Uwe Boll- Really A Great Guy
- Thread starter Vivaldi
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, it seemed sincere to me and he's been fighting his corner for his right to say that. If he'd said something like 'I like Microsoft' then would people be having a go and saying he's a troll, even though Microsoft are sometimes worse than Uwe Boll in their own field? I think not. It's simply a hate-wagon, and because this guy dared to get off it everyone else still riding is being a bastard to him. There are some people here making informed comments on why they hate Uwe Boll and that's fair enough. No problem there. However, I just don't like it when people call him a troll for daring to have a different opinion. However, I also find it quite sad, yet ironic, that one of the only people supporting me on this thread was someone I was arguing with last night and who also got permabanned for some comment (the thread was deleted so I'm unsure what said comment was about).Steelfists said:
Because House of the Dead scarred me for life and Alone in the Dark made my friends cry. There should be some international law that forbids Uwe Boll from ever touching a movie camera ever again under penalty of being fired out of a cannon into the sun.Vivaldi said:
I know your being just trying to be "sarcastic" and "witty." Not only did it not work, but you have now turned everyone against you in one swift move. Great job!
You're not a samurai? Oh well. The real question is, CAN YOU MAKE TOAST?Wouldukindly said:Honour? What am I, a samurai?APPCRASH said:Haha, no honor or fun in that.Wouldukindly said:Oh yes, me too. Cept it wouldn't be in a boxing ring. It would be in a back alley. And I'd have a baseball bat
And Uwe Boll truely is an excellent man whose contributions to modern cinema will live on in the history books.
This went from Uwe Boll to a trolling arguements just above me, Boll had actually made one or two average movies IMO, far cry been one of them, but the rest were diabolical excuses for movies.
Oh yes, everyone has the right to troll, but then the mods have the right to use the Hammer on trolls. So really, it's all a case of perseverance, whoever perseveres the most will win any argument regardless of what evidence or support they have for their opinions. As for emailing Obama, that's a pretty epic win for you right thereBiek said:
Trolling Obama... I actually like the guy and supported him and even I think that's brilliant (gives Biek a cookie)
I support Obama too. I actually meant I was emailing Obama with a suggestion to change the law to forbid trolling. But I could troll him too, since he will probably think it's George Bush if he wasnt put him on ignore already.Trivun said:Oh yes, everyone has the right to troll, but then the mods have the right to use the Hammer on trolls. So really, it's all a case of perseverance, whoever perseveres the most will win any argument regardless of what evidence or support they have for their opinions. As for emailing Obama, that's a pretty epic win for you right thereBiek said:
(gives Biek a cookie)
Congratulations. You have suceeded in pissing off half of the people on the Escapist.
And that Postal trailer made me want to falcon punch something.
Yeah, a plane crashing into a building totally isn't offensive, to anyone. At all.
And that Postal trailer made me want to falcon punch something.
Yeah, a plane crashing into a building totally isn't offensive, to anyone. At all.
A few thoughts:
1) 'Freedom of Speech' does not equal 'Freedom from Consequences'. The OP can make statements, but if they are unpopular, he is going to catch shit for them. It's just like making an offensive post or reply: you're probably going to get probation/suspended/banned for it, and you should factor that in to your decision on whether or not hit the 'Post' button. You still click it, you better be prepared to weather the storm.
2) Trolling is generally defined as making a post specifically to be provocative. While the OP may not be a troll all the time, the fact that he said in his post that he knew he was going to get flamed means that he was trolling. Period, end of story. Further evidence of this, he states outlandish opinions without offering support for them at all: a sure sign that he is not interested in having a discussion about the topic, he is merely trying to incite people to reply. If he had said something along the lines of "Boll is a great writer; for example, the plot twist in was brilliant...", we would then have a focus for debate, but he didn't. So all he is really doing is making a controversial statement and then QQing about how people are attacking him for his outlandish (and unsupported) opinions.
3) In re: Boll and his movies, I avoid them like the plague, but regardless of whether or not you like them or hate them, there is a very damaging aspect to his work: they are almost always very poorly received and don't make much money, giving 'Video Game Movies' a bad name. This, in turn, turns off major movie studios from investing big budgets on other franchises that have great promise and are in the hands of acclaimed directors, qv. - the budgetary concerns over Halo and Bioshock.
