Loophole Abuse. There's a German law I don't fully understand, but it has something to do with insurance claims and filing for bankruptcy.
Direct a shitty move to make it flop horribly theatrically, file a bankruptcy claim, repeat, acquire infinite money.
His "serious" films like The Stoic are incredibly meh and run on gross-out. He has nothing interesting to say is what I'm talking about.
If you don't want to tell me a story, you shouldn't really try selling me any work of culture at all.
STEALTH!!!Hey, "creative" doesn't necessarily equate to "good," "legitimate," or "interesting."
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.Hey, everything's got artistic merit, no matter how crappy it is or inartistic the motive for making it was.
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.Believe it. Even all you get out of a work is what NOT to do, you're still getting something out of it. Thus, it has merit.
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.I think that's a rather bizarre way off looking at art. Sure, it exists as a work of art (in which it was crafted, quality aside), but merit would imply that it's good art. I'm pretty sure that Uwe Boll has never reached so much as a mile away from that distinction. I would say his slip-shod work hits around a thousand miles away from 'good'.
I agree that it's a display of what not to do, if that's any consolation.
edited 2nd Jan '12 5:45:32 AM by LEMadness
Words, words, words.im part of the school of thought that everything is art
however
Plan 9 From Outer Space is a hilarious film but i do not see it as a work with artistic merit
same with that terrible german filmmaker
learning from mistakes is not a reason to call it having artistic merit
artistic merit is used as a term for "judgment of their perceived quality or value as works of art" (Wikipedia)
basically whether it has aesthetic value and has merit as an art piece
uwe boll films while painfully hilarious does not have artistic merit
edited 2nd Jan '12 5:50:32 AM by CommanderObvious
This level of trolling is reasonable for Commander Obvious. What do you think of this, everyone?I wouldn't say that merit is something that only necessarily comes from good works, though I will say there is always some good in something bad.
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.that is not artistic merit
that is learning from someone else's mistake
or laughing your ass off from So Bad, It's Good
edited 2nd Jan '12 5:51:37 AM by CommanderObvious
This level of trolling is reasonable for Commander Obvious. What do you think of this, everyone?Well maybe I'm just using the wrong word then.
And something good in something bad doesn't necessarily have to be unintentional hilarity or learning from that person's mistakes. Take the Sgt. Pepper movie for example. That is a craptacular movie. But what are some really good things in it? How about the musical numbers from Earth Wind And Fire and Aerosmith?
Or let's also take an effort actually from The Beatles, the Magical Mystery Tour TV special. As a whole, it's a painfully dull film. But, the individual songs throughout the movie are some of the band's best. ("I Am the Walrus", anyone?) And clearly there must be some good filmmaking principles to learn from it, as among the people to cite that film as an influence are Steven Spielberg and George Lucas.
edited 2nd Jan '12 6:00:19 AM by 0dd1
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.both works are fundamentally different from uwe boll's terrible films
both films are seen as bizarre arthouse films
that are trippy and have fantastic music
and definitely have artistic merit even if theyre almost unwatchable
You guys are acting like "artistic merit" is a term with an agreed upon definition by people who study art for a living.
Hell, there's a branch of academics that argue that "artistic merit" doesn't exist, and that all perceived "artistic merit" is, is psychology applied to aesthetic value.
In other words, this current argument in terms of who is right and who is wrong is totally pointless.
edited 2nd Jan '12 6:14:12 AM by Solstace
Ecstasy is Sustained Intensity![]()
Even if individual tastes can make works subjective, they still rely on design principles to give them a sense of quality to more than a select few. Sure, emotional things can be subjective, but things like glaring plot holes or poor technique are not.
At the base of the art world, you have to prove that you have technical prowess before getting into any of the subjective stuff. At least, 90% of the time, anyway. You'd have to be a really lucky or a really rich bastard to slip through the cracks without that foundation.
edited 2nd Jan '12 6:29:12 AM by LEMadness
Words, words, words.Not really, no. In fact, most of the time, technical prowess is hardly rewarded. The best cameramen, the best guitar players, etc, are often just enjoyed by connosseiurs.
In the world of art, much like in the world of economy, timing it's what matters.
Mind you, I do agree that there's an objective aspect to art, as I've long ranted about before. But the thing is, the concept of artistic merit (IE, the idea of measuring the art value of something) is pretty much bullshit. Art is complicated and it involves way too many factors, including the subjective ones.
"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

So scam artists can't work hard at their trade?
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.