Rupert turns Rod Serling in spooky anthology series

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Scary enough is the “Hold the Meat” episode about a babysitter trying to protect a young girl from flesh-eating zombies attacking a rural mansion.

But it's even more frightening when you throw in "Survivor" star and tie-dye terror of a bear-man, Rupert Boneham, who narrates the twisted tale like some backwoods version of Rod Serling.

Behold, it’s the short -film series, “Rupert Boneham’s Frightmares: Seriously Scary Stories,” being produced by locally-based Adrenaline Motion Pictures LLC.   

A crew of 12 wrapped up shooting in Zionsville earlier this month on the first of two pilots in what Adrenaline’s president, Steve Marra, hopes to sell to a television network.

The first 14 of the 11-minute episodes are already written, with help from Jerry Gaw, a former executive at Indianapolis-based ProducenetTV.  We’re talking everything from werewolves to basement-dwelling trolls.

“It straddles the line between 'The Twilight Zone' and 'Goosebumps,'” said Marra.

As for Boneham, “He has a great laugh, oh my gosh.”

Great—as in scary.

The series also is designed to work as an anthology series for the Internet—to hit the target demographic of 15- to 25-year-olds.

The work will premiere next month at Comic Con in New York, where not a few television executives will be hanging out.

“We’d like to get an episodic order for this,” Marra said.

The timing could be good for Adrenaline. 

Boneham, a Hoosier who ran for governor last year as a Libertarian, is being thrust again into the national spotlight by appearing in new episodes of CBS-TV's "Survivor," shot in the Philippines.

Adrenaline has been working on other new films, including “Dark Lifers,” which Marra plans to show in New York, as well.

Marra, who studied film and screenwriting at UCLA, said his work has been backed by a number of private investors.

Another Adrenaline, the romantic comedy “Amanda,” is now being sold by big retailers including Best Buy and Walmart.  In 2010, it won as best feature film at the Canadian International Film Festival.


  • "Fake" charity?
    Having met Rupert a few times and knowing quite a few people who have volunteered with Rupert's Kids, I can pretty well tell you that it is NOT a "fake" charity. Rupert very much has a heart for the disadvantaged and is often out mentoring, rolling up his sleeves with the kids, and doing work for disadvantaged youngsters that have been failed by the system. Rupert does a tremendous service in our community, and I'm glad he's got a heart for it. Met Rupert (and supported him) in his run for governor last year, and I don't think you'll meet a more genuine person.
  • I get it...
    Oh I get why he was chosen....but just because he's a known name doesn't mean he's the best person for the project. Actual performers with talent should focus on facial hair growth and eating boiled animal testicles in the Survivor jungle and they might also get a show one day. This is why we're stuck with crap TV...production companies don't take chances on new ideas. At least it's not Honey Boo Boo hosting though.
  • "Stores"??
    That's not a typo? The show is named Seriously Scary Stores? Not stories?
  • $$$
    Great, maybe now Rupert will earn some money and be able to pay back those he has scammed. Oh wait, maybe he will put it in his fake children's charity to avoid paying taxes on it. What a joke!
  • marketing
    Rupert is a great fit in my opinion.... The big plus for selecting him is that he already has the name recognition needed to tempt TV execs into givin the series a shot. Thats why the relative no-names you dropped are probably not being used.
  • Rupert hosting a horror show??
    Come on Adrenaline Motion Pictures...Rupert?! Where's your imagination? How about the Muncie Bros from White Rabbit Cabaret? Or Matt Clements, the host of "Let's Make a Date" or Baxter King...he's a local ghosts-hunter/weirdo comedian...all of them are from Indy and would be a better fit for a horror show host! http://www.whiterabbitcabaret.com http://baxterking.com/

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

    2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

    3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

    4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

    5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).