Monthly Archives: December 2004

Michael Kinsley explains why Social Security privatization cannot possibly work. [Los Angeles Times, might expect you to register]

Time Magazine has named George W. Bush its "Man of the Year." This is not necessarily an honor. The stated criteria is that it denotes the person who, in the view of the magazine's editors, "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." Past recipients include a lot of great men who made the world better but on the list, you will also find the names of Hitler, Stalin, Krushchev, Ayatollah Khomeini and many more.

At the moment, Drudge and many Conservative sites have up a picture of Bush flanked by Roosevelt and Churchill, as if to suggest he has been voted as in their league. That's kinda dishonest. For that matter, these are all sites that never thought the opinion of Time Magazine was worth a tin nickel.

But never mind that. I am a little puzzled by this paragraph in the Time announcement…

Interview with Former President and First Lady: "Michael Moore's got to be the worst for me," former President George H.W. Bush tells Time's Hugh Sidey when asked about the low point of this last term. "I mean, he's such a slimeball and so atrocious. But I love the fact now that the Democrats are not embracing him as theirs anymore. He might not get invited to sit in Jimmy Carter's box (at the Democratic Convention) again. I wanted to get up my nerve to ask Jimmy Carter at the Clinton thing (the opening of Bill Clinton's library), 'How did it feel being there with that marvelous friend of yours, Michael Moore?' and I didn't dare do it."

Did the former president actually say this? The low point of the last four years was that someone put out a movie criticizing his son? That was a lower point than the 9/11 attacks where so many people died and so many more were affected for the worse? That was a lower point than his son having to send American soldiers to die in a war? Gosh. I'd like to think that quote is way outta context.

This is the kind of thing only I would notice. In fact, it covers two of my many aberrant fields of interest. One is the way in which the influence of comic books has crept into mass culture. The other is the art of comic book lettering, a craft which has had many distinguished practitioners. My favorite may be the late Ben Oda who, for decades, held the world's record for the most pages of comic books lettered and probably also the trophy for lettering the most newspaper strips. (I believe John Costanza has since passed him in the comic book division.) Oda was the letterer for Simon and Kirby for many years and also for Harvey Kurtzman on the books he did for EC and for the early issues of Creepy and Eerie and for thousands of comics for Western Publishing and DC and for…

Well, you get the idea. The two pages above are pages from the very first issue of MAD, which was published in 1952. For the story titles in most of the stories that ran in the early, Kurtzman-edited comic book version of MAD, Oda used a distinctive style that he'd developed. He'd used it before in Kurtzman's war comics for EC, Frontline Combat and Two-Fisted Tales, and Harvey apparently liked it. For MAD, Oda made it a little looser but it was the same basic style, and he also did a slight variation on it for the cover logo. He later employed it on many other comic art projects he lettered over the years…and I'm not going to suggest he invented it. Odds are that he adapted it from something he's seen on a poster or in a calligraphy book or somewhere. But it became an integral part of his lettering repertoire and when I see it anywhere, I associate it with Ben, especially on the early MAD.

Above, we have a poster for a forthcoming movie called Racing Stripes, which I gather is about a zebra that runs horse races. I saw the poster go by on a bus yesterday and I instantly thought, "Ben Oda!" But I'm guessing it didn't come directly from someone who'd seen his work. Before I tell you where I think they got it from, here's a closer look at some of the lettering on one of the posters for this movie…

As you can see, the "A" and the "S" are a little different, but these are both variants that Ben sometimes used. It's represented both ways in a font set that has been designed and marketed by Richard Starkings over at Comicraft. Richard is the undisputed king of lettering comic books via computer and many of the styles he employs (and sometimes sells) are inspired by great hand lettering of the past. His "That's All, Folks" font conveys the essence of this particular style that Oda used so well. Here's a sample of the Comicraft version…

It's really a great font, and I'm guessing that it was used by whoever designed the key art for Racing Stripes…though I wish they'd chosen the "I" that doesn't have serifs on it instead of the one that's only supposed to only be used when the "I" stands alone and not as part of a word. At least, they got it right in Joe Pantoliano's name.

That's really all I have to say about this and I apologize if you read this far, thinking there was more to it than there is. I just thought it was neat that the penwork of Ben Oda inspired a computer font and is now, in turn, part of the ad campaign for a major motion picture. It's impressive enough when a comic book story becomes a movie…but for its lettering to make it to Hollywood is quite an achievement.

