Hollywood blockbuster filming in San Francisco?

Christian Taylor3 said:Sadly, I've only seen Postal. So, yeah, that’s more than enough for me 🙄 (I was just checking, and apparently, after Max Schmeling, he knocked out two more films with a third in pre-production—the man really knows how to stay busy). Honestly, I can't help myself here... back then, I was working closely with Grubišić right around the time Boll first showed up at the studio in Washington, D.C. (June 2008). He even played the part of the gracious host; he was there overseeing the laying down of that massive red carpet right in front of the entrance to the management building; he was basically running around town like a complete lunatic... So, I'd say I'm sufficiently qualified to talk trash about him :klap:. For what it's worth, if anyone's interested, I think I might still have a paper Big Mac box lying around somewhere from when he threw up in it back in the day 😬

Regardless, it isn't fair to jump to conclusions based on just one movie, whether you're talking about a director or an actor..

David Price5 said:Regardless, it isn't fair to jump to conclusions based on just one movie, whether you're talking about a director or an actor..

I mean, I did say his career was impressive in its own way. Let's be real, Uwe Boll isn't just any director btw.

Long Live Uwe Boll (7014 total Signatures)

Vs.

Stop Dr. Uwe Boll (346876 total Signatures).

Personally, I'm good; life is far too short to spend it watching his stuff.

David Price5 said:Regardless, it isn't fair to jump to conclusions based on just one movie, whether you're talking about a director or an actor..

I have to disagree. It doesn't take much more than seeing a single film to make up one's mind—in fact, you often need far less than that. Just remember: the worse the movie is, the less time you actually need to reach that realization.

As for Uwe Boll, I haven't sat through any of his work. Nothing about him ever really caught my interest.

goldenhound32 said:I have to disagree. It doesn't take much more than seeing a single film to make up one's mind—in fact, you often need far less than that. Just remember: the worse the movie is, the less time you actually need to reach that realization.

As for Uwe Boll, I haven't sat through any of his work. Nothing about him ever really caught my interest.

Look at it this way: if a director makes about 40 films and you happen to catch just one for thirty minutes, and you hate it, should we assume you'll dislike every single thing they've ever made?

goldenhound32 said:I have to disagree. It doesn't take much more than seeing a single film to make up one's mind—in fact, you often need far less than that. Just remember: the worse the movie is, the less time you actually need to reach that realization.

As for Uwe Boll, I haven't sat through any of his work. Nothing about him ever really caught my interest.

I haven't seen them either. However, I realized I was citing him as an example of a bad director without actually watching anything he made. I fell into the trap of following the hype surrounding the hatred for him. Whether that is justified in this specific instance is a different matter, but it becomes a bad habit nonetheless.

That's enough for me; life is too short to waste on his films.

The issue isn't avoiding his films, it's the "reflexive bashing" of them without even giving them a watch.

David Price5 said:Look at it this way: if a director makes about 40 films and you happen to catch just one for thirty minutes, and you hate it, should we assume you'll dislike every single thing they've ever made?

I haven't seen them either. However, I realized I was citing him as an example of a bad director without actually watching anything he made. I fell into the trap of following the hype surrounding the hatred for him. Whether that is justified in this specific instance is a different matter, but it becomes a bad habit nonetheless.

That's enough for me; life is too short to waste on his films.

The issue isn't avoiding his films, it's the "reflexive bashing" of them without even giving them a watch.

Come on, please, it’s not like we’re talking about Uwe Boll Haneke where he might actually stumble into a decent film once in a while. These aren't films; they're just pure, unadulterated garbage. Besides, the guy is incredibly arrogant, rude, narcissistic, and completely devoid of talent. A true gentleman like Jakov sedlar makes him look like a saint. Honestly, I'm just glad he teamed up with Grubišić; it's like heaven meeting hell. They really are the perfect match—a duo of absolute (anti)talents, obviously. ☕

end of offtopic.

David Price5 said:It looks like a lot of you really can't stand Uwe Boll. I'm curious, how many of his movies has everyone here actually sat through?

Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark, House of the Dead, Dungeon Siege, Far Cry... you can't even decide which one is better 🤣 (even if Dungeon Siege and Far Cry fall into that specific category of being "so bad they're actually good")

David Price5 said:Look at it this way: if a director makes about 40 films and you happen to catch just one for thirty minutes, and you hate it, should we assume you'll dislike every single thing they've ever made?

I haven't seen them either. However, I realized I was citing him as an example of a bad director without actually watching anything he made. I fell into the trap of following the hype surrounding the hatred for him. Whether that is justified in this specific instance is a different matter, but it becomes a bad habit nonetheless.

That's enough for me; life is too short to waste on his films.

The issue isn't avoiding his films, it's the "reflexive bashing" of them without even giving them a watch.

There is a distinct difference between me simply not enjoying a film—take something like Secretary or Temps de Loup, for instance—and a movie actually being complete garbage.

I'm not entirely closed off to new things, though. For example, I can't stomach most Jean-Claude Van Damme movies because they are just that bad, yet I did find myself enjoying a specific one once. Naturally, for me to even bother looking into an actor, the film needs to have garnered decent critical reception first, which happened in that case.

And since we're being brutally honest here, who is actually handing this guy money when his projects are such massive flops? (At least regarding the trio of Far Cry, Alone in the Dark, and Dungeon Siege). 🤷

goldenhound32 said:There is a distinct difference between me simply not enjoying a film—take something like Secretary or Temps de Loup, for instance—and a movie actually being complete garbage.

I'm not entirely closed off to new things, though. For example, I can't stomach most Jean-Claude Van Damme movies because they are just that bad, yet I did find myself enjoying a specific one once. Naturally, for me to even bother looking into an actor, the film needs to have garnered decent critical reception first, which happened in that case.

And since we're being brutally honest here, who is actually handing this guy money when his projects are such massive flops? (At least regarding the trio of Far Cry, Alone in the Dark, and Dungeon Siege). 🤷

I don't personally watch much Jean-Claude Van Damme or Steven Seagal either. However, I don't immediately assume that every single one of their films is bad. I like to leave a little room for hope regarding the ones I haven't seen yet. In fact, I have even heard some positive reviews for some of Jean-Claude's more recent work outside of his JCVD era.

I realized I’ve only actually sat through three full movies starring Dolph Lundgren out of his 39 total credits. Since I didn't count the half-finished ones or the films I can't even remember, I won't be bringing him up as an example of bad acting.

goldenhound32 said:There is a distinct difference between me simply not enjoying a film—take something like Secretary or Temps de Loup, for instance—and a movie actually being complete garbage.

I'm not entirely closed off to new things, though. For example, I can't stomach most Jean-Claude Van Damme movies because they are just that bad, yet I did find myself enjoying a specific one once. Naturally, for me to even bother looking into an actor, the film needs to have garnered decent critical reception first, which happened in that case.

And since we're being brutally honest here, who is actually handing this guy money when his projects are such massive flops? (At least regarding the trio of Far Cry, Alone in the Dark, and Dungeon Siege). 🤷

I recall our previous discussion regarding those German regulations and funding models. In my estimation, however, the bulk of the revenue still stems from DVD sales and television broadcasting.

Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark, House of the Dead, Dungeon Siege, or Far Cry... it's impossible to decide which one reigns supreme. Even if you consider Dungeon Siege and Far Cry part of that specific category of games that are just so bad they actually become good.

It is important to take the time to watch them while you have the chance. You should become well-versed in that specific era of their filmography.

goldenhound32 said:There is a distinct difference between me simply not enjoying a film—take something like Secretary or Temps de Loup, for instance—and a movie actually being complete garbage.

I'm not entirely closed off to new things, though. For example, I can't stomach most Jean-Claude Van Damme movies because they are just that bad, yet I did find myself enjoying a specific one once. Naturally, for me to even bother looking into an actor, the film needs to have garnered decent critical reception first, which happened in that case.

And since we're being brutally honest here, who is actually handing this guy money when his projects are such massive flops? (At least regarding the trio of Far Cry, Alone in the Dark, and Dungeon Siege). 🤷

Look, let's not get carried away here... and honestly, I highly doubt you've seen enough of his movies to actually pass judgment.

David Price5 said:I don't personally watch much Jean-Claude Van Damme or Steven Seagal either. However, I don't immediately assume that every single one of their films is bad. I like to leave a little room for hope regarding the ones I haven't seen yet. In fact, I have even heard some positive reviews for some of Jean-Claude's more recent work outside of his JCVD era.

I realized I’ve only actually sat through three full movies starring Dolph Lundgren out of his 39 total credits. Since I didn't count the half-finished ones or the films I can't even remember, I won't be bringing him up as an example of bad acting.

I recall our previous discussion regarding those German regulations and funding models. In my estimation, however, the bulk of the revenue still stems from DVD sales and television broadcasting.

Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark, House of the Dead, Dungeon Siege, or Far Cry... it's impossible to decide which one reigns supreme. Even if you consider Dungeon Siege and Far Cry part of that specific category of games that are just so bad they actually become good.

It is important to take the time to watch them while you have the chance. You should become well-versed in that specific era of their filmography.

Look, since you guys are already bringing up Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren... you’d honestly be surprised by how much heat their recent movies have been taking.

Dolph Lundgren has been riding that legend status hard over the last six months, judging by all the noise online. Maybe it’s the whole Expendables thing or something else entirely, but the guy is everywhere now, and people actually seem to like him. It’s pretty wild considering nobody even knew he existed a few years back.

Just saw this news floating around... looks like the guy might land a small role in the new Conan the Barbarian movie. Definitely just more proof that his star is rising.

I’m not buying what David Price5 is selling when it comes to Dolph Lundgren; I’ve sat through about four or five of his flicks myself, and honestly, the guy just can't act to save his life, isn't he? As for Jean-Claude Van Damme, sure, I don't mind putting one on in the background, but let's be real—he's hardly a heavyweight in the acting world either.

Donna Gray4 said:I’m not buying what David Price5 is selling when it comes to Dolph Lundgren; I’ve sat through about four or five of his flicks myself, and honestly, the guy just can't act to save his life, isn't he? As for Jean-Claude Van Damme, sure, I don't mind putting one on in the background, but let's be real—he's hardly a heavyweight in the acting world either.

Or maybe I just happened to catch the few of his films that weren't total disasters.😁

Look, this isn't a thread about Steven Seagal... please, for the love of God, let's move on.

Look, just wanted to throw in a little defense for Rob Cohen... the guy actually knows how to deliver a solid, high-quality movie... whenever he actually feels like putting in the effort... Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story... honestly, such a trip. It’s one of those movies that just sticks with you, even if you aren't usually digging the biopic vibe. There's something about the way they captured his energy—it felt less like a dry history lesson and more like a tribute to a legend... definitely worth a watch if you want to see how they handled his legacy. I'm still here... just hanging out... The Rat Pack... man, there was just something about that era, wasn't there? It’s hard to find that kind of effortless cool nowadays—that specific blend of swagger and class that they all had in spades. Just a group of legends who seemed to own every room they walked into... There are two titles I haven't revisited in a minute, and honestly, you can really see the talent there—it’s just that the guy clearly prefers coasting through the easy stuff... He doesn't do bad work, mind you; his films always have this great visual clarity, but let's be real, even the most gifted director is going to struggle when the script is absolute garbage... His take on Dragonheart actually wasn't half bad, so he should definitely be able to hold his own in that kind of setting again...

Donna Gray4 said:I’m not buying what David Price5 is selling when it comes to Dolph Lundgren; I’ve sat through about four or five of his flicks myself, and honestly, the guy just can't act to save his life, isn't he? As for Jean-Claude Van Damme, sure, I don't mind putting one on in the background, but let's be real—he's hardly a heavyweight in the acting world either.

Look... nobody's claiming he's some Oscar winner... but still... he's definitely better than someone like Steven Seagal. Then again, he's not much worse than Jason Statham, who everyone treats like the No1 action star today, or even Jet Li or Arnia. Dolph is just part of that specific breed where the whole appeal is just the presence itself. He's an action hero first and foremost, and at that, he's phenomenal.

As far as the actual acting goes, I'd say his best work was in Universal Soldier... he was killer in that one. Personally, he's one of my favorite villains... he basically stole the show from Jean-Claude Van Damme, who just stood there staring blankly and reciting lines...

If you want to see what I actually consider bad acting, check this out...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egwD4jTo3GE...or this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gIp...eature=related

500 Statista people? Let's all just head down to Statista in San Francisco... 😁

Anthony Smith3 said:Look... nobody's claiming he's some Oscar winner... but still... he's definitely better than someone like Steven Seagal. Then again, he's not much worse than Jason Statham, who everyone treats like the No1 action star today, or even Jet Li or Arnia. Dolph is just part of that specific breed where the whole appeal is just the presence itself. He's an action hero first and foremost, and at that, he's phenomenal.

As far as the actual acting goes, I'd say his best work was in Universal Soldier... he was killer in that one. Personally, he's one of my favorite villains... he basically stole the show from Jean-Claude Van Damme, who just stood there staring blankly and reciting lines...

If you want to see what I actually consider bad acting, check this out...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egwD4jTo3GE...or this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gIp...eature=related

I mean, you can't really say for certain that Lundgren is DEFINITIVELY better than Seagal, though I’ll always choose watching Lundgren over Seagal any day of the week. Still, let's be real—Lundgren doesn't exactly scream "serious actor," he's just in that lower tier of performers, and while he and Arnie are cut from the same cloth, Arnie obviously had a much more legendary career. To my mind, Statham is still better than Lundgren, and as for those clips mentioned below? Yeah, those are hands down some of the worst acting I've ever laid eyes on.🤣

500 Statista users? Let's all just move to San Francisco then.

As long as that foreign capital keeps flowing in! :-D

Donna Gray4 said:I mean, you can't really say for certain that Lundgren is DEFINITIVELY better than Seagal, though I’ll always choose watching Lundgren over Seagal any day of the week. Still, let's be real—Lundgren doesn't exactly scream "serious actor," he's just in that lower tier of performers, and while he and Arnie are cut from the same cloth, Arnie obviously had a much more legendary career. To my mind, Statham is still better than Lundgren, and as for those clips mentioned below? Yeah, those are hands down some of the worst acting I've ever laid eyes on.🤣

Whatever. Dolph Lundgren has always been cooler than Steven Seagal just by existing—especially in those kinds of action flicks where that actually matters. But hey, taste is subjective, I guess. As for Arnia, he only stayed relevant because he picked the right projects. If he hadn't landed The Terminator or Conan the Barbarian, he wouldn't have had much of a shot with stuff like Red Sonja, Raw Deal, or Twins.

I'll be honest, I wasn't really a fan of Dolph when I was a kid either. But over the last couple of years, thanks to some folks who actually know him personally, I gave him another shot—and man, the guy is a total powerhouse as an action hero. Personally, I think movies like Rocky IV, Red Scorpion (which is a killer 80s flick, basically his version of Rambo III), The Punisher, Dark Angel, Showdown in Little Tokyo, Joshua Tree, and Universal Soldier are all absolute bangers from that 80s/90s era. Same goes for those first five or six Steven Seagal movies, too.👍

A silent trigger? Honestly, that’s probably the only decent flick Dolph Lundgren has ever done. Though, I was watching it back when I was just some wide-eyed kid, so take my word with a grain of salt... :9

Anthony Smith3 said:Whatever. Dolph Lundgren has always been cooler than Steven Seagal just by existing—especially in those kinds of action flicks where that actually matters. But hey, taste is subjective, I guess. As for Arnia, he only stayed relevant because he picked the right projects. If he hadn't landed The Terminator or Conan the Barbarian, he wouldn't have had much of a shot with stuff like Red Sonja, Raw Deal, or Twins.

I'll be honest, I wasn't really a fan of Dolph when I was a kid either. But over the last couple of years, thanks to some folks who actually know him personally, I gave him another shot—and man, the guy is a total powerhouse as an action hero. Personally, I think movies like Rocky IV, Red Scorpion (which is a killer 80s flick, basically his version of Rambo III), The Punisher, Dark Angel, Showdown in Little Tokyo, Joshua Tree, and Universal Soldier are all absolute bangers from that 80s/90s era. Same goes for those first five or six Steven Seagal movies, too.👍

Regarding Arnold Schwarzenegger, he was at his absolute best in movies where he had the least amount of dialogue. 🤣 I was actually quite pleasantly surprised during a recent rewatch of "Predator," realizing it might actually be his finest acting performance. 🙂 Both him and Dolph fall into that category of actors who may not be classically talented, but they command the screen instantly just by being in the frame.

Anyway, to avoid drifting off-topic too much, I’ll just say this—it’s great news that Cage's upcoming "Season of the Witch" filmed part of its production here in America, just as Rob Cohen's "Medieval" is set to shoot here as well. And then there's Bollo's "Bloodrayne 3" 🤣 Let's hope the production doesn't stop with just these few projects. As David Price5 puts it: we just need more foreign capital to flow in. 👍