Monthly Archives: January 2005

Negotiators for the Screen Actors Guild have reached agreement on a new three-year contract with the AMPTP, the organization that represents the producers of motion pictures and television. Here are the details.

Bottom line as I read it: No increase in DVD revenues for the actors, and unspectacular cost-of-living increases. Don't get thrown off by that line about the deal being "the richest in the unions' history." Darn near every deal in this business is "the richest in the unions' history" in some sense. A 1% increase over the next ten years would still be richer than the previous terms but it would be a pretty lousy deal.

A lot of folks will say that of the agreement reached yesterday, though I suspect few will be surprised. Once the Directors Guild decided not to pursue a significant share of DVD moola, that pretty much killed it for the other unions. The studios have made it pretty clear that not sharing home video revenues means enough to them to shut the town down indefinitely and to try and break whatever union refused to fold on the issue. Maybe they meant it, maybe they didn't. In any case, there didn't seem to be the moxie among SAG members to call that bluff, just as the resolve wasn't there for the Writers Guild. We took a crummy deal, probably worse than what the actors seem to have achieved.

A shame, really. Unlike the Writers Guild, SAG can have an immediate impact on production. If we walk out, there are scripts that can be used, at least for a little while. But when the actors strike, no one shows up on the set the next morning. This is why actors' strikes tend to be short while writers' strikes tend to be long. A lot of folks — and not just actors but others who think the precedent of sharing DVD loot needs to be established — were hoping the Screen Actors Guild would kick that door open. Oh, well. I suppose Michael Eisner needs that money more than we do.

Sorry to say bye-bye to Spinsanity, a very sane political site that debunked a lot of foolish rhetoric from both the right and left. The folks behind it have decided to expend their efforts on other projects, which I regret, though I can't say I blame them.

But let's say hello to a new recommended weblog: Gary Sassaman's Innocent Bystander. Gary is a fine writer-artist (take a look at his "album" on The Last Days of Groucho Marx) and also the man behind the programming at the Comic-Con International in San Diego and the WonderCon in San Francisco. With all that, he still has time to toss out an interesting blog on a variety of subjects.

And, speaking of that WonderCon in San Francisco…

By now, you may have heard that the right-wing scold, Dr. James C. Dobson, is warning America that SpongeBob SquarePants is recruiting for the gay movement. One might recall that a few years ago, Jerry Falwell managed to look pretty foolish with some sort of incoherent claim that one of the TeleTubbies on that kids' show was a bit light in the bunny slippers.

(Actually, to be fairer to the Reverend Falwell than he usually is to his opponents, it sounded to me then like he was being quoted out of context and that his meaning was distorted. But even what he did say was such a doofus statement that you almost couldn't expect foes and comedians to not run with it and exaggerate it into something even dumber.)

So my question is: Did Dr. Dobson not learn from Falwell's becoming a laughingstock? Or is it perhaps deliberate? That he expects to be ridiculed for the statement but also expects some offsetting benefits? I do think a lot of public crusaders, left and right, say outrageous things to get attention. A few years back, we had a low-level public servant down in Orange County who was prone to some really offensive, racist statements. They got him a lot of hate mail…but they also got him a lot of TV air time and a surprising number of campaign donations from folks who liked his message. My sense was that he considered it a great trade-off.

Here's the New York Times article on the outing of SpongeBob, via a link that should not require registration. My sense is that if played right, this is worth at least a week of Leno/Letterman monologues. Which may be exactly what Dobson wants.

Just received my copies of the new, 2005 version of Kirby Unleashed from the excellent folks at TwoMorrows Publishing. This is a reprint/update of a book/folio of Jack Kirby's work that was originally published in 1971. My then-partner Steve Sherman and I assembled it, and for the new edition, Steve has written a new intro and John Morrow and I have updated and corrected a lot of the text. (As usually happens when I look back at something I worked on long ago, there was a powerful drive to completely rewrite…but John restrained me, so I settled for just fixing some of the dumber writing and all — I hope — the mistakes.) John has also tweaked the design and added in loads of additional artwork, much of it in color…and it's really quite a handsome volume.

For the Kirby connoisseur, this is a must-have item, even if you own the original. For those new to Kirby, it's a pretty good introduction to the man and his work…nothing too deep but at twenty four bucks (postpaid), it's a heckuva bargain. Here's where you get a copy.

By the by: As any of my long-time friends will tell you, I used to have an uncanny ability to simulate the handwriting of others. In the last decade or so, as I have segued from occasionally drawing or lettering something to doing it all on this here computer, my control of a pen or pencil has sadly atrophied…but that's a matter we should discuss another time. What I did want to mention is that when I worked for Jack, he was oddly delighted by my ability to sign his name…and if I studied a real sample and put my mind to it, I could do it such that neither he nor his wife Roz could tell the difference. He'd even hand me my paychecks unsigned and say, "Here…you can sign this better than I can." Once in a while, he'd finish a drawing and hand it to me to sign, sometimes telling me to do the "neater" version of his autograph, which was not so much a forgery as an improvement. The "Jack Kirby" signature that sometimes adorns the covers of The Jack Kirby Collector as part of the title logo is, I think, one of mine.

A number of the signatures in Kirby Unleashed were by me, and I also inked part of one drawing. In some cases, I did the "slicker" Kirby signature and in some cases, I did the one that looked exactly like Jack could have signed in two seconds. In the next issue of The Jack Kirby Collector, I'll attempt to identify which ones are Jack and which ones are me. But first, I have to study a couple and decide for myself.

Two more notes on the Stan Lee lawsuit. At this moment, Google News lists 264 articles online about Stan's victory. Some list Stan as creator, not co-creator. A few refer to him as "cartoonist Stan Lee," suggesting wrongly that he drew. Steve Ditko is unmentioned in the 264 articles.

Also, Scott Shaw! identifies the person wearing the Spider-Man costumes in the picture I ran…

Dunno if you're aware of it, but the photo you've posted with the "With Great Profits Comes Great Responsibility" article is of additional interest, inasmuch as it was photographed when Stan was at Marvel Productions. The fellow in the Spidey costume was Chris Sanders, the creator of Lilo and Stitch for Disney. Chris was working for me at the time as a character designer on Jim Henson's Muppet Babies, and frankly, was the only employee there who was physically fit enough to look good in the Spider-togs.

I trust you are all visiting Scott's Oddball Comics page every week. And if you get to WonderCon next month, make sure you catch his very amusing slide show of such strangeness. It'll be on Saturday afternoon, right after we play our famous game of "Quick Draw!," in which Scott will also be a participant. Full schedule of my panels to come in a day or two here.

A few years back, our friend and idol Stan Freberg appeared on three episodes of the Roseanne sitcom, playing Mr. Parker, the manager of a grocery store. Craig Crumpton (thanks, Craig) informs me that those three episodes are running on Nick at Nite, the next few days. The first two are tonight at 11 PM and 11:30 PM with repeats on Friday at 2 AM and 2:30 AM. The third airs Saturday at 12 AM with a repeat at 2 AM. Consult the TV Land schedule for more info.

An interesting piece about the Michael Eisner-Mike Ovitz lawsuit. [Los Angeles Times, registration a necessity of life.]

Frank Rich discusses the rapidity with which the Abu Ghraib prison torture story has disappeared from public attention.

The other day in this item, I pointed you all towards an unusual item being sold over on the Costco website. The link no longer works so I'm now getting e-mails from folks asking what the hell it was I wanted you to see there.

They were selling an original Picasso crayon sketch…and not a very good one. It was priced at $39,999.99 because, after all, who'd pay $40,000 for something like that?

I find two things especially amusing about this, one being that the Costco site is set up for multiple quantities. You not only could order the original Picasso sketch online, you could have specified that you wanted two or ten or fifty of them added to your shopping cart.

