Talk:Uwe Boll/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleanup

To meet Wikipedia standards the following issues should be resolved:

• Weasel and Peacock words. Although the article has come a long way it is still filled with leading sentences and filler words that do not add any real information to the article.
• Redundancy of information. Sometimes the information in the article is printed twice.
• Unverified information. Information is presented as fact, with no reference. Some referenced information amounts to hearsay. We don't need to summarize every critical article written about every director.
• Structure. The article sprawls along, with poor structure and readability.
• Some of the article has a very personal voice, written by authors who believe that it is a fact that Uwe Boll is a bad director. It is a fact that his movies have been poorly received by critics, audiences and video game fans. It is not a fact that Uwe Boll is the worst director ever. These editorials don't belong in Wikipedia.
• Parts of the page reference constantly shifting information (IMDB ratings etc) in order to document the poor response this director has received. If we try to quote ratings on every director we will be providing innacurate information that requires massive upkeep. I think it's enough to reference the sites, and make a general statement about the poor initial reception.
• Some links point to the wrong material. Specifically Heart of America, points to an article about a song. Testing all the links should be part of the cleanup.
• The article mentions the HSX TT boards several times but is never explained or linked. Can someone clarify what the HSX boards are?

Meekrob 20:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• "On the DVD commentary of Alone in the Dark Boll describes the film's ending as "Lynchian."[8]He has also described his upcoming film Dungeon Siege as "a very dark, epic picture in the tradition of the Sergio Leone Westerns.""

Why is this bit under the critcism section?

Anti-American Sentiment

I get the feeling that Boll is not a very pro American guy. Why? His comments, his movie "Heart of America" and this from Amazon:

Regarding his favorite book, Gustavus Myers' The History of Amaerican fortunes: "If you follow the money, like the writer did - the history of the Rockefellers and so on - you find out about real history. In that book you learn that the Civil War was not about freeing the slaves, it was all about the money, etc."

Of course this is pretty speculative, and he could just be anti-government in general. If anyone has anymore material on this, I'd like to see it.

This might be just my imagination, but is it me or does he never call anyone but american audience "dumb"?

The Civil War wasn't about freeing slaves, it was indeed about economics (money).

like all things the US civil war was the result of an amalgam of forces. freeing slaves was indeed one of those forces. case in point the 300,00 copies of anti-slavery work uncle toms cabin sold just before the war. it also had to do with protestant religion in the south. it also had to do with the puriton jeramiad. it also had to do with western expansion. it also had to do with new forms of agriculture. it also had to do with the industrial revolution, AND it also had to do with the new economics of the nation. to say it was about one thing, while expediant for a definition, is not correct. period.

Monsters and Critics dot com

I'm not sure we can trust the source:

http://movies.monstersandcritics.com

They posted an articled entitled Uwe Boll to direct Metal Gear Solid Film (http://movies.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1074318.php/Uwe_Boll_to_direct_Metal_Gear_Solid). They point to another article which only states that Uwe claimed that he was approached about directing the film. This leap of logic damages this sources credibility. We use M&C as a source regarding the German Tax Shelter law, but it appears to be syndicated from "dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur". As I can't find a better article, I say we keep it. The fact that the law is indeed changing is referenced in a couple of Boll interviews too.

Most of these critic's sites need to be taken with a grain of salt, they are not journalistic organizations with standards, but are entertainment sites.

Meekrob 21:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Metal Gear

If you search google news, all the articles about Metal Gear going to Uwe source http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/index.php?Show=5550&Template=newsfull , the text of which reads:

Dr. Boll Now people are coming to me with metal gear solid. They wrote a script, and Konami basically paid these people to write it. And I hope that Metal Gear Solid will be working.

Hunter Daniels : Do you want to do make Metal Gear Solid?

Dr. Boll: yea, absolutely. And especially with the Doom situation. I think we could do it a lot better…its one of the top five of all time.

So Boll isn't making Metal Gear. He wants to. He wanted Doom too. I can't find any evidence that Boll is in a bidding war for the rights either. I'm deleting that information from the article.

-Hideo Kojima recently said that Uwe Boll will "Absolutely not." be directing Metal Gear Solid. All Hail Kojima! Pope Guilty 22:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

To the above statement, i was wondering if you would be able to show any proof of this statement by Hideo Kojima. Please be telling the truth.--Hasty5o 05:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.blog.konami.jp/gs/hideoblog_e/cat83/index.html Listen to session 3

-Ugh, thank God he won't be making Metal Gear. anon

NPOV

While this article has an NPOV problem I think we can let it slide.

