THE NEW NIGHTMARE THEATER WITH SAMMY TERRY: FIRST IMPRESSIONS

I have gotten several requests to do a write up on the new “Nightmare Theater” with Sammy Terry.

Despite the requests, I have been reticent for several reasons. The new
Nightmare Theater is in the grass roots stage, although whether or not it
should be is debatable. After all, Sammy Terry has a fifty year legacy, so it should not be a case of having to compete with the Johnny-come-lately horror hosts, of whom there are far too many of dreadful quality. With his long history, Sammy Terry could be venturing into new territory, rather than reconquering the market of local television, especially since local television really no longer exists.

The first and most glaring problem with contemporary horror hosts is the question of whether they’re needed. In the golden age of horror hosts there were a half dozen or so local television stations, and the video/cable/Internet age was something akin to science fiction. If one wanted to watch Frankenstein (1931), then you might get the chance to see it once a year via the local host, who, in our case in Indianapolis, was Sammy Terry on WTTV 4.

Today, the horror host is simply not a necessity, so in order to entice an audience the host should have interesting personality, story, and characterization. Today’s hosts simply get up and do their shtick. Often, one questions whether or not they have even watched the hosted film. If the host wants the audience to acknowledge his or her entertainment value, then his enthusiasm needs to be contagious. It rarely is. The host hardly has to have a back story and, indeed, some sense of mystery should be retained. Today’s audience is much more sophisticated; the personality of the host, and his or her ability to make us care, is vital.

Instead, contemporary horror hosts can often be seen hawking their wares at various horror conventions. Often, They seem more like used car salesmen than mysterious entities.

Mark Carter is the son of Bob Carter, the original Sammy Terry. Bob has retired and has passed the cape onto Mark, who is a dead ringer for his dad. Mark has an answer for the inevitable question “are you the Son of Sammy Terry?”—a classic “only Sammy’s blood has  worn this cape.” Unfortunately, Mark’s ready-made response has yet to be put to use in an actual public interview. Instead, when local news programs interviewed the new Sammy Terry, he broke character when the question arose, which was a misstep.

I fondly reviewed the original Nightmare Theater 2 years ago (at 366 weird movies), but the primary reason I have been reluctant to do this follow-up is because I have numerous associates working on the new Nightmare Theater. I sat in on a few round table discussions with the team. I made and documented a few suggestions, then went back to other endeavors. In the time since, a few associates have broken away from the Nightmare project. There have been conflicts and competitive egos. Several other associates continue to remain with the team. Luckily, I have been at a distance from it, so I feel objectively free, at this point, to go ahead with my observations—and those are unfortunately mixed, because I feel there is considerably rich potential for Sammy Terry and the New Nightmare Theater, but there are also legitimate disappointments.

Sammy Terry’s new set has been built in his home. The craftsmanship is superb and equals the set from thirty years ago. As for the act itself, one would have to scrutinize “Sammy’s blood”in order to distinguish that this is the son donning the cape. Mark Carter has certainly mastered Sammy’s cadences and characterization.

Sammy Terry is now hosting independent horror shorts. These can be seen bi-weekly on the WTTV4 website. The first of the Sammy-hosted shorts premiered on Sammy’s new DVD label. In the1980s, Sammy Terry publicly complained that the quality of movies being givento him by WTTV 4 had lowered considerably, especially in comparison to the
films he had been hosting the previous decades. While Sammy took a “the show must go on” approach, his out-of-cape job—owning a classical music store—might help explain his concern for what he was hosting. Yes, Sammy Terry was camp, but he was classy camp. He would retain a sense of humor when hosting something like Universal’s silly assembly-line monster mash, Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman (1943) or Ed Wood’s infamous Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959). Sammy could also convey a sense of dread when he hosted Rouben Mamoulin’s macabre Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932) or tap into our fear of Don Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956).

The films shown undeniably effected Sammy’s act. Sadly, those otherworldly films eventually gave way to Z-grade groaners, like Dracula’s Dog (1978). Sammy responded by discussing the films less, and making his act more locally focused. Eventually, he added colorful guests to exchange grand guignol puns, and (one suspects) to help him get through the night. Luckily, after retirement, Sammy returned to form of sorts when he hosted occasional specials. While his energy could not match that of his heyday, his enthusiasm sparkled again, much more so than in the whole of his last few years on weekly television.

If the quality of those 1980s movies were awful, then the movie on the new premiere Sammy Terry DVD, Bikini Monsters, is so execrable that it makes those 1980s turkeys look like polished diamonds. Bikini Monsters is a mutilated short taken from the feature of the same name. It is directed by Terence Muncy. The movie is an excuse for the director to be around scantily clad women, and to call himself a director. Instead of a well crafted first impression of the new Sammy, we get an unimaginative, dull, and witless waste. If the original Bikini Monsters was bad enough, then the truncated version, produced for the DVD, makes this movie an even more incomprehensible mess. The plot, such as it is, involves a hippie turning buxom babes into “Bikini Monsters” and an investigator who thinks a serial killer may be murdering the local girls! Or something like that.

Ed Wood idolized Orson Welles, yet Wood did not have an iota of Welles’ gifts. Terence Muncy seems to emulate Ed Wood and, remarkably, Muncy makes Wood look like a consummate master craftsman. Watching Muncy’s film reminded me of a bit of dialogue from Gods and Monsters (1998) when Clayton Boone asks James Whale, “Oh, you directed Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, Son of Frankenstein,
etc?” Whale incisively responds, “Uh, no, just the first two. The others were done by hacks.”

Muncy’s entire oeuvre is a lesson in banality. His first film,The Shack (2006) was a ten cent slasher in the woods, complete with stranded babes at a gas station. His Hell Walks the Earth (2008) went out of its way to prove the adage that zombies are horror’s standard fall back when the ideas aren’t coming. While you pretty much know what to expect from a title like Bikini Monsters, it still does not go the route of overt plagiarism like Terence Muncy’s second short for Sammy Terry, Bed Bug,which has to be the climax of Muncy’s brand of counterfeit creativity. Bed Bug is an embarrassing and unforgivable rip-off of Drew Daywalt’s vastly superior and more compact Bedfellows (2008), which won several genre awards and was shown on Chiller TV.

When the plagiarism was brought to my attention, I checked it out and, yes, it is shamelessly obvious as can be seen when comparing the two films. I contacted an associate of Muncy’s who gave me the answer of, “No, you only have to change one key point and then it is yours.” Later, after talk of the plagiarism began making local rounds, someone claimed that seven points had to be changed. Shortly after that, the new and improved reply from Muncy’s camp was that, indeed, seven points were changed. I was assured that the changes were enough for them to avoid charges of plagiarism and claim the film as their own. Surprisingly, the answer that I got back from my inquiry was not even a pooh-pooh dismissal response that the similarities were unintentional. Perhaps the similarities are too obvious to pretend otherwise, or perhaps this is a case of a hustler having no scruples.

The justification from the Bed  Bug side evades the unsettling issue of unethical business practices  trumping any regard for delivering honest, worthwhile entertainment. The point that soars above the Bed Bug team’s head is that it seems Muncy could not come up with an original idea for a mere 9 minute short without stealing from superior talent. Alas, this all-too-common mentality justifiably gives independent filmmaking a bad name; but, from viewing Muncy’s films, it is clear that he desperately needs to steal from better writers. The subtle nuances of Daywalt’s film are replaced in Bed Bug with Muncy’s pedestrian obviousness.

Hosting inept schlock is  something a horror host may have to endure occasionally, and it’s not an issue providing one endures it through a sense of humor. Of course, it is also preferable to find films that charmingly fit the ”so bad it’s good” category as opposed to the “so bad it’s bad” category. Because Muncy is a large part of Sammy’s team, his seemingly nonchalant, huckster-like attitude about peddling shameless knockoffs for Sammy Terry to host seriously threatens to cheapen the reputation of a worthwhile endeavor: not because of complex legal issues regarding copyright, but because of unethical disregard and outright contempt for originality. All too soon in the new endeavor, the uniqueness of the original show is being sabotaged by inferior product and shyster-like business practices,which could turn the New Nightmare into a Vegas-style caricature.

Carter has a fairly large team working for him, and he may not be fully in the know. Regardless, the first impression he sowed has reaped enough negative feedback that several independent filmmakers have expressed trepidation in regards to submitting their work to the New Nightmare Theater team. Additionally, there have been allegations that critical feedback on Sammy’s various sites mysteriously disappears every few days. It is doubtful that macro-management censorship can eradicate negative word of mouth.

