It's a terrifying night in and around Los Angeles…and please forgive any typos in this as I am thumb-typing on my iPhone in a house that has been sans electricity for almost 24 hours. Soon, they say, there will be light, "they" being the L.A. Department of Water, Power and Questionable Time Estimates.

The fire is still far, far from me. I should say "fires, plural" as they keep popping up like new Shake Shacks. The latest new blaze is currently threatening our beloved Magic Castle and I'm hearing of too many friends who are evacuated and huddling somewhere, wondering if they'll have homes to return to. A couple of friends already know they will not. There's a very scary sky filled with smoke in many directions and so is the air in every direction. It's cold, it's windy, it's smokey and it's all around us. A day or two ago, all it was was cold…then outta nowhere, all this happens.

And here we were all hoping 2025 would be a better year.

I'm not sure why I'm posting this…maybe to show friends and acquaintances that I'm fine. And I am if you can be fine with feeling that your face looks like Edvard Munch's painting of "The Scream." Or maybe to let folks who feel that way know that they're not alone and that things will get better. They'd kind of have to.

The fires that are ravaging Southern California are still nowhere near me and likely to stay that way…but we've been without electricity since 8:54 last night and I sense my area is way down on the repairfolks' "To Do" list. Which is fine. Others need help way more. I just thought I'd tell you why you may not see anything from me here for a while. Things will be normal again…just not right away.

There's an awful fire burning in Pacific Palisades. I have many friends who live there and I sure hope they and their homes are okay.

I've had a couple of texts and e-mails asking if I've been evacuated. I appreciate the concern but I'm pretty far away from Pacific Palisades or from a couple of other locations where smaller fires have erupted. The Palisades fire would pretty much have to burn through the entirety of West Los Angeles and Beverly Hills before it got anywhere near my neighborhood.

Following-up on our previous ASK me, Gene Popa wrote to ask…

In response to Andrew Paquette's question, you said (and I paraphrase) that Jack's preference when he went to DC was to produce his issues himself (with his own staff), and submit the completed work to the publisher. I'm curious, in 1969 (when he left Marvel) or later in '75 (when he left DC) did Jack give any thought to offering himself to Gold Key?

Considering that producing complete issues from story to art to lettering and coloring is precisely what Western used to do for Dell, I wonder if they would have been receptive to allowing Kirby to provide such service to them? Granted, the market beyond the Big Two was rapidly shrinking in that period, but Gold Key still seemed to be holding its own as an important publisher (at least for the time being). I'm tantalized by the idea of covers for New Gods and The Eternals being painted by the likes of George Wilson and Jesse Santos!

Well, I started working for Gold Key (Western Publishing, actually) in 1971 and at that point, I don't think anyone there really knew who Jack Kirby was other than he was the guy who drew all those hit books for Marvel that they, Western Publishing, didn't want to emulate. And they probably thought those were all Stan Lee creations.

One thing that some folks don't get about the "credit" thing with Marvel was that while Jack was a little upset that readers thought all those books were wholly created by Stan, he was really angry that that was the understanding of those in the comic book industry who had hiring power and the power to set page rates. That included the new people who were running Marvel as of 1968-1969, many of whom didn't see why Jack Kirby was any more valuable than anyone else drawing for the company or even the next kid who walked in the door with samples.

Carmine Infantino, when he was in charge at DC, was a rare exception. I do not think he or his company utilized Jack well but at least Infantino understood that Kirby was more than a guy who could draw neat-looking pages.

The Western Publishing I worked for was as resistant to outside studios as any company then in existence. They made a kind of halfway-exception for only one comic that I can think of. They briefly had a comic called The Little Stooges (Larry, Moe and Curly Joe as kids, basically) that was largely put together and drawn by Norman Maurer…but Norman controlled the rights to the Stooges and had a long history of working with Western. Western also wasn't going to pay anyone, including Jack, anything near what DC or Marvel paid Jack.

