Monthly Archives: May 2015

The Broadway show The Wiz is soon to have a Broadway revival and a live television production. (Hey, did you know it was once almost a DC Comic? When the movie version was about to come out, they hired me to adapt it and I had to trudge up to Universal Studios and see a rough cut of the movie and then write an adaptation and they hired Dan Spiegle to draw it and when he was around page 26 or so, someone told them the film was going to be a bomb and they called Dan and told him to stop drawing because they weren't going to publish the comic. And they didn't. Dan, by the way, drew a dynamite Nipsey Russell.)

Anyway, it's always been an interesting bit of theater history how close that show — which won the Tony for Best Musical the year it debuted — came to closing in about three days. Playbill has just posted a 1975 article all about this for those of you who want to know the story.

Here's what I believe is David Letterman's first post-finale interview. There may be a brief ad but it's worth sitting through to get to the interviewer's first question which Dave obviously enjoys…

Here's a new interview with Art Garfunkel. In it, he says "I don't want to say any anti Paul Simon things," and he said this before and after he said a number of anti Paul Simon things. I don't know how many reunions those two guys have had — twenty or thirty — but it may be a while before the next one.

Here's a post from June 23, 2003. If I was writing it today, I would make more of the success that the Archie company has had over the years with their digest line. I'm told it kept that company alive for a long time and the fact that it no longer works as well as it once did is why they're floundering about, trying stunts to refurbish a very old, outta-date property. I would also include a remark I once heard from Jack Kirby. Jack liked things big. He liked big comics and big panels and big scenes and big concepts. When DC started their "super-size" lines of comics with a larger-than-usual page size, he was thrilled with the concept…and disappointed that they started by filling them with reprints of old comics, thereby not taking advantage of that bigger canvas.

Anyway, one time Jack looked at a Gold Key Digest and he said, speaking just of the page size, "That's a terrible thing to do to comics." He wasn't wrong but I still find something fun about those books.

Back in the sixties, Western Publishing Company (Gold Key Comics) began to have increasing problems getting their comics distributed. All the publishers were having this problem but it was most acute for Western. DC and Charlton owned their own distribution companies so they were able to push a little harder and at least they were paying their distribution fees to themselves. Marvel was distributed by DC until they jumped to a company owned by the same conglomerate that owned Marvel. The other companies, like Archie and Harvey, were hurt…but they (like DC and Marvel) were largely using their comic book publishing as a loss leader for the merchandising of the properties depicted in their comics. DC didn't consider it fatal when sales on the Batman comic went down since they were making money off Batman t-shirts and games and spatulas and such.

Western, however, did not control their own distribution, nor did they make any money off the merchandising of most of the characters in their comics. They had the Disney properties, Bugs Bunny, Woody Woodpecker, etc. — all properties owned by others. The few comics Western did own did not yield any real licensing money.

So they began hustling to find a way to sell comics in other venues — bookstores, toy stores, anywhere. They explored other forms of distribution and to this end began experimenting with different sizes and shapes of comics. Long before anyone at DC or Marvel was ready to break from the conventional funny book format, Western tried oversize comics, paperback comics, comics bundled in plastic bags and a few other ideas. Some received limited test marketings or never made it that far. Others came out and were widely ignored. The one thing that did well for a time was the digest comic — a little paperback about 6 and 3/4" tall with (usually) a little under 200 pages. Today, the Archie people have done quite well with their digests and the rumor is that other companies are gearing up to try them — especially for "funny" comics, whose less-detailed pages suffer less when reduced in size.

I don't believe this format will ever catch on big. Archie's success with it has largely been a matter of skillful (and expensive) marketing. They've managed to get excellent display in airports and at supermarket checkout counters. It often costs a lot of money to get your wares into those locations…which can accept very limited amounts of product. I also think there's a fundamental problem with the format in that its very size makes comics look cheap and unimportant.