And the second thing is to wonder about the route by which a Picasso sketch winds up being sold by Costco. I mean, if I had one and I wanted to sell it, I don't think it would occur to me to say, "Hey, how about that store where I bought that case of toilet paper?" Or imagine it from Costco's point-of-view. They have buyers who sit there all day and the phone rings and they say, "You have how many truckloads of Arm & Hammer Baking Soda? Okay, if you can come up with another 200,000 units and make delivery by August 1, it's a deal." Then the guy gets another call and he says, "What? Original Picasso sketch? No, we aren't overstocked with them. Hmm…how many thousand units you got of them? Oh, you just have the one sketch? Well, we don't usually deal in…oh, what the hell. Sure, we'll sell that. Maybe we can work up some sort of package deal…you know, shrink-wrap it with ten pounds of Cascade Dishwashing Detergent…"

Sounds silly, I guess. But the Picasso is no longer on the Costco site so I guess they sold it. Let me know if you see any Chagalls over there…or maybe a closeout on Matisses. Also, I'm just about out of Windex.

As noted in the previous item, Stan Lee has won the first scuffle in a lawsuit against Marvel Comics over profits relating to the Spider-Man movies. A couple of folks have written to ask what, if anything, this means for Spider-Man's co-creator, Steve Ditko. I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but I'm pretty sure the answer is "Nothing," apart from some possible resentment. Stan's lawsuit, as I understand it, had nothing really to do with his status as co-creator of the character. He was not claiming ownership of the web-headed one or claiming that as co-creator he was entitled to anything…so there's no precedent here which could affect Ditko.

Stan's claim was a pretty simple contractual matter flowing from his employment deals with Marvel. His attorneys were claiming that one of those contracts stipulated he would receive certain sums of cash, if and when these movies were made. They sued, claiming he had not received the specified payments. If I read Marvel's response correctly, they're prepared to appeal based on some different interpretations of how the profits are to be calculated and which exploitations of the property are subject to Stan's cut. In other words, they're going to drag it out and argue every semi-colon, hoping Lee will see the wisdom of settling for a lesser sum. One suspects that no matter how things go, Smilin' Stan will be smilin' all the way to the Automated Teller.

And like I said, none of this relates to Mr. Ditko in any way. The dispute is about a specific contract Stan had as an executive of the company, and Ditko never had such a contract. In a just and benevolent world, the company would long since have loaded all their key creators down with hefty pensions and cash awards…but we rarely dwell in such a universe. I'm not saying it's right because, obviously, I don't think it is right. Alas, so many things are not.

Stan Lee has won Round One of his lawsuit against Marvel Comics over profits from the Spider-Man movie. Here's a report on the fisticuffs, which will continue with appeals.

Our Defense Department has issued a strong denial of the charges in the Seymour Hersh article I linked to yesterday. Here it is. I dunno which one to believe but I sure hope it's the Defense boys.

In the wee small hours of this morning, I made a telephonic appearance on Ken Gale's fine New York radio show, 'Nuff Said. I talked about Will Eisner with Ken and his co-host, Mercy Van Vlack, and we said wonderful things about the late Mr. Eisner.

At one point, I was talking about how the comic art community has reacted to his passing and I said something like, "The only person I know who isn't depressed at the news is a guy who's hoping that it will free up a hotel room for the San Diego Con."

This morning, I got up and found an e-mail from someone that included the sentence, "I have a hunch you were just making a joke but really, if this means that there is a hotel room available, who would I contact about it?"

Here's an interview with Paul Krugman in which he explains why there is no Social Security crisis.

Seymour Hersh writes that the Bush administration is quietly planning to get us into wars on beyond Iraq. Hersh has been wrong, or at least has seemed wrong, about a number of stories in the past. But he's also been right about an awful lot of things of this nature, and I'm worried he's right about this.