Monthly Archives: April 2013

NBC has just put out a press release announcing that Jay Leno will leave The Tonight Show in Spring of next year and that Jimmy Fallon will begin doing that program from New York. The most interesting paragraph in the release to me is this quote from Steve Burke, Chief Executive Officer of NBCUniversal…

We are purposefully making this change when Jay is #1, just as Jay replaced Johnny Carson when he was #1. Jimmy Fallon is a unique talent and this is his time. I'm thrilled he will become the sixth host of The Tonight Show at exactly the right moment.

No mention in there of Conan replacing Jay when he was #1…but that didn't work out so well, did it? Burke also said of Leno, "His long reign as the highest-rated late-night host is a testament to his work ethic and dedication to his viewers and to NBC." Yeah, and NBC has been so dedicated to him that they've decided to oust him three times, all when he was delivering the ratings they wanted.

Leno's contract was not up until the Fall and he reportedly had a clause that paid him a huge fee if he was yanked off the air before the contract was up. I'm assuming that all the delay and scuffling of the last few weeks have been because negotiations were being held as to how much Jay would get and at what point he'd be free to go elsewhere. Will he land at Fox or somewhere else? Hard to say. My guess is he'll increase his schedule of stand-up gigs and wait to see what's offered and — equally important — how committed those suitors are to stick with a new show. If Fox offers him 26 weeks with options, he'll say no. If they offer him a pretty solid couple of years…well, maybe. Jay's never been a guy to turn down a job if he could squeeze it in but sooner or later, he's gotta. There's a good "quit while you're ahead" argument here.

I find something very likeable about Jimmy Fallon but I find myself unable to like his show. I don't mind that he is not edgy. All the criticisms of Leno softening his act and dumbing it down for Middle America strike me as more applicable to Fallon, except that he never really had a hard-edged act to soften. Every time I tune him in, he seems to be playing Beer Pong or some game designed to cover him and/or a guest with food or beverage. I don't find that kind of thing all that entertaining — or any hipper/wittier than Jay bringing out stupid people to play Jeopardy! and get all the questions wrong.

People keep asking me how I think Dave or Conan feel about all this. I doubt either one cares that much. They have their own shows to worry about. Conan's just been extended on his TBS series but that only means he's doing about as well as George Lopez did for them there. It's steady but that's about it.

Meanwhile: Without Jay on the air, Letterman's really going to feel like a dinosaur. Friends who know him say he's only doing the show (a) because it's the only thing he does that brings him much happiness, (b) he doesn't know what else to do and (c) he wants his son to get old enough to really understand that Daddy is a TV star. It'll be interesting to see if he inherits the older viewers who don't have Leno to watch anymore — that's assuming Leno isn't over on Fox — or if Dave loses too many of the younger ones to Fallon. In any case, the narrative changes from "Dave's staying on the air because he wants to outlast Jay" to "When's Dave going to pack it in?"

There's a new batch of rumors that NBC is talking to Seth Meyers about taking over Late Night. One friend over at NBC says it's all about costs and that a 90-minute Tonight Show, in lieu of anyone following Fallon at 12:35, is not yet off the table. I like Seth Meyers but wonder if he isn't too much like Fallon to work in that slot.

And that's about it for the moment. You'll probably see a lot of articles that say this may be the dumbest move NBC has ever made…so I don't need to write why it may well be that. If this were a few years ago, I'd confidently predict that the network will regret the decision but the landscape is changing. There's a very different game emerging here — one played in part on the Internet with streaming and morning-after clips. I can somewhat understand how NBC might see Fallon as better-equpped to fit in with where they think late night TV is going. My pessimism is based on this: The 10 PM Jay Leno Show experiment was predicated on the theory that TV was changing and that NBC was leaping to pioneer in playing by the new rules. Remember the cover — was it on Time or Newsweek? — about how Leno's show might represent the future of television? Then he got on the air and someone discovered that the old rules still applied.

Fallon will certainly succeed by some measure — lowering the cost of programming, finding ways to multi-purpose, delivering younger demos, etc. Conan O'Brien also succeeded by some kinds of scorekeeping and so, pretty consistently, has Jay. It isn't that late night hosts aren't winning. It's that the network can't figure out just what the game is in which they're supposed to emerge victorious.