One thing that some publishers seem to have missed is a lesson that Western learned when they were the only publisher doing them. When the digests were successful, they were only successful in stores that were completely isolated from regular-size comics. If a store had both sizes, no one bought the digests. If a store didn't carry regular-size comics but the one across the street did, no one bought the digests. I forget the actual sales numbers I was shown but it was something like this: When no regular-sized comics could be purchased nearby, a store that carried the digests might expect a 75% sale, which was very good. If the same store had regular comics, the digests would sell 10%. Therefore, Western was in the odd position of trying very hard not to distribute one of their products to some outlets. This they did until the digests died out in the early-seventies — about the time DC and Marvel were both enjoying some success with larger-than-normal comics. Western's distribution was crashing anyway by then but I've often wondered if the appearance of the tabloid "super-size" comics made the digests just look so puny that they helped finish them off.

If you were horrified by that Fiddler on the Roof medley performed by The Temptations, you probably won't want to watch much the same thing performed by the Osmond Brothers…

Matt Kuhns writes…

Out of curiosity I have to ask, why are you so convinced that the GOP won't nominate Jeb Bush, now? I just don't see how blustering in ways that seem (to you, and to me) imbecilic and embarrassing will be worrisome to Republican primary-goers. My own observations are that they seem, rather, to demand it.

Well, I'm not convinced they won't nominate him. They have to nominate someone. He just no longer seems like the likely guy to me. Of course, right now, no one does.

I just think that, first of all, Jeb Bush has lately looked like a really bad campaigner — a guy who gives an answer on Monday, hedges it on Tuesday and reverses it on Wednesday. I don't think any party likes a nominee who does that and it's worse with a faction of the Republican party that seems to thinks it's a sign of leadership to state a firm position and never, ever budge even a millimeter off it. (Democrats sometimes seem to have the opposite problem. On those rare occasions when one of them takes a firm position, he or she loses few points within the party for backing away from it.)

The other problem Bush has is that the current Republican Party is running far from the position that George W. Bush was a good president and that he made all the right calls in Iraq. Even "he was misled by bad intelligence" is a pretty feeble excuse…one that the people offering it to defend Bush would not accept with regard to any foreign policy miscall made by Obama or anyone named Clinton. It's going to be pretty awkward if not impossible for Jeb Bush to distance himself from all that, especially when the Democrats have video of Bush saying he turns to his brother for advice on dealing with other nations.

Speaking of all this: It's fine when the press asks candidates what they would have done about Iraq but I'd like to hear a few of them also asked what they would do (present and future-tense) about Iran. I dunno…I'm thinking in some vague, remote way that might be relevant to the job of being the 45th President of the United States.

As I'm sure you've heard, Ireland has legalized Gay Marriage by a pretty resounding majority vote. One hopes that opponents of that kind of thing in this country will realize that if that's the view of a nation as solidly Catholic as Ireland, that's the way the civilized world is headed and it ain't going back.

For years now, we've been hearing foes of Gay Marriage tell us that it will lead to the destruction of Straight Marriage, waves of Polygamy and men marrying cocker spaniels — all this then trumped by an angry God sending hell and damnation unto us all. Shouldn't there be a Statute of Limitations on those kinds of warnings? It's been eleven years since Massachusetts began allowing same-gender couples to wed. There have been no reports of Straight Marriage going bye-bye and no evidence of Polygamy replacing it, nor has The Lord rained down burning sulfur on Boston. How long is this supposed to take and at what point does intellectual honesty require that its prophets admit that maybe it just might not happen?

George Daugherty is the gent who conducts symphony orchestras to underscore the screening of old Warner Brothers cartoons. Here's an article about how and why he does this.

The other night, Carolyn and I were in an Albertsons Market and while passing the dairy case, I happened to notice something. This is their 2% milk but it was the same situation with all the different kinds of milk they were selling. As you may be able to see from the above photo I grabbed, you have your Albertsons house brand on the top shelf and a container of it is $3.99. On the shelf below, you have Foremost brand for $3.29.