Comparisons to Lynch and Leone

I've heard him call the ending of 'Alone in the Dark' Lynchian, but can anyone verify that he actually compared himself to Sergio Leone? Wikipedia is for verifiable facts only! Save rants and rumours for rottentomatoes.com. You're not hurting Uwe, you're damaging Wikipedia.

Opinions vs. factual descriptions

Gamaliel, the text that you removed is not some personal opinion. Remember that we are talking about Uwe Boll, not about your average Hollywood director. That his "skills are clearly inadequate" is not a matter of opinion, this is a fact, which can be supported by hundreds of quotes, from basically every review of any of his films, but it is not necessary to provide references for evident facts ("Earth is round", "Water is wet", "Boll can't direct").

That he appears like a teenager in his interviews is also not an opinion. It's a fact - he does. And the second sentence in that paragraph is even more factual. He is indeed preoccupied with car chases, gun fight scenes, monsters and sex scenes. His scriptwriters say this and it is obvious in his interviews.

Please, edit, do not revert. We can never reach a consensus if we are not both moving to it. Paranoid 23:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt this man is an absolutely horrific director, but the article was an anti-Boll rant, and that is clearly inappropriate for this site. If you want to reinclude some of the facts but tone down the rhetoric and phrase it in more of an NPOV way, I'm sure that would be cool. Gamaliel 08:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, of course, I have to agree with Gamaliel. You're being way too subjective. Especially the 'Hopefully, (...)' is pushing it. 81.204.124.148 21:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe that including the general fan reaction of a film maker or actor is perfectly valid information to include. We have to be careful not to let it slip into ranting about how bad he is, but so far the information on this article isn't really conjectural or in the form of a rant. Its well documented and ever spreading fact that many people hate this director's guts. --Kiyosuki 05:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with quoting fan or critical reactions to his work, as long as it is made clear that these are quoted. Böll, however, also has fans and it may be worth including those reactions to balance it out. That the guy is almost universally hated makes it remarkably difficult to do a NPOV on this article, but still, it's gotta be done. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"...frequently picking games with only moderate brand recognition..." is an unfair statement due to the fair amount of cult popularity attributed to the game versions of 'House of the Dead' and 'Alone in the Dark'. 'Dungeon Siege' is no game franchise to scoff at. However, it can be said that fans of the games Boll picks to convert into movies are generally (though not entirely) displeased, due to a perceived lack of respect with which Boll treats their beloved games, using them as guinea pigs for his film experiments and thus cheapening the originals' various reputations. Critics and public reviews are commonly no more kind to his films, and multiple petitions have been made for him to cease and desist creating video game movies.

"Recently" only means something in a periodical

"It has been recently reported that the loophole" <- this would make sense in a dated article, but not in a constantly updated one. The correct redaction would state "In late 2005 it was reported that the loophole..." substituting "late 2005" for the actual date. Javier Candeira [1]

"Doctor" Boll

I have seen some material on Uwe Boll include the title "Dr." The article has a "Dr." in there without explanation. What exactly is he a "doctor" of? --Feitclub 01:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read, he's not an actual doctor; it's just a nickname that was given to him by various internet people making fun of his apparent lack of a brain. Kuralyov 20:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

He uses it, and apparently insists his staff use it. This guy got a letter from somebody who works for Boll because they were using the domain name 'www.uweboll.com', threatening legal action. From the letter: 'Dr. Boll is a very respected member of the filmmaking community...'. Wow. I'm thinking there's a midlife crisis here somewhere. 11:23, 19 December 2005

He has a doctorate from Uni-Köln in literature as far as I'm aware which entitles him to append the Dr. to his name. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Nor is that a quirk particular to him - doctors of anything are rather fanatical about other people using the title that they paid ridiculous amounts of money, time and effort to acquire. Iceberg3k 11:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You should revise how someone gets a Dr. title in civilized universities. You have to get your thesis published after studying some years to get a Ph.D. The thing you have to pay a lot for is a Master, maybe you got confused there, because studying to get a Ph.D. is my current occupation, and is usually a *paid* one. 04:59, 8 January 2006 (GMT+1)

You're studying ? Oh gosh, during my PhD, I was teaching :) Yoric 22:38, 29 January 2006 (GMT)

As they say, those who can't... 204.69.40.7 18:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Uwe Boll has a proper Doctorate from the University of Siegen (not Cologne as many Sources claim). His dissertation is titled "Die Gattung Serie und ihre Genres" and was turned in in 1994[2].

Insane In The Brain...

