The debate: Uwe Boll vs. Seltzer/Friedberg

OK, the general consensus online is that both Uwe Boll and Seltzer/Friedberg are currently the worst directors in the movie industry. But I've been wondering who's the worse of the two?

For me, I would have to go with Seltzer/Friedberg, because Boll has retreated back to making DTV movies.

I think of it as more like Alien Versus Predator. No matter who wins, we lose.

Cinema Snob and Spoony (I think) have both said that Uwe Boll is getting better with his movies.

Also, Uwe Boll's films are typically considered so bad they're good, whereas the other guys are usually considered just bad.

edited 7th Feb '11 5:05:20 PM by NULLcHiLD27

I'll say Seltzerberger, by far. As bad as Boll's work is, at least he makes movies. Horrible, horrible movies, but movies nonetheless. Seltzerberger do not make movies, they make prolonged pop-culture references interspersed with bodily function jokes.

Apparently they made a movie worse than Twilight, so I'd definitely say they're worse.

Would rather watch all of Uwe Boll's movies in a row than a single Seltzeberg movie. Boll is at least Giftedly Bad, whereas the two afforementioned never aspired to be anything else than "those two guys who apparently didn't contribute anything of value to Scary Movie"... and yet somehow they fail that too. Also, another point in Boll's favor. Sure, his movies are horrible, but at least they have some semblance of an arc and something that if you're drunk enough can be called dramaturgy, whereas Seltzeberg movies pretty much are just stitched together from unfunny skits with little to no connection between them. Also, unintentional comedy > bad comedy.

edited 7th Feb '11 5:18:18 PM by slowzombie

Seltzer and Friedberg.

So much so, that if I had three wishes, having them beaten is one of them.

Shakespeare

I've been wondering if Boll has somewhat mellowed out ever since that infamous You Tube video (you know, "the only F'ing genius in the entire F'ing business"). I think that Boll has a passion for making movies, just not the talent and/or the skills. Seltzer/Friedberg, OTOH, is all about profit, and when I started a debate on the Wrestlecrap forums, one poster commented that Seltzer/Friedberg are marketing geniuses (i.e., releasing their movies during the "dead" movie seasons).

So, you're saying Shakespeare is worse than Uwe Boll and Seltzer/Friedberg?

edited 7th Feb '11 5:40:32 PM by NULLcHiLD27

Yes.

Idea.

Uwe Boll and Seltzer/Friedberg. Team up.

<eyetwitch>

They are both bad, but for different reasons. Boll's movie alone are not actually that bad, just your typical b-movie badness. What makes him a horrible filmmaker is that he consistently bad and that all of his films are adaptation, that, while not great, should all be enough for at least decent movies. S&F are bad, because their writing is bad, especially the jokes. Their movies have at least a good production value, though.

So you can't really compare them to come to a conclusion which one is worse, because they suck in different areas.

Seed and Rampage, to my knowledge, are not adaptations. And some people consider Rampage to be okay.

Didn't that used to be the image on Fate Worse than Death?

^^

Which helps my point that Boll's reputation primarily comes from the bad videogame movies he made.

Far Cry was pretty decent. Like I said, he's been getting better.

From what I've heard, F/S have been getting worse.

Yes, his reputation is worse than his movies. Not that that says much.

Seltzberg is worse. Parodies require so much less skill even than bad non-parodic works.

I think of it as more like Alien Versus Predator. No matter who wins, we lose.

No, if the Predators win, they go home wait a decade or so, come back and hunt after the most deadly people in whatever region they land in. So if the Predators win, we'll be fine, for the most part.

Let's see...

Uwe Boll: entertainingly bad in places (and I liked Postal). Also lets his actors have fun with the bad material (Ben Kingsley and Til Schweiger have said nice things about working with him).

Friedberg/ Seltzer: I liked Spy Hard but they only co-wrote it (also that had Leslie Nielsen and Andy Griffith in Large Ham Adam Westing mode so it's all good). As directors, they are among the laziest in the industry.

Friedberg/ Seltzer is worse.

edited 7th Feb '11 7:12:41 PM by Buscemi

"Which helps my point that Boll's reputation primarily comes from the bad videogame movies he made."

Methinks that Boll gets a bad rap because of his obliviousness, how he thinks that they're masterpieces. OTOH, he's trying.

As for financing the films, Boll has that German tax loophole (that seems to be closed currently), while Seltzer/Friedberg has Hollywood money, plus product placement, and releasing them during the "dead" movie seasons.

Friedberg/ Seltzer.
At least some of Uwe's movies are So Bad, It's Good while the latter is So Bad Its Horrible

Seltzeberg. How the mighty have fallen...

Also, Boll himself practically defines the Crazy Awesome trope, so he gets props from me.

Hey guys, it's time for slowzombie to play the Devil's Advocate. Yay

One thing must be said for Seltzeberg, that they, on some level, make movies that a rather large amount of the population finds amusing. I can't exactly say I see it myself, but considering Epic Movie earned back almost four times it's budget, and most of their other movies made back similar returns. Even the aptly-named Disaster Movie overshot breaking even with such a margin that House Of The Dead, Boll's most financially successful movie, couldn't even dream of competing.

Of course, this is not to say that financial success is that much of an argument for the quality, however, it can be an indicator of fanbase. What all these numbers tell me is that there are people, quite a lot of people in fact, who go out to watch these movies, and when the numbers are so high it's starting to look unlikely that "ironic" enjoyment of the movies is the primary motivation. So yes, while Boll seems to be the master of So Bad, It's Good, Seltzer and Friedberg genuinely seem to entertain people, and one could argue that's the entire point of producing... well, entertainment in the first place.

 ^{And now}