Furthermore, and I think this bothers me the most, Boll doesn't even honestly fail with his movies. The movies he has created usually bear little resemblance to the franchises that supposedly come from. To me, that is exploitation, not 'artistic vision'-- after all, what's the purpose of using a franchise name on a movie that has nothing to do with story from the game? I think the only possibility is the built-in audience made up of the game's fanbase. Making it worse, when the movies review and perform poorly, I always find myself wondering "what if he actually told the story from the original 'Alone in the Dark' game? Would it have done better at the box office?"
1) 'Freedom of Speech' does not equal 'Freedom from Consequences'. The OP can make statements, but if they are unpopular, he is going to catch shit for them. It's just like making an offensive post or reply: you're probably going to get probation/suspended/banned for it, and you should factor that in to your decision on whether or not hit the 'Post' button. You still click it, you better be prepared to weather the storm.
2) Trolling is generally defined as making a post specifically to be provocative. While the OP may not be a troll all the time, the fact that he said in his post that he knew he was going to get flamed means that he was trolling. Period, end of story. Further evidence of this, he states outlandish opinions without offering support for them at all: a sure sign that he is not interested in having a discussion about the topic, he is merely trying to incite people to reply. If he had said something along the lines of "Boll is a great writer; for example, the plot twist in was brilliant...", we would then have a focus for debate, but he didn't. So all he is really doing is making a controversial statement and then QQing about how people are attacking him for his outlandish (and unsupported) opinions.
3) In re: Boll and his movies, I avoid them like the plague, but regardless of whether or not you like them or hate them, there is a very damaging aspect to his work: they are almost always very poorly received and don't make much money, giving 'Video Game Movies' a bad name. This, in turn, turns off major movie studios from investing big budgets on other franchises that have great promise and are in the hands of acclaimed directors, qv. - the budgetary concerns over Halo and Bioshock.
Furthermore, and I think this bothers me the most, Boll doesn't even honestly fail with his movies. The movies he has created usually bear little resemblance to the franchises that supposedly come from. To me, that is exploitation, not 'artistic vision'-- after all, what's the purpose of using a franchise name on a movie that has nothing to do with story from the game? I think the only possibility is the built-in audience made up of the game's fanbase. Making it worse, when the movies review and perform poorly, I always find myself wondering "what if he actually told the story from the original 'Alone in the Dark' game? Would it have done better at the box office?"
So posting anything he knows will be provocative is trolling?solidstatemind said:
Martin Luther King was trolling the deep south?
Gandhi was just trolling the British Government?
Nelson Mandela was trolling apartheid?
Joanna Lumley is trolling Gordon Brown?
Alex Salmond is trolling England?
They all know(or knew) that what they were doing caused controversy, but that doesn't make them a troll.
Don't get me wrong, I think OP is every bit as wrong as you do, but the fact that he posted something provocative doesn't make him a troll. I still think he could be a troll though. I'm not sure.
I'm afraid you are failing to consider the venue and the purpose. We're not talking about social activism here; we're talking about a b-movie director. (And frankly, I shouldn't have to point that out.) I will stipulate that provocation can be an effective tool for evoking discussion about a sensitive topic, and that, in such a context, it shouldn't carry the negative connetation of 'trolling'.iain62a said:
However: recreational website + trival topic + post intended to draw heated responses = trolling.
Well, he also chose bad games to make into movies.
Dungeon Siege, really? REALLY? Are you sure, Mr. Boll? Are you 100% sure?
He can't be pure evil, can he?
Dungeon Siege, really? REALLY? Are you sure, Mr. Boll? Are you 100% sure?
He can't be pure evil, can he?
Have you watched the Loading Ready Run interview they did with him? I also think the escapist did one some time ago. It kind of sheds some light on the man, kinda makes him seem less like a d-bag. One argument he makes is that he is a brilliant filmmaker but the reason his movies are lackluster is because he doesn't have the money to make them. I disagree with how good he is at filmmaking but you can see where bad acting in his movies is not an argument for him being a bad director.xxhazyshadowsxx said: