Monthly Archives: August 2004

Nice little article on Dan Castellaneta.

I'm having some problems with my e-mail. If you sent me something in the last day or two and haven't received a reply, I may not have received it. I'll tell you when things seem to be fixed and perhaps you can send it again.

Here's a pretty good dissection of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" commercial and the response produced by the MoveOn people.

In 1971, Jack Kirby made a kind of half-hearted effort to get into publishing his own work. He and his son Neal formed a company called Communicators Unlimited, with myself and my then-partner, Steve Sherman. Jack really didn't have the funds to be a publisher, the rest of us were woefully low on know-how, and others did their best to convince Jack it was a bad course for him…so Communicators Unlimited only issued a couple of folios and prints, plus one rather nice book. Copies of Kirby Unleashed now go for a nice piece of change in the rare occasion that you can find one. Fortunately, you don't have to go hunting. This December, TwoMorrows Publishing will bring out what I'm sure will be a lovely facsimile of this legendary biography/portfolio created in Jack's studio using his own files. Best of all, Steve and I will get the chance to correct some of the dumber typos we made. Sounds like a must-have to me.

If you're going to a Target store between now and Sunday, and if that Target store offers digital photo service on the premises, you might want to print out and take along this coupon. It's for 25 free digital prints and I don't see any catch.

There are quite a few veteran comic book artists who've retired to Florida and who found themselves in the path of Hurricane Charley. One of them, Nick Cardy, was evacuated from his home town to another city…and then Charley made an unexpected turn, missed the town where Nick's home is and slammed into the city to which he'd been relocated. But Nick is fine and insofar as I can tell, so are all the other artists who live in the state. Deep exhale.

On the topic of colorization, I've received…well, more messages than I have time to answer, either one-on-one or in some proper posting here. It's a complex subject because it gets us off on the topics of, for example, who has the creative moral authority to say that a proposed change in a movie or TV show is proper? Or if we agree that a certain alteration in a movie is "wrong," should that be a matter of law or merely of consumer avoidance?

I don't have set-in-stone opinions about much of this. I do think that an awful lot of what is done to old movies in their conversion for free TV or home video constitutes a revision of the original work. One example of many: The mania of film buffs to locate and restore excised footage — even scenes the filmmakers wanted out — makes for a change that I think is sometimes greater than colorization. But that's generally considered an act of preservation and respect, not of desecration.) The point I was trying to make was that the old dire prophecy that a colorized It's a Wonderful Life would obliterate the original has not occurred. To me, the only problem with those new Three Stooges DVDs that offer both colorized and original versions is the price tag.

I'll write more about this when I have a chance. Today, I'm spending way too much time arguing with a company that wants me to pay $338 more on a cellular air time contract for a phone that no longer works. They'll gladly replace the busted phone for $199 or I can get it for $49 if I sign with them through August of 2006. You can just imagine how happy this makes me.

To further complicate matters, there's a poll out today that shows Bush and Kerry tied in Colorado.

Here's a nightmare scenario. Colorado is placing on its November ballot, a proposition which would have its nine electoral votes divided in a proportionate manner — no "winner take all." If passed, it would go into effect before the next Electoral College convenes in December to pick the winner of the Bush-Kerry contest.

Now, this would probably be good for Kerry. At the moment, Bush is polling at 48% in that state with 43% for Kerry. Bush will probably win in Colorado so in the absence of this change, he'd get all nine votes. If this new rule goes into effect, Bush would probably get 5 votes and Kerry would get 4…or it might be 6-3. The point is that Kerry will probably get a few votes that he would not be receiving without the change.

The "nightmare" part of this would be if it goes through and Kerry wins the country by a few electoral votes. Does anyone think the Republicans would then not sue to invalidate the change and demand that all nine votes go to Bush? And suddenly, we're back in the Supreme Court.

Obviously, I hope that Bush loses in November. But what I really hope is that we have a clean election where the losing side doesn't have ample reason to think they were robbed, and the winning side doesn't have to pretend that their guy won fair and square.

Over on Slate, Kim Masters has an article on the current lawsuit involving Disney's hiring and firing of superagent Mike Ovitz. We're gonna hear a lot more about this.

Jonathan Rauch offers an interesting piece on gay marriage and how it relates to the sad story of James E. McGreevey, the abruptly outgoing governor of New Jersey.

If one wishes to understand John Kerry's position on Iraq, one should read this article by William Saletan and then follow it with this somewhat similar article by Fareed Zakaria. I don't think Kerry's view is difficult to understand but every time he explains it, it's almost like he's trying to make sure he gives them a sound bite that states the opposite.

If we are to believe this article, the original Broadway cast album may be on the endangered species list. I know of no significant recent Broadway musical that has gone unrecorded but they're claiming it's going that way. We'll see.

Where does the Sunset Strip begin and end? I'm a little puzzled by this article which addresses this vital controversy. According to the piece, the West Hollywood Convention and Visitors Bureau is insisting that the name only applies to the portion of Sunset Boulevard that is within West Hollywood. The report says that if this standard is upheld, a number of places like the Chateau Marmont and the big Virgin Megastore — which have always been referred to as being on "The Strip" — will lose that distinction. The Virgin Megastore and attendant mall are on the site where the world famous Schwab's Drugstore once stood. Once upon a time, Schwab's was probably the most famous thing on the Sunset Strip…but they're now saying that plot of land isn't part of that boulevard of tinsel 'n' glamour. How could this have happened?

Well, I'm in an investigatory mood tonight and this page on the website of the West Hollywood Convention and Visitors Bureau says the Strip is "Crescent Heights to Doheny." That would exclude (by a matter of inches) the Virgin mall, which is on the Southeast corner of Sunset and Crescent Heights. But the Chateau Marmont is a couple blocks west of Crescent Heights so it is along the stretch from Crescent Heights to Doheny.

The Times article suggests that the Chateau Marmont is east of the point where West Hollywood leaves off and plain ol' Hollywood begins. But on this page of the Visitor Bureau's website, you'll find a link to a map they drew up which shows West Hollywood extending all the way east to La Brea. So not only is the Chateau Marmont in West Hollywood, so is the Virgin Megastore and the Laugh Factory and all the businesses which the article says are complaining about the newly-defined cut-off point. (They seem to be a little confused on that page of the website, by the way. There's a link that says it will take you to "a detailed city map through MapQuest." And it does take you to a detailed city map…of the middle of Kansas.)

So it sounds like someone is playing fast and loose with the geography…or maybe they're just shaken up because the Dudley Do-Right Emporium, a gift shop on the site of the Jay Ward Studio located on Sunset one block west of Crescent Heights — is closing down. The Bullwinkle statue's being moved too, I'm told. That's enough to confuse anyone.