Horrendous Theory: Gerti Giggles is Dead at 12:25 PM

"...shall disavow any knoweledge of your existance. Now...did you brush your teeth?"

The Spy Kids franchise returned last year(to the delight of very few, apparently) after quite long time dormant. So much so, the titular secret agent children from the first 3 movies are all grown up and cameoing in the film.

In fact, if I recall, this franchise was quite big on cameos. My first one was the 3rd, and I was pretty confused as to why Steve Buschemi arrived on a flying pig near the end. But aparently they just dragged every single character from two movies.

Do you think he had a hilarious death offscreen?

The new one, thought, reduces the cameoing. After all, in the film's story, many years have passed, and the O.S.S. shut down the Spy Kids division. And you gotta wonder: why would an intelligence division shut down a department that saved the whole world thrice?

I mean, even with the plot about a bad guy time traveling and making himself the boss of an agency, he'd still have to answer to higher ups. What happened? Escalating budgets? The truth about Machete got out? No I think the truth is much darker and deadlier.



I believe there was a crisis. The truth about the Spy Kids agency got out. I mean, this are children being trained as soldiers and given potentially deadly assignments. Even in the decade where words like "rendition", "torture" and "unilateral" where the daily breath of news outlets around the world, I think "Child Soldiers" would litterally top all of those.

I believe Gerti Giggles is dead.



Gerti Giggles was an agent of the Spy Kids program, notable for her unusual laughter. Along with her brother, they where sort of rivals for the kids in the second movie, till they found out that their father was a criminal and a traitor. They helped turn him in.

In the third movie, they showed up for the climax fight against Sylverster Stallone riding a giant monkey mech(do not check your mouth for drugs: you just read that).



It'd be easy to assume Gerti outgrew the program and maybe moved on to become a mercenary or to another intelligence agency. But here's the thing: In the new movie she's nowhere to be found. And you know, Machete still works there(of course he fucking does). Juni continued to work there. The other kid actually chose to leave. Where could essentially half of all actual shown agents of the program have gone?

What's worse is that I don't think Gerti Giggles died because her father put a hit on her or because she was intercepted in North Korea and tortured to death. I think it was an accident. I mean, her flight method involved spinning her pigtails to somehow achieve propulsion. That probably involved some powerfull, unseen mechanism inside the hair of a little girl. It could have burst in flames, or torn her scalp clean off in midflight. It could have caused an infection.

This creates an alternate reality where the Cyber Bully movie didn't happen.

Her body is found, and all hell breaks loose. The secret is out, and it brings on the O.S.S. child labor accusations, human rights violation accusations, and some even want war crimes charges on the O.S.S. president. In a hurry, the whole program is shut down, and everything is swept neatly under the rug. The damage is done, and some people lose their job over it, but they don't have any evidence that is usable in court. What is, is covered under the Patriot Act. George Clooney gets another term as Commander in Chief.



But it's just a theory, though.

Horrendous Theory: Gerti Giggles is Dead at 12:25 PM

"...shall disavow any knoweledge of your existance. Now...did you brush your teeth?"

The Spy Kids franchise returned last year(to the delight of very few, apparently) after quite long time dormant. So much so, the titular secret agent children from the first 3 movies are all grown up and cameoing in the film.

In fact, if I recall, this franchise was quite big on cameos. My first one was the 3rd, and I was pretty confused as to why Steve Buschemi arrived on a flying pig near the end. But aparently they just dragged every single character from two movies.

Do you think he had a hilarious death offscreen?

The new one, thought, reduces the cameoing. After all, in the film's story, many years have passed, and the O.S.S. shut down the Spy Kids division. And you gotta wonder: why would an intelligence division shut down a department that saved the whole world thrice?

I mean, even with the plot about a bad guy time traveling and making himself the boss of an agency, he'd still have to answer to higher ups. What happened? Escalating budgets? The truth about Machete got out? No I think the truth is much darker and deadlier.



I believe there was a crisis. The truth about the Spy Kids agency got out. I mean, this are children being trained as soldiers and given potentially deadly assignments. Even in the decade where words like "rendition", "torture" and "unilateral" where the daily breath of news outlets around the world, I think "Child Soldiers" would litterally top all of those.

