Talk:Uwe Boll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uwe Boll article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives /Archive1

Contents 1 Neutrality Issues 2 Box Office Results 3 How he makes his bad movies 4 Archived 5 Controversy/Criticism 6 Good work 7 "Maligned" 8 Why hasn't this article been flagged?

[edit] Neutrality Issues

I have added the box after reading through the article thoroughly. The words "Boll alleges" have been placed before anything favourable, as have unverified comments about the script for Alone In The Dark. Someone needs to go through the article and level the playing field - this page has been hijacked by Boll bashers. Jamezcd 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest making a fresh start by deleting everything in that article and re-type it so it gives a neutral point of view. For a start, the main article on him should consists of his early life, finance, writings and quotations ONLY. Critcisms about Boll can be a seperate article or be left out altogether.

That can be done, but carefully. What needs to be done is the page needs to be re-written from scratch on someone's subpage in their userspace, and when it's done, link to it here and we can discuss whether it should replace the current version. --InShaneee 15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think starting from scratch is entirely necessary. The "Criticism" section needs work but I disagree that it should be removed entirely. These are some of my thoughts on possible improvements.

• The IMDb subsection doesn't belong there. There's some informative stuff there that I'd be loathe to just throw away, but I wouldn't know where else to put it. I just know it doesn't belong in *this* article.
• That said, instead of writing one's own op-ed in order to justify the statement "Detractors allege that, when adapting a video game into a movie, Boll will change the plot, setting, and anything else that he deems necessary" in Wikipedia, link to an op-ed that makes this allegation. Then instead of duplicating all the points the op-ed should be making (re: House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, BloodRayne) people could just go and read the reference.
• The "Critic boxing match" section also belongs in its own articles. I don't think an "Uwe Boll critic boxing match" article (or something similar) is out of place.
• The "Response to Criticism" section also doesn't belong here. The well sourced stuff is valid and is another of those informative things I wouldn't like to throw away but don't know where to put.
• I don't see a "Quotations" section under any other biographies. I do see links to WikiQuote in good 'ol George dubya's wiki page though and that might be a good example to follow.
• Both Spielberg and Dubya's pages have a "Trivia" section. This could be a nice place to link to the boxing match and mention the awards that he's won. Awards presented to Alone in the Dark, Tara Reid and Nightwish belong on their respective pages (and can be cross-linked from there, i.e. Alone in the Dark to Nightwish and Tara Reid and vice versa).

On a personal note I'm a bit sad about Nightwish's Stinker Award. I'm quite a fan and "Wish I had an Angel" isn't that bad a song. I'm sure there must be worse stuff out there that's used in movies :-(

Also: Can I get an indication as to why my linking Brooke Burgess' blog post to the "Outcome" subsection of the "Critic boxing match" section was removed (besides the fact that the whole section doesn't belong in this article)? Was it not good, did I somehow write something POV? If I did please be specific about what I did wrong that I may not make the same mistake. This question is directed at InShaneee as she did the revert. The Extremist 11:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases, blogs should not be linked to. --InShaneee 14:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box Office Results

Can we at least have some common sense and mention how poorly a number of his movies have done at the box office ? According to IMDB, Bloodrayne cost $25 million and made $2.5 back, and Alone in the Dark cost $20 million and made $5 million. Whilst im sure everyone has their own opinion on the man and also his movies, the facts are some of them have done very poorly. for example:

Movies directed by Boll have not achieved the kind of box office returns one expects from a typical Hollywood film.

this is completely incorrect. the movies have been financial falures.

and BloodRayne (budget $25 million[3] ) topped $2.42 million.

this movie made 1/10th of what it cost. It didnt 'top' anything. Can we stop the knee jerk wikipedia reaction of trying not to offend anyone even if we simply present facts.
--Dem 11:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How he makes his bad movies

Just FYI, part of his success is due to the fact he is a German film director who predominantly bases his work financially out of his home country. Germany for the longest time has had rather unique laws towards films as investments and tax write offs that have only recently even been readdressed by it's legislature. Essentially it is possible to make a German movie that does terrible and still make money for the investors by careful accounting and tax practices, though the movie must to some extent be able to potentially be considered seriously (which by default all official movie adaptions of games pretty much are). This is why the man continues to recieve all the work he does in video game adaptations, he is famous (infamous?) for his ability to always find additional investors in any project no matter how risky a bomb. I'm putting this here so someone who understands it better can put it in the main article, while I know that it happens, I do not know enough about the laws to include it an an encyclopedic article proper. [Tuesday, 23 January 2007 16:33 GMT]

[edit] Archived

I've archived all except the last topic on the discussion page. -TheHande 16:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy/Criticism

Uwe Boll has sparked plenty of criticism, so it seems like we should be able to get good sources for that criticism. Imdb forums do not fall into the category of good criticism. While the boxing fiasco clearly makes his internet detractors relevant, the article has been giving the forums far too much credit. Mention internet forums, but don't make them the basis of the article's criticism. --Beaker342 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it funny that the creator of Metal Gear freaked out at the prospect of his movie being made by Uwe Boll. - Thekittenofterra 14:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

When I looked at this page, I was half expecting a huge rant on why Boll is a bad director and how he utterly rapes his licenses, etc. But I was glad and somewhat pleased to see a well written article. Good work guys. Kirbysuperstar 12:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Maligned"

I don't think the use of the word "maligned" is proper in this article, as it implies that the statements are made with malice and often untrue. Perhaps it should be replaced with "panned" or some similar word that lacks the connotations associated with "maligned". --64.218.89.101 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree actually, it isn't quite the right word. What would be better? I rather like "excoriated", or perhaps "berated"? Or even "lambasted"? :-) DWaterson 21:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why hasn't this article been flagged?

This article in no way upholds the neutrality any Wikipedia article should hold. Before almost any Boll statement is "claims" or "alleged." There are no quotes from Boll himself, only from reputed movie critics who participated in the boxing matches. It gives the clear impression that Boll only claims or alleges, and all others quoted (I know, even the one(s?) defending him) are giving statements of truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Budash2 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC).