Ryan Stewart: Uwe Boll, Director of Postal

......................... hack.

What a jackass

Haha, this interview made me laugh.

I knew he was kind of a putz already, but this really put a bad taste in my mouth. He blames everyone he can for his failures and has no respect for women. Ugh.

I'd just like to say I actually did try to read the interview properly.

But I can't, and apparently I'm better off not reading it anyway.

The guy's a total smeghead. Not even worth a rant, just another opportunity to express my wish that he never makes movies ever again.

Uwe is a total wank and it saddens me to even see his name on this website.

Anybody who takes his statements in this interview or in the movie seriously, understand neither. I can't bloody wait to see this movie! Great interview Ryan.

Hehe.

Other than that, I can not really say anything meaningful, because I don't know his movies.
But I have at some points seen, that hating Boll is a social necessity alonw by the fact that ... He is Uwe Boll, EVERYBODY hates him, because ... his movies are bad ... EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT, ... You don't want to be a freak and oppose EVERYBODY, do you?

I respect and admire the man who pays for his movies with government, and defends them with fists. Anyone who believes Uwe Boll a "wank" is either a videogame-nurtured fanboy who can't tolerate deviation, or a film critic who can't appreciate good-bad cinema. I just wish that every film screening featured a shirtless, belligerant Uwe tirade via microphone-lowered-from-sky, whereby the patrons would boo and he would spew. I'll probably see this shit in the theatre, because Judd Apatow might not be releasing a refreshing and unformulaic comedy that weekend. But for now, I must get back to Dancecentrum in Struttgart in time to see Kraftwerk.

Bring 'em on! The more offensive and "controversial" the better! Bugger what everybody else says, if you are the "only" one who likes it then you do still like it, which is all that matters in the long run. Besides, I am confrontational as all hell, so opposing everybody sounds pretty sexy. Me vs. EVERYBODY...I like those odds.

Interesting interview...
Too bad all of his movies are horrible.

Boll's movies shouldn't be dropped from theaters for being controversial. they should be dropped for being terrible. they're not 'so bad they're good', they're just bad.

and why would i want to see a 'so bad it's good' movie about a video game that i actually enjoyed? nobody's asking for Shakespeare, here. something on the level of, say, Blade would suffice. hell, i'd even settle for a movie that meets the high standards set by Blade 3. hire a decent choreographer, use an FX crew that you didn't find pissing on themselves in a dirty alley, get your actors to stop phoning in their lines. put some fucking production value into it, for chrissake.

I'm ending my association with this thing by saying only this:

If we dropped movies from the theaters for being "terrible", we'd have pretty much NO movies left to go see. Period. Your opinion of a good movie, thankfully, does not determine whether or not they're shown. If everybody agreed that his movies were terrible, he'd cease to get funding for them, so that says that there is obviously a market for them, like it or not. I'm pretty sure they have Blade 9,102,556 coming out soon anyways, so we'll all be content with our taste in shitty movies. This is not a horror movie about vampires either, it's a satire. It's your prerogative to not see it, like it's the prerogative of those theaters not to show it. That's just my two cents, so don't flame me if that is your impulse.

I too enjoyed the games, hell I talk to Desi via e-mail all the time, best CEO in the business if you ask me.

Get
Him
BANNED!SIGN IT!

that's actually not true at all. he gets funding by playing with German tax law, under which the German government essentially pays film investors back 50% of their investment--not to mention that every investment, including all fees on borrowed money used for the investment, is 100% tax-deductible. what that means, essentially, is that Boll's films have to make an incredibly minimal profit in order for investors to get dollars on the penny. he manages to make that incredibly minimal profit by spinning gold into straw--slapping good, worthwhile names onto junk that any first-year college film student could crap out with their eyes closed. Boll's films don't get funding because people like them, they get funding because it doesn't matter if people like them. there are always going to be enough diehard fans of any given intellectual property, who are willing to swallow whatever shit anybody feeds them as long as it has their favorite brand on it, to allow Boll to continue.

You can always give him to the Dutch.

