"Yet somehow jokes around Hiroshima and Nagasaki never get a wisper of protest?"

That's because the Japanese deserved it.

Uwe went way out of line here. I knew some people that experienced 9/11 firsthand, and it pisses me off that he would do something like this.

@Silver

"Yeah, people who died in the Long bus bombings deserve just as much respect as anyone else who died: respect for the dead."

"When you’re dead, you don’t have to care about the living. And the living don’t really have to care about the dead because, guess what, the dead don’t really care since they’re well, dead."

Do you try to contradict yourself, or are you just being contrary for the sake of being provocative? I suspect the latter, which means that you and Boll appear to have something in common. Playing the enfant terrible may draw attention, but it does little for any underlying message one is trying to get out. Instead, it makes it seem like the goal is to shock rather than inform. If Boll actually did have anything to say with this movie (which, given the "leak" of this controversial scene, seemingly to draw attention under the premise that "any press is good press", seems unlikely), it will surely be lost in the signal to noise ratio of the schlock.

You should take note of that. Your responses are inconsistent, and appear to be made just for the sake of rebuttal. Your point (if you had any) is similarly lost in the antics of your arguing with anyone who doesn't have your sensibilities. It makes the argument less genuine.

So when we make movies do we take out

cars running over people
trains blowing up
shooting
drive by's
plane hi-jacks
rape
murder

I would consider this to be more extreme over the clip I just saw. I didnt see the guy die. There was no aftermath of people jumping to the ground. Who gives a rats ass that Uwe made it. Jaun Claud could of directed and we would be saying who is this guy. If anyone has played postal games you understand that its a political extreme game.

Dont misunderstand me I wont watch the movie but we have bigger issues in life. Im still upset over 9/11 as many companies were making American Flag Shirts and it seemed it was endless and many people made money off selling the shirts and called it being patriotic.

@Juggernautz:

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying for developers of a particular IP to speak out against a movie being made based on it. I'm just saying for developers at large to speak out about it. A film that trivializes 9/11 based on a game IP, regardless of what we think about the content or whether we worked on that particular IP or not, makes everyone in the industry look bad as a whole. So it seems to me that it is incumbent upon developers to voice displeasure about this particular issue.

I'm not saying for developers to renounce their companies and the industry as a whole either a la Greg Costikyan or Chris Crawford. I'm just suggesting that people in the industry speak out against the practice of letting crummy GOTTA MAKE A BUCK ANY WAY I CAN filmmakers (and perhaps, the publishers who hire them) like Uwe Boll represent us as a whole.

regardless of the drek that Boll produces, he has a right to do so.

people also have the right to not pay him any money to see his crap.

i bet if you watch the movie you'd be less offended about the parody and more offended that the movie is terrible.

Meggie
life goes on believe it or not......

@Juggernautz

I was more saying that all of the time and resources poured into the Postal film was a waste of time and that the studio, actors, and whatever could be given to a better director with a better script (aka Fallout, Homeworld, MGS, Neverwinter, etc) to make a better movie. I agree, if Boll was directing Fallout I'm pretty sure he would end up with every single pissed off Fallout fan outside his door wearing leather jackets and aiming pipe rifles at his house. Fallout fans have been through enough without watching a director like Boll take the franchise into the film industry. ;)

Uwe Boll's movies never succeed for the simple fact that he lacks an important ingredient called TALENT. It would seem that he's finally realized it and now wants to ride the wave of "controversy". Too bad the movie has a 99.9% of tanking anyway!

[...] Via GamePolitics. [...]

On a side note, whilst we as developers may not have the final say as to what happens with a particular I.P or franchise, most publishers are avid gamers themselves.

And most gamers realise that Uwe Boll is terrible and makes crap films. Aside from Alone in the Dark (oh, the lost potential) Uew Boll has made movies based on crap franchises, or games with terrible stories to begin with. No great loss, and Postal is no different. The games were crap, the movie will be worse.

@Josh G.

I work in the industry, and guess what? If you're developing for a major publisher, unless you're one of a VERY select few developers, it isn't your I.P. The publishers can do whatever the hell they want with the I.P, and what the publishers want is money. Why do you think Uwe Boll and so many crappy sequels are so prevalent in every facet of the industry? If you're lucky enough to still retain the I.P, sure it's up to the company CEO and board what they want to do with it.

Onto the political correctness of the subject, I think parody is fine as long as it is done in good humour and fits into the general context of the game/film. Being that Postal or Postal 2 doesn't have any direct 9/11 parodies, aside from some Bin-Ladenesque enemies, I am assuming that Uwe threw in this scene purely for controversy which he has obviously achieved.

Like many others have already said, I accept 9/11 as a tragedy, but realise that the American public are beating a dead horse. No-one else cares anymore bar people directly involved, which is understandable and acceptable. Using the tragic events as some form of argumentative weight or for purely greedy purposes (LOOKING AT YOU, UWE BOLL!) is infuriating. There have been plenty of worse tragedies since 9/11, more than 100,000 people died in mudslides in countries outside America (GASP!) near the end of last year and the number of dead civilians in the Middle East thanks to the "Alliance against Terror" outweighs most American tragedies, so why are we CONSTANTLY reminded of one comparatively minor tragedy (assuming you can measure the scale of tragedies).

@Wardo:
If Uwe Boll got the rights to produce a Fallout or Homeworld movie, there would be riots on the streets. Seriously. The world will realise what gamers have known for a looooong time. That Uwe is one of the worst directors in the history of film. Ever.

In the 50s and 60s, a slew of World War 2 movies were released in the U.S., chronicling fictional and non-fictional events during the WW2. One COULD say that these movies capitalized off the deaths of millions of armed service personel around the world, but a great many of them saw them as patriotic films that served to give a safe insight on the hellish environments that people within the war found themselves in. Very few people could really complain to a significant degree, although I can't say they didn't, all the same- and remember, this is only a decade or so after the war ended, which could still have been considered "too soon".

In the same vein, the Passion of the Christ follows the final few hours of the messiah's life, and the short time thereafter. IF such an event occurred, it's over 2000 years SINCE that period of time. Yet people did raise hell on it- to me, the only thing I disapproved of was parents taking their 5 year olds to go watch it. Other than that, it was an okay movie- not my kind of flick, but okay.

Now take 9/11, an event that, as we know, happened very recently- we're nto even a decade away from the day it occurred. And I can agree that there is a time frame when you can say "No... it's too soon." The only problem is that we can't really agree when it IS a good time to talk about it. I can't say I agree with people capitalizing on recent events, but people are perfectly welcome to say "I'm not watching this movie" instead of complaining and drawing attention to the said movie by protesting, and cutting costs for the movie-makers by using the publicity from the controversy as a form of advertisement. If I'm not for it, I'll simply not watch it- but you won't hear me standing on my soapbox to tell them to NOT make it. If they want to create something that touches on a recent topic too soon and drive consmers away, and thus waste money on said production, they're perfectly welcome to do so.

Now of course, there are exceptions to the rule. Take Mel Gibson. The idea behind the movies that touched on such subjects was so outrageous and hilarious that all hostilities against the USE of such material was abandoned and traded in for one hell of a laugh. You can make ANYBODY laugh at something if you know where the line is and how to hit it, and Mel is one of the few people capableof doing such a thing.

...

@ Wardo
At this point, I would like to say that a movie based on Fallout would freakin' ROCK.

@ Mike
If you want to talk about mass killings, we can look at Turkey, Cabanatuan, Germany, Iraq, Russia and who-the-hell-knows-how-many countries guilty of the same things. Essentially, by your reasoning and outlook, if you point at any nation, you could "laugh" at them.

Anyways, back to the topic.

Upon viewing the clip, I didn't laugh. I couldn't laugh. I didn't get sickened, either. I just kinda went "... huh. o.o *shrugs and goes to 2-Sense*" It didn't offend every sense of me. It was just a clip. And whether it was the trade towers, I couldn't tell, I really wasn't paying attention. I can say I know how people can be offended by such a thing, especially if they have some connection to what happened. And I won't tell them to "get over it." Whatever grief they're feeling, I can't feel, but acknowledging my lack of understanding means I can give them the space necessary for them to come around on their own. I can certainly understand that such a thing might bother them, and do nothing afterwards to bother them further.

