
[Note: Scott Weinberg has the pro side of this argument -- why Roger Corman does deserve an Oscar -- in an article that will run later today.]
In a post yesterday about the honorary Academy Awards given out over the weekend, I said this about one of the recipients, Roger Corman: “Corman, who has directed more than 50 films and produced nearly 400 (!), has never been nominated for an Oscar, probably because all of his movies are terrible. But apparently the Academy is rewarding quantity now, too. So don’t give up, Uwe Boll! Just make another 300 movies!” These remarks were met with much disapproval by many readers, and so I would like to elaborate — assuming any of the people who swore they’d never read Cinematical again are in fact still reading Cinematical (which they are).
First, a correction. I shouldn’t have said “all of his movies are terrible.” I should have said something like “his movies are generally terrible.” “All” suggests that I’ve seen all 400 of them, which of course I haven’t. I ought to have used more general language. That was my bad, as the kids say.
I stand by the point I was making, though. If the Academy is giving out Oscars based on the production of quality work — which, last time I checked, was the basic idea behind the Oscars — then Roger Corman does not qualify. The vast majority of his output is mediocre at best. Some of it is downright awful. A few films are good enough on their own, but not to where any of them would deserve Oscars individually. Even as a body, those moderately good Corman movies don’t outweigh the dozens — literally dozens and DOZENS — of cheap, forgettable clunkers.
Producing a huge quantity of work whose overall entertainment or artistic value averages out to be somewhere between “mediocre” and “mediocre-plus” isn’t worthy of Academy Award consideration. That’s neat and everything, producing 400 movies over the course of 50 years. Very ambitious of you! But the Academy should be rewarding quality, not quantity.
Filed under: Awards, Oscar Watch
Continue reading Why Roger Corman Doesn’t Deserve an Oscar


Anyone who covers a film festival has dealt with it at one point or another. (More likely they deal with it several times a year.) You go to Sundance, to SXSW, to Toronto, etc., and see a film you really like. At this point the movie is just one of 250 at the festival, although maybe it has some “big names” or something to it. A few other writers end up agreeing with you that the film is quite good, and then the audiences have their say … and mostly everyone is in agreement: good movie! And then … it happens: Not just a handful of contrary-yet-insightful opinions, but a full-blown backlash.
The director of Atonement, The Soloist, and Pride & Prejudice is jumping into the action pool? That’s what .jpg)
Terminator is in trouble. Halcyon is on the verge of bankruptcy and the only real commodity they have are the rights to make new Terminator films, which they plan on selling for a big chunk of money to pay off their even bigger chunk of debt. Enter
You gotta wonder how many studio people see the buzz and money pouring in for the Twilight franchise and want to break things — not for dislike of the plot, but because that sucker was passed up by major studios and fighting turnaround before Summit grabbed it and made it for little money only to watch it earn a killing. But it looks like that will be nothing in comparison to what could happen with
By: Alison Nastasi
1. “Everyone thought it would be a great idea if he changed his name to Phillip Claus Hoffman. They knew it was time to stop drinking…” — John R.
Wanna make your comic miniseries-turned-feature film into a big-buzz event? Jam it full of interesting actors. It all
It’s no secret that video retailer Blockbuster had 
