Neal Adams returns to Batman (with Frank Miller)

[samurainoir]

>from a financial POV, he's actually created a low budget model that allows him to continue to make films and give his investors a bit of return as well, which is how he continues to make films.

I'd heard it's the opposite: that due to a quirk with the German arts entitlement program he keeps getting funding 'cos his movies DON'T make money, and therefore his backers can claim them as a chariatable deduction. Something like that, anyhoo....

They are generally domestic box office bombs (North America), but they do eventually make their money back on foreign release, DVD, Cable, itunes etc.

I think Dungeon Seige was the only film with a large enough budget ($60-70 million) to really be considered unprofitable and unable to eventually garner a return.

Let me put it this way... if House of the Dead, Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark did not achieve some measure of financial success in the long run after all the other viewership windows (foreign, DVD, cable, itunes etc) are added up worldwide, then there is no way in hell they would have come out with sequels for all of them (albeit even cheaper straight to video fare).

Their budgets are generally so low ($12-25 million) that it's virtually impossible for them NOT to make some money (creative accounting aside), particularly when you have a built in gamer audience that easily surpasses movie goers in their video game related expenditures.

He's been able to finance two more low budget films since his German Tax Shelter went away, and I'm sure he'll always have video games to turn into movies and enough "name" actors out there he can secure for a quick buck as he always does.

But the point is, Uwe Boll doesn't set out to make bad movies and I think it's pretty evident in his rather vocal response to his critics.

It's ludicrous for anyone to "defend" Uwe Boll, but knowing how difficult it is to secure funding, actually shoot a film, and find distribution, I don't think anyone who gets as far as he has can be accused of simply hacking it out on purpose. Filmmaking is too a long and grueling process.


LLoyd Kaufman on the other hand seems pretty proud of his ability to make "bad" films and there is no doubt that he's a guy who sets out to make campy no-budget Ed Wood style cult films with high concepts and interesting enough box covers.

[ctc]

>I think he intentionally set out to make "FRANK MILLER'S THE SPIRIT" instead of "Will Eisner's The Spirit".

I'd disagree.... sort of. I think he set out to make what he considered the DEFINITIVE Spirit film, which ends up being Frank Miller's 'cos... well, 'cos he's the one making it. But I don't think the plan was to dismantle the old comics. Like I said, I think he's Byrned out, and part of that malady seems to be a narrowing of vision. His brain is locked, his internal definition of "good" is absolutely set, which is part of why everything he does looks the same. (Even if it shouldn't.)

>Uwe Boll doesn't set out to make bad movies and I think it's pretty evident in his rather vocal response to his critics.

Maybe he's Byrned out too?

Don C.

[jds1911a1]

I think his worked peaked with the original Dark Knight Returns and Batman:Year One.....

After that everything else has sucked IMO....

that is the crux of it. his High water mark is by most opinions over 20 years ago. And what a watermark. and for every once in a while he can get close. to that level but never quite makes it.

It's like the kid in 6th sense and pay it forward his performace at 6 was so acclaimed age nothing he does for the next 40 years will ever surpass it (or M Knoght shalamlan either now he si simply trying to recapture the success of that formula)