Uwe Boll: Rundumschlag gegen die Presse
Der gute Herr Boll hat in einem Interview auf Wired.com sich mal alles von der Seele geredet und gleichzeigt einen ordentlichen Seitenhieb gegenüber der Presse abgegeben. Aufgrund der schlechten Kritiken bezüglich seines neuen Films Postal hat sich "the worst movie director ever" ziemlich über die Bewertungen des Films und seine allgemeine Arbeit ausgelassen. Wired Journalist Chris Kohler tat einem regelrecht leid dabei.
(Komplettes Interview unten)
Uwe Boll: Hello.
Wired News: Hello, this is Chris Kohler.
UB: Yes, hi, hi. Yeah, now we can do this but whatever we say in the interview, you have to, you cannot censor, right?
WN: Of course not. I have no...
UB: And whatever I say, you have to print it how it is, and correct the spelling.
WN: And correct the spelling? Yeah. Well, there's no spelling on the phone. So, it's okay.
UB: Okay, so we can do it, quick, if you want. And look, let me start.
WN: Okay, go right ahead.
UB: Your review, like "bad film director Uwe Boll," or whatever, it's like "bad actor Nicolas Cage," it's... what I think is unfair and pissing me off in that review was basically that it was written in a way ignoring the crowd in San Francisco who reacted very positive about the movie, and basically ignoring all this, putting your own damaging opinions present in a way, your opinion was written in a way that it was: "hopefully this guy goes out of business, hopefully this movie makes no money, and how can I make this: I'll write this review the way it is". That it's a piece of shit movie.
And I think it was a very weak review from your end without any at least trying to see all of the politics and the events of the movie. You ignored the whole Q&A, you ignored the whole political backstory, you ignored basically all. And you don?t accept that it's maybe the only movie with a concrete political criticizing, maybe the only movie criticizing September 11 politics in a really, really harsh way. Every other political movie, like Syriana, is going away from the main subject matter. Nobody has the balls so far to really blame Bush and Bin Laden, to really say the names, to really make fun of the whole absurd politics. And I think you ignored that all in your review and you wrote another bad review about Uwe Boll because it's trendy to do this.
So this is my personal opinion from it. And this is what's pissing me, then, so off that I wrote a very harsh and overreacting email.
WN: I see. I mean, from my perspective, I really enjoyed the first scene, I laughed at the first scene, and then from there I thought that the comedy timing kind of went down, and that was sort of how me and my friends felt about it afterwards. And no, I wasn't attempting to destroy you or attempting to destroy the movie. But that was my take on the movie, how I felt coming out of it. And I wasn't going to sit there and go over each individual scene. But as you mentioned, some of the stuff that I felt was kind of a high point... and I think that obviously there were people in the audience who liked it...
UB: Read your own review. You trashed that movie as garbage. You trashed me as, like, untalented guy. Read your own review. You went far over the top. I don't know, if you were choosing a movie like Next with Nicolas Cage or Ultraviolet or Elektra, and you see Postal, and you don?t find anything positive in Postal, then fine. I think you're not a good film reviewer, you're not a good journalist, and you are out there in one of the Boll-bashing circles and nothing else is interesting for you.
And posting the whole email correspondence directly on your website, this was your decision, so I don't care, but this shows that you want to get clicks on your website and everything else doesn't matter for you. The same with the interview now, it's only to get more clicks on your website, nothing else. It's not because you thought about it and you think now that you were wrong. You think I'm an idiot, and this is what you basically get out there. But you should not ignore that from the 250 people sitting there, maybe 220 really liked the movie.
WN: I, you know...
UB: And if you read Variety today, in Variety there's a good review today, and maybe you think the Variety guy is an idiot because he has not your opinions. Or mention the San Francisco Chronicle and tons of other people. And I think it was a totally over-the-top unreasonable damaging bad article.
WN: I don't think that you're an idiot, I don't think that Variety, whoever wrote that review, is an idiot, I think that everybody is certainly entitled to their own opinion. If it turns out that everybody else in the world loves Postal and that I'm completely wrong, I've set myself up for that. I've set myself up to be shown as wrong in the eyes of the world.
