Twice the Uweness in Dungeon Siege

[/quote]

Ironically… don’t you feel somewhat compelled to watch one of the worst movies ever made? Just so you can identify for yourself what makes it so bad? I bet 99.9% of the video rentals are for this feature alone.

I don’t know really.
I mean at a friend’s urging we went to see Beverly Hills Ninja.
And…I really wanted to walk out of it, but I stayed thinking “it can’t get worse, it has to get better” Oh dear GOD was I wrong.

Could the nightmare be coming to an end?

You know how Uwe Boll is incapable of making a good movie, and yet somehow always manages to get funding for his next project? And how we’ve all been wondering how or earth he can still find suckers willing to give him money? Well, it turns out that Uwe is the sucker - you see, German tax law is such that people who see fit to invest in movies receive “a hefty tax write off on funds invested [in] failed films.” So basically, Germans with knowledge of obscure tax law have been lining up to invest in Boll’s films - I mean, the chances of them being succesful is basically nil, right? Hell, tax consultants have probably been sending their clients to the guy! There’s something very Mel Brooks about all of this, isn’t there?

Sadly, however, Uwe Boll’s days as a human tax write-off are over: in January 2006, the Make Money By Investing In Failed Movies loophole will be closed. So, where is the guy going to get his finding now? Are you thinking what I’m thinking? FREEDOM!

Wonder if that’ll stop the travesties in progress or not.

Here’s hoping, I don’t want to see Jason Statham throw his career away, heh.

Well, it turns out that Uwe is the sucker - you see, German tax law is such that people who see fit to invest in movies receive “a hefty tax write off on funds invested [in] failed films.” So basically, Germans with knowledge of obscure tax law have been lining up to invest in Boll’s films - I mean, the chances of them being succesful is basically nil, right? Hell, tax consultants have probably been sending their clients to the guy!

This assumes that Boll has a consistent record of box-office duds, yet House of the Dead earned nearly three times its budget in the U.S. alone. Alone in the Dark didn’t do so well, but then it cost a lot more. The worst-case scenario for Boll is that he has to stop making crappy $20-50 million movies and goes back to making crappy $5-10 million movies.

The “failed films” nonsense has originated with exactly one “journalist”, if you may call him that, and has been parroted by everyone else since then. As a matter of fact, Boll’s tax-saving scheme makes no mention at all of the films having to fail. On the contrary, he promises a decent ROI.

Please consult the other Boll thread for more details…

Yeah, I did a little reading on the soon-to-be-closed-“loophole” in question and it seems investors can write off those funds even if the film makes money. Why would an investor finance a film that’s doomed to fail just to get a write-off when they can put money into a film with a decent shot at making a profit and still get their write-off? I’d rather have a write-off and a profit than a write-off by itself.

Maybe someone should explain to him that Peter Jackson’s last couple of movies actually MADE money.
Unlike, say, his own.

Maybe this is like that mokey theory. You know, you put a monkey in front of piano for few million years and eventually it’ll bang out Beethoven. Maybe Boll will eventually bang out a movie masterpiece?

Boll’s movies make lots of money, actually… for his investors who save lots of taxes!

I’m worried after reading his list of threats on IMDb. Hunter:The Reckoning
is going to get the Boll treatment in 2007, forever ruining any decent
memories players of the original RPG had.