Monthly Archives: March 2013

David Carroll wrote me last week to say…

Mark, I enjoy your observations on the late-night wars. On a side note, I love your writing style. I can tell that you appreciate good language, and have a love for words. I'm afraid it's a dying art.

But back to the subject at hand: I watched Friday's episodes of Leno/Letterman. It left me a little sad at the state of the late night situation.

Leno's main guest was Craig Ferguson. I find Craig's show hit-and-miss. He's naturally funny, but he needs to be reined in now and then. On this night, he was a terrific guest. Jay's questions, as always were scripted, and he makes no attempts to hide that. Craig generally followed the segment producer's plan, telling the appropriate stories and hitting the right punch lines. The awkward part was when Craig would blurt out a spontaneous line; something he had just thought of, equally funny in the course of the conversation. Jay of course would react awkwardly as if someone had dropped something in his lap. It seems like he used to be able to roll with the punches. Now if it's off script, he seems almost annoyed. A once-mediocre conversationalist has become a a weak one.

Letterman's main guest was Seth Meyers. Again, very scripted and planned, with pre-approved stories, most of which scored. But midway through the segment, after Seth finished a bit, Letterman just looked down at the table, and muttered, "Pope? Anything there?" Just out of nowhere…in no way connected to the conversation. And then Seth launched into his handful of Pope jokes, and so on. As much as I've loved Letterman, I don't think I've seen the worst talk show hosts appear so uninterested.

"So…got anything on the Pope?" Any audience member could have read that card. It's sad to see how disengaged he has become.

As I've mentioned here many times, I lament the loss of spontaneity on talk shows. This is also becoming true of game shows, by the way. I suspect one of these days, there's going to be some big exposé published somewhere about how much control is exerted over allegedly unscripted goings-on…including editing, retakes, and the enlistment of actors — identified as having other professions — as contestants. There's a lot more of it than most people think.

However, a few folks who work on current talk shows have explained to me why there's so little that's unplanned. To some extent, it is the reluctance of the hosts to be in free-fall but there's another big reason…

Trial and error by all the talk shows has yielded a number of basic truths. Audiences, for instance, no longer like old reruns. When Mr. Carson aired old shows, he usually picked from a year-or-so back. Mssrs. Letterman, Leno, Fallon, etc. have all enjoyed higher ratings with reruns from just a few weeks before. On Fridays, Kimmel reruns bits from the preceding four days.

Audiences are no longer as wild about stand-up comedians performing and all the shows have found they need to be sparing about those. And the kind of stars the shows book — especially as the first guest — have become more important to the numbers. There are exceptions to this but for the most part, what keeps viewers tuning in and staying tuned-in is folks who are either super-megastars (there aren't enough of those) or folks who have a hot new movie or TV show (there are always plenty of those).

Just being an interesting conversationalist may make the show fun but the ratings breakdowns have convinced most of the producers that it's not enough. One of the gripes NBC execs had about Conan O'Brien on his Tonight Show was that he was booking folks like Norm MacDonald and Kevin Nealon as lead-off guests because he thought a funny segment would result…to the exclusion of someone hotter and probably younger who had a huge movie opening in two days. There were also NBC execs who thought the segments with MacDonald and Nealon weren't all that funny but the real objection was that the show could have had just about anybody and was bypassing guests who might have brought in higher numbers. I'm told that CBS thinks Letterman does a little too much of that as well.

So what does this have to do with a diminution of spontaneity and an increase in almost-scripted exchanges on talk shows? This: Most of your hot guests want it that way…or maybe it would be more accurate to say their managers and publicists want it that way. They view the guest's appearance as a vital tool in the promotion of the new movie, the new CD, the new TV show, the new whatever. They want planned questions and answers to ensure the guest comes off well and gets to say the proper things to plug the current project. It isn't always all planned out to the nth degree and like I said, there are exceptions. Craig Ferguson doesn't do much of that…which is, I suspect, why he makes a show of tearing up the notes on a guest before he starts chatting with them. He also doesn't get or maybe want many of the kind of guests that Leno and Letterman want…and he loses in the ratings to Jimmy Fallon.

One of my first jobs in show business, back in the early seventies, was writing press releases for a big-time Hollywood public relations firm. Mostly, it involved smoothing out the language of press handout bios of the clients there. Once in a while, it involved making up anecdotes for clients to tell on talk shows — sometimes, Johnny's; more often, Merv Griffin's. Actually, the performer first had to tell it to a producer or talent coordinator as part of a pre-interview. Sometimes, it was also an audition to get on the show. Sometimes, the performer was already booked and advertised. In any case, they needed a funny story to tell so I made one up or, if possible, took some true anecdote they had and polished it up a bit. There's a lot more of that now than there was then and I don't mean bogus stories. I mean an agreement before the taping as to just what the host will ask and what the guest will say (approximately) in response.

Almost all talk shows have always had pre-interviews. When Johnny said to a guest, "Someone told me you've been having some trouble with your plumbing," that meant the notes from the talent coordinator told Mr. Carson that the guest was expecting to tell an anecdote from the pre-interview about plumbing. Often, the notes included a summary of the story. Johnny might depart somewhat from the "script" and he had guests with whom almost nothing was planned (Buddy Hackett, Don Rickles, others) but most guest spots were planned out. And now, it isn't so much that the show demands it but that the guests and their managers do. And since these are for the most part, the guests the shows have learned will bring in viewers, that's the reason there isn't a lot of unplanned talk on talk shows today.

Do we look any different? This website is now coming to you from a new server which, they say, will handle its traffic better. That's why it was up and down (mostly down) today. I will resume posting shortly.

Tom Doran, who wrote that thoughtful piece on Monty Python, has a new essay up about the work of Gary (The Far Side) Larson.

We are currently experiencing technical difficulties here at newsfromme.com due to too much traffic. It has slowed down the loading of the site to about the pace of a Galapagos Tortoise on Xanax and caused the site to be only intermittently available. If you can read this, you're lucky.

I'm arranging for some upgrades (which may cost money, he said, hinting for tips) but it may be a few days before we're up and running at the old pace. Don't worry if you can't get here since I probably won't be posting anything that's all that interesting…or very often. I have another killer deadline, I have a load of meetings and appointments, and it looks like the deal to sell my mother's house has fallen through so I have to deal with that. In Escrow, no one can hear you scream.

Fear not though. I will soon be up 'n' running at my old pace again.

Well now, what do we have for you today? Hmm…it seems to be the entirety of the 1941 comedy classic, Hellzapoppin' starring the comedy team of Ole Olsen and Chic Johnson. This started life as a Broadway revue, opening on September 10, 1938 and running for 1,404 performances. That would be an impressive number now but it was really impressive at the time. Throughout the thirties, only two other plays managed to have more than 500 performances.

The show's success was attributed to a number of factors. In no particular order, they were that Olsen and Johnson were always scurrying around New York doing crazy promotional stunts; that superstar columnist Walter Winchell loved the show and plugged the hell out of it; that the show kept changing so people came back to see it again and again; and that it was indecently funny. In addition to its long Broadway run, it also became a cottage industry: Its producers sent out all sorts of touring companies and spin-off sequels with different casts and (often) different material.

The movie was made while the original New York version was running and it opened a week or two after the show closed on Broadway. Olsen and Johnson were the only two cast members from the show who were seen in the film, which used some songs and sketches from the stage but not a lot. For the most part, the movie was an original creation and it set some sort of industry record for not only breaking the fourth wall but annihilating it. It was successful enough that Olsen and Johnson made more films — some of them quite funny — but with diminishing box office. The two men are largely forgotten today…I suspect because while their scripts were often hilarious, they themselves weren't. Shemp Howard is probably the funniest one in this film, which is really quite hilarious at times. As you'll see if you clear the next hour and twenty minutes and click below…

Stephen Robinson writes…

This is all very interesting timing for Fallon. He gets Late Night because Conan left to do the Tonight Show. And Conan's failure in that slot paved the way for Fallon to get the Tonight Show despite having less than five years experience as a talk show host when the transition occurs.

