Why movie game licences? Simple, a hell of a lot of them are cheap and with most of them, the game publishers don’t care what happens. There isn’t a big, genuine market for video game adaptations so most companies will take what they can get if a cheque is waved their way.....
...So what have we got then in Uwe Boll? There is no ego-maniac here. There is no rabid talentless hack. What’s there is a brilliant, master businessman who has the entire movie-making support system by the balls and isn’t afraid to yank them. We’ve all fallen for his con and now we’re in too deep to go back.
Why movie game licences? Simple, a hell of a lot of them are cheap and with most of them, the game publishers don’t care what happens. There isn’t a big, genuine market for video game adaptations so most companies will take what they can get if a cheque is waved their way.....
...So what have we got then in Uwe Boll? There is no ego-maniac here. There is no rabid talentless hack. What’s there is a brilliant, master businessman who has the entire movie-making support system by the balls and isn’t afraid to yank them. We’ve all fallen for his con and now we’re in too deep to go back.
I can't wait for the Far Cry movie.
FarCry... Damn...
Boll is the only guy who would make a film with voice overs WORSE than the game...
Where were you when the West was defeated?
[url=http://profile.mygamercard.net/doncarlos83][img]http://card.mygamercard.net/gbar/doncarlos83.gif[/img][/url]
[xeno]Julios wrote:So i take it that nobody, including the thread originator, actually understands the central thesis of the entire fucking article.
Hey there tension boy...simmer down.
I posted the link cause I said the guy hated Uwe Boll. I don't give a shit about his theories.
You are correct...if you look at it from a purely tax basis where everybody gets their money back if no profit is made...it means that basically the movie was made for free. This means the shitty movie is made, it doesn't make money (as expected), investors get their investment back (as expected) and Mr. Boll smiles for a job poorly done while having his projects fully funded. Uwe Boll probably somewhat believes in his own work rather than the financial "scam" that is presented here.
Mr. Boll...while a talentless hack...seems to get paid while garnering no commercial respect in the industry.
Obviously the author of the article has a bone to pick. That's probably why he was so pissed.
GONNAFISTYA wrote:
Hey there tension boy...simmer down.
I just want to understand the damn article!
GONNAFISTYA wrote:You are correct...
eh? Correct about what? I asked a question - didn't make a statement. I'm the one in the dark here, asking for some light.
GONNAFISTYA wrote:
if you look at it from a purely tax basis where everybody gets their money back if no profit is made...it means that basically the movie was made for free. This means the shitty movie is made, it doesn't make money (as expected), investors get their investment back (as expected) and Mr. Boll smiles for a job poorly done while having his projects fully funded.
but don't the investors lose their money???? I'm still very confused here. Where do they recover their money from?
julios you didn't understand? have you seen "the producers"? this is similar to that, except that instead of financing 1000% of a flop and keeping the extra 900% after it fails, they are financing 100% of a flop and writing off the loss to get a tex credit which they can apply to their other, non-film-related business activities... I don't know the specifics of their balance sheets, but I assume that "finance flop, apply tax break to rest of enterprise" must be profitable or else they wouldn't be doing it...
rgoer wrote:julios you didn't understand? have you seen "the producers"? this is similar to that, except that instead of financing 1000% of a flop and keeping the extra 900% after it fails, they are financing 100% of a flop and writing off the loss to get a tex credit which they can apply to their other, non-film-related business activities... I don't know the specifics of their balance sheets, but I assume that "finance flop, apply tax break to rest of enterprise" must be profitable or else they wouldn't be doing it...
Ok i'm gonna repost the comment i made in this thread:
[xeno]Julios wrote:k just read the article, but i don't understand the scam...
how can you make a profit if the movie costs more to make than it brings in?
i don't get the tax stuff - i'm kinda clueless about these things - can someone explain it to me in plain english?
About producers, as i said earlier in this thread, no i haven't seen it.
I don't even understand what a tax write off is - something that you don't have to pay tax for? But how does this work in this context?
I put up my hands. I am not claiming to have seen through the scam that is Uwe Boll’s career from the beginning (though no doubt many people from various other sources/sites will start claiming they knew all along the more and more this situation comes out into the open).
that part's wrong, what he's talking about has been as good as common knowledge for ages. still, nice to see it all written up like that.
uwe boll is a shithead, i hope some deranged german video game fan murders him one day.
- still haven't seen the godfather either!