But this, to me, is kind've like what Bush does- he ignores the focal point of what people are saying and reinforces his beliefs and resolution in what he's doing by changing the subject and addressing unrelated reasoning behind what he does, which may or may not be true. To me, Uwe Boll does the same thing when he makes a movie based on a game- he tries to say that the reason we don't like his movies is because we don't see the movies and instead put more stock in the game, the actual source material, than that of his films, which stray away from the source material in a manner similar to the Bush admin and war intelligence concerning Iraq- they're either lying through their teeth, or they don't have a f***ing clue. Worse, he tries to prove his point in the most unconvincing of ways, like challenging vocal opposition to boxing matches, or voicing his 'genius' in hiring prostitutes in a foreign screening rather than models, which isn't a form of artistic skill.

But for him to believe that a clip such as the one he showed would NOT be taken out of context is bull. We might be able to agree that his motives concerning the release of such a thing was for shock value. I don't think he's really concerning himself with the issue as seriously as others- he certainly doesn't seem to be doing much more than whining "they're taking my thing out of context" rather than discussing at length his motives behind it.

It's true that he can make this movie to his heart's content. He's welcome to. If he wishes to lose money doing so, that's his decision. Add controversy. Fine. Do it. He can risk losing his own money and credibility with this flick. He'll still make it, no matter what we say or scream. And we can either smolder and gripe about it perpeptually, or shake our heads, and watch The Simpsons Movie, in theater 19 on your left.

@solid squall

I understand what you're saying Solid, but we are talking about a movie made in america for america on a subject americans find touchie. I'm not saying it shouldn't be made or anyone should stop it. but you don't see the countries with the mud slids or earthquakes making parody movies on those subjects for their people do you? I doubt it. its one thing for another country to make pardy on another countries problems, because yes it doesn't effect them like said country. But I am sure it would hurt them if it was made for their country.

Again I'm not saying it shouldn't be made. I won't see it because I don't agree with it. which is how it should be with everything. if you don't like it (entertainment wise anyway) then change the channel or don't see it. its not all black and white. this movie falls well into the grey, like nearly everything else political. why can't everyone just get along and throw down some Mario Kart.

Okay, I gotta throw in my $0.02 worth on this. Before I do, I have to give kudos to GamePolitics.com for blogging this. I was wondering what was going to be the lowest Uwe Boll was willing to go. Looks like I underestimated him, yet again.

First off, I think we can all agree that Uwe Boll has the right to make this film. He has the right to put anything in it, provided no person (or animal) was harmed in making it, he doesn't defame or slander anyone, and he hasn't directly ripped off someone else's footage/material. He's protected by the First Amendment, as are we all.

So why am I upset about this, thus causing me to post a response to this particular blog article? I think it is because I have to ask the question, "Why is this acceptable to those of us who work in the game industry?" Now, before I continue I have to admit that I'm an industry n00b who is graduating from grad school in 3 weeks. As such, I am really concerned about going into an industry filled with people who aren't willing to speak up about this. After all, do we really want the filth that Uwe Boll makes to represent us and our hard work? Like it or not, that is exactly what is going on when movies like Postal are being made. It makes us all as an industry look like insensitive barbarians and purveyors of all things violent, sexual, and criminal.

Despite the fact that most gamers and developers know that this is not the case, Joe (and Jane) Q. Public are none the wiser. They will turn on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and Entertainment Tonight and see a report about a movie that makes a joke about 9/11. They will see that the movie is based on a video game. And then there will be one interview after another of 9/11 widows, ministers, New York firemen and policemen, etc all saying what terrible people game developers are.

Some developers will say, "Who cares about the general public. They're not gamers." To put it simply, the public votes. And votes sway politicians. And those politicians write bills. And those bills can contain language that makes it more difficult to sell the games that we make. Even if it is unconstitutional to make such laws, money and resources are spent by our industry to fight them. Additionally, wouldn't you want to make more money by trying to get more people from the general public to play our games? Maybe, you know, advance our medium for change?

Now, I'm not saying that developers have the power to stop companies from profiting on mediocre shock-value games like Postal and Postal 2. Companies can do whatever it is they like (provided it's legal). It's their money, their rules. But that doesn't mean developers have to be silent about it.

