Monthly Archives: March 2013

Sunday at WonderCon was a bit less crowded than the first two days. An exhibitor there said something interesting to me about that. He claimed he made more sales when the room was at around 70-80% of capacity than he did when it was at 100%. "When it starts getting really packed in there," he said, "people can't and don't see as much of the con. They skip crowded aisles, get tired out sooner, go down aisles without being able to see half of what's there. When it's like this, most people can wander by and see what I'm selling." Makes sense, I guess. Even when it was at capacity though, it didn't seem that difficult to me to get around in that hall.

A lot of the talk was not about what WonderCon was but what it may be. Based on this past weekend, it certainly seems to have the potential to turn into a near-clone of the Comic-Con International in San Diego. I don't think it could ever be quite as big. For one thing, in San Diego, we pretty much take over that whole part of the city — every hotel, every restaurant, etc. Around the Anaheim Convention Center, we could never be anything but a supplement to the Disneyland traffic. On the other hand, if I were a publicist promoting a new movie or TV show, I bet it would be a lot easier to get my stars and/or showrunners down to Anaheim for a day as opposed to San Diego.

The folks who run both conventions plan to continue trying to run both conventions — perhaps with a greater distance from each other in dates — and to re-establish WonderCon in San Francisco at some other point in the year. Personally, I'd be happy to do Anaheim in March, San Diego in July and San Francisco in November. They'd also need to squeeze the annual A.P.E. — Alternative Press Expo — in there somewhere.

My favorite moment of the weekend? Well, I really enjoyed the presentation I did today about Writing for Animation. They scheduled it for a room I thought was way too big but we had enough folks there that it didn't seem empty at all. It was just me babbling on about the cartoon business for 55 minutes but from the stage, I saw a lot of expressions that seemed to suggest, "Hey, this might be useful." I hope it was. I don't like to discourage anyone but I do think it helps to knock down the kind of optimism that is based on fantasy, not reality. It's real easy to tell beginners and wanna-bes what they want to hear, especially if (as I don't), you're also selling classes on how to attain that particular dream. Personally, I always prefer to understand what I'm up against. Then the points in which you can find reason for optimism become ever so much more real and it's easier to capitalize on them.

I also enjoyed wandering around outside the hall where there were some food trucks and a general party/gathering in progress. There were many folks in costume, including an Aquaman whose outfit made him look so gay, he should have been lounging on the bottom of Elton John's swimming pool.

There were a few folks with large yellow placards warning all to "Repent and Accept Jesus." I saw one gent saying over and over to people who snubbed him or made rude remarks, "We're not the Westboro Baptist Idiots, honest" and I couldn't resist asking, "What have those folks done for your cause?" He said, "Set us back to the stone age." I said, "You mean, before Jesus?" He chuckled and said, "I guess so." I have a certain limited respect for anyone who cares about a belief to make that kind of effort but I find it hard to believe that any human being has ever considered accepting Jesus Christ or any religious premise because of anything done by a guy with a sign standing outside a comic book convention amidst people dressed like Star Wars troopers and members of the Legion of Super-Heroes.

I'll probably think of other good moments in the days to come. And I'll tell you about an interesting lunch I had on the way home.

Okay, I'm up now, getting ready to head back for another day of WonderConning. At 12:30, I'm giving a talk on How to Write Animation so I have a little more than three hours in which to learn.

One thing that struck me about the convention here is this: Folks often complain the comic book conventions these days don't have enough comics for sale. That's not the fault of the convention operators who are presumably not refusing to sell space to dealers who want to sell comics. Some of those dealers have simply found eBay and other outlets to be better ways to sell their wares.

Something I don't think many people have ever realized about the folks who haul long boxes of old comics to conventions is how hard it is. I mean, how physically demanding and exhausting it is to load one's truck, drive it to the con, unload it, set up in the exhibit hall, tend the booth throughout the convention, then reverse the entire process at the end of the last day. Often, they do all this for non-vast amounts of money…and sometimes, they lose because buyers think, "Oh, that's a buck cheaper on eBay." On eBay, you're not paying for quite as much labor.

Anyway, what I've noted is that such exhibitors at WonderCon are not being replaced so much by the dread Big Hollywood but by individual artisans — people who've designed delightful (often) dolls or jewelry or art prints. There are two or three dealers down there selling superb, homemade Henson-style hand puppets. And there are of course some fine small-press self-published comics. A lot of them. There's nothing wrong with people selling comics and books that others made but there's something a bit special about people selling unique items that they themselves made.

I don't recall if I've mentioned this but a few Comic-Cons ago, some friends of Carolyn's attended — friends who didn't strike me as all that interested in comic books or even most of the movies and videogames and such being hawked. They loved it and when I asked them what they found of such interest, the reply was, "It's so exciting to be around all these creative people…all these people who've drawn something or made something." One said, "It makes me want to run home and write or draw something." Everywhere they looked, they saw that.

That's a lot of what I'm seeing here at WonderCon…creative folks creating. There's a beauty to that even if you don't particularly want to buy any one person's wares. I loitered a while at one table where someone — I think it may have been a small-team effort — had these wonderful, funny stuffed animal toys. They were small creatures with the most wonderful silly, organic expressions and if I had room in my home to display one more thing larger than a Rice Krispie, I would have purchased several. As it was, I watched one convention attendee spot them, fall in love and instantly buy all the ones I would have bought.

I like that about conventions. In my youth, I always used to cringe at the use of the term, "contact high," which I guess denoted some sort of osmosis-related transfer of the effects of some drug. It came to mean any sort of sharing of good feelings and I guess it's applicable to this. It is exciting to be around talented, enterprising people. Perhaps it evokes some jealousy or resentment but when it has the opposite effect, it can make you feel awfully good. I'm not sure I could ever make an adorable hand-sewn frog like the ones I saw at that booth but I sure admire the people who did. And I sure like being in a convention hall full of them.

And now if you'll excuse me, I have to pack my gear, stow it in my car, grab something to eat, get to the con and figure out how to write cartoons. I think it has something to do with finding reasons for characters to say, "Let's get out of here!" I'll talk to you more tonight when I get back to L.A. It oughta be an easy drive. How could the freeways around Disneyland possibly be crowded on Easter Sunday?

Friday sold out at WonderCon and so did Saturday. I don't know about Sunday when Easter may keep some away as folks attend services, prepare for dinners and/or look for hidden eggs. (By the way, Passover started last Monday and I still haven't found the danged Afikoman. And the embarrassing part is that I'm the one who hid it.)

In any case, the big story at WonderCon seems to be all about the big story at WonderCon: How huge it was, how it'll doubtlessly get bigger (we don't even have all the available space here at the convention center here in Anaheim yet). As big as the Comic-Con in San Diego? I doubt anyone who tried to navigate the floor space today in the exhibit hall would bet against that happening.

I'm having a great time…but then I always have a great time at WonderCon. More about that great time tomorrow. Right now, I have to go moderate a panel sleep.

This is a full episode (with commercials) of The Steve Allen Plymouth Show from 1960. The guest lineup includes Johnny Carson, a few years before he'd take over The Tonight Show, which of course was started by Mr. Allen. Also on board are Diana Dors, songwriter Johnny Mercer, comedienne Belle Montrose (Steve's mother) and Steve's little "stock company" of comics: Louis Nye, Pat Harrington, Dayton Allen, Don Knotts, Bill Dana and Gabe Dell. There are, alas, no credits but I'll betcha the writing crew consisted of not too many guys — possibly just Stan Burns and Mike Marmer plus maybe one other — Herb Sargent or Bill Dana — plus Steve. They did not put a vast amount of prep into these but they still managed to be quite entertaining. Take a gander, at least at the opening segment with Mr. Carson…

Dick Cavett, who knows a thing or three about late night talk shows, writes about the early days of J. Carson on The Tonight Show. He's quite right that they didn't go swimmingly and that many thought NBC had picked the wrong guy to succeed Jack Paar. Johnny did get the numbers though and eventually, he won over the critical voices that argued that Merv Griffin would have been a better choice.

Cavett refrains from mentioning it but among the reasons later on why some did not recognize Carson for the class act that he was…was Dick Cavett. I remember a time when Cavett, over on ABC in a competing time slot, was the witty, urbane guy preferred by critics and Carson was a hayseed from Nebraska whose only skill was nudging starlet guests into saying naughty things and then he'd make a face to the camera and/or utter some cheap double-entendre. Carson's stature now as the Undisputed Greatest Talk Show Host Ever was late in coming and only really solidified when he announced his retirement. Once upon a time, his ratings victories over Cavett were prima facie evidence to some that America was a nation of dolts.

