tom boone dot com
Excavating the grey area between pop culture and reality...

British press fooled by ‘Pretty in Pink’ hoax

As I suspected, reports in the British press about a sequel to "Pretty in Pink" are simply the result of an April Fool's Day gag. A Google News search for the phrase "pretty in pink" reveals the apparent source of the story: a March 31 item on ComingSoon.net entitled "Hughes to get Prettier in Pink." The text of the entire story is tongue-in-cheek, to say the least. Here's a sample:
Orchestral Manouevres [sic] in the Dark have threatened to record a follow-up song for the soundtrack album, tentatively called "If You Leave Again", and Hughes said that if this proves successful, he may start brushing up the script for "Some More Kind of Wonderful".
Further proof that the story's a fake comes from ComingSoon's alleged sources: JohnHughes.net and PrettyInPink.com. Neither URL is real. Worse, the hyperlink to PrettyInPink.com actually links to the URL "aprilfoolsday.com". Of course, the humorless British press failed to get the joke, instead taking the story at face value and running it as legitimate news. Just a thought: If ComingSoon.net had actually run its fake story on April Fool's Day (as I believe is the custom for April Fool's Day gags), maybe more people would've gotten the joke. [ComingSoon.net] Hughes to get Prettier in Pink

3 comments so far...

1
David Cassel said...
Wait - so even after waiting twenty years, Duckie STILL doesn't get to go out with her? I'm so disillusioned....
2
Urbane35 said...
"Manouevres [sic]"? Manouevres is the proper original spelling. However, "had actually run it’s fake story" is misspelled. Should be "its", not "it's".
3
no true bill said...
Looks like they misspelled it here, too If "Manouevres" is the proper spelling, someone should tell the band so they can correct the numerous misspellings on their official website. And on all there albums. And on all they're singles. And we might as well contact the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary while we're at it. They appear too have the wrong spelling, two.

Add your comments...