So what are you guys and gals waiting for? Speak up.

Despite the "touchy" subject matter, it wasn't funny at all.
Typical of Boll; I think the Bloodrayne movie still haunts my dreams.

While I agree that this particular joke about 9/11 isn't funny, I see no reason why he shouldn't make it. 9/11 was a tragedy, nobody would deny that, but worse things happen all over the world all the time. Most Americans seem to be of the opinion that this is somehow a bigger deal simply because it happened to America.

The thing is, the rest of the world kind of thinks that most of you are a bunch of self-important jerks. I'm not saying whether that is right or wrong, (I've met plenty of nice and not-so-nice Americans) simply that it's the impression a lot of other countries get.

To the guy that said people in other countries were petty if they only cared about how 9/11 affected them: Do most Americans seem to care about Tsunamis in Indonesia? Mudslides in India? The plight of poverty stricken African nations? All the civilians that Americans are killing in the middle east?
Some do, but most don't. The problem is that America is so insular- when I've been to America, some stuff that was huge news on TV all over the rest of the world barely got a passing mention on American TV, it was just America America America. To other, more globally aware countries, 9/11 was just another sad thing in the world, but we hear about plenty of those on the news so it wasn't anything super-special. To Americans, it was the first big tragedies in a long time that got your attention, simply because it actually happened to you.

So while many people may see the joke as being in bad taste, and I agree with them, it's no bigger deal to most of the world than it would be to you if he had made fun of a mudslide or car bombing or something- not funny, but not a big deal.

Ahh the comment about the act of mass murder makes me giggle when i hear that from an american. I mean honestly you guys are the best at commicting acts of mass murder. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Iraq, Iran ...

“And the living don’t really have to care about the dead because, guess what, the dead don’t really care since they’re well, dead. So maybe you’re the one that needs to “get over it”.”

You don't seem to understand how respect for the dead can and does equal respect for the living. Death does not end the relationships people have with the departed the attachment people make to the dead living on, love caring affection nourishment, hatred rage vile all of these continue on after the person’s death. For a select few in history the relationship becomes more then just a personal relationship but a symbolic relationship with the living (George Washington represent patriotism, the long list of catholic saint faith devotion obedience, charity etc.) There is reasons people have for as long as modern civilization existed have had means of honoring the dead.

To disrespect the dead is to disrespect the continuing relationship between the living and the departed “the phrases living on in ones heart” is extremely accurate to what occurs when a person or persons die. Relationship past, present, the ones we look forward to in the future, symbolic, the one with ourselves, the ones with ourselves and yes those with the dead. Thus to respect the dead is not nessarely to dwell on death but to honor life. I think respect for human life is not something one should simply “get over”.


Not that I honestly expect you to understand, here is a clue (and this applies to everyone else): if you think my post is intended to condemn this movie you don’t get it.

@Dan:

But remember, it's an UWE BOLL movie...

@Silver:

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone being so nihilistic. *shrug* Well, whatever, I'm doing arguing about this. Enjoy your life -- oh wait, you can't, because in a few decades you're going to be dead and nothing you've done will matter anymore. lol

I'm going to see this film. I love Postal and its just a movie.

People should stop crying "TOO SOON T_T TOO SOON!", cause guess what? Some people use humour to cope with shit. Restricting them in this is bullshit.

And I suppose WWII and Vietnam parodies were never "too soon".

By the way Dennis, maybe you'd find this quote (2006) from Boll relevant:

Referring to the non-stop television airing of the September 11, 2001 attacks: "This day showed us that we are all completely voyeurs greedy for thrilling entertainment no matter if this is real or not."

"Would they be singing the same song? I know some people will say to that, “I would get over it,” but, think about…. would you -really-? Don’t lie. If you were cracking 9/11 jokes the day after your beloved wife was killed in an terrorist attack along with all of her coworkers, you would seem like, oh, what’s the word… a monster."

Yes, I'd probably be a monster. A terrible, horrible monster. Then I'd get all the people who know me in a small town in Germany and have all of them kill each other in a orgy of blood. Fun times.

