Uwe Boll vs. The Critics (literally)

[vibeke_T]

This quote is awesome:

Said Boll: "See what happens when they take a blow to the head? They like my movies."

He frightens me

 

[matrix_ghost]

So because I've never made a movie I'm not allowed to criticize a film?
What utter bollocks.

No i didn't say that
What i simply said is that is much easier to criticise someone or something , but once you really doing that same thing ( in this case making a movie ) you truly know what it means to make a movie.

Everybody's a critic these days . I mean what , people watch some movies of Scorcese , Goddard , Spielberg and John Hughes and that suddenly makes them a critic .
One can easily dismiss something as "Oh that performance looks horrible , or that movie looks like crap or that CGI looks soo fake " but if you have never made a movie or don't even understand the basics of film making , what good does it have to criticise someone's else .

It's almost like eating a delicious meal and then the cook comes and says "there's the kitchen , now go make the same meal and if you can try to top what i just made ".



Granted Boll has made some of the worst movies ever


What is however a very sad fact is losing to Uwe Boll. That stuff just haunts you for life man

 

[Red Mask]

Not as much as being beaten by the opposite sex.

This is hilarious! Knock 'em dead, Uwe!

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Everybody's a critic these days . I mean what , people watch some movies of Scorcese , Goddard , Spielberg and John Hughes and that suddenly makes them a critic .
One can easily dismiss something as "Oh that performance looks horrible , or that movie looks like crap or that CGI looks soo fake " but if you have never made a movie or don't even understand the basics of film making , what good does it have to criticise someone's else .

I don't agree with that. If you watch movies for a long time, lots of movies of all types, and you think about them, read about them, analyze them, discuss them, etc., then you can develop an understanding and application of criticism. Its the same with anything.

Its a contradiction really. If that person that is listening to the criticism doesn't have first hand knowledge of filmmaking that you're implying critics need, what good is it to them to receive criticism that IS based on first hand filmmaking experience?

Understanding something DOES NOT MEAN you have to do that something.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

His movies suck.........thank God he's no where near the Metal Gear Solid project.

I'd probably kill him myself if he ever got a chance to make Metal Gear.

And I'd be found innocent, trust me.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I don't agree with that. If you watch movies for a long time, lots of movies of all types, and you think about them, read about them, analyze them, discuss them, etc., then you can develop an understanding and application of criticism. Its the same with anything.

Its a contradiction really. If that person that is listening to the criticism doesn't have first hand knowledge of filmmaking that you're implying critics need, what good is it to them to receive criticism that IS based on first hand filmmaking experience?

Understanding something DOES NOT MEAN you have to do that something.

That is something that i can't agree with . Being someone who studies science , i think it's a rather general rule that to understand something you need to do it even if it's on a small scale. Experience it . Like sex. We can all read magazines and do the hand stuff , but nothing beats the real deal


Technically we could say that a person like Roger Ebert could make the greatest ever superhero movie with the greatest ever CGI and the greatest ever acting performances that would win lots and lots of awards.I mean after all , he has been a critic for many many years. So he would have an understanding of acting , an understanding of getting the right performance out his actors , an understanding of CGI , a understanding of editing/music ..in general of everything related to movies.
But we know this isn't the case.

Just because someone "thinks" he/she understands movie by watching and discussing many movies , doesn't make him/her a valid movie critic IMO.
The same also applies for movie directors who just come out of nowhere with no experience/understanding whatsoever and make a crappy movie and then expect it to be teh greatest thing ever.Which is what applies to Boll. He may be a filmmaker , but he lacks the understanding of making a good movie. Which is why his movies are utter crap.

If someone like Martin Scorcese would've criticised a movie , i know that i would consider it to be VALID criticism since he knowns what he is talking about.



Also i think that alot of Boll haters would've acted quite differently had Boll lost the fight.
Everyone would've probably said , Haha Boll sucked and now he lost or something in that trend.
Boll got his revenge on critics and those guys must live with that shame. No matter how much support you get , there's nothing more humiliating that losing to the enemy

 

[JackBauer]

That is something that i can't agree with . Being someone who studies science , i think it's a rather general rule that to understand something you need to do it even if it's on a small scale.

see, this is the difference: cinema isn't a science.

