Postal Movie Release Cut To Four Screens
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I don't see any censorship, the government isn't preventing the release. Movie theaters and distributors just don't want to waste screen space on a director with a lousy track record. Boll is the biggest joke in movie making, and the theaters aren't laughing any more. No censorship, just reasonable business decisions. I'd make the same decision in their place.
Boll calls it censorship but it would be far more accurate to refer to it as "market forces at work." Being denied permission to make the movie because of objectionable content is censorship; being unable to secure a distribution deal because you have a long history of producing worthless steaming turds is more just a matter of good taste.
If the word came from the government to reduce the number of screens, I would cry foul play but if the cinemas dont want to play it because its rubbish thats a different matter. Uwe Boll doesnt have an automatic right for his fims to be seen in theatres nationwideSibren said:
The theatres have the right to choose what films they want to, and not want to show.
Ah, head-to-head with Indiana Jones? Yeah, we know that George Lucas has gone ill with the galloping loonies and ubersuck, but more than likely the first weekend alone will pay for the film.
But, seriously? Four? Wow, seems like people are getting smarter.
Ah, head-to-head with Indiana Jones? Yeah, we know that George Lucas has gone ill with the galloping loonies and ubersuck, but more than likely the first weekend alone will pay for the film.
But, seriously? Four? Wow, seems like people are getting smarter.
Yeah, what he said. To be honest I quoted you because of your sweet Suikoden 2 avatar but while I'm here I agree, I find it so amusing that Boll thinks hes being boycotted because the theatres are refusing to show a film that has gotten nothing but terrible reviews and contains highly offensive material, all they would be doing would be charging people to watch a film that is not only bad but will most likely piss them off to no end and stop them from coming back that cinema ever again.Gildedtongue said:
I know I wouldn't have gone back to Odeon if they had charged me to watch Alone in the Dark.
Maybe the demi-urge feels we have suffered enough and is recalling his angel of pain ^^
Can someone explain how he got to where he is and, perhaps even more importantly, how the hell he stayed there. The only explanation I have is that people are dumber than you think. I'm off to make a movie about throwing a rubber duck repeatedly towards a birch tree. Surely at least five people in all the world will think it's the best movie ever made ~~
Can someone explain how he got to where he is and, perhaps even more importantly, how the hell he stayed there. The only explanation I have is that people are dumber than you think. I'm off to make a movie about throwing a rubber duck repeatedly towards a birch tree. Surely at least five people in all the world will think it's the best movie ever made ~~
Theaters stopping a movie from playing, okay (questionable, but okay). But Boll is not able to rent! spaces to play his movie. That is censorship and nothing else. It just seems so drastic to me and unfair. There are so many crap movies coming out all the time (often even worse), but those are not barred.
Anyway I don't agree with this whole mass rant on Boll all the time. He's making movies, of which some (not all) are really bad. But he is doing this with little to no budget. Furthermore, what I really hate is that his films already get grounded into dust, before they even come out. A bad review is fine, but not if given beforehand, without seeing the movie. So many people have an opinion on his films, but I wonder how many actually saw some of his films.
Anyway I don't agree with this whole mass rant on Boll all the time. He's making movies, of which some (not all) are really bad. But he is doing this with little to no budget. Furthermore, what I really hate is that his films already get grounded into dust, before they even come out. A bad review is fine, but not if given beforehand, without seeing the movie. So many people have an opinion on his films, but I wonder how many actually saw some of his films.
Its not censorship, these are private businesses and they have the right to decide what does and does not show in their cinemas, why bother showing a movie that not only has terrible review, but also comes from a director that has failed to turn a profit from a theatrical release in years and contains footage that makes tasteless and shitty jokes about 9/11.Sibren said:
Sorry but this isn't as much about profit for the cinemas, its about reputation and this is the sort of film that will not only offend ticket-buyers but may possibly piss them off enough to make them never come to that theatre again, THAT'S HOW BAD UWE BOLL MOVIES ARE!
Well, the world can sleep easy tonight.
There's only four people in the United States who are dumber than Uwe Boll.
There's only four people in the United States who are dumber than Uwe Boll.
small budget? Last I heard he's handed almost $200 million for a movie and barely makes 1/100 of that back. Wise business decision to not screen it to be honest, it's not censorship, just business, it's the reason youtube clips don't make it into cinemas, because no reasonable person would pay to see them.Sibren said:
And the movie theater would make more money by screening a different movie to Postal, even if they had to pay for the rights to show it. That's how bad Boll's films are.
Private business interests can't "censor" in the traditional fashion, only governments can do that. What private businesses can do is refuse to do business with someone. They don't need a good reason, they don't really have to sell/rent to anybody they don't want to. The only reasons they can't refuse service for are those things covered under civil rights legislation. They aren't refusing to rent to Boll (and we have only his word that he actually even tried to rent anything) because of his race, sex, religion, etc. They are refusing to rent to him because he makes crap movies and they'd really like him to go away. It's that simple, stop trying to make it something it's not. You can argue all day long that you don't think it's right for the the theaters to refuse to rent space to him, but you can't deny that they have the right to be wrong in this case.Sibren said:
