Talk:BloodRayne (film)

Horrible Story Synopsis

There is some plot to this film and the synopsis should go into more detail.

j_lechem@msn.com (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Titular

Should titular be linked to BloodRayne? I know that we want to interwiki video game, but I honestly don't think it's NPOV to link titular to BloodRayne, and this should probably be dealt with (maybe moved to another section/part of the intro?) -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 08:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Accidental film reels shipped?

from http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/40244:

A projectionist from UltraStar Cinemas has revealed to Shacknews a rather huge error made with the distribution of Uwe Boll's latest cinematic endeavor, the BloodRayne adaptation featuring such well-regarded thespians as Ben Kingsley and Michael Madsen. The UltraStar employee explained that when he got into work last week, he noticed that the theater had received a copy of BloodRayne. This seemed odd because his particular theater generally shows films aimed more at the arthouse set. "I didn't want to build this and put it in my theater," he said, so he checked up with UltraStar higher-ups. It turns out that a computer error resulted in the print being sent to 5,500 more theaters nationwide than was intended. "The computer that placed the order, instead of selecting just the correct theatres, it also selected 5,500 additional theaters, so they made that many extra copies." Whoops.

I asked how much each print costs, and he said that in total, it costs about $5,000 to have each set of reels delivered to a theater, meaning that as a very rough estimate the total costs incurred may be upwards of $27 million. "And that's 27 million that didn't go into production, didn't go into marketing, it's just expenditure that's sitting there," he said. "I mean, I know Ben Kingsley was in Ghandi, but nobody gets to just throw away that much money for nothing."

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that, according to Variety, the film is only showing on 985 screens, just over half of the original target of 1,900--and that's separate from the thousands of accidental extra copies. Now, the film is already millions in the hole and it earned only $1.2 million during its opening weekend, failing to place it in the top ten. Uwe Boll has had a lot of second chances, but might this spell the beginning of the end for the self-described misunderstood director?'

Is this worthwhile to add now? Or should it wait until the film's theatrical run ends and it's verified by more mainstream news sources.

Redundant trivia?

• Only vampires were featured in the film, no other creatures from the game.

• The only other supernatural creature in BloodRayne were the Daemites and one bigass demon. Isn't it kinda obvious that one very local foe and one guy who lives some 5 minutes won't show up in the movie? (though a horror movie with the daemites would be kinda cool)

Well, there were also mutates (maybe not supernatural, but it was never revealed if this was a biological mutation or something else), Maraisreqs and feral vampires (quite different from the humanoid ones). 94.101.16.26 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Prositutes

Someone removed a comment about the movie being criticised for using prostitutes to keep costs down, changing it to 'unknown actors'. I don't see that change made any sense, so I've removed it. There's no question that Boll did hire prostitutes for the movie as he's admitted doing so (thirty seconds on Google found http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmtv/features/bloodrayne/default.asp, for example). Is there any good reason for that comment to be changed? Mark Grant 20:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Incredibly redundant trivia

Fans, similarly, were critical of both hiring of the prositutes in addition to deviating from the game's plot to the point where they considered it non-canon.

Actually, to my knowledge Advent Children is to date the only video-game based movie that is even considered canon and I'm not even sure about that. Really, all these comments about canon are really redundant since everyone should at this point get that VG-films are rarely if ever canon. Also, I'd like to see the trail of thought of whoever thought this sentence looked good. Overlooking the typo (prositutes) someone who thought that this trivia was actually important should have made two bullet-points. -TheHande 12:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sequel

I deleted the speculation about a sequel from the introduction. Seeing as it's all ready in production it seemed a bit redundant. - Yupcont 20:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bloodrayne.jpg

Image:Bloodrayne.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

BloodRayne Box

I Will Be soon Adding the BloodRayne Box on the Bottem of the Article which will list the Video Games the Film is based on and I will add a section to the Box For the Film. Box Is Below --Mithos90 17:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cinema to DVD to Sci-Fi

I know this may as a shock to some, but the film did not go straight from theaters, then DVD, then to cable/satellite TV. The film was shown, for what I know, a couple of times on a Showtime channel, The Movie Channel. I know this because I recorded it off of their to watch at a later date. I think it needs to be changed, but there is no proof of it ever being on The Movie Channel, that I know of anyways. --FilmMaster 13 15 June 2008 UTC

I don't see the notability of film being shown on particular TV channels, so I removed the statement. It doesn't help that there is no reference to back whatever point you are trying to make. If you are trying to make a point about it going to TV before DVD and you think that really is especially unsual and note worthy I do think you'd still need a reference of some sort before you could justify including it. -- Horkana (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bloodrayne did go to The Movie Channel, but was only shown a few times before going to Syfy within a few months.

"Bloodrayne was one of very few films that went from cinemas to DVD and then onto the Sci-Fi Channel within one year. Most films have the option of being shown on a premium channel such as HBO or Showtime before moving on to network or cable televsion."

From an older version of the article it is actually clear what the writer was trying to say, it must have gotten messed up later. Before it could be reincluded in the article it would still need citations to prove this happened and someone writing about it, which would serve as some evidence it was notable. -- Horkana (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

All

• BloodRayne at AllRovi ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)