Monthly Archives: October 2007

Does someone reading this have a copy of an original printing (only) of any of the first ten issues of Captain America by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby from the forties? One that isn't sealed in plastic and can be opened and scanned? And do they have a good quality scanner? If you are such a person, please drop me an e-mail.

Well, Boomerang ran the Hanna-Barbera Alice in Wonderland special I wanted to see again and record. Unfortunately, they said it was 50 minutes long and my TiVo believed those liars. My copy clipped off the last few minutes…my fault for not being smart enough to pad the recording. Darn. I shall endeavor to learn from my mistake.

We're hearing nothing too positive about the status of negotiations between the AMPTP and the WGA regarding a new contract…and before I get into that, I'd like to make two points. One is that the folks inside the WGA — the Negotiating Committee, the officers, the staff, etc. — have told me nothing. Anything posted here is me speculating based on past histories and the current lack of good news. In situations like this, it's not too pessimistic to assume that a dearth of good news is because there ain't any.

Second point: Lies and bogus stories will be told. That is as certain as anything can be certain. In every WGA strike I've lived through — which is what now? A hundred and fifty? — there have been rumors, often attributed to good sources, that have proven utterly and wholly false. Expect them. Count on them. I'll toss out one example…

A few days into the '88 strike, a very prominent writer-producer — a man with more Emmys than toes — told me that the WGA was doomed because the studios, prepping for our walkout, had secretly filmed or taped plenty of shows to keep them going in our absence. Not only that, he told me the names, premises and cast lists of a couple. One starring Jack Klugman, he said, had taped 13 wonderful episodes and there was some hour-long adventure show that was an eighties' spin on Mission: Impossible [CORRECTION: See here.] that had eight episodes in the can and a whole pile of scripts ready to film. The amount of detail he had made it all seem very credible, as did the fact that this was a very honest, successful writer-producer…but none of these shows were ever seen, during the strike or after. Why? Because they never existed. Someone had made up a phony story and this guy had fallen for it and was passing it along.

One other point: At some stage, you'll probably start hearing about Binding Arbitration: This side has proposed Binding Arbitration. That side has refused Binding Arbitration. Talk like that. When tensions are high and folks are looking for a magic genie to end the madness, they often seize on Binding Arbitration as the fairy dust that can make everything right. But it can't. Not in a contract negotiation of this sort. In order to submit a dispute to Binding Arbitration, the two parties that can't come to an agreement have to agree on the rules of Binding Arbitration. The Binding Arbitrators don't just come in and carve up the baby based on nothing. Arbitrators enforce rules and if two sides are at an impasse, it's highly unlikely that either side would consent to rules that might yield a decision that went against them. So just forget about that idea.

Anyway, the sense I'm getting is that the Producers are still sticking with the idea that the business is hurting and that Writers (and next year, Actors and Directors) simply have to take less. At the same time, the Writers are sticking with the principle that they will not accept rollbacks; won't even accept a status quo deal that does not address several big concerns like New Technologies and Expanded Jurisdiction. So right there, you have all you need for a 24-Karat, accept-no-substitutes Writers Guild Strike.

It would be nice to think the Producers are executing a major fakeout here; that they're signalling that their Final Offer will be really, really bad so it will seem more acceptable when it turns out to only be really bad. That would still probably trigger a strike but maybe not as nasty a strike as the really, really bad offer. I'm afraid though we're in for the latter.

The contract expires Wednesday. Thursday evening, the WGA will convene a huge membership meeting at a location to be determined. If you're a member, watch for the announcement.

John W. Dean makes a good point in an article entitled Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide.

That's true. And of course, the other issue in play at the moment is whether anyone should watch the watchmen. Proponents of the Bush-Cheney surveillance plans keep trying to frame the debate as if opponents object to spying on terrorists. But the true objection is to the spying being done without accountability so that no one will know if the spying is done, say, on political opponents. I think someone should be asking the folks pushing the unrestricted spying if they really think the President of the United States, whoever it is at any given moment, should have the unsupervised right to spy on any American for any reason without oversight…and if so, how that jibes with that thing we call The Constitution.

We're probably at least a month or two from hearing the following question asked. But it will be asked and I'm curious to know what the answer will be…

So, Senator McCain, now that you've had to drop out of the race for President, will you be endorsing a Republican nominee who condones and even recommends the use of torture?

Just wondering what he'll say. Just as I wonder if Ron Paul will fall in line behind a G.O.P. nominee who wants to "get the job done" in Iraq and also to ignore all those bothersome Constitutional questions about executive power.

Did you see that thing? I'm talking about the first episode of Phenomenon, which is a new NBC series that debuted the other night…a show that seeks to do for creepy magicians what American Idol did for people who don't sing as well as they think they do. The word "magic" was never uttered, however. The program seems to want to have it both ways. They aren't claiming its participants actually have supernatural abilities because…well, they don't. But the show seems to be sorta/kinda hoping that some viewers will presume that's what is meant and that they can tune in and see actual miracles, live as they occur. The miracle, of course, is that anyone's tuning in at all.

It all raises a debate that has long raged in the magic community: At what point does a trick stop being a trick and become a fraud? Max Maven telling us what card we're thinking of is a magic trick. Sylvia Browne telling you she's communicating with your dead Uncle Henry is a scam. Somewhere between those extremes, there's a very gray, arguable area which I am not prepared to argue here. I just felt I should note that it goes on.

The most amazing thing about Phenomenon is that one of its two judges, Uri Geller, is actually showing his face on television again. The guy is not only firmly in the "scam" category, he isn't very good at it. He has a small repertoire of rather simple tricks and he's something of a joke among real magicians. (Geller is also apparently one of the show's producers.) The other judge, Criss Angel, is more respected and on the first show, he rated the contestants as magicians, even though he couldn't use that noun and had to avoid the topic, which is close to unavoidable when you critique magic acts, of how they did what he did. In a way, Geller and Angel represent the two sides of the argument I just described.

Angel did not seem impressed by any of the acts on the opening show and neither was I. A lot of folks on it were making predictions so I'll make one about Phenomenon. It won't live up to its name and will disappear soon.

Later today, the Boomerang network is showing Alice in Wonderland. Which version? Beats me. About every six weeks, they show something called Alice in Wonderland in their Sunday special slot. Sometimes, it's the 1966 Hanna-Barbera version, which is full of great songs and great guest stars, and since it's never been out on home video, a lot of us want to record a great copy. But sometimes when Boomerang promises Alice in Wonderland, it's the 1995 version that Goodtimes Entertainment released into the home video market, and that's not nearly as interesting. For some reason, the TV listings for both are the same and do not tell you which one is running. So I don't know which one is on later today but it might just be the Hanna-Barbera one. And it might not.

Also: On Monday, most PBS stations will be debuting a new edition of their American Masters series, this one being a profile of Charles Schulz. Sounds like something I'll be recording.

A couple months ago, we brought you a clip of the Spanish language version of the first Laurel and Hardy starring feature, Pardon Us. Today, we have some moments from the German version. Remember that this was not dubbed. After shooting the movie in English, they actually went back and shot foreign versions with Stan and Ollie reading phonetic dialogue off an off-camera blackboard. So here they are speaking German…

Some parts of Southern California are getting a little rain this morning…not much but any moisture may aid in knocking down some fire or preventing another. Even though many spots are still blazing away, there seems to be a feeling that the worst is over, at least for now, and that the firefighters have gained the upper hand. You can sense it as sure as you can smell musty, charred air and see the blurry skies.

I'm quite some distance from any of it. I don't think any of the fires were even in my area code. Still, I know many of the areas and, of course, I know people in or about those areas…and it was just very sad. So, in a different way, are several e-mails I received from people whose attitude towards the victims was that they brought it on themselves by living where they lived, by not living in homes made of different building materials and, of course, by being Rich Hollywood Liberal Phonies. That's true of perhaps a single-digit percentage of those who lost their homes and belongings — especially in parts of Orange County where they're still, one way or another, voting for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — but there's no point in explaining that to them. Some people take their schadenfreude where they can get it, and if it means making up or believing nonsense, that's fine by them.

I found it all very depressing and frustrating. The most likely thing that most of the victims did wrong was to not be more demanding that dry brush in their area be cleared away or irrigated. We can't stop the Santa Ana winds or the arsonists, nor can we eliminate forever downed power lines. But it would be really maddening to think we couldn't do better at the aspects we can control. One of the main things that has soured me on the Iraq War — even more so than the ever-shifting rationales for it — are those stats on things we're not doing here like increased port security and mopping up after Katrina and more health care for uninsured kids. It's particularly upsetting when it seems to be no big deal if a billion or three earmarked for The War slips through the cracks and just disappears. One question I'd like to see put to all who would be President is: "Will you swear that if elected, you will vigorously investigate fraud and corruption in the spending of money allocated for the war, and prosecute those who have engaged in such practices or overlooked them?"

Even if we weren't being robbed of money we could use to help out needy folks (as Liberals would advocate) or use to lower taxes (as Conservatives would like), I can't see any argument for tolerating all the theft and corrupt accounting and war profiteering. But I'll bet no one will do anything about it, no matter how many Californias burn or Louisianas flood.

What's it like to be a guest on Stephen Colbert's show? Paul Glastris describes his experiences.

Negotiators have adjourned until Tuesday in the talks between the AMPTP and the WGA. These are the talks that everyone hopes will lead to a new contract and therefore no Writers Strike. The contract expires at Midnight on Wednesday but even if there's no deal by then, there doesn't have to be a strike at that precise moment. If talks are proceeding and progress is being made, a strike could be delayed until it is no longer necessary or becomes necessary. Or they could call a walkout, a.s.a.p. No one can say for sure at this time.

The hopeful sign is that they are talking and demands are being withdrawn or modified. By contrast, at this point prior to the WGA strikes of '85 and '88, Management was refusing to even listen to WGA proposals. In both those years, the Producers' idea of "bargaining" was to run down the clock and then, a few hours before the old contract expired, they'd hand our negotiating team their "one and only offer," as they called it. And then they'd say, in effect, "Here — this is it. Now, go vote to accept it. We're going home."

I remember arriving for the Strike Vote in a ballroom at the Sheraton-Universal in '85. In that year, the strike vote occurred after the old contract had expired — the day after — unlike this year, when it came two weeks before.

A lovely man named George Kirgo, who was then on our Board of Directors (and, I think, the Negotiating Committee, as well) grabbed me and a couple of other writers he knew and pulled us into a huddle. "We have to vote this offer down," he said. George looked terrible. He hadn't slept the night before. He'd been up talking to other WGA officials and worrying and strategizing. The offer, he said, was designed to be voted down. It included a major financial rollback plus a major rollback in screen credits. The Producers' strategy, he said — and I'm quite sure he was right — was to force a strike but a short one. We would, of course, vote it down but the magnitude of the strike vote — how many people voted to walk versus how many didn't — would enable them to gauge WGA resolve and to estimate how little they'd have to improve the offer to get 51% of us to accept it.

After a short walkout, the Producers would pull the credit rollback off the table. The idea was that enough of us would then figure we'd "won" something and would accept the contract with the major financial rollback. George explained to us that most unions, faced with a rotten offer, can muster a strike vote but thereafter, each strike vote is a matter of diminishing returns. Members get worried and lose bravado as their jobs stop or they see projects floundering or hear the inevitable rumors that Management is equipped and determined to ride out the strike and break the union. That makes them especially eager to believe that a terrible offer, slightly improved, has become a good offer even though it's actually still terrible.

Anyway, that worked pretty well for them in 1985, aided by the fact that our leadership was in general disarray. We had a short strike, and then they dropped the credit rollback and we took what was still, even with that improvement, a terrible deal. No one in '85, even those of us who were against it, imagined how terrible it was because we didn't then dream how big home video would become. Since it had worked so well for them that year, the Producers tried much the same trick in 1988 but this time, the Guild was more solid and we not only turned down the really rotten offer, we voted it down after they bettered it slightly. And at that point, the Producers were stuck with no Exit Plan (insert George W. Bush analogy here) and they had a five month strike on their hands.

