Jump to content


Episode 58 — In The Name of The King


92 replies to this topic

#1 Earwolf Admin

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 1,202 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:04 PM

Seth Morris aka Bob Ducca joins us as we try to figure out what the hell happened in Uwe Boll’s In The Name of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale. We talk about how Jason Statham’s character could care less about the death of his son, Matthew Lillard’s use of his ren fair experience, and plastic Burt Reynolds. Jason & June recreate one of the romantic scenes, Seth explains how Ray Liotta has cocaine eyes, and Paul had a tough time finding 5 star Amazon reviews. Jump out of that tree and take a listen!

#2 Ryan Sz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:09 PM

God Uwe Boll could have a whole series of episodes dedicated to his work.

#3 Patrick LeJeune

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:39 PM

The thing that is totally fucked up about Uwe Boll challenging his critics to a fight is he is a trained boxer, so the critics who have taken him up on his offer get the shit beat out of them.

#4 Sweatysoul

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:53 PM

This was the first Uwe Boll movie I've ever seen. It will also be the last. Just brutal.

#5 Sweatysoul

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 12:08 AM

Also, there needs to be a soundboard of June trying to say LeeLee Sobieski's name.

#6 JustinL

    Correction/Omission Ninja

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 164 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 01:17 AM

My big thing in this one was a very brief moment in the battlefield where about a dozen or so ninjas jump into the scene, stand in a straight line, then proceed to basically do a choreographed dance where they all simultaneously perform the same exact moves, and those moves somehow perfectly correspond to each of their individual fights.

#7 2COOL4U69

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 19 March 2013 - 01:30 AM

Boomerangs don't return if you hit something with them!

Is Uwe Boll 9 years old?

#8 Jim Yames

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 02:57 AM

Quick Question: Do other people enjoy HDTGM episodes more if they have NOT seen the movie they're talking about?

I gave this movie a shot because it was free on YouTube, but listening to the podcast, I just got frustrated that they didn't bring up stuff that *I* thought was shitty. I didn't really enjoy this episode, mostly because I think they missed exactly what made this movie SO terrible (lack of drama/stakes) and got sidetracked with peripheral material way too often. And I've felt similarly disappointed when listening to episodes featuring movies I've seen.

But when I haven't seen the movie they're discussing, it's fun to try to picture what they're talking about in my head, and because we hear how ludicrous it is, it gets even wilder in my imagination. So I definitely enjoy episodes more when I go in blind.

Do you all prefer episodes featuring movies you've seen or movies you haven't seen?

#9 Jacob C

    Stolen by a Mean Crab

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 643 posts
  • LocationColumbus, OH

Posted 19 March 2013 - 03:24 AM

This episode deserved a podcastee.

#10 Herself

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:35 AM

This wasn't a fun bad movie. Even felt like a waste of a good guest to have to talk about it.

And seriously, can someone tell June that it's okay NOT to say a last name if she can't pronounce the name? Just call her Leelee!

#11 Bruce Reid Robinson II

    Over-educated and under-employed

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • LocationChecking out the beavs in Corvallis

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:52 AM

This movie made me violently angry/sad.

Great episode though guys, I'll count this as some sort of reward for being really, really bummed out by this shitty movie.

Does anyone know why this movie had to be 2 hours long?

#12 RIP Spirit Bear

    \\\ ^[o.o]^ ///

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 561 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 05:06 AM

The dungeon romance scene reeanactment was rad. Also this was shot in Canada like 3 hours from Seattle and they used "locals and First Nations peoples" as extras, because Europeans haven't done enough terrible things to Native Americans.

#13 jeffdacock

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 05:19 AM

the music in this movie was really annoying. It is like they thought: "You know what is so great about those Lord of the rings movies? The score! So let's have music in every fucking scene!"

#14 pepperjack

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 19 March 2013 - 05:44 AM

Somewhere Uwe Boll is busy stealing Jason's idea for a Glory-style movie based on the two black characters.

Are they African-Americans or African-mordarans/narnians/gameofthronesplaceans?

#15 RIP Spirit Bear

    \\\ ^[o.o]^ ///

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 561 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 05:50 AM

I wonder if the two black actors drew straws to see which one of them would fill the "black guy dies" trope.

#16 RotRedRod

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:15 AM

THANK YOU for pointing out how little the movie has to do with the game. I was annoyed by how many reviews seemed to blame the quality of this movie on the fact that it's (supposedly) based on a video game, when it was all due to Boll's insanity.

I've played through the first and second game (the third came out after the movie). I'm not defending their honor or anything, because the games honestly aren't that great, but I can tell you that virtually nothing from the games is used in the movie. In fact, the games are generally pretty plot-less and devoid of any characters - it's mostly about killing monsters and getting better loot. What plot there is has no relation to the movie at all and is mostly about gathering powerful magic items to save the world - no king, no succession, no romance, etc.

Here are the entirely of the shared elements between the 2 games and the movie:

- The kingdom is called Ehb
- You fight the orc-like Krug
- Your character in the first game begins as a farmer
- There are wood nymphs in the 2nd game
- There's an evil wizard in the 2nd game

That's IT. I'm pretty sure Uve Boll played the first 5 minutes of each game and then wrote the rest of the plot using generic fantasy tropes.

#17 Pensky

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:16 AM

This movie was garbage. Matthew Lillard was perhaps the most amazing combination of bad casting and bad acting to ever grace the silver screen.

It was a tough movie for the show to talk about, though. It's terrible, but not very enjoyable or unique in any way. It's just really badly made. If more roles had been filled with Matthew Lillard, this would have really been something.

#18 pokey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:47 AM

View PostJim Yames, on 19 March 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

Quick Question: Do other people enjoy HDTGM episodes more if they have NOT seen the movie they're talking about?

I gave this movie a shot because it was free on YouTube, but listening to the podcast, I just got frustrated that they didn't bring up stuff that *I* thought was shitty. I didn't really enjoy this episode, mostly because I think they missed exactly what made this movie SO terrible (lack of drama/stakes) and got sidetracked with peripheral material way too often. And I've felt similarly disappointed when listening to episodes featuring movies I've seen.

But when I haven't seen the movie they're discussing, it's fun to try to picture what they're talking about in my head, and because we hear how ludicrous it is, it gets even wilder in my imagination. So I definitely enjoy episodes more when I go in blind.

Do you all prefer episodes featuring movies you've seen or movies you haven't seen?


Yeah, the few times I've watched the movie in advance, I've regretted it, because I'll come to the podcast thinking about all these things that bugged me instead of just enjoying the episode. What's great about the show is the chemistry and the energy between the hosts (and their guest). Watching the movie almost distracts me from that.

#19 seanotron

    The Gifmaster General

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,741 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:51 AM

Woah woah woah, Jason is genuinely smiling in the group photo.

Posted Image

#20 BeingEarnestBorgnine

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:01 AM

If anyone's wondering why anyone would pony up $60 million for this movie, I'll direct you to an article about the bizarre German tax loophole that funded Uwe Boll's insanity for years. It came out a few years back that because of a weird way that Germany's tax laws are structured, rich Germans can use the funding of movies to get big tax write-offs. When you realize that it's all a scam to help rich Germans dodge taxes, it makes a hell of a lot more sense that Uwe Boll kept getting a lot of money to make movies that kept flopping.

http://www.cinemable...othing-209.html
The Importance of Being Earnest Borgnine.