A big wet sloppy hat tip to the conservative film site Libertas for this story about how the wide release of Uwe Boll's upcoming epic "comedy" about mass murder and terrorism Postal has been cancelled.
It seems the master behind such non-classic non-starters like Alone in the Dark, & Bloodrayne, is saying that the film is being "censored" by theatre owners, most likely over it's "political content."
Well, I tend to disagree with Herr Doktor Boll on this issue.
As I said in my piece about the Canadian government's
uncertainty about financing films that they don't want to see, there's a difference between censorship and just practising a little business sense. As I explained in my post on betting on failure, Boll's career was based not on the artistic or popular merits of his films, but on an elaborate and recently defunctified German tax shelter scheme that actually made money losing films appealing to investors.
And while the investors could make or hide money by making more bombs than Al Qaida the theatres and their owners were getting burned by wasting screen time showing these movies to usually empty theatres.
So do you see what I'm getting at?
Theatre owners aren't going to be taking Uwe Boll's shit anymore, and a film whose sole purpose is to offend Americans, is as big a heaping steaming pile as they are going to see. They can't afford to have empty theatres with the summer blockbuster season starting, and they definitely not going to bump Iron Man, Prince Caspian, or even What Happens In Vegas for someone who has done nothing but hurt them by his very existence.
And since these same theatres have also carried the "political" films Stop Loss, Redacted, Rendition, and Lions for Lambs, it's obvious that they don't censor films for their politics if they're star power gives them at least a slim chance of attracting an audience. (Though most of the time these films still fail, but that's the subject of another post)
Uwe Boll's films don't attract anyone but rare masochists, and they repel everyone else.
Who wants that wrecking their already slim profit margin?
Theatres make the bulks of their money on popcorn, soda, and any and all goods and services other than the film itself. They need films that put hungry/thirsty bums in seats, not drive them away.
So it's not censorship.
It's just business.
Then Uwe can pursue a better career.
Perhaps professional badger rancher?
People at least like badgers more than his movies.
Anyway, I hope theatres flex their muscle more often, and maybe they can force the studios to stop wasting millions on stars and movies that no one wants to pay money to see.
That's the enema that Hollywood really needs.
It seems the master behind such non-classic non-starters like Alone in the Dark, & Bloodrayne, is saying that the film is being "censored" by theatre owners, most likely over it's "political content."
Well, I tend to disagree with Herr Doktor Boll on this issue.
As I said in my piece about the Canadian government's
uncertainty about financing films that they don't want to see, there's a difference between censorship and just practising a little business sense. As I explained in my post on betting on failure, Boll's career was based not on the artistic or popular merits of his films, but on an elaborate and recently defunctified German tax shelter scheme that actually made money losing films appealing to investors.And while the investors could make or hide money by making more bombs than Al Qaida the theatres and their owners were getting burned by wasting screen time showing these movies to usually empty theatres.
So do you see what I'm getting at?
Theatre owners aren't going to be taking Uwe Boll's shit anymore, and a film whose sole purpose is to offend Americans, is as big a heaping steaming pile as they are going to see. They can't afford to have empty theatres with the summer blockbuster season starting, and they definitely not going to bump Iron Man, Prince Caspian, or even What Happens In Vegas for someone who has done nothing but hurt them by his very existence.
And since these same theatres have also carried the "political" films Stop Loss, Redacted, Rendition, and Lions for Lambs, it's obvious that they don't censor films for their politics if they're star power gives them at least a slim chance of attracting an audience. (Though most of the time these films still fail, but that's the subject of another post)
Uwe Boll's films don't attract anyone but rare masochists, and they repel everyone else.
Who wants that wrecking their already slim profit margin?Theatres make the bulks of their money on popcorn, soda, and any and all goods and services other than the film itself. They need films that put hungry/thirsty bums in seats, not drive them away.
So it's not censorship.
It's just business.
Then Uwe can pursue a better career.
Perhaps professional badger rancher?
People at least like badgers more than his movies.
Anyway, I hope theatres flex their muscle more often, and maybe they can force the studios to stop wasting millions on stars and movies that no one wants to pay money to see.
That's the enema that Hollywood really needs.
I totally agree with everything you said. Boll has made too many unsaleable films for theatre people to trust him anymore. However, it's kind of a shame that Postal is the film they've decided not to show. Since it's the one film he's made that's pretty decent.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Uwe should have thought of that before making all those other movies.
ReplyDeleteYeah, who'd want to offend Americans when you can offend the whole human race, with the facts, in a film
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LubuSAgB5s
.