Monthly Archives: February 2005

Cory Strode (here's his weblog) bills himself as "The Best Dressed Man in Comics," which is kind of like claiming to be the most dignified of the Three Stooges. Anyway, he sends an e-mail not unlike several others I've received in the last few hours…

You haven't touched on it yet, but when Stan was on the Late Late Show (which was still worth skipping for the opening 20 minutes of "comedy") he made sure to interrupt the host and say that he always had a co-creator for all of his characters, and that the lawsuit was a breach of contract and not because he was owed money from long ago. He also came off as an amazingly entertaining guest, and his schtick that us comics fans have known about for years worked very well on the show, and I hope that he starts to become a "late night talk show" guest.

Stan is a very charming guy, and I guess I should point out that one of the reasons he has gotten so much more attention than Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko is because he is a good interview and, what's more, he's accessible. It is not fair that Ditko goes so unmentioned, but at least some of that springs from his refusal to speak with reporters, allow himself to be photographed, etc. Tomorrow, if you were assigned to produce a TV news segment on the origins of Spider-Man, Stan would give you plenty of time and he'd give you short, funny on-camera quotes you could use. Ditko would probably hang up on you. That shouldn't make a difference in the reporting but, of course, it does.

Jack Kirby was, in my opinion, the single-most brilliant creative talent ever to work in the comic book business, and I loved him dearly. But just as some people who are great at playing basketball are rotten at playing the clarinet, some folks who are unmatched in writing or drawing are bad at public relations. Unlike Stan, Jack was not a good interview. With strangers, especially strangers with microphones, he tensed up and got easily confused. You could also push certain buttons and get him mad, and when he got mad, he'd get even more confused. Even when he was alive, he wasn't as good as Stan at representing himself, and since he died…well, isn't there some old line about history being written by the survivors?

Stan was good on The Late, Late Show, and I'm glad he mentioned that he worked with artists in creating those characters. I only wish he'd mentioned their names, as he sometimes has in other appearances. I know it may not always seem appropriate but he's been credited so many times as sole creator of those books that a little excess in the other direction wouldn't hurt.

William Saletan points out the many contradictions in last night's State of the Union address.

Just for fun — not that I expected to get anywhere with it — I phoned the offices of 60 Minutes this morning and attempted to talk to someone about last night's story on Stan Lee, the sole creator of Marvel Comics. The call went about as I expected: I was shunted over to a Viewer Relations department where a lady took my comments in a manner that suggested she was an intern who'd been handed a phone and told, "Be polite to anyone who calls and just make like we care." Given the probable number of nuts and outraged political extremists who must assail the program for not broadcasting their version of reality, I was not surprised. If I were running that operation, I'd probably set it up the same way.

My friends Heidi MacDonald and Tom Spurgeon, the latter a biographer of Mr. Lee, both weigh in with their comments, and I really don't disagree with anything either says, even when they seem to be disagreeing with me. Yes, I think the show may have omitted mention of Kirby or Ditko because they thought the viewers were too dense to comprehend a more complicated scenario. That's part of what I meant about them not wanting to muddy up the narrative with data that despoiled their tidy David/Goliath scenario. And, yes, we may be too quick to absolve Stan of all the blame. My point was that fans will be (and some have been, on last night's message boards) too quick to assume that what he said on the air was all he said in the interviews. From personal experience, I know Stan is sensitive to the charge that he has in any way trampled on the fame and/or fortune of his collaborators. He knows it's wrong and he also knows it makes him look bad. For what it's worth, back when the Biography program was doing its segment on him, he specifically asked its makers to interview me for it because he knew I'd talk at length about Jack Kirby and make the case for his importance. I thought that was both decent of Stan and wise from a strategic angle. If, as was possible, the producers had cut out all references to Kirby, I'd be able to tell the comic art community it was not his fault.

That said, I agree with Tom, who wishes Stan would be more aggressive in acknowledging his collaborators. Heck, I wish everyone in this world would be more aggressive in this regard. I think that when you work with someone, you have a moral obligation — to them, to history, even to yourself — to watch their backs and not usurp their due, even by accident. Credit, as they say, has its greatest value when you're giving it away. Trouble is, interviewers often like to elevate the importance of an interview by elevating the importance of the interviewee. Elayne Riggs made a good point in a comment over on Heidi's site, which was that the subtext of the story last night was 60 Minutes congratulating itself on Stan's victory. They did a story two years ago about how he'd been wronged. Right after that, he filed his lawsuit and now he seems to have been unwronged. The implication there is, "Look at the power of our program!" And of course, a mention of Kirby or Ditko would not advance that boast…might even make it seem like the show missed a key part of the story in their first broadcast. Which, of course, they did.

I would not expect 60 Minutes Wednesday to correct anything, especially not an error of omission. If they do, it'll be one of those quick, parenthetical "Oh, by the way, we should have also mentioned…" statements that have no impact other than to let the reporters claim they've acted in a responsible manner, clarifying the record. My experience over 30+ years of championing the cause of Kirby is that no one ever corrects such stories in a meaningful way. But maybe if we dump on them loud enough, it will cause someone else to not make the same mistake.

Buzz Dixon informs me that the dancer playing Gene Kelly in that Volkswagen commercial is David Bernal. Here's a page about him and some of his other work.

That there's the cover of Volume 3 of the DVD releases of Garfield and Friends, a cartoon show I wrote and co-produced and voice-directed and, unlike some I've done, actually watched. There will be five of these sets in all and once they've all been issued out, all 121 half-hours of the series will be out there. This one comes out April 19 and you can pre-order it from Amazon by clicking here. What's in it? Well, no one's told me but if I've done the math correctly on this, it should contain episodes with guest voices Jonathan Winters, Marvin Kaplan, Carl Ballantine, Pat Buttram, Rod Roddy, Paul Winchell, Chuck McCann, June Foray and a whole bunch of other fun folks. I'll let you know for sure if and when anyone ever sends me a list.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. It's a video (a QuickTime file, by the way) of a new Volkswagen commercial that looks like Gene Kelly doing the famous "Singin' in the Rain" number, only now he's doing modern steps not unlike breakdancing, and he's selling Volkswagens. The ad makers skillfully re-created the original set and found a dancer built like Kelly. As I understand it, he's wearing a Gene Kelly mask in the long shots and then, on the close-ups, they've digitally inserted Mr. Kelly's face.

I guess I find the thing kind of creepy. Once you're conscious of what they've done, it doesn't look like Gene Kelly dancing. It looks like another guy's dancing and the ghost of Gene Kelly is trapped in his body, trying desperately to get out.

From an ethical standpoint, if it's fine with Kelly's widow (she gave permission, presumably for a nice sum of cash), I guess it oughta be fine with us. Still, I can't help but wonder if Mr. Kelly wouldn't be bothered, not by the fact that he's posthumously selling Volkswagens but because someone else's dancing is being represented as his.

Speaking of bad reporting: Rob Garver ticks off a list of just some of the mistakes William Safire made in his column in The New York Times.

The 60 Minutes Wednesday story on Stan Lee tonight is a good example of why I've lost so much respect for TV news. Some fans will probably be upset with Stan because he was hailed as the sole creator of Spider-Man, The Hulk, The X-Men, etc., with no mention of his collaborators. Jack Kirby was not mentioned. Steve Ditko's artwork was shown but he was not mentioned.

(In fact, I'll bet a lot of folks watching the broadcast thought Stan drew those comics. He was referred to "artist Stan Lee" in a lot of program listings, and there were cutaways to the hand of someone drawing Spider-Man comics…but no shot to clarify that it wasn't Stan's hand you were seeing. This is just bad reporting…the kind of thing that would get you a D-minus in a college journalism class.)