Speaking of the First Amendment, as I think I just was, The Sundance Channel has a nice film festival going on lately. It's called "The First Amendment Project" and it's a series of films about the lead-off clause in the Bill of Rights. At the moment, I'm watching and enjoying No Joking, a too-short-but-sweet documentary by Bob Balaban (right…the guy who used to make his living playing Warren Littlefield) about Lenny Bruce and The Smothers Brothers and other comedians who got in trouble for saying things. Among those who bat around the topic are Eric Bogosian, Richard Dreyfuss, Ed Begley Jr…and Jules Feiffer, whose name is unfortunately misspelled when they superimpose it. (My TiVo listing also says Mort Sahl and Janeane Garofolo are supposed to be in it but I didn't see them.) Still, it's a nice little look at the topic and it airs again later today and tomorrow. Well worth a tune-in, especially if you're one of the ninety people in America who get The Sundance Channel.

This article by Charles Isherwood discusses how often one can go to the Broadway theater and find out that the star you came to see is out and the understudy is on. I think his premise is a bit overstated, and the piece lumps together stars who miss shows because they have movie and TV projects with stars who miss shows because of illness. He also exaggerates a bit when he says, "[Ethel] Merman appeared in a new show almost every season." Ethel more often skipped a year between shows. But otherwise, it's a good essay. (If you're interested, I wrote a piece about this that's posted here.)

Here's a message I received from Glenn Adams…

I very much enjoy your blog. I just have to see if you have an opinion on McFarlane's problems and The Aviator.

What Glenn's referring to vis-a-vis "McFarlane's problems" is that Todd McFarlane, comic book artist and creator of Spawn, has just filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. You can get the details by clicking here or here. I suspect that, even if he has to pay the full $15 million plus all his court costs, Todd will be far from "bankrupt" in the sense that laymen use that word. This Chapter 11 filing is probably a strategic move to protect certain assets and to pressure Twist to accept a lesser amount in settlement.

In any case, as I've said here all along, I think Todd is more in the right than in the wrong on this. The infringement seems slight to me, the dollar amount seems excessive, and the net effect will be to broaden the way in which a Public Figure will seem immune from parody and criticism.

It's odd that you mention The Aviator in the same query. I haven't seen it yet but I'm very interested in Howard Hughes, and I even see a connection here. Hughes hated to have anything written about him — accurate, inaccurate, flattering, libelous…it didn't matter to him. He recoiled at the sheer act of anyone publishing anything that referred in any way to him, and he told his lawyers to spare no expense to prevent it. Throughout the fifties and into the early seventies, they were remarkably successful. Many authors set out to write books about Hughes and only a few, insignificant paperbacks made it into print. In some cases, would-be biographers and reporters were bought off with cold cash, which I suppose is not a threat to Free Speech. In other cases, the Hughes lawyers threatened very costly litigation (costly for the person being sued, natch) based on what they called "The Joe DiMaggio Bat Theory."

Their theory was that if you wanted to manufacture a baseball bat with Joe DiMaggio's name on it, you had to go to Joe DiMaggio, get his permission and pay him a fee. Hughes's attorneys were prepared to go to court to argue that the same principle applied if you wanted to make money off a book about Howard R. Hughes. Needless to say, their assertion was never tested in any court…but books and magazine pieces were actually cancelled by cautious publishers. They were afraid that some jury would get steam-rollered into ruling for Hughes, or that the billionaire would expend sufficient funds to keep the thing going for a long, expensive time. (Before you think that's unlikely, remember how far Jerry Falwell got with a lawsuit that argued he was entitled to damages because a parody by Larry Flynt had caused him "emotional distress." It cost Flynt an awful lot of money and stress to win that case.)

The analogy to the McFarlane case is, admittedly, not exact. Still, if the Twist judgment stands, it's going to scare a lot of authors and artists off from doing things that might prompt some public figure to sue, claiming an infringement on his or her right to merchandise his or her name or likeness. I'm usually skeptical of "slippery slope" arguments but this one seems more slippery than most. I don't like seeing Todd lose this one and I have the feeling that if he does, this case is going to be the keystone precedent in several that will be less arguable in terms of eroding the First Amendment.

Andrew Sullivan discusses states' rights and the fact that everyone's attitude seems to be, "I'm all for states' rights as long as they don't use them to do anything I don't like."

As you've no doubt observed, I'm in the Amazon.Com affiliate program (and a few others) which means that if you click on an Amazon link here, you go to their site and I get a small commission on any purchases you make. This applies to anything you buy if you reach Amazon via the links here. Let's say I put up a link/plug for my book on MAD Magazine and you go to Amazon via that connection. Once there, you come to your senses and decide you have no interest whatsoever in my silly book but you would like a copy of George W. Bush's new book, Destroying Social Security for Dummies. Well, I get a commission on that sale…not a big one but at the end of each quarter, I have enough to pay for a few of my sillier eBay acquisitions and to tip a few websites and such. I'm very grateful for these bucks, by the way.

Recently, a number of Amazon affiliated websites have changed over to a similar program with Barnes & Noble. The motivating factor was that in the last election, Amazon made substantial cash donations to George W. Bush, whereas Barnes & Noble gave almost exclusively to Democrats. I am not a big believer in switching one's patronage of any business over something like that…except, of course, if it will make you feel good. Then, by all means, do it. I just don't think we should kid ourselves and think that kind of thing ever brings a corporation to its knees…or even get noticed in most instances.

While I was briefly mulling the shift, I noticed that lately, Barnes & Noble has sometimes had cheaper prices on some items. They're not a whole lot cheaper — usually 2% or thereabouts — and sometimes, it's the other way around: Amazon is 2% cheaper. I gave the matter more thought than it probably deserved (about 20 seconds) and decided to offer both and let you folks comparison-shop…and if you care about the political donations of the company that sells you your Will Ferrell DVDs, fine. I'd give you a choice. So I signed up for the Barnes & Noble affiliate plan. I have, however, since decided not to carry through with it and post their links.

Here's why: When I started configuring them, I noticed that the Barnes & Noble affiliate links place a small "spyware" cookie on your system. It's part of a marketing program called BFast that shares information between different retailers about your purchasing and web browsing habits. As spyware goes, it's one of the less intrusive specimens. Still, the principle bothers me and, of course, there's no way of predicting what kind of data BFast will be collecting six months from now or what they'll be doing with it. A year or two ago, I was an affiliate of Time-Life Books and I ditched those links because they used BFast. (That affiliate program was run by the same outfit that runs the Barnes & Noble one.) As far as I can tell, Amazon's links do nothing more than make sure I get my cut.

For the benefit of those of you who are interested in purging your system of spyware or adware, this is one of the few areas of my life where I become Felix Unger, cleansing every little nook of my system to within an inch of its life. I've installed Giant Anti-Spyware, which scans my system every night. This is a good, simple program which may soon stop being a good, simple program. It was acquired within the last week or so by the Microsoft Corporation. Someday, we will all be acquired by the Microsoft Corporation but right now, they've purchased Giant and they apparently plan to adapt it into some future Windows update, at which point it will not probably work as well. I also run Ad-Aware, Spybot Search and Destroy, and Pest Patrol, each of which finds and recommends the removal of a few things that the others ignore. And on top of this, my current version of Norton AntiVirus scans for and suggests the deletion of some things that the four other programs let pass. Only two of these five have any issue with BFast but I still thought it would be better not to expose any of you who come here to possible infiltration. Except, of course, by my way of thinking.

The Marvel Comics folks are suing the companies that market an online game called "City of Heroes" over a claimed infringement on copyrights and trademarks. I haven't paid enough attention to the matter to explain it beyond that or to have any sort of opinion. But when I do get around to reading up on it, this analysis seems like a good place for me to start.

Elsewhere on this site (here, if you're interested) I have three articles I wrote about what I call "Unfinanced Entrepreneurs." This is not the perfect title for these people since some of them do have money, in some cases lots of it. But they all act like they have none when they ask writers to write "on spec" or expect artists to draw things on the promise of future payment. Just about everyone who can write or draw has been exploited by these lepers, sweet-talked into laying out free work for some project that then fails to materialize.

A few days ago, I mentioned another, related scheme that's used to rip-off freelancers. About the same time, there was a discussion of creator exploitation on a discussion group for computer animators, and someone there linked to my three articles. As a result, I've had an avalanche of e-mails from folks who want to tell me their story of how they were exploited. Since the three articles were first published in 1998, they've been among the most widely-read and circulated columns I've written, bringing me hundreds of comments and messages, all telling me such tales. Here are a few excerpts from this new batch — and I'm withholding names since I'm not sure all those who wrote wanted to be quoted by name…

…the entire project went on and on and on. I did approximately 350-400 revisions, 4-5 completely new 3-D models. Each time I did a new render, I would hear "it's fantastic…it's perfect…they'll love it" and then get an e-ail saying "it's 99% there…all you have to do is change X." It took nearly 3 MONTHS to get it done. And what is worse than that…when it came time to collect the final 50%. the guy disconnected his phone, disconnected his fax, disconnected his cell phone, shut down his website and disconnected his e-mail…

…there was an article I wrote for which the contract in my hand, with all sorts of signatures on it, clearly told me a pay schedule of $300 on submission and $300 more upon publication. After getting a check for $200 and then another $200, I was met with the response, "that's our new pay schedule." I complained enough that they cut me a check for $200 more that was clearly not a vendor check, so someone knew they were wrong, but couldn't convince finance, apparently. But my question is how much of this problem falls to us? The thrill of getting a pitch accepted, or merely of having someone say, "I'm willing to pay your for something you will create" often blinds us to the rigors of accounts payable. I'm unagented, so I don't have the luxury of saying "Sure, send the details to my agent" etc. And I'm lucky that most of my correspondence is done via e-mail, as if the buyer could see my glee at being accepted, they'd probably cut their payment in half. I believe I've done enough un-paid, or under-paid work in my life that I'd be immune to it, but I still fall for it, every time…

