Egg on The Drum
Sometimes…just sometimes…I look daft in public (and not on purpose). That bit in brackets is crucial – I often look daft intentionally. Even if it looks like I didn’t mean to look daft I normally did (mean to look daft). That isn’t the case 1% (rounded up to nearest percent, actual figure more like 0.004%) of the time. Mark today’s date as one of the 1 in 250 (using non-rounded up figure) times this happened.
“What about Outbreak 2? With Jean-Claude Van Damme in it” I said in the middle of a conversation about films. I meant it. I was asking someone about the sequel to 90s disease paranoia flick Outbreak. Only there isn’t one. It was made up for an episode of Friends (the double-parter in series two, guest starring ‘The Muscles from Brussels’ himself, Jean-Claude Van Damme), where the chums visit the set of Outbreak 2: The Virus Takes Manhattan to visit Ross’s former monkey* Marcel (who really did star in the original/real film Outbreak). Only I has somehow let is slither in to my subconscious as a real film. And I had just made it clear in front of people I work with.
I’ve got the chops to take stick – of that there is no doubt [ friends who know me well would win a debate suggesting that this is incorrect]. And here I held my hands up, I’d been an absolute arse. However for some people that’s not good enough. And a colleague, let’s call him ‘The Drum’, decided to reiterate that I was stupid/gullible. I reasoned that I simply thought it was some cross-pollination/marketing gimmick and had never really looked in to it that much – and if that’s not meek enough for someone then I guess it’s their problem. If someone carried on at that stage, they were being borish; anyone would agree.
The Drum didn’t leave it there, he said “One episode of Friends involved them playing a game of American Football for the 24-minute episode: that wasn’t a film you fucking prick.” [Bold text is conjecture of what he MIGHT have added].
But that doesn’t make sense does it? My confusion, idiotic confusion, was about the making of a film that was portrayed in an episode of the smash-hit sitcom being an actual film. Hands up: it wasn’t a film. Adding any other plot line and insinuating I might have thought that was a film is churlish and bang wrong. Unless it was any of the other plot-lines that involved a fictional film – generally with Joey in them (the one where he was Al Pacino’s butt; the one where he was a soldier, etc). Or maybe even a joke about a Mac and Cheese spin-off movie would have worked. But a joke about that episode with the game of (touch) football not being a film? Fuck off.
I’d also like to just add, that the episode with the TOUCH football (it was fucking touch football) didn’t run to 24 minutes. With adverts taken out you were generally lucky to get north of 22 minutes, unless The Drum is referring to the slightly longer versions of episodes with addes scenes that were sometimes on VHS/DVD releases. But I don’t think he was; his tone said ‘broadcast version’. And the game didn’t last the length of the episode. Sure, it was a significant chunk of it but it wasn’t the entire episode – there was stuff about Ross and Rachel’s relationship and Chandler and Joey meeting the Dutch girl, that admittedly takes place while the game is in a pause.
But anyway – I think that shows I can take a joke at my expense, in good humour and not get all in a huff about it. IF the joke is good and not malicious, badly structured and makes very little (some might argue no) sense.
*I mean the one he used to own, it hadn’t stopped being a monkey
Twitter Ye Not
Though being very careful to warn employees about the use of social media SOME companies (and I am not implying the one I work for has, indeed I would not talk about my work place on the internet) still have little-to-fucking no idea about social media. Can you imagine a company who needs to constantly have input/dialogue from/with customers not really utilising free platforms such as Facebook and Twitter? I am not writing this in 2006, I am writing it in 2011 (towards the middle of October) and some companies might be putting meetings together to see how they can use these platforms for positive and work against negative portrayal on them. If history is anything to base opinions on I would guess such companies will probably fuck it up royally/get no benefits at all. Because management types might have done things like CONSTANTLY refer to mpegs on websites as podcasts. And not just internally, to actual people in the world. You couldn’t even download (the hypothetical media files to which I am not referring).