Monthly Archives: January 2013

A nice portrait of one of our heroes, Dick Van Dyke.

Ducks. Lots of ducks…

The New York Times has an article on a topic we've discussed here before: How difficult it is for a show to open on Broadway. The piece does not address two factors which I'm led to believe are quite significant. One is the sheer number of shows that want to play The Great White Way compared to the number of available theaters. Even if every show could raise the necessary millions to open, there wouldn't be a place for most of them.

And the other thing is whether the press coverage of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark has soured some investors on putting their bucks into Broadway. That show is still playing to decent houses and may eventually turn out to be rather profitable. But there were sure times when that didn't look possible and it made theater look like an even more expensive crapshoot than ever.

The main point of interest in the article to me is that there seems to be no movement on getting The Nutty Professor anywhere close to Times Square. I'll save you looking for the relevant line…

Ned McLeod, the lead producer of "The Nutty Professor" (which was the final show by the composer Marvin Hamlisch), said he and the creative team were trying to align their schedules to develop the show further, and Mr. McLeod said he was looking for more investors as well.

No mention of another production being planned anywhere…just a need for backers, which is what the production in Nashville was supposed to generate. This doesn't sound good. And the article also has no mention of Minsky's, Robin and the 7 Hoods and quite a few other shows which were once headed towards Manhattan but now seem to have evaporated. The article says 75% of shows on Broadway never turn a profit. Imagine what the percentage would be if you figured in the losses on shows that never even make it that far.

I just watched Oprah's hour with David Letterman and kinda wish I hadn't. Ms. Winfrey has this attitude that nothing is none of our business; that we have the right to know the intimate feelings in one's heart and to hear about the rifts in personal relationships. But of course, that's rarely what she gets in response to questions of that nature. Most of the time, she gets a pretty brief, cursory answer that represents what the guest feels will make him or her look good…and she always seems quite happy with the answers.

There were some curious things said. Oprah proclaimed that over the years, it was an "almost even split" between Dave and Jay as they battled for late night supremacy. I'm curious as to what accounting measure she's using. Leno has been ahead of Letterman during most weeks they've gone head to head. I doubt either man thinks it has been an "almost even split."

Also, Oprah spoke of a competition to succeed Johnny as if NBC knew when Johnny was leaving and made a choice between Jay and Dave. That ain't the way I heard it. My understanding is that NBC signed Leno to a contract to keep him on as Johnny's guest host for as long as Johnny needed one (up to the length of the contract) and then to guarantee Jay the host job if Johnny left during the span of that contract…and then, all of a sudden, Carson did. So it wasn't really a question of them deciding between Letterman and Leno. Later it was but not then.

In one part of the interview, Dave told the story of how, well before Leno got the nod to succeed Johnny Carson, he [Dave] had a meeting and "they" (he doesn't say who "they" are) offered him the job of replacing Johnny on The Tonight Show. When Dave found out that Johnny was unaware of these discussions, he said he wouldn't continue them until he was sure Johnny was on board with it all…and thereafter, there were no such discussions. Viewers will assume that the "they" in this case was NBC but it was actually, I believe, business associates of Mr. Carson who were trying to shove Johnny aside, seize control of Tonight and produce it with Dave as their employee. In other words, "they" were not offering Dave the show. It wasn't theirs to offer. They were trying to put together a package they could force on NBC and when Carson learned about it (reportedly through Dave), he put an end to it.

I'm not sure if it's what Dave said or the way it was edited (I suspect the latter) but the impression most viewers of this conversation will get is that NBC offered Dave the job as part of a palace coup and then when he wouldn't go along with it, Jay did. Not the way it happened.

On the quoted statement of Dave's about how Jay is the most insecure man in the world…well, he offered an example of Jay's behavior from around 1979 before either of them were successful. I wish Oprah had asked, "Well, that was a long time ago and you've both been through a lot since then. Aren't there things you did back then that aren't indicative of you today?" Insecurity is a puzzling charge for Letterman to hurl at someone and then turn around and talk about his own inability to solve his personal problems as he did.

Still, I'm not going to spend a lot of time thinking about this and for a simple reason. The whole thing reminded me how shallow this kind of interview is; how it sounds like they're digging below the surface but they're barely kicking the sand away. Every topic they touched upon is a much more complicated, nuanced situation than could possibly be covered in the time allowed. About all I got out of this hour is that Dave — though quite brilliant — is also quite troubled about some things, many of them personal issues that you don't make better by discussing them on the Oprah Network. Maybe that's all a viewer can or should expect from a show of this kind.

Fred Kaplan explains why Republicans are opposing Chuck Hagel as the new Secretary of Defense. As if Republicans need any sort of reason to oppose something Barack Obama wants.

I get a lot of e-mail from folks asking how they can maybe get a career doing voices for animated cartoons. I wish sometimes they could see how many of these inquiries I receive so maybe they could grasp how fierce the competition is. Anyway, a few years ago, I wrote up a FAQ on this subject and I have just updated it. If you're interested or if you know someone who wants advice in this area, here it is.

Pay particular attention to the parts where I warn you about not giving money to the wrong people; also, the part about annoying me with requests to hear your demo or refer you to an agent. You'd be amazed how many folks read that and then write me to ask if I'll listen to their demo and help them get an agent.

I'm a big fan of Idina Menzel, a Broadway star best known for her work in Wicked. I think she has a tremendous voice and a tremendous stage presence and…well, here: See and hear for yourself. This is the closing number from a live show she did last year with the now-sadly-late Marvin Hamlisch conducting.

It was called Barefoot at the Symphony and there's a 90-minute DVD of it you can order here. An hour-long version occasionally turns up on PBS. You can also get the CD of it here.

The song she sings below is "Tomorrow" from Annie. A lot of folks think that's a corny, bubble-gum tune. Not the way Ms. Menzel sings it, it isn't…

I did some cleaning-out of my mother's house yesterday. I found my first typewriter, which I'd thought had long ago been thrown or given away. I found some "comic books" (I'm using the term loosely) I wrote and drew when I was seven years old. I found a Bible which from the inscription in it appears to have been presented to my mother on her seventh birthday in 1929.

And I found my old stamp collection.

I have no idea why I ever collected stamps but I did. I have a vague idea it started when my Aunt Dot and Uncle Aaron gave me a "starter" collection but I can't imagine why the idea ever appealed to me. I stopped after about eight months when one day, I suddenly had a thought that went something like this: "I have no interest in this." I then stashed the collection in a box in the garage and never thought much about it again.

I do not mean to demean stamp collectors at all. If you're one, I'm sure you find it fascinating…just as I find many things fascinating that would bore the socks off you. I just plain didn't care about it.

And hey, if you are a stamp collector, maybe you can tell me something. What do I do with these?

I have several hundred stamps — mostly U.S., some properly affixed in a big stamp notebook where they printed photos of stamps and then it was your mission to locate one of each and stick it over their reproduction. Others are in envelopes.

I'd like them to go to someone who will appreciate them. If I can get some bucks outta them, great…but having them go to the right place is more important. I assume if I go to a stamp dealer, he'll tell me they're all very common and offer me a fraction of what he'll eventually sell them for. (I watched Pawn Stars this evening.)

Is there a collector out there who can advise me? Better still, is there someone in the Los Angeles area who knows me and knows stamps and would like to take a look at these for possible acquisition or recommendation? 'Cause I don't have a clue what to do with them.

In the category of "Shows I Probably Shouldn't Like But Do," I offer you The Burn with Jeff Ross, a somewhat-new Comedy Central series. Mr. Ross is a stand-up comic who is often the only nugget of actual mirth on those Comedy Central roasts of people I care about so little, I don't really even want to watch them be insulted for an hour. Like equally-humorous traffic accidents, it's hard to turn away and I usually find myself TiVoing them mainly for Ross and/or Gilbert Gottfried.

The Burn bills itself as Ross and some colleagues "roasting" everyone and everything around them and I question the use of the word "roast." They're defining it apparently as any insult directed at anyone or anything. Jeff Ross saying one derogatory thing about one audience member's wardrobe is Jeff Ross "roasting" that audience member. Personally, I don't think it qualifies as a roast unless there's a dais and a central subject who is slandered by a procession of slanderers, supposedly as a demonstration of love and respect. (It used to be that a roast also had to have tuxedos, obvious edits and/or Red Buttons but those rules no longer seem to apply.)

Nevertheless, The Burn is a funny show loaded with material that comes at you with the Laugh-In guarantee: If you don't like this joke, you won't have long to wait for the next one. I find myself laughing at enough of 'em that I've Season-Passed it on my TiVo. I also like that what they do never (well, rarely) seems mean. Ross, being a pro at this kind of thing, delivers his barbs with a twinkle and a simultaneously self-deprecating manner that is sadly unseen in the amateur roaster. They also don't edit it out when as occasionally happens, someone "roasts" him back.

The show is done in Hollywood, which probably explains why the New York-based Mr. Gottfried is the announcer but only occasionally joins in on the belittling. Some of the comics who assist Ross aren't quite up to the tasks-at-hand and I wish they could arrange for Gilbert to be an on-camera participant each week. Even without him though, it's still worth tuning-in. If you haven't because it looks like something you probably shouldn't like, don't let that stop you. You hockey puck, you.

This runs around 85 minutes. It's a Q-and-A session that Jim Henson and Frank Oz did in 1989 at a puppeteers' convention. After an initial intro by Mr. Oz, it's just the two of them sitting around answering questions with, alas, poor audio. But some fascinating things are said by arguably the two best puppet-performers of their generation…and 39 minutes in, Henson and Oz don some of their characters and show everyone how it's done. That part is especially good…

As noted here, Jimmy Kimmel's show is about to move to 11:35. I'm afraid the few times I've watched Mr. Kimmel's show, his appeal has eluded me. I liked him back on Win Ben Stein's Money but it's not all that difficult to be the funniest one on a stage you're sharing with Ben Stein.

As with Conan O'Brien at times, he does a monologue that sounds like he doesn't care about any of those topics and is just reading cue cards out there because it's part of his job description. A friend of mine who watches all the late night shows but isn't wild about any of them made an interesting observation recently. He said, "When Leno finishes his monologue, you can tell that his favorite part of the show is over. And with all the other guys — Dave, Conan, Jimmy and Jimmy — it's the other way around." Craig Ferguson seems to be an exception to every rule. His whole show is like one extended monologue with guests and his robot sidekick joining in for portions of it.

I dunno how Kimmel's show will impact the landscape. The buzz out there, which has been wrong about a lot of stuff in this arena lately, is that he'll take more viewers from Dave than Jay. My guess is something which I see is hinted at in the linked article. I think ABC doesn't really care what his ratings will be like for the foreseeable future. They figure he'll draw enough of an audience, particularly in the young demographic, that they won't lose money. The idea is to position him for the looming (as per "the buzz") shakeup that's coming in that time slot. Eventually, as Dave and Jay slip away, 11:35 may become only a contest for that demographic and Kimmel, they figure, will have become the established leader of that group.

By the way: In my recent piece on Letterman and Leno, I wrote that "Dave…doesn't seem to have anywhere to go, at least professionally, once his show ends." A couple of folks who wrote me about this seem to have missed the part in there about "professionally." They reminded me that Dave has a wife and a kid and a big place in Montana and that he could be quite happy there.

I'm sure he could but what I was saying was that he doesn't seem to have any further aspirations or openings in show business. That was what happened with his hero, Johnny Carson. A lot of folks seem to think that when Johnny left The Tonight Show, he took an immediate blood oath to never appear again before cameras. Not so. On his farewell broadcast, he even said, "And I hope when I find something that I want to do, and I think you would like, and come back, that you'll be as gracious in inviting me into your home as you have been."

He never found anything and it was only after a while that he decided his performing days were over. There really wasn't anything he could do after The Tonight Show that he wanted to do and which wouldn't seem like a few steps down. Once upon a time, he wanted to go from Tonight to a prime-time variety show. He grew up in an era when heroes like Red Skelton and Jack Benny had them and that seemed like the top thing a comedian could do in television. Johnny had had such a show at one point. It flopped and killed his career for a while…and he was at one point quite determined to get another shot and do it right.

But at yet another point further on, he figured out that he didn't want to abandon Tonight for that. It would mean working harder for less money and getting into a form that was dying out. It would also be a big risk, whereas his fame and fortune in late night was still growing. I think one of the reasons Johnny was on for so long was because he couldn't figure out what else to do with himself and wasn't quite ready to retire. And I sure get the feeling that's why Dave is still there.

Anyone interested in a career in commercial art — or any kind of freelancing — would do well to keep an eye on Tom Richmond's blog. Tom is a very successful cartoonist and illustrator and obviously, most of that is because he draws so gosh darned well. But some of it is because he is wise and pragmatic about the business end of his profession…an attribute that is sometimes sadly absent from those with artistic talent. Some of the best artists I've known have been utter ninnies when it came to the money end of what they do.

In this post, Tom addresses the constant question, "What do I charge for my work?" It's among the least exact of sciences and if you're a creative person, probably the part of the job you like least.

How do you get to a number? Every project is different, not only in terms of how much of your time and soul it will require but also because the perks will vary. One job might pay on the low end but have great value to you for reasons of education. That was the case when I was starting out and got to assist and apprentice with Jack Kirby for a couple of years. I didn't do it for the money — which was a good thing because there wasn't much of it. But I would have paid megabucks just to hang around that man. I can't begin to tell you how much I learned…and not just about comics.

So that's a good question to ask yourself: Will this job be educational? You can also ask Will this job have promotional value to me? and Will this job bring me honors and critical acclaim?

It's generally not a good idea to work for bad money. Publishers and producers tend not to treat your work (or you) well when you're underpriced. Sometimes, it's surprisingly a lot like if you have a shirt you bought at Ross Dress For Less for nine bucks and one you got at Brooks Brothers for eighty dollars. Which one are you not as worried about ruining?

In a working relationship, you want "the boss" to regard you and what you do with respect. Well, that relationship often starts with making the deal and figuring out how much you're going to get. Agree to low money and you're often agreeing to low respect. My friend, the late artist Dave Stevens, was obsessed with the question of how his work was going to be reproduced. After several bad experiences, he realized a very simple principle: When he gave publishers a "bargain" deal on his work, he usually wound up with "bargain" printing. They didn't even handle his original artwork with as much care.

I know that sounds like a rationale for greed but believe me, it's not. Early in my career, an older writer told me, "If you want them to deal with you as a professional, you have to insist on being paid as a professional." I've learned how right he was. (It is also true that there are downsides to being overpaid. I'll write about them here soon.)

But how do you know what deal is the right deal? I love it when I can leave that up to an agent or a lawyer who knows that kind of thing. Alas, I at some point have to decide what I think is fair and proper. I ask myself the above italicized questions and I sometimes sneak in one other one: How much fun might this be? I must admit that in my youth, I took on at least one low-paying job because it would put me in close proximity with a woman with whom I wanted to be in even closer proximity. (When I told my agent why I was taking it, he asked, "Okay, so how do I get my ten percent of that?")

We look at what other folks have gotten for similar jobs. That can help but you have to be wary of what I call Desperation Outliers. There are people out there who, for what I rarely think are good reasons, will price themselves at "Pay me anything but give me the job." On the cartoon show I voice-direct, I've had wanna-be professionals offer to work for free just to get the credit. I would never take them up on it. In fact, if you want to convince me you're low on talent and high on emotional baggage, just make me that offer. But there are folks who price themselves on that basis and they should not be the precedents you consider in pricing yourself.

Most professional artists I know have a secret number. It's the minimum per hour they're willing to accept. Call it X. When a project is offered, they think, "Hmm. This should take me around 20 hours. I'll try to get as much money as I can for it but in no way will I take less than 20 times X." That's not a bad way to set your bottom line but it doesn't get you too near the top.

Usually, the top is not about your time. It's about how lucrative the project may be. Let's say you're writing a movie script that will take you 100 hours. If it's for a film that might at best make a few hundred thousand dollars, you should get one price. If it's the next James Bond movie, you should get more even if you spend the same 100 hours on it. Percentage deals can help but they also put you at the mercy of Creative Accounting. That's why anyone in demand always works for a non-refundable advance against or in addition to a specified percentage. It's so they get at least something.

I wish I had an easier way to gauge this kind of thing. I look back at all I've done and see times when I way underpriced myself. They were sometimes balanced a bit by those odd times when I may have gotten too rich a deal…but it's rare to come out even in the long run. Very rare.

And there's one other italicized question you need to ask yourself: How much do I need the money? Just about everyone has times when there's a Visa card accruing heavy finance charges and it's cost-efficient to work a little cheaper, just to get the job that can pay that card off or down. I once heard someone say of a top Hollywood agent, "He's great at non-precedential negotiations." Here's what they meant by that…

Let's say the client routinely gets a million dollars a movie. Let's say there's a period with no such offerings. Let's say the client has a need for cash and a need to work…and is offered a film for $600,000. The top agent finds a way to take the $600,000 but to justify it as a one-time-only deal: "Oh, he did that as a favor to a friend who'd helped him out when he was just starting." Or "Oh, he just did that because the subject matter was one of his pet personal issues. His established price is still a million dollars."

I know writers who say, "Never lower your price for any reason." That's great if you can do it. If they're about to turn off your electricity, you may not be able to do it. It's hard to write that next script without any.

I'm sorry I can't end this with a great solution to the problem. I'm going to write a little more here about this over the next few months and maybe I'll get closer to something wisely profound…but I doubt I'll get too close. As long as I've been writing professionally — this June will mark 44 years — I've wrestled with the question and I've erred in every possible direction. At times, I've almost envied those guys at the gas station who come up to you and offer to clean your windshield for a buck. It's hard, demeaning work but at least they don't have to spend a lot of time thinking about what to charge for it.