Monthly Archives: November 2007

The other night, Glamour Magazine presented its Women of the Year awards. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was among the honorees and she was introduced by Stephen Colbert. Here is that introduction…

If you live in Southern California and were a fan of the late Paul Norris, you might want to make it to a public gathering in his honor. It's next Wednesday evening, November 14, in Oceanside, and it's at one of Paul's favorite restaurants. There will be an exhibit of his art but mainly, it'll be a band of his friends, fans and family members sitting around, talking about Paul. I'd be there if I could but alas, I'll be on the opposite side of the United States that evening.

If you'd like to attend, you'll be most welcome, I am sure. Drop me an e-mail and I'll send you more details, like the time and the address.

I'm taking twenty minutes off from an assignment that's due. Let's see how many of these I can get through in that time. I'll start with this one from Roger Green…

Are game shows affected by the writers' strike? Which current "reality" shows might be affected? And how about the news magazines such as 60 Minutes, or the Sunday morning news shows?

News shows are covered under a different contract. They may go on strike shortly but that's a separate matter. I can't tell you the precise list of "reality" shows affected nor which game shows are impacted, although I know some of both are. Jeopardy!, I'm pretty sure, is a WGA show.

Our next question is from Greg Eckler and his subject line says, "One difference from 1988"…

It comes at a time when California's housing market is in some turmoil and the California state budget is looking at a huge unexpected shortfall. A shutdown of the big industry will surely have them on edge at the State House or whatever it's called. Do you think the governor or others could/would intervene to hasten a resolution due to broader economic implications of a long stoppage?

My understanding is that Governor Schwarzenegger has declined to get involved and that may be wise, at least on his part. If he was party to a resolution, no matter what it was, he'd have someone accusing him of selling out one side or the other due to self-interest. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has offered to mediate but so far, his offers have been shunned by the Producers.

Ultimately, there's not that much any outside mediator can do apart from giving people who've said "We're not going back to the bargaining table" a way to save face when they go back to the bargaining table. In any strike, that's the main thing an outside mediator contributes. There is some value to an insider going back and forth between the two sides as, reportedly, John Wells attempted to do over the weekend. When this strike is settled, it'll probably be because one or more someones did a lot of that. But I doubt Schwarzenegger will be among them.

Next up is this message from Michael Fedoruk…

Would it not make more sense for the networks to show (or reshow) some of the shows (especially the ones from the last year or two) that they've cancelled, perhaps with a view that some of them might come back after the strike is over? I know that some shows are canned with unaired episodes. I also know that some would never come back (at least with all the original cast) but at least that would be more interesting to watch than a rerun of a rerun of the umpteenth showing of CSI:Whatever. I'm not trying to be callous to the rights of the Writers in that reruns may encourage the public to put pressure on the Producers to end the strike sooner rather than later but since these shows have already been produced what do the studios have to lose? Anyways, some residuals may be spread out a little farther by airing other shows. Just a thought.

Right now, the networks are probably most interested in coming as close to Normal as possible. There's a genuine worry that if shows disappear completely, they'd be more likely to lose audience loyalty and momentum than if they stick around in reruns. Whenever The Office runs out of new episodes, it'll go into repeats, the hope being that its loyal fans won't go off and find something they prefer at that hour. The network wants those fans to be around whenever production resumes, either because the strike gets settled or Steve Carell's balls return to their normal size.

At this point — and remember, we may be very early in the game here — the networks are most interested in projecting the message, "We don't need you…we can hold out indefinitely." If they start running the unaired episodes of Viva Laughlin, that will kind of undermine that message.

Just a little more time left so let's go to this one from Martha Thomases…

Are the producers united in their opposition to the writers' demands? Could a producer break away from their association and make a deal that goes beyond the minimum (current) WGA standards? That is, if, say, Harvey Weinstein was willing to share DVD/internet revenue, could he make an individual deal?

We don't know for sure but it's highly unlikely the Producers are precisely united. I mean, they're probably reasonably united in that they don't want to give Writers an increase in DVD money, a cut on Internet downloads, expanded jurisdiction, etc. But they're also probably yelling, even as we speak, over how cost-effective it is to take this strike and hold out and what they should offer to settle. Part of this is because these guys have different management styles but most of it is because they're not being hurt evenly. Some of them have more product in the pipeline and on the shelf. Some of them have more important projects that are now jeopardized.

