Just thought you should know, their next film has had its title changed from "The Biggest Movie of All Time 3D" to "The Starving Games". Might want to update the page to reflect that.
I'm mortified that Seltzer and Friedberg will soon be releasing "The Biggest Movie of All Time 3D", and they've even confirmed a release date IN SWEDEN.
As I was reading the page for Seltzer and Friedberg on That Other Wiki, I found out their next movie after the one they're soon gonna release will be a "spoof" of The Hunger Games titled "The Starving Games". No release date is confirmed at this time, but I noticed that shooting is expected to begin in October. Can someone add this to the page? I'm mortified that they announced this. It just goes to show Seltzer and Friedberg will stoop to the lowest common denominator and will do ANYTHING.
Born in Newfoundland and Labrador and moved to Ottawa subsequently.
Can we strike the line "This duo tends to attract writing just as negative as their own, so the page is locked." from the page description? I don't think it's necessary to draw attention to it, and I don't understand what purpose it serves.
Hide / Show Replies
I agree it rather insulting as it implies that thier movies shouldn't be seen as bad or something.
Considering how much bitching people made over the fact that they could no longer bitch about Seltzer And Friedberg, that line has more than earned it's place here.
Due to a recent move, the links to ptitle0t9r68ih should be changed to the non-ptitled Don't Explain the Joke.
Dreamworks
Great. Another Seltzerberg movie.
Should we add it onto the page?
Better make that Film/EpicMovie.
But yes, if anyone has watched enough of any of these films to give a meaningful description specific to that film, than please create the page.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage — Paul McCartney
Under Rapid Fire Comedy, there is a reference to "Abrams, Zucker and Abrams". This should actually be "Zucker, Abrahams, and Zucker".
This page is crazy negative. No one watches these guys' movies for anything other than Bile Fascination or to make fun of them. Why is this page still untouched after the Sonichu page keeps getting wiped for negativity? In the words of South Park, all of it's ok, or none of it is. Have a little consistency.
Hide / Show Replies
I'm inclined to agree with this, this little consistency stuff is bull crap.
To expand; in my opinion, if you are going to butcher pages based on "negativity," that's fine. I don't have much of a problem with that. Just axe everything negative or move it all to Darth Wiki or whatever, just be consistent about it. There's something wrong if you are just axing pages you don't like because you don't like them.
If you're concerned about this, you can bring this up on the forums where the admin is likely to actually read it. Or PM him.
My god, I can summon admins. I must take care to use my new power for good and not evil.
I really wish you guys would stop wiping pages due to this "negativity" crap. You already locked the Sonichu page, when will you be satisfied?
Really, it just reeks of ""Stop Having Fun" Guys"
Edited by LostHero
I totally agree, Lost Hero. Now, the Sonichu thing pissed me off, but I eventually came to terms with that because about 50% of the content is still there, and Chris doesn't really deserve all the hate he gets.
Seltzer and Friedberg, though? Why?
We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. ~Voltaire
Speaking as the person responsible for a lot of that 'negative' header... Um, what? Not wanting to be a smartass about it, but I'm having serious trouble with the definition of 'negativity' as applied to this whole reclamation project. (Also, frankly, I'm massively ticked that a lot of hard work just got wiped entirely without my input.)
These guys make very, very bad movies, show tremendous contempt for their audience and their craft, and their page is supposed to be sweet and understanding? What's next, 'Plan 9 From Outer Space: Ed Wood's misunderstood masterpiece?'
An entire Internet subculture is based around mocking bad movies. This very Wiki has 'So Bad It's Horrible' pages, and countless others taking issue with the quality of their subjects/examples. Do we now *have* to be a fawning fan in order to edit TV Tropes? And if you're not, you're writing's 'juvenile'? (Yeah, I know it didn't make it into the finished article, but still...) Wow. Include me out, kids.
Edited by Shoebox
I don't see anything on that page that even tries to treat these films as good.
