<Take a basic economics or business course and then think about how bad movies would suck if nobody paid to watch them.>

Dumb logic. Next movie I make, I'm gonna charge YOU budzos, and no one else.

^ and to budzos, new movies already suck on the whole, which is why it makes sense for some to not spend the cash just to see a lame flick. i don't know about int'l movies, but in the states bad movies are RAMPANT.

i agree that it makes a sort of catch-22, but on one hand you have movie execs with tons of money spending for the latest Happy Glimore (now featuring Tom Cruise!), marketing the hell out of it and then complaining that they just broke even thanks to all the Damn Pirates....and then there's the indy filmmakers actually making good movies that only release in Select Theatres, which not everyone can get to.....and people like me with dwindling time and money. I much prefer to pre-watch a film at home and determine whether i support it or not. if i do i will go to the theatre and see it, and later buy the dvd, although i'm not so starry-eyed as to expect that everyone does the same.

anyway, if i was the MPAA, i'd go after the people who are hawking unreleased movies on physical media...they're the ones actually making money off of other people's work....before going after the audiences themselves.

.02

I don't agree with the message of this video at all. Pay for your goddamn entertainment and stop rationalizing your criminal behaviour. The fact that you're not stealing but merely violating copyright doesn't mean that you should feel entitled to all the free movies you feel like watching. Take a basic economics or business course and then think about how bad movies would suck if nobody paid to watch them.

bad movie, but you have to see it because it's got so many good bits in it. they just don't hang together as a movie, that's all. Fans of "movies" might be shifting in their seats and wondering who's the "good guy" and who's the "bad guy" and who's the "love interest" and all that shit.

if people tell you it's dumb, they're dumb.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Why have I not seen this movie yet? People keep telling me it's dumb. Then I see something like this - looks great to me.

Don't want to watch the trailer. Don't want to know what it is about. Going to the Arclight on Saturday to watch an early matinée, and I want to be wowed without influence. The only reason I haven't seen it yet is because the LA film audiences suck major bung-bung. They talk, they text message, they are just general ass-sucks of theater protocol and I refuse to be subjected to a packed theater of ass clowns. That said, this movie is well anticipated by me. Why?

A) All of my friends have said nothing but great things about it, and there's no better advertisement than word of mouth. B) Not that PT Anderson has ever made a bad movie, because he hasn't, but this is supposed to be the best one he's made since Boogie Nights. And, C) it has my all time favorite actor, Danial Day Lewis, for crying out loud! He's been consistently good in everything. Did you see In the Name of the Father? Genius! He was even perfect in Ballad of Jack and Rose, which wasn't a great movie, but a worthwhile piece to see just for DDL alone.

"Hitler was a Christian, Stalin an Atheist and Travolta a Scientologist"
To me, the first is possible, but unknown, and the last 2 probable.

As for the "original" original point, i just caught your comment on the recent comments list, and was curious on your view, so poked you. I haven't as yet gone to the originating thread itself, so only saw your comment to dag in isolation.

Religion can be interesting, because the behavior of man is interesting.

Many crimes have been done in the names of both religion and science, but my view on that, is that man has a tendency to commit crimes against man, and to claim ideology's when doing so. Treating any ideology, religeous or scientific, as being consistently the "source" of evil misses the point about the true potential and actualized evil in man himself. Its dangerous, as if you transfer blame to an ideology, you take your eye off man, the true culprit, and can give false credence and support to a competing ideology, simply because you attributed evil to one, making the other "good".

But tis nearly 1am, and ive work tomorrow, so im logging off.

Been fun though.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Nice.

My personal answer: Hitler was a Christian, Stalin an Atheist and Travolta a Scientologist. Their atrocities/bad movies are independent actions and should not be used as proof positive that their theological beliefs are evil.

And, to bring us back to do, my original point was only to correct the erroneous notion that Hitler 'was' OR 'considered himself to be' an Atheist.

I guess we have different definitions.

I love a good chat about religion. Hit me up anytime.

Nice.

My personal answer: Hitler was a Christian, Stalin an Atheist and Travolta a Scientologist. Their atrocities/bad movies are independent actions and should not be used as proof positive that their theological beliefs are evil.

And, to bring us back to do, my original point was only to correct the erroneous notion that Hitler 'was' OR 'considered himself to be' an Atheist.

I guess we have different definitions.

I love a good chat about religion. Hit me up anytime.

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
Triming this for readability.

I dont know enough about Stalin, the reasons for attributing Atheism to him, the interpretation of atheism, and how his actions corelate or diverge, their relivance in praising/condemning his actions, or, his interpretations of communism, comuist dogma, or the "ideals of free thought" whatever they may be...

But, i assume (and .'. make an ass of myself) that you are referring to ideas similar to those referred too here.

My response, as best i can, is that to be Human, is to claim the capacity for both "humanity" (a bloody fuzzy term, but you get what i mean) and inhumanity (equally bloody fuzzy. we come up with ridiculous words to describe things. "that which is good is "our species"" and "that which is bad is our species not being itself" English is ridiculous)

anyway...

any person is capable of any action, be it good bad, boring irrelevant or cool. He/She can claim any dogma/reason/label/ideology for whatever they do. Their claiming it means bugger all. It might be an accurate claim (meaning, a majority would agree that the behavior of theirs, that they claim, is indeed an expression of/in accord with those beliefs, and does indeed match with their own judgment of what those beliefs are defined by), but thats not very relevant either.

