I first heard about Ed Wood through the Medved book. I've seen most of Wood's films now, and at the very least, all of them are entertaining. Give me a randomly chosen film by Ed Wood over anything by Larry Buchanan.

Uh, Peter? Larry Buchanan made "Mars Needs Women" with the oh-so-hot Yvonne Craig and I remember getting my first kiss seeing that movie, so his work means something to me... But I know what you're saying.

I too, got the info from the Medved book and fell for it at the time, but as I listen to him now on his radio show, I think about how film history is strewn with the wreckage of men who have lived on beyond the opinions of the various Medveds. Is his political views any more valid?

I was once told, "Never trust a guy with a moustache like this..."

I had one of the best times at a pizza/movie party with some Ed Wood film playing on the TV! Then after it was over we laughed just as hard when Michael Bay's "Armageddon" was popped in.

Michael's younger -- and I suspect nicer and smarter -- brother, Harry, liked my student film. Even at the time, I wasn't sure what to make of praise from the co-author of the Golden Turkeys.

I have never forgotten that one of the films in The Golden Turkey awards was Ivan The Terrible, probably my favourite film(s). It was obviously something outside their own narrow sphere. Since then I have never read anything with the Medved name attached nor taken seriously (or even lightly) anything they have to say. There are too many philistines about.

My first exposure to Ed Wood fandom came in the early 1970s when Joe Dante, writing for "Castle of Frankenstein" magazine, gave "Plan 9" a funny review.

Meanwhile, Wood's "Night of the Ghouls" is ten times more stimulating than Theo Angelopoulos's "The Weeping Meadow".

Not going out on a limb here, but I find Michael Bay's work much more upsetting and disastrous than Ed Wood's, because of the enormous budgets involved on the one hand vs. the spare change Wood had to work with (not that he necessarily would have done great work with millions of dollars) but the amount of waste on screen in each Bay film is much more damaging than anything Wood ever attempted. Again, I'm preaching to the converted here, but Jerry's comment "Then after it was over we laughed just as hard when Michael Bay's Armageddon was popped in" triggered this.

cp

Craig's right. There is, I think, a definite taxonomy of bad films in which not all bad films are equal. Anyway, even within the realm of low-budget filmmaking uncle Ed is far from the worst director of all time. People who still think he is in a world where films by Andy Milligan, H.G. Lewis, Larry Buchanan, et al exist simply aren't looking hard enough.

We shouldn't only look among the schlock for bad film directors. There is another (more respectable) echelon where I would put Brits Michael Winner and most of Ken Russell; In France, Claude Lelouch and Andre Cayatte, and in Italy Pupe Avati. In the USA, I think much of Ron Howard would qualify. I'm sure there are much worse of whom I'm (thankfully) ignorant.

I love me some "Plan 9" and especially "Glen or Glenda," and the Medveds of the world won't make me apologize. But in addition to finding them entertaining and actually quite formally interesting (intentionally so? who cares), they also emit this wonderful ethos. Wood's band of misfits are not only making the overt film; they are also documenting their existence, their hopes and aspirations, and it's incredibly touching to me.

Not for nothin' did J. Hoberman compare Wood and Oscar Micheaux. Celluloid evidence of marginalized people moving through a brief passage of time...

Ron Howard ? You did not like "Eat My Dust" ?

Bricks, "Eat My Dust" was directed by Charles Griffith, you might have been thinking about, "Grand Theft Auto" or maybe his many other works...