In this and other recent articles, Cavett quotes Johnny as having second thoughts about his decisions to relocate The Tonight Show from Manhattan to Burbank and later to trim it from 90 minutes to an hour. I've no doubt he said those things to Cavett but at times, he said the opposite to others…and he had it well within his power to reverse both choices and didn't. Personally, I always regretted the change to an hour because it eliminated too many guests who weren't there just to plug their new movie. The conversations all seemed more rushed…more eager to get on to the punchline. The trend on talk shows away from conversation to recitations of pre-interviews didn't start with Jay and Dave. It started when Johnny went to an hour.

I zigged when I shoulda zagged and posted the wrong video in the previous link. It has now been corrected with the proper one. I hope.

Here's another episode of Twenty One, a rigged game show from the fifties. This is the episode in which the producers decided the time had come to get rid of their longtime champ, Herbert Stempel. He was deemed unappealing and "too New York" (i.e., Jewish) and they wanted to have him knocked off by this new guy, Charles Van Doren, and then have Van Doren go on to become an even bigger champion. Stempel was ordered to throw the question, "What motion picture won the Academy Award for 1955?" Stempel knew it was Marty but was forced to give a wrong answer and go bye-bye. You can see this occur about ten minutes into the show.

He later got mad over the whole thing, especially when the producers didn't make good on some promises of other work he believed they'd made to him. He wound up testifying against the show, revealing its backstage shenanigans, and that had a lot to do with bringing the whole thing crashing down. Some say a key motive was that he was jealous of what a huge hero and winner Van Doren became in the months following and felt all that should have been his. Van Doren confessed later in front of a Congressional subcommittee and was convicted of perjury for earlier testimony. He largely kept silent thereafter until just a few years ago when he wrote this article on what really transpired.

Anyway, you can see Herb Stempel take a dive and Charles Van Doren begin his winning streak in this episode brought to you once again by Geritol — a tonic that is still made and marketed, though with less grandiose claims than its makers made for it back when this show was done…

I meant what I said: I'm not believing any of the predictions from so-called experts as to how the Supreme Court will rule on the Gay Marriage issues brought before it. Actually, there are so many different forecasts out there that one of 'em must be right. But I'm not getting my hopes up or down until the verdict comes down. Come to think of it, back when the Obamacare ruling came down, a lot of the pundits were wrong about it for about the first five minutes they actually had it in hand.

I did read the arguments and I'll say what I said about the courtroom arguments that got California's Proposition 8 overturned: If I were a fierce opponent of Gay Marriage, I'd suspect someone had paid the guy representing my side to throw the case. Then again, I'd also figure that going in, we had four Supreme Court justices locked up versus four we'd never get…and that the swing guy probably already knew where he wanted to go and was just figuring how to get there. Remember the good ol' days when we could at least pretend that members of the Supreme Court were open-minded?

I hereby give up ordering hamburgers medium. They never come out that way. The last chef who knew what the word "medium" means retired or died some time in the late eighties. Now, "medium" means "well done but not quite as well done as if they'd asked for well done."

I think the change has something to do with those occasional reports of a restaurant being closed down or sued or killing someone because they used cheap, old beef and didn't cook it long enough. A few stopped offering anything less grilled than "well done" at all and the rest upped every stage a notch. Rare became medium. Medium became well done. Well done is now somewhere between a burned rice cake and a hockey puck. Today, if you want your burger rare, you have to ask for a cow and a food processor.

Also, we need an official unit of measure for ketchup. Unless you use the real thin stuff, it comes out of a glass bottle in little globules, one globule per shake once you get it started properly. I propose we call these globules "glumps." Personally, I like about three glumps on an average-sized hamburger, plus I put at least four, maybe six glumps on the plate so I can drag my fries through them and dip my burger on occasion. A good burger-and-fries meal requires a good 7-9 glumps.

Those little glass Heinz bottles they give you on a hotel room service tray hold approximately 1.3 glumps apiece but about a third of the ketchup clings to the inside of the bottle and never comes out. So you're lucky to get four-fifths of a glump out of one of them.  Someone has to do something about this.

