I know, the video is shaky and even a little blurry. FACT: Uwe Boll distorts camera lenses. Also, the camera was accidentally set to manual focus. But he also distorts camera lenses.

anyone else see the time uwe boll fought lowtax in a boxing ring and was a total asshole about it?

yeah, he's a douchebag. I woulda walked outta there at the start too, If I wasn't 10 miles away watching the mariners win again

I saw Uwe Boll at Anime Evolution in Vancouver about a week ago. I thought it was a somewhat odd choice but I was really excited to meet him. He's actually a pretty nice guy. Swears a lot though.

Uwe Boll's awkward accent makes me embarassed being german.

He may be a lot of things.

Movie Director isn't one of them...

All of these little close-minded, scumbag gamers make me sick - they didn't even see the film or give it a chance before they judged it. They're the same people that spend their lives on message boards telling people how something should be done instead of doing it themselves. And the reason why they don't do it themselves is because they aren't capable of doing it. Most of these tools would have given up if they were in Boll's position and NONE of them would have shown up for this conference the way he did. They aren't tough guys unless they are hiding behind a keyboard.

Good for Uwe Boll. It's nice to see someone who stands by his work. This guy does what he wants and that's exactly what you have to do if you want to get anywhere in the world. He's been in the film industry for 16 years - it's hard to stay afloat in that industry for three years let alone 16.

And that guy who said that he's late getting to the table with 9/11 jokes is a dumbass - the fact is, it's only okay if cartoons do it because cartoons are faceless. Boll and his actors all have faces and they are taking a chance because they believe in the message of the film. The reason why the U.S. is getting flooded with crappy remakes is because none of these directors or studios want to take chances anymore. Boll's the first director I've seen take a legitimate chance with content in a film since 9/11 - and it's a big one at that.

I've never seen a Uwe Boll movie, but I'll definitely check out "Postal" if it's in my area - just based on the principle that he didn't let these little bitch, know-nothing gamers try to tell him he was wrong.

You know, for as big of a douche as he comes off in the media, this video shows a decent, self-depreciative side to him that we very rarely see. Touche, Uwe Boll. Touche.

John Musco "I've never seen a Uwe Boll movie."

Then you pretty much don't know what the fuck you're talking about...

To Girracane:

I appreciate your response, but the fact is, "United 93" and "World Trade Center" didn't really take chances. Those movies did exactly what the audience expected - that's not to say that their approaches were wrong or that they were bad movies, but they weren't taking chances either.

I think people that try to address serious events through humor take much bigger chances and, in many situations, they get to the core of the subject more effectively. Humor is under attack in the U.S. because Special Interest Groups and (many people in general) think that they are entitled to having everyone else around them care when they are offended. So I do find it very impressive and promising when someone tries to address a serious issue with humor. Entertainers are taking less chances and that is why many different forms of media are becoming bland - including films.

I disagree with you when it comes to a "fun time" not being a good movie. A good movie is a movie you enjoy personally - it's as simple as that. MST3K proved this over a decade ago. If you are talking about the quality of a production, that's a different story. At the same time, there are plenty of great filmmakers out that that are too pretentious to make an enjoyable movie. Wes Anderson has an incredible cinematic vision and is a true auteur. Personally, I really love his movies, but there are plenty of people that don't get the jokes, don't like the look, and don't enjoy his films.



To Loki:

First off, thanks for your reply. Second, I know exactly what I'm talking about - you don't judge a movie by the movie that came before it; you judge a movie by itself and on its own merits. If you haven't seen "Postal", then technically, we know just as much in that respect.

I also know enough to know that every director makes good movies and bad movies - and that there isn't a set ratio for the two. Also, a good movie and a bad movie aren't mutually exclusive. It also takes more than a bad director to make a movie bad. "Postal" seems to have a few comedic actors that I've enjoyed in the past and I'm smart enough to watch a movie before judging it. If you judged every Dustin Hoffman movie based on his performance in "The Graduate", you'd be pretty pissed off after you watched "Ishtar."

that video goes for 28 minutes? No thanks. I'm sure there's interesting tidbits hidden somewhere in there, but one minute of immature booing was all i could take.

And seriously, why does everyone act like he's the only director to make video games into shitty movies? At least he didn't make Street Fighter & Double Dragon.

"All of these little close-minded, scumbag gamers make me sick - they didn't even see the film or give it a chance before they judged it." - John Musco

"Boll's the first director I've seen take a legitimate chance with content in a film since 9/11 - and it's a big one at that." - John Musco

"I've never seen a Uwe Boll movie" - John Musco

Wow. This is either an awesome troll, or the most uninformed, hypocritcal crap I've ever seen. I wouldn't have even posted, but you dared compare the greatness of MST3k (which MOCKS horrible movies) to a Uwe Boll production, which creates those horrible movies to be mocked. Let's stop doing that, ok sweetie?

Good job trolling, I hope.

Regardless of what I think of his movies (because I've actually seen a number of them and I don't think they're the greatest) I would have to admire his courage to stand up to the den of lions that you would expect at PAX.

Also, I'm sure it wasn't a surprise to see people walking out during his segment. I personally would have at least heard him out before judging like the majority of people that let the public decide so that they don't have to.

Wow some of you act like this HACK is some kind of victim, Well Ive seen most if not all of his shitty movie's and they all suck monkey balls. In House of the Dead he actually used crappy in-game footage, talk about fucking lazy.


Now Mike Vick is a true victim.

For everyone who can't stomach watching the whole thing, skip to 16:12 (time remaining) for the highlight.

A female from the audience shouts out, right in the middle of Uwe Boll's post-trailer speech, "What the fuck is that piece of shit you fucking asshole, get the fuck off the stage!"


That's gotta be a classic moment in the history of both movies and games.

Personally, I think the guy is awfully nice, just his movies suck, though I just might check out Postal (with a 6 pack while I'm at it).

I never liked any of his movies, but I got to give him some respect for speaking at PAX.

Thanks to everyone that's read and/or responded to my posts - I appreciate it. Now to clear up some stuff:

First off, I'm not a troll - I visit Joystiq a few times a day and it's pretty much my #1 source for gaming news. I don't post that often because, for the most part, I really don't care that the Katamari demo is up on XBA, nor do I care about the 3 daily blurbs on Guitar Hero 3 or Rock Band. I posted on this subject because it goes a lot deeper than merely gaming.

Second, I really don't understand how anyone can call me a hypocrite when I'm clearing stating that I am NOT judging a film before I've seen it. Uwe Boll's other movies may very well suck, but what about this one? If you haven't seen "Postal" then it's just as hypocritical on your part to judge it before seeing it. You can say "based on Boll's reputation as a filmmaker, I'm not going to see this," but you can't accurately make the determination that the movie sucks unless you have seen it. You also can't go by the trailer because trailers lack context. It'd be awfully ignorant of me to form an opinion based merely on what all of you are saying, especially considering that none of you have seen the movie either.

I don't think it's fair judge a movie based on a director's past work - do you know how many box office duds Robert Zemeckis made before "Romancing the Stone"? His track record was so bad that it was nearly impossible for him to get "Back to the Future" made initially - every studio in Hollywood passed on it twice.

Also, what I meant about the MST3K comment was that MST3K showed that even a bad movie can have merit. If you took a movie that appeared on MST3K and watched it by itself, you could enjoy making fun of it on your own. - That's what I meant. In terms of the humor being used in "Postal", like everyone else, I haven't seen it so I can't judge it. However, I interact with a lot of people in Europe, and I get the impression from them that the idea of Bush and Bin Laden being pals is a somewhat common thought in that region. I live in the NY area and, while I'm sure many Americans will view the film as disgusting, globally this film might be very successful.

Finally, I am not Uwe Boll's publicist, but if he's willing to shell out some of that German tax shelter fund money out, I'd gladly field any questions from English-speaking moviegoers.

In closing, I'll say this: At one point in time, I was an aspiring filmmaker. Over time, it stopped being enjoyable for me. So yes, I do respect Uwe Boll (and anyone for that mattter) that has the gumption to press on in that industry. Whether the movie is good or bad, it is extremely difficult to achieve a vision of that scale - it's not like drawing a picture. I think the fact that Uwe Boll has pressed on in the face of criticism speaks volumes about his character.

Keep up the fight John! I don't agree with everything you said but I do agree that the Boll bashing is getting tedious. I think Postal could very well be a worthwhile film. it seems that the non-game indie film critics are saying it's worth seeing so I will probably give it a shot.


And I think it's really great that he showed up to PAX in front of a bunch of braying jackasses and took it. I really get sick of people taking pot-shots in anonymity whether it be on the internet or in a crowded audience.

Well, if it's any consolidation, this weeks 1UP Show video has a 1on1 interview with Uwe Boll.

Whether you like him or not, the interview was actually pretty interesting.

he's not nice, he's a fucking prick, he just puts on a phony nice act to get money from investors or when in public to raise ticket sales

stupid broken reply. you can guess which post i was replying to

Hey German boy, Go back to Germania!!