I can't help wondering what would have happened if Conan had accepted NBC's offer to host the Tonight Show at midnight after a half-hour Leno. Would Fallon have survived if his show had been pushed back an hour?

I know some celebrities, including Seinfeld, thought Conan should support the network and make the move. Was there a scenario in which he did this and got to move back to 11:30 in 2014?

Still have trouble seeing why NBC thinks Fallon will do better than Conan at 11:30. It seems like NBC keeps trying to replace Letterman as host rather than Leno, who always did better in the ratings. Is there no one out there who has Leno's mainstream appeal?

When Conan wrote his infamous letter saying he wouldn't tolerate The Tonight Show being moved to 12:05, he said it was because he felt the move was injurious to a great tradition. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant that when he wrote it but I think it also would have been a terrible career move for him to go along with it. First off, it was kind of a public, insulting declaration that he couldn't handle the job he'd been given. Better to go down swinging than accept a demotion. Secondly, imagine two scenarios…

If they'd done it and ratings had gone significantly up, it would have been proof that Jay at 11:35 was just better for the network than Conan at 11:35. The next logical step would have been for many to wonder aloud, "Gee, if a half-hour of Jay there boosted the ratings that much, what would an hour do?" Then Conan winds up either off the air or back at 12:35, right where he was and with history reporting that he bombed when they tried to move him up. On the other hand, had they installed Leno at 11:35 and ratings either stayed the same or went down, no one would have blamed Jay. He'd already proved he could handle 11:35. The next logical step then would have been to try a full hour of Jay like the old days when his show worked. I just don't see a scenario in there where Conan had a chance to win.

If you asked the NBC execs why they thought Fallon would do better at 11:35, I would imagine they'd say something like this: Because we think Fallon will do a better show. His recent ratings at 12:35 are more impressive than O'Brien's last year of ratings at that time. (O'Brien was having trouble beating Craig Ferguson. Fallon doesn't.)

If some reports are true, one of the reasons NBC lost faith in Conan was because they felt they were offering Conan good notes on how to improve the show…and Conan and his people didn't feel the show needed any improving; just better promotion and lead-ins. That's pretty much what the producers of every show say when the ratings are disappointing and sometimes, it's valid. In this case, NBC felt they were giving Conan more-than-sufficient promotion and as for stronger lead-ins at 10 PM…they didn't have any then and haven't had any since. If they still aired The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien, its lead-ins today would be even weaker than they were during that seven month period.

They seem to feel Fallon will be more cooperative and that he does have the kind of mainstream appeal Leno has had. The working theory here is that Conan couldn't get the younger viewers without losing the older ones but that Fallon can. Are they right? If networks always or even usually were, they wouldn't wind up canceling most of the new shows they put on.

From James Tobey comes this…

I don't follow the late night situation closely but NPR this evening said sources are saying it's about the future, specifically how media will be viewed. They compared Leno's 500,000 Twitter followers to Fallon's 6,000,000. Do you think the landscape will change that much, that quickly?

Yeah. It wouldn't surprise me if the discrepancy between Fallon's online presence and Leno's is a major factor in this decision. All the networks are wrestling with how the Internet is changing their industry. It's not insignificant that Conan did (and still does) so many bits designed to remind you he can be followed on Twitter. Jay's staff tweets often in his name but all it usually is is retreads of his monologue and retweeted messages by guests saying, "Hey, I'm on Leno tonight." Jay may be ahead of everyone else in the Nielsens but he's running way behind in the Tweets.

Someone named Sammo writes…

I see the New York Post quoting the head of the affiliate board at Fox as saying they're open to the idea of Leno at 11 PM. Why would they be interested? Doesn't Fox ruthlessly pursue younger viewers?

Yes but Fox becomes a slightly different business after 10 PM when most of its stations air their local news. Local news is not as driven by demographics as entertainment programming. In some markets, they don't care much about the age of their audiences. They kinda figure they've already lost the kids. That age bracket is not as interested in news (the theory goes) and if it is, those folks will get theirs online or they're over watching Jon Stewart. Local news is mainly for two groups: People who are used to getting theirs that way and those who want to watch timely sports highlights. One of the few things you can't get on the Internet, at least immediately, is footage from that night's major sporting events.

That's why NBC's affiliates rebelled loudly when they had that 10 PM Leno show delivering fewer viewers to their 11 PM newscasts. Yeah, Jay's show was more profitable for the parent network because it was cheaper but that didn't help local newscasts. They also rebelled against Conan as a lead-out. A lot of the viewership that local newscasts get is from people tuning the news in while they wait for the 11:35 program of their choice. Conan's more favorable demographics helped the network sell commercial time during his broadcasts but that also wasn't helpful to local newscasts in most areas. In his book on it all, The War for Late Night: When Leno Went Early and Television Went Crazy, Bill Carter said that when NBC was wrestling with the idea of bumping Conan and putting Leno back at 11:35, they asked Michael Fiorile, who was the head of their affiliate board…

Fiorile possessed evidence that the affiliate body did not disagree. NBC had asked him what the local stations' preference would be at 11:35. Fiorile had quietly polled the affiliate board. The stations had long experience with Jay. (And the age group most of them occupied did not fall anywhere near the core audience of eighteen-to-thirty-four-year-olds that idolized Conan.) So it was little surprise whom the station owners preferred. Not one voted for Conan.

If you ever wondered why NBC put Jay Leno back on at 11:35, that's most of the reason right there. Even though those same station owners desperately wanted him out of the 10 PM slot, they all wanted him back on at 11:35. No word on how they feel about Fallon going in there in his place.

One of the reasons Conan wanted to go to Fox was that his people felt that promotion on Fox shows was a potent weapon for him; that one promo on The Simpsons was worth ten plugs on even the youngest-skewing NBC prime-time series. I don't think Jay would benefit in quite the same way but it might "young up" his audience a bit. I suspect Jay on Fox would also have the first pick on guest stars in Hollywood.

Yesterday, I said here that a Leno move to Fox didn't feel likely to me. It feels a little more likely in light of this report. At the very least, it may complicate whatever dickering and negotiations are now in progress between Jay and NBC. Suddenly, that network has more reason to try and scuttle Leno's remaining months on The Tonight Show, to get him off the air soon and to keep him contractually unable to go right back on opposite them. That's probably the main thing they're arguing about now.

Ah…welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends.

Harriet Ryan covered both of Phil Spector's trials. Now, she covers the HBO movie, Phil Spector, and finds it pretty damned inaccurate.

Here's a quick taste of the show I saw last night…

A friend of mine over at NBC tells me that the reason Jay Leno isn't discussing (or making jokes about) the transition from him to Jimmy Fallon is that terms are still being negotiated. That's why NBC isn't discussing it, either. I would imagine the network wants to make sure Jay doesn't go rogue on them…or quickly reappear in some sort of competing show.

Actually, it's hard to figure where that competing show might be. Back when we went through this with Conan displacing Jay, it was a very real option (complete with actual offers) for Jay to go over and do much the same show at ABC. NBC's internal research even yielded the prediction that going head-to-head like that, Jay would beat Conan. Now, ABC's out of the question…and if Jay went into syndication or for some off-network deal, he'd never have enough clearances to be competitive at that hour.

The most likely place for him would then be Fox. That would also present a clearance problem as Fox some time ago gave up offering a network feed after 10 PM and now their local stations all have expensive (and also profitable) deals to air reruns like Seinfeld at 11 PM and after. When Conan left The Tonight Show, everyone assumed that Fox would find a way to clear that time period for him…and indeed, many Fox execs tried to make that work. But Rupert Murdoch was cool to the idea and stations weren't eager for it so it didn't happen. In his book on that whole square dance, Bill Carter said that if Jay had come on the market, all the pieces would have fallen into place…but that was then. Leno is older and more controversial…and it sure doesn't feel to me like he'll wind up with a late night show on Fox.

That's even assuming he yearns to stay in the Talk Show business. That doesn't seem likely…though as we've all seen, that which does not seem likely often happens in television. Especially late night television. I still think booting Leno for Fallon is illogical and that it won't yield the ratings betterment that NBC hopes to achieve. Meantime, I'm told Leno is already getting soft inquiries as to his availability for other TV jobs, positions other than late night talk shows. It doesn't seem likely that he'd want any of them, either.

I more or less agree with Richard Rushfield that Leno has not received proper credit for the amazing achivement of 21 years of usually winning a very tough time slot…or at worst and for a short period, finishing a profitable second. Actually, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea of hating a TV star at all. I have friends who…well, if you'd given them the chance to execute Timothy McVeigh or Kathy Lee Gifford would have dropped the pellet on Kathy Lee and wondered why you had to ask. I like Leno most of the time…and for the times I don't, my TV has an off switch and my TiVo knows how to fast-forward.

I've received a whole buncha questions about the Leno/Fallon situation. I'll try and do a From the E-Mailbag post later tonight.

Taking care of my mother and meeting script deadlines have kept me away from New York for several years now…so I missed all 170 performances there of Catch Me If You Can. That was a new musical by some of the same folks who did Hairspray on Broadway, and they adapted it from the movie of the same name. Briefly, it's the story of a gent named Frank Abagnale, Jr. who liked to forge checks and to do things like become a pilot (without knowing how to fly) or a doctor (without going to medical school). Arresting him became the obsession of an FBI agent named Carl Hanratty and an unusual rivalry/friendship developed between the two men.

The musical — which is done "period" in the sixties, though with a few anachronisms — is staged like a variety show of the day. It starts in an airport with Hanratty finally getting his man. Then that man hosts The Frank Abagnale Jr. Show, replaying the events of his life like everyone is on The Andy Williams Show. The music is bouncy, the story is interesting (though stretched a bit thin by the end) and there's a chorus of very cute young women who play stewardesses, nurses and other women in Frank's world.

I liked what I saw of it in online clips…and I especially liked the musical number that Norbert Leo Butz did on the Tony Awards. On the other hand, it did close rather swiftly and a few friends who'd seen it told me of their disappointment. The national tour is inching its way across America and when I saw that it was alighting briefly at the Pantages up in Hollywood, I decided on an impulse to get tickets.

I wouldn't if I'd realized it was a non-equity (i.e., non-union) tour. As a pro-union guy, I'm uncomfy with the ethics and as a theater-goer, I'm aware that non-equity shows frequently suck. That's largely because they start with the premise of "let's do it cheap" and they have to cast from a talent pool that excludes the best folks, who are all Equity members. This one's advertised as "The Original Production From Broadway." That means the same script, music, sets, costumes and staging…but none of the same actors.

I'd paid for the tix before I realized that so Carolyn and I went last night…and I think it helped that I went in with low confidence because I had a pretty good time. I can see why the show didn't fly higher and longer in New York. It gets rather tedious and forced at the end, and all that dazzling choreography services numbers that only occasionally feel special — the one Butz did on the Tonys, for instance. Still, it has an energy and a pace that until the last twenty minutes or so, made it hard for me to take my eyes off the stage. And the young man who plays Frank, Stephen Anthony, is sensational. The audience loved him and also Merritt David Janes, who played the determined FBI agent.

So as non-equity tours go, it's a good one. They journey next to Chicago, then Lansing, then Milwaukee and Detroit and onward, all for brief layovers. As musical comedies go…well, I'd probably do you a favor if I told you it wasn't very good, but then you went anyway and it could exceed your expectations. It sure exceeded mine.

Well now! It's now being reported — by Bill Carter, who knows enough not to pass around rumors as fact — that Jimmy Fallon will indeed succeed Jay Leno as host of The Tonight Show next year and also that the show will shift back to New York. Carter's article, being for the New York Times, acts as if the change of venue is more interesting than the change of hosts.

So ignore most of what I said about how this didn't seem likely to me…and note that I did say NBC execs might do what seemed unlikely to me. It still seems unlikely but that's one of the fun things about show business. The unlikely sometimes happens. A lot of folks are going to say this is an even more lunkheaded move by the network than the Conan thing — replacing one of the few guys on the network who's consistently delivered for them at a time when most of their schedule is plunging like Louie Anderson on Splash.

Obvious questions abound…

• If Jay stays on until his contract is up (in September of '14, as I understand) will he spend every night hence trashing the network? My guess is that they'll take him off the air well before then so they can "bench" him for a while; that is, unless he agrees not to reappear immediately in a competing show and to compare any more NBC executives to reptiles. But he will be on the air for a while…
• …and will he then reappear in a competing show? You don't have the kind of success he's had and not get other offers. Leno ain't the retiring kind.
• Do they have someone in mind for 12:35? And will they then do that show from New York, forcing it to subsist on the guests Fallon doesn't want? And totally bypassing the talent pool available out here in Los Angeles? That pool of potential guests includes a lot of stars on NBC shows that desperately need promotion and The Tonight Show has always been one of their most potent tools for promotion.
• Will Lorne Michaels exec-produce The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon? And the new 12:35 replacement? That would pretty much make Michaels "The King of Late Night" in a sense that even Johnny Carson never was.
• Could Jimmy Kimmel be any happier? And could David Letterman have more mixed feelings? He wanted to outlast Leno but once he does, will his career be about anything else besides when will he step down and let CBS follow suit and stick a younger, allegedly more competitive host in that slot?
• And, uh, so what exactly does NBC do if this doesn't work? If Fallon doesn't significantly improve on Leno's numbers (which Conan couldn't do not that long ago) and if the new 12:35 entry doesn't fly high, could the execs there look worse? One of the big complications in installing O'Brien at 11:35 was that for the first time ever, they tried to replace both of their late night shows at roughly the same time. They had two shows that were working and tried to install two new ones in the hope of not only equal but greater success. They only batted .500 and even that was way ahead of the usual pass/fail rate for new programming. And now once again, they're taking out two shows that are working where they are and hoping to make different ones simultaneously flourish on those hunks of real estate.
• And I just thought of one more: What kind of contractual guarantee does Mr. Fallon have that he won't be cut loose after seven months and sentenced to Basic Cable?

Those are just the immediate questions that come to mind. There will be others. Methinks those of us who follow late night programming as a spectator sport should keep our seat belts fastened and our tray tables locked in the upright position as we stow all portable electronic devices. It's going to be that kind of flight.

David Ferguson writes one of those articles that some folks won't "get" as parody/sarcasm. It starts like this…

I have always been a big proponent of following your heart and doing exactly what you want to do. It sounds so simple, right? But there are people who spend years — decades, even — trying to find a true sense of purpose for themselves. My advice? Just find the thing you enjoy doing more than anything else, your one true passion, and do it for the rest of your life on nights and weekends when you're exhausted and cranky and just want to go to bed.

To make a serious comment on an article that is non-serious, at least at face value: I was amazed at the number of friends I re-encountered at my 25th high school reunion who said things not unlike, "I'm just trying to decide what I want to do with my life." "I'm trying to get my shit together" was uttered by a few. A general rule of thumb is that if you don't have your shit together a quarter-century after you got out of high school, you're using the wrong sorting system.

I am not a big believer in the philosophy, "You can be anything you want to be in life." I didn't have the practical option to play for the Lakers, sing opera at Lincoln Center or ride the winning horse in the Kentucky Derby. I did have a range of realistic choices wherein I easily found something I did love to do. It was around age ten that Satan (you know: that guy who looks like Barack Obama) came to me and offered me the following deal: That I would become a professional writer and always earn a living at it but I would never be anything else. I have never regretted signing that one in blood. But the time to make those deals if at all possible is before you have to go out and get your first job.

I think one of the reasons more people don't figure out What They Want To Be When They Grow Up is that they think there's a much thicker catalog from which to pick than there is. Or their first choice is, like, President of the United States or Richest Person in the World or Hugh Jackman…and anything short of that seems like a sign of failure.

My father, as I've written on many occasions, hated his occupation. It was a job he took because he needed to pay rent and he told himself it was just until he found something better…but he stayed in it until he hit retirement age. Apart from his near-ideal marriage, the happiest thing in his life was that his son didn't make the same mistake. I've made most of the others but just out of dumb luck, not that one. Don't you.

So, apart from the fact that the guy likes basketball, what do we know about this Kim Jong-un guy in North Korea? According to Fred Kaplan, not nearly enough.

A little more than a week from now, thousands of enlightened souls will converge on Anaheim, deftly avoid the Disneyland traffic and get themselves to WonderCon. We like WonderCon. We liked it all the years it was in Berkeley, California. We liked it even more all the years it was in San Francisco…and hope it returns there soon. And we liked it last year for its first Anaheim incarnation.

WonderCon is run by the same folks who operate the annual Comic-Con International in San Diego. It's not as big or star-studded but you'll never suffer from a lack of things to browse 'n' maybe buy or things to do. One of the things you might do is attend any or all of the programming events that involve moi. Here's the rundown of them…

Quick Draw!
Friday, March 29, 2013: 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM in Room 300AB
It's another duel-to-the-drawing-boards competition as three of the fastest, funniest cartoonists working today vie for the nonexistent crown. They are Scott Shaw! (The Simpsons), Jeff Smith (Bone), and Bobby London (Dirty Duck), with some surprise participants as well. Ring-leading it all as always is the Quizzzzmaster of Quick Draw!, Mark Evanier. No wagering.

Spotlight on Brent Anderson
Friday, March 29, 2013: 4:30 PM – 5:30 PM in Room 203
He's been one of the brightest lights in comic art since he burst on the scene with Ka-Zar the Savage, Somerset Holmes, Strikeforce: Morituri, and the X-Men graphic novel, God Loves, Man Kills. More recently you know him from Kurt Busiek's Astro City and other popular comics. He's WonderCon Anaheim special guest Brent Anderson, and here's your chance to hear him interviewed about his life and career by Mark Evanier.

That 70's Panel
Saturday, March 30, 2013: 11:30 AM – 12:30 PM in Room 203
A look at comics in what some call the Bronze Age…a time of massive change within in the industry. What made that era unique from comics that came before and after? Perhaps we'll learn as Mark Evanier (Groo the Wanderer) chats with Marv Wolfman (Tomb of Dracula), J. M. DeMatteis (Justice League), Len Wein (Swamp Thing), and Brent Anderson (Astro City).

Cartoon Voices
Saturday, March 30, 2013: 2:30 PM – 3:30 PM in Room 300DE
Once again, cartoon voice director Mark Evanier (The Garfield Show) gathers together six of the top professionals who speak for animated cartoons. Hear a demonstration of their craft starring Laraine Newman (The Fairly OddParents), Gregg Berger (G.I. Joe), Laura Summer (The Real Ghostbusters), Jason Marsden (Young Justice), Saratoga Ballantine (Guild Wars 2), and Neil Kaplan (Starcraft II).

Writing for Animation
Sunday, March 31, 2013: 12:30 PM – 1:30 PM in Room 300DE
Interested in writing cartoons? Or just curious how it's done? Mark Evanier has written hundreds of scripts for such programs as The Garfield Show, Garfield and Friends, Dungeons 'n' Dragons, Scooby Doo, Richie Rich, ABC Weekend Special, CBS Storybreak, Thundarr the Barbarian, and more. He'll tell you how it all happens and answer any questions you may have.

Other times, I'll be roaming the convention. Folks always ask me, "Where's your table?" and I always turn down the one the con (any con) offers me so I can wander freely and see things…but I'm large and easy to find. If you see me, say howdy. If you don't see me, just consider yourself lucky.