What we cut was a number of tropes that were being misapplied, a lot of excess natter and Conversation In The Main Page, and several tropes that were trying to be redundant when one trope would have done the job.
Anyway, the official reason this page got the treatment was because it kept coming up as an example from the anti-Sonichu wipe camp as a page that was "just as bad as Sonichu" that wasn't getting a lock and wipe. So hey, next time you folks don't want your favorite pages locked, DON'T BRING THEM UP AS EXCUSES OF BAD PAGES.
And as always, take it to the forums.
Anybody who defends this page most likely hates these two, meaning that, in a very vague and indirect way, you're defending them. I smell delicious irony.
And I agree with Rebo, there are several pages that I like that violate Neutrality, but I don't mention them, nor will I here. You know why? Because bringing that up is like putting up a big, blinking sign on the page that screams, 'WIPE ME!' The best way to resist is to keep your damn traps shut.
10-minute montage of Babymetal
I remember a quote by Jason Steele, creator of Charlie the Unicorn and such. On an episode of Knox Kast Radio (Episode 38), he spoke his mind about Epic Movie—-specifically the Nacho Libre bit. "Y'know, usually when you make a spoof movie, you take movies that take themselves too seriously and you satirize the subject. You don't take comedies and make a less-funny version of that."
Hide / Show Replies
Would anyone mind if I gave Vampires Suck its own page?
Hide / Show Replies
I don't know, ask the admin if he plans to perma-lock THAT too.
Edited by Rebochan
While I'm sure Seltzer And Friedberg's main page has caused some fights, I doubt that one movie of theirs can cause enough warring to lock the page.
Plus, locking the page would kinda ruin the whole point of giving it its own articles so we can focus more on the tropes it has and not flood the main page.
I'd like to note again that the only fights this page caused all stemmed from it being locked for no good reason by the admin. Until that point...nothing had ever happened here. There hadn't even been so much as a peep from an actual fan of their films over the tone of the page, nor a mod, nor even the admin. It just got locked and the admin has resolutely refused to unlock it for reasons unclear.
That's why I'm concerned that since he doesn't technically need a reason to lock a page, he's just going to lock or delete any pages actually dedicated to collecting tropes on their individual films.
After making Vampires Suck, I found out there was already a Vampires Suck Movie. D'oh! Anyway, I moved Vampires Suck Movie to Vampires Suck.
I think we can now safely say "Vampires Suck" is more of the same, if not worse. Rotten Tomatoes gives it zero so far.
Hide / Show Replies
This troper saw it and was surprised to find that it contained a few actual jokes - not particularly funny ones, but they were present - but improvement over their earlier works doesn't earn them 1% quite yet. Maybe next time.
To be honest, we need to put SBIH on. If the 2% didn't warrant it, the 0% definitely does. There's been negative, and then there's telling the blunt truth.
Assuming anyone is brave enough to watch it and trope about it, we may need to work something out so tropes related to it can be added.
Otherwise, I suggest after it's been out a week or so that we update the intro to reflect that movie's success or failure.
Side note, I went to Rifftrax tonight and heard some teen girls saying they couldn't WAIT to see Vampires Suck. I fear they've found success again.
Well, it has an 18 on Metacritic and a 6% on Rotten Tomatoes. I think it's safe to call it So Bad Its Horrible. So yeah.
We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. ~Voltaire
I was brave enough to watch Vampires Suck. It wasn't really that bad. I was gonna add all the tropes they had in there, except someone seems to have locked the page onto which said tropes are supposed to go. Sucks, doesn't it? Can we fix this at some point...?
Fast Eddie, can we replace the section you just deleted with this?
"Though they took a brief break after Disaster Movie that was long enough to have many speculating they'd ended their series, Seltzer and Friedberg struck back in 2010 with their take on Twilight, entitled Vampires Suck. The movie turned out to be another minor success for the duo after opening at #1, possibly proving that apparently, people just hate Twilight a lot more than they hate these guys."
That text should be future-proof.
Their next movie, a Twilight spoof, will be creatively titled Vampires Suck.