Quelle: http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/08/uwe-boll-interv.html
Der gute Herr Boll hat in einem Interview auf Wired.com sich mal alles von der Seele geredet und gleichzeigt einen ordentlichen Seitenhieb gegenüber der Presse abgegeben. Aufgrund der schlechten Kritiken bezüglich seines neuen Films Postal hat sich "the worst movie director ever" ziemlich über die Bewertungen des Films und seine allgemeine Arbeit ausgelassen. Wired Journalist Chris Kohler tat einem regelrecht leid dabei.
(Komplettes Interview unten)
Uwe Boll: Hello.
Wired News: Hello, this is Chris Kohler.
UB: Yes, hi, hi. Yeah, now we can do this but whatever we say in the interview, you have to, you cannot censor, right?
WN: Of course not. I have no...
UB: And whatever I say, you have to print it how it is, and correct the spelling.
WN: And correct the spelling? Yeah. Well, there's no spelling on the phone. So, it's okay.
UB: Okay, so we can do it, quick, if you want. And look, let me start.
WN: Okay, go right ahead.
UB: Your review, like "bad film director Uwe Boll," or whatever, it's like "bad actor Nicolas Cage," it's... what I think is unfair and pissing me off in that review was basically that it was written in a way ignoring the crowd in San Francisco who reacted very positive about the movie, and basically ignoring all this, putting your own damaging opinions present in a way, your opinion was written in a way that it was: "hopefully this guy goes out of business, hopefully this movie makes no money, and how can I make this: I'll write this review the way it is". That it's a piece of shit movie.
And I think it was a very weak review from your end without any at least trying to see all of the politics and the events of the movie. You ignored the whole Q&A, you ignored the whole political backstory, you ignored basically all. And you don?t accept that it's maybe the only movie with a concrete political criticizing, maybe the only movie criticizing September 11 politics in a really, really harsh way. Every other political movie, like Syriana, is going away from the main subject matter. Nobody has the balls so far to really blame Bush and Bin Laden, to really say the names, to really make fun of the whole absurd politics. And I think you ignored that all in your review and you wrote another bad review about Uwe Boll because it's trendy to do this.
So this is my personal opinion from it. And this is what's pissing me, then, so off that I wrote a very harsh and overreacting email.
WN: I see. I mean, from my perspective, I really enjoyed the first scene, I laughed at the first scene, and then from there I thought that the comedy timing kind of went down, and that was sort of how me and my friends felt about it afterwards. And no, I wasn't attempting to destroy you or attempting to destroy the movie. But that was my take on the movie, how I felt coming out of it. And I wasn't going to sit there and go over each individual scene. But as you mentioned, some of the stuff that I felt was kind of a high point... and I think that obviously there were people in the audience who liked it...
UB: Read your own review. You trashed that movie as garbage. You trashed me as, like, untalented guy. Read your own review. You went far over the top. I don't know, if you were choosing a movie like Next with Nicolas Cage or Ultraviolet or Elektra, and you see Postal, and you don?t find anything positive in Postal, then fine. I think you're not a good film reviewer, you're not a good journalist, and you are out there in one of the Boll-bashing circles and nothing else is interesting for you.
And posting the whole email correspondence directly on your website, this was your decision, so I don't care, but this shows that you want to get clicks on your website and everything else doesn't matter for you. The same with the interview now, it's only to get more clicks on your website, nothing else. It's not because you thought about it and you think now that you were wrong. You think I'm an idiot, and this is what you basically get out there. But you should not ignore that from the 250 people sitting there, maybe 220 really liked the movie.
WN: I, you know...
UB: And if you read Variety today, in Variety there's a good review today, and maybe you think the Variety guy is an idiot because he has not your opinions. Or mention the San Francisco Chronicle and tons of other people. And I think it was a totally over-the-top unreasonable damaging bad article.
WN: I don't think that you're an idiot, I don't think that Variety, whoever wrote that review, is an idiot, I think that everybody is certainly entitled to their own opinion. If it turns out that everybody else in the world loves Postal and that I'm completely wrong, I've set myself up for that. I've set myself up to be shown as wrong in the eyes of the world.
Quelle: http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/08/uwe-boll-interv.html
