[!CrackMonkey!] [Fwd: [hangout] Let's play - Kill the spammer]

[Mr. Bad]

>>>>> "mdCEoB" == mike dillon, Comrade Emperor of Berkeley <mdillon at standmed.com> writes:

    me> Or are you one of those purists who holds that a flick made in
    me> Studio City isn't _really_ a Hollywood movie?

    mdCEoB> Yup. Really I'm nobody, but neither are Burbank or Studio
    mdCEoB> City Hollywood.

You're really insane, you know that?

    mdCEoB> But, I was just being a twit, so feel free to take in
    mdCEoB> whatever direction you want.

I was kind of hoping for some kind of far-flung "Look Who's Talking"
conspiracy theory, like that you believed it was made at the North
Pole by Greenlander Inuits in huge unheated sound-stage-like igloos
(you can see Kirsty Alley's breath freezing in scene 37 and John
Travolta has a blue nose in scene 445) then snuck into the States
frame by frame in the beaks and feathers of migrating arctic terns and
then re-assembled in s00per-sekrit film labs in the Ozarks run by a
couple of Inuit-sympathizing hillbillies who then managed to pose as
slick entertainment-industry distributors and drove the reels around
from cinema to cinema all over the USA in their single smoke-belching
backwoods jalopy, and the movie became an unexpected smash hit despite
the historic poor record of Greenlander production companies at the
box office, because they managed to pass it off as a product of
Burbank powerhouse big-name studios using a borrowed color printer and
some frost-damaged Avery labels.

Anyways, the whole "Studio City is not Hollywood" thing is kind of a
let-down. But I agree, and I doubt anyone is ever going to start
talking about "that Burbank magic" or "Studio City glitz and glamor."
So I dunno.

~Mr. Bad

-- 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Mr. Bad <mr.bad at pigdog.org> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/ 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~