Stan will be blamed for the omission of his partners' names but I don't know that this is a fair charge. They probably taped an hour or two of interviews with him and edited it all down to the few minutes we saw on screen. For all we know, he spoke of the artists — who, as we all know, did more than just draw; they contributed plot and character ideas — in footage that didn't make it in.

And even if he didn't mention Kirby and Ditko, it's the responsibility of any TV reporter to do at least a little independent fact-checking on their interviewees. Can you imagine a newsman going out to do a story on Paul McCartney who didn't know of John Lennon? I don't know how you could fact-check Stan Lee in the slightest and not discover that Spider-Man has been hailed by everyone, including Stan himself, as the joint creation of Lee and Ditko. There are only about fifty books in print that mention this, and I just did a Google search on "Spider-Man created" and eight of the first ten hits mentioned Ditko.

So we are left with two possibilities, neither of them flattering. One is that the folks who put together the 60 Minutes story didn't take the five minutes to look up any background info at all. Given how the program just about got shamed out of existence over its recent memo screw-up, I find that hard to fathom. But the other possibility ain't too pretty either, which was that they knew about Kirby and Ditko, but decided it would mess up their story of a creative genius being wronged by the company he built. Leave Kirby and Ditko out of the picture and it's a real nice, clear-cut David/Goliath tale with Stan as the injured party, finally winning justice from the super-villainy of Evil Marvel. Mention his co-creators and the story gets a bit more complicated…and your "hero" is no longer the most injured party. He's the guy who got fewer millions than he deserved, but still fared a lot better than his teammates.

As I mentioned here, Stan's lawsuit is not about his status as co-creator, company founder, a 50+ year employee…any of that. It's about a specific contract he received a few years back that entitled him to a designated share of the profits from Marvel-based movies. And yes, that contract and his entire employment with Marvel the last few decades probably flowed to a great extent from his co-creatorship…but as a legal point, the contract is not about that. An exec who went to work for Marvel in the last ten years and created nothing could theoretically have negotiated a similar pact. The judge who ruled in Stan's favor did not address or care about past service to Marvel; only about the terms on a piece of paper.

The 60 Minutes Wednesday story glossed over that aspect of it and dwelled on Stan as unrewarded creator. They did bring up that he has not exactly been living in poverty, receiving a million bucks a year for some time…but their story's happy ending is that he's probably going to be getting a lot more, and there it ends. No mention of the unrewarded co-creators who never saw a million bucks out of Marvel, or anything close to that, over the course of their entire lives. Kirby and Ditko are not relevant to the legalities of Stan's case, but when you start focusing on what he deserves as the "creator" of the characters, as this report did, then the guys who share that distinction become absolutely relevant. There's a much greater story of injustice there…one that a lot of us have stewed over for years and will continue to note, and one which CBS News has just helped perpetuate.

Meanwhile, right this minute, I'm more annoyed at just plain rotten reporting. And just think: As I write this, these people are covering the State of the Union address, the War in Iraq and the proposals for revamping Social Security…all, probably, with the same dedication to accuracy.

As I think I mentioned here some time back, I am not a great fan of "pop art" painter Roy Lichtenstein. Nevertheless, some of you are, and that may even include some folks attending the WonderCon in San Francisco in two weeks. So it might interest you to know that the Museum of Modern Art up there is hosting a Lichtenstein exhibit through February 22. And you might be more interested to know that said museum is right across the street from the Moscone Center where the WonderCon is being held. One wonders if Russ Heath, who will be among the artists at WonderCon, has ever laid eyes on any of Lichtenstein's simulations of Russ Heath comic book panels.

An author named Lee Munsick sent me the following and asked that I post it here…

Lee Munsick of Virginia is researching for his upcoming book about Arthur Godfrey, his activities and associates. This includes the many folk who appeared on his programs over the years, especially the most well-known group from the television years in the 1950s, plus many who appeared on Arthur Godfrey's Talent Scouts, etc. Such as Bill Lawrence, Frank Parker, McGuire Sisters, Chordettes, Mariners, Janette Davis, Marion Marlowe, LuAnn Sims, Julius LaRosa, musicians in the band, etc. Also information about Mr. Godfrey's life away from broadcasting: his years in Baltimore, Washington and Virginia, aviation, military service in the Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force, conservation, political activity, patriotism, farming, etc. Munsick is seeking information from any source, including photos, recordings, videos, correspondence, news releases, articles, books, etc. Also, referrals to other folk who can add to his archives of material.

