Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Cueball has acquired the intellectual property rights to produce a movie, but is unsure of how to make it appealing to a wide audience. An off-screen character suggests hiring Michael Bay, a director and producer well known (and occasionally criticized) for his style of film adaptation. Cueball is unsure that the IP would be a good fit for a summer blockbuster, but is dismissed.
The following panels depict violent and gritty scenes from a spy thriller, starring an unknown and brutal female spy. In the last panel, she is revealed to be Harriet the Spy, the 11 year old protagonist of a bestselling children's book written by Louise Fitzhugh, as well as other spinoff books written by various other authors.
The comic references Hollywood's search for new stories to adapt to film, and how poor (not to mention violent) some of these adaptations can be. There is additional humor in the fact that the original novel is about school-child concerns such as friends and is not violent.
- Cueball: We've acquired some new rights, but I'm not sure it's in the spirit to make it a blockbuster-
- Voice: Do it anyway. Take $100 million, hire Michael Bay.
- Cueball: But--
- Voice: NEXT!
- [Panel is inverted, white on black background.]
- Harriet: They said if I were captured I should take my own life.
- Harriet: But I'd just as soon take yours.
- [Harriet is pointing two handguns at two men with machine guns.]
- [Harriet explodes off a cliff, carrying a rectangular object and a gun. In the background is a helicopter, some mountains, and the sea.]
- [Panel is inverted, white and red on black background.]
- Man: Stop! I'll talk!
- Harriet: No, I know everything, this is just for fun.
- [Harriet is holding a bloody pipe. Man is tied to a chair. There is blood pooling on the ground under the chair.]
- [Crosshairs follow a man.]
- Harriet: I'll be watching.
add a comment!
- [The panel is inverted colour, white on black.]
- [in red] SPY
- [A bloody spiral notebook, with blood streaks leading from it.]
Why do we think that this is Danish? The hair isn't the same and there are no other indicators. LadyMondegreen (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm also sure it's not Megan, she isn't that violent. And for now we have chaos here because Danish is still at the transcript.--Dgbrt (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm only using Megan because it's drawn like Megan. Megan, like Cueball is basically the default girl. Her personality changes as necessary. Besides, we're seeing an actor play Harriet the Spy so none of the violence is a character trait. I'd classify it as Harriet the Spy, but it's not only not completely accurate but it steps on the punchline. LadyMondegreen (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I will tag this as incomplete. Megan is not that violent and we still have to find a better solution.--Dgbrt (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Woman" is a fine alternative to "Megan", but too generic. "Female spy" might give away the punchline a little early. "Testosterette" looks too much like the name of a toaster pastry flavoured with bacon, gunshot and a hint of Jack Daniel's. Thokling (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Misuse of "to" in the title text. I'll check this out. --Quicksilver (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Randall has targeted grammar nazi's and people afflicted with OCD in the past. Consider yourself a member in a special breed of Internetter! Thokling (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The "rectangular object" appears to be be the spiral bound notebook when looked at closely. Or is it just me? 22.214.171.124 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Do we know which particular action scenes of which particular movies are satirized in each frame? I get the feeling they're either extremely generic or from something familiar. 126.96.36.199 15:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The one in the "stop I'll talk" frame reminds me of the scene in Mission Impossible III (I think three) where the bad guy gets the info and then shoots the girlfriend anyway, however it could be from any movie. It was my impression that the panels are more of a "spy goes bananas" aspect so this could just be a reference to the stereotypical spy information extraction tactic gone awry.
188.8.131.52 20:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The movie based on this book already and by the same name deserves mention here somewhere.--184.108.40.206
03:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)