Regardless, Sammy’s longtime fans have expressed enthusiasm for the continuation of the act and hope to see Nightmare Theater going in fresh, new directions while retaining the traditional class of the original. The development of the character itself, in quality films, would seem to be an obvious way for this 21st century incarnation of the ghoul to put his personal stamp onto the original role model and make it his own. Good independent and public domain films are, admittedly, not an easy find (although it’s hardly impossible, because they are out there).
Is this the case of a pale apple not falling far enough from the tree?
Nostalgia for the original Nightmare may prove to be short-lived. Nostalgia alone will not cut it for long in the contemporary market, which inevitably recognizes amateurish, slipshod imitations.

All this adds up to an overall disappointing first impression, despite Carter’s actual hosting duties, which he continues to polish. Carter’s tunnel vision-like focus and hard work on the act itself seems to have blurred his priorities in scrutinizing the type of films to which he is attaching the Sammy Terry name. Is the quality of what Sammy Terry hosts of any importance? The films impact the act, so the answer is
“yes,” but if the attitude from Terence Muncy and some of the New Nightmare Theater Team continues to be a resounding “no,” then the horizon may look like a brief, bleak, unpleasant nightmare.

However, there are optimistic signs that the New Nightmare Theater might rebound. The most recent, post-Terence Muncy shorts are an improvement but then, how could they not be?

John Claeys’ Mourningwood Cemetery is atmospheric minimalism, shot in strikingly expressionistic black and white. Aaron Marshall’s The Guardian conveys a disturbingly haunting and almost wistful, organic quality. Sammy Terry’s newest trip to the surreal netherworld takes us back to the dawn of cinema when he surprisingly, and rather strangely, hosted Edison’s silent screamer Frankenstein (1910) (directed by J. Searle Dawley). This is a notable, gutsy step in a vastly improved direction. Even the Sammy of yesteryear never traveled into such a fantastic realm. With the last couple of installments, The New Nightmare Theater took us back to the striking milieu of the original Sammy Terry, circa 1975, and showed the potential to improve on it.

Of course, this direction may be a short-lived fluke, and it has yet to erase those initial blunders. If the New Nightmare Theater practices discrimination in the films it shows, this could startle and surprise an audience enough to make them return. They might even recruit friends beyond the local scene, which the original Sammy was never able to do. If Sammy Terry utilizes astute judgment in film selection, and in the direction for the character as well, then the possibilities are expansive enough to overcome a damaging first impression. In the dead of night, I
sincerely hope he does.

About Alfred Eaker

Painter, filmmaker, theology
This entry was posted in Film Reviews and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to THE NEW NIGHTMARE THEATER WITH SAMMY TERRY: FIRST IMPRESSIONS

  1. Sarah says:

    I think the new sammy should have come back more hip. He lookslike a dork and talks too long

  2. Jasper says:

    Good for you Alfred for pointing out your perception of the corrupt nature of the new generation horror hosts. I agree that Sammy Terry has a “Horrible” (meant in the most complimentary regard) reputation and it’s wrong that the new and improved one is corrupt unlike his predecessor. Of course Sammy Terry knew that he was plagiarizing but Sammy must not care. As President Obama said, “The buck stops at the top”. I agree with you and think Drew Daywalt should sue Sammy for distributing his product and infringing on his copyright. I think you should continue to lead the charge like you have started. The more pressure powerful media people like you can put on corrupt people, the more we can get back to responsible organizations. I hope Drew listens to you and stops Sammy now before he ruins local horror. Thank you for your leadership. I’ll copy and forward your article and my support to as many people as I can.

    • Alfred Eaker says:

      The following is a letter, supposedly sent by poster above, to 366 Weird Movies. I am reposting his letter to 366 and responding below his 366 post. As can be clearly seen, his post should have gone to this word press, not 366.

      “I notice that you removed my previous post. Isn’t that the behavior that you scolded Sammy Terry for doing? By the way, I checked with Drew Daywalt and he doesn’t see any issue at all with Terence Muncy’s Bed Bug short film. He said he watched it after you tried to convince him it was a rip off. He applauds innovative creativity and said he encourages Terence Muncy and all filmmakers to develop their projects using elements from many influences. I also found out from one of your fellow colleagues that the man you work for on a mural project has big resentment issues with Terence Muncy over unrelated issues. Your own colleague reported that he used you as a puppet to try to discredit Mr. Muncy. Furthermore, I interviewed Sammy Terry at the State Fair last week. He is a patriot and sincerely wishes to provide quality entertainment. He was humble and spoke kindly of you even referencing you as a friend. I wish you would repost my previous post so that I may appropriately apologize to Sammy and Mr. Muncy in this forum. I have been a longtime reader of your column and am sadly disappointed in your biased witchhunt of an article.”

      MY RESPONSE:

      Jasper, if this is indeed the “same” Jasper (writing style is a tad different).

      First of all, as can be seen, the original post was posted onto this word press account, NOT the 366-word press account. The original post was not removed, nor was it censored, nor was it edited.

      Secondly, I never personally spoke to Mr. Daywalt, although an associate of myself AND Phil Yeary did contact Daywalt and, to my knowledge merely alerted Mr. Daywalt to Muncy’s short. As far as I know he never tried to “convince” Mr. Daywalt of plagiarism, so that is also most likely inaccurate or it is at least partially “off.” This was the same associate who told me of the similarities between Muncy’s short and Mr. Daywalt’s short. This associate was not Patrick Greathouse, the person I work with at the mural and haunt.

      When I was told about it, I had never heard of Mr. Daywalt or his film. Phil Yeary, who I worked with at both the haunt and the mural, is also an associate of Terence Muncy’s. When Patrick and myself asked Phil about Muncy’s short, Phil immediately defended it with “No, we changed one point of the film and it’s ours now.” Now if Phil had said “Yes, we were influenced by Daywalt’s film, I would have accepted that, but not the strong defense and bold claim that “it’s ours now.” For some reason, the idea that the attitude in itself was repulsive, regardless of how may points were changed, or not, never seemed to occur to Mr. Muncy or his camp. Patrick responded to Phil that he believed the one-point rule to be inaccurate and, for example, seven points in the costume market, has to be changed.

      Regardless, a few days later Mark Carter talked to Patrick Greathouse. I was there and I heard it on speakerphone. Mark told Patrick “We changed seven points and the film is ours now.” Obviously, Phil Yeary had gone to Mark Carter and had relayed what Patrick had said and this is why Mark Carter responded with the seven points answer, which came from Patrick to begin with (obviously Mark did not realize this).

      I consider Mark to be a friend and an associate. However, the original post was correct in the “buck stops here” statement. I was couth and did not name Mark as the associate who verified Muncy’s “very intentional” copying of another film. Legalities aside (which are complex anyway) it is wrongheaded, unethical business practice, and a shoddy excuse for entertainment. There is also a considerable difference between being influenced and outright copying in order to fill a microwave, fast-food type of need. I believe Mark very well knew what was behind Muncy’s intent. And to refer to Muncy as having innovative creativity is amusing. I have seen most of Muncy’s films and every single one of them is an example of what’s wrong in independent filmmaking. Simply put: Muncy has never shown to have an original idea whatsoever. All of his films are low budget rip-offs of bad films we have already seen time and again. I have heard the same of his comic book.

      I have no axe to grind with Muncy, I barely know him at all and have only, briefly, met him a few times and this was always in meetings. Patrick, who is an associate, did not ask me to write the article, nor he did “tell me” to write the article. I was compelled myself to write the article after I personally heard the responses of Phil Yeary and Mark Carter, both of whom scrambled all overthemselves to poorly justify Muncy’s blatant attempt to copy another film in order to quickly get a short in for the WTTV website (The original idea was to get independent filmmakers to submit shorts. The reputation of Muncy and, now, Nightmare Theater, is low enough that few filmmakers are submitting. Too, I was the one who initially recommended Sammy hosting independent shorts, although I suppose I should have stressed good, original shorts although I thought that was a given). For me, Muncy’s attitude is an example of why indie film is generally considered to be joke. I called it out in a critical manner.

      For the most part, I concentrated on Muncy’s films. Again, I was couth in regards to Mr. Carter, although I made some critical points (both hinted and literal) because I do respect Mark, regardless of what I believe to be wrongheaded choices in some areas on his part.

