Critical and commercial flops of megaton magnitude, the notorious Uwe Boll’s “films” (which include Alone in the Dark, BloodRayne, and most recently, In the Name of the King) are shameless, infamous crap adaptations of marginally popular video games that feature below-budget computer graphics and hilariously thrown-together casts (Jason Statham! Leelee Sobieski! And Burt Reynolds! Together again!).

Whether they’re fun ironically or not — and I know ironic fans of Boll have to be out there — Boll is widely derided by many, and yet, keeps making films that get wide release year after year. So, how the hell is this possible? Thanks to The Escapist, here is one person’s complicated but fascinating theory.

Ever wanted to learn weird minor details about German tax codes and shelters? Now’s your chance!

Germany has, or had until 2006, the most generous shelters for filmmakers. Many other Western countries have similar filmmaking tax incentive programs, extolled by funding consultants such as Peacefulfish.

Blogger Stuart Wood, among many others, speculates Boll’s films are intended to lose money. Were this theory true, it could help explain egregious expenses such as the accidental (?) shipment of 5,500 excess prints of BloodRayne. From a studio’s perspective, might “Hollywood accounting” make it desirable to push a given film from break-even to tax write-off? Not so, Epstein tells The Escapist. “No, it is never advantageous to lose money, though a tax shelter may time-shift tax losses to a later year.” Given Boll’s career to date, and his likely performance ahead, that is weak consolation.

Spread the word!