Monthly Archives: December 2017

• Just paid two Hamiltons to park for "Hamilton."

I'm getting a lot of e-mail from people — some of them rude to the extreme — who want to argue that the trademark decision in the Comic-Con case is legally unsound. As a matter of following the law, I don't think I know enough to have an opinion on that.

They're also concerned that it will harm or even destroy other conventions around the country. That, I don't believe. There are many, many successful conventions of this variety that do not feel they need to use the term "Comic Con" in their names. I mentioned ones like Heroes Con and DragonCon and there are also others like Wizard World New Orleans, Wizard World St. Louis, Wizard World Cleveland, Wizard World Portland, Wizard World Philadelphia, Wizard World Des Moines, Wizard World Columbus, Wizard World Boise, Wizard World Chicago, Wizard World Madison, Wizard World Oklahoma City…

Yes, "Comic Con" is a handy descriptor or sub-title but, come on. Companies seem to be able to sell flavored gelatin desserts without calling them "Jell-O." Hundreds of firms manufacture facial tissue without calling their product "Kleenex." Donald Trump managed to get elected without any right whatsoever to describe himself as a "human being."

Closer to home, DC and Marvel still hold a joint trademark on "superhero." I'm not saying that's right or legal or fair or anything of that sort. I just don't think it's fatal to others who want to put out comic books about people who wear capes, fly around and fight crime.

Oh, and I think I need to clarify something: I am not an employee — in any sense of the word — of Comic-Con International. I also was in no way a founder of it, despite what reporters (and hosts of podcasts I appear on) keep insisting. I was at best an early supporter of it and I have been a constant attendee and frequent guest. I think it's a magnificent institution and since it sells out each year just as soon as it can possibly sell out, there's at least a chance that I'm not be the only person on this planet who feels that way.

If the court in this one decision was as egregiously wrong as some are telling me, that just increases the likelihood that another court will overturn it on appeal. I just don't think that until that happens — or if it doesn't happen — it's going to destroy every other convention that uses the term. And, really: Don't we have more important, actually life-threatening things in this world today to rant about?

---

Well, it looks like we're not going to hit 25,000 today here. I have a long "to do" list so there might only be one or two more here before Midnight. This evening, I'm taking Amber to see a play about the guy on the ten-dollar bill. I haven't heard much about it but it was written by the kid some of us first saw back in this somewhat amateurish video back in 2010 so I'm a little skeptical. I hope it doesn't suck. I had to sell my mother's old home to get tickets.

The talented folks from Voctave reach for that elusive Impossible Dream…

On Friday, I reported that the operators of Comic-Con International in San Diego had won a trademark suit against the operators of the Salt Lake City Comic Con. I don't know enough about the law or what was argued in court to say if this was a just verdict or not but I'm getting a lot of e-mail from folks who think it was wrong because the Big Guy beat the Little Guy. I'll admit that I am sometimes suspicious of lawsuits that are won by the side with the most money but they're not always wrong and the Salt Lake City event ain't that little a Little Guy.

I also don't see why anyone is fearful of the impact of this verdict. Can't the Boise Comic Con (if there is such a gathering) rename itself the Boise Comic Fest or the Boise Media Con and proceed without much of a speed bump? Are a lot of people going to go, "It's a Comic Fest? Oh, no! I only go to Comic Cons"? There are plenty of successful enterprises around the country that could call themselves "Comic Cons" and don't: Heroes Con, DragonCon, WonderCon, Chicago Comic and Entertainment Expo, Megacon, etc. Still, a lot of folks seem worried that the group in San Diego now wields some undeserved power to control the industry and wipe out its competitors. I don't see how anything is going to change except one or two words in some conventions' names.

I also don't get these negative feelings some people seem to have about the Comic-Con in San Diego. If you don't like crowds, I get that but you might as well bad-mouth Disneyland or the Super Bowl and see how much that changes anything. Understand that crowded places are crowded because they please so many and that you don't have to go. I do get that there are those who are angry they can't secure badges for Comic-Con but I'm afraid that's the nature of the beast. The convention center can only hold so many people and if ten times that number want to go, a lot of people are simply going to be turned away.

I have dealt with Comic-Con since its inception. In 2019, I expect to attend my fiftieth (!!!) installment of this institution — one of maybe a half-dozen people who can say they've been to every one of them.

(Brief interruption to say something out of what Daffy Duck used to call, sheer honesty:) Before Comic-Con started under another name, its organizers had a one-day mini-con as a kind of warm-up exercise. I didn't go to that. Also, there was a period when my interest in Comic-Con faltered a bit and I began skipping the first day or the last day. I no longer do that but my pal Scott Shaw!, who had to miss one year for medical reasons, has been to more total days of Comic-Con than I have.)

Anyway, I know Comic-Con and I know the people behind it. They're great, hard-working men and women who work for a non-profit organization. I put that in italics because a lot of the convention's detractors either don't know that or hear it and don't seem to know what that term means. It means the people who run the con do not pocket large amounts of cash. Almost all of the other comic conventions — the good ones and the bad ones — are run for profit. There's nothing wrong with that — I like a lot of the conventions that aren't non-profit — but don't confuse which are which.

A month or three ago, I got a call from an agent who books celebrities into conventions — celebs who will sign autographs or pose for selfies for large fees. He told me he had recently booked a Superstar Client into one con for a $50,000 guarantee, meaning that said Superstar was guaranteed first-class transportation, a luxury suite, food and beverage expenses and a take-home haul of at least $50,000 for the weekend. The agent wanted me to tell him who to contact about Comic-Con International because, as he put it, "They have more than twice the attendance of our last con so I figure I can hit them up for $100,000 at least!"

I told him he would be wasting a phone call. "San Diego doesn't do that."

He thought either I was nuts or they were…or maybe both. He kept explaining they con would get to advertise his client's appearance and that would bring swarms of people to their doors. "What convention wouldn't kill for that?" he asked.

I replied, "A convention that completely sells out each year months in advance without advertising any of its guests. In fact, Comic-Con usually sells out in less than two hours. They don't have any place to put your swarms." (Early reports peg this year's sell-out, which occurred yesterday, at 64 minutes. A new world's record!)

I also explained to him that very few celebrities at Comic-Con make megabucks signing autographs there. There are too many other things competing for fans' dollars, including some pretty famous people who sign without charging to promote their books or TV shows or movies. (Some of them, of course, are paid by publishers or studios to be there and sign. The point is that if the casts of The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones are signing for free across the aisle from you, folks might be a little less eager to fork over $100 for your signature.)

The agent did not like any of this and I don't know if he even contacted Comic-Con. Conventions, by the way, often get a cut of what the celebrity autographers take in…and San Diego still doesn't do that.

Getting back to the battle royale over the name "Comic-Con," I don't know who is right in the decision insofar as the law is concerned. Maybe it will get appealed and reversed. But I have a hard time seeing the damage to the enterprises that will now have to trade in part of their name for another word that conveys the same idea. If a lot of people were thinking that the Hell Comic Con in Hell, Michigan (that's a real city) is a local outpost of the famous Comic-Con International in San Diego, maybe it's a good thing to clear up that CONfusion.

Part 1 of this series can be read here.

How do you write a comic book? I've been doing that since 1968 and getting my work published since 1970. It is important to make the point that I've worked dozens of different ways, outputting scripts in many different formats and breaking down the work in different manners. People keep writing me and asking, "What does a comic book script look like?" and maybe I'll get to that in this series. But if I have the time, I explain to them that there are many approaches and the scripts like I wrote for Bugs Bunny looked nothing like the scripts I wrote for Blackhawk.

I try to approach every new assignment with the flexibility to change modus operandi to fit the needs of the material and my collaborators. It can vary depending on the strengths or weaknesses of those collaborators and/or because of how well I know them. If I write something for Sergio Aragonés, who is a master of visual humor, I don't have to explain a visual joke to him. I also have to expect that he may vastly improve it, plus there's the fact that he and I talk most every day.

