There's this controversy going on regarding writer-editor Roy Thomas being newly named as a co-creator of the Marvel character Wolverine. It's raging on several comic book forums and it's the kind of discussion I don't like — the kind that involves people I like and respect fighting with other people I like and respect. There are folks on the 'net who seem to enjoy watching others fight. They often remind me of the sentiment expressed by the eminent philosopher and hamburger-eater, J. Wellington Wimpy…

I don't like those fights. I said most of what I had to say about the Wolverine matter in Part 1 of this series of articles. Then in Part 2, I talked about how creator credits have often been a problem in the comic book industry. I'm writing this part because in the back-and-forth over Wolverine, someone on Facebook reposted a hunk of an interview Roy did some years ago. Read it and then I'll tell you why it struck a major chord with me. This is Roy…

I remember Stan [Lee] and I got into a good-natured argument ten years ago in L.A. I wasn't even working for Marvel at the time, and we had lunch. He talked about people like Stephen J. Cannell and television, saying if Cannell comes up with a general idea, and wants a few people running around doing this and that, and calls them the A-Team, he's created that. It says "Created by Stephen Cannell."

And I said yes, but that's a function of power, not of creativity. It means Stephen Cannell has the power to say he created that thing alone, and other people buy into that by agreeing to sell their work for work-for-hire, or for other financial deals. But it doesn't mean he really created the whole thing just because it says so on paper. That's a legal thing. It's caused by his power; you either play by his rules or you don't play. It doesn't mean he really created the A-Team all by himself.

I heard that theory from Stan not once, not twice but at least four friggin' times over a couple decades. We'd get to talking about how I felt Jack Kirby (and others) deserved consistent creator credits on Marvel properties — properties for which if anyone had been so credited, it was usually Stan alone.

Stan's position on who first suggested what changed from time to time, at least with me. Sometimes, in private, he could be surprisingly generous about such matters. But when he was in his "everything started with an idea from me" mode, he would say the same thing he said to Roy; that he deserved sole creator credit the same way Stephen J. Cannell got sole credit as the creator of The A-Team (and before that, The Rockford Files) because he had the initial idea.

Each time, I would tell Stan he was wrong. In fact, he was wrong two ways: The creator credits on a TV show are not determined on that basis and Mr. Cannell did not have sole credit as the creator of either show. If I'd been present when Roy told him the above, I would have told Roy that he was wrong too. In many areas, comics sometimes included, someone does exercise power to claim credit for the work of others but not on television shows produced under the Writers Guild contract.

This is not something new. The Writers Guild won the right to determine credits back in 1942 and it was a long, hard-fought battle but one the Screen Writers Guild (as it was then called) felt was necessary. Before that, you could write a script and the head of the studio could award the screen credit to his idiot nephew or himself or anyone. The actress Mae West famously, as a deal point in some of the contracts for films in which she starred, demanded that she receive the "Written by…" credit no matter who actually wrote the movie.

That's the kind of thing Roy was talking about when he mentioned credits being awarded as power plays…and it has happened in comics. But since '42, creator credits and writing credits on TV shows have been determined via a strict credits manual and principles established by the Guild. The rules have sometimes been refined and changed but there are rules…rules Mr. Cannell, by virtue of his long experience writing television, understood and played by. I'm going to simplify the rules way down here for you. On a TV series, they almost always have to do with who wrote the first episode, sometimes referred to as "the pilot."

If the show is based on existing material, the proper credit for the resultant series is usually not "Created by" but "Developed for Television by…" Example: The TV series M*A*S*H was based on a book and a movie. Larry Gelbart wrote the pilot that launched the series. Therefore, every episode of the series had the following credit…

This does not mean no one else contributed anything and Mr. Gelbart often spoke of how much input he got from Gene Reynolds, who was the guy who hired him. Somewhere in there, I'd wager, there were ideas and suggestions from Alan Alda and various folks at the studio and the network. It was not even Larry's idea to base a sitcom on the book and/or movie.

If the show is not based on existing material, the proper credit is "Created by…" For instance, the pilot for The A-Team was written by Frank Lupo and Stephen J. Cannell. Ergo, the creator credits on the series read as follows…

So Stan was wrong that Stephen Cannell is the creator of the A-Team because he had the original idea. Cannell may have had the original idea or maybe Frank Lupo had it or maybe they had it together or maybe someone at NBC said to one or both of them, "Y'know, we might be interested in a show about a bunch of people running around doing this and that." The creator credit doesn't tell us who had the idea. It tells us who took that idea and fleshed it out into a workable script for a first episode — one on which others could later build.

