Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Creator / SeltzerAndFriedberg

Go To

Sep 27th 2016 at 5:52:46 PM •••

I suggest putting this as a page quote:

"From 2 of the 6 writers of Scary Movie..."
Many of the trailers & posters for their movies

Mar 19th 2013 at 3:37:52 PM •••

Dance Flick is a red link. Someone should fix it.

Sep 5th 2012 at 6:30:50 PM •••

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.

May 19th 2012 at 5:46:42 PM •••

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.

Jul 1st 2011 at 10:57:28 AM •••

Due to a recent move, the links to ptitle0t9r68ih should be changed to the non-ptitled Don't Explain the Joke.

Jul 1st 2011 at 10:57:07 AM •••

EDIT: Ignore this.

Edited by MangaManiac
May 10th 2011 at 8:54:58 PM •••

Under Rapid Fire Comedy, there is a reference to "Abrams, Zucker and Abrams". This should actually be "Zucker, Abrahams, and Zucker".

Apr 15th 2011 at 10:35:20 PM •••

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
Jun 3rd 2011 at 5:37:04 AM •••

I agree it rather insulting as it implies that thier movies shouldn't be seen as bad or something.

Oct 4th 2011 at 9:11:49 AM •••

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.

May 16th 2011 at 10:09:12 PM •••

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.

Dec 24th 2010 at 9:35:22 AM •••

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
Nov 23rd 2010 at 4:28:51 PM •••

I don't know, ask the admin if he plans to perma-lock THAT too.

Edited by Rebochan
Nov 24th 2010 at 8:36:59 AM •••

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.

Nov 24th 2010 at 9:04:55 PM •••

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.

Sep 9th 2010 at 3:52:53 PM •••

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.

Aug 18th 2010 at 4:29:51 PM •••

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
Aug 18th 2010 at 10:44:34 PM •••

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.

Aug 19th 2010 at 5:04:16 PM •••

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.

Aug 19th 2010 at 10:16:49 PM •••

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.

Sep 11th 2010 at 3:46:31 PM •••

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.

Oct 20th 2010 at 3:49:26 PM •••

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...?

Oct 21st 2010 at 12:00:49 AM •••

Try bringing it up on the forums or messaging Fast Eddie.

Jul 3rd 2010 at 3:48:47 PM •••

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
Jul 3rd 2010 at 5:36:53 PM •••

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.

Jul 3rd 2010 at 5:51:44 PM •••

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
Jul 3rd 2010 at 6:14:35 PM •••

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.

Jul 5th 2010 at 11:57:47 PM •••

If voting is in order here, I think the proposed article is a good one.

Jul 6th 2010 at 12:44:09 PM •••

I set up a sandbox page for cleaning up the old examples list.

Cleanup Seltzer And Friedberg

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.

FastEddie MOD
Jul 9th 2010 at 9:23:28 AM •••

Moved the cleaned up material in.

Jul 9th 2010 at 12:12:43 PM •••

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.

Jul 1st 2010 at 10:47:46 PM •••

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
Jul 2nd 2010 at 10:56:29 AM •••

I'm inclined to agree with this, this little consistency stuff is bull crap.

Jul 2nd 2010 at 8:50:55 PM •••

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.

Jul 2nd 2010 at 11:13:01 PM •••

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.

Jul 3rd 2010 at 5:32:23 PM •••

My god, I can summon admins. I must take care to use my new power for good and not evil.

Jul 8th 2010 at 8:03:54 PM •••

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
Jul 9th 2010 at 9:15:00 AM •••

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?

Jul 9th 2010 at 3:24:21 PM •••

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
Jul 9th 2010 at 5:14:58 PM •••

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.

Aug 20th 2010 at 7:59:11 PM •••

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.

Mar 26th 2011 at 12:17:28 PM •••

Um, no.

Just wipe the goddamn page and stop bitching.

Jun 14th 2010 at 9:45:23 AM •••

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
Jun 14th 2010 at 12:57:53 PM •••

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*

Jun 16th 2010 at 7:18:31 AM •••

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.

Jun 17th 2010 at 9:46:59 PM •••

And then they'll both get squashed by cows.

Jul 5th 2010 at 4:16:59 PM •••

My god I think they're going to ruin Twilight bashing/lambshading/poking fun FOREVER!

Jul 5th 2010 at 5:19:36 PM •••


Is that where we hang light fixtures on livestock?

Jul 7th 2010 at 4:20:28 PM •••

Should Vampires Suck be added to the main page?

Jul 7th 2010 at 4:40:00 PM •••

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.

Jul 9th 2010 at 9:40:49 PM •••

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.

Jul 10th 2010 at 12:22:18 AM •••

The real question - which hatedom is more powerful?

Jul 11th 2010 at 4:31:32 AM •••

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?

Sep 5th 2010 at 6:58:51 PM •••

I just saw it... it was bad, but it was far superior to everything else they've done

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: