Sunday, September 02, 2007

Script Review - Hitman (Part 1)


** WARNING – THIS IS A TOTAL, WANTON, UNINHIBITED, AND UNAPOLOGETIC, SPOILER-FILLED SCRIPT REVIEW **

Okay, I have an undated 127-page draft from
Skip Woods, author of Swordfish, a movie that came out way back in 2001 and received a spirited lynching from the critics. In fact, Mr. Woods’ script was singled-out in the vast majority of reviews. Ebert called it “the result of a nasty explosion down at the Plot Works. It's skillfully mounted and fitfully intriguing, but weaves such a tangled web that at the end I defy anyone in the audience to explain the exact loyalties and motives of the leading characters.” The Los Angeles Times said, “Whatever interest the film creates is squandered via the smug, showy amorality that runs through it.” Rolling Stones - “the sleazy script by Skip Woods… slimes the actors.” The Los Angeles Daily - “This is the definition of empty (and empty-headed) entertainment, willing to stoop to any level to goose a weary and jaded audience.” Newsday - “By the seventh explosion, you can't help wondering whether all this flashy stuff amounts to more of a smokescreen shielding a lack of spine or soul.” And finally, Philadelphia Daily News - “Oops, I think one of the flying bodies belonged to a screenwriter, the one who was meant to supply clever dialogue and plausibility.”

Ouch.


Swordfish had a moderate showing at the box office, and I suspect, all things considered, the studio just barely broke even if that. (The movie is long removed from public consciousness. The only aspect about that film that people remember or talk about is the fact that you got to see Halle Berry’s breasts in a moment so pointless and gratuitous it was embarrassing.) Since the film’s release, everyone seemingly moved on except Skip – a good warning to screenwriters – you're never more than one script away from a career-stalling disaster. I’m not sure what happened to Skip. It’s been about 7 or 8 years. Either the industry shied away from him or he shied away from the industry OR he had a lot of starts and stops but wasn’t able to close a deal. And now he’s landed a nice gig with a franchise-starter, which adapts a popular video game and I’m sure he hopes will put him back on top.

I think this is the context through which we’d have to view this script, because this is really about how to recover when you get publicly shot down for a movie you wrote.


Two points:

1 – A lambasting by the critics changes nothing. You have to remain faithfully devoted to mastering the craft to the very end, always broadening your horizons, which means studying the craft, writing endlessly, giving and receiving feedback weekly, if not daily.

2 – You have to make sure your next script doesn’t repeat those same mistakes. You have to prove that you are not, in fact, what they say you are and illustrate very clear evidence to the contrary, as well as a supreme mastery of craft.

And now we come to a consideration of Hitman.


FORMAT

In a nutshell - the look of the script smacks of desperation. Skip manipulated almost everything to keep the page count down. Instead of 12 pt. Courier font, we have 11 pt. Courier font. The lines have been squeezed together so much so that the tops of some letters actually touch the bottoms of other letters. He manipulated the margins of the dialogue, too, so that it’s well over four inches wide, which is very troubling. Dialogue is usually 3 inches wide. (What’s your deal Mystery Man? Who do you think you are? The Format Police?) Hey, look, format was designed this way so that one page would equal one minute of screentime. When you’ve manipulated font size and spacing and margins of dialogue, this means that scenes, especially those with a lot of talk, will take up more screentime than page count. If formatted properly, this script would be pushing 160 pages, maybe longer.

If you find yourself manipulating font size and margins in order to squeeze it all in and keep the page count down, the problem is not the format. The problem is you.


(Note: picture above is NOT worth 1,000 words.)

Manipulated format gives the impression that the writer still hasn’t gotten a handle on the craft of screenwriting, that he/she is overeager to impress while not entirely confident in his/her skills, and that the emphasis in the script may very well be on all the wrong elements, like too much dialogue or how brilliant one can write action lines. A lot of aspiring screenwriters do this. They’ll try so hard to impress through beautifully written action lines that show how intelligent & insightful the writer can be or how he/she can poetically capture the slightest gestures of characters. Well, the emphasis is all wrong. The emphasis in a scene should be WHAT happens and HOW does it happen. Your brilliance and style should shine through action and character, not prosy, novel-like action paragraphs. That's very weak screenwriting.

And in this case, we have action lines that are ridiculously overwritten and scenes with absurd amounts of dialogue. In my running notes, I had “Pg 75 – Good God, look at all that talk…” “Pg 109 – WAY too much dialogue and exposition that comes too late into the story...” “Pg 119 – RIDICULOUS amount of dialogue.”


Not only that, for a guy who has an image of writing hip, contemporary action films, it’s embarrassing to see that he has no clue as to how a screenplay ought to function. Between the scenes, he has CUT TOs and FADE TO BLACKs, which we don’t write anymore. How can you be hip when you’re using outdated techniques from like, the 1960s? The action lines are filled with camera angles, “we see,” “we hear,” “CU” (for close-ups), “SUPERIMPOSE TITLE CARDs (when only SUPER is necessary), and worst of all, we have a countless number of overwritten unfilmmables in the action lines. For example:


“BELOW, another camouflaged and masked soldier, holding a sat-phone moves through the compound. These men belong to the most elite of the Russian Special forces, Spetsgruppa Vympel.

Believed to be dismantled under Gorbachev due to their legendary cruelty and predilection for blood-letting, the Vympel’s were in fact simply reorganized. A military sledgehammer for the new KGB.

The other Vympel walks toward the remnants of an old apartment building.”


That middle paragraph? Unfilmmable and unnecessary. Cut it. If it was truly essential to know their backstory, that would have to come out somewhere in the dialogue. If the production needed details about Spetsgruppa Vympel, they can easily look it up.

Okay, I know what you’re thinking and I’ll ask the question for you – why does format matter if Skip’s script was accepted and produced?

Easy - this was an assignment, and they had to accept it. Make no mistake, this spec was in need of a rewrite; however, almost everything in this business boils down to money. And I suspect they simply didn’t want to pay the money to hire another writer to fix the script, and this, my friends, is how bad movies get made. Yet, sometimes, by a miracle, they turn out okay.

When this film gets released on DVD, I may do a script-to-screen study because I really am curious to see how the badly manipulated format compares to the finished film.

Next: Story & Character.

36 comments:

Mickey Lee said...

I had big doubts about this movie, and that was even before your review of the script, which looks like something I'd see from a 21 year old first-timer on TriggerStreet.

But Hollywood has yet to make one video game to celluloid transition that was any good. And it's a real shame. Because the games often have very sophisticated, satisfying stories.

Games have a reputation for being mindless, but the irony is that from the late 90s onward, games have gotten increasingly more sophisticated while films have actually gotten more mindless.

The studios would probably be better off hiring the writers of the games (yes, they have writers -- it's not all Donkey Kong anymore).

Mystery Man said...

Hey Mickey,

Let me tell you, man, there's a lot to say about this script, and it should make for a really interesting review.

a) I believe certain video games can be successfully translated into great films/franchises, and I would've happily accepted the Hitman assignment. Hitman has all the right elements for success.

b) Aspiring screenwriters who live off of video games typically write weak, soulless movies. What makes video games fun do not equate into good drama. Games should be converted by a knowledged dramatist, not an XBOX-addicted freakazoid. And I'm not sure I would've hired the writers of the games, because I played Hitman 2, and man, the dialogue made me ill. But Agent 47 is a great character. Love the suit.

c) It was interesting how overeagerness to impress can actually harm a screenplay.

d) A Hitman story, in and of itself, presents its own unique challenges (like the protagonist serial-killer) that's really interesting to explore.

The next article will be great. I have a lot to say about this one.

-MM

Mickey Lee said...

Sorry, MM, I meant games for the PC. I think most Playstation/Xbox games are pretty mindless.

But try playing Half-Life or Baldur's Gate or something with a little more depth. There's some satisfying tales in there.

Hitman's always been known as being very lightweight in the story department and the games have never been very highly rated. But I agree that someone with the right chops could've made something great from the material

Spanish Prisoner said...

Well, maybe that guy used a script-writing software that still uses outdated formatting. I just recentrly tried out one and I cringed as it forced me to do "continued" on every single page. Can't get it away, the software want's it so. So it got tossed.

So my semi-off-topic-question comes in:
How would I leave out "cut to:" in a scene where it instantly goes from a scene to black screen?

You said it was outdated. I have some ideas on how to get around that but I always thought that "cut to:" was still acceptable while "dissolve to:" was really outdated.

Mystery Man said...

Mickey - I love old PC CDRom games. I'd actually tackle the Myst storylines. I think you could get some mileage out of the storyline with the father and two brothers, but I especially loved those old Tex Murphy games like "Under a Killing Moon" and "The Pandora Directive." God, that was so much fun.

SP - Hey, man! How are ya? If it's a problem with his programming, he needs to plunk down the bucks to get Final Draft or Movie Magic. Come on. He's supposed to be a frickin' pro. With respect to CUT TOs, don't use them. A reader always assumes that a transition will be a CUT unless indicated otherwise. As you may know, I'm a follower of Trottier's Screenwriter's Bible (newer 4th edition) as it is the most followed format book in the industry. When it comes to transitions, Trottier has indicated in some of his articles in Script Magazine that some are acceptable, like a MATCH CUT: only when it's absolutely essential. He talks a little about it in his 4th edition. In a few minor cases, transitions are okay. But to have a CUT TO: after almost EVERY scene? Please. You get a big F- in my book.

-MM

Joshua James said...

Not to defend his script (which I haven't read) -

but I have an older Final Draft within which the margins were different, as you know . . .

And CUT TO is hardly a relic from the sixties . . it's still seen in many published scripts, as is "We See" (which is on the first page of AMERICAN BEAUTY) . . . I really do believe folks are dandered up for no good reason . . . And if we're told Pro's can get away with it, wouldn't Skip essentially qualify as a Pro?

I note John August used "we see" in Big Fish, first page.

Though I would agree that the sample you showed from Skip's script was not an example of good writing, heh . . .

The thing about this format issue, and I want ya to know, MM, I am listening to ya hard about it, trust me . . . I take what you say about it very serious . . .

But the thing that sticks in my craw is simply that these "standards" for format come from one guy, not an organization, not from the WGA, it comes from one guy who wrote a book about it - a guy who has some TV stuff done, who put badly written samples of his own in the book and says, "this is the industry standard" on his own invested authority . . . when, as I've mentioned, we see countless pro's who break the rules . . .

I mean, I guess it would help if I knew it was more than one fella's opinion, or maybe I'm simply ranting, I dunno . . . I'm still mad that for some god-forsaken silly reason, people believe CAPS have no place in dialogue, which I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH . . .

But I'm dealing with it, heheh . . . and maybe someday I can swing the rule the other way . . .

Joshua James said...

I'm being mean toward the writer-book guy, I admit, and I shouldn't bash his work . . . I'm just rebelleous is all . . .

Mystery Man said...

Hehehe...

That's all right, Joshua! Keep me honest! It's complicated. Let's take a stab: Mr. Pro Writer lands an assignment at a major studio, turns in his "finished work," and gets paid. Everyone in the studio (and their assistants, too) bitch and moan to no end how sloppy the spec looks, how Mr. Pro Writer wouldn't know good grammar if it bit him on the ass, and then someone (directors usually) are stuck with fixing this shit despite the big dollars that the studio had just doled out to Mr. Pro Writer.

What I'm saying about Skip's script gets said a lot about a wide range of Pro Writers that neither you nor they ever hear about.

I don't want that happening to you. Ever. You master the craft and you turn in spotless specs forever and ever, amen. That's one of many steps to impressing people, building confidence and relationships, and getting more work.

Of course Trottier has poor examples! Those who cannot do, teach. Just love Trottier. Embrace format. Rebel in ways that count - like structure, arcs, scene execution, stuff like that.

Be glad Pros use "we see" and other bits of weak screenwriting, because that'll make your spotless spec look that much better.

-MM

Joshua James said...

Okay man, but dialogue CAPS will be in someday, I really think that's better, like anything it can be abused, but it's so much more specific . . . we used them in Down & Dirty, of course . . .

There's a great, visual difference between:

HARVEY WEINSTEIN
Are you fucking stupid? Do I have to do everything myself? Don't you realize we live or die on each film we release! Get out of my office!

and

HARVEY WEINSTEIN
Are you fucking STUPID? Do I have to do EVERYTHING myself? Don't you realize WE LIVE OR DIE ON EACH FILM WE RELEASE! GET OUT OF MY OFFICE!

And to my eye, the second one is a better picture of what the character says and means . . . and gives the reader a clear idea of what it's like to work for Harvey . . .

It's what I think, anyway . . .

Mystery Man said...

Hehehe...

That's hilarious.

Joshua James said...

I'm tellin' ya, bro . . . serious . . . CAPS in dialogue is the way to go . . . pass it on, heehee!

Mystery Man said...

BTW - With respect to Skip's screenwriting absence, I've learned that he wrote a draft of G.I. Joe, which was rejected.

-MM

Grubber said...

The whole video game to movie genre is an area I have been thinking about a lot recently, as my current spec script involves computer games, but as an integral part of the storyline rather than the base for script.

Books to movie. At the base level, you are taking written words and making them into moving pictures. Something non-visual to visual. Technically it is a step forward.

Computer Games to movie: At base level you are taking something that is visual AND interactive and making it visual. Computer games are aiming to have the storyline of a movie and interaction between player and game. Technically, making a movie out of a game is a step back.

The only way to offset this backward step, IMHO, is by enhancing the story and characterisation. If they don't aim for that, which I truly don't believe any have, then they are going backwards rather than forwards.

Joshua, I know what you mean about the CAPS (see my example above) but I can understand why they might not go that way. To my way of thinking CAPS is very similar to parathenticals and we all know what actors do with those. Just my thoughts.
cheers
Dave

Grubber said...

PS and I realise how incredibly nerdy that post makes me look, I just do a lot of K's on the road so I quite often have a lot of think time :)

Spanish Prisoner said...

mm - yeah, I'm doing fine and write a lot. Thanks for asking and thanks for your answer to my question.

I don't use CUT TOs in every other scene or so, just the ones I think are in desperate need of one.

I'll check out Trottiers latest book, thanks for the tip.

I am also a great believer in a clean formatted script.

Joshua James - I don't believe in caps in dialogue. It's like giving camera angles and other kinds of directions. It's up to the director to decide and the same goes with the dialogue. It is up to the actors and you certainly don't want to tell an actor how to act out their dialogue, especially not someone like DeNiro or Pacino.

Spanish Prisoner said...

add on:

Just imagine Denzel Washington reads these caps. He won't give a shit about them, maybe even gets irritated. He certainly does talk differently then for example Chris Rock.

And btw, how do you know Harvey Weinstein talks like that? Maybe he uses the emphasis on other words.

Either way, it's a funny dialogue. Since I imagine the "Entourage" Weinstein.

GimmeABreak said...

There's one computer game that would make an exquisite movie - interesting characters, great story, action AND education. Sadly, Jane Jensen hasn't written a SP or allowed anyone else to, either. When I get famous and the studios throw money at me, the first project I want is Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers.

Joshua James said...

It's not like writing shots, writing dialogue the way it's MEANT to be said is really the only successful way to write it . . .

I don't mean to be crass, but actors improvise only for these reasons (1) the dialogue is bad, which it often is or (2) the actors are bad and don't know the difference between good dialogue and bad dialogue. (3) the actors and bad and the dialogue and you're fucked no matter what.

My experience is, if you write good dialogue, good actors will love you no matter what, especially if it's clear and real . . . and CAPS is a part of that.

Trust me, it's true . . . yeah, there will always be adjustments, but if the dialogue is ringing bells in the right way, the actor could give a fuck where it's capped or not . . . as long as the shit is good, they'll be happy.

That's why you get a great script from Tarantino or Kaufmann and the actors go mad with joy and don't change much at all . . .

Because what I hear, most often from my actor friends, is that the majority of scripts suck. I hear that from a lot of directors, too.

And the area they most often suck in, and this is again a non-scientific poll, is dialogue . . . Either it's too much of nothing or not enough of anything.

To mean, using CAPS in dialogue is really like using forte in music . . . and besides, it's already said to use underlines to stress words, if that doesn't bother actors, why would CAPS.

And I know how Harvey speaks because I have a wealth of source material to draw from.

Mystery Man said...

Hey Grubber, how are you? No worries, man, we always thought you were a nerd. Hehehe... SO kidding. Your comment about enhancing story and characterization is a great one. I'm a believer that, in the right hands, a lot of games could be successfully translated into franchises. The first step to impressing anyone is giving those characters some depth.

Pat - Ohhh, Gabriel Knight. I've never played that. Sounds great. I might have to check that out. But if someone offers me to adapt, I'll pass it over to you. Hehehe...

Joshua - "1) the dialogue is bad, which it often is or (2) the actors are bad and don't know the difference between good dialogue and bad dialogue. (3) the actors and bad and the dialogue and you're fucked no matter what." That was great! In screenplays, it's customary to underscore instead of using caps. Do you have something against underscoring?