If you have any such info, either mail it to Lee Munsick, 804 Piney Ridge Road, RR 1 Box 134B, Pamplin VA 23958-9465 or e-mail Lee at this address.

You see that comic book cover at left? That's the second issue of Detective Comics, which came out in early 1937. Detective was one of the first comic books to feature all-new material instead of reprints of newspaper comic strips. This may have been because its publisher-editor, Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson, was (as he said) dedicated to innovating new kinds of stories in graphic form and could not achieve his vision with old Dick Tracy reprints. Or it may have been, as others suggested, because the Major was a stingy crook who didn't want to pay the cost of reprinting old strips…and anyway, Dick Tracy wasn't available. Either way, it was cheaper to offer bad wages to some of the young cartoonists who then tramped around Depression-era New York in search of an income…and even cheaper when you bounced checks on them.

The drawings on these covers were done by Creig Flessel, who is 93 years old today…and still going strong. I've had the honor to talk with Mr. Flessel, in private and public, a number of times and I'll get to do so again in a few weeks. He'll be on our Golden/Silver Age Panel on Saturday, February 19 at the WonderCon in San Francisco. If you want to hear me ask him about drawing comic books back when F.D.R. was in his first term, or if you just want to wish Mr. Flessel a happy birthday month, you'll be there.

I've been trying to follow the Social Security arguments and I must admit that at some point, the math makes my eyes glaze over much as they did back in Mr. Buck's Geometry class in eleventh grade. The main difference is that I knew Mr. Buck wasn't trying to juggle the numbers to arrive at a certain, desired conclusion. I almost wish I had him back so I could ask him to explain things to me in a non-partisan manner…though, come to think of it, Mr. Buck was never able to explain secants and tangents in a way that I could understand them. So maybe it wouldn't help.

In a way, it's sad that we have no distinguished, apolitical sources that we can go to and get an answer that will be widely regarded as unbiased. There are such folks out there, I'm sure. The trouble is, the minute they say one side is wrong, the other side starts hammering them as partisan hacks and refuses to acknowledge their accuracy or even their sincerity. Can you imagine some think tank or economics authority venturing a view on this issue and having the exponents of the other viewpoint wrong say, "Hmm…maybe we're wrong"? Me neither. So we're all just kinda left here with one side saying the numbers add up, the other saying they don't…and insufficient data and skill to do our own calculations. I get the feeling a lot of pundits think they can say any damn thing they want and if someone disagrees, you just attack their credibility.

The "privatization" side of this issue scares me, first of all because they keep changing the term — it was private accounts, then it became personal accounts…now, it seems to be the "personalization" of Social Security. Well, actually, what really scares me about that is that reporters seem to go along with it…but if the plan is sound, it shouldn't be necessary to dress it up with names that have tested well in focus groups. Secondly, of course, a lot of people who are out there pushing the Bush plan to "save Social Security" are folks who, in the past, have made no secret of the fact that they'd love to see it destroyed. Thirdly, by any estimate the costs of implementing the plan would involve staggering amounts of debt, and they're not addressing that. They just say we'll move it "off the books," which apparently means it isn't a problem. Then, they change the subject, like a couple trillion in new borrowing is no big deal if you're creative in how you keep records.

Those are all things that make me suspicious. But you'll note that none of them involve any math. Before I decide if the plan is good or bad, I'd really like to know if the numbers add up.

Paul Krugman, in this article, says they don't…and he explains it in a pretty simple manner. Says he, those who believe the Bush plan can or will succeed, are presuming that stock investments will yield a rate of return hitting at least 6.5% over the next 75 years. According to Krugman, that's unlikely…but if it does occur, then the current Social Security plan will be in great shape so the changeover isn't necessary.

Is he right? Beats the heck outta me. One can easily find Internet commentators like this guy who will tell you Krugman is wrong. One can also easily find folks like this guy who'll tell you the fellow who says Krugman is wrong is wrong. Both load up their arguments with gobs of personal invective, which also makes me suspicious of their arguments. Then again, it's possible to be rude but right and, once more, we're getting away from the actual arithmetic.

So I don't know what to think, which I guess is okay in some way since others are going to decide this, regardless of what I think. My fear is that it will all pass or not pass, not because of the numbers but because one side did a better selling job on their spin. I certainly don't think the rank-and-file voters will ever really understand it. At best, they'll understand which side they want to trust. Me…I'm going to trust Mr. Buck. He died about twenty years ago but in this debate, that's not necessarily a drawback.

Baseball great Yogi Berra is suing the makers of the TV series, Sex and the City, for an ad that uses his name. The Smoking Gun has the details and no, I don't know why he never sued over Yogi Bear. If attractive women wanted to talk about having sex with me, I wouldn't mind…but I sure wouldn't want to be a highly-merchandised talking bear.

David Letterman's tribute to Johnny Carson the other evening neatly bookended the official mourning period for The King of Late Night. I liked Jay Leno's a bit more, in part because it was so immediate (Dave was on vacation at the time) and in part because lately, I've enjoyed Leno's show more than Letterman's…though, truth to tell, I think both programs have gotten way too repetitive. Maybe it's because they do more shows per year than Johnny did, but neither man strikes me as possessing the Carson flair for keeping the show fresh.

Johnny's death, of course, reminded us of how much we miss not just him but another generation of show business. A lot of folks wrote me how wonderful it was to see Don Rickles and Bob Newhart on Jay's show. They were appropriate not just because they were friends and frequent guests of Johnny but because they were part of his era…an era that is becoming painfully shy on practitioners. We lost Buddy Hackett, we lost Alan King, we lost Rodney Dangerfield, we've lost Johnny…how long before the elder statesman of comedy is Pauly Shore?

Those of us in the comic book field have been experiencing something similar with our "legends," most notably the recent passing of Will Eisner. And just a few weeks ago, I sat with a group of animation buffs and ticked off a very short list of the greats of that art form who are still with us. Since I dwell in all these areas, I've written a painful number of obituaries here.

Losing Johnny was a special jolt because he was such a part of our lives for so long. At the same time, I think it reminded us how much we missed him, and it finally made a lot of folks realize he wasn't coming back.

Some folks talking about him last week on TV seemed to think that when Johnny left The Tonight Show, he took some sort of blood oath to never again appear in public. Not exactly, as I understand it. On his last show, his next-to-last words suggested the opposite…

…I can only tell you that its been an honor and a privilege coming into your homes all these years to entertain you. And I hope when I find something I want to do and think you would like, I can come back and [you will be] as gracious in inviting me into your homes as you have been.

As far as I know, Johnny's subsequent TV appearances consisted of two silent cameos with Letterman, a couple of phone calls to Dave, a voice role on The Simpsons, an appearance on the American Teacher Awards, a bit on a Bob Hope anniversary special, plus the Kennedy Center honors. Most of these were within the first year or so of his leaving Tonight. There was apparently some talk that he would become like Hope, doing the occasional special, but he ultimately decided to not even do that.

Which meant that the Absence of Johnny pretty much snuck up on most Americans. There was never a moment when it became official…not until it was announced he'd died. Much admiration has been expressed for how "classy" it was for him to leave when he was at the top of his game, and I certainly admire that. But I think the part I admire the most is that he did it without really announcing it or calling attention to it. He just left and let us figure it out for ourselves. Another example of the masterful Carson timing.

Not only will Stan Lee be the subject of a piece on 60 Minutes Wednesday tomorrow night but he will also be a guest on The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson, several hours later.