 

[matrix_ghost]

see, this is the difference: cinema isn't a science.

The rules of science also apply for art too.

Let someone who's doesn't understand nothing about art , judge a art contest. I wanna see how much validity his comments have .

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Let someone who's doesn't understand nothing about art , judge a art contest. I wanna see how much validity his comments have .

Ok, so if they understood art, that would be acceptable to you? I thought you said that they had to be involved with art?

Besides, given the fact that film critics can provide good guidance on what movies to see to average movie goers, and those movie goers know NOTHING about film, it works out fine. Most critics of ANYTHING are not involved with what they critique, otherwise they wouldn't be critics and instead would be...well...making film for example.

We have teachers teaching science where they are not scientists. We have history teachers who did not participate in 99.9999% of the history they are teaching. We have government teachers who probably were never involved with the government career-wise.

And a person's opinion isn't better or more valid than someone else's. That's a pretty smug idea. It can be a more educated opinion, but not better.

Criticism is NOT an exact science nor even a science. This notion that if you introduced factor x (whereas x = experience in the area that is being critiqued) into the equation and it would be a more valid equation is senseless. Ebert, a very experienced and intelligent critic, sometimes likes what I consider to be the crappiest and worst of movies (Booty Call, anyone?).

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Also i think that alot of Boll haters would've acted quite differently had Boll lost the fight.
Everyone would've probably said , Haha Boll sucked and now he lost or something in that trend.
Boll got his revenge on critics and those guys must live with that shame. No matter how much support you get , there's nothing more humiliating that losing to the enemy

Boll haters? You say that like there are actually Boll supporters.

And Boll fighting people that had NO experience in boxing isn't exactly revenge. Its a sad display of ego where Boll can't accept that he is terrible at what he does and the only way to "get back" at them is to overpower and cheat them through physical conflict. He feels he must punch and hurt them to get back, which is nothing more than pathetic and primate-like. If I had any respect for the hack, it would have gone down considerably.

 

[mastermindjcg]

This quote is awesome:



He frightens me

I believe the man is German. He would be a rather bad German if he wasn't at least a little bit on the scary side.

 

[vibeke_T]

lol

 

[Danger Mouse]

Personally, I'm getting tired with this whole 'make-a-movie-first-before-you-can-criticise' crap. What a load of bull.

Granted, I agree to some degree what matrix_ghost said that to appreciate a certain aspect of science, for example, one must have at least some rudimentary knowledge of science. And he went on to quote sex as a similar example. I totally agree.

But such rule does not apply to movie-making. The movie-making business is somewhat like the food business. Both cater to customers. And does one really need to know how to cook before one can appreciate if a pizza tastes like sawdust?

We are the customers. And we do not judge food by how it is made. We judge by the end-result that is being served to us. And if what's being served tastes like crap, then it is crap regardless of how much care and effort was being put in the kitchen.

And Uwe Boll is no chef.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Personally, I'm getting tired with this whole 'make-a-movie-first-before-you-can-criticise' crap. What a load of bull.

Granted, I agree to some degree what matrix_ghost said that to appreciate a certain aspect of science, for example, one must have at least some rudimentary knowledge of science. And he went on to quote sex as a similar example. I totally agree.

But such rule does not apply to movie-making. The movie-making business is somewhat like the food business. Both cater to customers. And does one really need to know how to cook before one can appreciate if a pizza tastes like sawdust?

We are the customers. And we do not judge food by how it is made. We judge by the end-result that is being served to us. And if what's being served tastes like crap, then it is crap regardless of how much care and effort was being put in the kitchen.

And Uwe Boll is no chef.

