|
|
Post by jjb3k on Mar 5, 2007 20:58:55 GMT -5
Most of what I've read from the Brains about the Roger Corman movies that the show did has not been very complimentary. Mary Jo Pehl claimed him to be a terrible director, and Bill Corbett insists that he gets way too much credit. But I must disagree. If there's one thing I've noticed in all of Corman's movies, it's that he makes a genuine effort at quality. Movies like It Conquered the World and Teenage Caveman have some interesting messages amid their clumsy plots, while Viking Women and the Sea Serpent, Gunslinger, and Swamp Diamonds all feature compelling casts of characters. The only true shortcoming I think Corman has as a director is the perennially low budget, which tend to shackle the ability for his movies to be taken seriously (It Conquered the World, for instance, would have been a better movie if not for the inherently cheesy-looking monster and the obviously fake bat-things). Basically, Corman's movies show a real attempt to make a good story with the available resources, and for that, he far exceeds the quality of, say, Arch Hall Sr. or Larry Buchanan.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by joetrumps on Mar 5, 2007 21:37:02 GMT -5
I think he is a little bit of both.
Think about Star Wars. If the dialogue had been the same, yet no money was put into costume or special effects, it would have been a disaster. I think Corman suffered from the same problem. He had grand ideas, interesting characters, and exotic locals, yet only a shoe string budget to film it on.
p.s. this is not a defense of all of his films. Some of them were just bad. But many had unfulfilled promise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Poe33 on Mar 5, 2007 22:35:48 GMT -5
Roger Corman is a brilliant man. He was able to nurture some amazing talents. I wish I were older and could have been one of the film directors under his wing. It was a great era.
|
|
|
|
Post by beljah on Mar 5, 2007 22:49:06 GMT -5
I really liked "Little Shop Of Horrors". And, yes, the lead character, Stanley, does have a long walking scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by vanhagar3000 on Mar 5, 2007 23:00:28 GMT -5
Roger Corman is a businessman. Even though the better director, someone like Ed Wood had more passion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Mar 6, 2007 0:27:55 GMT -5
AHHHHH!! I'm living in a cuckoo clock!
Corman is terrible. Awful. I don't care how many famous people suckled at his teat. His movies are putrid and deserve the mockery bestowed upon them.
Exhibit A: Digger Smolken.
There is no need for Exhibit B; I rest my case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donna SadCat Lady on Mar 6, 2007 0:37:24 GMT -5
Corman was not a good director. He may have been shrewd in some respects, but most of his movies are talky and dull, dull, dull. Other directors were able to transcend a lack of budget with skill and imagination. Not Corman.
Ed Wood may have been goofy as heck, but his movies sure have energy and zest. Corman's movies are zest-free.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Beaumont on Mar 6, 2007 2:55:33 GMT -5
Roger Corman is a businessman. Even though the better director, someone like Ed Wood had more passion. Bingo. I'd take Wood over Corman's best, anyday. He's just a guy who knows how to squeeze a few bucks out of what's popular. His legendary Star Wars ripoff is a brilliant example of that. (Not that it necessarily made a lot of money, and not that he was alone in that way of thinking, of course.) Not every director is motivated by "pure artistry" or whatever you want to call it. I think that Corman just tries to tap into what people might feel compelled to watch, and then hacks it together with as little cost as he can. The method doesn't produce good "art," but sometimes it can entertain. Sometimes. I'm sure he gets a kick out of his work, otherwise he wouldn't still be doing it, but I would never call him brilliant under any circumstances. Good interview here. It's at SuicideGirls.com, so don't click around too much. Unless you're at home. Alone. And a perv. |
|
|
|
Post by braindeadzombie on Mar 6, 2007 22:45:42 GMT -5
I like Corman's Poe films but I guess those are not par for the course as the feature stuff which Corman haters say he doesn't possess, talent. From KWM in the ACEG: "every opportunity for artistic expression intentionally ignored."
To quote Mr Servo: Huh.
Yes, he was a businessman but he was a successful one and that's his biggest problem. Many of his films are disposable but lucky for him, he made many, many of them and a couple of them are, gasp, good. It's probably less than 5% {1?} but that's still more more movies than most directors ever make.
And he made money at it. Personally, I'm impreseed. Art? You can keep it.
|
|
|
|
Post by MSTie500 on Mar 6, 2007 23:12:35 GMT -5
Corman, I think had a vision for how to make a decent movie, but he was handicapped but a bad sense of style, taste, or timing(or a combination of them). It seems like he genuinly tried sometimes, but other times he just seems to not care about making a movie others could enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crowfan on Mar 7, 2007 16:17:32 GMT -5
although I did enjoy the Poe movies that he made he's really not a very good director. Yes he did get many talented actors working for him, like Vincent Price, Boris Karloff, Jack Nicholson, and others, his movies just aren't very good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wild Rebel on Mar 7, 2007 17:31:38 GMT -5
Roger Corman is a businessman. Even though the better director, someone like Ed Wood had more passion. I agree with this - especially with the comment about Wood. Corman could produce and direct very well when he wanted to. If you ever get the chance see the movie The Intruder with William Shatner, you'll see that. Corman not only made a very powerful film - he manages to keep Shatner from overacting. The movie makes a very important statement about race and hate in America. However, according to Corman this was the only film he ever lost money on. And he admits he went into movies to make money. At the same time when you think of all the people who got their first break working for him. James Cameron did set design for Battle Beyond the Stars. John Carpenter and Debra Hill met on a Corman production. Ron Howard's first directing credit was a Corman film. And there's lots of others. |
|
|
|
Post by braindeadzombie on Mar 7, 2007 19:36:56 GMT -5
Ed Wood had a passion to make movies that people would watch and thereby make him money. It's why he decided to make the kind of movies he made, outside of Glen or Glenda. I really don't understand this Wood worship. Because Wood's films are really awful, few and nonprofitable while Corman's are legion, bad and profitible makes Wood the Artist with Passion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoss Ragen on Mar 7, 2007 22:01:36 GMT -5
He probably has more money than all us regulars get from our jobs combined, doing a mere fraction of the time and work. Horrible human being.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Mar 8, 2007 0:16:43 GMT -5
I really don't get the Corman apologists. Sure, the guy hung out with Beverly Garland and Allison Hayes.
But still...I mean, you have seen "The Undead", right?
The Grimwald warrior from "Viking Women..."?
The "set design" on "Teenage Caveman"?
The pickle monster? Touch Connors? Gunslinger?
I'm sorry.
He sucks.
The end.
|
|