There's cause for limited optimism since bargaining is happening at all in advance of the contract expiration. It was announced today that a Federal Mediator will preside over Tuesday's session but I wouldn't expect that to change anything. Usually, a Federal Mediator comes in after a strike has been going on for a while, says "everyone needs to try and make this work," then goes home. Still, that phase is ahead of schedule, too, and that's probably a good sign, if only because it'll stop people from believing that a Federal Mediator will step in and drag unwilling parties into a settlement.

But if you asked me for my prediction — and amazingly, some of you have — I'd say we're going to wind up with a "final offer" that contains at least one major rollback that is in there so it can be dropped and one that they'll fight to the death to protect. It's been reported that the Producers already dropped a demand for a new residual structure that would essentially have reduced them from guaranteed compensation to something at the vagaries of Hollywood Accounting. Other, less important rollbacks have reportedly also been withdrawn, and we've given some on our side, as well. But my suspicion is that the negotiators for the Producers, to earn their keep and because they've been so ordered, still feel they have to come back with some significant giveback from the Writers. More importantly, on the issue of sharing revenues from new technologies like DVDs, they have to come back with some precedent that can be forced next year on the Screen Actors Guild and the Directors Guild and which will translate into not sharing revenues.

So that'll be in there, maybe dressed up with language to suggest that we'll do some joint studies to determine if a better plan is feasible for the future. They often do that. It's like you and I make a deal where I get your pants, but to prevent you from feeling like a total loser, I'll agree that at some later date, we'll meet for exploratory discussions about me possibly giving you back some part of your pants.

They'll do that and then they'll include some other rollback that's in there to be dropped so that they can better the offer without altering the part they really care about. Maybe they'll keep the talks going so they can keep the work going until a better time for a stoppage, and maybe our leaders won't let them get away with that. Or maybe the Producers will try to hurry up the strike and get it over with so they can try the trick of dropping one rollback…and of course, at the same time they'll spread the word that they're quite prepared and even happy to ride out a long strike. We'll hear that they have a nice stash of game and reality shows that will do just as well…a claim that will not be believed by anyone who saw the debut last week of Phenomenon. (Who ever thought you'd see a TV show where Carmen Electra looked like she didn't want to be on it?)

As you can tell, I'm not all that confident in parts of my prediction because a lot of this is unprecedented. The WGA seems more "together" and determined than I've ever seen it, and I don't think the AMPTP can possibly underestimate that this time, as they have so many times in the past. The mere fact that the two sides are actually bargaining now suggests that a lot of the Producers' past methods are not in play this time. Still, some of those tricks have worked so well in the past, not just with us but with other unions, that it's hard to believe they won't try any of them again. So I'm optimistic but not optimistic enough to think there won't be a strike.

Just to get you in the mood for Halloween…

In 1964, animation producer Walter Lantz whipped up a syndicated Woody Woodpecker special called Spook-a-Nanny (or maybe Woody Woodpecker's Spook-a-Nanny) comprised of old cartoons and some new footage. Today's clip contains most of the new footage. The rest of the show was live-action intros with Mr. Lantz, some scenes of him socializing with an animated Woody, the old cartoons, and a couple of replays of the semi-catchy "Spook-a-Nanny" song that you'll hear if you make it to the end of this clip.

One of the thing that amazes me about technology today is how it's made a lot of stuff that was once impossible to come by not only available but almost effortless to obtain. I saw this show in '64 when I was twelve years old. That was about the age I started to outgrow these characters but I liked the little song and would have liked to have heard it again. This was not possible in the sixties or even the seventies. The program ran in 1964 and if it repeated anywhere, I sure didn't see it. And now, here it is on the Internet.

The most interesting this about this special is that Mr. Lantz stuck in most of the characters in his catalog, including several who by then existed only in merchandising and comic books. In '64, his studio was long past making cartoons of most of them, doing films in three series — Woody Woodpecker, Chilly Willy and The Beary Family. (Lantz was just winding down a fourth series, Inspector Willoughby.) I'm not sure why they didn't include the Beary Family in Spook-a-Nanny unless it was because Walter didn't want to spring for the rather minor dollars to bring in Paul Frees, who did the voice of Charlie Beary. In the clip that follows, Grace Stafford (aka Mrs. Lantz) did Woody and Splinter, while Daws Butler did all the other speaking voices, and Gloria Wood performed the song.

It was interesting to see Andy Panda included. The last Andy Panda cartoon was made in 1949, though he made a few cameos in later Lantz cartoons. Homer Pigeon is in there. Lantz made three Homer Pigeon cartoons — one in 1942, one in 1943 and one in 1956. I remember that when I was a kid, Homer was in a number of my comic books and on toys, and every article I read about Walter Lantz mentioned the pigeon among his list of animated superstars…but I still don't think I've ever seen a Homer Pigeon cartoon. Space Mouse was in there. As explained, here, he was a character from the comic books, though Lantz made one film with him. I believe his "Spook-a-Nanny" appearance was the only other time he was animated and based on his participation, it looks like they had this cartoon all storyboarded and then someone said, "Hey, let's stick that Space Mouse guy in it somewhere."

They also left out Oswald the Rabbit because this was 1964. Even before 11/22/63, Oswald was becoming a forgotten character and then along came Lee Harvey Oswald to despoil the name. Oswald Rabbit merchandising came to a screeching halt.

Anyway, here's the "Spook-a-Nanny." I'm not sure if it's a trick or a treat but it is something I remember vividly from my childhood.

On November 23, 1965, several months after Stan Laurel died, a very odd thing turned up on CBS in the time slot for The Red Skelton Show. It was produced by many of the same folks who did Mr. Skelton's program and it was advertised as a tribute to Mr. Laurel…and I guess it was. But it was a misguided tribute that obviously started out with good intentions before turning into a very sloppy variety show. It had a stellar guest list that included, of course, Dick Van Dyke…and also, Buster Keaton in what may have been his last TV appearance.

Those two men, at least, knew Stan and had some connection with him. Many of the others were there because, one supposes, they liked Laurel and Hardy, and were available (see "Romero, Cesar") and the "available" part seemed to be the more relevant. They performed material with little or no connection to Stan or Ollie and…well, a lot of us just stared at the screen with what I now call the "Springtime for Hitler" look. I was thirteen years old and I thought, "Hey, I could do a better Stan Laurel Tribute Show than this and I could do it in 8mm in my back yard and without Tina Louise."

Grainy tapes of A Salute to Stan Laurel make the rounds of Laurel and Hardy collectors and are usually watched once, not always all the way through. Someone has chopped the hour-long special in two and a week ago, they put the second half up on Google Video. I can't find Part One there but that's okay. You're not going to watch the whole thing, anyway. You're not even going to get all the way through Part Two…

For some reason, I'm receiving a sudden flurry this week of invitations to join this thing called LinkedIn that I don't really understand. Nor do I understand why, after getting one or two requests per month over the last year, I have about forty in the last six days. Friends, acquaintances and a few utter strangers write, "I'd like to add you to my professional network"…but these people can write to me any time they like and many of them are already sending me little e-mail newsletters about what they're up to, professionally speaking. What is going to happen after I join their "professional networks" that can't happen if I don't?

I've accepted some invites and I've browsed the LinkedIn site and I still don't have the foggiest. I'm not looking for a position as a Linux Systems Operator and there's absolutely no one who went to college with me I yearn to contact again. Matter of fact, I'd gleefully subscribe to a service that guaranteed I'd never encounter some of those people again.

What am I missing here?

There's still a lot of discussion on the web about the new book of Charles Schulz. The most interesting is over at Cartoon Brew, where the participants include Schulz's kids and a couple of people who knew him extremely well, Dale Hale and Lee Mendelson. In fact, I know Lee extremely well and if he told me Charles Schulz was an alien from Saturn, I'd be inclined to believe it.