A golden moment from The Dick Van Dyke Show: Carl Reiner as the great author Yale Sampson…

Rep. Tim Huelskamp, a Republican from Kansas, authored this article making his case against Gay Marriage…and if you go read it, do yourself a favor and don't read the comments thread. It consists of about five smart people and fifty (from both sides) whose rudeness is in inverse proportion to their knowledge. I think Mr. Huelskamp has lost the battle he's waging but I was especially struck by the degree of misdirection in this paragraph…

The Justice Department argues that children do not need mothers. The Obama administration makes the incredible assertion that motherhood is superfluous to rebut an argument that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, provides the ideal situation to raise a child. In defiance of biology, nature and common sense, the administration argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers or more is just as good as having one of each.

That's about as large a misrepresentation of an opposing viewpoint as I've ever seen. I'm of the opinion that one of the biggest reasons why Gay Marriage has gained so much acceptance the last few years — more than anyone expected — is that folks who were once against it are finally hearing the real case for it. Not long ago, a lot of them were buying into the fear that letting Amos marry Andy would ensure a replay of The Fall of the Roman Empire. Now, they're getting that it's just about whether gay folks will be allowed the same dignity and respect that all human beings deserve. They're also noting that in the states where it's been legalized, locusts are not descending.

The quoted paragraph gets to core of a key point. Huelskamp also argues, "There is overwhelming social science evidence to corroborate the benefits of raising children in homes with both a mom and a dad." Let's say that's so. I mean, there's also overwhelming research that if kids don't have both, they can get along fine. But let's pretend he's right; that having one male father and one female mother is better than anything else.

My question then is: What are Huelskamp and his allies doing to make that happen for kids apart from demonizing gays? We have a huge divorce rate in this country. People vow to stay together 'til death do them part and then eight weeks later, file for separation. One report says 48% of all first births are happening outside of wedlock. If it's so important that every child have two parents, one of each gender, why is no one doing anything to outlaw or even discourage divorce? Why are women who aren't married even allowed to have sex?

The particular argument of Huelskamp's that I quoted really has nothing to do with gays getting married. If his supporting evidence was true, it might be a good case against gay adoption. There's almost no effort to stop that in this country, either. The folks arguing that everyone should conform to their template of a family unit need to explain the following. Why is it that the only thing they're doing to alleviate this great threat they perceive is to try and prevent gay marriages — unions which may very well involve no child whatsoever?

The great comedienne Imogene Coca originated the role of Letitia Primrose in the 1978 Broadway musical, On the Twentieth Century and if you click below, you'll get to see her re-create at some later date, her big show-stopping number from that show.

I had the pleasure of knowing (and even directing) Ms. Coca late in her life and she was just a joy to be around. One night in New York, I took her to Sardi's for dinner and then across the street to see the show, Crazy For You. At her request, we then went for a walk all around Times Square and she started pointing out theaters in which she'd worked, upstairs rehearsal halls in which she'd rehearsed, the locations favored night clubs and restaurants, etc.

We stopped outside the St. James Theater on 44th Street, which is where she'd done On the Twentieth Century in '78. The show then inhabiting the St. James was The Who's Tommy (that was the official name of it) and she joked that maybe she should go inside and sing this song to the audience there…

How each of the Major League baseball teams got its name.

Bob Clarke, one of the most prolific and versatile artists in MAD magazine, died yesterday from complications of pneumonia. He was 87.

Clarke began his career as a professional cartoonist at the age of 15, assisting and eventually drawing much of the popular syndicated panel, Ripley's Believe it or Not. He would later draw parodies of it for MAD. While serving in the army, he contributed artwork to Stars and Stripes, then upon discharge found gainful employment as an advertising illustrator. Among other accounts, he is said to have designed the label on Cutty Sark whisky.

He was stagnating (he felt) in all that advertising work in 1956 when he heard MAD might be looking for artists. MAD was. Its original editor Harvey Kurtzman had departed and taken two of the publication's most valuable cartoonists, Jack Davis and Will Elder, with him. New editor Al Feldstein needed folks who could draw and when he saw Clarke's samples, he instantly knew he had a godsend. Clarke had a knack for working in other artists' styles and was especially skilled at replicating the look and feel of commercial illustrators and advertising artists. Whatever MAD wanted to spoof in print, Clarke could make the spoof look like the original.

His work first appeared in #30 (December, 1956) and he had four articles in the next issue, four in the one after, etc. For a long period, he rarely had less than two. He did covers (including the famous 1960 flip covers congratulating both Nixon and Kennedy on their victories) and when Spy Vs. Spy creator Antonio Prohias became unable for health reasons to draw his famous feature, Clarke took it over. He began to cut back in the nineties and only made a few cameo reappearances in the publication after 1997.

He was a great talent, much loved by his compatriots. Tom Richmond, who's part of the current Usual Gang of Idiots contributing to MAD, has some thoughts about him here.

Donald Trump drops stupid lawsuit against Bill Maher. Now, Maher just has to worry about legal action from orangutans.

True condolences to my friend and occasional employer Marty Krofft on the passing of his wife, Christa. She passed last week of natural causes at the age of 70.

Christa was Playboy's Playmate of the Year for 1962. That was a little early for me to have a crush on her but when I went to work for the Kroffts, all my male friends who were about four years older kept asking me, "Have you met Christa? How does she look?" The answer was, yes, I'd met her and she was still a stunning beauty. The last time I saw her she was just pushing sixty and the answer was the same. I'm sure that did not change and it also applied to their three daughters, Deanna, Kristina and Kendra. Everyone told Marty he was lucky his kids took after her mother instead of him and he enthusiastically agreed.

She was Christa Speck when she first appeared in the magazine and became one of their most popular models. She became Christa Krofft when she and Marty were married in 1965. She remains a wonderful memory and an iconic symbol of pure, natural beauty.

Here's Stooges Sunday one day late. This is Oily to Bed, Oily to Rise, which was released October 6, 1939. Late in their short-making career, when Joe Besser had become the Third Stooge, they did another oil well story — "Oil's Well That Ends Well" — and reused the footage from this one of Curly Howard (actually, his stunt double) riding the oil well aloft. I remember noticing the reuse when I was first watching Stooge shorts on KTTV Channel 11 as a kid. Of course, KTTV did make it easy for a time by running the films in alphabetical order so these two were aired back-to-back…

Dave Gordon writes…

I realise you want to put a positive spin on the Wondercon experience, but have you considered that someone who's 6' 3" may have a different experience in a crowded room to someone who's not that tall. I touched on this once before, years ago, when I thought you may not be getting the standard visitor experience at Comic-Con where, for much of each day, you have a seat reserved for you. I guess being tall is not your fault, or even cause for criticism (jealousy, sure), but it has to colour your experiences and consequently your opinions. I would think that having your head "above the crowd" doesn't seem as crowded as not being able to see more than a couple of feet.

I'm only posting because I thought you may have been having a dig, consciously or unconsciously, at the guy who sells more stuff on less crowded days. It's rather jarring to hear someone who normally takes great pains to present a balanced view, seeing both sides, dissing someone with an honest opinion reinforced by evidence.

No "dig" was meant, consciously or unconsciously, about that dealer. I said his view "makes sense, I guess." I'm curious if others have the same experience.

Yeah, I know my experience at Comic-Con or WonderCon may not be precisely the same as someone else's. Being tall probably gives me some advantage in a crowd. Then again, being wide puts me at some disadvantage. Others can squeeze through some gaps between people that I can't navigate.

You know the folks who really have trouble getting around a comic convention hall? I mean, besides the ones with disabilities and impaired mobility? The ones who commit themselves to starting on one side of the room and walking up and down every single aisle in sequence. There will always be a few rows that are jammed, often because the exhibitors stage games and demonstrations intended to attract congoers to mob around their booths. I skip those aisles. If I forced myself to plunge down each one at the precise moment I arrive at it, I'm going to hit logjams.

Actually, my biggest problem getting around a convention is that wherever I try to walk, there's often some photo op — someone in a costume, one or more folks with cameras — who just stop for pose-'n'-shoot, not giving a damn about impeding traffic. Sometimes, they're conducting video interviews and such without the slightest concern that they're inconveniencing others. And my second-biggest problem is dodging cosplayer weaponry. If you could ban these categories of blockage, moving about any convention floor would be a breeze.