alfred hitchcock vs roger corman

Tools    





almost all movies directed by a. Hitchcock are praised by critics and even listed to add to private collection on every printings


I detest such films because they are cheap and ridiculously somber.


does really any collector need to somber its entertainment moments?


roger corman, on the other side, always entertain no matter its limited budget and I loved many films he directed.


the poll is


which director is your preference in order to build video collection?



I'm not sure I've actually seen a Corman film, but Alfred Hitchcock is one of my favorite directors of all time.

That said, I don't really think it's a fair comparisson. It seems Corman has mostly produced horror pictures, and while Hitchcock is infamous in that business, he did so much more than that. He produced lots of thrillers, dramas and war movies(mostly during the 40's).



Uh, okay. I do love X: The Man With the X-Ray Eyes. I mean, a lot. But otherwise I think you be smokin' some ganja.
__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.



Hitchcock wins, but Corman is bloody good, too.
__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.



Hitchcock was a master. Corman not so much.



The Guy Who Sees Movies
Corman was a master of what he did (he died in May at 98), the subtle art of making movies that are not low budget, not high budget but competently produced, well acted, knocked out movies from a genre that gets little respect from the pretentious "Art Film" world. As a guy who produced and/or directed as many as 500 movies, nothing about the guy ever stood still.

Nobody else would have done a movie with a name like The Saga of the Viking Women and Their Voyage to the Waters of the Great Sea Serpent or Teenage Caveman. I cut my cinematic teeth in our town on Saturday matinees of Corman movies.

As far as I'm concerned, he's the Man.....who else could have done I Flew a Spy Plane Over Russia. He didn't get to make a biopic on Robert E Lee or an adaptation of Kafka's The Penal Colony.



Corman was a master of what he did (he died in May at 98), the subtle art of making movies that are not low budget, not high budget but competently produced, well acted, knocked out movies from a genre that gets little respect from the pretentious "Art Film" world. As a guy who produced and/or directed as many as 500 movies, nothing about the guy ever stood still.

Nobody else would have done a movie with a name like The Saga of the Viking Women and Their Voyage to the Waters of the Great Sea Serpent or Teenage Caveman. I cut my cinematic teeth in our town on Saturday matinees of Corman movies.

As far as I'm concerned, he's the Man.....who else could have done I Flew a Spy Plane Over Russia. He didn't get to make a biopic on Robert E Lee or an adaptation of Kafka's The Penal Colony.
Corman could be entertaining. I don't think he is in the same league as Hitchcock.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
I don't understand whatever point the opening post is trying to make. Hitchcock is bad because he's praised by critics and his movies contain a somber tone? What kind of tone should they have? Of course thrillers are not gonna be all sunshine. Not to mention his films often have a touch of humor to them (Some more than others), so it's not like they're relentlessly bleak as described.

I love Roger Corman too, but the presentation of the thread is very confusing.



Trouble with a capital "T"
This is a ridiculous thread, no wonder the OP was banned Like Skizzerflake said, Corman was the Man!

Hitch is good too of course. No reason to compare them.



The Guy Who Sees Movies
I'm not sure I've actually seen a Corman film, but Alfred Hitchcock is one of my favorite directors of all time.

That said, I don't really think it's a fair comparisson. It seems Corman has mostly produced horror pictures, and while Hitchcock is infamous in that business, he did so much more than that. He produced lots of thrillers, dramas and war movies(mostly during the 40's).
At least what I have seen, Hitch stayed away from strange stories that actually had supernatural elements or creature features. Corman bathed in them. I can't imagine that Hitchcock would ever have done movies like Attack of the Crab Monsters or the Creature From the Haunted Sea, not to mention the Poe Cycle. Corman didn't stay in the realm of plausible reality as Hitchcock did.



The Guy Who Sees Movies
Corman was probably the most productive movie maker in history, with something like 500 movies in his resume, as a writer, director, producer and just about any other job in the industry. He's most well known for his horror movies, but he also did westerns, sci-fi, teen-sploitation movies, gangster movies, and even wanted, but never got to make a bio of Robert E Lee and an adaptation of James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

A lot of those movies were successes on some level, giving him the credibility and funding to make the next movie. I can hear some "cinema" fans getting dizzy and nauseous thinking about Corman, but it would be like talking about cars and not mentioning GM or Toyota.