Talk:BloodRayne (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Titular
Should titular be linked to BloodRayne? I know that we want to interwiki video game, but I honestly don't think it's NPOV to link titular to BloodRayne, and this should probably be dealt with (maybe moved to another section/part of the intro?) -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 08:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Accidental film reels shipped?
from http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/40244:
A projectionist from UltraStar Cinemas has revealed to Shacknews a rather huge error made with the distribution of Uwe Boll's latest cinematic endeavor, the BloodRayne adaptation featuring such well-regarded thespians as Ben Kingsley and Michael Madsen. The UltraStar employee explained that when he got into work last week, he noticed that the theater had received a copy of BloodRayne. This seemed odd because his particular theater generally shows films aimed more at the arthouse set. "I didn't want to build this and put it in my theater," he said, so he checked up with UltraStar higher-ups. It turns out that a computer error resulted in the print being sent to 5,500 more theaters nationwide than was intended. "The computer that placed the order, instead of selecting just the correct theatres, it also selected 5,500 additional theaters, so they made that many extra copies." Whoops.
I asked how much each print costs, and he said that in total, it costs about $5,000 to have each set of reels delivered to a theater, meaning that as a very rough estimate the total costs incurred may be upwards of $27 million. "And that's 27 million that didn't go into production, didn't go into marketing, it's just expenditure that's sitting there," he said. "I mean, I know Ben Kingsley was in Ghandi, but nobody gets to just throw away that much money for nothing."
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that, according to Variety, the film is only showing on 985 screens, just over half of the original target of 1,900--and that's separate from the thousands of accidental extra copies. Now, the film is already millions in the hole and it earned only $1.2 million during its opening weekend, failing to place it in the top ten. Uwe Boll has had a lot of second chances, but might this spell the beginning of the end for the self-described misunderstood director?'
Is this worthwhile to add now? Or should it wait until the film's theatrical run ends and it's verified by more mainstream news sources.
[edit] Redundant trivia?
- Only vampires were featured in the film, no other creatures from the game.
-
- The only other supernatural creature in BloodRayne were the Daemites and one bigass demon. Isn't it kinda obvious that one very local foe and one guy who lives some 5 minutes won't show up in the movie? (though a horror movie with the daemites would be kinda cool)
[edit] Prositutes
Someone removed a comment about the movie being criticised for using prostitutes to keep costs down, changing it to 'unknown actors'. I don't see that change made any sense, so I've removed it. There's no question that Boll did hire prostitutes for the movie as he's admitted doing so (thirty seconds on Google found http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmtv/features/bloodrayne/default.asp, for example). Is there any good reason for that comment to be changed? Mark Grant 20:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Incredibly redundant trivia
- Fans, similarly, were critical of both hiring of the prositutes in addition to deviating from the game's plot to the point where they considered it non-canon.
Actually, to my knowledge Advent Children is to date the only video-game based movie that is even considered canon and I'm not even sure about that. Really, all these comments about canon are really redundant since everyone should at this point get that VG-films are rarely if ever canon. Also, I'd like to see the trail of thought of whoever thought this sentence looked good. Overlooking the typo (prositutes) someone who thought that this trivia was actually important should have made two bullet-points. -TheHande 12:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sequel
I deleted the speculation about a sequel from the introduction. Seeing as it's all ready in production it seemed a bit redundant. - Yupcont 20:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)