…UE's are rampant in the 3-D industry due to the false notion that the computer does all the work for us. I have only been in the 3-D industry professionally for 3 years and I cannot begin to count how many times I've been approached to do free work. It's frustrating, annoying and infuriating…

…I figured since this was a big star on a TV series, he had the connections he said he had, so I decided to invest in writing the script he wanted me to write. It took about three months and all the time, he called me every week to ask how soon he could have it because he knew this studio was interested or he was having lunch with this director. I was past page 88 when I called him to ask a question and he never returned my call. I called several times and I finally got his wife who said, "Oh, he's no longer interested in that" and hung up on me…

…I spent three weeks doing a CGI demo of these characters which he said he had the rights to. I finally found out he didn't have the rights. He said he did so I'd do the demo and then he planned to take it to the owners and use it to get them to give him the rights…"

Happens all the time, as you can see. (Don't bother sending me more of these. I have plenty, thank you.) And there's really nothing you can say to any of them except that we all have to stop falling for these scams. We have to value our work highly and not give it away for free or even gamble it on longshots.

Before I get off this topic and back to writing something that I'm actually going to get paid for, I wanted to respond to this message I received from Charlie Eckhaus…

Regarding your The Great Negotiation-After-the-Fact Scam article, I can certainly sympathize. I completed some freelance software engineering for my former employer (a medium-size company). Although I was paid without great incident, albeit at the last minute (which I imagine is fairly typical), at the beginning I still wondered if they'd try to put one over on me. Which brings me to the point: you didn't mention any legal recourse that was available to you, and I wonder if you've ever used it or looked into the steps required to pursue justice? If so, did it turn out to be too expensive? Was it difficult to make your case because it was your word vs. their word? Is that what the guy on the other end is counting on?

In my experience, they usually count on the premise that you're not going to hire a lawyer in order to collect a small amount. I once worked for a guy whose accountant explained to me, over lunch and off the record, that the boss often spoke of "the second negotiation." The first negotiation was the one where he promised you $1000 and you agreed to do the work and started. The second negotiation commenced when you were too deep into it, he thought, to just walk away. That was when he'd introduce some loophole to deny your fee ("Gosh, I'm sorry…you must have misunderstood me. I said it would be $1000 if my partners came through with the funding…") and at the same time, he'd start talking about some great-sounding major project that was imminent. The concept here was that you'd think, "Hmm…I can go to Small Claims Court over $1000. That will take time and I might not win…and either way, I'll never work for this guy again and maybe get a reputation as a troublemaker. Or I can eat the loss, stay on his good side and maybe get that other project, which will more than make up the $1000." Sometimes, just when he figured you were on the fence, he'd say, "Kid, I really like you. Tell you what…let's split the difference. I'll pay you $500 out of my own pocket." In almost all cases, you'd wind up grabbing the cash — voila! — he got a $1000 job done for half off. Occasionally, he could even convince you to forget about any money for that work because the next project was so promising. My accountant friend told me the guy used to plan for this kind of haggling in his budgets. He'd tell the accountant, "I made a deal with this guy for X but I'll get him down to Y (or maybe even nothing) in the second negotiation."

In some cases when I've been ripped-off, I've just written it off as not worth the trouble. On TV and movie deals, I've gone to the Writers Guild a couple of times…and the mere fact that this organization exists, God love it, makes a lot of studios and producers think twice about cheating writers. The same thing has happened because I have lawyer(s), including two who are fairly well-known in some circles. I've had to call them in a few times, and I believe there have been situations when I've been paid what I was owed only because the other party knew I had attorneys, could spend the money to bring them into the matter, and would. You don't always have to fire a weapon for it to be effective. They just have to know you have it and will use it.

Most of all, you just have to have a good manure detector, especially for those offers that sound too good to be true. And it helps to remember that honest folks don't flinch if you ask them, early in your association, to put things in writing. You might be afraid to act too pushy about money and contracts when you're just starting a project…but if that will kill the deal, then it's probably the kind of deal you ought to kill before you get too far into it.

Okay…enough weblogging for tonight. I'm going back to work on a script. Hope I get paid.

Here's Nikki Finke with an interesting take on the Michael Eisner-Mike Ovitz trial.

Fred Kaplan reports on how the latest test of the "missile defense shield system." Three sentence summary: It doesn't work. It's never shown signs it can work. And the people behind it seem unwilling to consider that possibility, no matter how much it costs us.

Ursula K. Le Guin is the author of the Earthseas novels. Ursula K. Le Guin is not happy with the adaptation of them into a current TV mini-series. Ursula K. Le Guin explains why.

Frank Rich places the Mel Gibson movie about Christ into the bigger picture.

How did the animated Fat Albert come to be? My pal Floyd Norman was there at the beginning and he tells us all about it.