I do know whatthe phrase generally means, but I don't see how it's relevant to my question if the film hasn't come out yet.

What confused me was the wording of the question, not anything pertaining to the film itself.

Thanks Cuz. That's what I was saying. The question just said 1968, which is the same year the film came out.

Also, what is the relevance to referencing a film that wasn't out and that no one expected to be a success before it's release? I already know how I plan on answering this question, I am just trying to figure out how/why Night of the Living Dead factors in to the question at all. (To determine how or why it should be referenced in my answer.) If this question was immediately after NotLD came out and surprised everyone with it's succes, that'd have obvious relevance, but since it's not out and no one's expecting it do anything special, I probably wouldn't be paying any attention to it.

There go more points....

I'll get 'em all back when I drop my winning answer.

Besides I can tell that you're just jealous that you have yet to be included in my backstage affairs like Hammerfan & Roderick. Don't worry NE, like I said, there's plenty bwind22 to go around. Certainly enough for all the judges. *wink, wink*

Even without an answer to how the looming Night of the Living Dead is relevant to the question, I'll go first since everyone else in my group is too timid. ;)

I'd pitch Sir Alfred Hitchcock one of my favorite stories from Edgar Allan Poe, "The Cask of Amontillado", for a couple of different reasons. First and foremost, Poe's work is all public domain so the studio wouldn't have to worry about getting the rights to it. Secondly, adaptations of Poe's work have already proven popular in that decade with "The Pit and The Pendulum", "The (Fall of the) House of Usher", "The Raven" and "The Black Cat" all seeing big screen releases. Third, anyone familiar with the story is aware that it's a tension-filled revenge tale, which I believe plays to Hitchcock's strong suit as the master of suspense.

For anyone unfamiliar with the story, it goes like this... Fortunato, a wine afficianado, is lured into the basement of his friend, Montresor's (who is also the Narrator) basement with the expectation of finding a Cask of Amontillado (an expensive red wine) awaiting him. Once in the basement, Montresor dupes his intoxicated friend, chains him in a side cellar, then seals up the wall in front of the door, effectively burying his old friend alive inside a tomb in his own basement. As the story winds down, we learn through the narration that it's been 50 years since this event occured. Forutnato's body is still in the basement, sealed behind the wall and Montresor was never caught or punished for the crime. Obviously, that's just the paraphrased version. Secondary characters and subplots would be inserted in order to expand the short story to feature length.

I envision the role of Montresor being played by the great Vincent Price, who's obviously a fan of Poe's work and starred in three of the four films mentioned above. Ideal casting for the role of Fortunato would be Boris Karloff, although knowing what we know now, he may not have completed the film before he died in 1969 so perhaps Bela Lugosi would be the wiser choice, with hindsight being 20/20.

A story by Edgar Allan Poe, scripted by bwind22, directed by Sir Alfred Hitchcock and starring Vincent Price and Boris Karloff (or Bela Lugosi) would almost certainly have been a box office success in it's time and would more than likely still be considered one of the classic films of that era to this day.

Well, my friend, an important thing about working in the genre is research. If you had done your research you would know that Price had already been in an adaptation of the Cask as one of Corman's three Tales of Terror. Public domain perhaps, but you wouldn't want Price to be seen in the same Poe story twice, and neither would Poe. Nor would Roger Corman who might be less than happy to see another Cask of Amontillado with Price. In principal, pretty solid, but it couldn't happen. Sloppy.

With all due respect, those are three short stories and I am pitching a feature here. Not to mention Price is far more suited for the Narrator role of Montresor than the doomed Fortunato. Where Corman went wrong, Hitchcock could get it right.

Valid point, but people already connect Vincent Price with that adaptation of the story. If he starred in a feature length Case of Monsieur Valdemar the same issue would be there.

imagine this coming from the stuffy-nose, gurgling-fat-in-the-back-of-the-throat voice of Hitch

"Poe? That's for that untalented hack, Corman. I don't follow trends, I set them."

not a bad pitch, but I'll pass.

As mentioned already- Price had previously appeared in Cask of Amontillado. He did a great job.

Hitchcock doing a period piece? His interest was strictly modern. I really doubt he'd be interested. Really doubt. Not to mention- there's no woman. Hitchcock needs a beautiful woman in a script. No backtracking- you didn't mention it, so you didn't intend it.

Casting Lugosi? Difficult- he died in 1956.

Poorly researched, poorly thought out, IMO. Doesn't play to any of the strengths of Hitchcock, and casting dead actors would get you laughed out of the pitch meeting right away.

This will get low marks from me. Even lower for arguing with the judges.

If you want to be the HDC Idol, you're going to have to step up your game.

I did mention secondary characters and subplots being added. The core story revolves around 2 male leads though.

Ouch! Nailed me on that one and I even looked it up. Apparently I am dyslexic, retarded or just can't count.

Well then it's a good thing America is voting and not y-
*Ryan Veacrest leans over and whispers in bwind22's ear.*
Oh. Nevermind then.

Seriously though, I thought V said we were supposed to win over the judges but in looking back at the original rules I now see we're not supposed to challenge the judges integrity. Is that same thing as defending our answers?