-MM

Joshua James said...

"do you have something against underscoring?"

I simply believe CAPS brings it home clearer than underscoring . . . if we don't allow caps because emphasizing a word is insulting to actors (a bogus argument, but let's say that) . . . then by that same token, underscoring does the same.

So it's not that it directs the actors (a whole other barrel of monkeys, why can't we do that? They're our characters until someone buys them, direct the hell outa 'em! With secondary headings, one is directing shots, why not!) . . . because it's already happening.

So why underscoring is cool and not CAPS, which is easier and clearing, to me, anyway . . . especially in dialogue . . .

I mean, like parantheticals, like anything, it should be abused (Trottier calls them wrylies, right?) . . . should it should be used selectively . . . we can say the same about every word in a screenplay, any word or words can be abused, heh.

I simply think Trottier was off his rocker to tell us using CAPS in dialogue violates a commandment.

And it really adds something visually to a written scene . . . look at this brief scene from my play THE MEN'S ROOM:The Infamous Park Scene

Take out the CAPS and the parentheticals, it's not as clear as it could be . . . and let's face it, great readers and writers will get it . . . but we're not only writing for them, we write for everyone . . . and being as clear possible regarding INTENT of a scene, character or line is the best way to bring it home for everyone . . .

And damn it, CAPS just looks cool and makes the same point as underscoring, only better.

There's a reason that in chat rooms, when someone says something in CAPS, they're told to STOP shouting . . .

Okay, I'm off my soapbox . . .

Joshua James said...

" it should be abused"

I meant, "it shouldN'T be abused" -

Maybe my subconscious is telling me something - LOL!

Mickey Lee said...

Pat

I've played all three GK games, I think any of them would make great movies, although "DaVinci Code" ripped off the third one. That's right, folks, Gabriel found the Holy Grail first.

As for capping and underscoring, here's a quote from "How Not to Write a Screenplay" by Denny Martin Flynn. This book is great because instead of being written by screenwriter who never quite made it, it was written by a veteran pro reader:

(p. 62) "Don't tell actors which words to punch. That drives a reader crazy. This is not reading aloud. Reading is more in the line of absorbing intent. That little voice in a reader's head tends to bypass histrionics and goes straight to meaning. If the story is good, the reader will be emotionally effected.

Too many stage directions drive actors crazy, and nobody ever follows them. They're just in the way. If your dialogue needs that much thumping up, maybe it really needs polishing instead."

Spanish Prisoner said...

okay, I have to admit something: Underlining words against caps, caps would win a mile. I mean if both are used for the same reason, underlining words fails for me.

For me it would look like as if the word has a deeper meaning in the context of the story. Caps makes it clear it is the tonation and rythmn of the speech. That's just my feeling.

Anyway, if I ever would use such technique, I would use caps and yes, I caught myself trying to use caps in the past but let them go for the reason I mentioned before.

But then I may rethink about it. Just gimme sum time.

Joshua James said...

All I can do is point to my Harvey example above . . .

And my MEN'S ROOM sample . . .

It helps to have that because people do it in real life, emphasize a word, so why not write like people talk, for crying out loud?

I have that book, BTW, and again, it's by one guy . . . if the WGA every got together a book of rules that must be followed, I'd jump right on it . . . or the Story Editors Union, for that matter . . .

Instead, we get these books written by guys expressing their opinions, and I'm happy to hear it, too . . .

but the pro's break the rules just as often, so it weakens the reasoning behind such books . . . and not all the pro's breaking the rules suck . . . I like August's and Bell's writing, among others . . .

So again, I disagree . . . if anything, it makes it easier to read because it nails the rhythm and point of a particular speech right away without having to be dissected . . .

Mickey Lee said...

Rules? What are you talking about breaking rules? No one said this formatting guidelines were rules. All that people like Trottier and Flynn did was pick up on the latest screenwriting trends and then were smart enough to publish them. Wish I had thought of it.

But I hardly think holding onto hoary old conventions is being rebellious.

I just visited the Writer's Guild Foundation website. Here's the books and guides they recommend:

The Screenwriter's Bible by David Trottier
(Silman James Press, c1988) 3rd rev. and exp.ed.


Professional Writer's Teleplay/Screenplay Format Guide  
(WGA east, c2000) millennium ed.

Tools of the Screenwriter Trade by Esther Luttrell
(Broadcasting Club of America, c1998) rev. ed.