Like I said, I told Stan this over and over…and each time, he'd say, "Oh, that's interesting" and then a year or two or five later, I'd be telling him how I thought Jack should be credited as the co-creator of Fantastic Four and Hulk and X-Men and about eighty million other comics 'n' characters that many of us could itemize…

…and Stan would tell me that if Stephen Cannell comes up with a general idea, and wants a few people running around doing this and that, and calls them the A-Team, he's created that and it says "Created by Stephen Cannell" and then I had to explain it to him again. And meanwhile, Roy was wrong that the credit was a function of power. Cannell didn't own the studio for which he and Roy Huggins wrote the pilot for The Rockford Files. But since they did write the pilot, the "Created by" credits on that show looked like this…

As I understand it — and I don't think Huggins and Cannell had differing versions of this — it was Huggins who came up with the basic idea after James Garner said something like "I'd like to do a TV series where I play a detective." Huggins then wrote an outline and then Cannell wrote the teleplay. You'll notice that no part of the "Created by…" credit goes to James Garner. He was not a writer of the pilot.

The Guild bases all its determinations on "literary material." A lot of people have thought that they were entitled to a writer or creator credit on a TV show or movie because they claimed to have verbally tossed out an idea somewhere at some point. They may indeed have come up with an idea but they didn't write it down. It was never turned into "literary material," which the Guild defines thusly…

Literary material is written material and shall include stories, adaptations, treatments, original treatments, scenarios, continuities, teleplays, screenplays, dialogue, scripts, sketches, plots, outlines, narrative synopses, routines, and narrations, and, for use in the production of television film, formats.

Note the phrase: Written material. If you'd like to read the whole credits manual, it's available to read online or download here.

I am not bringing all this up to suggest that these rules should be applied to comic book creations of the past or even the present. No one ever agreed to that and I have a hard time believing that there will ever be a universally-accepted credits manual for comic books.

Still, if anyone ever wants to try assembling one, the Writers Guild model might be a good starting place. It's one of those "not a perfect system but it's the best we've got" things. It doesn't completely do away with arguments. It just cuts down on them and provides some standards for those discussions. There are still people who get furious and even litigious when they think they have been robbed of their rightful credit on a TV show or movie.

I was part of the Guild's Arbitration Committee on a couple of disputes where someone didn't like how we'd decided the credits should read and I was once…well, "furious" is way too strong a word. Let's say I was "disappointed" with the way the credits were decided on one project on which I worked. But I accepted the verdict and respected the process. I was glad we had a process because, like I said, it cuts down on situations where people I like and respect are fighting with other people I like and respect…like we have now over Wolverine, soon to be a major motion picture.

I have no idea who wrote the screenplay but the name (or names) you'll see on the screen will have been determined by a process developed over the years and employed on thousands of TV shows and movies. The process has been refined over the years and it's administered by neutral parties after studying all available written material and (probably) statements by participating writers at the time the movie is completed.

Meanwhile, the names you'll see credited as the creators of Wolverine will be there because one or more people in current management — people who weren't involved when the character was invented a half-century ago — made that decision. I wish comics didn't do it like that but, alas, they do.

TO READ THE NEXT PART IN THIS SERIES, CLICK HERE.

Here from a 1954 Jack Benny Program is a commercial for Lucky Strike cigarettes — with Mel Blanc and the Sportsmen Quartet…

Sorry for not posting anything yesterday and (possibly) only this today. It has nothing to do with the Donald Trump trial…which I am not trying to follow and certainly not in real time. Just busy. A long post about "creator" credits in television will be here as soon as I finish it, which I will do after I finish something else, which I will do after I finish something else. Your patience, as Alton Brown says, will be rewarded.

Livio Sellone, who sends me way too many questions, sent one I decided to answer here…

We all have heard of Jim Davis, right? The creator of the Garfield franchise! Ah…Good ol' Jim Davis. He gave birth to one of the greatest and most charismatic characters ever, Garfield, and his seemingly stupid pal Odie, whose purpose is to accompany Garfield on his many adventures and he's usually the victim of Garfield's nasty pranks. Jon Arbuckle is just a loser (just like you portrayed him in the Garfield and Friends cartoon), and I find him boring, so I don't feel the need to compliment Jim Davis for creating Jon Arbuckle.