Really, I'd get over it. When you're dead, you don't have to care about the living. And the living don't really have to care about the dead because, guess what, the dead don't really care since they're well, dead. So maybe you're the one that needs to "get over it".

@Double:

There are some pretty obvious flaws in your logic. For one, you're comparing the number of deaths on one day in an act of terrorism in a relatively safe country in regards to terrorism, to the number of deaths in 365 days in unfortunate roadway accidents. That's absurd.

I also think it's laughable how all the "anti-PC" people think their opponents are all literally "screaming" about the subject. Talk about an overstatement!

Person 1: "I don't think Uwe Boll should put that in his movie."
Person 2: "I am soooo sick of all these politically correct crybabies screaming about how it's too soon! Get over it!"

I can't help but wonder how the anti-PC people would feel if it was their spouse or parent who was killed on 9/11. Would they be singing the same song? I know some people will say to that, "I would get over it," but, think about.... would you -really-? Don't lie. If you were cracking 9/11 jokes the day after your beloved wife was killed in an terrorist attack along with all of her coworkers, you would seem like, oh, what's the word... a monster. That's a good word for it.

All that being said, I'm not sure how I feel about the particular scene in Uwe's movie. All I'm certain of is that the movie itself is going to be utter crap.

Rigor I see your Manos and raise you Red Zone Cuba.

I agree with the fact that the victims were not the martyrs that everyone makes them out to be they were just people catching a flight out of Boston or going to work in a some very tall buildings. they were not courageous they were simply normal people. People were really freaked out because these were not figures of state or religion but people just like us that died. How many people thought snipers were after them after JFK in dallas? Now how many people pissed themselves thinking that they could be next in a random attack.

ok time for fun math for a sense of perspective:
2,973 people died on 9/11 (wikipedia) and every one of them is a tragedy
37,862people died in 2001 from car crashes (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)
so that means 12.735 people died in car crashes that year for each victim of 9/11

I just wish that this country could get off its Politically Correct high horse and face and deal with the events and their consequences rather than remain silent and allow for these people seeking pity from strangers more than 5 years after the fact or use it as an excuse to pass stupid ass laws or restictions or whathaveyou. Most of the people screaming about this are arguing because some one ELSE MIGHT get offended rather than being offended themselves and thats what really gets me about this who situation.

@ Rigor Mortis

I've seen "Manos: The Hands of Fate" and comparing it to anything Uwe Boll has made is like comparing chlamydia and syphilis. One doesn't make the other better by comparison.

An easy way to conceptualize "Should not be done" and "Should be banned."

Should not be done:
Person 1: "You shouldn't do that."
Person 2: *does it*
Person 1: "You retard. I'm never speaking to you again."

Should be banned:
Person 1: "You shouldn't do that."
Person 2: *tries to do it*
Person 1: *SHOOTS PERSON 2 IN TEH FACE*

Pretty simple stuff, really.

Uwe Boll has actually compared his movie with Monty Python's "The Life of Brian". This isn't parody or social commentary. This is schlock and fart jokes. Mel Brooks actually made fun of the spanish inquisition (what a show!) and the holocaust! (springtime for Hitler!) But Uwe Boll is no Mel Brooks. Uwe Boll is a chowderhead.

ok just for the record i have played postal 2 and i forget which one of you asked but no there are no planes that i can remember in postal 2 (i didnt even see any flying overhead) im not saying anything about uwe or the movie yet cause i havent seen it (probably wont either im not much of a movie buff)

I'm an american. I watched continuous news coverage of 9/11. I cried for the people who died and their families.

All that said, I have no problem with this scene. If you have a problem with it, don't watch it. It's pretty simple.

Those are some pretty bad CG effects.

“It’s harsh, but in the context of the movie it definitely makes sense,” Boll says of the scene showing a plane heading straight for what appears to be a World Trade Center tower…

If there is one thing we learned from the Imus scandal it's that oversensitive people wioll not care about context and will still shout bloody murder over it regardless. Sorry Bole.

I wonder if the Survivors of 9/11 victims are amused at all by politicians exploiting their pain for political gain? If Guiliani runs for pres. his entire campaign will most likely consist of saying 9-11 over and over again while accompanied by an enterage of NYFD and NYPD.

