Badmovies.org Forum

Which is worse :teddyr:

I like Corman films. :thumbup:

Corman actually made money off a lot of his movies according to him in interviews so I'll vote Ed as the worst. 

No comparison.  Wood was terrible.  Corman was at the helm of some bad movies, but also some pretty entertaining movies.

Uwe Bowell ultimately makes the worst films.  Although I do like the fact he challenged his haters to a boxing match.

Tough call, seeing one was a producer, & the other was a director.

Sorta' make me wonder how an Alien ripoff of Wood's would've turned out.

Anyway, neither are as painful to watch as Larry Buchanan.

Quote from: WingedSerpent on August 17, 2009, 09:18:25 PM
Uwe Bowell ultimately makes the worst films.  Although I do like the fact he challenged his haters to a boxing match.

He would be my pick as well.

Roger Corman directed more than 50 movies.  It's pretty fair to compare him to Ed Wood. 

Roger Corman is a far superior director.  He did A Bucket of Blood, and the quasi-remake Little Shop of Horrors.  Both of those films are better in every way than basically all of Ed Wood's films put together.  For that matter, the Raven is also a quite entertaining and enjoyable little film. 

All of Ed Wood's films are pretty terrible, even if they are enjoyably so.

Your addition of the "someone else" choice made this one a no-brainer.  There are LOTS of films out there that are way worse than those directed by Wood or Corman.  Ron Atkins anyone?  Or even Peter Jackson for that matter.
:bouncegiggle:

Quote from: LilCerberus on August 17, 2009, 10:17:42 PM
Tough call, seeing one was a producer, & the other was a director.

Sorta' make me wonder how an Alien ripoff of Wood's would've turned out.

Anyway, neither are as painful to watch as Larry Buchanan.

Can't argue with that. Jerry Warren stank too.
Wood's movies were insanely bad-bad as good.
Corman could tap into teenagers brains .


A clip from Warren's FRANKENSTEIN ISLAND-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u8W5UFUGiM

Quote from: Jim H on August 17, 2009, 11:52:00 PM
Roger Corman is a far superior director.  He did A Bucket of Blood, and the quasi-remake Little Shop of Horrors.  Both of those films are better in every way than basically all of Ed Wood's films put together.  For that matter, the Raven is also a quite entertaining and enjoyable little film. 

True. Roger Corman's films speak to his skill as a filmmaker and businessman. He sets out to make a movie with a specific market, budget and schedule in mind, and turns out something that is, at worst, goofy but fun. His best movies are classics. And as far as I know, he's never lost money on any movie he's produced. Corman also gets points for giving breaks to young up-and-comers like Ron Howard and Francis Ford Coppola. He could recognize talented people who wanted the opportunity more than the money, give them a tight budget but turn them loose creatively. The results speak for themselves.

Wood didn't come close to that level of talent or business acumen. But I also agree there are far worse directors than Ed Wood. His movies are fun, if nothing else. I think LilCerberus is absolutely right that Larry Buchanan is far worse.

My favorite Roger Corman movie is The Haunted Palace w/ Vincent Price. :thumbup:

edit* removed.

To Andrew or Mod, Is it ok to post links to full movies like the one above? ... I'm not sure. Thanks.

Just to clarify on my earlier comment;

I must admit, I know very little about Ed Wood outside of Tim Burton's portrait of a guy not rooted in reality.

I once made it about halfway through Corman's book "How I made a hundred movies in Hollywood & never lost a dime", which left me with the impression that he had already developed a reputation as a successful producer & astute businessman well before he tried his hand at directing, which is why I felt the need to make the distinction.

It's kinda' like trying to compare The Polonia Brothers to Timbo Hines, or Timbo Hines to James Panetta.

Quote from: Venomx on August 18, 2009, 06:14:49 PM

To Andrew or Mod, Is it ok to post links to full movies like the one above? ... I'm not sure. Thanks.

My opinion is no, unless the movie is public domain (unlike many Corman pictures, THE HAUNTED CASTLE isn't).

I think that the biggest difference between the two is that Roger Corman, while not concerned to much with the film's content, did want to actually turn a profit on the movie. Ed wood, on the other hand, probably didn't have a very clear idea of what, if anything, he was trying to do. I must admit though that I've enjoyed the work of both men equally, which is something that has always amazed my wife.

Uwe Boll
Uwe Boll
Uwe Boll
Uwe Boll
Uwe Boll
Uwe Boll
Uwe Boll

Why Uwe Boll is the worst director... He has no excuse.

Roger Corman and Ed Wood could make something from pennies... If Roger Corman or Ed Wood was given half a budget that Uwe Boll recived we would of gotten something like Gone with the Wind... :)

It's amazing to me that Ed Wood has the most votes so far.  It seems crazy that more than half of the people on this forum who responded think that there is not a single director in all of filmdom that is worse than Ed Wood.  Come on, people.  That's just lame beyond belief.

:question:

Quote from: the ghoul on August 20, 2009, 10:57:43 PM
It's amazing to me that Ed Wood has the most votes so far.  It seems crazy that more than half of the people on this forum who responded think that there is not a single director in all of filmdom that is worse than Ed Wood.  Come on, people.  That's just lame beyond belief.

Well, the question wasn't entirely clear. I read "who is worse?" and took it as a choice between the two. Choosing between Ed Wood, Roger Corman and somebody else, on the other hand, suggests that the question should be "who is the worst?" But that would really require a longer list of notorious filmmakers. Neither Wood nor Corman are anywhere close to the worst. Seemed to me that treating it only as a comparison between the two would be more meaningful. Hence, I voted for Wood.

Maybe we ought to start another poll with a bunch of filmmakers and ask who is the worst. Maybe only include those who have made more than one movie, or some other criteria to separate professional filmmakers (producers or directors) from somebody who just made a movie at one time.

But it is kind of interesting just to compare Wood and Corman.

I appreciate the post but IMO there is no comparison whatsoever. Corman directed or produced about...oh...750 million movies...or something. And Ed Wood is commonly well known for only "Plan 9 from Outer Space" or maybe with the addition to most uninitiated the somewhat more obscure "Glen or Glenda." Those in the know are aware of more of Wood's work of course.

Corman had talent for making entertaining flicks on shoestring budgets and getting them finished on time and under budget. Also, TONS of well known Hollywood talent got their start or were "discovered" by Corman and his production company.

I don't think the comparison question is off because one of these men was so much better than the other. I just think that they were too different to really compare literally. Corman was behind a large variety of movies. From "drive in"  horror to camp comedies like "Rock and Roll High School".

Wood was an anomaly. His films are entertaining in a bizarre seemingly unplanned way. Some strange precurser of a director to the current David Lynch.

Agreed, Corman might well be unique as someone with decades of success in b-movies, neither fading into obscurity nor moving on to bigger films. He found his niche and knew how to exploit it fully.

I could almost call Wood unique, although there are comparable filmmakers. Guys with no money and minimal ability who managed to make a string of films that are enjoyed by b-movie fans to this day, before fading away and/or dying. I think what sets Wood apart is that there is an enthusiasm and a naivete to his movies. Unlike David Lynch, he wasn't setting out to make weird cult films. It seems to me he expected to entertain and enlighten mainstream audiences.

Corman wanted the same thing, but had a better idea of how to make a decent movie on a shoestring, had better people working for him on the creative side, and was much more in touch with his target audience.

One thing I will give Wood. His cinematography and editing was quite good for the time.