Roger Corman Vs. Ed Wood

[Skull]

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... :)

[the ghoul]

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.

[AndyC]

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.

[frankofthefuture]

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.

[AndyC]

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.