      In the original post, I stated that some of today’s hosts act as if they have not even watched the films they are hosting. I will admit that was directed towards Mark. There is a reason I wrote that. Patrick had given Mark some shorts, Mark videotaped his hosting of Patrick’s shorts and then, several weeks later, Mark told me (after he had taped himself hosting them) that he had not even watched the films yet. Mr. Greathouse himself did not express any issue with the fact that Mark had not watched the films he had hosted, but I did within a critical mindset.

      Mark is a salesman. He is, late in the game, taking on the character his dad handed over to him. While Bob Carter had a bit of a salesman in him as well, he also had a genuine love of the craft, entertainment and, yes, artistry. Eventually, Mark may grove into the character and make it his own. To date, he has simply copied his dad, and he has engaged in doing business with people who do not have an iota of originality in their work ethic. In order For Mark to succeed in the long term, he will have to put an original stamp on the character and actually care about the direction of his act. At this rate, that may be hard to do and, I am afraid the new Sammy Terry could be history within a year or so. That would be too bad, but it would be all too predictable. Lon Chaney Jr and Frank Sinatra Jr. are well known examples of show biz sons who merely (and poorly) repeated what their fathers had done. Sadly, Mark is following that example. Yet, there are better examples to follow. Laura Dern inherited Bruce Dern’s penchant for offbeat roles, but she carved out an intelligent and identifiably different screen persona for herself and even surpassed her father. In a way, I understand that like-minded people collaborate well together so I think Mark may identify with Muncy the salesman because there is no Muncy the artist for Mark to identify with.

      Your puzzling point made that Mark is a patriot is beside any point whatsoever. I never have talked to Mark about anything of that nature and why would I? How does it pertain at all? That sounds like a statement made by a newly converted fanboy and it is totally irrelevant.

      As for “the associate” who claims I am puppet to Mr. Greathouse: that associate is Phil Yeary and Phil was fired by Mr. Greathouse, from the mural project, due primarily to Phil’s lack of reliability. Patrick’s unnamed business partner warned Phil in regards to Phil’s frequent no-call, no shows. After that talk between them, Phil had eight additional no-call/no-shows before he was released from the project. I very much like Phil Yeary, I admire his work, I like working with him. Phil is a genuinely talented craftsman, but I believe Phil has made poor choices, it is Phil who may have the axe to grind with Mr. Greathouse, and Phil is a far better talent than some of the peers he chooses to work with.

      Finally, Patrick Greathouse owns a haunted house. I have collaborated with Patrick on some films, the mural project and other endeavors, but Patrick and I are very different from one another. Anyone who has been around us is well aware of that fact. Patrick desiring to write or making an attempt to write entertainment/ art/film criticism would be completely out of Patrick’s character. I alone wrote a valid criticism of the New Nightmare Theater team. I absolutely stand by that article 100 percent. I would have left the article to stand on its own but the agenda (and origin) of your post is transparent. It seems unwise to add to the article and potentially create a flame, but I will respond to your post. My article was not a witchhunt at all, but a critical assestment of the direction the New Nightmare Theater has taken. My article also left room for optimistic growth.

      If you see, Mark pass on my good luck and wishes to him.

  3. Alfred Eaker says:

    The Bone (Terence Muncy) wrote the following:

    blackforest1974@yahoo.com
    69.243.164.179

    Submitted on 2011/09/18 at 6:50 pm

    Al Eaker is a partner with Pat Greathouse which doesnt like me ..so Al has nothing better to do the tear into someone that really works hard….this just shows you that Al needs to grow up and enjoy that peopke are making stuff he has every right to judge things but ..his movie has only been shown once …..Hell Walks the Eartth has sold out 3 theaters and has 6 showings and is getting another showing ..i hope he gets what he needs in life ..but the only thing he has going for him is that he likes to blast people….. thanks AL

    My Response:

    Terence,
    I do appreciate your finally standing by your work and using your own email, rather than someone else’s.

    First of all, as I stated, my review of your film had and has nothing to do with Patrick Greathouse.

    My original review was a criticism of your own works, two of which were featured on the New Nightmare Theater. My criticism also focused on the direction that The New Nightmare Theater has taken. I approach aesthetical criticism seriously and I have been doing it for years. Your relationship with Patrick Greathouse is of no concern to me. I do not know you. Nor is my relationship with Mr. Greathouse any concern of yours.

