Quote:
Aghora:
Just what is it that keeps him from finding funding? The way Roger Coreman Makes it sound in his book, he makes it seem like its a breeze. Of course he didn't use up to ten million, but still, I'm kinda left in the dark on this aspect of filmmaking. Does anyone have anything besides the usual Corperate Greed Vs. Artistic Integrity answer? |
I think the difference with Roger Corman is that he's a businessman who makes movies. He started in the 50s when it was possible to churn out cheap movies and sell them to the drive-in circuit and make a tidy profit. That profit was then poured into making two more cheap movies. The profit from those two movies went into making another three - and so it went on. Corman's been growing his corner of the industry non-stop for almost 50 years.
Also, Corman is an expert in exploitation. I'm not saying he's not an artist in his own way - but he's never been ashamed to cash-in on current trends and pander to public demand, even if it means being low-brow or tacky. Romero is more of an auteur, who chooses his projects carefully and with great personal involvement. His films are usually financed by other people, and the bulk of the profits go to them as well.
So, in a nutshell, Corman didn't need to find funding for his movies because they funded each other. Romero starts from scratch every time.
Maybe the two should hook up...
Quote:
| Where in the color spectrum is happy located? |
Since you ask, it's just north-east of Ultra-Violent and Curious Yellow...
