Hacker Cinema
Ed Wood
1994 · Film · 127 min
Directed by Tim Burton
The mostly true story of the legendary "worst director of all time", who, with the help of his strange friends, filmed countless B-movies without ever becoming famous or successful.
4 positive1 negative4 neutralfrom 9 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
9 comments on Hacker News
Before recently movies were shared experiences. A good crowd made a great movie on a great screen even greater. Now movies are kind of singular experience. The only movies that still maybe fit this bill are the horror movies that draw in the teenager crowds -- but then it's more about how gory is it rather than plot, character, acting, direction, etc. Or maybe how cheap they can make the movie while still being able to market seats.
To be fair, Hollywood has always had this kind of problem -- just watch a few Mystery Science Theater 3000s to see how bad things can get -- or 1994's "Ed Wood" from Tim Burton. Both of which still romanticize the industry in their own way.
There will never, ever, be anything like seeing the original Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, or Ghostbusters (peak Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ivan Reitman) in the crowded theater filled with anticipating viewers ever again. Laughing as part of a crowd feels better than laughing alone.
Maybe we're too fragmented as society to enjoy all the same movie that we used to. I don't think this is true, because we all still like Ghostbusters, more or less. I think Hollywood has targeted markets, rather than trying to sell a movie to the masses.
And in 2024 they best thing Hollywood could do is reboot a 1980's TV Show "The Fall Guy". Geesh.
Really. You've watched Ed Wood sometime within the last 10 years? The Last Seduction? Wolf? Red Rock West? That's just from the top 10 in that list.
I don't know what the point of your second list is. It's never been the case that streamers or cable channels (their nearest antecedent) were big producers of movies. But streamers --- unlike cable channels --- did manage to produce CODA, Killers of the Flower Moon, The Irishman, Buster Scruggs, Roma, Dolemite, and Glass Onion.
Kitsch feels easier to understand as just guilty indulgence. Some people do look at the calendar at the mall featuring cute babies playing jazz instruments and want to buy it for what it is: a series of cute images to delight you and your desk mates. I would personally buy it ironically, but still get a lot of enjoyment out of its genuine attempt. It would definitely make me smile by making me laugh inside every time I see it. FWIW I think both views validate the concept of kitsch.
Not covered in this article strangely, but kitsch is the most powerful when its genuine. I see the calendar of cats doing yoga poses and it only brings me fleeting joy, its trying to be kitsch, and it doesn't feel like the "artist" really put the effort in. When they do I can feel it, and for some reason I'm weirdly inspired by it (probably because if I really tried, I'd put out something like that).
I know movie examples way better than attempts at painting or sculpture. I watch bad movies weekly and its one of my favorite indulgences. When we watch a Neil Breen movie I can feel the genuine attempt to make a movie that says something...and failing spectacularly at it. When I watch Sharknado I see a pretty cheap attempt at a gag that might delight me for a bit, but feels empty in its attempt to make real entertainment. Ed Wood movies have that sort of charm, they score F's in every department from acting to sound editing, but you can feel the energy of the cast and crew as they try to make something special and fail. Hallmark Christmas movies are probably the best analogous thing to the sort of kitsch we think of when we use the word, they're ostensibly pro-Christmas spirit with a middling cast and plot line, but usually there's an element of genuine attempt to make something your 50-year old aunt would enjoy while she sips on egg nog. Personally, I love that shit.
LaMarche also did the voice of Orson Welles in Tim Burton's 1994 movie Ed Wood. Vincent D'Onofrio played Orson Welles, but was later dubbed by Maurice LaMarche.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Wood_(film)
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your list, even though some of those are mediocre at best, but yeah I did mean per year, and limited to Hollywood (Parasite for instance not counting). And no, ok, I will also straight up disagree with the second Knives out Movie which I thought was absolute trash. A perfect example of poor storytelling and the form over substance of modern cinema.
But just taking say 1992 you have Last of the Mohicans, The Unforgiven, My Cousin Vinny, Malcolm X, Bad Lieutenant, Scent of a Woman, Reservoir Dogs, Dracula, Chaplin.
And then a bunch of fun schlomp like Arizona Dream, Basic Instinct, Sister Act, Army of Darkness, Home Alone 2, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Mighty Ducks, Wayne’s World.
These are all undoubtedly great movies.
And then another huge bunch of watchable stuff easily comparable to some of your mentions like Watcher or High Life.
And 1992 is not an outlier.
In 1993 you have Jurrasic Park, Groundhog Day, Whats Eating Gilbert Grape, Scindlers List, Meanace 2 Society, Alive, Dazed and Confused, Falling Down, In The Name of The Father, True Romance, Demolition Man, Carlitos Way, The Secret Garden, Philadelphia, A Perfect Workd, Cool Runnings, Short Cuts.
In 1991 Silence of The Lambs, Ternimator 2, JFK, Point Break, Thelma and Louise, Boyz in the Hood, The Doors, My Own Private Idaho, Barton Fink, The Fisher King, Naked Lunch.
In 1990 Goodfellas, Hunt for Red October, Total Recall, Edward Scissorhands, Home Alone, Godfather 3, Dances with Wolves, Tremors, Back to the Future 3, Awakenings, The Witches, Wild at Heart, Jacobs Ladder, Nikita, Slacker, Millers Crossing.
And the quality difference is massive too, not just somewhat better. Like just Millers Crossing is miles better than anything that has been made in the last 5 years, and I’m picking at random.
In 1994 Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, The Lion King, Speed, Ace Ventura, Dumb and Dumber, Stargate, Natural Born Killers, The Crow, Clercs, Maverick, Ed Wood, In the Mouth of Madness, Interview With The Vampire.
I could go on.
And this is not even talking about how the 80s is a better decade for cinema, or how the 70s is the peak of the power of the author with far more experimental, artistic, and substantial productions.
Has quality declined? Yes. Massively. Humongously. Stupendously.
> writing gets better the more you do it.
Ed wood made a lot of movies, they were not any better after he had gained a lot of experience. The assumption that there is significant improvement on what you with time only occurs if there is self reflection and feedback loops and an incentive to progress.
Yeah, it's not like he was critically acclaimed in Ed Wood in 94.
Or turned in an iconic - movie stealing - comic performance in Kingpin in 96
Or won a Golden Globe in 98 for Rushmore.
Clearly you're right and nothing major happened in his career for 10 years.
You literally know nothing about this topic and keep digging yourself into a hole. It's kind of pathetic.
Many people are talking about the great films that he is missing. But if this is a list of films every aspiring director should see and not just a list of very good films, I think it would also be important to watch bad and very bad movies. Ed Wood should be in a list like this, for example, as well as TV films, anime, stop-motion films...
Don't look at the effort. Look at the final result. Lolita took all of four months to write, and it's terrific. That's less time than it took Ed Wood to make any of his movies, all of which bombed.