Is there any evidence that he is suffering 'mental retardation' or was this added by a troll? --Jpblo 06:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Troll. Bulwark 03:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Some troll reposted this discussion as "It's true" with links to two notable box office flops from the director added below these first two posts. The fact that a person makes awful films does not make him retarded. Please stop trying to mess up the Wikipedia and its message board. (Ibaranoff24 05:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

By the way, I'd like to punch Uwe Boll in the face for comparing himself to brilliant directors like Sergio Leone and David Lynch. (Ibaranoff24 05:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

Please note that this is not a social forum.

Please note that nobody cares

Better that anger be used on "talk" page (which is intended to be social.) Also, I'd like to punch Dr. Boll in the nether regions for what he's done to the game-film industry. TotalTommyTerror 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, would you like a cup of tea? What's your name? Would you care to dance?

I hate the guy with a passion too but the neautrality of the article has to be moderatly maintained. I think its fair to shed light on the intense hatred surrounding this director, but beyond that is unecessary.--Kiyosuki 05:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Where are the interviews mentioned as this rumour source (regarding Fallout) available? --Silencer 23:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hyperlinking to the tax law article would be helpful as well. (Unknown User)

I have included a few comments from Boll which I cannot find reliable sources for, but which are repeated second or third hand too frequently to be coindince (IMO). In particular, the "Nazi Money" comment and the comments about the Internet being "out to get him" are cited by numerous people who have been to interviews or Q&A sessions with Boll. If someone could find citations for these and add them it would be great. If I can't find any real citations soon I will just have to pull those quotes out. Kutulu 23:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article needs substantial editing for NPOV; criticisms of people should be attributed to their sources, rather than presented as an authorial POV. -- The Anome 14:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If the guy is a jackass, its not POV, its fact. Alyeska 19:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. Hitler was a jackass, but his article still tries to maintain NPOV. I'm going to refresh my Wiki skills and try to NPOV a bit... and reorganize. ATM, the only real bibliographical bit is at the bottom. [currently logged out, and this comment was not meant as NPOV, but was made in light of the above]

Alright, the page looks decent now. If only someone could secure a photo... hope everyone likes the changes. I know the page is a bit small for headings, but I think it does look better. I don't think I did too much for NPOV, but I tried where I could to state things with formal tone. It's hard to say "this guy is generally regarded as a failure by everyone in the biz" any way other than just more formally. Comments, changes, etc welcome. gspawn 22:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it. Your saying that you don't accurately portray people. How can that be NPOV? NPOV is essentialy an attempt at the truth. If you try and take every point of view, you dilute the truth. NPOV is merely presenting the truth as is. If Uwe is an idiot, then thats what you get. Try reading the Fred Phelps article. It merely presents the facts and is very anti-Phelps. You can't rationaly argue that its NPOV. Alyeska 02:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. "Uwe Boll is an idiot" is taking an active stance and promoting a point of view- it's making a claim as to the truth of the matter. What's truthful is a statement like, "he has been ill-recieved by critics". That is a fact. To go to a canonical example, saying "Hitler was a bad man" is POV, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia (even if it is pretty factual). Saying "he commited genocide" is NPOV, and does belong.

Your arogance is astounding. Simple observations bassed on reality can not be POV. And even if its remotely POV, how the hell can it be wrong when its fact? Whats more important, NPOV, or fact itself? If you sacrafice the truth in favor of "remaining neutral", you violate the purpose of a encyclopedia. There might be more then one side, but that doesn't mean the middle ground is the truth. Some people believe the Earth is flat. That doesn't mean you compromise with them. In reality some people are right and some are wrong. Learn how the real world works. Alyeska 21:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So the "truth" is to say (for example) "Uwe Boll sucks"? That's an opinion, not a "simple observation". A simple observation is that things fall when you drop them. Another simple observation (er, you get the idea) is that Uwe Boll's movies have met with a storm of backlash from the press. Or that his movies have met with what is generally accepted as commercial failure. That's fact. "Uwe Boll sucks" (or whatever you're going for) is an opinion. Re-read wiki's guidelines if you still don't get NPOV. gspawn 04:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Another simple observation would be the ratings his movies got at rotten tomatoes and imdb which samples a wide variety of sources internationally. Please re-read wiki's guidelines if you still don't get NPOV. Remember Calderra/gspawn, this is a PUBLIC wiki entry, not your own personal entry. Nobody cares what you think should be on this page or not. The truth is, people ARE interested in public reactions to a director's movie. Because commentries have been contested as "non-NPOV" by people like you, the only thing left is hard facts as seen by ratings.165.21.154.112 09:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you see huge amounts of stats on Spielberg's page to prove how great his is? You don't, nor will you. It's needless, and is still an attempt to add bias to this article, under the guise of "just being stats". You WANT to add bias, and you want to use stats to do it. That's not up to Wikipedia standards. gspawn 22:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you see movie commentries and critics/public reactions being constantly removed on Spieldberg's page? You don't, nor will you. There is no need to "prove how great he is" because that is NOT NPOV! You WANT to add positive bias to Boll's article and back yourself up with NPOV excuses. That is not up to Wikipedia standards. Your NPOV crusade is just an attempt to make Boll look good under the guise of "not up to wiki standards". I am sorry but one man (you) does not represent wiki standards. 165.21.154.111 14:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A lot of people here don't seem to get it. Just because Böll is almost universally hated does not mean that this should be one long anti-Böll rant. If you're going to put vitriolic material against him in here, at least back it up with some good sources. True, there aren't many good things that can be said about him, but he does have fans (of which I am not one, thankfully) and this must be taken into consideration in the article, including the fact that these fans tend to be in smaller numbers. As The Anome said, criticisms need to be attributed to their sources, as does praise. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 07:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Uwe Boll is an idiot. This is true. The article, however, reads as if it was slightly apologetic of that fact. Let me rephrase that, this entire article has gone to great lengths to hide the fact that he is an unrelenting jackass. NPOV means Wikipedia tries to present information factually without bias. I think the fact this man is known and only known for raping video game properties in movie form is a valid assessment. At the very least, a factual documentation of the extent of criticism against Uwe Boll may be necessary. Would it be allowed if I compiled a list of criticism against all of Uwe Boll's previous works (as long as I include the necessary reference material)? Can't portions of Blair Erickson's account be included in the main article? I noticed at the beginning he has a Dr. at his name, a courtesy not given to any other person that wikipedia has an article on, and although Uwe Boll may have a Ph.D and insists on being addressed by that title, it deserves note that far better men, for example Martin Luther King and Ben Carson, do not share the same courtesy, despite their notable and indisputable contribution to society. Whether this was done out of respect or sly ridicule, it doesn't belong in this article. 68.225.26.210 20:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Uwe Boll doesn't deserve a NPOV X)--Chef Brian 13:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

A section was added recently, containing (below, parsed for space).

This content is just an attempt to add bias to this article, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. No matter how badly you want to express the idea that Uwe Boll sucks, you cannot resort to NPOV to do it. This includes presenting unnecessary evidence to do so. NPOV is NPOV, and trying to cover it up with masses of facts doesn't change that you're just trying to add bias to the article. gspawn 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Movies Reactions Boll completed 3 videogame to movie adaptation thus far. International reviews and reactions to his movies maybe used as an unbiased guide to his competence as a director. House of the Dead Rotten Tomatoes ratings: Critics: 6% (6 out of 100). Internet Users: 7% (7 out of 100). Cream of the Crop: 10% (10 out of 100). Link to ratings http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/house_of_the_dead/ IMDb ratings: User Rating: 2.2/10 (5,831 votes) Bottom 100 films of all time: #41 Link to ratings http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317676/ Alone in the Dark Rotten Tomatoes ratings: Critics: 1% (1 out of 100). Internet Users: 13% (13 out of 100). Cream of the Crop: 0% (0 out of 100). Link to ratings http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/alone_in_the_dark/ IMDb ratings: User Rating: 2.3/10 (5,950 votes) Bottom 100 films of all time: #47 Link to ratings: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369226/ BloodRayne Awaiting release and ratings. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Boll""

Thats absurd. You would delete real facts in order to hide behind this idiotic shrine of NPOV. How can an encyclopedia exist if the facts are constantly removed because someone else has a contrary opinion? Alyeska 21:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It can't. This whole thing is ridiculous.

Uwe Boll is objectively a bad director. The article should reflect this. The first duty of every encyclopedia is to the truth. If this encyclopedia can't stand here and tell the truth, it doesn't deserve the name. Rogue 9 00:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What the...how come stating movies that won critical acclaim on directors' pages like Steven Spielberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Spielberg) is allowed but stating movie ratings are not allowed here? PLEAS EXPLAIN WHAT IS NPOV? Why are listing of a director's movies and their critics reactions allowed on other wikipedia directors articles???