This guy is an idiot. I love how he's trying to play up the angle that this film is "controversial." It's "ahead of its time."

Idiot.

Have you guys seen the trailer? This looks like one of the stupidest films in years. The very fact that the lead character is called The Postal Dude...

He's more than welcome to keep making his films, and this petition to get him to stop is idiotic (although, I did sign it as a lark) because you can't stop him as long as there are people interested. I just wish he'd shut up in the process. Don't try to play yourself up as some kind of maverick. You're a fucking hack who makes cheap video game knock offs. The idea that this moronic film will be "important" is such self-serving nonesense.

Okay, I'm going to jump back into this one more time to respond to this sadly repetitive debate which...apparently seems to simply shift onto different tracks. However, the response my friend mailed me was just too juicy to pass up.

Another friend of mine saw this thing and told me of a direct response from motorfirefox, which is cool, but I have to make this quick since I have lectures in all of 25 minutes. What you seem to be getting at, even though it has nothing to do with anything in this discussion, is that first you admit without realizing (in a debate, changing subjects or name calling etc. forfeits credibility as far as I am concerned) that I am correct that he should NOT be banned purely on the weak point that his movies are "horrible", since the quality of a movie still ultimately boils down to the individual (i.e. not just YOU but everybody) viewer. Basing something so political purely on one's own opinion is about as shallow as I can imagine an act being. Taking into account that if your argument were taken seriously, it would also affect people who like his films, I don't but I am giving this one a chance.

Only, now we bring up German tax Law as a means of attacking Uwe...wow, wait a minute. Isn't any German director who borrows a little money to do their film "exploiting" this law sir? Pay attention to the keyword LAW in that statement, which means that obviously the entire German Government did not see anything wrong with it. Quick! Start going after practically every German independent film director....because, and here's where you come back to the initial topic of this debate....his movies suck?? Look, I've got no beef with you, or anybody else here. You all sound like perfectly intelligent people so maybe I am missing something completely insidious about Mr. Boll. I am just saying that if you dislike the man himself, fine, you hate his movies DO NOT SEE THEM. Setting into motion the obliteration of his Free Speech by banning his films while in the process of exercising your very own rights is about as low as you can go. Just go see Indiana Jones or whatever instead, they both come out today. Concerning German tax law we both refer to, I am not a lawyer nor do I wish to be, I am just basing this on what you bring up. Which still sounds like he is gambling with his own money and doing it within the boundaries of established law.

Remember, they wanted to do the same thing to George Carlin several times because some individual people did not like his "Seven Words" routine. Taken into context of what he was saying about the absurdity of censoring, they simply proved him right if anything. When you go to the theater, any time you do it remember these words folks: "To see, or not to see. That is the question." I had to throw in the campy Shakespeare reference since you brought it up before.

Enjoy the movie or don't. I am ending it off (this time hopefully for good) by repeating my overall message, which is vote with your wallet on this one, you have done it every other time you left the house.

i'm not calling for Boll movies to be banned. i'm calling for them to be boycotted, by both fans and investors. it's a free market, mostly; i'd like to see the market use its freedom to discourage movies which blatantly devalue the intellectual property they're based on. given that the market has the intelligence of a pithed frog, i don't see that happening, but a man can dream.

i didn't use German tax law to "attack" Boll, i used to to disprove your hypothesis that Boll gets funding because people like his movies. people don't like his movies. he gets money anyway.

which brings me to my next point: voting with my wallet isn't an option, because my vote doesn't count. the election is rigged. Boll's movies bomb, every single time, but he still gets enough of a return on the money invested that more investors are willing to give him money. if a movie shows up at the theater, there's always going to be a few people who go see it. even if they hate it, and they tell all their friends not to see it, and none of their friends go see it, there will be enough ticket sales that Boll's investors will be happy.

He's just such an idiot. But whatever, at least he can finally be ignored.

Laptops are a wonderful thing! Things are moving slowly here so I figured I would check back. Thanks to this little forum I have just now noticed the space in my SG handle, 3 years after the fact.