When he left Marvel in 1970 (not '69), it was because he felt he couldn't work there any longer and DC had made what seemed like a real good offer. When he left DC in '75, Western was a failing company with serious distribution problems. I knew the folks there and they had no interest in spending what it would have cost to get Kirby and launch a whole new line. In fact, they were even more timid than DC was about investing in anything different.

Jack had actually approached Western Publishing once, back when they were doing comics for Dell. This was in late 1958 or early 1959, a time when many comic book companies were going outta business or at least cutting back. Almost all of them were turning away writers and artists because they had more than enough freelancers to fill all their comics. Jack went up to their New York offices and was told that. The editor he met there — name unknown to me and probably not anyone we ever heard of — scolded him because of what horror and crime comics had done to the comic book industry. Wally Wood told me a very similar story but later on, he did do some work for Western.

I don't think Jack ever thought the door was open there and it probably wasn't. Sadly, from about 1957 until the end of his career, he was pretty much trapped into working for DC or Marvel…and I don't think either one treated him as well as he deserved. If either had, I believe that company would have been way more successful.   But thanks for the question, Gene, and here's that box again…

I'm a big fan of Saturday Night Live. No, let me rephrase that: I'm a big fan of the overall concept and tradition of Saturday Night Live. Like you (probably) I've found it unwatchable during certain seasons including the recent ones. I no longer have my DVR snag every episode. When I watch, I watch the parts they put up on YouTube which seem to be mostly those featuring big guest stars. Ergo, I don't really recognize the names of most of the current cast.

Here's the trailer for an upcoming documentary on Peacock about the series…one that seems a little light on the early years.  I assume the finished doc won't be but, seeing as how this is an important and valuable franchise for NBC, it's likely to oversell the notion that SNL is forever and always as great as it's ever been…

Whenever we come across a new staging of this song, we love to feature it here. The song is "The Rhythm of Life" from the musical, Sweet Charity. And the performers are from the BBC series, Strictly Come Dancing…

My old pal Andrew Paquette sent me a couple of questions about Jack Kirby. Here's the first one…

Did Kirby ever express a preference for his Marvel, DC, or earlier work? I ask because they are so different from each other. Lately, I've been buying copies of Popular Romance and Justice traps the Guilty. The stories and art are very interesting, but so different from the superhero comics that it is difficult to compare the two.

It made me wonder if the non-fiction nature of many of those titles (Headline Comics is another) was Joe Simon's influence, and Kirby didn't care what he was drawing, or if he did have a preference and was later disappointed that the non-superhero genres died out after Marvel hit the scene with his superhero creations.

First, I assume you mean Young Romance. One of the many fascinating things about Jack was that he loved all genres and among the zillions of comics he did, there weren't many he did not enjoy because of the content. How he was treated by the publishers and editors was another matter but I don't think you're asking about that kind of thing.

What I think he was happiest doing was the work where he could write and pencil and have the stories come out the way he wanted them. He really did not like a brief period in the seventies when DC had him drawing scripts by others, especially on Sandman, which he thought was a terrible comic.

Because of his background, he had a slight preference for war comics but beyond that, he was fine with anything as long as it came out roughly the way he wanted it to. Science-fiction, western, humor, romance, ghost comics, super-heroes…they were all pretty much enjoyable to him. Some were preferable at certain times because he thought one kind was more commercial and it made him happy to do a comic that sold well.

He was proud of the Marvel books of the sixties because he considered them so much his creation, albeit work that sometimes frustrated him because of things Stan Lee did. When I met him, I asked if he had a favorite story and he named "Mother Delilah," a story he'd done for Boys Ranch. Later on, his answer to that question was "The Pact," a story for New Gods. Here's the other question from Andrew…

This leads to another question: what was the difference between running his own studio at Prize and Crestwood compared to Marvel? From what I've read, I'm surprised he went to Marvel at all, though I'm glad he had the opportunity to create that stable of characters.