Wanna watch a rigged game show? I was talking here the other day about how game shows today are becoming less and less unplanned. I don't think it's quite the federal case that was made of such goings-on in the fifties but it might be nice if, for example, the folks sitting in the audience for a taping who think they might get picked to play during the show knew that the contestants who would be selected had all been pre-selected days in advance. Or that those contestants were all professional actors who'd been coached in how to act on camera when they played the game. (The game parts, at least, seem to be non-rehearsed and those who play win or lose on their own hunches. The sneaky part is that the selection process isn't as random and open and immediate as it's made out to be.)

Once upon a time, the outcome of some shows — usually of a quiz variety — were planned to the point of giving answers to contestants and ordering certain ones to throw the game when it seemed like a good time for them to go. You may remember this all being depicted in the movie, Quiz Show. And if you remember that film, you may recall a scene where a federal investigator goes to visit past contestants on the show Twenty One and one of them hands him an envelope. That contestant, for reasons not explained wanted to be able to prove he'd gotten answers in advance so he had mailed himself (but never opened) a letter containing the questions from one appearance. The postmark on the letter proved he'd had them before the date of that show.

Well, that contestant was James Snodgrass and this is an episode of Twenty One on which he appeared.

As I said, it wasn't explained, at least in the movie, why he did this. The answer may have something to do with what opens this episode. Snodgrass had lost, apparently as planned, on a previous episode. Then the producers received a flood of phone calls informing them that the wrong answer that cost him the game was actually correct. They had no choice but to bring him back for a return match and have him lose with a real wrong answer…which he does here. I'm guessing Snodgrass may have thought he was being double-crossed in some way so he sent the envelope to himself in case he ever felt the need to blackmail the producers. Why he handed it over to authorities, I don't quite understand.

But here's the show. Jack Barry is the host. The sponsor is Geritol, a tonic which turned out to be about as big a fraud as many of the quiz shows it sponsored…

I actually made it all the way through that Phil Spector movie. I expected something that was dramatically exciting — it being Pacino and all — but which would upset me in the way it warped history in an attempt to rehabilitate Spector's rep. What I got: Neither, exactly. I thought it was kinda dull, starting as it did after the murder, ending before the verdict. I mean, Pacino's usually interesting. He was interesting in that movie where Dr. Jack Kevorkian was depicted as an Al Pacino impressionist and he's sort of interesting in this film where Phil Spector is depicted as an Al Pacino impressionist. The man's a great actor in many ways but he's become a bit too Al Pacino to effectively play anyone else. It's too bad Spielberg didn't star him in Lincoln. It would have been fun to see Abe sound and act just like Al Pacino.

The advance press and reviews said the movie distorted reality to try and raise a reasonable doubt that Spector killed Lana Clarkson. It did try…but you know what? I think you could show that movie to an unbiased jury and they'd still say he dunnit. The explanation — that she stuck the gun in her mouth on her own and then pulled the trigger when Spector yelled for her to stop that — sounded absurd before this and it loses even more credibility when you hear Pacino as Spector say it aloud. Yes, of course that's how people die. They go to someone else's house, ask to see their gun and then stick it in their own mouths and pull the trigger. It was just Spector's bad luck that it happened to him — a man with a history of threatening women with guns if they wanted to leave.

Did I miss it or did the film not mention that Lana was found with her purse over her shoulder? You know, like the way women have it when they want to leave? And did the movie not mention that she had a scheduled appearance to sign autographs at a convention the next morning at 11 AM so she couldn't stay too late? I think it's still an open-and-shut case without those but they are key points.

They did mention what the defense thought was Spector's "smoking gun" to prove he hadn't fired the smoking gun. His white suit, they said, was found with almost no blood spatter on it when, if he'd been close enough to pull the trigger, it should have been drenched. In the movie, Spector and his lawyers are certain he will walk if they can do a demonstration of this with dummies in the courtroom or otherwise impress that fact upon the jury…but they don't get to do that. I guess writer-director David Mamet spent so much time on that because he wanted to prove Spector's innocence to people watching his movie but if so, he undermines the value of that as "evidence." There's a scene with the defense team's forensic expert being rehearsed on what he'll say on the stand. He keeps wanting to say that 95% of the time if you shot someone in the mouth, you'd wind up covered with blood. Helen Mirren, playing Spector's most ardent attorney, has to admonish the expert not to admit that 5% of the time, you wouldn't be covered.

