Uwe Boll got shut down by United States distributors

[tecnowraith]

Check this out for all Uwe Boll haters and dislikers: http://www.cinemablend.com/new.php?id=8853

I am not sure if this is true or not I hope.

 

[Villano]

One of the replies to the article sums it up the best:

Or maybe multi-plexes thought that by putting the new INDY movie into ANOTHER of their theatres, they could make a couple extra thousand dollars a day rather than rent a space that would stay empty for two weeks.

I can imagine theatre owners getting fed up with Boll's films. It's not like he's hit-or-miss, all of his films have bombed. It's better to put your money on a sure thing (or even a hit-or-miss) than a sure loss.

This is probably the final nail in Boll's theatrical release coffin.

 

[frankthedm]

I think Boll actually does have a point here. Not a large one, but there does look like some of the Postal movie's content could have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Mark]

I think Boll actually does have a point here.

That everyone is out to get him? Well, not everyone but the number of people willing to go on record and say they are out to get him is growing.

http://www.petitiononline.com/RRH53888/petition.html

Currently at 277624 total signatures . . .

 

[Villano]

Someone posted a theory at the Arrow In The Head website:

Awesome, and just too ******* convenient for Boll. Here's my conspiracy theory: since Boll is distributing this ***** himself, I think it's always been scheduled to play on only 4 screens since day one. Hence the ridiculous claims of beating INDY 4--trying to create hype and controversy over a movie that hardly anyone will see. And here we are, one week before its release, and now distributors are boycotting? Yeah... a little too convenient.

He does have a point. All our info is coming from Boll. Has anyone other than Boll ever said it was going to be released on 1500 screens? I mean, this is the guy who claimed he was making the Metal Gear Solid movie and that Michael Bay agreed to fight him in a boxing match. It doesn't seem like a stretch for Boll.

 

[frankthedm]

That everyone is out to get him?

That the Movies' content does have something to do with it getting pulled. The fact it is an Ewe Boll bomb is the majority of the reason of it getting pulled, but i am confident the content was the icing on the cake.

 

[Chimera]

Mr. (and that's being polite) Boll is all over this article about a proposed Canadian Law.

"a proposed federal amendment that gives the heritage minister the right to cancel the funding for projects that are said to cross the line, even if other government agencies have invested in the production."

and

"The bill would retroactively deny tax credits to films the federal government deems "contrary to public policy." "


Threatening to pack his bags even! Why if I was Canadian, I'd not only offer to help him pack, but I'd drive him to the airport!

 

[Relique du Madde]

Wait... Uwe Boll was going to release a move next week? You sure? I mean where they hell were the advertisements and marketing for it? Don't you think it's lack of exposure *might* be the reason many theaters are also dropping it? I mean how do you expect a movie to make money IF no one even knows it exists?

 

[Arnwyn]

Well, Bill C-10 is very unpopular in Canada (except for Conservative Party of Canada fans... *ahem*) - but this might suddenly sway a whole load of people... !

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

"a proposed federal amendment that gives the heritage minister the right to cancel the funding for projects that are said to cross the line, even if other government agencies have invested in the production."

and

"The bill would retroactively deny tax credits to films the federal government deems "contrary to public policy."

This is what happens when government funds arts, education, etc. Government naturally assumes that when it takes money from citizens it has the right and obligation to tell the citizens how it shall be spent, not vice-versa. Keep national government out of the buisiness of funding arts and education and you don't have this sort of issue in the first place.

Boll said the legislation would create an atmosphere of censorship in Canada similar to what he said happened in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Of course Boll in his ignorance fails to understand that any such atmosphere of "censorship" was not DICTATED by government but was self-imposed (albeit stupidly) by the industry itself. Which, of course, makes it not censorship of "free speech" at all. The FCC saying you shouldn't hear the 'F'-word on broadcast TV, or see Janet Jackson's breast during a Superbowl halftime show - that's censorship. A distrubutor delaying the release of a violent film because people might not appreciate or pay to watch gratuitous violence two weeks after Sept. 11 is not censorship, or at least is not at all analagous as he wants to claim.