Jack did not go back to Marvel in the fifties because he wanted to. He went back there because it was the only place he could find that was then willing to buy work from him. He would have much preferred to have his own studio or be part of something like the Simon-Kirby operation but by that time, publishers weren't willing to do business on that basis. They all wanted the work created by writers and artists working directly for them under the supervision of in-house editors.

When I went to work for Jack in 1970, he had a fantasy — and he kinda knew it was a fantasy — that DC would let him produce his work for them on that basis. As it turned out, they wouldn't even let him control the coloring in California and they fought for the longest time having someone like Mike Royer letter and ink the work out here. They clung to the idea that the office created the comics and I think (and Jack thought) that was one of the reason sales kept going down, down, down.

Thanks for the questions, Andrew. If anyone else has any, read the box below…

Here are old clips of Jon Stewart talking to Robin Williams, Norm MacDonald and Richard Lewis. And come to think of it, these would have to be old clips, right?

I currently have a couple of friends who are hospitalized and that's led to a lot of calls and texts from mutual acquaintances asking, "How is he? What have you heard?" It's understandable and in most cases commendable for one person to care about about the health of another but there's also a certain…I'm not sure what to call it. Etiquette? Protocol? It's something in those categories.

The H.P. (Hospitalized Person) and/or their family may want to control the flow of information. You don't have a right to know what they don't want you to know…or don't want you to know now, nor do they owe you an explanation for not telling you everything. And one good reason why they might not is that the current diagnosis may be tentative and subject to change.

Or the patient may just want his privacy and/or not want to deal with keeping others informed or answering their questions. He might want visitors, he might not. The few times I've been hospitalized, I didn't want them right away…and then when I did, I didn't want certain people coming around.

As readers of this site know, I busted my ankle on January 21 and spent more than a month in a hospital and then in a rehab center. If I didn't tell you at the time, it's not that I didn't or don't like you. It's just that once I was injured, my own needs became such a major issue in my life that I didn't have room for a lot of other people. That's why I didn't post anything about it here until I returned home on February 28th.

When you hear someone is in the hospital, I think the proper response is to let them know, by whatever routes they have allowed to be open, that you care about them and that you're willing to help out in any way if you can…but it's up to them. Let them be and don't try to take whatever limited ninth-hand info you may have heard about and try to formulate a diagnosis or assumption about what's going on with them. You may not know as much as you think you do.

As you may recall, I liked the second half or so of Saturday Night, the movie about the first telecast of the show we now know as Saturday Night Live. The first half, I was too distracted by (a) noticing how much the actors did or did not replicate the real people they were playing and (b) tallying how many times the movie departed from what had really happened or even could have happened that night. I said here, "One of these days when I can do so without paying Amazon Prime another twenty bucks, I intend to watch the movie again with the proper mindset from the beginning."

Last night, I did. I received one of those FYC free links from the studio because they hope if I watch, I'll vote their way for some award. So I watched…with a friend who is too young to have seen the show the first night or even in its first two dozen years. She was born about the time Chris Farley died so after the film, I had to explain to her what the show represented to the world of comedy…and entertainment in general. I kinda like that the film ends the moment Saturday Night Live starts but that doesn't mean a lot if you don't know what it became in the years that followed.

(Then again, my friend didn't sit there comparing that John Belushi to the real John Belushi or that Chevy Chase to the real Chevy Chase…and she doesn't know a lot about how TV shows are made. So maybe she had more of a chance to enjoy the film than I did.)

This time around, I enjoyed it more than I had before because I was resigned to the premise that it was a fantasy in much the same way that Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood didn't pretend to show us what really happened to those Charles Manson disciples. I agree with those who felt Saturday Night could have trimmed out about nine subplots and still had more than enough. If they'd done that, they might have had time to focus a bit on Gilda, Jane and Laraine. (Or was the point that the real show often neglected them so the movie had to?)

I'll try to do this with as few spoilers as I can. There's a moment when NBC exec Dave Tebet (played superbly by Willem Dafoe) is challenging Lorne Michaels (played well by Gabriel LaBelle) to explain what the show is about. If Michaels doesn't give a satisfactory answer, Tebet won't let the show go on and they have contingency plans to instead substitute a Johnny Carson rerun. In real life, Lorne Michaels would not have been put on this spot only minutes before the show is scheduled to go live and he would not be having this discussion with Dave Tebet.

But remember: We've decided this is a fantasy so let's go with it. Michaels delivers a speech that goes roughly like this, which I cut-and-pasted from a copy of the screenplay that's online here. That script differs from the film in a great many ways but this speech is roughly what he said in the film…)

It's an all nighter in the city. It's catching Richard Pryor at a drop in, or finding Paul Simon strumming in the back of a dive bar. It's meeting a girl outside a bodega and getting lucky in a phone booth. It's everything you think is going to happen when you move to the city.

That's kinda poetic but it's largely double-talk. Being honest in real life, Michaels might have said something more like this…

It's NBC's chance to corral a segment of the viewing public that is increasingly becoming the most important audience. They're younger and they have tremendous buying power — the kind advertisers crave. Just as they don't want to listen to their parents' music, they want entertainment made for them. They aren't laughing at Alan King bitching about all those crazy dances "those kids today" do. They're buying comedy records by people like our host tonight, George Carlin, and other comedians like Richard Pryor and Robert Klein I expect to have host in the coming weeks…comics who speak to them. They're buying records by performers like our musical guests this week, Billy Preston and Janis Ian, and Paul Simon, who's on next week.

There's nothing wrong with a Johnny Carson rerun but he's not doing a show for that demographic and it's about time someone did. Even if you don't find it funny, Dave, you're not our target audience. You're 62 years old and you're sounding like the people who told Ed Sullivan he shouldn't put the Beatles on his show. Ed wanted to attract those younger viewers so he put on their music. This show is their music and their comedy.

Now to be fair, in the movie, "Dave Tebet" was right to be worried about putting the show on the air because up until this point in the movie, what he (and we) have seen of it has been largely a disorganized mess. But that's the fiction. The real show was rehearsed within an inch of its life before that Saturday evening. It had two highly-professional musical acts and its host, cocaine aside, was one of the most reliable and experienced comedians in the business…a guy who Carson wasn't afraid to put on or even let guest-host. There were also pre-filmed commercial parodies, a film by Albert Brooks and a bit by the Muppets, who knew what they were doing even if there was no one on the premises who wanted to write for them.

I feel sorry for some of the real people depicted in this film but especially for Dave Tebet, a man I never met. But here's something I do know about him: He was for a time the NBC executive in charge of Sid Caesar's Your Show of Shows. Remember the This Is Your Life parody they did where Carl Reiner drags Sid up out of the audience in the sketch a lot of folks think was the funniest sketch ever on television? This sketch?

Well, when Carl goes into the audience, the man sitting in the aisle seat next to Sid is Dave Tebet. Honest to God, that was Dave Tebet. So he knew all about doing wild comedy on live television…and taking risks…and how quickly a sloppy rehearsal can turn into a wonderful show. (And being at NBC so long, he also knew the value of not destroying a pet project of his boss. Saturday Night Live had NBC president Herb Schlosser solidly behind it. No one below him was going to yank it off the air…but you often need a real bad guy to make a real good story.)

But now here I am…letting Reality creep into this discussion again. That's probably a mistake so I'll just say that I liked the Saturday Night movie the second time more than the first. My friend liked it but she liked it more once I'd explained to her how the series became a turning point for comedy in this country, both on television and in the movies. It'll be streaming and more widely available any day now. If you watch it, don't make the mistake of thinking it's a documentary. And if you do make that mistake, watch it again with the right frame of mind.