A lot of what will happen in the coming weeks has very little to do with anything the Writers say or do or demand. It has to do with the member companies of the AMPTP arguing among themselves as to how to end this strike and what they're willing to give up in order to make that happen. If those guys can't agree, they can't make the offer that will do that. And they also have to figure on how to do that in a way that will minimize what they'll have to give the Directors Guild, the Screen Actors Guild and other unions who'll expect what we expect.

Here's another one from Martha — who, by the way, is a key player in a wonderful comics website called ComicMix…

There is so much evidence in the media news that there is money to be made from online advertising that I find it hard to believe that the producers actually claim ignorance on the subject. I mean, besides weekly editions of Advertising Age, AdWeek, etc., there are businesses such as (ahem) ComicMix and YouTube based on the assumption that it's profitable to put stories online. Are we supposed to believe that the MBAs who run the major studios know less than I do?

Oh, they know. No question they know…but they have to say something. It's just like when the President of the United States (any President) is caught lying or doing something incredibly stupid, the Presidential Press Secretary has to come out and say it's not a lie or that he didn't do what he did or maybe that someone else did it. Powerful people rarely admit errors and when you're negotiating with someone, they rarely admit that they have the money. I did some shows once for a producer who had so much money that he couldn't even store it all. He had to have it all scanned so he could store it on CD Rom. Still, every time we had to dicker over what I'd be paid for some project, he'd act like he didn't own eight cars and two homes, and that I was trying to bleed a pauper of his last buck.

This ties in with what will have to be the last question for now because I'm already over the twenty minutes. This is from Steve Jodele…

You've mentioned this man named Nick Counter on your blog. He's the spokesman for the Producers, I guess. What's the deal with him? Does he really think you guys are so unreasonable? Also, I heard Michael Eisner on Fox News say that this was a stupid time for the Writers Guild to go on strike and that they were asking for all the wrong things. Do you think he's right?

No, I think he's Michael Eisner. This is another one of those cases where it's insane to imagine that he could ever take any other position. Show me when Michael Eisner has ever said, "Hey, you know, this would be a great time for a union to go on strike." Or "Boy, that union really deserves what they're asking for." In his world, it's always the wrong time for anyone below the CEO level to say no to anything a studio head wants…always the wrong time for a union to ask for more.

Really, you can't take that kind of thing seriously, just as you have to view any statement from the AMPTP or even my beloved WGA as posturing in service of a desired goal. When Nick Counter comes out and says there will be no further negotiations for a long time, that may turn out to be a true statement but first and foremost, it's what he and his people think is the best thing to say at this moment from a strategic viewpoint. I met Counter during the '88 strike and talked with him and I think he expected people around him to just understand this; that it's all part of the game. He seemed like a nice guy when you were off the topic of the strike and the contract…but his role is to go out and say whatever his employers (the studios) want him to say.

It helps me to remember that there are just certain jobs in this world — like a lawyer arguing his client is innocent when he knows darn well the guy stabbed three nuns and killed a lhasa apso — where you're paid to say what you're paid to say. I'm not suggesting this is admirable or even forgivable. I've never believed that "I'm just doing my job" gets you off the moral hook when your job is to lie or cheat or hurt someone. But I do recognize that people do those jobs and that a lot of it is just like that moment in poker when you're sitting there with a pair of threes and it's in your best interests to convince the guy across the table that you have at least four of a kind, if not a royal flush. You know how candid and honest you are in that situation? That's about how candid the point men are during a labor negotiation and you can give yourself a real bad headache if you expect anything else.

That's all for now. Back to work…

Just got a message that says that production has shut down on the NBC hit sitcom, The Office. It seems its star, Steve Carell, has been calling in sick with what he claims is a case of "enlarged balls."

I'm pretty busy today — amazing, considering I'm on strike, right? — but I'm going to take breaks and answer a few questions. Here's one from Chris Carlisle…

Does the WGA represent comic books, and animation writers? Can you still write comics and animated programs, or does this strike only involve live-action tv and movies? I know this is a stupid question.

It may be but it's one I've received from a number of folks. The answer is that the WGA is only on strike against the specific areas that it covers and for which the contract has expired. It has nothing whatsoever to do with comic books or with writing novels or plays or software or magazine articles or newspaper columns or cute little predictions that appear in fortune cookies. It does pertain to some animation writing because the WGA has deals to cover some animation writing. So if you're writing cartoons, you need to check with the Guild.

A lot of people have also written to ask if I thought the strike meant that a flood of folks who previously made their livings on live-action TV shows and movies would come streaming in to write comic books and animation during the strike. Maybe some will.

I get the feeling that many WGA members aren't looking for other markets because they're still somewhat disbelieving in some ways that this strike could last for many months. Intellectually, of course, we all know that. Our last one in 1988 went 22 weeks, after all. But the purpose of Management not making a deal with us right now is to try and soften us up…scare us into accepting worse terms at some later date. And this Guild is so "together" — I still haven't heard one member say we should have taken the last offer — that we know that 60 or 90 days down the line, we will be no more likely to bite on a crummy deal than we are today. By then, we may even be more militant…if such a thing is possible.

And since we know that, a lot of us are wondering: How can they not know that? Some may think the Producers are swine-like greedheads but even folks who feel that way think we're up against shrewd swine-line greedheads who know to crunch numbers and make money. So you'd think they'd realize that all they're going to do by waiting to make a deal with us is cost themselves a lot of cash and further destroy their audience shares. You'd think they'd find some face-saving excuse to get back to the bargaining table soon and make the deal that they'll be prepared to make in January.

My guess is that some within the coalition of Producers want to but that they need to reach unanimity and haven't yet. The answer to the question, "How long will this strike last?" probably has everything to do with how long it takes the six member companies within the AMPTP to all get onto the same page. If rumors are true, in 1988, some of them were ready to settle pretty rapidly and one or two weren't.

Anyway, I don't think a lot of live-action writers have gone looking for comic book or cartoon work yet because though they're prepared for this strike to last a long time, they still don't feel like it will. If it does, we may see some low-level flooding.

Nice to see a lot of folks on the 'net have picked up the news about the passing of Paul Norris. I realized last night that though Paul told me that Aquaman drawing he did for me in 1995 was the first time he'd drawn the character in decades, that's not so. In 1987, DC commissioned this amazing "jam" drawing of all their major characters and Paul drew his waterlogged co-creation for that. I don't know if he forgot about that or if he was just trying to make me feel my piece was all the more special.

And I remembered two stories about Paul that I'll share here. In 1972, Gold Key Comics lost the rights to Tarzan. In a move it later regretted, the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate stopped the long-running Dell/Gold Key run and shifted their ape-man over to DC. The Gold Key version had been written since about the twelfth century by a man named Gaylord DuBois and it had been drawn its last few years by Paul. Missing nary a beat, the editors at Western Publishing (which published the Gold Key books) had them create something similar, which they did, and Gold Key began publishing The Jungle Twins. The above covers, I should mention, are paintings not by Paul but by a man named George Wilson. Paul drew the insides.

Part of what prompted this is that there had been a recent issue of the Gold Key Tarzan comic that had adapted the Burroughs kids' book, The Tarzan Twins, and that issue had sold particularly well. In fact, Western had been in talks to launch a bi-monthly Tarzan Twins comic when the Burroughs people made their move, so the publisher did The Jungle Twins instead with DuBois and Norris. Oddly, the "Tarzan Twins" issue of Tarzan had not been drawn by Norris and it was one of the very few issues not written by DuBois. Both functions were done on that one by Mike Royer.

So one day I'm up in the Gold Key offices and I'm browsing through the incoming artwork piles…and I come upon a just-finished issue of The Jungle Twins in which there's an amphibian character named Aquaman. Storywise, he isn't much like the DC Aquaman and even though he's drawn by Paul Norris, he doesn't look anything like that Aquaman…but he is called Aquaman! I go to the editor and inform him that, uh, DC Comics has a character named Aquaman and they've only been publishing him for, oh, about thirty years.

The editor was a gentleman named Del Connell, and Del just plain didn't read other comic books. Obviously, Mr. DuBois didn't, either. But before Del gives the order to change the character's name, we both wonder why Paul Norris — co-creator of the other Aquaman — hasn't said anything about it. Del phones him up to ask and Paul responds, "I didn't know if my Aquaman was still being published and I just figured you knew what you were doing."

By the way: The Jungle Twins wasn't a big success as a comic book. It started out with decent sales, actually outselling DC's Tarzan I heard, but that didn't do so well, either. There were seventeen issues of The Jungle Twins before it was cancelled in 1975. A few years later, Sid and Marty Krofft's company optioned the property for a potential live-action Saturday morning series and I wrote a pilot script that caused ABC to briefly place the show on its schedule…but then they changed their minds over there. In fact, three years running, they did that to me: Picked up a pilot I'd written and then changed their mind. The year after, it was another jungle show — an animated version of Lee Falk's comic strip, The Phantom. On and off the schedule in under a week.

It was, in the case of The Jungle Twins, quite a shame. As fans of such Krofft shows as Magic Mongo and ElectraWoman and Dynagirl are aware, Sid and Marty sometimes put some pretty attractive young ladies in revealing outfits on Saturday morn TV. In the comic book, The Jungle Twins were both boys. In my script — which had very little to do with that comic book, I'm afraid — one of the Jungle Twins was a girl and we actually got as far as some preliminary casting before the project fizzled out. If we'd cast the actress we were thinking of casting and we'd had her running around in jungle girl garb, there wouldn't have been a male in America — young or old, straight or gay — who wouldn't have been watching.

During this period, I was working with Paul on the Hanna-Barbera comics and one time when we got together, I took along a photo of this actress. Before I showed it to him, I asked, "Remember those two boys you drew in Jungle Twins? Tono and Kono?" Paul said he did. I said, "Well, if we do this show, this is what Kono's going to look like" and I handed him the picture in which the young lady was wearing about as much covering as one gets from a medium-sized Johnson & Johnson Band-Aid™. Paul took one look, grinned and said, "I must say, Hollywood has considerably improved on my work."

This one's a trailer for the Laurel and Hardy feature, Bonnie Scotland, which was not one of their best features…though it's a heckuva lot funnier than this ad would make you think. For some reason, whoever wrote all the witty sales pitches made a point of saying the movie is "60 minutes long" as if being that much longer than Stan and Ollie's usual shorts is a big selling point. But Bonnie Scotland was actually eighty minutes in length so I don't know what was happening there.

The Strike News, such as it is, is not good. The word is that the WGA dropped its demand for increased DVD revenues in exchange for a promise that the Producers would make a genuine offer in the area of Internet revenues. Then the Producers announced they were not making any sort of offer in the area of Internet revenues. Then the talks broke off — this all happened Sunday night — and the Producers walked out, except they say the WGA walked out, and the strike was on. Guild statements and rumors would seem to suggest that the demands with regard to DVDs will go back on the table whenever negotiations resume. The Producers are making noises like that may not be for a while.

What does it all mean? Hey, we told you more than a year ago here that — and I quote myself — "I think this town is heading for The Mother of All Strikes as the guilds demand a better deal for home video and the studios pursue their wish-dream of sharing nuttin' with nobody." That's where we are.

I'll post more about all this after I finish a couple of pressing assignments (not in areas the WGA covers, of course). In the meantime, go read Ken Levine and Brian K. Vaughan.

That's the lovely Penelope Pitstop, on her way to appear tomorrow on Shokus Internet Radio, a great thing to listen to on your computer. Actually, it won't be Penelope appearing tomorrow (Wednesday) on Stu's Show. It'll be Janet Waldo, the great voice actress who lent her tonsils to Penelope, Judy Jetson and many other fine cartoon characters for Hanna-Barbera and elsewhere. She will be a guest and my pal Earl Kress, Animation Writer and Authority extraordinaire will be a guest, talking about his work in cartoons and on their DVD releases, as well as any cartoon-related topic the callers deign to throw at him.

That's plenty but, as they say on infomercials, it's not all! I will also be a guest near the top of the show, phoning in to discuss the Writers Guild Strike, a topic near and dear to us all.

Stu's Show can be listened to for free if you go to the website of Shokus Internet Radio and select an audio browser. But this is not a podcast…you have to listen to it live as it happens, tomorrow (Wednesday) from 4 PM to 6 PM Pacific Time, which is 7 PM to 9 PM if you're on the East Coast. The show also repeats throughout the week, usually in the same time slot, but it's more fun to tune in while it's actually happening. You can even call in and be a part of the show. It's a lot of fun and it's free and what more can I say? Just listen.

Jeffrey Whyte sent me a long e-mail from which I am extracting this question for a public reply…

I understand that you have areas of dispute with the Producers. What I don't understand is why you have to strike. Isn't there an alternative?

Yeah…not to strike. And at the moment, no one can afford that, especially since it can only lead to us losing a lot of money and ground and then finding ourselves in the same situation, only worse, when the next contract expires.

The issues here are really pretty simple and you don't have to have an MBA understanding of DVD revenues or a futurist's insight into the evolving Internet market to grasp them. Our old contract has expired. Management has offered us a new and lousy contract that would increase their already-immense profits by taking money out of our pockets in many ways. We don't want the rollbacks. In fact, we think gains are appropriate at this time. We have been given two choices: Take the bad offer or strike. We choose to strike.

That really is all there is to it. Honest.

I don't know what you do for a living, Jeffrey, but I presume you have a job and you get a certain wage for it. Your life is built largely around that salary. The home you live in…the places you eat…the necessities you skimp on and the ones you can afford…they all key off of the size of that salary.

Let us say you work for a company that is very healthy. It is not failing by any definition and its top execs and owners take home mega-sums of money. Tomorrow, they decide to up their profits by cutting everyone's salaries a dime an hour. In that situation, you might shrug and say, "That's too bad but it's not worth making a fuss over." The next week, if your pay is cut another dime an hour, you might wince and say, "Ouch…but it will really screw my life up to quit and go look for another job. So I'll live with it." And then the next week, there's another dime gone and another. And then the cuts start going up — fifteen cents, twenty…then you start losing quarters.

At some point, you have to go, "Whoa! This must stop. I can still make my rent and buy potato chips but there's no justification for these cuts beyond my employer's greed. If they go on long enough, I won't be able to live and I'll have to take a bold stand, maybe even to the point of quitting. Better to do that now than later, after I've lost even more." (And you also may have reasons for drawing that line that aren't strictly monetary. You find that as you roll over for these salary cuts, you lose respect within the company, you feel insulted and even your job has gotten more difficult. Because the folks employing you are learning that they can do just about any damn thing to you and you'll go along with it.)

So you take your stand as we have taken ours. We take ours by striking…not because we love having no income and so much uncertainty in our lives and walking around with signs, but because we really only have the two choices and the other one truly sucks.

You'd like to think there's a third option. On blogs discussing the strike, I sometimes see that — "It didn't have to come to this. If our leadership had handled things differently, we'd have a great deal now instead of a strike." But I never see what that alternative is or was. Even with the benefit of hindsight, those who say the preceding only seem to be able to explain it in vague terms like, "I would have set up a dialogue" or "I would have gone to the negotiating table earlier."

I don't believe there's ever been much of a third option. Why? Because the people we negotiate with — the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers — like it the way it is, with only the two options. It's a system that usually works for them. It may also fill some emotional need they have to control the game and use their very size to intimidate others…but basically, they do it because it usually works. It enables them to grab those dimes. Most unions, when it comes time to negotiate, will give up something rather than plunge into a war. They'll be glad the dimes aren't (yet) dollars and might even hail that as a victory for their side.

The WGA has done it both ways in the past. We've had labor peace since '88 for two reasons. One is that in '88, we said no. We went on strike for 22 weeks in order to say no.

We took a huge rollback in '85. Immense. I think some members from that time are still In Denial as to how much we gave up that year. For obvious reasons, I have a kneejerk defense reflex when anyone belittles Writers but speaking of that contract, I'll say it: We were gutless idiots.

And then in '88, the Producers did what anyone would do when they had someone that stupid on the hook. They handed us another pile of rollback demands — not as huge but still huge — and again, gave us the two choices: Accept this or strike. That year, we struck. You can certainly make the case that in a strict dollars-and-cents accounting, what we gained did not balance against 22 weeks of loss, but that's not the point. We had to stop that pattern or there's no telling how much we'd have lost in subsequent contracts and how destructive it would have been to fight that battle at a later date.

Saying no in '88 was one reason there hasn't been a Writers Strike since the year Michael Dukakis was nominated for President. The other was that eventually, we started saying yes to the dime cuts. The first contract we made after '88 had no real rollbacks in it and actually a few modest gains. (Anyone wonder why that was?) In subsequent deals, we accepted some dime cuts and postponed some areas of contract improvement that we thought were overdue. I'm not sure that those were wise choices on our part. Some would say that our leaders — particularly some leaders who were writer-producers or maybe writer-PRODUCERS — were too reticent to make trouble. Others would say that for various reasons, the will of the membership was just not there. I don't know.

But I do know that this time, the will is there, just as I also know that the dime cuts have turned into dollars. This is the time to stop that tactic again.

I was explaining this yesterday to some folks on the picket line and one said, "There is a third way. We could have worked without a contract until the Screen Actors Guild's contract is almost up and then struck." That's a good point but it isn't a way not to strike. It's just a question of how to strategize that strike. After hearing the pros and cons, I think now is a better time. Sadly but really, it only comes down to the two choices.

One other thing. This is our battle but it's not our battle. Some of the things we're fighting for like increased jurisdiction over Animation, Reality Shows and Game Show are WGA issues. But all that Internet stuff, all that talk about wanting to be paid when our work is streamed over the World Wide Web…that's an issue for the actors and the directors and almost everyone in town. I wish the Screen Actors Guild contract was expiring now and ours was up the middle of next year instead of the other way around, because they may be better equipped to fight that part of the battle. They can shut the town down a lot faster than we can. But that's not the way the expiration dates happened to fall so we're the first ones into the fray. If you're not a fan of strikes — if you're weeping that your favorite shows are suddenly in reruns or endangered — you'd better hope the WGA does well. Because wait'll you see what SAG will do if they get stuck with the same two choices.

Paul Norris, who co-created the comic book character Aquaman, and who produced the Brick Bradford newspaper strip for a little over 35 years, died about four hours ago at the age of 93. He'd had a series of strokes in the last few months and had just been hospitalized for his most recent.

Paul was born April 26, 1914 in Greenville, Ohio. He studied at Midland Lutheran College and at the Dayton Art Institute before landing a job as an illustrator and cartoonist for the Dayton Daily News in 1936. Three years later, he assembled a portfolio of his best work and took it to New York in search of better prospects, which turned out to be comic books. No one, not even Paul, was ever certain what his first job was in that medium but by 1940, he was drawing for Prize Publications, where he launched several of their star strips — Yank and Doodle, Power Nelson and Futureman.

A year later, he was at DC Comics where his most memorable assignment was Aquaman, which he and editor-writer Mort Weisinger created. (DC now puts a "created by Paul Norris" credit on all Aquaman comics. The absence of Weisinger's name is apparently a legal problem on DC's end, not a case of Norris squeezing out his former collaborator.) Paul also worked on, among others, the Sandman in Adventure Comics. He was the artist who revamped the character from his old costume — a business suit and a device that looked like a gas mask — and turned him, at editorial insistence, into a Batman knock-off. When Norris left the strip, Joe Simon and Jack Kirby took it over. During this period, Paul also worked on the Vic Jordan newspaper strip for the New York Daily PM.

Paul then spent some years in the Army. Upon his return, his main work was with the King Features Syndicate, initially as a kind of troubleshooter. Whenever one of their adventure strips was behind or in need of a temporary artist, they'd have Paul Norris draw some weeks of it. This included stints on Flash Gordon and Secret Agent X-9. In 1948, he took over the Jungle Jim Sunday feature for a few years when Austin Briggs gave it up and in 1952, he took over Brick Bradford from Clarence Gray. Paul wrote and drew Brick Bradford until the strip ended on April 25, 1987. During all that time, he never missed a deadline or even came close to being late.

That would be remarkable enough if that's all he did but beginning in 1947, he also worked for Western Publishing Company, beginning with comic books based on the newspaper strips he was ghosting. Eventually, he became a mainstay of Western's Los Angeles office, drawing westerns and TV-based comics. Many fans recalled his work in the sixties and seventies on Tarzan of the Apes and Magnus, Robot Fighter, as well as a short-lived book he drew called The Jungle Twins. He also occasionally dabbled in funny animals such as Woodsy Owl and illustrated childrens' books for the firm.

In the seventies, I had the pleasure of working with Paul on a comic book of the Hanna-Barbera feature, Dynomutt. He was a lovely man who worked very hard on his art but always managed to have it in on time. He usually delivered the work by mail but once or twice, when he was worried the work might not be early, he drove up to Los Angeles with it from his home near San Diego — three hours each way. Please note that he was not afraid of the work being late. He was afraid of it not being early.

For several years, we were honored to have Paul as a guest on the annual Golden Age Panel at the Comic-Con International in San Diego. He'd come to the con for just one day…and we'd schedule the panel for that day, whatever day he could make it, just so we'd have him on it. His last appearance on one was in 1999, I believe. He was supposed to be on the panel in 2000 but he drove to the convention that day, couldn't find a parking space and wound up going home without going in. He only called me about eleven times to apologize…and every year after that, he'd phone a few weeks before the con to say he was sorry but his health would not allow him to attend.

I think I oughta point out that he was the last of the great creators of Golden Age DC super-heroes. The guys who created Superman, Batman, Flash, Green Lantern and Wonder Woman are all gone…and now we've lost the guy who designed and first drew Aquaman.

In 1995, Paul insisted on doing a favor for me and I asked him to do a drawing of Aquaman. He said it was the first he'd done of the character in more than fifty years and I don't know how many, if any, he did after that one. It's up atop this obit. I just wanted to share it with you because it will always remind me of that lovely, wonderful man.

Whole lotta mail on the WGA Strike. Here are some of them, including some questions. This first query came from Brian Trester and also from a couple of other folks…

Why are not writers for the news services and TV news covered? You know like CNN, FOX, CBS, NBC and the like. I know Katie Couric can't even say "Iraq," let alone write a story about it.

News writers at some (not all) networks are covered by the WGA but under a separate contract with many different terms…or rather, they should be covered by a contract. As if my Guild didn't have enough to think about, news writers at some shops have been working under expired contracts for some time and are now talking about a strike vote. The group that seems likely to walk out soon would consist of the news writers working at CBS…so Ms. Couric may soon be speechless.

The next message is from someone who signs themselves "TW George"…

How much impact does public opinion of the strike have on what goes on at the negotiating table? Will a negative view of the strike by the public encourage the WGA to settle more quickly and/or embolden the Producers/Studios? Would the opposite be true if the public continues to hold a positive view of the strike?

This is just my sense of things but I don't think general public opinion has much impact on the negotiations insofar as the WGA is concerned…and I don't think it matters much to the Producers unless it begins to manifest itself in boycotts and declining audience. Even then, I don't think people will stop watching a network or going to a studio's movies because of the suppliers' behavior in this strike. They might because the absence of WGA writers has resulted in too many reruns or badly-written shows.

On the other hand, it would certainly be nice to feel we had the public behind us and they weren't blaming us for the fact that they aren't getting new episodes of Jay and Dave for a while. And I do think most people understand that. They understand that if you're given a choice of taking a rotten deal or walking, you have no choice but to go for a stroll.

The one thing that I think may matter is public opinion in and around show business — the sentiments of the other workers at the studio, the caterers, the suppliers, etc. I remember during the latter days of the '88 strike, a lot of writers I knew were troubled to hear what the strike was doing to their co-workers — production assistants, casting directors, office crew, etc. This time though, the Guild is so "together" (a 90.3% strike vote, let's remember) and the Producers' position seems so intractable and unreasonable, that I think we're a long way from that. This is my fifth WGA strike and I've never seen "the town" so firmly behind us.

Here's one from Richard Leung…

I am honestly surprised at all the silly emails you seem to be getting, the gist of which seem to be that screenwriters ought to be serfs earning minimum wage. I have no connection to the industry at all, but from what I know, screenwriters are severely underpaid and underappreciated. And that includes those happy few who are making two or three million per script. I think you are apologizing too much for the big earners in your profession. How come the actors and directors are allowed to make 10 or 20 mil per film, but not the guy who actually writes the thing?

That's a money thing that flows from a presumed audience habit. They go to see stars and not to see writers. If you're a distributor out selling the new Will Ferrell movie, you're going to get a certain amount of advance bookings, sight unseen, just on the strength of his stardom. If you're shopping a movie written by Sam Yutzman, it's not going to make your job as simple. So Ferrell has a lot more clout to demand top dollar.

I actually think writers moan too much about lack of respect. Some of us don't deserve a lot of respect and some of us don't seem to recognize it when we get it. My feeling is that if you're a writer and you feel you aren't getting sufficient respect, you may need to write something better.

From Jack Bagley…

I 100% agree with your stance on residuals. In publishing, they're royalties, and we earn them every time one of our books is purchased.

I have two sci-fi novels out there and, while they never hit the New York Times bestseller list, they did okay. And as you pointed out, every time someone buys one of my novels, I get a check.

I wouldn't want it any other way, and I know you wouldn't either. Those who ask such questions simply don't understand the difference between creative work and…well, whatever they do for a living.

From Steve Billnitzer…

For what it's worth, my group was assigned to the Colfax entrance at CBS Radford, the truck entrance. We had more than a few Teamsters who honored the picked line and refused to cross, but they all, or nearly all, merely waited around the corner till we left at 5 p.m. and then finished their deliveries anyway. As in your location, the only grumbling was the upset over the news that the DVD residual issue was reported as off the table, but that was considerable. Most marchers I talked to said they planned to contact the Guild and demand it be put back in.

Show runners on our 20-to-30 marcher corner included Steve Pepoon and Phil Rosenthal (I don't think I could recognize any drama writers), and we had sign-carrying SAG support from Justine Bateman and Jon Cryer, who was there the entire time. An interesting start to my first and hopefully only WGA work stoppage.

One odd thing that occurred to me on my line was that I was talking with a friend as we marched and I started to tell an anecdote about the '88 strike. Suddenly, everyone ahead of us and behind reacted and said, "You've struck before?" All the picketers around us were on their first-ever picket line and they were very interested. I am hardly an old-timer but I spent about twenty minutes answering questions and telling stories. I felt pretty good about that because, as I may have mentioned, there was this fear that the Guild has so many members who've joined since the last strike and might not understand what it's all about. But these people knew and were eager to learn more.

Lastly, someone named Mark asks…

Do you understand why the Leno and Letterman shows are doing reruns? Can't they simply drop the monologues and the comedy bits segments? To fill the time, book an extra guest or two for the host to chat with, let the music performer do couple extra songs, or have the house band do a number. Or are Leno and Letterman also members of the WGA?

Both are WGA members and as far as I know, loyal ones. Jay Leno was out on the picket line at NBC this morning.

I think the answer to your question is that these guys don't want to go on without writers. They could probably do their shows in a narrow sense by arguing that what they come up with is ad-lib and not written…but I think they like to think of that kind of thing as writing, and also know they'd be violating the spirit of the strike if not letter. I further suspect that the writers contribute more to those shows — that is, to more portions of those shows — than you think.

I'll post more of these later today. Or tomorrow. Or some time.

Here's a three minute video that may give you some sense of that Writers Guild Membership Meeting that I attended last Thursday night. For some reason, my friend Marv Wolfman keeps popping up in the crowd shots and in the background but trust me. There were other writers there besides him.

Here's one group's list of the ten best foods you can eat…and the ten worst. Aside from the occasional can of Campbell's Bean With Bacon Soup, I don't eat anything from either list.

Say, did I ever mention this here? One time, my pal Tony Isabella and I were walking around a deserted area of Columbus, Ohio looking for someplace to have lunch. This was during a convention and it was Sunday and everything else around was closed…so we wound up at the only open place for blocks, which was a McDonald's. A McDonald's is okay in a pinch and this was a pinch.

To my surprise — I guess this was an experiment because I've never seen it anywhere else — this McDonald's had Campbell's Bean With Bacon Soup on its menu. It was even identified as that. You could go in and order a bowl of Campbell's Bean With Bacon Soup. It was the only time I've ever been in a restaurant — and yes, I know I'm using that word loosely — and they were offering hot food that I could prepare at home, exactly as well, for less money and probably in less time. I'm sure people who can actually cook have this experience all the time but it was new to me.

Then one time, another pal — Paul Dini — and I flew to Las Vegas for a day. We were walking through the food court in one of the casinos and we noticed a McDonald's there that was serving pizza. I think they even called it McPizza. Curiosity got to us and even though neither of us was hungry, we ordered one to split. Hey, what can I say? It was Vegas. You take gambles in Vegas.

When it came we each took one bite and then said, in unison, "You can finish the rest of this." Neither one of us did. It was the worst pizza I've ever had…far, far worse than you'd expect a McDonald's Pizza to be. It was also the only thing on the menu that didn't have much cheese on it.

It was also very small. I wanted to take it over to the Roulette table and see if they'd let me use it for a chip. Instead, Paul went to throw it away and in the trash can, there were about eight more pizzas, all with only two or three bites taken out of them. That was the last time I saw a McDonald's Pizza anywhere but apparently, some outlets still offer this delicacy and I'll bet they're a lot better than the ones were in Vegas. They'd have to be.

If you think George W. Bush has screwed up the cause of Democracy in Iraq and made the world a more dangerous place there, you ain't heard nothin' yet. Fred Kaplan explains the mess we're now in with regard to Pakistan.