Comment etonnant! It appears Sumner Redstone was employing an elastic interpretation of the truth last October when he said that no deal was in the works for DreamWorks.

And it also turns out The Wall Street Journal sorta scooped them all on Friday with news Paramount had reemerged: The L.A. Times, The New York Times, Variety are all on clean-up duty now.

We'll have more on this come Monday, but I had to profess my bafflement without delay. I mean, it's a little confusing that such an about-face could occur. For one thing, as I pointed out in September Dreamworks ain't what it was supposed to be. Or even, as LAT vet Claudia Eller points out, what it used to be: Since 2002, it's only produced six pictures a year - and many were duds.

Anyway, more on this come Monday, but already, the reverbarations are being anticipated on Wall Street. As the L.A. Times wisely points out, both analysts and the 'Street resent this sort of schizoid exec dissembling like crazy:

For some months, Redstone had told investors that Viacom did not plan to make any major acquisitions. On Friday, analysts were surprised by a story in the Wall Street Journal saying Viacom had resurfaced as a bidder. "It is somewhat of a communication conundrum," said analyst David Miller of Sanders Morris Harris Inc. "That style of communication never really helps stock prices in the long run."

Developing...