How can movie ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB be not NPOV? They are NOT coming from one or two guys or even a bunch of guys but THE ENTIRE WORLD! IMDB collects 5900 votes. Unless you're saying the ENTIRE WORLD'S CRTICS are scheming against Boll or those 5900 users on IMDB are ALL scheming against him? What the hey? 165.21.154.109 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, he has a point. I mean, if he does bad, we shouldn't try to cover it. If we can use statistics that prove a director is good, we should use ones that prove a director is bad. 11:20, 19 December 2005

Article on NPOV . The statistics in question were proceeded with, essentially, "Uwe Boll is a dumbass and I can prove it." The stats were inconsequential- the person just wanted to show why he thought Uwe Boll sucks. The article already talks about his commercial and critical failure- we don't need a listing of stats. If you think Spielburg is only being praised on his page, go to his page. There's a whole "criticism" section, as there is here. I will, however, take the "filmography" heading to be a suggestion that this article needs a filmography section. This section will be the same, NPOV, list-format section that all directors get. gspawn 05:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And just so we're on the same page, if anyone's wondering where this 'calderra' [correction: gspawn, I think I lost an account a while back] guy stands on Uwe Boll, I'm the guy who included his 'toilet' boll nickname. I hate the guy as much as anyone else, but I'm not going to let that drag down the quality that users expect from Wikipedia. I'm not 'watering down the truth' or anything ludicrous like that- I'm trying to maintain a well-written, professional article, that's up to Wiki standards. gspawn 05:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Calderra/gspawn. Because of your biased nature regarding Boll (you said u hate the guy), you are dragging down the quality of this Wiki article. Check out the wiki pages of other directors, all of them had commentry on their works (movies). Due to non-NPOV people like you all commentries were taken out. The only other thing readers can fall back on is solid facts like movie ratings etc. This you are also against. So may I ask: what are we "allowed" to post by your "standards"? Do you mean to say that Wikipedia should NEVER contain public reactions/commentries to any movies and that you'll shortly be deleting similar posts on other directors' pages?? 165.21.154.113 09:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

also, calderra/gspawn i think your actions here are totally non-NPOV. Just because you think the statistics in question were proceeded with, essentially, "Uwe Boll is a dumbass and I can prove it." doesn't mean it is. Stats are just stats. By covering up those you are violating NPOV. Also, why do you only link to pages that puts him in good light? (eg. his official site) Hate/parody sites should be listed too to maintain NPOV. 165.21.154.116 09:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

To one question: Will someone delete POV-heavy comments off (x) Wiki page? Yes. Someone recently mentioned Steven Spelberg as having "glowing" remarks made in his Wiki- those remarks are constantly evaluated and balanced by the "criticism" section of his article (and BOTH sections are checked to be NPOV). gspawn 22:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

To another- as I've stated above, people want to add bias to this article, and they want to use statistics those do it. We've said critics hate him, and that's assumed to be a well-researched statement if it's allowed to stand. The statistics are redundant, and they're still just an attempt to bias the article unnecessarily. Those stats would be deleted on Spielberg's page, they'd be deleted on Woody Allen's page, and they should be deleted here. gspawn 22:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Calderra|gspawn, therefore according to YOUR wiki-laws biased remarks/comments can only be made about a director if they are "balanced" by opposing view? What a load of nonsense. What if the director happens to be Boll who works leave viewers with completely no chance for positive remarks?165.21.154.117 14:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments/Remarks concerning movies are NOT deleted on Woody Allen's page and NOT deleted on Spielberg's page. WHY then are they deleted on Boll's page? Is it wiki-standard to have completely no comments/remarks on a director's movies and have completely no way to guage the standard of those movies?165.21.154.117 14:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to RfC

I saw somebody asking for an RfC on this article.

I have never seen a Uwe Boll movie. I have no personal opinion on his films, and of all the games he has based movies on, I played Alone in the Dark (the original) on a friend's computer once back in 1993 or thereabouts. Maybe '94 or '95.

IMHO, the article uses weasel words to beat the band.

I see there are some people who have very strong opinions about Boll's films in this Talk page. But even though your opinions are so strong that they SEEM "self-evident" as facts, they're not. Nor is blithely saying that his films are hated by a lot of people NPOV without significant cites.

When considering NPOV, think of somebody who (like me) has never seen a Boll film or spent any time reading reviews of his movies by established third-party reviewers. Is the Wikipedia entry going to scan like a neutral piece, or like a rant? At the moment, it has lots of rantlike qualities.

Suggestion: those of you in the strong anti-Boll camp should spend less time editing this page, and more time finding quotes and facts from third-party sources. Pull-quote a few words of an Ebert review and out-link it, for instance.

You CAN'T just say "many people hate his films" or "most critics hate his films" without linking to factual back-up. Similarly, the whole section on how he may or may not use German tax loopholes to fund his movies is POV and potentially libellous without significant external sourcing of where this information comes from.

Again: no opinion on Boll's films, don't much care about video games. I'm not defending the man. I'm sure he makes crap movies. But you need to rely on OTHER people saying he makes crap movies before painting with this broad brush. MattShepherd 19:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The "I'm not involved" alias

This isn't the name directors use when they don't want to be associated with a movie?

That's "Alan Smithee". MattShepherd 19:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Alan Smithee" has been out of use for many years, because the name has become well known to the public. Other pseudonyms are used now, for example Walter Hill was credited as "Thomas Lee" for Supernova.

Something Awful

This article makes reference to a "writer" of Alone in the Dark who was critical of the movie - it seems to be done in humour, I think, rather than a serious account of something that happened. Blair Erickson is a contributor to the comedy Something Awful website

I don't beleive Erickson is a contributor to the SA site, merely a frequent visitor, who submitted that piece as a true account of his work on the movie. He actually worked in the video game industry and left it to make movies. Google spits out a few thousand hits for the UC Irvine baseball player named Blair Erickson, which I doubt is the right person :) However I beleive [3] is the same person, as is [4].

I'm taking at face value the accuracy of at least his contention that he and a coauthor did the original Alone in the Dark treatment. I certainly did not find anything in the hundreds of places that cites this story that refuted it. The article also has well below the usual satire/sarcasm level of a SA piece, simple a statement of facts from his point of view. I would think that, if the statements made in the article were factually incorrect, someone would have raised a fit by now, especially the extensive quotations from emails Erickson claimed Boll wrote him. 24.27.196.2 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Erickson is involved with the movie industry, and is not a "comedy writer" per se. Also, regarding Somethingawful, Uwe has never posted on the web forums.

Improvments

• Firstly, there needs to be a reference to the DVD commentary on Alone in the Dark - too much mention is made to it, with nothing to back it up.
• the sections: writings and education should be merged into The Director section, and maybe this should be retitled Biography or something
• most of "financing" should be removed - especially the ramble about the german tax shelter. this should be changed to something like "While Boll has received a lot of negative publicity regarding this funding method, he was actually one of the few directors to use the tax shelter as intended. Many American companies take advantage of a loophole in the law, regarding the definition of a film as german. In January 2006 German legislature was changed to prevent this occuring, but Boll will not be affected" with appropriate references.
• finally the criticsim section should be almost completely scrapped - much of it is specific criticism which belongs more to the movie pages. A brief summary of criticisms, with references (eg reviews), and links to his movie page. As it is, this section is indulgently long, and basically a rant by an anti-Boll guy, trying a little to seem impartial. Wapatista 11:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note of kudos to the people responsible for recent changes in this page. It's good to see another case of users finally rallying to create a great article. Gspawn 20:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Awards

winning the worst director for 4 years in a row....he must be something... -- erroneously signed by 219.93.196.110

small edit

I removed the 'Dr.' from Dr. Uwe Boll. It was starting to piss me off. My reasons were not NPOV, but I think ultimately the article hasn't lost anything integrity. If anything, it only reflects on my pettiness. HiS oWn 05:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Since you admit your edit was not in good faith, I'm going to restore it. -- MisterHand 05:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think we sould put Dr. to his name. It states later in the article about his doctorate in literature so what is the harm in leaving it out. Unless there is some kind of law of not putting Dr. in a name(sarcasm). (Name? I have no name. 06:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

• I've restored it once more. It's his title, it's what he goes by, it's factual, and it's verifiable. Assuming good faith and NPOV there's no reason to omit it. -- MisterHand 14:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No other article in Wikipedia gives the title of Dr to any of its entries, not even to practicing medical doctors. In any case, assuming good faith and NPOV there's no reason to include it. HiS oWn 19:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • All other articles I've seen attribute titles to the person that are due to them. For example Stephen Hawking is written as Professor Stephen Hawking, Tony Blair is written as Rt. Hon Tony Blair and Angela Merkel is written as Dr. Angela Merkel. This whole "removing the Dr." thing is bizarre and smells of the anti-Boll POV that plagued this article before. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Medical doctors are referred to as "Joe Blablabla, M.D.", so that arguement doesn't apply. The fact is, Boll goes by "Dr. Uwe Boll" in press releases, etc. It's a real, verifiable title. I can't think of any NPOV reason to leave it out. But I'll give it a few days, and unless somebody can convince me otherwise, I'm restoring it. -- MisterHand 16:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Dubious paragraph