    Secondly, if you are going to comment about my film (which one?) then perhaps you should take time to actually do some research and find out the different (world) venues my films have shown in (and won a few awards in). On that note, your measuring of our comparative films seems to be solely based on how much $ your film has allegedly made. I stress allegedly. You criteria are, all too predictably, not based on originality or even imaginative qualities, so I find your measure of so-called success to be superficial and wrong-headed.

    As I said in my original review: Your criteria are precisely what is wrong with the independent film scene and the all too typical approaches indie filmmakers are taking today. However, even in that regard, your response seems less than honest. I was informed by two persons (After my review was posted), that your successful showings amounted to local only showings. Not only that, but you even charged your own actors (who appeared in your films for free) to see their own film (R.J. is one of those actors who informed me of this. Another is your investor, who you borrowed money from, to finance Hell Walks the Earth, never paid her back, and worse, you failed to giver her proper credit for investing her money into your film).

    Too, I would appreciate your utilizing spell check (it is usually to the right) when you respond and, please, get someone to help you write. Not only are your films badly written rip-offs of other films, but also your response seems as if an illiterate writes it. To be quite frank, after reading your letter, I am simply amazed that Mr. Carter continues in his collaboration with you. For Sammy’s character to rise to his potential heights, Mr. Carter should be utilizing at least halfway competent writers, producers and creative management. Your films (and your letter now)are very vivid indications of pedestrian abilities.

    Too, even by your own criteria I can, will, and do validate my working relationship with Patrick Greathouse. The Asylum House is in its 16th year, has a proven track record, receives rave reviews from all the state and city papers, wins every competition they participate in, and has produced a feature film with an established Hollywood producer. The Asylum House is as successful as it has been because Mr. Greathouse, who I went to Art College with, approaches the genre as an art, craft and entertainment venue that he genuinely cares about. I would not work with him if it were otherwise.

    Admittedly, I am not specifically a genre fan, but I recognize and choose to collaborate with people who take pride in their craft, regardless of genre. I have found that quality usually has the best potential for eventual monetary success as well.

    And I would venture to safely guess that the quality of The Asylum House means something to Mark Carter since he still has the Asylum House name and photographs on the Sammy Terry website. Further, the Asylum House must mean something to you as well since at a recent horror convention you mentioned the Asylum House feature film on Your Own Resume without bothering to mention that the only position you held in the making of that film was that of a boom holder. Yet, you mentioned their feature film along with the films you have directed and produced. The indication, to any casual observer was that the Asylum House produced film was, rather, YOUR film. That seems a clear case of your trying to ride Asylum House coattails.

    So, with that in mind, let me ask this now: How is Sammy Terry faring?

    The news of the dreadful shares Nightmare Theater has gotten on the WTTV 4 special, the miniscule interest in the local website, and the less than stellar turn-outs for personal appearances are strong indications that my prediction for Sammy Terry being history within a year or two, now seems too optimistic.

    I felt that Mr. Carter took the predictable, paint-by-number approach to the silver platter legacy he was handed. I like Mark, I consider him an associate, but he has mismanaged what could have been a golden opportunity. He did so by treating his inheritance as a quick business venture, by not assembling a professional quality team, by playing it safe, by merely copying what his dad has already done and by not approaching his father’s legacy with the intelligence and craft it deserved. Mr. Cater should have taken the character in a fresh direction sooner, rather than later.

    Anyone with an iota of senses in regards to genre entertainment knows that merely doing what’s been done time and again is, in a large sense, the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. Mark should have avoided working with such cheap labor. Compounding this is the fact that Mark, admittedly, did not even watch the films he hosted. Was this good business advice on your end?

    I had hoped Mark would rebound. From what I have seen since my review, his act has gotten worse. He talks too long, does the laugh too often, and he approved a pale copy of ghost girl’s original introduction (did it occur to anyone on the Nightmare team that perhaps you should write a new and original introduction, rather than slop out a poor carbon of her superior, original one? It is, I suppose, refreshing to see that your patterns are consistent).

    I suppose congratulations should go to you for killing the magic of Sammy Terry, but somehow I do not feel at all like congratulating you. My review of The New Nightmare Theater seems increasingly apt. I repeat that Mr. Greathouse did not know of my review until after I had written it. I debated writing it and knew if I did publish the article, I would not be collaborating at all with Nightmare Theater in the future. However, after seeing where the act had gone, I no longer had any desire to do so anyway. Therefore, I was free to critique the act.

    I do not desire to participate in a flame war. Opening oneself up to criticism is part of being in the business of filmmaking. Personally and professionally I feel that you’re keeping the ink wet on my original article is an error on your part. To be frank, you’re out of your league. Since my original New Nightmare Theater article, a plethora of local filmmakers have come to me. It seems you have quite a reputation and it is not an admirable one, according to everything I have heard. Regardless, I have no personal axe to grind with you. I could very well publish far more of what I have heard. I have no desire to, nor do I think that you would wish me to. I would advise you to drop it. I do not intend to engage in further responses. You are, of course, free to make a stab at changing my mind.

  4. E. L. Dawson says:

    Well Al you really think you know how to tear people down, well let me get this out there to the public, who I am sure by now know who you to truely be. You are Disgruntled only because Terrence and Phil had had enough of your back stabbing. How much money have you made from them, and their talents? They walked away and now your sugar-daddies have left you without any money to be made! Poor you! Feel free to e-mail me and prove me wrong, but I have known Phil for more years then you have, and I also know that the only poor choice he has made was trusting you!

    Leroy Dawson

    • Alfred Eaker says:

      Mr. Dawson, It’s a bit mind boggling that you are replying to a post of a review made over a year ago. Among other things, you are grossly misinformed re: our financial status. Too, you are coming at this from the side of the Hoosier trailer trash horror film scene (One Terence Muncy). Yours is hardly the first email/post i have gotten re: that review. I have averaged an email or post from Muncy’s camp about every couple of months since the article was posted. I would think Muncy’s arm must be really tired from all that continued stirring.

      Mr. Muncy did manage to provide a large number of people a laugh when stills from his film: “Slice” made the rounds.I personally found the sight of Phil in fishnet, speedos and ball-gag most disheartening. My heart went out to Phil, but then he chose to make his bed with a group who produces nothing more than the lowest grade, base porn. Phil is a considerable talent who,IMO,is being exploited.

      I really do not know Mr. Muncy. It is, however, abundantly clear that he and, perhaps, Phil, inspired your sophistic comments. As for Phil, I have personally never made a dime off of Phil. We were merely co-workers.

      As for myself, I am a full-time student and have been for several years. Outside of school, I have indeed done some work with the same haunted attraction that Phil also worked with. Additionally, I assisted in the production of a film with that haunt. I put work into it, so that hardly qualifies as anything resembling ‘sugar daddies.’

      You are presuming without having researched any information for yourself. Condemnation without investigation is the height of stupidity,which a little research can easily remedy.

      Let’s be honest: All this stems from my having written a bad review of Mr. Muncy’s film over a year ago. Bad reviews are, of course, an inherent risk when you do a film. I do not mind engaging in a debate, as long as it is an intelligent one. Of course, engaging with Mr. Muncy requires far more dumbing down than I am willing to do. I really do not have time for such Jerry Springer-type melodramatic antics.

  5. John F. Claeys says:

    Hey, Al. It’s hard to believe that the person who concocted the first sentence of that comment bills himself as a novelist. Maybe I should check out one of his books before passing judgement. I’ve been wondering what Dick and Jane were up to lately.

  6. Wendy says:

    Good day! I simply want to offer you a big thumbs up for the excellent information you’ve got right here on this post. I am coming back to your blog for more soon.

    • Kris says:

      Don’t know what all this egghead- ism is about. If you want a criticism from a 46 yr. old who watched Sammy Terry as a kid, here goes: It’s Halloween night and I tuned in because I heard on the radio that Sammy Terry would be on Channel 4. I looked forward to re-living fond memories. I could tell from the radio interview that the voice was not the “original” Sammy Terry, but was still planning on tuning in, regardless. I reminded my peers to check it out too.
      I found the set to be just like the old set and loved that!
      George is great! More George!
      Sammy could talk a little slower if he wants to sound like the original. (Draw it out a little more) Other than that… I really enjoyed the “blast from the past”. Thanks Sammy! I will watch every time you are on!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s