Appreciation is something else then criticising isn't it ?
What i'm tryint to say here is simply that everybody can criticise someone , but is it valid criticism ? Everybody is a critic these days ; to take the food analogy a bit further.
You said that we don't not judge food on how it's made. Well reading the average thread here on upcoming movies , we do apparantly do that. Discussing every minute detail , from cast announcements , to early CGI work , to bashing or raving of costumes.
I mean saying that something is crap is easy , until you start to ask yourself why it's crap. It's here when'the understanding of filmmaking comes. Criticism of films by reviewers are not only the guide to veiwers to watch or not watch a movie , but also ways to improve yourself as a filmmaker.
Many reviews that you can find is people *****ing and moaning about "well this sucks , that sucks , that scene were wrong animated, that shoud've been there , he acts wooden , she's just cast for eye candy etc".
Few actually go in depth and talk about how the movie really is made , why certain decisions were made and if so did these decisions make or break a movie.

 

[Danger Mouse]

Look, when I eat something, I can usually tell what's wrong with it. Too spicy, or not enough salt, or too well done, or too lumpy, or too cold, too hot. But if the chef were to come barging out and gives me full reign of the kitchen and tells me to whip up the perfect dinner for myself, I'll be the first to tell you that I can't cook for nuts. I'd probably end up making a bigger mess.

But that still doesn't make his cooking any better. And I am entitled to tell him what's wrong with the food.

 

[Danger Mouse]

Oh, and why am I entitled to criticise the food that was served to me? Because I paid for it.

 

[matrix_ghost]

My point exactly ( the part where you say you couldn't cook).
One more thing , have you ever cooked in you're life ? Even the smallest thing like making pancakes or making an omelet or even making a salad ?
Cause if you did , you would understand the food and cooking process. You'd know whether something is too salty , when meat is overcooked , when pastry is soggy etc

Understanding something says that you are entitled to tell that chef his food sucks and that he must improve drastically.

Same for movies. Understanding the way movies are made makes you a valid critic.

off topic question :
That line you have in you're sig ? Is that Indonesian or thai ?

 

[The Kid]

Boll rocks!!

 

[matrix_ghost]

Haha t: , good ol' wesyeed.
Always choosin the opposite side

 

[The Kid]

opposite side? Oh my, I have no idea what you mean by that...

that's just my commentary on the fight. I've never really seen any of his movies so I don't have an opinion on him or his films. But he can kick some ass, that's for sure.

 

[matrix_ghost]

*sees joke fall flat on the ground*

thanks alot man
now i'll have to kill the kid

 

[The Kid]

Oh no. Don't. That'd be terrible...

*cough*

So you still fighting with bosef? I had to deal with those monotonous insulting overreacting speeches he makes too. It's a pain the butt.

Good luck with that.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Fighting ?

Oh gosh no. Just one argument that got blown out of proportions really. Nothing to worry about ............hopefully .
I understand if people get defensive about their loved movies ( heck i do too sometimes with the matrix movies) , but taking things personal is a bit too much for me. But as long as things are posted in a mature way then i'm fine by that.
But thanks for the warning t:

 

[JackBauer]

Same for movies. Understanding the way movies are made makes you a valid critic.

a lot of people can understand how movies are made, without ever having made one.

you DON'T have to have the actual experience in the movie making business to be able to tell if the plot doesn't make sense, or if the acting's terrible. a lot of people can point out clichés without having actually went to film school.

I did go to film school, and I can have perfectly reasonable conversations about movies with friends who have no real movie making experience. doesn't mean my opinion matters more than theirs though.

I'm sorry, but that's some elitist bulls#!t.

 

[gregtestagent]

One of the contenders, which we were supposed to believe was one of Boll's critics, said that he hasn't even seen any of Boll's work and neither had the other contenders. He basically said it was a big PR stunt filled with BS, but he also said that Boll really did hit him hard. So, most contenders threw in the towel after a couple of minutes, none of them had formal training except for one and he was a 17 year old noob boxer who hadn't ever done a fight. Boll looked like he had training, and beat every one of them. I'd like to see him go at it with a real seasoned boxer, and see how he likes it.