Stop Uwe Boll From Making Movies

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:51 pm

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 · Post by **dragon wench** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:53 pm

Siberys wrote: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 · Post by **Kipi** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:57 pm

Siberys wrote: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 · Post by **Siberys** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:00 pm

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 · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:08 pm

Kipi wrote: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 · Post by **Kipi** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:10 pm

dragon wench wrote: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 · Post by **dragon wench** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:11 pm

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 · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:22 pm

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

Kipi wrote: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 · Post by **Kipi** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:24 pm

dragon wench wrote: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.

CE wrote: 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 · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:27 pm

Kipi wrote: @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/speak ... 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.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:36 pm

Kipi wrote: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 · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:40 pm

Kipi wrote: 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 · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:43 pm

fable wrote: 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 · Post by **Kipi** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:48 pm

C Elegans wrote:How to determine the quality of art was recently discussed in another thread:
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak ... 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 · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:52 pm

C Elegans wrote: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 · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:59 pm

Kipi wrote: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 · Post by **Kipi** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:07 pm

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...

fable wrote: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 · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:25 pm

Kipi wrote: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 · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:22 pm

Kipi wrote: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 · Post by **Maharlika** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:35 pm

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. :mischief:

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.