Say you saw this news. How would you react that this monumental hack is making a Trek movie? (Why did I put this threadin this forum, mostly because Boll's movies fall under this catagory and this thread is more about him than Trek XII.)
I don't know who the hell Uwe Boll is, nor why I should care what he directs. What's the big deal about this guy anyway?
Point taken, but Trek XII still seems to be just as vital part of the subject. Hence, off to Future of Trek.
He doesn't know how to direct or cast or tell a story and thinks he's one of the elite filmmakers around (and beating up his internet critics in the boxing ring proves his directing talents). But other than that he's great.
Good thing you like to make comments that make every other comment seem that much stronger and valid.
Remember how Paul Sams of Blizzard blew off Uwe Boll when he offered to direct a WoW movie? "We will not sell the movie rights, not to you...especially not to you!" I would expect Paramount to give him an even harsher answer. Speaking of which, why the hell do production companies hire this guy at all? Isn't his name by itself a definitive guarantee for a movie's failure?
Uwe Boll films are horrible, the only reason I know about him is because at "That Guy With The Glasses" website his films are often the subject of ridicule and justifiably so he really is a hack!
As I understand it, and I may be completely wrong about this, it's all to do with money. Suppose you were a millionaire living in Germany. You'd have to pay tax. Let's say, for the sake of argument, you had to pay one million Euros. Now you could just pay this. But the German government, in an effort to encourage investment in the German film industry, has an offer. You can put that money into making a film instead, and that counts as your tax for this year. Now this doesn't really benefit you. Instead of giving the taxman a million, you've given the film makers a million. Either way, you are a million down. If the film does well you will see some return, but that's not guaranteed, and you'd have to pay more tax on any profit you make. Rather than giving the film makers your own money, you could borrow the amount from a bank and use that. Again, this does not benefit you. Instead of owing the taxman a a million, you now owe the bank a million. But... Because the film industry is high risk, it is unlikely to gain investors unless certain guarantees are in place. So the German government has agreed, under certain circumstances, to cover any losses should a film fail to recoup it's production costs. In other words, if a film does badly, really badly, at the box office, the government will give you back your investment. So. You owe the taxman money. You borrow money from the bank. You invest this money in a film. You now owe the bank money, but no longer owe the taxman. The film flops. The government reimburses investors, giving you the money back. You give this back to the bank. You now no longer owe anyone anything. You've not profited from this, but you have avoided a large tax bill. And all you need to make it work is someone capable of delivering movies that could never succeed at the box office.
@The Badger: ....and then you have a reputation for making bad movies, and less people give your other movies a chance no matter good or bad...you loose money anyway..... It´s illogical. ;-)