Bloodrayne - first trailer

_Shimmer · Nov 2005

ok, accidentaly found this:

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/665/665166p1.html

First trailer of the Bloodrayne movie with Krista Lokken, micheal madsen and ben kingsley.
So:

-It looks horrbile. Like some sort of reallife roleplay recorded with a digicam.
-Uwe Boll sucks soo hard
-Whats all about? This is one of the most senseless trailers I saw so far...

rant away

Daz · Nov 2005

I guess Kingsley and Madsen are hard up for work?!

It feels very 'made for TV'. Not helped by the cheezy voiceover.

skankerzero · Nov 2005

gehh... You don't even want to get me started on this movie and the process it's gone through...

Damn shame...

adam · Nov 2005

Who is Uwe Boll and why do people not like him?

EDIT: I just watched the trailer. Garbage. Shame.

thnom · Nov 2005

That looks bloody awful. The voiceover just keeps random shit. "A man, his sperm, make baby. 9 months and the baby is out....mums womb - 9 years later, she's 9 years old. Her eyes are blue and her hair is brown AND she is 9 years old." Its that kind of thing. Pointless voiceover that doesn't help the trailer any bit.

MoP · Nov 2005

Uwe Boll can be found here. Basically he makes crappy movies of computer games.

Daz, agreed, especially since Kingsley was in the Thunderbirds movie... and frankly Madsen's performance in Sin City was poor.

Steve Schulze · Nov 2005

Uwe Boll is a German doctor who has decided to exploit a loophole in the German art's councils rules that state that if your film fails to break even, you don't have to pay back the money you spent to make it. For some reason, he's decided that games liscenses are the way to go for movie failures (Springtime for Hitler already being taken). Thus far he's done House of The Dead which was hilariously bad and Alone in the Dark which was just bad. Still on his agenda are Bloodreyne, Farcry, Hunter: The Reckoning, Fear Effect and... wait for it... Postal.

I've heard ze Germans are working to amend their laws so this can't keep happening, so hopefully he won't be able to keep these shenanigans up for too much longer.

kendo · Nov 2005

I have always considered this forum to be a place filled with coherent grammatically correct individuals with the ability to provide well structured reasoning I shall now attempt to join your rank with my long and detailed hypothesis of bloodrayne the movie based on that trailer.

ARGHHHHHH ARGHHH IT BURNS DONT LET IT GET ME WOAAAARGHHH

blankslatejoe · Nov 2005

oh boy oh boy, it's bash uwe boll time!

wiki has a fun bit on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_boll

and lets not leave that other wonderful game director out of this convo:
paul anderson!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_W._S._Anderson

talk about entertaining reads.

as for bloodrayne..where the heck are the nazis?!?

Rhinokey · Nov 2005

House of the dead is one of my most watched movies, i can watch it at least once a month, its so bad it comes back around full circle till its awesome,

alone in the dark is only good if you watch the directors commentary, cause bol is a funny funny bitter insane man. i'm hoping his new movies go back to the house of the dead level of awesome bad

KeyserSoze · Nov 2005

[ QUOTE ]
I guess Kingsley and Madsen are hard up for work?!

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the same thing, but if you check out Madsen's IMDB page, apparently he's just signing on to do every movie that's offered to him. The man has about a dozen yet-to-be-released movies that he's involved with. But why oh why Michael, would you stoop so low as to do a Uwe Boll movie

.

JKim3 · Nov 2005

He's also doing the Dungeon Seige movie, which is apparently too epic to be contained in one movie so must be split into 2!

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/dungeonsiege2/news.html?sid=6136825&q=uwe%20boll

Tabarnac! According to wikipedia, he's in the bidding for Metal Gear Solid! Nooooooooooooo!

Neo_God · Nov 2005

[ QUOTE ]
For some reason, he's decided that games liscenses are the way to go for movie failures (Springtime for Hitler already being taken).

[/ QUOTE ]

Clever

oXYnary · Nov 2005

Doesnt anyone in Exec and marketing who gives the OK to this director even bother to look at his horrible track record? At least financially if nothing else. I mean, do they want to destroy their IP's? Is it attempted suicide?

We have some GPG people here.. Whats the scoop? Why did Chris do this?

AstroZombie · Nov 2005

[ QUOTE ]
Whats the scoop? Why did Chris do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

$$$cha-ching!!!

JKim3 · Nov 2005

It's probably more the publisher than the developer. Isn't that what happened with Bloodrayne? Like, the movie and the MTV music video stuff?

Thegodzero · Nov 2005

Someone kill that man, before he kills any chance of a good game to movie being made of a good franchise. Why would anyone sign a deal with this man? He kills the value of game franchises by making the movies he makes. Kill him, or at least stop selling your franchises over to him.