"Uwe Boll mentioned in an interview with EuroGamer that "his movies get better as his career progresses". This definatly seems to be the case with each movie that he bases on a game get a higher rating every time he makes one. His latest upcoming film "In the Name of A King Dungeon Siege has an average prediction rating of 3.7 out of 10 gathered from 59 votes in the IMBD thread "Predict IMDb Rating". If this trend continues as it has done in the past with his other films that were not based on games that he directed, for instance German Fried Movie in 1991 only got 1.7 out of 10 but his movies continued to get higher and higher scores until 2003 where his film "Heart of America" got 5.4 out of ten, then there is definatly alot of potential for Uwe Boll to create high rating epic movies based on games."

This paragraph is speculative, rambling, and POVed—not to mention severely grammatically lacking and full of typos. It also jumps abruptly from the relatively neutral, balanced tone of the rest of the section into a more casual, rhetorically-loaded style, with a lot of unnecessary and inaccurate use of hyperbolic phrases like "This definatly [sic] seems to be the case" and "there is definatly [sic] alot of potential for Uwe Boll to create high rating epic movies". It should probably be removed, or at least completely rewritten. -Silence 03:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll just wait a few years and Uwe will only be making masterpieces that everyone will adore and single-handedly create a ground-breaking new definition of movies for the 21st century. 惑乱 分からん 17:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit.

I excised the entire section, including the IMDB listings. It's too time-sensitive for the entry. And the idea that the IMDB ratings mean that one day Boll will be directing epic films is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. If someone adds that POV nonsense again, they better have a great argument. 24.137.111.194 04:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Uwe Boll Should be banned from making movies

Uwe Boll doesn't deserve to produce movies. In my opinion he is one of the worst movie directors to grace this earth. He's already ruined potentialy great films like BloodRayne and Alone In The Dark by turning them into dumb, pointless action films. Now he is going to ruin Farcry, a game-to-film adaptation that has great potential. He'll turn it into a dumb, pointless action film like the rest of his movies. IMDB has already got a predition score of 3 out of 10 for Farcry. Now if I wrote the script and directed Farcry, it would be a masterpeice. I'm not joking either.

If Mr. Boll has proved anything, it's that the ratio of bad game-based movies to good game-based movies is about 5 to 1. It won't change, and likely wouldn't change if someone else directed Far Cry. Boll gets the movie rights for games because no on else wants them, and if by any chance someone else bought the rights, they would probably be a horrible director too. The lesson? Games and movies should stay seperate. End of story. Willpower 00:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but some games do have great potential as movie, but its directors like Uwe Boll who turn them into to crap. Really if I directed Farcry it would probaly be a whole lot better than whatever Uwe Boll could produce.

Quotations

I added a bunch of requests for citation to this page, but I'm also concerned about the growing quotes section. Anyone want to help move it to Wikiquote? --InShaneee 15:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV points lacking citation

Is there any reason why they should be in this article? Quotes like "has compared himself to Sergio Leone" are ridiculous, without or without source. If Boll said "I am in no way as good a director as Sergio Leone", he's comparing himself to Leone. It's weasel words and has no place in the article, especially without a citation. These quotes have to go

Given the lack of any dispute, I'm now removing the quotes

I believe they are referring to Boll describing Dungeon Seige as "a very dark, epic picture in the tradition of the Sergio Leone Westerns"[5] and calling the end of Alone in the Dark "Lynchian" on the DVD commentary.[6] While this is not the same as comparing himself to the directors, he is equating his movies with those of Lynch and Leone. I think this deserves mention in the article, going to put it back in with citations. Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For Boll's Lynchian quote I have used a review of the commentary as a citation. Should I cite the DVD commentary itself? Should I use the "cite video" template?

Sounds good. --InShaneee 15:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

He's not comparing himself to the directors, he's just comparing the style of the movie (parts). 62.251.111.252 00:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Petitiononline.com

There are currently two petitions on petitiononline.com regarding Uwe Boll to my knowledge, i think these should be included in the article in some way as they show the amount of anger this man causes amongst many: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/fcmovie/ http://www.PetitionOnline.com/RRH53888/

No, petions are biased and have nothing to do with Uwe himself. --InShaneee 19:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bond 22

I can find no reputable source that Uwe Boll has been signed to direct Bond 22, so am removing this. 23skidoo 15:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Just another in a long stream of unsourced directorial claims. --InShaneee 16:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

House of the Dead references

The article currently says that in "House of the Dead", there is "not much connecting" to the video game "except for a subtle game reference in the end of the movie." Yet, the movie uses footage of the video game to transition between scenes. Which, of course, is a mark of film directing genius. Any thoughts on changing this? colby b. 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How about adding something to the tune of 'except for some footage taken directly from the game itself'? --InShaneee 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Films made by Uwe Boll template!

