In the Name of the King 2 (2012)

[antwonaj]

Wasn't the first one a huge flop?

How is there a second one coming?

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by antwonaj

Wasn't the first one a huge flop?

How is there a second one coming?

AFAIK, this will be a straight-to-video B movie. Perhaps the first did ok on video?

Regardless though, when has any Boll movie ever not flopped? It hasn't stopped him from making other movies before. Both House of the Dead and Bloodrayne somehow managed sequels. And they didn't even have time traveling ninjas!

[Al_The_Strange]

As much as I can tolerate Boll's work, this does sound fundamentally stupid. The presence of dragons and ninjas could be a huge hit and a miss. But overall it sounds about as effective as the second "Dungeons and Dragons" movie.

[antwonaj]

Originally Posted by Ator the Invincible

AFAIK, this will be a straight-to-video B movie. Perhaps the first did ok on video?

Regardless though, when has any Boll movie ever not flopped? It hasn't stopped him from making other movies before. Both House of the Dead and Bloodrayne somehow managed sequels. And they didn't even have time traveling ninjas!

Ahh i see.

True say, House of the Dead 2 was better than the first.

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by antwonaj

Ahh i see.

True say, House of the Dead 2 was better than the first.

It was much better than the first (though still not all that great, IMO). Of course, Uwe Boll didn't direct House of the Dead 2. So... take that how you will.

Oh, and I just remembered that Alone in the Dark had a sequel too. Say what you will about Boll's work, but the man knows how to get movies made.

[antwonaj]

Originally Posted by Ator the Invincible

It was much better than the first (though still not all that great, IMO). Of course, Uwe Boll didn't direct House of the Dead 2. So... take that how you will.

Oh, and I just remembered that Alone in the Dark had a sequel too. Say what you will about Boll's work, but the man knows how to get movies made.

Yeah, that's most probably part of the reason why HOTD 2 was better.

Didn't someone else direct part 2 as well though?

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by antwonaj

Yeah, that's most probably part of the reason why HOTD 2 was better.

Didn't someone else direct part 2 as well though?

Yeah, someone else directed Alone in the Dark 2. Boll was the producer. Couldn't tell you if it's better than the first though. Haven't seen it. I am morbidly curious though.

[OrlandoEastwood]

Let me tell you guys something, when I was working with Boll, his films did make a profit with DVD rentals/sales and TV deals. He only had to make half of the money on his stuff because of his German tax loop which closed four years ago. The only film that Boll made that went theatrical that made money was House of the Dead. House of the Dead was shot very low budget and was made for about $7 million and made $12 million in theaters.

The only reason why House of the Dead 2 got made was because of Mark Altman. Alone in the Dark cost $20 million and it lost $2 million theatrically because tax loop equals $10 million + $8 million theatrical - $20 million budget = $2 million lost. But that would be made back with the DVD release and the Director's Cut release that came out in 2008.

In the Name of the King is tricky, it was $60 million. $30 million with tax loop + $10 million in worldwide theatrical gross = $20 million lost. I am sure it probably broke even because we now have In the Name of the King 2. Boll was wanting to make a Postal 2 but the first film didn't make them any money at all.

House of the Dead - $7 million
Alone in the Dark - $20 million
BloodRayne - $25 million
BloodRayne 2 - $10 million
In the Name of the King - $60 million
Seed - $10 million
Postal - $20 million
1968: Tunnel Rats - $8 million
Far Cry - $30 million
Stoic - $2 million
Rampage - No Info
Alone in the Dark 2 - $5 million
Attack on Darfur - No Info
Final Storm - $5 million
Max Schmeling - No Info
BloodRayne: The Third Reich - $10 million*
Blubberella - $10 million*

* = Shared the same budget. Shot back to back.
Alone in the Dark 2 wasn't directed by Boll, but he produced it.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

Let me tell you guys something, when I was working with Boll, his films did make a profit with DVD rentals/sales and TV deals. He only had to make half of the money on his stuff because of his German tax loop which closed four years ago. The only film that Boll made that went theatrical that made money was House of the Dead. House of the Dead was shot very low budget and was made for about $7 million and made $12 million in theaters.

The only reason why House of the Dead 2 got made was because of Mark Altman. Alone in the Dark cost $20 million and it lost $2 million theatrically because tax loop equals $10 million + $8 million theatrical - $20 million budget = $2 million lost. But that would be made back with the DVD release and the Director's Cut release that came out in 2008.

In the Name of the King is tricky, it was $60 million. $30 million with tax loop + $10 million in worldwide theatrical gross = $20 million lost. I am sure it probably broke even because we now have In the Name of the King 2. Boll was wanting to make a Postal 2 but the first film didn't make them any money at all.

House of the Dead - $7 million
Alone in the Dark - $20 million
BloodRayne - $25 million
BloodRayne 2 - $10 million
In the Name of the King - $60 million
Seed - $10 million
Postal - $20 million
1968: Tunnel Rats - $8 million
Far Cry - $30 million
Stoic - $2 million
Rampage - No Info
Alone in the Dark 2 - $5 million
Attack on Darfur - No Info
Final Storm - $5 million
Max Schmeling - No Info
BloodRayne: The Third Reich - $10 million*
Blubberella - $10 million*

* = Shared the same budget. Shot back to back.
Alone in the Dark 2 wasn't directed by Boll, but he produced it.

Yeah but that doesn't change the fact that he's almost universally considered the worst director of all-time...and for good reason. He's an embarassment to the profession.

On a side note, it's being widely reported that critics intend to boycott his atrocity of a creation, Auschwitz. Thank God there's some justice in the world. Now if only they would burn all the copies.

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Yeah but that doesn't change the fact that he's almost universally considered the worst director of all-time...and for good reason. He's an embarassment to the profession.

I don't know. He's bad, but there's much worse out there. Aaron Seltzer & Jason Friedberg are certainly worse. And if we're talking "worst director of all-time", Coleman Francis would get my vote. Uwe Boll's more like a modern day Ed Wood to me. His movies are undeniably bad, but sometimes they're fun to watch.

[Samus Aran]

Comparisons to Ed Wood are unfair to... Wood. I'm pretty sure Wood didn't call out successful directors as being hacks and proclaim his own greatness.

There are plenty of godawful directors who are just as bad as Boll that you've never heard of before because they're stuck doing straight-to-DVD crap that everyone knows is crap. Boll just happened to make a few movies with recognizable video game titles with big budgets and name actors that got more press for tanking badly than anything else.