KDR_11k · Nov 2005

Wasn't Uwe Boll to blame for Doom as well? IMDB doesn't credit him for it but it doesn't list a producer for Doom at all.

Steve Schulze · Nov 2005

No, Boll had nothing to do with Doom which is presumably why it was as bearable (dare I say enjoyable) as it was.

Asherr · Nov 2005

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/644/644928p1.html

"The film is exactly structured like a game, as well. It's complete with mini-boss and boss fights, weapons and ability upgrades, collectibles (Rayne has to grab three items in order to have the power to defeat Kagan) and a final encounter. Boll has taken the videogame blueprint as literally as a person possibly could, which sounds like a terrible idea. However, unlike House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark, this structure works a lot better in BloodRayne."

Joshua Stubbles · Nov 2005

Uwe Boll is a tool, but I actually like some of Paul Anderson's movies.

I did enjoy the first Mortal Kombat movie when it came out. I also liked Soldier. Event Horizon is also one of my favorites.

On the plus side, Bloodrayne appears to be higher quality than Boll's other films. Though, that isn't saying much.

skankerzero · Nov 2005

[ QUOTE ]
It's probably more the publisher than the developer. Isn't that what happened with Bloodrayne? Like, the movie and the MTV music video stuff?

[/ QUOTE ]

Majesco owns BloodRayne, we do not. Though, Majesco had almost zero input with this movie.

Gmanx · Nov 2005

Just watched it, utter utter shite.

swampbug · Nov 2005

Dr. boll is a genius.

jzero · Nov 2005

About 20 seconds into the trailer, I'm asking 'Where's the Nazis?' I haven't played BR2. This prequel junk looks beyond lame. Bad colors, too serious. You know they're propping up their own importance with 2x4s and wire when they have to use Meat Loaf's last name...

/jzero

MoP · Nov 2005

I always thought his last name was Loaf... Meat Loaf Loaf

nitzmoff · Nov 2005

For everyone that asked 'Why?!': You would be suprised at how higher ups think. They look at the bottom line and do not play games or obviously watch the movies based on them.

Boll makes movies for dirt cheap and since the majority of filmgoers are, dare I say, idiots, the films more than make their cost back. To the former Colgate VP who is in charge of video game publisher X, it's a sweet deal.

Most publishers believe any way you can couple a game with a movie, it's a very good thing. That said, I of course agree with the lot of you and think it's a damn shame Boll's in bed with this industry.

Spoon_of_death · Nov 2005

http://media.filmforce.ign.com/media/574/574467/img_2528174.html
"Oh no! Not the dual butterknifes of death!!! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

MoP · Nov 2005

HAHAHA!

thomasp · Nov 2005

hm, seems uwe boll has written a book on how to make movies his way. i'll see if i can get ahold of this. i have a feeling he let's the german institutions in charge fund his projects and then because of the law does not have to pay back when the movie bombs. as a tax payer, i feel tempted to visit this guy's home which is around 50 km away from my location... armed, of course. :[

anyway a lot of money these days is spent on marketing an IP and the build-up of an image. how can you let a bad movie potentially ruin this just to cash in a little?

nitzmoff · Nov 2005

Because any publicity is good publicity. Any way you can raise public awareness of an IP, bomb or blockbuster is good. You're forgetting that every person on this board is an educated consumer when it comes to games, otherwise they wouldn't be here.

The rest of the world is far more tolerant to shlock and are the types that have their copy of of Video Game Movie tie-in #245 even before seeing the film and without reading any reviews. Box art is still the #1 seller of games for people like your average Wal-Mart shopper.

KeyserSoze · Nov 2005

[ QUOTE ]
Boll makes movies for dirt cheap and since the majority of filmgoers are, dare I say, idiots, the films more than make their cost back. To the former Colgate VP who is in charge of video game publisher X, it's a sweet deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's not quite accurate. Alone in the Dark was made with a budget of $20 million. While not exactly a big-budget blockbuster, it's definitely not what I would consider "dirt cheap." The film, to date, has grossed only $6,500,000 world-wide; not even half of the movie's budget.

So how does he keep getting funding with such dismal results? If you read the wikipedia article (specifically, the part about "stupid German money"), you'd discover that Germany has some sort of tax loophole that allows investors to write off any contributions to a film (I don't know the specifics, but that's the gist of it) if the film doesn't make back it's money. So, any money the movie does make is just bonus for the investors, since they still get to right off the full amount for their contribution.

thomasp · Nov 2005

but this applies to games made after movies, not the other way around. a movie that's known as a video game adaption over here has quite a stigma before it's even in the cinemas. if it bombs, it might just as well hurt the game sales, too.

besides it seems word of mouth spreads incredibly fast these days.

nitzmoff · Nov 2005

Very interesting info Keyser. In regards to Box office sales though, don't forget the power of the DVD. Often times a movie can tank in the theaters and easily make its money back on DVD sales.

