Print Page | Close Window

Given That It's Seltzerberg It's SURE to SUCK!!

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: 31st Annual RAZZIE® Award Nominees & "WINNERS"
Forum Name: VAMPIRES SUCK
Forum Discription: Nominated for 4 RAZZIES® including WORST PICTURE
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4531
Printed Date: August 22 2014 at 10:47pm


Topic: Given That It's Seltzerberg It's SURE to SUCK!!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Given That It's Seltzerberg It's SURE to SUCK!!
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 1:52pm
WE'RE CLEARLY NO FANS of the TWILIGHT SAGA/FRANCHISE ( http://www.razzies.com/forum/twilight-saga-eclipse_forum445.html - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0783536/awards -

TO DATE, THEIR SO-CALLED "MOVIES" HAVE RACKED UP a GRAND TOTAL of 15  RAZZIE® NOMINATIONS, BUT ONLY http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0466342/awards - ® http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0466342/awards - - AND EVEN IN AS OVER-CROWDED a FIELD of CINEMATIC STINKERS as http://www.razzies.com/forum/the-list-jan-1-aug-13_topic4037.html - TWILIGHT MOVIES, the RECENT ALICE IN WONDERLAND REMAKE, AVATAR and MORE, THIS ONE'S http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2_UL69ehxo - ONE LAUGH AMONG THEM. AND, TRUE to "SELTZERBERG's" TRACK RECORD, ALL of the JOKES ARE JUVENILE ENOUGH THAT a CLASSROOM of COMEDY-CHALLENGED PRE-SCHOOLERS COULD'VE COME UP with BETTER MATERIAL. 

BUT DON'T LET US HAVE ALL the FUN KICKING THIS SUCKY VAMPIRE SATIRE in the TEETH, GO AHEAD and SINK YOUR OWN FANGS INTO IT BELOW -- WHATEVER YOU POST IS BOUND to BE FUNNIER THAN ANYTHING in the MOVIE ITSELF!



"That's right...we're BAD.  But not in a good way..." 




-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Movierican21
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 3:36pm
I Think the saddest thing is that when I saw the trailer on YouTube, about 90% of the people that commented on the video seemed like they were excited about it. I once payed for a ticket to see Meet the Spartans in the theatre, and I'm still trying to find a way to redeem myself two years later. Unfortunately "Seltzer-Berg" will be laughing all the way to the bank. Maybe they should make a movie about them doing that..but they won't, because they refuse to make anything remotely funny. 

-------------
These movies are as dumb as a job fair in a retirement home.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 4:06pm
I saw the trailer. I admit I laugh my *ss off to the Black Eyed Peas joke, but that's it. Anyway,I know each of their movies is worse than the previous one, but this one has Ken Jeong in it. I'm not someone who thinks a movie is good based only on the performances, but that has to add a few points.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 6:05pm
If you want to redeem yourself, throw "Seltzer-Berg" into the pit from Meet The Spartans -- and make the pit is full of spikes to impale them. Then again, I think the House of Wax/Paris Hilton method may be better.  And make those two guys wear women's panties when you do it!  

Anyway, is it just me or are those two directors hiding the fact that they made this from the previews?  You don't hear "from 2 of the 6 writers of Scary Movie" or "from the creators of Epic Movie" anymore.  They don't want people to know because it would immediately scare away any potential morons--I mean customers--from watching this. 

BTW, have you ever seen the http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeltzerAndFriedberg - Seltzerberg trope ? It mentions how they get their material directly from movie trailers, how they always explain the joke, and other characteristics of their movies.  

Also, it seemed that there was very little information was made about Vampires Suck until recently.  I wonder..did Seltzer and Friedberg make this movie in less than six months?  


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 8:06pm
The only reason people are excited about it is because it's a mainstream movie that mocks "Twilight," that's it. But like HeadRazz wrote, the jokes are so simple and easy that a grade school child could have thought them up. 

I feel sorry for anyone who pays money to see this -- they would be better off wiping their asses with their $10, because that's almost exactly the same thing as giving money to support any "Seltzer-Berg" project.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 8:25pm
This film may end up taking the cake no matter how it matches up to Grown Ups, Killers and The Last Airbender.  The only real light in this film is that it has more vampire references than Disaster Movie has disaster film references, but that's not enough to escape our clutches.  The only real disadvantage this film has with the Razzies is its lack of big names in the cast.  When I looked at the cast of this film, I only recognized three names: Ken Jeong (The Hangover), Matt Lanter (Disaster Movie), and Anneliese van der Pol (That's So Raven).  Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer will probably nab four nominations for this movie (Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, and Worst Remake, Ripoff or Sequel).  A few cast members might make our Nominating Ballot, but I don't think they'll actually get nominated.  

-------------


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 8:56pm
Please oh please, God and Science, please! Let this movie win Worst Picture!!!

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags. 27; The November Man.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 9:05pm
Yes, if only! But it would seem that some Razzies voters believe that would be too easy. Then again, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. 

PS: For once, I actually agree with all the comments made above by Miguel. Scary, I know!  

Originally posted by GTAHater767

Please oh please, God and Science, please! Let this movie win Worst Picture!!!


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 9:56pm
Too easy? How the [beep] is that more important than "Seltzer-Berg" finally getting what they deserve?  
 
And if intention versus lack thereof is so important, which of the current Worst Picture/Bottom 10 front-runners were "accidental misfires"?


-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags. 27; The November Man.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 13 2010 at 5:41pm
Apparently, the debate is that voters wouldn't want to give the Razzie to a movie that was going to be bad from the word "go". It should instead go to a movie that could have been good, but something went wrong and it turned out bad instead. 

Frankly, if "Vampires Suck" really is the worst of the worst, I think it should be Razzed just because someone actually greenlit it!


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 13 2010 at 7:07pm
So to them, it's not about how bad, but instead about wasted potential? I think, it was a real dumb*** idea to even greenlight Vampires Suck.

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags. 27; The November Man.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 13 2010 at 7:27pm
In my opinion, it shouldn't matter what the original intentions of a movie were. If it's unwatcheable, creamy tar-like s***, it should be Razzed!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 2:52am

Way back, I made a list of things Seltzerberg would add into their movie.  Someone mentioned basically that Seltzerberg would not be smart enough to address something political like the Gulf Oil Spill.  I came up with a lame scene that would fit in with what Seltzerberg does.

I now expand on that scene.
 
********************************************
 
Lame Female Human (LFH): Oh, no!  It's the Oil Spill Monster!
 
[Humanoid black goo, a.k.a the Oil Spill Monster (OSM), emerges from water, walks ashore]
 
Token Vampire Babe Magnet (TVBM): I'll take care of this.
 
[TVBM approaches OSM.  TVBM hits OSM.  Oil splatters everyone and everything.  OSM slowly pulls back together]
 
LFH:  Oh, no!  You didn't kill it!  Here, let's try a junk shot!
 
[LFH and TVBM load junk food with painfully obvious brand names into circus cannon.  Fires cannon at OSM.  Junk food sticks to OSM with brand names facing out).
 
LFH:  Now, hit it!
 
[TVBM hits OSM.  Oil splatters everyone and everything again.  OSM slowly pulls back together.]
 
LFH:  Oh, no!  The junk shot didn't work!  Quick, let's try a top hat!
 
[LFH produces a top hat.  Places top hat on top of OSM.]
 
LFH:  Now, hit it!
 
[TVBM hits OSM.  Oil splatters everyone and everything again.  Top hat lands on top of TVBM's head.  OSM slowly pulls back together.]
 
LFH:  Oh, no!  The top hat didn't work.  Quick, let's try a top kill!
 
[LFH hands TVBM a firehose.  TVBM aims hose, spurts mud at the "head" of OSM.]
 
TVBM:  I suppose I hit it again.
 
LFH:  Yes!  Hurry!
 
[LFH takes over firehose.  TVBM approaches OSM, is splattered with mud.  TVBM hits OSM.  Oil and mud splatters everyone and everything.  OSM slowly pulls back together.  Wolfman Show-Off (WSO) enters, takes top hat, puts it on.]
 
WSO:  Don't you know the only way to kill an Oil Spill Monster is with a relief well?
 
[WSO quickly digs a well in front of slow-moving OSM.  OSM stops at the brink of the pit.  TVBM comes up behind OSM].
 
WSO:  Now, hit it, gently!
 
[TVBM hits OSM.  OSM falls into pit.]
 
TVBM:  Well, that's great, but why do you call this a "relief" well?
 
[WSO turns into a wolf.  Wolf raises leg and pees into pit.  OSM groans, melts into ground.]
 
I admit, that scene isn't all that funny or original, but I feel it's probably funnier than most of Vampires Suck. . . .
 


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 10:19am
Wow, that was painfully unfunny! Yeah, I'm surprised Seltzerberg didn't go along with that, because that would be as dumb and tasteless as anything else they have written.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 10:59pm
Hope I didn't hurt ya!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 15 2010 at 5:17pm
Originally posted by cvcjr13

Hope I didn't hurt ya!
I'm fine. Although had that actually been in the movie, it would have been even more painful than just reading it.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 8:09am
I may be in the minority with this opinion on the board, but the voting membership has evidently agreed with me on this point in the past: These sorts of movies just aren't very interesting choices. The people that make them know they are crap, and they are marketed to lowest common denominator audiences. It is much more interesting to watch a movie that is intended to be good, but just misfires in 100 different ways, some of them laughable.
 
Naturally, every good joke in this film is in the trailer, so if you watch it, you've seen everything worth seeing in the movie. The Black-eyed Peas joke was reasonably inspired, as was the chihuahua joke. Apart from that, the people who made it will succeed in their intent of making a stupid movie.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 11:46am
That why I keep going back "Freddy Got Fingered" -- No doubt it was Tom Green's intention to make a stupid movie, and he did indeed make one, and then took all the "dishonors" for that year. I find s*** like that movie (and anything with Seltzerberg's name on it) being greenlit a thousand times more insulting than something that was intended to be good, but failed. Is there no punishment for who those in Hollywood who aren't even trying?

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 1:00pm
Freddy Got Fingered... Wait a minute! Didn't HeadRAZZBerry claim to personally hate that movie worse than any other Worst Picture winner by far?

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags. 27; The November Man.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 2:17pm
Among my favorite comedies are BORAT, KUNG POW:ENTER THE FIST and DUDE,WHERE'S MY CAR? Those were supposed to be stupid too,but only BORAT had excellent reviews.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry" I, too, consider BORAT among the best comedies of the last few years, but would argue that what Vits calls its "stupidity" was overlaid on a message of tolerance (and a level of kind-hearted satire) that is all but unparalleled in recent movies...  




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 3:17pm
Yes,  HeadRAZZBerry did claim to personally hate Freddy Got Fingered worse than any other Worst Picture winner by far -- so why did it get top dishonors, yet Seltzerberg gets away without so much as a slap on the wrist?  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: As stupid and lazy as the "Seltzer-Berg" movies are, even they do not achieve the level of noxiousness achieved by FREDDY -- In which a newborn baby is swung around in an OR by its umbilical cord, a horse is manually masturbated by Tom Green, a crippled woman in a wheelchair is whacked mercilessly with a cane, and an elephant is made to ejaculate into Rip Torn's face. Rarely does such a combination of sick/unfunny humor collect like a clot of moldy hair in a shower drain as clogged the screen in FINGERED... 



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 4:11pm

And don't forget about the Jackass movies.  In a way, they were also made to be stupid.



Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 4:16pm
Yeah, but I don't think the first two Jackass movies got nods/wins, so why should this next one? They really shouldn't even count as movies, they are just 90 minute episodes of the TV series released in theaters.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 4:20pm
The first one got the award for "Most Flatulent Teen Targeted Movie" in 2003.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 4:50pm
I stand corrected!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 5:26pm

Jacka** 3D... I'd say it deserves a forum here, but I wouldn't suggest any nominations... yet. Maybe wait for the reviews before considering nominations... 

UPDATE: On topic... Just 10 short hours and Vampires Suck will be released. Yet it doesn't feel like every good thing is gone. At least the trailer had half a laugh (unlike the #5 Worst Film of 2008, Disaster Movie)...


-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags. 27; The November Man.


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: August 18 2010 at 11:22am
I imagine the Twilight haters are going to be torn when this turns out to be just as terrible as the movies it's satirizing....

-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 18 2010 at 10:29pm
I would disagree that Tom Green intentionally made Freddy Got Fingered to be stupid. I think it was just a reflection of the fact that his sense of humor is so retarded that there wasn't any other possible outcome.
 
On another note that isn't terribly relevant, I don't disagree with Head Razz real often, but someday, I wish somebody could explain to me what the appeal of Borat really was. I don't recall a single scene in the entire movie that caused me to laugh out loud. I thought it was dreadful. If a legitimate case could be made that it was one of the better comedies of the past few years, and that might actually be true, it is much more a  sad commentary on the state of the comedy genre than a compliment to the movie.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 18 2010 at 10:41pm
Well, one of the problems with all comedies is unfunny jokes.  Screenwriters are the ones who write unfunny jokes.  So, Sascha Baron Cohen got rid of the screenwriters.  So, you should have a great comedy. . . . Wink
 
As I hope you can tell, I didn't find Borat all that funny either.
 


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 19 2010 at 9:09am
Yeah, the Twilight haters are going to pay money to see their most hated movie be ripped to shreds, but they will leave disappointed when they realize the jokes in Sucks aren't anything they couldn't (or hadn't already) thought up themselves... 

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 19 2010 at 9:13am
Yeah, I would have to agree with you on the fact Tom Green's sense of humor is pretty retarded ... although that is a huge insult to actual retarded people.

And I think the allure of Borat wasn't what HE was doing, but the REACTIONS of the people he was interacting with that made the movie funny. I wouldn't say it was a comedic genius, but people seem to enjoy watching other, everyday people being dumbfounded by watching Cohen being ... colorful.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 19 2010 at 9:14am
Getting rid of writers kinda makes sense. But it's that logic that has lead us to the current state of reality TV we're all living with. Those shows are only funny due to the sheer stupidity of the people who appear on them, and the fact they will sink to any low to get their 15 minutes of fame. 


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 19 2010 at 12:33pm

I believe, however, that "retarded" is putting Tom Green's humor very mildly, Borat was slightly above average, and the writers...? How many good writers are there?



-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags. 27; The November Man.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 19 2010 at 12:51pm
The concensus is in, and it appears that, although it's bad, it's better than the other 4 Seltzer-Berg movies...though that's saying not much,isn't it? 

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

On another note that isn't terribly relevant, I don't disagree with Head Razz real often, but someday, I wish somebody could explain to me what the appeal of Borat really was. I don't recall a single scene in the entire movie that caused me to laugh out loud. I thought it was dreadful. If a legitimate case could be made that it was one of the better comedies of the past few years, and that might actually be true, it is much more a  sad commentary on the state of the comedy genre than a compliment to the movie.


There's a lot of political satire in the background, making Borat a smart comedy. It's actually among my favorite comedies, ironically, not because of the politics in it, but because I find it hilarious.

Don't worry.We all have different tastes in humour.

Originally posted by cvcjr13

So, Sascha Baron Cohen got rid of the screenwriters.  So, you should have a great comedy. . . . Wink
 
As I hope you can tell, I didn't find Borat all that funny either.


Sacha co-wrote the movie.

Every movie has at least one flaw, right? Whatever flaws BORAT has, they can't be related to the script, since there's wasn't much of a script.  




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 19 2010 at 1:44pm
I don't get the love for Borat either. I looked it up on RT and Metacritic and its scores are really, really high. I was surprised! I personally preferred Bruno, a film that I laughed out loud quite a few times.  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I don't disagree with Head Razz real often, but someday, I wish somebody could explain to me what the appeal of Borat really was. I don't recall a single scene in the entire movie that caused me to laugh out loud. I thought it was dreadful. If a legitimate case could be made that it was one of the better comedies of the past few years, and that might actually be true, it is much more a  sad commentary on the state of the comedy genre than a compliment to the movie.


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 19 2010 at 3:04pm

"Retarded" is putting it mildly regarding Tom Green's "humor."  

And on the question of how many good writers there are in Hollywood? I think you could count them on one hand -- so five at the most. And they don't write nearly enough for the entire industry!


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 20 2010 at 7:59am
You know, it would be funny if this year's Razzies were split between Seltzerberg Sucks and Twilight: Eek Lips. . . .


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 20 2010 at 11:09am
Yes, it would be ironic! But if "Last FartBender" has any say in the matter, it'll be a sweep!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Gregory
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 3:10pm

As expected, Vampires Suck got despicable reviews. And a few critics even seized the opportunity to trash Twilight!:

 

Has too much in common with its target. It is a forgettable ploy designed to shamelessly rip money out of teenage wallets before its audience matures and develops a real taste for quality films in the same genre. Boxoffice Magazine

 

I guess it’s a sure thing that Vampires Suck will get Worst Picture, Director, and Screenplay nominations. Ken Jeong could end up getting a Worst Supporting Actor nod for Vampires and Furry Vengeance. The two leads, Matt Lanter and Jenn Proske, are probably longshots, though, wouldn’t it be funny to have Lanter and Robert Pattinson in the Worst Actor category and Proske and Kristen Stewart in the Worst Actress category? Wink



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 4:00pm
As much as I disliked this film, it really wouldn't be funny if it got acting nominations, because the strong point in the film (yes, there was actually something good in the film) is that Lanter and Proske played (or mocked) Pattison and Stewert's mannerisms really, really well -- to the point that even some critics said they played the characters better than the actors in the Twilight series themselves! I was really impressed by Proske, especially. She's a promising actress, even though this is her big screen debut.  



-------------


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 9:29pm
I respect this movie not as a movie... but for making people laugh at that piece of crap/worst movie ever which is Twilight!  
 
I hate all those Date Movie, Epic Movie... those are all crap. But I respect Vampires Suck... and even though it didn't beat The Expendables at the Box-Office, I don't see why I shouldn't respect it. 




-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 23 2010 at 1:12pm
Ken Jeong -- NO! Please do not nominate him! 

Originally posted by Gregory

Ken Jeong could end up getting a Worst Supporting Actor nod for Vampiresand Furry Vengeance.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 23 2010 at 2:19pm
Yes, it is quite hard to talk in montone and stare off-screen while trying to pass it off as acting ... which might also explain Keanu Reeves' career!  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

As much as I disliked this film, it really wouldn't be funny if it got acting nominations, because the strong point in the film (yes, there was actually something good in the film) is that Lanter and Proske played (or mocked) Pattison and Stewert's mannerisms really, really well -- to the point that even some critics said they played the characters better than the actors in the Twilight series themselves! I was really impressed by Proske, especially. She's a promising actress, even though this is her big screen debut.  


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: lastmoviecritic
Date Posted: August 23 2010 at 8:24pm
I'll give this film some credit, it got some good Twilight jabs in. It's the directors' best films...but that's not saying much...

-------------
Ryan Walter Blair, lastmoviecritic.com, LLC


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 23 2010 at 8:43pm
Originally posted by lastmoviecritic

I'll give this film some credit, it got some good Twilight jabs in. It's the directors' best films...but that's not saying much...
Yeah, there are some good jabs to it, but nothing that hasn't been already said and said better. And as for it being their greatest film ... well, that's like having to choose which method you'd rather be tortured with.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 24 2010 at 7:19am
I'm looking for numbers here... I see that it MADE $12.2m (for not calling it Vampire Movie), does anyone have any idea on the budget? I think the others used to be about $20m, and I'm guessing they gave them less for this one, since it's been awhile, which means they'd have less to make up. It's really depressing to me to think that they'll be able to keep doing these movies. I really want this to fail, or at least get them straight-to-DVD.
I went to see Scott Pilgrim the other day with a friend of mine, and a friend of hers, and he was like, "I wanna see that. It's gonna be stupid but it mocks the movies I hate the most", referring to the Twilights. Is that ALL it takes to make money these days? Find something that's popular to one group, but disliked by those outside said group, and make a movie about it that includes a number of other pointless pop culture references, and if I know my Seltzerberg, have them get hurt in some way? I mean, seriously, if I could get a $10m dollar loan to make and advertise this movie, I could do this. Anyone could. These guys are millionaires by making the most pedestrian of entertainment. I'm reading Wealth of Nations, the capitalist bible, at the moment, and he talks about allotting higher pay to entertainers, to be paid for their talent... What does it say about our economy if you can make millions of dollars and have no talent?

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 24 2010 at 12:25pm
The movie cost $20 million.

Personally,I prefer to mock things I disliked,and therefor,watch parodies of movies I dislike.

Did you know the original title?It was VAMPIRES RULE SUCK?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 24 2010 at 2:53pm
Okay, I wouldn't pay money to see a movie just because it mocks Michael Bay, especially if I knew the writers/directors have a track record of being just as bad at their craft as Bay is. Kinda like Uwe Boll saying his stuff is bad, but Bay and Eli Roth are worse, etc. So I find this whole idea of people thinking "I know it's going to be stupid, but it mocks the movie I hate most, so I'll pay money to see it anyway" to be as retarded as Tom Green's sense of humor. Sadly, it's working, so Seltzerberg knew what they were doing here.
 
Oh, and I'm pretty sure the title Vits is talking about was just something on movie posters, used as a joke, if you can call it that.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 24 2010 at 3:48pm
You're right.It was a tagline.My bad!

I didn't say I'd watch any parody of something I dislike,let alone pay,unless I don't know who made it.If Seltzerberg did...


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 24 2010 at 4:30pm
Originally posted by Vits


I didn't say I'd watch any parody of something I dislike,let alone pay,unless I don't know who made it.If Seltzerberg did...
I wasn't talking to you directly, I was commenting on something said by dEd, about his friend wanting to see the movie because it mocks "Twilight", even though he knew the movie was going to be stupid.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 25 2010 at 10:52am
Check this:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20415495,00.html?xid=rss-fullcontent

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by Vits

I didn't say I'd watch any parody of something I dislike,let alone pay,unless I don't know who made it.If Seltzerberg did...
I wasn't talking to you directly, I was commenting on something said by dEd, about his friend wanting to see the movie because it mocks "Twilight", even though he knew the movie was going to be stupid.

Oh.Again...my bad!


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 26 2010 at 10:05pm
I think the next Selterberg movie will either be "Reboot/Remake Movie" or "3-D Movie", if they are out to mock the current trends of Hollywood and what's popular.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: aqua mailman
Date Posted: September 03 2010 at 4:11am
WOW! IMDB is just crawling with studio plants!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 03 2010 at 8:04am
Originally posted by aqua mailman

WOW! IMDB is just crawling with studio plants!
Probably.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 03 2010 at 12:28pm
When this movie was being reviewed in THE ROTTEN TOMATOES SHOW, I sensed they didn't even want to talk about it...  

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 03 2010 at 4:47pm
Would you want to talk about this? Granted, it's their job to review movies, but even critics have their tresholds for the pain caused by bad movies.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 03 2010 at 5:06pm
I've never sense that before.Not even with ECHELON CONSPIRACY,and they gave it 0%!

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: September 04 2010 at 12:11am
I recently saw a review of Epic Movie on http://www.thatguywiththeglasses.com - www.thatguywiththeglasses.com (in the section Bad Movie Beatdown) and from the clips I saw I can say that Seltzerberg's humour is so bad it makes Disney Channel comedy (today) look like Monty Python. 

-------------
You see in this filmmaking world there's two types of people my friend. Those with the knowledge of film and those who think they do but really don't.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 04 2010 at 2:45pm
Originally posted by Film Reel Redemption

I recently saw a review of Epic Movie on http://www.thatguywiththeglasses.com - www.thatguywiththeglasses.com (in the section Bad Movie Beatdown) and from the clips I saw I can say that Seltzerberg's humour is so bad it makes Disney Channel comedy (today) look like Monty Python. 
Wow, Seltzerberg humor vs. Disney Channel humor. That like having to choose which nut you'd rather be kicked in!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: September 04 2010 at 3:04pm
Ironic you should say that, because punches to the nuts is what Seltzerberg's humor thrives off of. In the end, Vampires Suck might turn out to be within the #4-#2 positions on the Worst Films of '010. Only The Last Airbender could sink lower.

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags. 27; The November Man.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 05 2010 at 6:51pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

Ironic you should say that, because punches to the nuts is what Seltzerberg's humor thrives off of. In the end, Vampires Suck might turn out to be within the #4-#2 positions on the Worst Films of '010. Only The Last Airbender could sink lower.
I'm only surprised Selterberg didn't have an Airbender in "Vampires Suck" whose source of power is the strength of his farts. It sure sounds like something they would write.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 06 2010 at 10:31am
Probably that movie had already been released when this one was filming.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 06 2010 at 12:22pm
Originally posted by Vits

Probably that movie had already been released when this one was filming.
That didn't stop Seltzerberg from doing parodies of movies that were just released week earlier or weren't even released yet in "Disaster Movie". Keep in mind, they don't really parody the movies, just scenes from the movies' trailers.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Areyouserious?
Date Posted: September 17 2010 at 7:56pm
Ha, you see this is what makes me mad. We had one year without them. I had one diarrhea free year. They treat us like we're stupid, and too dumb to understand. Like (**Spoiler**) wait its not a spoiler, its in the trailer and plus no one wants to go see this movie. That whole jersey shore thing. The girl goes "J-wow, snooki, dj pauly d," and then instead of just dropping it so people who got the joke (that by the way had no reason to be referenced in here anyway but still dont treat us like were stupid) could get the joke, but why would you then have "Becca" say "no, not the dirtbags from jersey shore." You already referenced it, why re mention the already dumb joke that wasnt funny in the first place? they did the same thing with the lady gaga reference,and why did you add it in there? But because I see the glass half full i must same im glad that they didnt add many more references and Jenn Proske is very good at playing as kristen stewart.

-------------
I will be famous:) Till then I'll prove how ridiculous hollywood is.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 4:59am
Welcome to the board, Areyouserious. I suspect that the people who made this movie start out with pretty low opinions of their audience. After all, anyone with half a brain wouldn't pay to see it in the first place, unless it is the tortured souls like myself that are Razzie voters and eventually watch all the nominated movies for the sake of credibility. Quite honestly, I've never watched Jersey Shore and I couldn't pick Lady Gaga out in a police lineup. For folks like me, trying to explain the jokes aren't going to make them any funnier, and for the really dumb members of the audience that just don't get them, it is probably equally futile. As a great comedian once said, "if you have to explain 'em..."

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Areyouserious?
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 7:33am
You know, I made a similar list, and yes that was truly something they would put, if they knew what the oil spill was...

-------------
I will be famous:) Till then I'll prove how ridiculous hollywood is.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 10:49am
Originally posted by Areyouserious?

We had one year without them. I had one diarrhea free year.
The only reason they didn't make a movie in 2009 it's because they made 2 in 2008.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 7:30pm
Originally posted by Areyouserious?

You know, I made a similar list, and yes that was truly something they would put, if they knew what the oil spill was...
 
It's not hard to ape Seltzerberg, which was entirely the point.
 
I still feel badly for hurting BHB with that bad script, though. . . . Cry
 


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 7:41pm
Originally posted by cvcjr13

 
It's not hard to ape Seltzerberg, which was entirely the point.
 
I still feel badly for hurting BHB with that bad script, though. . . . Cry
Well, it's better to have read here at this forum, then see it being acted out on the big screen. So there's was a positive to it ... kinda, sorta. 


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 8:17am
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by cvcjr13

 
It's not hard to ape Seltzerberg, which was entirely the point.
 
I still feel badly for hurting BHB with that bad script, though. . . . Cry
Well, it's better to have read here at this forum, then see it being acted out on the big screen. So there's was a positive to it ... kinda, sorta. 
 
Just be glad my Oil Spill Monster scene ISN'T on the screen.  I just wish the actual movie wasn't on the screen, either. 
 
Just think.  After all the time we've been discussing this movie, BP is FINALLY finishing the relief well and its "bottom kill".  Goes to show, wolfmen are good for something. . . .


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 9:52am
Originally posted by cvcjr13

 
Just be glad my Oil Spill Monster scene ISN'T on the screen.  I just wish the actual movie wasn't on the screen, either.
Yeah, but you know, Seltzerberg have their ways. I just question if their ways are legal.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 11:23am
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by cvcjr13

 
Just be glad my Oil Spill Monster scene ISN'T on the screen.  I just wish the actual movie wasn't on the screen, either.
Yeah, but you know, Seltzerberg have their ways. I just question if their ways are legal.
 
If it's a parody, it's legal.  It doesn't have to be a good parody.  It just needs to be a parody.
 


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 11:46am
Originally posted by cvcjr13

 
If it's a parody, it's legal.  It doesn't have to be a good parody.  It just needs to be a parody.
I meant more along the lines of how they manage to convince studio heads to invest and greenlit their s***. I'm thinking blackmail photos and recreational drugs come into play during those pitch meetings.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 3:50pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by cvcjr13

 
If it's a parody, it's legal.  It doesn't have to be a good parody.  It just needs to be a parody.
I meant more along the lines of how they manage to convince studio heads to invest and greenlit their s***. I'm thinking blackmail photos and recreational drugs come into play during those pitch meetings.
 
It's even worse than that.  It's the same thing that cause our great economy to meltdown.  It's greed.  Nothing but pure Gordon Gekko/King Midas greed.  Seltzerberg movies make money.  Studio heads and investors say, "Oh, yeah!"


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 5:19pm
Originally posted by cvcjr13

 
It's even worse than that.  It's the same thing that cause our great economy to meltdown.  It's greed.  Nothing but pure Gordon Gekko/King Midas greed.  Seltzerberg movies make money.  Studio heads and investors say, "Oh, yeah!"
Yes, it's sad, but true. I guess it's just my wishful thinking that these movies aren't greenlit by studio heads that are of sound mind and judgement at the time.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Grounder the Critic
Date Posted: November 14 2010 at 11:05am
I still can't believe why this movie made more money than Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.

-------------
Pictures move, do they?


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: November 14 2010 at 12:31pm
Originally posted by Grounder the Critic

I still can't believe why this movie made more money than Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.
I'm sure if "Scott Pilgrim" spent much needed screen time mocking all things "Twilight", it might have made more money, and I know Miguel would have seen it ten times in one day.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 15 2010 at 8:15am
Originally posted by Grounder the Critic

I still can't believe why this movie made more money than Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.
They thought "Why watch a rip-off of KICK-ASS,which I like,when I can watch a parody of THE TWILIGHT SAGA,which I dislike?".


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: November 15 2010 at 9:32am
Originally posted by Vits

They thought "Why watch a rip-off of KICK-ASS,which I like,when I can watch a parody of THE TWILIGHT SAGA,which I dislike?".
Only, it wasn't a rip-off of "Kick-Ass", it was a loyal adaptation of a different comic book, and I haven't heard a single person who saw it say anything bad about it.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 15 2010 at 12:20pm
I know.That's what some people said.It happens whenevr to movies that even with a small similaity get released the same year.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: aqua mailman
Date Posted: December 03 2010 at 2:11pm
Okay, 3 mounths later and there are STILL Studio Shills on VS's IMDb page. Jesus Christ, just leave already! And you'd think they would make it less obvious that they are being handed cash every time they post, but nope. They are always telling me "Pleasantly Suprised" or "Does a Dead on Impression of KS."  Or How 'bout the ones that say "It's a parody! What were you expecting, High Art?"

No, to put it in the immortal words of Gaydolf Hitler (IMDb user) "If i were to consider the Garbage Pail Kids to be the Mona Lisa, then this film would be the crayon scribblings of a mentally insane  kindergartener who is blind." 

For once in my life, I agree with Hitler!  




-------------


Posted By: TheMovieCritic
Date Posted: December 06 2010 at 12:27pm
Take the title Vampires Suck as a sign to stay away from a movie that was destined to fail at the box office. Hopefully this is the last in this terrible "movie" parody series!  




-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 06 2010 at 3:59pm
But didn't it do well at the box office??  




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 06 2010 at 7:56pm
Maybe... and, so? "Transformers 2" made nearly a billion dollars worldwide, but it still won 3 major Razzies. As the Movie Preview Critic says "Just because it's a hit, that doesn't mean it's not a piece of s***".


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 07 2010 at 4:06am
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

As the Movie Preview Critic says "Just because it's a hit, that doesn't mean it's not a piece of s***".
I know.But he said:
Originally posted by TheMovieCritic

Take the title Vampires Suck as a sign to stay away from a movie that was destined to fail at the box office.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: TheMovieCritic
Date Posted: December 07 2010 at 11:32am
The movie was not funny at all. I watched Jaws The Revenge a few weeks ago and was laughing more at its terrible effects and script compared to this piece of cinema junk which yielded no laughs from me what so ever.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 08 2010 at 8:56am
Yeah, it's kinda sad when "accidental comedies" are funnier than movies that are supposed to be "actual" comedies.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Areyouserious?
Date Posted: December 22 2010 at 4:58am
By the looks of it, "Seltzerberg" are scared someone will figure them out. They "tried" to hide the production of this, there was no premiere ( I'm sure for the sake of their safety), no privateshownings for critics, and no press interviews. Why? Because no one likes them.

Only preteens who refuse to watch something that made sense, they sit brain dead refusing to use their brain.

If they keep this up, they will be more wanted than Cuban drug lords.


-------------
I will be famous:) Till then I'll prove how ridiculous hollywood is.


Posted By: aqua mailman
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 3:39pm
Okay, I know TLA is going to win Worst Picture, but that is such a boring choicE! All thatis is lame action movie with no potential. VS had potetntial, because Twilight is horrible! But they had to give it to Seltzberg!!! In my opinion, this film has no equal!!!


Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 4:02pm
Actually, both had potential, but were given to the wrong people.
Originally posted by aqua mailman

Okay, I know TLA is going to win Worst Picture, but that is such a boring choicE! All thatis is lame action movie with no potential. VS had potetntial, because Twilight is horrible! But they had to give it to Seltzberg!!! In my opinion, this film has no equal!!!


-------------
Elizabeth Hartman and Judith Barsi are more talented and beautiful than Scarlett Johansson and Chloe Grace Moretz. Fact.

Worst Supporting Actor: Brendan Fraser/Gimme Shelter and The Nut Job




Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 4:12pm
Why do you say it was "given" to them?

This reminds me:If a parody ever gets nominated for other awards,would it be nominated for original or adapted script?Parodies take other plots and sometimes use elements from other plots,but is it directly based on another media?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 4:50pm
Originally posted by Areyouserious?

By the looks of it, "Seltzerberg" are scared someone will figure them out. They "tried" to hide the production of this, there was no premiere ( I'm sure for the sake of their safety), no privateshownings for critics, and no press interviews. Why? Because no one likes them.

Only preteens who refuse to watch something that made sense, they sit brain dead refusing to use their brain.
You speak the truth.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 8:51am
I would say adapted but I am not sure.

Originally posted by Vits

Why do you say it was "given" to them?

This reminds me:If a parody ever gets nominated for other awards,would it be nominated for original or adapted script?Parodies take other plots and sometimes use elements from other plots,but is it directly based on another media?


Posted By: aqua mailman
Date Posted: January 02 2011 at 8:54am

I consider it a remake of Twilight. Kinda like how Air Plane was a remake of the 70's disaster flick "Terror in the Sky".(and that is the ONLY thing that VS and Airpane have in common!!!)



Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 02 2011 at 10:33am
I remember http://www.razzies.com/forum/epic-movie_forum172.html - was up for "Worst Rip-Off",but that's only because a parody is closer of being a rip-off that a remake.Neverthelss,parodies could have adapted scripts.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Deepanshu
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 7:59pm
You have exceeded the number of posts permitted in the time span...  


Posted By: Deepanshu
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 8:00pm
Take the title Vampires Suck as a sign to stay away from a movie that was destined to fail at the box office. Hopefully this is the last in this terrible "movie" parody series! 


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 11:31pm
Not a chance!  Vampires Suck cost only $20 million to make, and it took in $80 million worldwide.  With that type of return, Seltzerberg will keep on cranking them out.


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: January 26 2011 at 5:10am
Yes, a sad, but true fact... 

Originally posted by cvcjr13

Not a chance.  Vampires Suck cost $20 million to make, and it took in $80 million worldwide.  With that type of return, Seltzerberg will keep on cranking them out.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 27 2012 at 12:29pm
[TUBE]EgIRtrYt0AU[/TUBE]
Any thoughts?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile



Print Page | Close Window