I'm interested to hear what people think about crowdfunding, but on a side note, this is also just absolutely delightful and probably the best thing Boll's ever brought us:

*This has a lot of swearing*

He sounds butt hurt cause no one wanted to give him money...

Boo fucking hoo...

Or as he said it..

Gud bie hulliwuud.  

Btw...watched your SPACE RIPPERS TRAILER...

That's some fun stuff!!!!

Shawn.....><

Why would I participate in a crowdfunding campaign for someone who doesn't need it?  I'm sure that Uwe Boll has plenty of other avenues of funding raising. I have no sympathy here and I'm repulsed that any 'named' public person would go this route.  

I only donate to a campaign that I think wouldn't normally have access to funding and has a chance of making it.  

I also donate to any campaign of anyone who has either had a work on Simply Scripts, made a significant contribution to SimplyScripts, or puts out a panty-droppingly kick ass t-shirt.<sup>*


*</sup>The panty dropping effect only works when I'm wearing it and only effects Asian women of a certain age I'm married to.

Quoted from Don I have no sympathy here and I'm repulsed that any 'named' public person would go this route.

I agree.

I'll second that, or maybe third it as I'm sure a lot of people think the same. The guy out of Scrubs doing it put my back right up. Even though Spike Lee had a few decent offers for those who like basketball, there is something fundamentally wrong with rich people with contacts looking for money from the general public. Barstards.

R

Quoted from Don Why would I participate in a crowdfunding campaign?

Maybe to pay someone to clean that damn messy room your in up.

Is that a panda just left of your ear?  

Shawn.....><

Ok, off message...

But that office Don. Really.

If I recall from Bert's crappy mug photo his office was cleaner than an operating theatre. The two of you should hang out, find a middle ground  

PS - thanks for all you do and don't blacklist me please

Uwe Boll is whipsmart when it comes to finances.
He took advantage of bizarre 100% tax breaks in Germany to fund his projects.
The quality of those never figured into the process.

http://www.cinemablend.com/features/Uwe-Boll-Money-For-Nothing-209.html

Regards,
EDreamer

This may be true. I've no doubt it is. But his films are awful. Not Adam Sandler awful. They are shocking, But Boll films are painful. It's dentist no anaesthetic awful. I can't see the merit in sticking up for his financial skills when his output puts me, and many others out.

So he's a banker. And we know what they are like. Patrick Bateman. Without the synthetic gloss. I think there was a good point to this thread. Not sure why you'd undermine it because a bad filmmaker is good with finances.

Living the dream?

R

He's not that good with finances if he's begging for public funding.

Quoted from rendevous This may be true. I've no doubt it is. But his films are awful. Not Adam Sandler awful. They are shocking, But Boll films are painful. It's dentist no anaesthetic awful.

- I know Boll is synonymous with bad films and I've only seen "Postal" so I'm not really one to comment on his work in general but I did find a lot to like in that film.

Bret Easton Ellis and Paul Schrader used Kickstarter to finance "The Canyons" a couple of years back which pissed off a lot of people...both the fact that they had the gall to ask the general public for money and the finished product itself. Established filmmakers resorting to this approach may seem dubious but if you don't like it, fine, its not like you're obligated to contribute. The people who do donate their hard earned cash can be assumed to be fans who are getting something in return, e.g. a new film by a filmmaker they like. I don't see a problem with that.

Quoted from DustinBowcot He's not that good with finances if he's begging for public funding.

He really wasn't asking for much in movie terms. I think it was around 50.000 euro. Plus he said he was "talked into" trying kickstarter.

You have to respect Uwe Boll, even if he makes shit movies. The guy has directed over 30 films and he isn't even 50 yet. He never "played ball", he made the bad movies he wanted to make on his own terms (which might be the reason why they are mostly horrible).

Still, to finance over 30 movies of your own, all of which cost a few million, and do it in like 15 years is a feat few have accomplished, if anyone.

That's an excellent point col'. Perhaps the future of the film industry is exactly that. People pay the fees to get them made then the films are released for free.

One way to cut the costs of films would be to get rid of all those executives.