Well, I don't agree with Edlund's point of view at all. "Used" is a rather harsh term; as with most affiliations in the movie business, the collaboration is mutually beneficial. The fact is, or the flip side to that argument, if you will, is that without Schneer, Ray almost certainly would not have had the career he did.  Schneer wasn't an angel, but he wasn't a devil, either. Producers almost always get a bad rap precisely because they have to make the tough decisions, usually involving the limitations of budget. But despite everything, Schneer got those movies made when no one else was willing or able to do the same thing.

Sure Schneer took advantage of Ray's incredible talent-- producers are always trying to find the next talent or technique in order to create something successful or that will stand out. But equally so, in Schneer Ray found a means to continue an almost unbroken string of feature films from 1955 to 1964 (when Ray went off to do One Million Years BC for Hammer) and then from 1967 to 1981. Edlund is entitled to his opinion, of course, but the fact that he makes the broadest of all negative generalizations ("these lame movies that were badly written and cut") -- as opposed to what? some of Edlund's films like Leonard Part 6, Master of the Universe, Legal Eagles, etc.? -- tends to erode his credibility. Sure, some of Ray's films suffer from those shortcomings to different degrees, and sometimes egregiously so (though most have distinct virtues, too), but what was the alternative? Not make anything at all...?

It's not a black-and-white issue, and I'm not trying to start up one of those endless threads that argue the qualities and deficiencies of Ray's movies one by one, but that kind of sweeping negative dismissal of Schneer is, I think, both inaccurate and unfair.