I have also written scripts that were drawn by artists I've never met or spoken with…or even, when I wrote the script, artists who were unselected.  I wrote one last week with no idea who'll end up drawing it.  Whatever it is I have to convey to the artist needs to be in the script and I can't presume that they'll understand what I have in mind if I shorthand something.

No matter what the format, writing a comic pretty much breaks down into four stages.  These are my definitions and terms…

• The Springboard. What is this particular story about? This would be a one or two line summary, for instance: "The Joker and The Penguin team up to kill Batman." Or "A new villain named Destructo has titanium hands with which he plans to crush The Hulk." Or "Scooby Doo and the gang run into a ghost cocker spaniel who's scaring everyone out of the big Dog Show."
• The Plot. This is a description — and it may be written, may be verbal — that expands upon The Springboard and has a beginning, middle and end. Taking the first Springboard above, it works out how The Joker and The Penguin get together and plan to kill Batman, how Batman in the end foils their plan and all the things that happen that get us from the first part of the story to the ending.
• The Breakdown. What happens in Panel 1? What happens in Panel 2? What happens in Panel 3? What happens in Panel 4? And so on. This stage would also include more specific details on the events described in The Plot. For instance, The Plot might say "Catwoman breaks out of prison and gets to the bank before The Joker and The Penguin." Whoever does The Breakdown may have to figure out how she breaks out and how she gets there before them. (And please understand: The Breakdown is not the same thing as the kind of layout an artist might do to figure out what goes where. This is discussion is not about the drawing. The Breakdown is the decision of how many panels go on a page and what happens in each one.)
• The Copy. This is the composition of the words that go in the captions and word balloons, and it would also include the sound effects.

No matter what form is employed, you need these four elements to write a comic book. Somebody has to do them even if they aren't all done by the credited writer.

When I started out, I was writing mostly funny animal comics and I did most of them on spec, meaning I'd write the script and an editor would read it, then decide if he or she wanted to buy it.  Often, it was not possible to get The Springboard approved before I did all the other things…so I'd write a whole script — all four elements — and then the editor would say, "Oh, we just did a story just like that!" or "I just didn't like the basic premise."

If the script was rejected, I usually could not sell it elsewhere. I might cannibalize it and use elements of it in other work but I did not get paid for the rejected script. This is obviously not a good system for the writer and it doesn't work for the editor, either. Sometimes though, you have to work that way, especially when you're new.

A great many arguments have erupted because of the confusion between The Springboard and The Plot.  An awful lot of people supply The Springboard but nothing more and then say, "I plotted that issue!" In my world, I would not award a plot credit for that. For ceremonial reasons, I might say "Idea by Joe Blow," especially if the guy who had the idea was actually named Joe Blow.

In the next installment of this series, whenever I get around to it, I will discuss who did what on some of the best comics of the past and where I think the credits were right or wrong or somewhat misleading.

I don't think I've ever mentioned it here but for a while now, the operators of Comic-Con International (that thing in San Diego) have been locked in a war with the folks who put on the Salt Lake City Comic Con. The issue? Is "Comic-Con," with or without the hyphen, a generic term which no one can own and anyone can use? Or is it a valid trademark for the San Diego folks? Today, a San Diego jury decided the latter. The name, they said, belongs to the non-profit outfit that runs Comic-Con International.

Their victory was not total. They had sought $12 million in damages but were awarded only $20,000. The Salt Lake City group says it will appeal but until they do — assuming they do and if they prevail — a lot of events around the country are going to be changing their names, probably to "Con" plus some adjective. You can read more about the dispute here.

Long day. Amber and I went to lunch at the Magic Castle, then out to Burbank where DC Comics was holding a Len Wein Memorial on the Warner Brothers lot. A nice crop of Len's friends were there, including several who flew into town just to be present, then have to fly back home.

Dan DiDio spoke. Paul Levitz spoke. Gerry Conway spoke. Mike Friedrich spoke. Marty Pasko spoke. Kurt Busiek spoke. Melinda M. Snodgrass spoke. Barbara Randall Kesel. I spoke. Other people spoke. It was funny and poignant and in the after-speeches milling, a couple of those present remarked that they actually learned a thing or three. That was one of the many reasons it was great to be around Len. You always had a good time but now and then, you could actually learn something of real value.

There was a great slide show of Len photos, most of them taken by his lovely spouse Chris Valada, and many of us thanked Chris for taking such good care of him. One of the speakers — I think it was me — remarked on how difficult it was to turn loose of Len. If at any time in your life you were privileged to know him, you know what I mean.

Once I post this item, we will be nine posts from having 25,000 posts on this blog. Admittedly, there have been some reruns — by my count, 136. But I've also deleted at least that many posts in the 6,208 days since I started this blog…and so what? 25,000 posts on a one-person blog has to count for something. Since I average about four a day, we'll probably see Post #25,000 this weekend. It will be, as promised, a pretty long one in response to what I thought was the best "ASK me" question submitted since I solicited questions for the occasion.

Since I saw Something Rotten! last night, I've been listening to the cast album, enjoying the songs again and picking up some of the lyrics I didn't get in the theater.  Here's a video from the recording session for that album…

Very disappointed in Al Franken and the Democrats who demanded he fall on his sword…that is, unless there's something else they all know that we don't know. In situations like this, I often wonder if we have all the facts. Many of the ousters or forced resignations relating to sexual impropriety make more sense if you imagine up some incident that hasn't gone public.

And it makes you wonder what Mr. Franken is going to now turn to as a profession…back into comedy? I can imagine him hosting a show not unlike Bill Maher's or maybe John Oliver's. I can also imagine him staying in government in some capacity. He's too smart and too funny to disappear for long. I figure there will at least be a book.

Meanwhile, a lot of folks quoted or tweeted this line I had here the other day…

In other news, it's starting to look like Republicans will be welcoming an accused pedophile into the Senate around the same time the Democrats are getting rid of a guy who sometimes gives unwanted hugs and kisses to adult women. You ever get the feeling that you're watching a game where the two sides are playing with different rule books?

What I meant by that is they're playing by different rule books. The Trump one, which has been adopted by most of the G.O.P., is that everything's acceptable as long as you win…or can at least claim a win. If you have to lie to win, you lie. If you have to change the rules, you change the rules. If you have to support a pedophile, you support the pedophile. It may not be right but losing is wronger.

I can almost understand a certain kind of voter who thinks like this: They don't like the idea of electing someone with Roy Moore's sexual history and would condemn him mightily for it if he was a Democrat. But they see things like abortion as a far greater evil and/or are terrified that their religion and guns will be taken from them. If voting for Moore can help them in those capacities — and if they can find a way to view the accusations against him as bogus or even arguable — they can view a "win" for their side as the greater good.

We all make those rationalizations to some extent. Those of us who favor Gay Rights backed a guy named Obama who for a long time insisted that a marriage was between one man and one woman. What's varies is how much we're willing to fib to others (and ourselves) and not play fair to get to our wins. In Trumpworld, you don't let anything stop you.

Last night, I went to see Something Rotten!, which is playing in downtown L.A. at the Ahmanson through December 31. A woman sitting behind us kept announcing in a too-loud voice that she'd heard it had been extended into 2018 but I just checked and I see it opens in Sacramento on January 2 so I don't think she knew what she was talking about. The tour continues from there to Salt Lake City, then Ft. Worth, then Hershey, PA followed by many other places. Here's the list. If it wanders your way, go see it because I highly recommend it.

It's the story of two brothers who in the year 1595 are competing with William Shakespeare to make a splash in the theater. This is one of those "the less I tell you about the plot, the more you'll like it" things so I'll just say that their struggle affords ample opportunity for catchy musical numbers, a serviceable romantic sub-plot, very clever costumes, and a lot of funny stuff, much of it references to modern-day theater. At one point, I got a little weary of the anachronisms but then, lo and behold, they came up with some that were so funny, I forgave them.

The cast is quite wonderful, especially Rob McClure and Josh Grisetti as the two brothers and Adam Pascal as Shakespeare. And there's a number in the first act called "A Musical" which some of you may have caught in a truncated version on the Tony Awards show a few years back. In fact, they made it the opening. It's as hilarious and fine as any song I've ever seen on a stage and the biggest problem with the show is that Act Two can't quite keep up the batting average of Act One. You will enjoy the evening or matinee the most if you know a little about musical comedy history and a lot about Shakespeare, though neither is required.

Some of you may remember that I originally had tickets for 11/28 and then I got an invite to the Len Wein Memorial at the Writers Guild and it was that night. So I sold those tickets and bought a pair for last night. When we got to our seats, there was a little gift-wrapped packet on mine and I assumed it was a mistake. No mistake. Inside was a tiny Something Rotten! notebook and a note that said, in part…

Mr. Evanier,
We can't help but notice that you're coming to multiple performances of Something Rotten! We hope you're enjoying the show, and wanted to thank you for your ongoing support of our work at the Ahmanson Theater.

That's a nice gesture and it will be even nicer if it isn't followed by endless phone calls trying to get me to subscribe…which I might do if all their productions were as good as this one. In any case, I noticed a lot of these little gift packets on other seats so that's a good indicator that other people are liking this show as much as I did.

The fires all over Southern California have me quite depressed. They're nowhere near me but I wish (a) we spent more money in this country on disaster preparedness and (b) news people thought that covering something like this was not so much about showing destroyed homes and interviewing the poor people whose homes have been destroyed. I also think someone has told them that viewers are more interested in hearing about how animals have been rescued than in how people have been rescued.

I wouldn't make a good TV news reporter. I wouldn't want to bother people in what might well be the worst moments of their lives and I'd feel compelled to put down the microphone and try to help the victims or something.

In other news, it's starting to look like Republicans will be welcoming an accused pedophile into the Senate around the same time the Democrats are getting rid of a guy who sometimes gives unwanted hugs and kisses to adult women. You ever get the feeling that you're watching a game where the two sides are playing with different rule books?

I have to clear my mind of all this and finish what is at least supposed to be a funny script, then I have tickets to a play which I wish I could postpone. So don't expect much here the rest of today. As I say each Christmas when people give me gifts I don't want, I shall return.

This just in from Douglass Abramson…

I did a little poking around, out of curiosity, and I'm pretty sure that the video comes from the 1979 Society of West End Theatre Awards. (I've also seen it called the London Theatre Awards and officially changed to the Laurence Olivier Awards in 1984) Channing was nominated in the Best Actress in a Musical category.

Thank you, Douglass!

I'm not certain what this is from but it's Carol Channing doing the "Hello, Dolly" number at some function in London in 1979. What more do we need to know?

The Trump Administration is opposing laws that say that a business — like a baker of wedding cakes who won't bake them for gay weddings — shouldn't be free to discriminate. Its stance is probably because Trump believes this is what his base wants but I suspect it's also because Trump believes that the owner of a business should be able to do any damned thing he wants. Jeffrey Toobin reports on the arguments before the Supreme Court.

The Trump/G.O.P. tax bill may not be quite as much a "done deal" as most folks assume. John Cassidy explains why.

So now we're hearing that Robert Mueller is looking into at least some of the financials of Donald Trump and his associates. There are lots of folks out there arguing that Donald Trump is a great president, a man of God, a pillar of integrity. I suspect there darn near zero of the folks saying such things are confident that a probe into his finances will not reveal a string of dirty deeds — the kind that are done dirt cheap.

Matt Yglesias says that Democrats are decrying the wrong things about the tax bill. What's bad is the way it hurts poor folks and others who need the social safety net. What's not bad (necessarily) is how it grows the deficit…or so Yglesias says.

And finally: We're down now to the point where Roy Moore's defenders are saying, in effect, "Yeah, but let's give him some credit for all the teen-age girls he didn't molest!"