Ramucho · Nov 2005

Kojima will NEVER let him make mgs! i'm sure about that

Rhinokey · Nov 2005

actualy i think alone in the dark lost money big time http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=aloneinthedark.htm aparently it has not made back half the cost to make it,

and come on bol is hurting no one,

do you really think that if he was not in the picture like ridley scott or james cameron or someone would have popped up and made an awesome blood rayne movie? no, because NO ONE CARES

house of the dead is easily one of my favorite movies, it copmpletely destroys a lot of much better made and actualy good movies in terms of re watchability.

theres an easy thing you can do if you feel so strongly about this film, and that is, "just do not go and see it"

and as far as game companys go, and publishers, any publicity is good publicity.

bol makes horribly awfull movies, and i bet in 50 years he will be remembered for it, because he is just getting started!

oXYnary · Nov 2005

[ QUOTE ]
Because any publicity is good publicity. Any way you can raise public awareness of an IP, bomb or blockbuster is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats simply not true. Some publicity is bad. You know about how hollywood is using this to screw movie game publishers over? They have a thing that the license will cost higher if the game bombs because of IP damage versus if the game is a success?

Which I really find to be a point that a game publisher should now do the same back to hollywood. You want to make Half Life ehh? Well its only going to cost you X million if you make a blockbuster for the license verses XX million for destroying the license.

If all marketing was good, Jack Thompson should have been head of ESRB by now.

rawkstar · Nov 2005

i liked it I dunno what you guys are talking about, I'm sure it'll be a blast.

"Its me... BOB...." *throws away the donut

joolz8000 · Nov 2005

I haven't read this whole thread, but c'mon- it has MEATLOAF! I think it looks pretty decent. I'd rent it. Maybe.

arshlevon · Nov 2005

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because any publicity is good publicity. Any way you can raise public awareness of an IP, bomb or blockbuster is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats simply not true. Some publicity is bad. You know about how hollywood is using this to screw movie game publishers over? They have a thing that the license will cost higher if the game bombs because of IP damage versus if the game is a success?

Which I really find to be a point that a game publisher should now do the same back to hollywood. You want to make Half Life ehh? Well its only going to cost you X million if you make a blockbuster for the license verses XX million for destroying the license.

If all marketing was good, Jack Thompson should have been head of ESRB by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry to break it to you... but this simply is true.. i remember the mario bros movie.. horrible.. didnt make me or anyone i have ever ever met stop playing mario.. street fighter movie.. biggest pile of crap in the world.. still play street fighter.. all the time.. actually i can not think of one not even one horrible video game move that made me not want to play the game.. and its not just games.. most stephen king movies blow major ass.. with the except of a few .. they dont stop him from selling books.. i dont know of people that are dumb enough to think a game and a movie are even romotely the same type of entertainment.. its really like saying.." well the action figures for the movie were of a substandard quality so i will not see the movie because if they cant make action figures then there is no way in hell they can make a movie."

or

" i didnt like the font in the graphic novel, if they cant even make a graphic novel with a decent font then there is no way they can make a decent made for TV series"

everyone knows people that make the movies are not the people that make the games are not the people that make the t shirts are not the people that make the after school specials... getting the word out is getting the word out...plain and simple..

MoP · Nov 2005

Arsh is totally RIGHT!

JKim3 · Nov 2005

Just playin' devil's advocate here.

Sure, shitty movies wouldn't make a player drop the game and never pick it up again, but what about the people that never played the game? What if they had never even knew there was a game? If the viewer thought the movie was great they would be curious about trying out the game. If the viewer hated the movie, why would they invest time or money into checking it out?

So I guess bad publicity won't change things, but good publicity will generate interest. That's not the least bit catchy.

oXYnary · Nov 2005

[ QUOTE ]

sorry to break it to you... but this simply is true.. i remember the mario bros movie..

[/ QUOTE ]

Again. Not all publicity is good for the longevity of the IP.

Let me put it this way to you.. Did street fighter actually help the IP in anyway at all. AND if it is true, then explain why Hollywood is doing the opposite. Is game development somehow "special" in that what effects other forms of entertainment doesn't effect it. Inquiring minds want to know!

Here is a really simple simple example. I assume you have both lost or gained interest in reading a book from seeing a specific movie based on a book? I can recall both at least for me. Not just the positive, but negative as well.

Bloodrayne - first trailer

Replies