I believe Gerti Giggles is dead.

True...True Crime...True Crime...True Crime...True...Crime! at 7:48 AM

 I don't claim to have ever done anyone any good. I try not to do wrong, either, although my record is spotty at best. What I mean is that I am not a hero.

Back in 2011 I found it amusing that an Crime Degree School ad found it in themselves to advertise themselves as hunters of the undead. It was ridiculous that they made a drawing of zombies and suggested they'd teach law students to "fight evil".

I hesitantly post the offending pic, for reasons that will become plain later.

Except they didn't. A recent comment on the piece articulated by artist-blogger Eye-melt indicated that the art of the zombies was created by him, and taken without permission.A quick search of his blog reveals the art was in there as far as 2006, before I even had a DA account, probably. Since technically I am  using his image without permission also (and, uh...just did it again, I guess), I offered him to take it down.

Again, I want to state that I am not a hero. I may have, in my younger blogging days not thoroughly verified the sources of my images. But it seems the least I could offer the guy is the chance to exxert his rights over his intellectual property. I never would have suspected that the art to that particular click ad was  stolen, though in hindsight this makes more sense than the alternative.It woudnt be the first ad I've seen with stolen work.

In summation: please visit Eye-melt's blog and be aware: Next time it....could...be...you!

True...True Crime...True Crime...True Crime...True...Crime! at 7:48 AM

 I don't claim to have ever done anyone any good. I try not to do wrong, either, although my record is spotty at best. What I mean is that I am not a hero.

Back in 2011 I found it amusing that an Crime Degree School ad found it in themselves to advertise themselves as hunters of the undead. It was ridiculous that they made a drawing of zombies and suggested they'd teach law students to "fight evil".

I hesitantly post the offending pic, for reasons that will become plain later.

Except they didn't. A recent comment on the piece articulated by artist-blogger Eye-melt indicated that the art of the zombies was created by him, and taken without permission.A quick search of his blog reveals the art was in there as far as 2006, before I even had a DA account, probably. Since technically I am  using his image without permission also (and, uh...just did it again, I guess), I offered him to take it down.

Again, I want to state that I am not a hero. I may have, in my younger blogging days not thoroughly verified the sources of my images. But it seems the least I could offer the guy is the chance to exxert his rights over his intellectual property. I never would have suspected that the art to that particular click ad was  stolen, though in hindsight this makes more sense than the alternative.It woudnt be the first ad I've seen with stolen work.

In summation: please visit Eye-melt's blog and be aware: Next time it....could...be...you!

RE: the Hungry Hungry Hippos movie at 11:20 AM

Seriously, if Robin WIlliams hasn't been yet cast, it is a matter of time.

  This is an open letter to the employee or employees of Emmet/ Furla/Hasbro who thought it was a sound idea to make a Hungry Hungry Hippos movie.  

Perhaps you are surprised. You might be wondering why people are shocked. Didn't we all love Hungry Hungry Hippos? Didnt we all play it as kids? Doesn't that mean we'd all watch a Hungry Hungry Hippos animated film by default?

Did you not see the result of this line of thinking with Battleship? In case you didn't, here is a less apt metaphor: you know most people in the western world are familiar with? Toasters. Whoever hasn't owned has has at least seen one on TV. Do you think that's a built in audience? Do you think if you announce a movie about toasters it  will bring all toaster enthusiasts?

Can we keep the Christ Parallels to a minimum, please?

And yes, there was an animated film about a toaster and it did generate some revenue. But it wasn't because people thought toasters are cool.The fallacious thinking that just because people are aware of the name of something they will see it, and that the movie will drive sales of the toys was,in fact, questioned earlier when  it was revealed Transformers: Dancing in the Dark was revealed to have not sold as many toys as they expected. And the TF brand has a pretty strong market penetration, too. Perhaps this was because Transformers falied to produce enought "Sprint action Sam Witwickeys" and "Penis Joke soundchip Ken Jeong". You can't sell kids the the character without SELLING kids the character.That's how Transformers cartoons worked. It sold ALL the characters, not just 2.

So Hippos: it will probably land between decent and mediocre which, lets face it, is pretty good when you consider the source material is THIS HIPPOS ARE HUNGRY, THEY EAT A LOT.  So what's our problem? It's not like you can "ruin" Hippos with anything other than not making them Hippos or Hungry. It could be a depressing gritty noir tale of absolution and It'd still be accurate if the lead character is called "John Hippo" and had at last one scene in front of an all you can eat buffet.

The problem is that the idea of a Hungry Hungry Hippos  movie has been a joke in the same way you might say putting 1000 monkeys in front of a 1000 typewriters can create a masterpiece. We're watching you send off for the shipment of typewriters and monkey ownership permits, fully expecting the 21rst century King Lear, apparently unaware as everyone who knew this wasn't a litteral expression . Can this end anything but badly?

But worstly...you are killing the parody industry. Dude, how are we supposed to mock Hollywood's tendency for adapting plotless toys and games if youkeep doing the very ideas we are mocking? Hippos was probably the last good ridiculous movie-idea joke. Are you gonna make Tetris and Chutes and Ladder And Pacman,  too? What are gonna have to do? "Pencil" the movie?  You are setting the bar of mockability unreasonably high. And that's before your movie gets trampled by a less ridiculous toy adaptation.

RE: the Hungry Hungry Hippos movie at 11:20 AM

Seriously, if Robin WIlliams hasn't been yet cast, it is a matter of time.

  This is an open letter to the employee or employees of Emmet/ Furla/Hasbro who thought it was a sound idea to make a Hungry Hungry Hippos movie.  

Perhaps you are surprised. You might be wondering why people are shocked. Didn't we all love Hungry Hungry Hippos? Didnt we all play it as kids? Doesn't that mean we'd all watch a Hungry Hungry Hippos animated film by default?

Did you not see the result of this line of thinking with Battleship? In case you didn't, here is a less apt metaphor: you know most people in the western world are familiar with? Toasters. Whoever hasn't owned has has at least seen one on TV. Do you think that's a built in audience? Do you think if you announce a movie about toasters it  will bring all toaster enthusiasts?

Can we keep the Christ Parallels to a minimum, please?

And yes, there was an animated film about a toaster and it did generate some revenue. But it wasn't because people thought toasters are cool.The fallacious thinking that just because people are aware of the name of something they will see it, and that the movie will drive sales of the toys was,in fact, questioned earlier when  it was revealed Transformers: Dancing in the Dark was revealed to have not sold as many toys as they expected. And the TF brand has a pretty strong market penetration, too. Perhaps this was because Transformers falied to produce enought "Sprint action Sam Witwickeys" and "Penis Joke soundchip Ken Jeong". You can't sell kids the the character without SELLING kids the character.That's how Transformers cartoons worked. It sold ALL the characters, not just 2.

So Hippos: it will probably land between decent and mediocre which, lets face it, is pretty good when you consider the source material is THIS HIPPOS ARE HUNGRY, THEY EAT A LOT.  So what's our problem? It's not like you can "ruin" Hippos with anything other than not making them Hippos or Hungry. It could be a depressing gritty noir tale of absolution and It'd still be accurate if the lead character is called "John Hippo" and had at last one scene in front of an all you can eat buffet.

The problem is that the idea of a Hungry Hungry Hippos  movie has been a joke in the same way you might say putting 1000 monkeys in front of a 1000 typewriters can create a masterpiece. We're watching you send off for the shipment of typewriters and monkey ownership permits, fully expecting the 21rst century King Lear, apparently unaware as everyone who knew this wasn't a litteral expression . Can this end anything but badly?

But worstly...you are killing the parody industry. Dude, how are we supposed to mock Hollywood's tendency for adapting plotless toys and games if youkeep doing the very ideas we are mocking? Hippos was probably the last good ridiculous movie-idea joke. Are you gonna make Tetris and Chutes and Ladder And Pacman,  too? What are gonna have to do? "Pencil" the movie?  You are setting the bar of mockability unreasonably high. And that's before your movie gets trampled by a less ridiculous toy adaptation.