I'm not kidding. Look it up on IM Db.
Hide / Show Replies
Oh god, it's going to be a whole movie of them explaining their jokes to us about Twilight...
Person: Oh my god, it's Edward from Twilight!
Edward: Sparkles! *gets hit by bus*
Person: Oh my god, it's Bella from Twilight!
Bella: I'm dumb! *gets hit by a cow*
Nah. That'll be one scene. Then they'll walk off to the side and see War Machine having a donut, then the Prince of Persia will show up and go on about having to save the princess from a genie.
My god I think they're going to ruin Twilight bashing/lambshading/poking fun FOREVER!
and now there's a trailer http://cinemablend.com/new/Vampires-Suck-Trailer-Parodies-Twilight-With-Cheap-Laughs-19444.html and the quality is just what you'd expect
The Cleanup page has an updated version of the intro with mention of Vampires Suck in it, so when the new page goes up, that movie will still be covered in the intro.
http://www.vampiressuckmovie.com/
Vampires Suck is definitely going to be different from the usual - they're reaching as far back as the first Twilight movie, and it's actually got a known Hatedom.
Well, I know there's a clip someplace of Twilight fans getting punked, attending a so-called New Moon screening that never happened, but have Seltzerberger ever gotten more than empty threats?
I just saw it... it was bad, but it was far superior to everything else they've done
Tell Me A Lie... And Say That You Won't Go...
Suggested new edition:
Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg are a pair of writer/directors that collaborate with each other on all of their projects. They create comedic movies that parody and reference pop culture in the Zucker, Abrams and Zucker style of rapid-fire gags without concern for the overarching plot or characterization. The main criticism leveled against the duo is that they rarely ever research the movies beyond their trailers, don't usually do anything interesting with the material, and tend to fill in the space between pop culture references with simple Refuge in Vulgarity.
Their first official project was the 1996 film Spy Hard and they contributed one of the many scripts that was folded into the first Scary Movie, but they did gain notoriety until 2006 with Date Movie. While panned by critics, the film made back triple its meager budget and secured them a contract to do a couple more films. While 2007's Epic Movie, January 2008's Meet the Spartans, and August 2008's Disaster Movie received worse critical reception and inspired a vocal Hatedom, it wasn't until the last that the public rejected them *. For a while, it was unknown whether or not this buried their careers, but a recently announced Twilight parody named Vampires Suck shows they merely went on hiatus.
This duo tends to evoke writing just as juvenile as their own, so the page is locked.
Hide / Show Replies
Would it be possible to do a Sonichu style cleanup to revive relevant tropes, i.e. things that actually appear in their movies, then get them added and relock the page?
I won't deny this page had it coming - it did. But like Sonichu, there are still actual tropes beyond Hatedom that could be added minus piles of natter and whining.
I still think its BS that you can't make tropes about the people themselves, at least concerning Chandler, isn't that what a ****ing creators page is for? Maybe I missed something there.
Edited by Ashki
There's a forum on this site. If you seriously want to express that opinion somewhere where the admin will actually respond, try making a topic there.
If voting is in order here, I think the proposed article is a good one.
Amateur cook Professional procrastinator
I set up a sandbox page for cleaning up the old examples list.
It's almost ready to go, so PLEASE feel free to look it over, add input, etc. In particular, there's a few tropes that had no example text.
You can go ahead and add this too:
- Product Placement: A cynical person may say that the references to other movies are product placements to the max (why else would they make sure to clearly name each referenced movie?), but there are plenty of normal references to soft drinks, clothing lines, and music to go around. Oddly enough, this was one element that got dialed back in Disaster Movie: whereas they had the rights to the original songs in previous movies, they had to use The Jimmy Hart Version for this film. The rushed schedule (seven months instead of twelve) might have played a role, but some have speculated that would-be advertisers were pulling out from the franchise.
It was mistakenly left out of the cleaned out examples.
Also, the caption of the image is cutting into the "Their work provides examples of" bar.
I suggest putting this as a page quote: