The first ever Mighty HDC Battle Royale

[Zero]

i support letting him play - we all deserve a shot

[Despare]

Leniency... let him have another question (he's had far too much time to construct and answer to the first one), a tough one too... with a semi-short time limit. Nobody should get a free pass, there were plenty of times where I rushed something in just to get it there because I was too busy or had some problems.

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

Originally Posted by missmacabre

i actually wasn't saying i wanted pics for dramatic purposes, I love seeing wounds and knowing the stories behind them. Is there a website for that, cause there should be.

we should hang out. :cool:

[Psycom5k]

Well, lets wait for V to get here to decide what to do. I can't really type much though, cause my arm fucking hurts.

Also, I think MM finds headwounds attractive. :p

[Posher778]

I want KANGAROO COURT!

[_____V_____]

Hmm....

Even after taking all facts into account, plus the main fact that Psycom DID have all day, all evening and all night (till 1 AM) to submit his reply (if he even bothered till then), I am NOT satisfied.

The esteemed Judge was lenient and forgiving, and withdrew his punishment (which was a really harsh and brutal punishment), but I will not be as kind or forgiving, simply for the time factor. IF Psycom is indeed telling the truth, he had about 16 hours to send in his answer, if he bothered, before the so-called "incident" happened. As it stands right now, he did not.

The problem is, I am the unbiased host here, and there are Judges present who have taken the "facts(?)" into account, and have been quite forgiving. Although Battle Royale must continue, I will NOT let off Psycom so easily.

I will take Despare's suggestion for the proceedings, and make ONE exception.

Psycom, you have 12 hours to submit your answer to this fresh query :-

"John Carradine: underappreciated horror great or rightfully neglected schlockmeister?
If he was a horror great, what was his greatest horror role, and why?
If he was a shlockmeister, what was his hammiest piece of horror cheese, and why?"

Failure to submit an entry within the next 12 hours will result in a very heavy punishment, regardless of any "facts", "truths", "incidents" and any other "thingummys".


We will see the results of Round of FOUR for the other Finalists...


...NEXT.

[_____V_____]

RESULTS - ROUND OF FOUR


The first entry, came from Finalist Zero.

"If you had to remove one horror film branded a classic from existence which one would be it be? What would the consequences be for contemporary horror films accordingly?"

"Well, a question like this is bound to provoke controversy. If we understand ‘classic’ to mean a film that has become part of the canon of great horror films, then removing one is bound to violate someone’s (perhaps many someones’) sensibilities. But, to the question I now turn and the film I have chosen to remove from the list of ‘classics’ is Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 The Shining.

I will be the first to say that The Shining is a brilliant film, it is smart and insightful and it absolutely oozes with Kubrick’s aesthetics and politics. But, I don’t think it has been productive for the broader scope of horror. Essentially, my argument is that the more people have heaped praise upon Kubrick’s The Shining, the less respect horror films have gotten. In the following paragraphs I will elaborate upon this thesis.

First, The Shining is first and foremost a Kubrick film. Even when horror fans talk about it, the film is always first and foremost understood as Kubrick! This is right and accurate since almost every Kubrick film is basically a Kubrick film (which is to say that his vision overrides any genre issue or even star-turn – if Nicholson chews the scenery it is because Kubrick wants him to). Now, Kubrick is a great director, but he is no horror director. This is not to say that The Shining is not scary in parts or that it is not a horror film but, rather, the problem is that Kubrick so overshadows the horror that it actually diminishes the genre. For many people they love The Shining BECAUSE it is a Kubrick film and – importantly here – IN SPITE OF the fact that it is horror.

For many critics and film historians, The Shining is an example of Kubrick ‘slumming’ in the backwater genre of horror. The momentary presence of the ‘great director’ within horror simply demonstrates his greatness – ‘oh look,’ they say, ‘Kubrick can make even horror artistic.’ Let’s be honest – this snobbery is rife in the film fan world. If you are at a cocktail party and someone says they love Kubrick or Jim Jarmusch or Felini or whatever – then the response is ‘oohhh’ – but in proper circles if you say you love Romero or Craven or Argento then the answer will either be ‘who?’ or ‘yuck.’ Kubrick’s momentary stop in the horror genre actually diminishes these other directors because they don’t live up to the aesthetics of ‘the great director’ – thus perpetuating the diminishment of horror.

