We aren’t the only ones who think something fishy is going on in Cruise-ville, and we aren’t talking about Katie Holmes’ collapse that was 95% made up.

This from Defamer, concerning Cruise’s lunch with Viacom King Sumner Redstone:

Delicious as they were, Redstone’s takedowns of Cruise during the pair’s 2006 bust-up never exceeded the realms of showmanship; the hard feelings that surfaced in the press aren’t quite what you’d call insurmountable. Especially under these circumstances, with Paramount facing the loss of its disgruntled moguls (and their properties) at DreamWorks and Cruise (with producing partner Paula Wagner) wedged into an already over-budget, so-far-so-bad production and distribution deal with MGM — which owns about 65 percent of UA but is also hedging with reliable, low-maintenance new hires to create a totally separate production slate. None of this pleases Cruise and Wagner, who are reportedly disappointed enough in MGM’s feeble infrastructure to buy MGM out with a percentage of future deals headed back to the studio. If they did it at Paramount, though, with Redstone capping budgets around $60 million, would it even be worth it?

We’re just saying, of course. There’s no accounting for ego and/or hard feelings, but really, there’s not that much water under these guys’ bridge. And we all know lunch at the Polo Lounge is never just “lunch.” Is it?

Is MGM forcing Cruise to look for cash and friends in his old stomping grounds, even after he was humiliated by the brass?

Is this too laden with industry speak to even understand?

Can we only write questions for the rest of the post?

How about a hot picture of Hayden Panettiere dessed as a cowgirl?

Would that be better?

Would you click the “Read More” link to see it?

Hey, it’s an old picture, but if you let Dave speculate about boring industry news, it’s the least we can do.