So anyway…let's get to the point, old chap! I'm gonna ask you a very personal question: but how is Jim Davis as a person? Is he a nice and kind person? Just wanted to know. Is he../uhm.. (I don't want to be offensive) greedy as some people in the internet say? Cus, you know, he created Garfield with the sole purpose of making money. He knew Garfield would be a very marketable character.

How is Jim Davis as a person? You must have worked with him when you were writing episodes for Garfield and Friends and The Garfield Show.

Those two shows were by far the happiest experiences I ever had in the animation business and that would not have happened if Jim was not a very nice and very wise human being. I can't give him all the credit. Our other two Executive Producers — Lee Mendelson and Phil Roman — had a lot to do with it as did others. But all the benevolent, smart people in the world can't do much if the guy with Ultimate Veto Power is going to be non-benevolent and non-smart.

Yes, I worked a lot with Jim but he also gave me and others a lot of freedom and trust. I wish certain people I'd worked with in the cartoon biz could have seen the results and understood the correlation. The whole success story that is Garfield is not just because Jim hit on a great character. It's because he worked his tail off and also hired good people to assist and advise him and because — and this was key — he understood the appeal of his creation.

At other cartoon studios and in comics, I have worked with folks who owned or were in creative control of great characters and were clueless as to why people loved those characters. Just in the upper echelons of Hanna-Barbera — I'm talking now about people who had power there but weren't Bill or Joe — I worked for and with folks who viewed the output just as "product" and it was "product" they didn't (and probably couldn't ever) understand.

You often saw the results of this attitude in the cartoons but a better example of it was in the merchandising of Yogi, Scooby, Huck, Fred and Barney, and all the rest.  75% of it was badly-made, badly-designed, badly-drawn and often creatively wrong for the characters.  By contrast (and to my joy), there was no bad Garfield merchandise.  It was all well-made, well-designed, etc.  I watched Jim reject offers that the guys in that division of H-B would have grabbed.  There was a little closet in Jim's office building that held boxes of proposed Garfield toys and other merchandise that he'd rejected because its designers didn't meet the standards he demanded.  At Hanna-Barbera and a few other studios I worked for, they never rejected anything if the money was right.

So I got along great with Jim. Here's a very old photo of us together and — believe it or not — the person wearing the Garfield mask was Lorenzo Music. Honest…

I see Biden backers celebrating that he's even or slightly ahead in the latest polls. Calm down, everyone. I thought it was meaningless when those polls showed Trump a little ahead and it's just as meaningless now. Lots of things can and will happen before Election Day. If one of those guys was suddenly fifteen points ahead…okay, that might (might!) mean something. But that's unlikely to happen and we can still think of all sorts of game changing events that could swing the electorate wildly in one direction or another. It's too early to strap yourself into that roller coaster.

I'm sorry to hear that the Boston Market chain is teetering on extinction. Once upon a time, they were my favorite places to grab a quick meal, especially when I was in unfamiliar territory. This article by Emily Heil discusses the sad downfall of the brand but I can explain the decline even quicker: They just plain went from being good places to eat to being terrible places to eat.

I described my own "last straw" experience with them in this post and if you read that, make sure you read this follow-up. The nearest Boston Market to me now seems to be the one in Downey — a city that's 22 miles away and one which I never have any reason to visit. I'm not driving at the moment but if I was and if I had a reason to go to Downey, I don't think I'd count on that Boston Market even being there…or being worth patronizing.

This is the second part of at least three, probably) four. If you didn't read Part 1, read Part 1 first…

The current controversy over creator credits for the Marvel character Wolverine exists because the industry has always had a "thing" about creator credits. In the early days of comics, it wasn't a huge problem because the publishers kind of wanted their books to look like the strips that appeared in the newspapers. On the funny pages, Dick Tracy was inarguably "by Chester Gould" and Blondie was inarguably "by Chic Young," even if/when those two men employed assistants. Mutt & Jeff in the papers was "by Bud Fisher" even after Mr. Fisher had turned all the daily duties over to ghosts.

So in the then-new comic books, Superman was inarguably "by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster" and Batman was "by Bob Kane" even though both features were heavily assisted. Eventually though — maybe even around the time Jerry, Joe and Bob began asking for more money — most publishers got rid of creator credits. They were worried about having to pay more to someone whose name was linked to a popular feature. They were concerned about such a person demanding creative control or some say about the merchandising and exploitation of the property. They were frightened of a named "creator" being able to screw up or demand a chunk of the proceeds if the company and/or its intellectual property was sold…

…and they were especially panicked over the prospect of someone with a creator credit being able to make claims on the copyrights. Most of those creators were not legal employees but were regarded as pieceworkers and independent contractors. In some cases, their legal status vis-à-vis the publisher was kept vague, undefined and uncommitted to paper.

One of the dirty little secrets of the comic book business was — and this is largely past-tense — how little paperwork some publishers had to prove they owned what they claimed to own. You probably have more proof that you own your car than some putative owners of million-dollar comic book properties had at some point to prove they owned those properties.

Also in some cases, the guy who owned the company wanted himself listed as the creator of a hit property — for legal protection or maybe even just as a matter of ego.

Even as late as 1970 when Jack Kirby defected from Marvel to DC, he was unable to get a clause in his DC contract that said a new property created wholly by Jack Kirby would say "Created by Jack Kirby" on it. He was told they would never in a million/billion/zillion years ever allow that for anyone…but of course they eventually did. I got into comics in 1970 and heard even the great Mr. Kirby — who in hindsight, may have made his publishers more money than any other "independent contractor" ever in the field — told many, many things which could and would never be done for comic book writers or artists…

…but I can't think of one that they haven't since done. The business evolved to a point where creators got more rights and their names had value in selling the product. And also some of those properties became very, very valuable and the rights holders couldn't not share; not if they wished to attract the "name" talent that the customers were seeking.

But too many things were still kept ambiguous or explained not as contractual agreements but as "industry custom." There are properties that are obviously the creation of one person or one team. The books Jack Kirby created for DC in the seventies are a fine example…though even there, the gent who was then running DC tried occasionally to claim he was a (or even the) creator.

At one point, this exec claimed he was really the creator of Kamandi. I've said this before — even once under oath, I believe — but I worked on the first issue of Kamandi and I had more to do with it than that exec did. Still, I do not believe I am entitled to even a smidgen of creator credit on Kamandi. I had input and others had input but that comic book was created, right before my very eyes, by Mr. Jack Kirby.

One reason I feel this way is because I've worked in the television industry where a lot more money is riding on making this kind of determination. We'll be discussing how that works in the next part of this series.

TO READ THE NEXT PART IN THIS SERIES, CLICK HERE.

Comix journalist Heidi MacDonald did a three-part oral history with Trina Robbins. I haven't listened to it myself yet but I will. It's a way of spending a little more time with the late, lovely Trina.

The folks from Voctave perform one of my favorite show tunes — the title song from On A Clear Day, You Can See Forever. The lead vocalist is Tituss Burgess.

I didn't care much for the show but I think the lyrics for this number are about as perfect as song lyrics can be. In his autobiography, Alan Jay Lerner — the man who wrote those lyrics — wrote about how long it took him to write the words for "She's Not Thinking of Me," a song for the movie, Gigi. And what he wrote was…

I passionately wish I could say that outside of "Wouldn't It Be Loverly?", "She's Not Thinking of Me" took me longer to write than any other lyric. But it would not be "the vrai." Six years later I sat down to do the lyric for "On a Clear Day You Can See Forever." After two weeks of the usual run-of-the-mill torture, I realized that if I were ever to finish the rest of the score and complete the play I had better move on.

So I decided to allot the first three hours of every morning to working on that lyric and I did. Seven days a week. I finished it eight months later. During the eight-month period I wrote ninety-one complete lyrics and discarded them all. Several years ago a friend of mine who lives in Bar Harbor, Maine, in the summer wrote me a letter and told me that the minister at the local church had used the lyric as the text for his Sunday sermon. I wrote back and told him to tell the minister not to wait for the second chorus.

I think it was worth it…

Hey. remember that video I posted of an unaired special, Burlesque is Alive and Living in Beautiful Downtown Burbank? Well, Brent Seguine has some more info on it…

I've heard the pre-emption for "too risque" story too, I also once heard a claim that it was bumped by NBC News for a special report on Apollo 12, which splashed down earlier that day (Nov. 24).

Joe Besser's leather-bound script is in The Stoogeum. The script includes cast information for each sketch. Sheldon Leonard is not listed at all.

In addition to Besser, a 2nd stagehand was to be played by Johnny Puleo (of Harmonica Rascals fame). The scripted bits have the two arguing about who will do the stage work, while the other watches the showgirls.

In the striptease scene with Goldie Hawn, the bit was scripted for both Puleo and Besser. Puleo has a crush on Goldie and follows her onstage, Besser chases after him, and the two argue in the wings. As Goldie discards her costume, the gloves, the boa, and then the skirt fly offstage and hit Johnny. It ends with a shot of Puleo hit in the face with Goldie's bra.

Goldie was profiled in the June 1970 issue of Life. It says that the special had not yet aired, and was scheduled for a TBA sometime that summer.

The way the show was edited makes me suspect that they taped a lot of material that didn't make it in and that it was chopped up a lot before airing. And I suspect that NBC decided not to air it because they (a) expected protests and (b) didn't like the show and didn't think it was worth defending.

For those who don't know: The Stoogeum is an entire museum devoted to The Three Stooges. It's located in Ambler, PA which is about 40 minutes north of Philadelphia and no, I've never been there. I'll have to make a pilgrimage some day.

It's open only by appointment and you can find out more about it on this website. Brent Seguine is a recognized authority on Larry, Moe, Curly and Curly's replacements and as I understand it, Brent's one of the people behind the place.

Having spent way too much of my life following and reading about the O.J. Simpson Murder Case, I feel like I should have something pithy and interesting to say on this, the day his death has been announced. But I don't. Nothing clever, nothing incisive, nothing witty, nothing worth posting here. Except maybe this…

As you can see, I'm well aware I paid too much attention to that trial. And I'm probably about to make the same mistake with Mr. Trump's.

A piece of the marquee on the Ed Sullivan Theater — a piece removed when Letterman moved out and Colbert moved in — was raffled off for a good cause. Dave L. and his longtime producer Barbara Gaines delivered it themselves to its new owner. Well, there was a moving van involved but they went along. I don't recall the last time we saw Dave looking this happy…

New York Times obit for Trina Robbins.

Did I make it clear what a delightful person she was? The only downside of knowing her was because I also know the great comedy writer Treva Silverman — another funny and delightful lady. At least once, I called Trina "Treva" and at least once, I called Treva "Trina." It's kinda like David Letterman's Uma/Oprah joke.

Beautiful…talented…important…I don't know which quality of Trina I should start with. I'll start with important. Trina Robbins was one of those cartoonists who did things that mattered. No one did more to elevate the awareness of and the opportunities for females in the realm of cartooning and comic art. And along the way she did not neglect the males; did not neglect anyone or anything worthy of attention. One of the first times I met her, she touted me on a bevy of underground cartoonists of both genders whose work, she said, I might enjoy and she was right on all counts. Her Wikipedia page is a long, long list of books she worked on and causes for which she fought and usually won.

She loved talent and had plenty of it herself. Go over that list and pay attention to the books that she wrote and/or drew. Most of 'em were the kind of books that changed things for the better. I was especially fond of a short-run book she did for Marvel called Misty which showed uncommon insight into the dreams and motives of young women. Most comics of that genre you could tell were written by someone who was no longer young and had never been (or maybe even understood) a woman. Trina was young enough at heart…or maybe she just had a good memory…to make that comic what all comics for that market share should have been.

It was just a pleasure to know her…to talk with her…to dine with her. If this reads like I'm a little in shock, I am. We heard she was ill but she was one of those people who just seemed too full of life to ever run out of it. My condolences to all of us who knew and loved her and especially to Steve Leialoha.

I have not been paying a whole lotta attention to the news lately…too many pressing matters including deadlines. But I peek now 'n then at the trouble Donald Trump is in as it increases daily. We're about to see the first criminal trial ever of a U.S. ex-President and that'll be hard to ignore. If you'd like to know what it's all about, David Corn wrote an "everything you need to know" piece about the alleged crime.

I did see Trump's new wishy-washy pivot on Abortion which seems to have a dual goal: To convince Pro-Choice voters that he won't ban it if elected and to assure Pro-Life voters that he will. Does anyone anywhere believe this man really cares about the issue except as it impacts who'll vote for him and who won't? William Saletan explains why it's so obvious that Donald doesn't.