The Academy of Motion Pictures website has a free
downloadable feature film format guide"

You can follow the old conventions or embrace some of the new ones. It doesn't matter to me one bit. I'm trying to get my specs past the front lines of Hollywood readers and I'm going to take the approach that I think will work best. And I have to be holier than the Pope to do it, than that's what I'm going to do.

Joshua James said...

Trottier does call them his COMMANDMENTS . . . and mentions them as rules . . .

Hey, I'm just discussing, that's all . . . but I think that if I've written a good spec (and I have a few) or you, then the issue whether or not I've capped some words in dialogue should be non-existent . . .

I'm not saying anyone has to do anything they don't wanna . . . I'm just saying I don't think CAPS in dialogue is relevant to the quality of the writing . . .

Mim said...

The pros can write "we see" all they want. "We see" appears on the first page of Adaptation.

I don't care. To me, it smacks of lazy writing. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it's right.

If I read you right, MM, then nobody's going to think less of me if I don't use "we see" or CU. And that being the case, I don't want to.

Mickey Lee said...

Josh, I hear ya buddy, loud and clear. But here's my thing. These are the kind of arguments that happen on the TriggerStreet message boards every day. "Why can't I use BRUNCH, instead of DAY in my slug lines?" "why can't I use Arial font instead of Courier?" "why can't I emphasize words with bold italics?" And then you hear the same defenses over and over "well Tarantino/ Charlie Kaufman / William Goldman / John August does it, why can't I?"

One of the reasons I visit MM's blog is that formatting is taken as a given. Most of us use Trottier's guide. We're past that and we've moved onto the more advanced screenwriting techniques: more subtext in dialog, avoiding bad exposition, creating characters based on only a picture, writing more visually, using secondary headings to create better fluidity in scenes, etc.

So every time someone comes along like "f@#$ the rules, man! I'm a rebel!" I'm just like, "here we go again..."

I have no doubt your writing is great (congrats on the IMDB listing, by the way) and you have a lot more success coming in the future, but I just wanted you to understand where I and a few of the others are coming from. Cheers

Joshua James said...

Hey Mickey,

I totally get ya . . . and to be clear, I'm simply in favor of doing really GOOD work, as I know you are . . .

I'm not arguing over Courier or whatnot . . . I do understand about industry standards and doing things the way peers expect, I do . . . as much as I bitch about it, I do listen . . .

I truly believe the caps issue is a question of taste, not commandment, and there sometimes seems, in a majority of the books of read thus far, to be a confusion of what HAS to be done for a screenplay (courier, INT) and we'd prefer be NOT done (we see, etc) . . . and so therein lies the rub, right?

But I want to reiterate I'm not necessarily arguing about things that HAVE to be done (underscore that capped word, heh) . . . just trying to get to the core of them and what's behind it all . . .

But hey, if y'all are past it, no problem . . . I'll look and listen and go on from . . .

Mickey Lee said...

Awesome, now that we got the 101 stuff behind us, let's talk about important s#!+

Let's take your blog on character arcs, for example. I thought that was brilliant, and I think every one should read it. http://writerjoshuajames.com/dailydojo/?p=380

Now that's the kind of stuff truly worth discussing ad nauseum...

Joshua James said...

LOL!

thanks man, here's the link, if you want: Character issues, Part Deux, The Arc of the Transformative

Grubber said...

MM,
Just noticed your avatar, dark suit, red tie and no head showing...something we should know when discussing Number 47? :)

Mystery Man said...

Grubber - Yes, you should be very, very nice to me. Hehehe... I frickin' love his suit. I do.

I wonder, is Roller Coaster Tycoon adaptable? I really love that game. Hehehe...

Hey look, good grammar and format can only help you, it'll never hurt you. I'm really glad we're getting this out of the way first before a big discussion about story. I may have to break it up into two more articles. There's a lot to say.

-MM

Mickey Lee said...

"Grubber said...

MM,
Just noticed your avatar, dark suit, red tie and no head showing...something we should know when discussing Number 47? :) "

LOL. So MM, when they scan that barcode on the back of your head at the checkout counter, how much are you worth?

Mystery Man said...

Billions, baby! BILLIONS!

(How did you like them caps, Joshua?) Hehehe...

-MM

Joshua James said...

Caps all the way, baby!

Austin
"Shall we SHAG now, or SHAG later baby?"