Re: The Borderlands movie is as bad as everyone expected

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>
Apparently even Uwe Boll is making fun of it.

Now that's hilarious.

Movies based on video games have long had a reputation for being
low-quality cinema, but in recent years there had been some gradual
improvement. While few (none?) of them were _great_, at least they
weren't unwatchable, something both fans and non-gamers could enjoy.
It seemed like we'd reached some sort of turning point, where
Hollywood and Silicon Valley had come to a sort of accord, both
respecting the other enough to put the effort into producing a movie
that wouldn't get instantly panned.

<snip>

From a review I read, they literally ignored everything from the games
to write a generic script.

Lilith is a bounty hunter.    WTF?
Not a siren, not a vault hunter, oh and she's been hired to find ...

...Tiny Tina who is not an orphan, she's a runaway and Atlas (presumably
of Atlas Corp, is her dad.)   WTF

Psycho, is not a horde of lunatics, but one named character.     WTF?

Etc.

Literally ignored all the source material, bolted on some names from the
games, hired a cast who I assume are in tax arrears, who phoned in their
performances.

Kinda like a movie I saw back in the 80's - Tarnsman of Gor (based on
the John Norman book)

Only it wasn't, it was a generic barbarian warlord film that used the
names of a few characters and 2 cities and that was it.

Wasn't on Gor, didn't have Tarns (Giant hawks they fought on vs other
tarnsmen.)

It featured a cast of nobody you ever heard of, and I think was made in
Italy.

But it sounds like Borderlands is worse, with the cast not just phoning
their performances in, they've gone back to smoke signals.

Xocyll