of the functions of art. So a computer game that has a large fan-base who like a movie based on their game because they like the game, is not what I mean because the movie does not affect them in a way that makes them to out and change the course of history.

[Kipi]

I will reply to otehr comments later, the words are currently jumping to my eyes making it hard to read and especially understand what I read. It ain't good to be awake over 24 hours without sleeping...

Originally Posted by fable

Something can be terrible, even if a great many people like it. ABBA, anyone? Reality tv? Or are you a big supporter of TV evangelists, Fox News, and Silvio Berlusconi?

In case of ABBA, is that your personal opinion or is there some larger support in that? In my opinion ABBA made very good music, and they even sold very well, at least in Sweden and in Finland. I don't have any more specific info about their sellings at hands, but I try to find some later. Also, at least here in Finland ABBA has been considered (and as far as I know still is) frontal figure of the music of it's style and era.

And while talking about music, you could as well say that new Nightwish is terrible, or many, many other band.

And about Reality tv...
Well, I'm not fan of those examples you threw in, but there are many Reality tv shows I actually enjoy watching, and I know many who also do so. And can Reality tv in whole be terrible if it as a category contains numerous formats that gets almost whole country hooked to it year after year?
Happened here with several formats, like Idols, Big Brother (which I personally dislike, but that's my opinion), several contest-style shows and so on...

[fable]

Originally Posted by Kipi

I will reply to otehr comments later, the words are currently jumping to my eyes making it hard to read and especially understand what I read. It ain't good to be awake over 24 hours without sleeping...

Oh, go to sleep! You shouldn't be up at this point, much less reading the deliberately insidious comments of CE and myself!

In case of ABBA, is that your personal opinion or is there some larger support in that?

It is my own opinion, and I was enjoying myself, thank you very much. But you can supply your own very-popular-but-horrible analogy, I'm sure. Still--there are objective criteria by which the arts can be measured, and examples found severely wanting. Yet many examples of entertainment are both wretched, and highly popular. Is it the high journalistic quality of its standards that make Fox News so popular, do you think?

And about Reality tv...
Well, I'm not fan of those examples you threw in, but there are many Reality tv shows I actually enjoy watching, and I know many who also do so.

But we're not discussing what one enjoys, but what is a favorite among a huge number of people: does that guarantee it can't be terrible? No; it only guarantees that many people enjoy it. Popularity and quality are not linked.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Kipi

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...

See, that is where the entire thing is subjective to begin with. You like movies X, Y and Z - others do not and think they suck.
Same with Boll's movies...... heck, I think Tarrentino is so incredible overrated and can't direct traffic in a one lane road - yet I respect peoples desire to see his sucky movies, without pushing agendas.

I'm off to sign a support Uwe Boll just to make some counterweight to those that wants to censor based on their subjective opinions.

[Maharlika]

Yes, fable, when it comes to Shatner, I'm with you all the way.

But ABBA? Here is where we part ways. I think their music didn't suck. My dad feels the same way too. My wife? Her fave is "Dancing Queen" since she was a little girl.

I had major crushes on the two babes when I was a little kidlet back in the '70's.

God knows what I was thinking about them.

As for Uwe Boll's penchant of making allegedly bad movies, well, in the world that he lives in, people are free to do anything they please provided that it doesn't break the law.

If one is rabidly against his work, visit your local congressman and ask him to draft the appropriate bill. Otherwise, the best course of action is not to even see, watch, or worse, purchase any copy of his movies.

[Moonbiter]

I have personally never seen an Uwe Boll movie, but I have followed his career with interest. What I find remarkable is the endless line of name Hollywood actors who line up to be in his movies. In his case I will however base my opinion on the majority: When none of his movies have ever made a dime, and he has the lowest critical scores of any director ever, all over the world, I have a sneaking suspicion that he might suck.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Kipi

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?

Kipi, the past is littered with truly horrendous stuff that was considered great entertainment while it was fresh. Let me provide a single example I think we can agree about: The Passing of the Great Race, by lawyer and eugenicist Madison Grant. It was Grant's contention that the "Nordic race" was being overwhelmed by hordes of inferior "Mediterraneans," Asians, Blacks, etc. He advocated that all immigration be restricted to Nordics, and that a selective breeding program be instituted to increase the numbers of the race in both Europe and the US.

Grant's work was a leading bestseller for more than a decade. Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover were his close friends. His theories were strongly endorsed by a lot of people in Western Europe and the US. He was considered highly readable and knowledgeable by the average person. But did the large number of people who read him and advocated his policies of racial eugenics mean that there was credibility to his ideas? How could they have been so terrible, if he was so very popular?

[Moonbiter]

Originally Posted by fable

They're so unbelievably white that only Scandanavia could unleash their abilities on the world.

LOL! Much as I enjoyed your opinion of ABBA, I must take issue with this statement. The whitest musical enemas ever was two very cornfed American acts, The Carpenters and The Osmonds. The latter were huge in Sweden in the early 70s, and no doubt inspired ABBA. Thanks a lot!

Back to Boll: I've decided to sacrifice myself in the name of science, and actually watch a Boll movie. After contemplating which one would be the most vile, I've decided upon his adaption of Alone In The Dark. It is based on a classic Lovecraftian adventure game, but Boll has set the movie in present day Los Angeles, added a heavy metal soundtrack and cast Christian Slater as the hero and airhead trainwreck Tara Reid as an archaeologist! Reid is apparently so gloriously bad in the movie that Boll himself has cut most of her scenes in the newest version of the film. I will therefore watch the original version to bask in the glory of her acting chops. The movie is ranked as the second worst reviewed movie of all time on Rotten Tomatoes. I will stock up on booze and horse-tranqulizers, and handcuff myself to the couch with the remote control out of reach. All in the name of science.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Moonbiter

LOL! Much as I enjoyed your opinion of ABBA, I must take issue with this statement. The whitest musical enemas ever was two very cornfed American acts, The Carpenters and The Osmonds. The latter were huge in Sweden in the early 70s, and no doubt inspired ABBA. Thanks a lot!

The Carpenters weren't in fact a singing group. They were a pair of robots parodied after USians, designed by Fidel Castro's eccentric scientist cousin, Gummo Castro, to see if they could pass the Turing Test. They couldn't.

And the Osmonds are aliens, as everyone knows.

I should have been clearer. ABBA was the most ghastly warm-blooded pop singing act to assault our ears in recent times. And because they were Swedish, they were too large to be stepped on accidentally in passing, which made matters worse.

On to less serious matters. I have yet to watch a Boll film. Call it an instinct for self-preservation that has served me well for most of my life. It doesn't sound as if he's quite as bad as, say, Ed Wood or John Derek, which means he'd be less entertaining, and more ghastly. But I don't see any reason to sign a petition against him. Hell, if he wants to keep making films, it's his business. I don't have to watch his work.