Monthly Archives: May 2004

Regarding the five-second delay on a show like the Tony Awards, Bob Foster writes to ask…

Question regarding the 5-second delay: What if someone says or does something that lasts longer than five seconds? If they cuss and throw finger gestures for 15 seconds, what do we see on the screen to cover that time? How does that work?

The way it usually works is that they can cut the audio or the audio and the video. If someone were to say the dreaded "f" word, the Censor-Person would presumably say, "Kill the audio" and they'd take out the sound until such time as it seemed prudent to restore it. They probably can't bleep a specific word on the fly so the sound would just disappear for a period.

If someone exposed themselves or otherwise did something where the visual was deemed offensive, they would probably cut the picture, maybe going to a title card. There's always one ready just in case of technical mishaps. Then they could restore the video after the director had switched to something else..an audience shot, perhaps. It's theoretically possible that a fast-fingered tech director could quickly blur/pixelate part of the screen but they probably wouldn't take the chance. If they were close to the time for a commercial, they would probably just switch to it.

One thing to remember is that with a live show, there's always the chance of a large or small crisis. Cues are missed, microphones go out, etc. The director always has to have contingency plans for the unexpected. They have to ask questions like, "Well, what would we do if someone in the audience just ran up on stage and started delivering a commercial? What if there's a power failure in the theater? What if there's a fire?" The possibility of some actress flashing skin is just another of these possible problems and not even the most dire.

CBS has announced they're going to put the Tony Awards on a five-second delay this year, presumably to avoid broadcasting something akin to the Super Bowl breast flash. This is a trend that will not last long.

Here's the problem with it: It puts some poor Standards and Practices person in a very awkward position. If someone flashes a forbidden body part or says the "f" word, okay, that's an easy call. But there are plenty of arguable things that can and will happen on live broadcasts. On last year's Tony broadcast, for instance, two men kissed on the lips. If you're the person in the booth with the power to bleep or cut away from that, do you do it? And remember…you only have five seconds to decide. What if someone says, "friggin'?" or does a joke about the president being shot? What if someone utters a remark that many would think was racist? What if someone makes, like Jackie Mason once did on Ed Sullivan's show, a quick, hard-to-see gesture that might possibly have been The Finger? What if someone says something that might have been a naughty word but you're not sure? On taped/filmed shows on which I've worked, I've seen the censor-person replay a tape several times, listening hard, to decide if a certain word had been uttered. I've seen them call others, including their bosses, to discuss a given joke or cleavage. On a live show, one does not have that luxury.

A network's Broadcast Standards department is not, as some people think, there to police what the network thinks is objectionable material. It's there so the network can say, "Hey, we're doing everything we can to be responsible." Right now, in light of Ms. Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction," they demonstrate this with the five-second delay…but this also puts the Standards folks in the hot seat to instantly say that something is or is not acceptable. On a non-delayed live broadcast, at least they can say, "Hey, we would have cut it if we could have."

One of these days soon, the five-second delay will bite them on the ass and it can happen one of two ways. One is that someone makes a quick call not to launder something that is said or shown (or perhaps just misses it) and there are howls of outrage. The other is that the person with their finger on the button pushes it over something that, given more than five seconds to reflect, they might have opted to leave in. Let's imagine that at some award ceremony, some winner gets up and says something like Michael Moore said at the Oscars but in coarser language. The network decides to bleep and that causes an outcry that someone has been censored; that their Free Speech rights have been violated by a nervous network lawyer with an itchy trigger finger. Or maybe it's just a matter of taste and the person who is bleeped feels that what they said or did was not as bad as what America will assume, from the bleep, they said or did. (That's what caused Jack Paar to walk off The Tonight Show. NBC cut an innocuous joke about a Water Closet and people thought Paar had told something truly vulgar.)

The point is that the network wants to avoid protests and the charge that they're irresponsible. It's safer for them to not have the delay so they aren't on the spot to decide what is and what is not acceptable. Once the tumult over the Super Bowl scandal dies out, they'll get rid of the five-second delays because they don't want to make those calls and then have to defend them. Or the delays could go away sooner if there's a brouhaha because someone made or didn't make the right instant decision.

I've been playing with a new toy…the Epson Photo R200 printer. This is not something you want to use for printing out your day-to-day text files or work. Its main functions are to produce (almost) photo-quality prints on glossy photo paper and to print on DVDs and CD Rom discs. I bought it primarily for the latter function, as we are now hearing that labelling your discs with sticky labels or even Sharpie-style markers is not a good idea. These methods will not damage the discs soon but if you're archiving things for posterity, there's a chance of long-range deterioration. If you're going to write on your discs, you should use water-based markers. They're not dark but they put out a legible line. If you're going to get fancy, buy the white, printable blank discs and print on them with a device like the R200.

They're real good for that, though you have to print them one at a time with a special insert shelf that carries the disc into the printer. I recently tried several programs that enable you to design your own labels before settling on SureThing CD Labeller as the best one. The Epson comes with its own design program which is even better, and when the machine prints on a white disc, the result is very impressive. The way it turns JPG photos stored onto your computer into glossy prints is also pretty good, given how inexpensive the printer is. It goes for a little under a hundred bucks at most discount houses and it seems like quite a bargain…

Okay, here comes the "but"…

But here's where they get you: The cartridges. It takes six Epson color cartridges and they ain't cheap. Staples carries them for $18.35 for the black one and $13.25 each for the other five. So buying all six there will run you $84.60. The machine comes with your first six so it's $99 for the machine and six cartridges, then it's $85 for another six cartridges. You get the idea that Epson is selling these contraptions at a loss and figuring they'll make it back on the ink?

There are slightly cheaper alternatives. OfficeMax wants $17.99 for the black one and $12.99 for each of the others so a full set is $82.94. A bit better is Office Depot which is currently getting $16.94 for black and $11.97 for the other five, for a total of $76.79.

Or you can go off-brand. Those prices are all for Epson cartridges. Other companies make compatible cartridges that run around $50 for the set of six. This sounds like a bargain but according to this article from the Consumer Reports people, off-brand cartridges run out faster and the images are more likely to fade. So unless someone tells me they've had an experience to the contrary, I'm going to stick with the Epson variety. Cartridge price aside, it's a great machine and mine is going to get a lot of traffic.

Rick Mohr writes to ask me about a new weblog that claims to be by Andy Kaufman…

I know you are always posting about celebrities and artists who have passed away, and I enjoy your insights on their careers, but what do you think about this one? Do you think it is really Andy?

I think it's amazing (and probably a tribute to Mr. Kaufman's expertise at hoaxing) that his mortality is still the subject of discussion. Yeah, right: At the peak of his creative energy and earning power, a guy is really going to give it all up and drop out of sight for twenty years and cause enormous grief to his friends and family…and for what would be, at best, a pretty feeble joke. Put it this way: If Andy had decided to fake his death, he would have been enormously visible just before he "died." Then he would have come back within a few months…and also in a spectacular manner, not popping up with a weblog.

I mean, the way the "hoax" could have worked was that Andy died and then his friend Bob Zmuda, who took over as Tony Clifton, would have gone on appearing in that guise. I never thought Clifton was much of a joke but to the extent there was one, it was that people thought it was Andy Kaufman under the bad makeup, long after it had become Zmuda. So I can imagine Andy "dying," Zmuda continuing to perform as Clifton and it becoming common knowledge that it was Zmuda. Then, at some point, Kaufman takes over the role again and people continue to think it's Zmuda…until at one point, Tony Clifton is on Saturday Night Live (let's say) and he gets so abusive that someone breaks character and yells, "Okay, we've all had enough of this! We all know it's Bob Zmuda playing Andy Kaufman's character." And "Clifton" starts screaming that he'd not Bob Zmuda…until he finally rips off the makeup and he's revealed as Kaufman.

That would have been a helluva joke but they never set up anything like that…and even if they had, it isn't worth twenty of someone's best years. Six months, tops. Maybe it's time to finally let the guy rest in peace.

The other day here, I reported on the Pacific Pioneer Broadcasters' luncheon in honor of Mickey Rooney. As I mentioned, Mr. Rooney gave a very nice speech but it included an anecdote of questionable veracity. As recounted, he was a busy kid actor when he happened to wander into an office at the movie studio and met a man named Walt Disney. Mr. Disney was about to launch a new cartoon character, Mortimer Mouse. In Mr. Rooney's telling, Walt decided to rename the character with the name of his youthful visitor. Cute story…but as Wade Sampson notes in this article, the tale doesn't stand up to much fact-checking. The dates are wrong, the details are amiss, the chronology does not match other, more credible accounts.

On the other hand, we who research show biz history often have to deal with quotes or reported quotes like this because human beings sometimes humor people or say things they don't precisely mean, especially in casual conversations. If you plow through books and old magazines that mention Jimmy Durante, you'll find at least a dozen newspapermen, authors, cartoonists or fellow performers who claim they came up with his nickname, 'The Schnozzola." And almost every one has a probably-true quote from Jimmy saying, "Yep…that's the guy who gave me that name."

Well, why not? Jimmy probably figured it didn't hurt and it made those people happy. Dean Martin did the same thing when someone claimed — as many did — to have been the person who introduced him to Jerry Lewis. He didn't remember who really had, so he figured it was easier to just give everyone the credit.

Maybe Mickey did walk in one day in 1928 when Walt was fiddling with drawings of the character he had already decided to name Mickey Mouse. Rooney's name then was Joe Yule Jr. but he was starring in the Mickey McGuire comedies and folks around the studio probably called him Mickey. Walt could easily have said, "I'm naming my new character after you," just to bring a smile to a young face. I mean, he wasn't talking to a reporter for posterity. He was talking to an eight year old boy…and the eight year old boy just happened to go on to be a major star and to remember the conversation. The details of the story as Rooney tells it are almost certainly askew but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some scrap of truth in this one…not that Walt named The Mouse after him but that he told Rooney he did.

Last year, we had a flurry of items (starting with this one) about a move to preserve the old Hanna-Barbera studio at 3400 Cahuenga Boulevard in Hollywood on the cusp of Burbank. Today, we have a report that the facilities will endure. Here's most of the story…

City Council members approved a plan Tuesday that would save the historic Hanna-Barbera buildings in the Cahuenga Pass but would allow development on part of the property to proceed. Joe Barbera, who sold the property years ago, had pleaded with officials to save the building where cartoons such as "Tom and Jerry" and "Yogi Bear" were developed.

It's probably nitpicking but let's note that "Tom and Jerry" started in 1939, "Yogi Bear" started in 1959, and the property in question was built in 1963. Still, it's probably good that the studio will be saved…and apparently not with our tax dollars.

Ben Varkentine (who has his own fun weblog here) writes to ask about my statement that I won't be going to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11…

I wonder if you could expand on this in the blog when you have a minute. I think I share your ambivalence about Moore, but I plan to see the film, and was wondering what if anything made up your mind.

Well, I don't get to a lot of movies at all these days. When time is short, as it always seems to be, I figure I can always see the movie later on DVD or cable…and then I don't even get around to that. But to the extent I do have time to go to a movie, I'm sure I'll be able to find something I'd prefer.

I like some of the things Moore has done and not others. His two TV shows, TV Nation and The Awful Truth, almost seemed to alternate brilliant material with things that made me cringe…and not in a good way. I think he's kind of like the Rush Limbaugh of the left in that around 50% of what he says/does is honest insight and 50% is dishonest theater. It gets attention, it prods others into action, sells tickets (or in Rush's case, gets ratings) and it maybe reinforces a lot of dubious beliefs…but ultimately, it just drives our national debate further into mud-wrestling. I guess what ruins it for me with both of them is that in each case — and this applies to others, as well — you have a real smart man who's good at entertaining, good at socking home his points…but he won't stop where the supportable facts leave off. It may not bother others but I don't want to get hooked by the good parts and then embarrassed by the excesses. I keep feeling let down by the guy, and I'd rather not risk more of that intermittment disappointment.

That's just my choice at the moment. If you see it and tell me there are wonderful moments in it, I won't be surprised. But if I see those wonderful moments and feel the same way, I'll feel I have to defend them when, as is inevitable with someone as polarizing as Moore, his enemies argue that every single syllable is a deliberate lie. And Moore just makes it too hard to defend the good parts of his work…

Michael Kinsley writes about the silly issues that keep coming between stem cell research and the chance of advancing medical science.

Here's a link to the New York Times' back-pedalling on their Iraq coverage. It's not as thorough as what they published when it turned out they'd gotten the Wen Ho Lee story wrong but it's a lot more than they ever corrected about their Whitewater stories.

The blogosphere is abuzz with news that The New York Times is about to publish an apology or perhaps a self-analysis that will say, in effect, that much of their earlier news coverage on Iraq was faulty; that their reporters — Judith Miller, in particular — were conned by some of the same sources that the Bush administration believed. Or perhaps they will say that they were conned by the Bush administration itself. Whatever, they will state that a number of past stories were faulty and perhaps too willing to believe insiders who were making the case for war.

They did something of the sort with their coverage of the accusations against Wen Ho Lee and while many thought the self-flagellation did not go far enough, it is rare that any newspaper admits anything beyond minor, one-time errors. No other paper (and certainly no TV news source) ever comes out and says, "We got this whole story wrong." This is not because they never err.

I received e-mails from Wayne DeWald, Matt Killeen, Paul Balze, Kevin Kozoriz, Ed Coyote and Fred Jacobs, all suggesting that when Ritchie Petrie moved back to New Rochelle, he listed his name as "R. Petrie." Then Alan Brady called Directory Assistance, got that number…and connected with the old Petrie house. That's possible, I guess, but it still seems like a bit of a stretch.

Richard Bensam wrote me to say, in part…

…my favorite part of the show was the one you seem to like the least: the choices for what had become of the various characters all seemed sensible and appropriate to me. I preferred seeing that they hadn't been caught in a figurative time bubble; that they had progressed even while we weren't watching them. The only thing I missed there was some mention of where Rob's career had gone.

To judge from the Petrie's spacious Manhattan home, I imagine he may have written and/or directed at least one very successful film and possibly several, and/or created some successful TV shows…in other words, that he was still an analog of Carl Reiner.

But the image of Rob Petrie as the old man who is computer-literate and amuses himself playing with desktop animation programs is so right, so contrary to lazy stereotypes, that it won me over completely.

Hmm. If Rob Petrie's career had somehow paralleled the real life of Carl Reiner, he would have moved to Hollywood in the sixties and Laura would now be singing in jazz clubs. Ritchie would also have become a prominent actor and director.

Actually, it would have been interesting if they'd picked up on the bit in the last original episode where Rob made a deal with Alan Brady whereby Alan would star in a sitcom based on Rob's life. On the other hand, Brady — being a variety show star in the sixties — would probably have been off TV within a few years and never had another successful series…and maybe I'm taking this too far.

I believe the notion that Rob is now playing with computer animation was based on a current interest of Mr. Van Dyke's. Perhaps the idea of Laura running ballet classes was based on something Mary Tyler Moore has either done or told Carl she'd toyed with attempting. Or maybe it was just an excuse to get her into a leotard and show America that she's still in pretty good shape. I can also imagine Reiner deciding to not make the Petries seem like senior citizens: Rob's into computers, Laura's surrounded by young people. That may have been because he wanted to keep them young or because he had to assure the network that the special wouldn't be 60 minutes of old folks sitting around, longing for The Good Old Days.

Craig D. Smith points out another lapse of logic in that Dick Van Dyke Show reunion special. Ritchie Petrie moved back to New Rochelle, bought his old childhood home back from the folks his parents had sold it to, moved in…and not only decorated the living room exactly as it was in the sixties but somehow GOT THE SAME PHONE NUMBER THEY USED TO HAVE. At the beginning, when Alan Brady calls for Rob, Ritchie answers in that house. How did he manage that?

I posted two very different views of the Iraq situation the other day. Here's another from Mark Steyn, who has always been very pro-war and now, in this piece, seems to want to speed up the elections over there.

Longtime comic book fans will be dismayed to hear that one of our great writers, Bob Haney, is currently in a nursing facility following a massive stroke that has left him unable to speak or even (apparently) recognize his friends. I was told about this a few days ago but I hesitated to post it because I didn't know if his family would want it publicized. Someone however has appended the information to this otherwise lovely piece about Bob and his retirement to San Felipe, Baja, Mexico. Bob, who is well known to readers for his work on Teen Titans, The Brave and the Bold, Blackhawk, The Unknown Soldier and so many others moved there a few years ago to enjoy his senior years. For the last few San Diego Cons, he has occasionally shown up unannounced (he claimed to not even have a phone for a time there) and I always enjoyed talking to him and squeezing him into panels as a last-minute add.

A friend at DC Comics says they're keeping in contact. If Bob shows the slightest ability to appreciate fan mail, I'll get an address and post it here so we can deluge him. But at the moment, I'm told, it doesn't look good.