Yeah I saw this on Kotaku. You know I've always read that Uwe Boll is an asshole, but the only assholex that I saw in this whole video were the gamers themselves. I mean no one deserves that kind of treatment, even people like Boll deserve to be heard. Now don't get me wrong, I ain't saying I like his movies, I'm just saying that the man deserved to be treated better. And this is where I have to give my respects to the man. He deals with this shit on a daily basis, and instead of cowering in fear he confronts those who criticize him. I may hate him as a movie director, but I respect him as a person. So to all those people who thought they were "sticking it to him" and representing gamers by mocking and taunting him are not only an embarrassment to gamers, but they are an embarrassment to people in general.

i dunno, his films may suck, but the dude seems like a pretty funny jerk. funny makes up for jerk any day.

To KungFu-tse:

Personally, I like the way he has responded to criticism. In my opinion, critics are a pretty shitty breed of people who couldn't cut it in whatever industry they are criticizing. There are also plenty of critics out there that just want to squeeze a lemon for the sake of it. Go to RottenTomatoes and read a review of a classic movie - there's always one douchebag that has to complain about it instead of give it it's due.

I think what he said to the guy from Wired magazine is hilarious - the broken English just makes it funnier. I like the fact that he wiped the floor with some of the guys in that boxing match - while those guy are eating Fritos, playing video games, and doing nothing legitimate with their lives, Boll is working out and pursuing film-making. When in the history of the world has there ever been a "friendly" boxing match? I think that's a cop out on their part. In the end, nobody knows or will ever remember the names of the critics because they are zilches - they've brought nothing to the table, but they'll all remember Uwe Boll.


"If Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter appeared out of nowhere at a convention and started their anti-liberal rants, do I stay out of respect or do I leave because I don't want to listen to his crap?"

Personally, I think it depends on two things: (A)if the person is a boring speaker and (B)how much you care about the overall conflict at hand. If you have a real cause that opposes theirs, then you owe it to yourself and your cause to stay. Cable news pundits make their money by NOT listening and NOT progressing - their money is in having the conflicts that they are "experts" on continue. But if you believe in your cause and you want to make progress, then you have to hear out the opposition - if for no other reason than to usurp them more sufficiently in the future. Basically, if you aren't willing to hear the opposition out, you really don't have grounds to complain about them because you're being just as ignorant as they are.

Thanks again for your reply.

Hey KungFu-tse,

I really haven't been following the Jack Thompson stuff because I think both sides are handling that matter poorly. I too don't care for Mark Cuban and Donald Trump because they both seem incredibly pompous. I do get the impression that Mark Cuban would be polite to you if you met him in person, but I just don't care for his personality. Trump is just delusional and if you actually look at his career, his only real success was with "The Apprentice." His fortune is all inherited from his father and he's been pretty much failing upward his entire life.

I also don't think Trump would have the balls to face a crowd like that the way Uwe Boll did because Trump thinks he is better than everyone else. In the video, I didn't see Boll exploding at the audience and that might be for a number of reasons - perhaps he felt picking a fight with a crowd that size was foolish or perhaps he didn't want to make a scene since he was a guest of Penny Arcade and they were kind enough to let him promote his film.

One thing to keep in mind with those one-on-one interviews, is that we only get to see it from one perspective - the critic's. After a conflict like that, the critic can't help but be bias - so much so that the article's point is rendered useless. At that point, the critic is making himself the story. It would not surprise me in the least if in many of those situations, the critics are rude to him up front. And in that situation, the critic is going to write whatever he wants anyway, so it's probably in Boll's (or anyone else in that situation's) best interest to do what it takes to be able to look at yourself in the mirror the next day and not feel like a chump. Letting a critic get the best of you is a dangerous thing - it endangers you creatively and emotionally.

I think the reasons why I don't mind that Uwe Boll does it, is because he's a pretty funny guy (definitely compared to the likes of Cuban or Trump) and he is also very much an underdog. The guy is a filmmaker, not a murderer, and yet wherever he goes there is someone there to tell him that he sucks. Can you imagine having to deal with that on a daily basis? That's why it's so impressive that he's lasted so long.

Thanks again.

I was there at the time and this was just brutal. This man has balls! Small, sausage-like balls.

About Ska Oreo's comment (that the audience were assholes for leaving), Why shouldn't people be able to do that? That's like saying if you're watching TV you can't switch the channel because you don't like the program and you have to show it respect and hear it out.

So this director walks in, and is about to show some (from the audience's POV) a crappy movie. They have every right to walk out. I wouldn't want to sit through that crap either. People can mock him all they want; he was mocking them by being there.

Uwe Boll has been trying to get a film he made into horror conventions that focuses on nothing more than animal cruelty (he even sent a note with his movie bragging about how it was all real and therefore "edgy.")

still sound like a nice guy? he tortured puppies for fun. sounds more like a sicko who needs help. everyone on the film comittee for the horror fest i volunteer at turned the tape of after five minutes because of how sickening it was.

he's tried to send this piece of shit to all kinds of horror conventions and everyon has turned him down because it's uncalled for and psychotic.