Ed Wood Jr: Star
October 21, 2006 8:15 PM   Subscribe

A bizarre oversight is finally being corrected: Edward D. Wood Jr., the writer-producer-director of Plan 9 From Outer Space, has a chance to get the Hollywood Blvd star he deserves.
posted by jfrancis (19 comments total)

posted by ericb at 8:22 PM on October 21, 2006

Why should an enthusiastic guy who made horrible movies have a star?
posted by xmutex at 9:05 PM on October 21, 2006

Because lots of people love his movies. The man single-handedly invented the cult movie, for chrissakes. Yes, they're all terrible. But is he any less deserving than all the other minor Hollywood nobility, who have their own stars?

Personally, I can't stand Plan 9. I think it manages to cross the boundary from funny-awful into high-schooler-with-a-camera awful. It's so bad it's actually bad.
posted by Zero Gravitas at 9:13 PM on October 21, 2006

Because Tim Allen has one.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:13 PM on October 21, 2006 [2 favorites]

I could be wrong, but I always though that Woods was the first high-schooler-with-a-camera... all the YouTube fart-lighters are riding on his coat-tails.
posted by lekvar at 9:28 PM on October 21, 2006

If Ed Wood gets a star, Hal Warren should also get one.
posted by mike3k at 9:30 PM on October 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm firmly opposed to this: with the likes of the Olsen Twins, David Spade and Ryan Seacrest already underfoot, Wood is far too good for this "honor."
posted by rob511 at 9:37 PM on October 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

If he gets a star before Weird Al, there is no justice in this world...
posted by wendell at 9:59 PM on October 21, 2006

Zero Gravitas, maybe you were too awake or sober to enjoy it properly. I found the stilted dialogue to be hilarious, but I think that was because I was watching it at 1 in the morning.
posted by Citizen Premier at 12:23 AM on October 22, 2006

Plan 9 is kind of dull after the first viewing. Glen or Glenda, on the other hand, is a fascinatingly odd film: strange structure, bizarre language, and oh that feverish dream sequence. I'd go so far as to say it's not even a "so bad it's good" film, but a good but flawed film by an inexpert writer/director whose ambition outstripped his talent. Outstripped it by quite a lot, true, but still I've watched a few films recently by the more respectable Edgar G. Ulmer and he and Wood have a lot in common: they both made cheap, quick turnaround films, often with bad performances and dialog. Ulmer was better at getting a coherent and atmospheric film out of these constraints than Wood, but Wood is hardly the aggressively bad filmmaker he's often painted to be.

Bad filmmakers? Roger Corman, Burt I. Gordon, George Lucas in the second half of his career: even when their films are technically competent they are almost always boring boring boring.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 4:00 AM on October 22, 2006

Why should an enthusiastic guy who made horrible movies have a star?

Plan 9 is one of the best movies ever!

Anyone who can make a movie so bad that it does the full circle and turns awesome deserves many an award, IMO.
posted by cholly at 4:25 AM on October 22, 2006

tim burton must have a few bob to pay for this.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:26 AM on October 22, 2006

Roger Corman, Burt I. Gordon, George Lucas in the second half of his career

Yer damn straight, PinkStainlessTail. Please add Sophia Coppola and... well, everybody. It's astonishing that this one filmmaker, Ed Wood, should be singled out to personify "bad" filmmaking, when 90 percent of all film product just plain ba-lows. Of course, 90 percent of all cultural product is a waste of time, but in their defense, it has to be said that CDs, modern operas, theater, etc, don't have budgets in the tens and hundreds of millions. Your best entertainment bargain is still books, where the time commitment is flexible, the cost is relatively cheap, and the likliehood of getting good, solid entertainment from a randomly chosen product (from a major publisher), is much higher than any other cultural format.
posted by Faze at 7:54 AM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

Why should an enthusiastic guy who made horrible movies have a star?

Glancing at AICN I can't help thinking that Hollywood is now almost ALL Ed Wood types enthusiastically making horrible movies, only now they have huge bugets.
posted by Artw at 8:27 AM on October 22, 2006

Bad filmmakers? Roger Corman ...

I'd have to disagree with you there, PinkStainlessTail. I'd formulate an argument stating my case, but I really need to clean my house right now.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 11:30 AM on October 22, 2006

I'd love to hear it. Corman can justly be celebrated for giving many now important directors their starts and for innovations in the business of cheap filmmaking; but his films have always bored me to tears, unless Joel and the bots were sitting in front of them.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:20 PM on October 22, 2006

Man, it's not like there aren't plenty of stars for people who've contributed far less.

I mean there are stars for people who haven't done anything but crappy talk shows.
posted by Target Practice at 10:55 PM on October 22, 2006

Those dedicated stars on Hollywood Blvd are grimy and mostly neglected - my evening walk on the boulevard and its sidestreets has me treading on big names and forgotten notables. There's probably room for him outside one of the SRO hotels east of Hollywood and Highland. What the hell. He tried.
posted by goofyfoot at 4:54 PM on October 23, 2006

« Older Umdenken   |   YAD KCOL SPAC Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments