ThatGuamGuy

Just for the record, the MST3k version is on the now-out of print set "Volume 9", so if anybody *does* want it, you might want to pick it up.

As far as I understand, the disc does *not* include the uncut movie.

ThatGuamGuy

Quatermass - while I strongly disagree with your opinion, I'm going to limit my response to your post. Rather than argue pointless over opinion, I'm just curious about a few things I'm not sure I understand.

Based on what? the thing you don't do in your post is defend Ed Wood's abilities in any way.

I disagree with this, especially given the huge backlash at the time that 'Jackie Brown' came out. Nobody thought that was automatically cool or hip. But I do agree that if, say, Zack Snyder had put out 'Kill Bill' and managed to somehow make the exact same movie (which, honestly, I don't think he has in him), a lot of critics would've completely ripped it apart. (But, at the same time, I think that any given frame of 'Kill Bill' shows more raw storytelling *and* film-directing talent than Snyder has shown yet... but I don't mean to digress.)

I would say that a lot of people would put them on the same level, but I'll assume you're talking to the sort of film buffs who do like Lynch and dislike Wood...

The difference is, everything ever said or written by or about Lynch indicates that he is deliberately eschewing the dialogue for a specific effect. Whether the effect works for you is a mark of whether the film works for you, but there is no question that it is deliberate. Wood's dialogue is like George Lucas's; it is unique and singular, but it hits the wall with a thud and stops dead. So, perhaps you can explain what Wood was "going for"?

I'm with you on that... but you made the comparison yourself.

Are you talking about entertainment value, like, laughing-at the movie or (for lack of a better way of putting it) laughing-with?

Really? Because they've been doing movies which are regarded as "better" recently, and they're *terrible*. I'd be curious to see them try Lynch, and the relative lack of dialogue-ness is suited to MST3k.

That's why it could be argued that he was a bad producer, because he got together insufficient money to convincingly render what the writer/director wanted.

Well, it is unlike an abstract or impressionist painter, because there's never any indication in any Wood film I've seen that the events are meant to be read on a non-literal level. Abstract isn't just painting as naturally as you possibly can but failing.

Potentially; it certainly (to go back to the word you are arguing against) would've been a more competent movie, based on Matheson's track record as a screenwriter.

Well, that's fine, but you're setting up a false dichotomy that the only choice was do it or don't do it.

In the early 1970s, there was a filmmaker who had a specific vision, and (as you pointed out) his dialogue was unusual, and he had a cheap movie he wanted to make, but he couldn't raise enough money, so he spent five or six years putting it together in pieces. That was 'Eraserhead'.

In the late 1970s, there was a filmmaker with a specific vision. It took him more than two years to put his movie together. Longer, if you factor in that he took the small amount of money he had raised and shot a short with it, in order to show what he could do and raise sufficient money. His movie has horrible dialogue and largely bad acting. That was 'Evil Dead'.

In the early 1980s, a New Zealand filmmaker started shooting a film over a weekend. After four years, he got a grant from New Zealand to finish. that movie, the dialogue is not only improvised, but improvised ADR after the original sound tapes were all lost. That film, 'Bad Taste', went to Cannes, and launched Peter Jackson's career.

In the early 1990s, a filmmaker spent two years scraping together the money to complete his film, even after '60 Minutes' ran a report including him as a filmmaker who had failed to get into Sundance because he couldn't finish the film. That was "Pi".

Point being, a lot of filmmakers started with no money, so you can't really say it's just because he had no money that he made films badly. [Note that I'm not saying bad films.]

Please don't take it as an insult when I ask, based on what?; I'm genuinely curious what, specifically, you think Wood was doing well, or even competently. I agree with you that there's more to a movie than just art direction, cinematography, and acting, but I think his movies also have bad editing and bad writing.

However, based on my limited knowledge of his ouevre, I can't criticize his pacing.

See, that's limited, though; once rich people decide that you're an artist, anything you do can be sold to them as art. That's not quite the same thing, because Warhol was dealing in pop-art; pop-art is of the moment, and generally (but not always) a fad. It takes time for art to actually sink in.

See, I understand where you're coming from, but you should be able to decide which filmmakers are worthy of your own respect, and what makes a filmmaker respectable to you. Even if it is literally nothing more than completing the film. I agree that "respect" is personal and shouldn't be dictated by the masses [in my case, three of my four favorite movies last year got released to a total of less than 20 screens in the US], but that doesn't make the flip-side (people the masses don't respect deserve respect) true.

Ethan VanSciver

I really don't understand the desire to "overcome" the obvious, blatantly poor quality of Ed's work in order to declare him worthy of serious consideration. It's a snobbish kind of contrary attitude that baffles me. It's dishonest.

There's a lot to love about Ed Wood without being cruel to him. It's not necessary to mock him. But it's also not necessary to deceive yourself about what his work was. To compare him to David Lynch in any way hurts my head.

Quatermass

Forget it then. I must be wrong.

Daniel L

Wow, I think ThatGuamGuy disagrees with everyone here. How does he do that?

Ethan VanSciver

Actually, I agree with him almost entirely.

ThatGuamGuy

I am sorry, I didn't mean to scare you; I was trying to pass the time at the end of a work day, a day I basically had to sit and wait while things were done by the computer, and it just WOULDN'T stop.

Kind of like that post.

But, really, I wasn't trying to talk you out of anything, I really am interesting in hearing more of your opinion on Wood, because it seems unique.