First, let me repeat myself by pointing out that you do think things through very well motorfirebox. So before I proceed with this response, let me say that I think there's a separation of common language thing going on here which is confusing things a wee bit. My response about banning the film was, and still is, the fact that it IS being banned in a lot of places based solely on the fact that people find his films objectionable in some way. As a movie that some people might actually want to see, myself a case in point with this individual film, it does still deserve to be dropped on the same merit that any other film would be, which is sales (or lack thereof in some cases). If it does badly, then they should deposit it wherever they wish. I have done a lot of poking around, and not single one of those representing the choice to ban the film (whether it be a chain of theaters or in the case of this one entire countries) have based their pitiful excuses on poor sales on previous films or even the current one, they all cite their squeamishness of the subject matter of this film. They say that mind you, not myself. In the Free Market that is their prerogative, does not change my viewing their excuses as weak and pathetic, that view is MY prerogative. I am calling the theaters wrong on this one, not you.

That is the part I was coming down on, and I honestly thought we were continuing that part. What has happened, most likely due to my way of structuring my arguments, is a crossing of arguments, which is why we are still hitting a wall here. My responses to those attending this forum concerning banning him is mostly guys saying things like this:
"Get
Him
BANNED"

I know you saw it too, and those are the ones I am referring to. Boycotting is fine, and that is the legitimate rights of every consumer and investor, boycott until you are blue in the face. Boycotting is quite different from bans, which is what the movie, and the games it is based upon, have been facing since day one. I know, because Vince Desi himself has discussed it with me via e-mail on numerous occasions. For a clear epitome of that shit, look up Jack Thompson, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, and a whole host of other prestigious names. Voting with your wallet is not the same as an electoral vote, there is a confusion there many times, it means simply to choose the movies you want to see, and turn your blind eye to those you don't. A boycott IS voting with your wallet by the way, just because it does not chase a bad director out of the business does not mean that it has no effect, since you are still not seeing the movie you find to be of poor taste or quality. Nothing "Free" is rigged by the definition of the word, ergo neither is the marketplace of ideas that covers any and all forms of expression. Voting with your wallet, means not seeing it.

The statement about the funding coming from viewership is self-evident, the fact that they might not like it afterward has nil to do with it. Investors do not have to see the expressions on your face as you walk out halfway through the movie (some cases, that might occur sooner), they see the profits, which makes my statement correct from the investor perspective. I was not referring to Uwe Boll himself, which actually makes your talking about German Tax codes completely out of context, which was what I said to begin with. If what he is doing is completely legal in Germany, which I assume is where he still hails from, then he's not doing anything wrong. Don't like it? Change things on the legalities side of the matter, the film and taxes are not remotely related. Which, for me, officially closes this discussion. We both see the investors as complete muddleheads who think with their asses and see only dollar signs, we'll just have to agree to disagree about the movies we watch and the people who make them.

One more thing in closing, I've heard him interviewed by German speaking people before, and they always pronounce his name "oov-uh". Is that the correct way of pronouncing it? Can't hurt to know that for future reference.

i'd have an easier time objecting to that if i didn't find Boll himself to be so objectionable. he makes a series of crap movies that actually lessen the value of the properties they make use of, and then tries to make a 'commentary' movie that ends up pissing everyone off. and anyone who says they don't like it "just doesn't understand".

championing Boll's movies under the banner of free speech devalues the concept of free speech, especially when no actual censorship is involved. the gubmint is not stepping in here and telling Boll what he can and cannot say; this is an action taken by private entities who have exercised their right to not support or disseminate material they don't agree with. i support the Republican party's right to try to get McCain elected president. but since i'm an Obama supporter, i'm not going to--nor do i have any legal impetus to--enter into a contract to design a website for them.

legality does not define ethics. what Boll is doing is completely legal, and completely unethical. he's making a quick buck by actively damaging the properties he uses. Bloodrayne's never going to get picked up by anyone else; Boll ruined it. hell, the second game barely sold and there most likely won't be a third--something i can't imagine isn't related to the amazingly craptastic quality of the movie Boll dumped on us.