A "dogma/reason/label/ideology" is simply what it is, and, what a person does, or does not do, is distinct again.

So.. to your question, as best i misunderstand it.

"does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism" -> did HE claim Aethism? is that why it might be there, to be taken away? or did others claim it of him? (my hazy guess would be that he'd claim it but i dont know an exact quote to that effect)

Either way, one can disagree with the attribution/applicability of that label, if it is felt, that what they sought to do, was not in accord with the label. So, if your understanding of atheism, was such, that you felt, that his attempts to express it, did not ring true to the term, as you understand it, you could deny him his atheism for that reason. if i felt it, so could I.

Theres an interesting thread looking at how language evolves over time, and grammar rules. Its relevant, because the term atheism, is a label, the meaning of which is semi fluid, as our culture is semi fluid. We might be able to broadly agree, in the majority, what it means, but some are likely to want to add shades of meaning, and other people, other shades. Whats interesting, is to ask a specific person, what their personal understanding, and interpretation would be, so as to learn about that person (all that can ever be learned).

so, i'd consider it meaningful to ask a specific person, if they would deny, the application of the atheism label to stalin, but for the reasons given at the start, I'm personally unable too, not being sufficiently knowledgeable of him to know if the label (according to my fuzz interpretation of the label) fits or not. The 2 primary variables, are what i know of him. and, how i define the term.

next part...

"because"

the above was my attempt to explain how i'd consider it possible for a person, to give their view, on fi the term applys or not. the because makes what fallows, a potential reason for determining if it applys.

so, what reason are you proposing:

"his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought"

do YOU consider "the ideals of free thought" to be fundamental to your understanding of the label "atheism"

do YOU consider "his communist dogma" to be sufficiently indicative of his being/actions/personality, that NO label can be applied to him, unless, it can be applied to "his communist dogma" too, as that is so fundamental too him.

so, youve asked of me only a question you can answer for yourself. Does your understanding of atheism, mean, that "the ideals of free thought" are fundamental to it, and, that they conflict with "his communist dogma", which you consider fundamental to him, such that, you feel the label "atheist" as you understand it, cannot be applied to him, to the extend that you know and understand "his communist dogma" and thus, in your view, him.

so... do you?

This gets back tot he first question i asked of you, namely, did you feel Hitler "was" or simply "thought he was"

For me, I'd imagine he might well have "thought he was", truly truly thought that. i dont know if he had "belief in Christ as their personal savior".

I do know he was a jackass, but i dont win points for that.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
(BTW, great conversation.)

So, does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism because his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought?

How does Uwe Boll get the money to make one bad movie after another?

He does it thanks to what pretty much amounts to a Producers-style tax scam. From Wikipedia:

Boll is able to acquire funding thanks to German tax laws that reward investments in film. The law allows investors in German-owned films to write off 100% of their investment as a tax deduction; it also allows them to invest borrowed money and write off any fees associated with the loan. The investor is then only required to pay taxes on the profits made by the movie; if the movie loses money, the investor gets a tax writeoff.

While Boll has received a lot of negative publicity regarding this funding method,[7] he was actually one of the few directors to use the tax shelter as intended. His films were financed, produced, and directed by a German company, which was the initial intention behind the tax shelter: to provide incentive for investment in German entertainment properties.

I have a great question to ask...

How does Uwe Boll get the money to make one bad movie after another?

Seriously, he is one of the main reasons why Video Games Movies aren't good adaptations compared to other catagories such as books, other movies and even music...

I remember the first thing I said after seeing this in the theater. it was "This is dollar for dollar the worst movie ever made". I stick to that statement. Sure, there have been worse movies and more expensive bad movies, but this is the worst combo of the two.

I own this movie. It's every bit of what the trailer promises. I am a fan of bad movies, but i had to give this one special credit for layers upon layers of complete WTF moments.

Saw that movie when it came out. It was disappointing. Incredibly cool and creative idea, but not well delivered... I mean, a hammerhead shark is the "scary" killer in the film. I'll upvote because it's so unique, but wow, bad movie and I was SO excited to see it. It killed me that it was so badly made. VERY VERY low budget, low resolution CG. If you want this sort of thing, but good, see Mirrormask. Though I'll again give you that it was profoundly creative. I'd love to see more of this sort of wild stuff coming out of the film industry. So props for a great idea, but downs for poor delivery. Heck, the "gods" in this film are slow and boring. It's video-game quality CG... just not good enough for the silver screen imo. Anyway, this makes me want to watch it again. Good sift.

Isn't your comment the sorta thing more for the YouTube crowd? I get it. Not everyone likes the same things. But no one is twisting your arm. It says right in the title that the clip is Ultraviolet. If you think it was such a bad movie then don't watch it.

Ugh... what a bad movie. I was into it at first, not knowing what it was, until I got to the middle and suddenly, vampires come out?? Why couldn't we just keep the vigilante thing going?? At least THAT part of the film had plot development. If you haven't seen it, stop at the middle, cuz the whole film stalls after that.

A group of my friends here in LA screened this classic for our "Bad Movie Night" last year...just amazing in it's level of badness. Great first post!