Second, The Shining actually adds nothing to the genre. It was a commercial and generally critical success – a necessary success after Kubrick’s dismal failure with Barry Lyndon – but what new twist does it add? Haunted houses – done many times before! Dysfunctional family – done before! Creepy kids – done before! In The Shining, Kubrick basically takes the skeleton of horror films – inverts it – and then makes the film his way. Even Stephen King hated Kubrick’s version because he took all the meat off the story and reduced it to basic generic elements that he could manipulate in his own vision.

Third, watched carefully, The Shining is actually an anti-horror film. It basically takes the normal elements of horror and inverts them, as I mentioned above. Consider the scene where Jack is hammering at the bathroom door with his ax. Now, any normal horror director would put the camera inside the bathroom with Shelly Duvall so that we would be trapped with her as the ax begins to penetrate the door. But not Kubrick. Instead he puts the camera outside with Jack – even down the hall a bit – so we watch as he workmanlike batters at the door. We only go inside once the job has been essentially finished. This trick is played out over and over again. This is not to say its not a good film or not scary or not effective as an exercise in inverting genre – but it is often used by non-horror fans to claim that horror can be boiled down to these elements and then deconstructed by the ‘great director.’

Let me close by saying I like The Shining and that I really like and admire Stanley Kubrick. That said, I think removing The Shining from existence would not so much diminish horror as, potentially, open the door for more serious consideration of horror films – many of which were equally smart and equally innovative – made by those who devoted their careers to the genre and didn’t just pass through."



And the esteemed presiding Judge's verdict to that answer was...

"While I may not agree with every single point made by this contender, his argument is very well reasoned with specific details and points to back up his opinion. I would hate to see The Shining wiped out, but you make a strong case.

Score: 8/10.

REWARD: 5 health packs and a Grenade Launcher with 1 Grenade, PLUS a Rocket Launcher with 1 Rocket!!"


WAY TO GO, FINALIST ZERO! Superb effort, and an equally great reward!!

[_____V_____]

The second entry, came from Finalist Posher778.

"If you had to remove one horror film branded a classic from existence which one would be it be? What would the consequences be for contemporary horror films accordingly?"

"I would remove the classic film "The Mummy". Although it is a classic, it wasn't quite as influential as say, Dracula or Frankenstein, and not nearly as important. Although there were many sequels and clones of the film, including the popular remake and sequel "The Mummy Returns," I don't think the world of film would evaporate due to their removal from existence. The original Mummy is indeed a good film, and it is influential to some modern horror films, but not enough in my opinion. It hardly influences the "living dead" elements, as we do have real zombie films for that such as "Night of the Living Dead" or "Dawn of the Dead". All things considered, the world could live without 'The Mummy.'"


And the esteemed presiding Judge's verdict to that answer was...

"7 points.
No reward or punishment."


Congrats, Posher! You win 7 points (1 HP), but dont win any arsenal or bonus HPs for this effort. Good try though.

[_____V_____]

The third entry, came from Finalist Despare.

"If you had to remove one horror film branded a classic from existence which one would be it be? What would the consequences be for contemporary horror films accordingly?"

"This is a tough question to answer for me because I love classic horror films. I suppose I would have to say, for the sake of the genre… 'Them!' While I’m a big fan of this movie and really think it’s a terrific giant creature flick it didn’t really revolutionize the genre. We already had 'King Kong', and even 'Godzilla' was released before 'Them!' so it didn't create the giant killer creature genre nor was it the first to address our fear of nuclear side effects. I guess what it all comes down to is impact and 'Them!' simply didn’t do enough for the genre that wasn’t done before. The 50’s were littered with mutant creature films and I consider 'Them!' to easily be one of the best but I think our genre would be ok without it."



And the esteemed presiding Judge's verdict to that answer was...

"I give him an 8. It seemed like he really thought about his response and took the time to do some research. Reward him, please."


CONGRATS DESPARE! YOU WIN 2 HPs (1 thrown in as Bonus) and a Shotgun with 8 shells!

Way to go with that excellent effort.

[Rayne]

Originally Posted by Zero

i support letting him play - we all deserve a shot

I think he deserves 19 shots :p :D