So much for that as solid proof Spector didn't do it.

The film is not only an ugly case for Spector's innocence, it's a bad case for it. Over and over, we hear that he's being prosecuted because he's rich and famous and the proof that happens is…what? Spector wasn't that famous except maybe in his own mind. A jury could easily be selected of folks who'd never heard of him. There's no history of suspected murderers being indicted because they were celebrities. There is a long history of police in the Los Angeles area giving preferential treatment to celebrities and they sure waited a long time before indicting a man that everyone knew was probably guilty from the moment the crime was reported. And even if somehow, rich/famous folks are more likely to be prosecuted when suspicious murders happen around them, the "famous" disadvantage gets offset by the "rich" advantage. They can hire legal Dream Teams — the best money can buy.

I'm going to get off this because I doubt many folks reading this who care about this case think Spector was railroaded. I was just kind of amazed — and in a sense, relieved — that even slanting the facts to prove the guy innocent didn't prove him innocent. And I was amazed that the film was such a waste of time as drama. About all I learned was that Phil Spector does a decent impression of Al Pacino.

WonderCon starts tomorrow in the lovely city of Anaheim, California.  It's staged by the same able folks who bring you the annual Comic-Con International in San Diego and it's just as much fun in its own way.  This is not a small convention.  It just seems small compared to Comic-Con.  Then again, so does Delaware.  Here's a reminder of the programming events on which you'll find the likes of me…

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.

When I'm not involved in programming, I'll be wandering the convention floor.  If you see me, say some synonym of "hello."

Merv Griffin — there's a name you don't hear much these days — used to tell a story that went something like this: Back when he was a game show host, he lobbied for some time and finally got the opportunity to guest-host Jack Paar's show. This was The Tonight Show but for a while there, it wasn't called that. It was called The Jack Paar Show.

Anyway, they didn't do it like this during Mr. Carson's tenure but when Griffin guest-hosted, he was told it was largely up to him to put the show together that night. He had to pick the guests and he had to bring in his own writers to supply anything that had to be written. For one of his guests, he decided to book a new comedian that Paar didn't like. I'm not clear on whether the comedian had ever been on with Paar but he was on the host's "I don't want him on my show" list. Griffin was cautioned about Paar's feelings but insisted on booking the comedian anyway. The comedian — and you've probably figured out by the heading on the clip below that it was Woody Allen — scored big. Paar not only had him on after that but would sometimes take credit for discovering him.

I'm not saying I believe this but that's what Merv said.

Paar's last few months on that series, NBC renamed it The Jack Paar Tonight Show so as to re-establish the Tonight name. He left the show at the end of March, 1962 and then debuted in a weekly prime-time hour called The Jack Paar Program on September 21 of that same year. This episode is from December 14, a few months later. Allen had been booked and bumped a time or two from the show so that night, Paar turned over the opening monologue spot to him. Here's how it went…

For those of you intrigued by what's up with Jay Leno, the Hollywood Reporter has a pretty good article up. Here — go read it and then I'll tell you a few thoughts I have about it. I'll wait.

Back? Okay. One of the main things I'm hearing from folks "inside" all this is that the switchover from Leno to Fallon doesn't have as much to do with getting a younger audience as some are making out. As the article notes, the median age of a Fallon viewer is 53.3 whereas a Leno viewer clocks in at 58. Put Fallon on earlier and his audience would get a bit older and the gap would be even narrower. My friends tell me an awful lot of this is about the relative cost of the two shows. The new owners of NBC, Comcast, want cheaper programming and Fallon's cheaper. I don't think that's all of it but I think it's some of it and this article is the first time I've seen that mentioned.

The article cites the rumor that Seth Meyers would be in line to take over Late Night once Fallon moved up. I'm hearing that's possible but that a plan is circulating within NBC to replace Fallon with…no one. They could save even more money by making The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon ninety minutes. What this would mean for Carson Daly is beyond me.

What's probably happening right now is a negotiation between Leno's lawyer and NBC over when the change would occur…and perhaps more importantly, when Jay would be contractually free to begin entertaining and negotiating other offers. As the article notes, he is said to have this huge penalty payment built into his contract, the penalty to be paid if NBC yanks him off the air before the expiration of the pact. If they want to change horses before September of '14, they need to haggle over that amount, which means they need to haggle over when Jay can start formal talks with Fox and any other suitors. They're probably also discussing whether Jay will be a great sport or if he'll spend the rest of his Tonight Show days likening NBC executives to pythons.

The Reporter also has a piece by Jimmy Brogan, who was one of Jay's writers for quite some time — the main guy on monologue duty — arguing that Jay should keep his job at NBC because he's funny. I know folks who'll argue, "He's not," but remember that Brogan is talking partly about the past. Also, Jimmy opens for Jay at the Comedy and Magic Club in Hermosa Beach on most Sundays. I don't think too many folks would find what Jay does down there or in Vegas these days unfunny.

An interesting discussion I've had with some other folks who write or perform mirth for a living is to what extent the difference between what Jay does in those venues and what he does on The Tonight Show is a matter of "dumbing-down" his act for the room. A lot of it may be just that the commitment to a long monologue every night means coming up with a hell of a lot of material every week…and performing it for the first and only time before all of America with no chance to test it out, break it in, etc. The comedian Steve Landesberg used to say that in one week, Johnny Carson used up more material in his monologue than he [Landesberg] developed in 20+ years of doing stand-up in clubs. Because he does five nights a week and a longer monologue, Jay does about twice as many jokes as even Johnny did.

Most talk show hosts really don't attempt it at all. Letterman seems to be making a joke out of how perfunctory his monologue is, repeating the same joke from night to night. (You can almost hear him saying to himself of his studio audience, "These people will laugh at anything.") Fallon, O'Brien and the others all seem to treat the monologue as some necessary ritual they have to get through at the opening of their programs before the real show begins. Craig Ferguson is a separate category I'll address in some other posting here. The only guys on right now who I think really try to do an actual, long monologue are Leno and Bill Maher — and Maher's only on once a week.

One other note in the Reporter article: Its writer says of the odd square dance 'twixt and Leno and O'Brien: "…while Leno remained mostly silent during the Conan debacle — even as his rivals and the media pushed a Leno-as-villain narrative — this time he fueled the flames of speculation." I understand the vested interest that guys like Letterman and Kimmel had in trashing the guy who was beating them in the ratings — and I lost a load of respect for Dave for stooping to that. I also understand the ways in which O'Brien feels he was wronged by NBC. They aren't all that different from the way lots of stars and producers feel when the network loses faith in their show, perhaps foolishly. What I've never understood is what anyone thinks Jay did that was unethical or sleazy. That is, unless you think that once a person has had a great job for X years, they're under some moral imperative to voluntarily pass it on to someone else. (If that's the rule, when do I get to host Jeopardy!?)

I've discussed this with others in the TV industry and none of them seem to understand it, either. Would someone like to try explaining this to me? It has to be an explanation that isn't based largely on the premise that Conan's Tonight Show was so much better than Jay's because, first off, I don't think it was. And secondly, even if it was, that's not the way things ever work in the entertainment industry. The network might fire a host because they think that but the host is under no obligation to quit because someone else thinks he's not as good. Also, Conan's Tonight Show was not destroyed by the bad lead-in from The Jay Leno Show. O'Brien was getting weak numbers before that ill-fated show of Jay's debuted…and if Jay hadn't been on at 10 PM getting low ratings, something else would have been there getting low ratings…as most of what's there now does. The job description of hosting The Tonight Show involves following whatever unsuccessful show NBC has on at 10:00 and it will remain a handicap whenever James Fallon has to try it.

I have no problem with those who don't find Leno funny. I like some of what he does and cringe or yawn at a lot of it. I'm a little mystified at those who can't grasp that an awful lot of America loves what this guy does and that he's outlived 20+ years of predictions that his show couldn't sustain the numbers it's sustained. I never liked Star Trek but it would be kinda sightless for me to then leap to the conclusion that no one else does. Anyone want to take a crack at telling me what heinous thing Jay Leno did that warrants folks on the Internet deriding him as evil, scheming, backstabbing, etc.?

Even if you've seen this before, it's worth another look…