In my opinion, one of the best late night hosts of the last few decades was Craig Ferguson, especially years 2-9 of his ten-year run. The first year, he seemed to be trying to figure out the job and what his show was. The last year, he sometimes seemed bored and he spent a lot of time dancing, seemingly to amuse himself. But when he was good, he was very, very good and his show had the spontaneity that others lacked.

He didn't have the budget that some of the others had. He didn't have a band. He didn't get a lot of the big guests. He sometimes had to tape two shows a day. For a time, he didn't even have a sidekick or a bandleader to talk to and when he did get a sidekick, it was a robot skeleton. But I thought he was very clever, very honest and very humble.

You'll only see a little of that in this video. It's his first show once he was named the regular host following a lot of different tryouts, including his. This aired 1/3/2005…

This is a barbershop quartet called Midtown and this is their version of the theme from the 1967 Spider-Man cartoon show. They do sing the hell out of it…

Once again, Mark links you to feature films that are currently — and by that, I mean as I post this — free for viewing without ads on YouTube. Any second now, they may suddenly contain commercials or cost money to view. But at this precise moment, they don't…

This is Airplane!, the 1980 comedy written and directed by Jim Abrahams and brothers David and Jerry Zucker. A very funny film which people quote to this day…

And you can also watch, from some of the same people, The Kentucky Fried Movie, an earlier effort by Jim Abrahams and the Zucker Brothers. Since this has a few mild naughty bits, YouTube won't allow me to embed it and insists you watch it on their site. If you can, you should.

NOTE, ADDED LATER: It has been called to my attention that the linked version of this film has been severely laundered and cleaned up. You may want to ignore my suggestion of "If you can, you should."

This may not be my pet peeve but it's a peeve nonetheless. I just saw a message in the vast wasteland that is Facebook from some comic book fan who was hating bigly on a long-deceased comic book artist of the past. His gripe about this artist? That he didn't always get the costumes "right" on supporting characters, especially super-villains. In Super-Marvel-DC-Team-Up-Tales #43, he didn't draw the costume on Dr. Dastardly the exact same way some other artist drew Dr. Dastardly's uniform In Ultra-DC-Marvel-Adventures-Annual #6.

There are three reasons this is a peeve for me, one being that it's usually impossible to tell who made such a mistake. Was the penciler not given adequate reference material? Did the inker misread the pencils or not fix what he or she was supposed to fix? Did no one in the office notice? Is it possible someone along the line decided they could improve Dr. Dastardly's duds and the non-match was intentional?

Second reason: Dr. Dastardly is an alien/robot/energy force of enough power to rule and/or destroy the planet. He has a super-secret lab filled with devices that can vaporize his opponents or control their minds or make them dance the Macarena against their wills. Are we to assume that he doesn't have a change of clothes? That he absolutely must be wearing the exact same thing anytime we see him?

And the final reason is a big "Who cares?" I wonder if this guy goes to 007 movies, points at any starring actor who isn't Sean Connery and yells, "The producers made a stupid mistake! That's not James Bond!"

Carl's friend James Shegas sent me this…

I went with Carl to the San Diego Con somewhere in the late 1970s. He had brought a big painting of the Silver Surfer and Galactus to give to Jack Kirby, who attended every SDCC up to that time. We came up to Jack's table at the dealer's room where he and his wife Rosalind were. Jack was very impressed with the painting and Carl wanted him to take it as a gift. Jack hesitated to accept it, since he believed every artist should hold onto his work but was quickly overruled by Roz, who told him "Can't you see? He really wants you to have it."

Carl happily gave it to the King. He was so happy his hero appreciated his devotion and artistry. Carl was one of the good ones, always friendly, always helpful. His self-published mini-comics were very imaginative and exciting, and comics could have benefited from his energy and dedication to the form. Very sad day. REST IN POWER, Carl!

I recall Jack was impressed with Carl's work…and also Carl's love for the form and his general attitude. One of the reasons Jack attended all those Comic-Cons is that he wanted to meet people like Carl and he was aware of the power of his encouragement. That's a nice story, James, and I'm glad to be able to share it here.