Although I hate the man, I hate his movies and I don't agree with what he is putting in this movie. I am not going to go and bash him for making it. I don't agree with it, but if he wants to make a parody of 9/11 he can go ahead and do it. he has his rights to do it. but should he? hell no! but I can't stop em. I won't see the movie in theaters or buy the eventual DVD. I may download it (which I never do to movie or TV ever) just to rob him of cash and see what reason he has for such bad taste in a film then probably delete it. But I can't Bash him until I have seen the thing. then I won't bash em' for making it, but I will for how terrible of a way he went about doing it.

being able to make a movie like this is what makes america great. But hell if it will make him anymore popular with people and critics than he already is. lol. man oh man he's a horrible director.

"Something should not be done" is just a personal opinion, and at most an appeal to the creator to use their creative liberties elsewhere. You're suggesting that people aren't allowed to dislike stuff, which is absurd.

"It should be banned" is an attempt to force your own moral beliefs on everyone else through legislation.

It's true that 9/11 has been put on a ridiculous pedestal and I don't agree with how it is treated, particularly by Americans, as any more significant than any other major tragedy that has taken place in recent years. Innocent people die in the middle-east all the time and nobody really seems to care. All of these tragedies are equally significant and none of them should be trivialized.

I disapprove of this scene not just because it's 9/11, but because trivializing actual horrible events is, in my opinion, in poor taste.

I heard that Boll called that plane crash scene "a necessary wake-up call to America".

Well, I have a necessary wake-up call to Mr. Boll:

STOP! MAKING! MOVIES! UWE!

Which is probably what the general public will be screaming if (or, dare I say, "when") the movie "Postal" is released.

Yeah, you know what? Let's let Boll release the movie and see what the hell happens...

(I'm sure it won't be good for Uwe...)

Oh man, Dave Foley is in this? How the hell does Boll manage to keep dragging respectable actors into his crapfests?

While it may be in bad taste, I don't mind things done in poor taste if there's enough wit and tact to compensate. That can't be said for anything I've seen in the Postal trailer. I'm not an advocate of censorship either, but as someone who's sat through 'Alone In the Dark' I think the government really ought to do something to stop this guy. Anything, up to and including assassination.

@Silver_Destin

Where did anyone say that this film MUST be banned? I thought we were just saying that it was tasteless. I don't recall anyone here wanting to take away Boll's right to free speech, just exercising our right to free speech in critisizing him for this scene. I fail to see how we are hypocrites just for not liking what Uwe Boll puts in his movies.

Oh, and if you are correct in saying that most people outside of the U.S. only cared about how 9/11 affected them (which I seriously doubt), then that must make them very petty indeed. Just to put it into perspective: How would you feel if you were told that the victims of the London bus bombings aren't and shouldn't be respected just because of Tony Blair's response to them. Sounds like YOU are the real hypocrite here.

Sigh. Not only does he make crappy movies, but he also gets gaming into trouble as well...

I think its sick how movies look to make money out of such tragic events.

As a result I think we should ban the movie Titanic.

@Heath Justin Chaney

Keep that harassment up and you're likely to be banned.

As for this, while I may not agree with it, I'll defend Boll's every right to make it, even fi he himself is pretty much a hack, and at least I'm willing to wait till the movie comes out to even see what the scene is about.

And I have a question, who the hell decides when it's "too soon" to joke about an event or tragedy?

It's really not unique to show perpetrators (such as terrorists) of tragedies in parody form. But the events themselves have usually been no-nos when it came to parody.

The Hot Shots movies and the South Park movie are just 2 examples. One even has to wonder if the Hot Shots movies had continued to be made, would that have tackled, in any way, the 9/11 event. My thinking is that they would merely deal with Bin Lauden and maybe Saddam in some way but not pardoy the event.

Maybe Boll thinks he's the "T2/Rockstar" of movies, going where no one else would dare to tread.

For the record:
I know "T2/Rockstar".
Boll is no "T2/Rockstar".

nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Silver_Derstin
*pounce*
your missed at the forums! we need to raise the IQ there darnit!

-----------------------

All in all this this flubber over it will blow away its pointless PCisim if we cant get over the horrors of the past then they will consume us....