Even I couldn't have predicted that "Bloodrayne" would bomb as hard as it did.
Dr. Boll can throw any kind of spin on that he wants, but you know it has to disappoint him greatly.
nobody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even I couldn't have predicted that "Bloodrayne"
> would bomb as hard as it did.
>
> Dr. Boll can throw any kind of spin on that he
> wants, but you know it has to disappoint him
> greatly.
Dissappointed? I doubt it. It really is to be expected I'd imagine...
That reminds me of an earlier thread on Boll in which someone directed a link to a theory that according to some tax law or something, the more money his films lose the more the guys behind the scenes make or something like that. Not sure of the validity to it, but the fact that this guy keeps making movies which are incredibly terrible is probably proof enough of that.
From anything I've read on the man, he could never be disappointed. Kind of lives in his own reality.
-------------------------------------------------------
dean Wrote:
> That reminds me of an earlier thread on Boll in
> which someone directed a link to a theory that
> according to some tax law or something, the more
> money his films lose the more the guys behind the
> scenes make or something like that.
-------------------------------------------------------
this is the essential premise of the broadway musical/movie "the producers".
The movie got very, very little in the way of advertising around my area. If it was like that everywhere, it's kind of to be expected.
Very little advertising in my area as well. My wife and I drove 2hrs to see Hostel, and that theater wasn't even playing Bloodrayne. I've not found a theater in the surrounding counties that is playing it.
Yeah their was very little advertising here as well. I think I saw one commerical for it but thats about it. The thearter I went to didn't have it either.
I was suprised to see an ad for it on bus here in DC.
I saw the ad and thought "is't that the new Boll movie? How'd he get advertising on the side of a bus?"
See how I don't see new movies in the theater, I will probaly send him some penies when I rent it in a few months
Arizona has been slammed with "Bloodrayne" advertising (at least the Mesa/Tempe area). But then again, maybe that's just because of the channels I often stick my TV on (Scifi and Spike, mostly).
Not to mention Ben Kingsley. If he's in something like this, he must be seriously strapped for cash
Well didn't Foywonder do an interview with Boll when he basically said the way they cast is see who's not doing anything at the time, and then just hire whoever had something fall through, therefore, in the actors eyes at least, it's a quick bit of cash.
All you have to do is sell your soul pretty much...
Kingsley is probably just wanting a quick check to pay off his new boat or something. Same with Michael Madsen.
Things for Boll get even worse! From Shack News:
"A projectionist from UltraStar Cinemas has revealed to Shacknews a rather huge error made with the distribution of Uwe Boll's latest cinematic endeavor, the BloodRayne adaptation featuring such well-regarded thespians as Ben Kingsley and Michael Madsen. The UltraStar employee explained that when he got into work last week, he noticed that the theater had received a copy of BloodRayne. This seemed odd because his particular theater generally shows films aimed more at the arthouse set. "I didn't want to build this and put it in my theater," he said, so he checked up with UltraStar higher-ups. It turns out that a computer error resulted in the print being sent to 5,500 more theaters nationwide than was intended. "The computer that placed the order, instead of selecting just the correct theatres, it also selected 5,500 additional theaters, so they made that many extra copies." Whoops.
I asked how much each print costs, and he said that in total, it costs about $5,000 to have each set of reels delivered to a theater, meaning that as a very rough estimate the total costs incurred may be upwards of $27 million. "And that's 27 million that didn't go into production, didn't go into marketing, it's just expenditure that's sitting there," he said. "I mean, I know Ben Kingsley was in Ghandi, but nobody gets to just throw away that much money for nothing."
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that, according to Variety, the film is only showing on 985 screens, just over half of the original target of 1,900--and that's separate from the thousands of accidental extra copies. Now, the film is already millions in the hole and it earned only $1.2 million during its opening weekend, failing to place it in the top ten. Uwe Boll has had a lot of second chances, but might this spell the beginning of the end for the self-described misunderstood director?"
Either this is going to be debunked in a few days as an urban legend, really is one of the biggest blunders of all time, or final proof that Boll is actually some sort of diabolical con man, although at this point I'm not even sure how he's profiting from it. All I can say if this proves true is that I'm totally speechless. Wow!
Wow that is so incredibly funny, especially if it wasn't actually computer error, but some disgruntled employee who saw Uwe Boll's Bloodrayne, thought it was crap, and decided to punish him via making extra copies in order to destroy the man's financial positions.
That would just be absolutely freakin hilarious.