Boll was recently kicked off Hunter: The Reckoning and Fear Effect, but the films are still in his Films-template. Could someone who knows how remove them? (user:HannuMakinen)

• Okay, I managed to do it myself. (user:HannuMakinen)

This article could use a filmography

Section heading says it all... The German article about Boll has a filmography of all his stuff... 22:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• There's already a template of all of his films at the bottom of the page. I think adding another list to the article would probably be a little redundant. (user:HannuMakinen)

Kristanna Loken?

I guess Boll can't be a total a-hole. Kritanna Loken is due to appear in another one of his films and actually wants to make a sequel to BloodRayne. What do you people make of this? (user:HannuMakinen)

From CinemaBlend

I could be reporting old news due to this very full discussion page, but here's a link to a CinemaBlend article about the man, including much things already said about him, but with some interesting speculation I hadn't seen before.

I don't see it here, but should it be mentioned that one of his films, Heart of America, has actually gained positive reviews? At least compared to the rest of his work. Indeed, there seems to be amezement and disbelief, that it's a movie by this particular director.

--Anshelm '77 23:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actual House

Removed this stupid and pointless jab at Boll, my reasoning can be read on the talk page for House of the Dead (film)--HannuMakinen 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have put this page up for Semi-protection because of repeated vandalism from IP 66.190.247.14 and 69.197.157.109 on August 7th 2006. Valoem ^talk 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That was several days ago...I see little need to protect now. --InShaneee 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Captain America Movie

Nowhere on the internet does it say that Uwe Boll might be directing the upcoming Captain America movie. I will be forced to delete that statement unless someone shows prove of this with a source!!!

• Trolls like this should henceforth be deleted on sight. -TheHande 08:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Uwe Boll interview and magazine article available

As part of Wikiproject Computer and Video Games, we're creating an offline magazine archive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Magazines in which users can request magazine scans of articles to use as sources in Wikipedia.

As of writing there is an article on Boll available in a recent edition of Games TM. Just contact the user associated with this article (in this case me) if you're interested in using the scan to further development of the Uwe Boll article. - Hahnchen 15:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Boxing Match

A video of a boxing match with a critic is available here : http://kotaku.com/gaming/boxing/clips-uwe-boll-beats-up-critic-in-boxing-match-198932.php 24.61.73.156 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved the "Press Release" and "Brooke Burgess" headings. I'm sure the Talk page doesn't need to be edited but I did want to draw attention to the latest "Boxing match"-related talk. I just read Brooke Burgess' blogpost (he kindly linked to it from the BrokenSaints newsletter ;-)) and I was wondering if there was a way to include his part of the saga in the wiki entry. For now, I'm gonna look at adding a reference to Brooke's post, but I won't write anything (except maybe a citation to the reference). The Extremist 08:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Press Release

Can anyone find the original press release that announced the boxing challenge? I'm no fan of Uwe Boll's, but I'm pretty sure the original press release stated pretty specifically that it was not a joke, they would be real fights and Uwe Boll would really be trying to win. Certainly there was nothing about it that lead Dan Morris of PC Gamer to believe otherwise when we discussed his intent to apply to the matches on the PC Gamer podcast. If we can find it and this is true, I think Lowtax's comments should probably be removed under the Biograpy of Living Persons Act of 2002 or whatever it's called which says you can't say mean things about living people or even discuss them. 204.69.40.7 11:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Brooke Burgess

In the boxing outcome section it mentions "an actual real critic who sparred with Uwe Boll a few nights ago." This is allegedly Brooke Burgess of Broken Saints (www.brokensaints.com/blog) who claims that Boll used several illegal strikes in their sparring match. He details the event on http://brokensaints.com/blog/?p=457 (all comments by "admin" are Mr. Burgess). -R

Name pronunciation

Could anyone how really knows how to say his name put up some IPA codes in there for us? ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 16:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not good with IPA, but last I heard it was pronounced OO-vay. --InShaneee 18:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In my capacity as a film composer I actually met him once. People were calling him OOb-uh bOl, with a along O.

As a linguistics major, I'll give it a shot. Please ammend or remove if necessary. ChillinChaz 02:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)