If it helps, something occured to me last night. In 1953, two filmmakers made their first films for very very little money, and both of them barely got released. I think it would be hard to argue that Wood's "Glen or Glenda" is worse than Kubrick's "Fear and Desire". If you judged them solely based on those films, neither would seem competent, but Wood would certainly seem much less pretentious. But Kubrick was able to parlay it into "Killer's Kiss", slightly better, and then parlay those into "The Killing", which had a real budget and real actors. Whereas Wood just tried to ape Hollywood movies, but with no money.

It's a gift. (I didn't even have to tell you that I can't stand "Plan 9", even on a so-bad-its-good level... though 'Bride of the Monster' is gold.) But I do love to discuss what people are responding to vs. what they're willing to forgive, that's always intriguing, to me.

Quatermass

Your post made a lot of good points and it was well thought out. You obviously have a deeper knowledge of this stuff than I do. I would have responded, but I was just afraid each response would spawn another thread of discussion and I didn't have the energy to pursue it, especially since, believe it or not, I don't really care that much about Ed Wood. I didn't even know there was a new box set until I saw this thread title. I don't want to change anyone's opinion, I was merely stating my own.
Unfortunately, when I read Ethan VanSciver's assertion that that anyone who disagrees with the accepted norm is a dishonest snob I could see where this was headed. I've seen enough threads deteriorate from rational discussion to character assassination and the inevitable "eye roll" icons, so I'm bailing out.

Ethan VanSciver

Whoa whoa whoa....I didn't mean to suggest that about you. I think I was referring to the interviewees that appear on the half dozen Ed Wood documentaries I've seen, and I accidentally stepped on your foot. I'm a big dope. I'm truly sorry.

I am very curious to hear about comparisons between David Lynch's work and Wood's, because you might have something there, but I wish I could hear it articulated.

Again, I hope you didn't take much offense, and accept my apology for any misunderstanding.

EVS

Quatermass

I guess it was just a misunderstanding then, sorry about that. I admit I have not been able to present an adequate defense for Ed Wood's movies. Had he made one "good" movie, he would have more credibility and his competence would not be in question. The comparisons to David Lynch and Tarantino were meant to illustrate the presumption of artistic integrity based on previous accomplishment and not to imply that any one is better than any other.

I still maintain all of Ed Wood's non-porn movies are more entertaining (to me anyway) than "Kill Bill" or the 4 or 5 Lynch movies I mentioned. Exactly why is hard to describe in general terms, but the Wood movies are pretty simple, they have a linear plot that leads to a basic conclusion, meaning there is some point to the whole exercise. I'm lazy and I don't want to work for it. Also, I've never been bored by an Ed Wood movie.

I'll concede that it's likely Wood's movies were accidentally entertaining rather than deliberate, but how can anyone really KNOW what someone else was trying to express. The best interpretation we can come up with is really still just a guess. I'm willing to give Wood the benefit of the doubt here and say he does have a distinct style that comes through beyond the poor execution and superficial flaws and makes his movies worthy of more than ridicule. Am I saying he's a genius? Absolutely not.

Quatermass

I tried to address some of your earlier questions in my last post. I should have split them up better, but it's late and I'm tired.
fwiw, I think "Bride of the Monster" is his best (and least flawed) film. I think Plan 9 was Wood's attempt to knock off "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Both films came to the same conclusion about humankind's violent nature and arrogance, yet I'm intrigued by the whole "Plan 9" angle. Although it was not the original title of the movie, it was in the script and it made me wonder what the other 8 plans were and how many more there might be. Had they tried something else before? Somewhere out there was a committee of aliens considering ways to wipe out life on earth. It's a pretty clever device that cost nothing and provides something of a back story for the aliens and their home planet. This might have been unintentional, but it works.

Ethan VanSciver

I tend to think Glen or Glenda is his best film. It actually has some really effective, atmospheric moments, and some of it is quite creepy.

Bride of the Monster is his most colorful, and probably the most entertaining.

Plan 9 from Outer Space has such a cool concept behind it: Aliens exhuming and resurrecting corpses to take over planet Earth! Awesome! But Ed couldn't discipline himself to focus on one idea and flesh it out. He had to put EVERYTHING but the kitchen sink into his films, and the point always gets lost.

I dislike the joke about "what happened to plans 1-8" as well, as though the aliens had made other attempts and failed... I assume there are a plethora of schemes, and they chose to go with #9! Let's give it a try!

At the end of the day, when it comes to the famous Wood trilogy, Plan 9 ends up being his least interesting film, although it's packed with the most interesting actors.

Nick Danger

What a great discussion! I'm glad I checked back into this thread.

I think that Ed Wood was a talented guy who never studied his craft. I compare him to a high school student who can make really good drawings of Spiderman and of naked women. But since he's never actually studied anatomy, he can't make his figures look right outside of a few stereotyped poses. He's internalized the ideas, but hasn't studied what makes them work. Scott McCloud calls that "all surface".

I think that Ed Wood had internalized movie plotting, and had a good idea of "what happens next." But he never taught himself how to get there gracefully. He just plunged ahead and hoped for the best. That's the difference between Wood and Matheson. You can tell that Matheson tired to improve himself; Wood merely did it again.

I like the comparison between Wood and Tarantino. Although he's working at a higher level, QT doesn't seem to be trying to improve himself.