I don't get this. They're the exact same milk.

I don't mean similar. I mean the same. The codes on the containers show they come from the exact same plant on the exact same day — and I don't think that plant has two grades of cows…

"Harry, make sure you don't get the milk mixed up. Remember that the milk from Bossie and Flossie goes into the $3.99 bottles and the milk from Bessie and Tessie goes into the $3.29 bottles. Bossie and Flossie give much better milk and we have to charge more for it!"

No, that's the exact same milk in the exact same containers. Only the label is different and for the Albertsons label, you pay 70 cents more.

I've mentioned this before. I see this almost every time I go to a market. The Whole Foods outlets around town here sell my favorite drinking water, Crystal Geyser, side-by-side with the Whole Foods house brand which is bottled for them by Crystal Geyser. Same facility, same water, same container, different label. In this case, the Crystal Geyser gallon is $1.49 and the same thing with the house brand label is 99 cents. Actually, the Albertsons-Foremost situation is the first time I've seen the house brand cost more but the point is that there's a shelf with a product…and then next to it or above it is the exact same thing with a different label and a higher price.

Presumably, there are people who go to the dairy case at Albertsons, see the two different shelves of milk and think, "Hey, I'll save seventy cents and buy the cheaper brand!"

And there are people who look at them both and think, "I'll buy the Albertsons brand because since it costs more, it's probably better milk!" (For those who view the world the latter, illogical way, Albertsons also sells Alta-Dena brand milk for a buck more a gallon…but at least that's from a different plant. It could perhaps be better milk in some way.)

Plus, I'm guessing there are people who don't notice that there are two choices (three, counting the Alta-Dena option) and just grab one without looking at the price.

I would love to know how the marketing folks think this works and what the sales are like. They know it's the same milk and that it helps them to have it out there with two different labels. Why is this effective for them?

David Letterman's set is history but you can still visit it at this link. Click your way all around. You can even go backstage.

The Dustbowl Revival is a great, old-style musical group. Here's a music video of one of their recent recordings, shot at the home of their friends, Dick and Arlene Van Dyke. That's Dick and Arlene dancing as the stars of it. Arlene is a talented makeup artist who is now getting into performing and she's very good at it. Her husband has done some of that performing stuff, too…

Rebecca Leber points out to us that Jeb Bush Needs More Evidence for Climate Change Action Than He Does to Start a War. We had to invade Iraq because there was at least a tiny chance Saddam Hussein had those Weapons of Mass Destruction. But we shouldn't act on Climate Change because, you know, only 97% of scientists agree man is causing it.

Question: If a hundred doctors examined you and said your appendix has to come out or you're going to die, do you act on what they say? Or do you decide, "Well, opinion seems to be pretty evenly divided so I'm going to put surgery off for a while"?

Other Question: Jeb Bush and others admit that the climate…she is a'changing. They just aren't sure man is causing it or can do anything about it.

Okay, fine. But if there are going to be a lot more hurricanes and a lot more drought, aren't there things we could be doing to prepare for that? Like fixing bridges and building dams and levees and water pipelines and training and funding emergency services? If you were fairly certain that the ocean would be rising on your beachfront property, isn't there a little something you'd like to do now to minimize the damage when it happens? And while we're at it, is it ever a bad idea to reduce toxic emissions into our atmosphere?

By the by: If I ever said here that I thought Jeb Bush was going to be the nominee, I'd like to retract that. I don't have a clue who it'll be, only that at least 14 of the 18 don't have a chance. It wouldn't surprise me if the nominee was someone who hasn't even been mentioned yet.

A number of folks on the 'net are distressed or upset or even outraged that CBS has started the renovation of the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York and has already dismantled and discarded David Letterman's set.

What can I say? The remodeling job was going to start sooner or later…and the sooner they get it done, the better for Stephen Colbert and his staff. I don't see what anyone gains if they let an empty theater sit there for a few weeks before clearing it out.

Some portions of the set are reportedly being preserved. If some university or museum wanted the whole thing, they had more than a year to ask for it. Or if Letterman or his people wanted it kept intact somewhere, they had more than a year to find that "somewhere." I expect a similar sense of loss when the marquee comes down, probably any day now.

Steve Allen titled his autobiography, Mark It and Strike It, which was a term that is sometimes used in television. It basically means, "Mark where that set was and then get it the hell outta here." He chose that as his title because the phrase reminded him of the impermanence of his industry. Every great TV show that ever existed had its set torn down and replaced with the set for some other show. When I was doing sitcoms and variety shows, I used to marvel at how fast the crews could load in a set and how even faster they could make it disappear.

Frankly, I'm more interested in whether Letterman's shows are going to disappear. Back when Dave was at NBC, the network made a deal with one of the then-new cable networks — I think it was A&E — to rerun old Late Night episodes. Letterman was furious, claiming he had not been consulted. The folks at NBC said he and/or his reps had been consulted. They just hadn't been paying attention to what they'd signed-off on. In any case, the rerun deal was scaled back, cut down from many years to one or two, and Letterman demanded the right to select the episodes and, if he felt necessary, re-edit them.

He did not want his old shows seen so NBC dropped that idea and I don't believe it was ever raised at CBS. We're wondering if now that he's not doing new shows, he will object to the old ones being seen again. Apparently, there is some buzz that this will happen but I haven't heard where or when or how. (I also don't know why NBC, which I think owns all the shows he did for them, hasn't already slapped them on MSNBC or somewhere. I assume there's a reason.)

I think I've said here before that I wish someone would start The Talk Show Channel and run old talk shows 24/7. There are enough libraries around — Johnny's, Dick Cavett's, Merv Griffin's, Mike Douglas's, David Frost's, Leno's, Arsenio's, etc. There might be clearance problems with music and occasionally with clips from movies but I'd even watch them with the unclearable moments snipped out if that was all we could get. If they really wanted to do it right, each show would be preceded by a minute or two with someone coming on to give the original airdate and to mention now-obscure cultural references or news items mentioned during the show. ("There was this woman in the news then named Heidi Fleiss…")

Wherever they wind up, I hope Dave's old shows wind up somewhere…and not where most of his set is tonight: In dumpsters.

Depending on how you count, there are between 18 and 20 announced candidates for the Republican Presidential Nomination. In early August, Fox News will host the first debate among them and Fox has announced they'll limit the proceedings to the top ten candidates (according to polling) as of a certain date before that event. If two or more people are tied for tenth place, all of them will be included so there could be more than ten on the stage. This article discusses why so many who haven't a chance are running.

So here's what I'm thinking: Tenth place is going to be someone who's polling at 2% or 3%. They're saying Donald Trump, who's currently at 2.2% might get in. What if Stephen Colbert announced his candidacy again?

His new TV show doesn't start until September. CBS will be promoting it all through July and August. He'll be running around making speeches anyway.

Last election, he dropped out of the race before the numbers solidified a lot but there were polls that showed him getting more than 3% in some states. I don't think it's impossible that there are enough Republicans disgusted with their choices that might want to cast a protest vote — or just keep Trump off that stage — and Colbert could get enough support to be included. He could even run on this promise: "Like most of those seeking this nomination, I promise to drop out of the race once I get as much attention and personal promotion as I can get."

Imagine the night of the first debate. They'll probably all arrive together in one tiny clown car. Wouldn't you enjoy seeing Colbert get out of it along with Bush, Walker, Rubio, Ben Carson and the rest? He could even sit on Chris Christie's lap if he could find it. Just think of the embarrassment for Carly Fiorina, Lindsay Graham, Bobby Jindal and a few others when Stephen Colbert gets to be in the debate and they don't. Trump's reaction alone would be priceless.

Don't you want to see that? I sure do.

You'll have to watch this video three times to solve the one it presents.