The debate: Uwe Boll vs. Seltzer/Friedberg

Sorry, I was a bit to explicit. Anyhow, I would rather sit through all the Seltzer/Friedberg movies than anything by Uwe Boll. At least the Seltzer movies can make me laugh with their juvenile humor.

I'd rather watch Boll, because he's worse. There's a reason very few of the movies people would consider to be part of the So Bad, It's Good canon - The Room, Birdemic, Plan 9 From Outer Space, Battlefield Earth - are comedies^note Except unintentionally; what was designed to be funny and failed once won't redeem itself by being watched "ironically"...but something that was designed to be serious and failed can. I'd rather watch Boll, because I'm the kind of person who watches fail compilations on YouTube, and Boll is the cinematic equivalent of watching some tosspot on a skateboard try to do a jump and landing face-first in a skip.

edited 26th May '14 4:25:31 PM by Achaemenid

I actually kind of liked Vampires Suck. Not gonna call it improvement though, since they went right back down to crap status with The Starving Games.

I do have a pet peeve about bad adaptations though, so Uwe Boll annoys me that way. Battle of the turds though, so Boll kinda wins by having slightly less awful movies. At least they're movies, and not a mindless montage of stupidity.

"Vampires Suck" committed a trifecta of movie sins by first being a Seltzer and Friedberg movie, second being Twilight, and third by actually having one of their trailers be fake reviews with their "authors" just being "funny" names like "Ivanna Tinkle" and "Oliver Kloseoff."

But it was still a better love story than Twilight.

Boll has yet to adapt something,even something terrible and come out better.

The thing about that is this: When you can get more actual entertainment and humor value out of the movies from the original series than from the movie that's parodying them...that's a legitimate problem.

How about we not necrobump dead topics?