Nick Stuart wrote to ask…

I've often read that at Marvel during the 1960s, Stan Lee deliberately crafted a house style for the artwork modeled on the work of Jack Kirby. In some instances, I've even seen people give the impression that there were a bunch of artists working at Marvel during that time who were nothing more than Kirby clones.

While Kirby's influence on the look of Marvel during those years is fairly evident, I also felt there was quite a bit of variety in the artistic styles of the Marvel artists of the time, more than was sometimes given credit for. To what extent do you feel other artists were told to "draw like Kirby", so to speak?

People get confused about this. The best way for me to explain this is to make clear that Stan did not tell artists to do work that a layperson would mistake for Jack Kirby artwork. He was not looking for forgers. What he did want was for everyone else to pick up on Jack's way of staging action: The "camera" angles, the way of cutting between long shots and close-ups, the techniques of making even scenes of two people standing in a room and talking interesting.

He wanted them to look at how Jack posed his figures and exaggerated emotions and anatomy; how he framed shots so that the characters related to one another in the same shot. If John was falling in love with Marsha and vice-versa, he didn't draw one panel of John and then another panel of Marsha so that their dialogue balloons could convey how each felt about the other. He drew them in the same panel with the proper body language and expressions to tell us how they felt about each other.

I remember Jack once giving a critique of the art samples of an aspiring artist. He said, "Your people never look at each other."

A number of artists came to Marvel after working for other companies — or Stan's in earlier times — where they were given a full script. In a full script, the writer decided how many panels should be on each page, what was shown in each panel and all the lettering — dialogue, captions and sound effects — had been composed. There were a number of variations in how the famed "Marvel Method" worked but they usually involved the artist, not the writer, deciding what to show in each panel and then the copy was written later.

Stan thought Jack was the master of this. You could look at one of his penciled pages with no lettering on it and understand, if not the plot then at least the dramatic tensions in the scene.

So to make clear: He didn't want his other artists to draw hands like Jack drew or faces like Jack drew. He wanted them to lay out the pages and tell the story the way Jack drew. Sol Brodsky, who had a lot to do with who drew what at Marvel in the sixties, told me that Stan would often turn down an applicant for penciling work by saying, "Too DC!"

That generally meant he thought their staging was dull. If he thought someone had promise, he'd either assign them to work over Kirby layouts, at least for a few jobs. After Jack refused to do that kind of work anymore, he'd tell them to study the way Jack "told" a story in pictures. Some got it, some didn't.

Herb Rotfeld sent me this regarding last Monday evening's Daily Show…

I finally watched the Ken Buck interview on Peacock-plus. And yet, the most striking item I witnessed has not generated much attention, or so it seems. Mr. Buck made a comment that generated a loud derisive negative audience response. Stewart immediately called them to stop, told them to not do that — "the tickets are free" — and jokingly-tone threatened to have the impolite people removed by security.

I can't think of any host with a political guest that would do that to their home crowd.

I don't think it's that unique, Herb. Keep in mind that a lot of shows that have political guests don't have studio audiences. Bill Maher does and I'm pretty sure I've seen him do that. And the shows like Colbert's or Kimmel's rarely have on the kind of person who might get booed, nor do they often lead guests into those subject areas.

But I do think Jon Stewart's interviews are somewhat unique because, first of all, he strikes a near-perfect balance between being funny and being an interviewer. Secondly, he's always well-prepared and not just because he read the notes that some Talent Coordinator prepared for him. Thirdly, because he doesn't ask obvious questions for which the guests have developed rote answers. And fourthly, because those interviewers often involve two people with different points of view expressing them and challenging each other…you know, the way two smart people might intelligently discuss politics.

The other night, the guest was George Conway but unfortunately, the host was Ronny Chieng, who's pretty funny on the show but he asked obvious questions, didn't challenge anything his guest said, fawned a bit too much. Here, take a look…

I don't think that was a good interview, at least by Daily Show standards. I wish Conway had been on with Jon Stewart because things would have gone way deeper.

Life magazine, which once was a must-read weekly, now lives on in name and logo only as an occasional devoted-to-a-single topic special that I see in the checkout line at my local market and nowhere else. The issue which you can probably find now in the checkout line of your local market is devoted to Garfield the Cat and Jim Davis and how the latter created the former and how big the lasagna-devouring feline became. The issue is, no doubt, intended to piggyback (cattyback?) on the publicity about the new movie but the story would be worth telling anyway.

A lot of you who read this blog are fans of said pussycat so I wanted to let you know this is out and also, I need to correct/clarify some things. It says in there I wrote all 121 half-hours of the series Garfield and Friends. I am always careful to say that I wrote or co-wrote all 121 half-hours. Another writer worked on some. It also says I voice-directed the series and that's true as of a certain point in the run but the earlier episodes were voice-directed by Mr. Jim Davis and then I took over.

Also, it says that reruns of the show are now streaming on Tubi. On my TV, they seem to be streaming on several platforms, Tubi included. I'm just waiting for all that residual money to flow my way. I may blow it all on a t-shirt.

What's that you say? You want to visit Disneyland but you can't travel there right now and don't want to spend the entirety of your childrens' inheritance on admission tickets and overpriced Dole Whips and churros? Well, you can take a four-and-a-half hour trip to The Happiest Place on Earth in the video below for free. All it will cost you is four-and-a-half hours…

Based on a few visual clues, Trump and his legal team had some amount of confidence that one juror in the trial — Trump reportedly referred to him as "my juror" — would vote to acquit and hang the jury. Didn't work out that way. Griffin Eckstein has more.

My pal Paul Harris links to two articles I recommend to you: In the Washington Post, Catherine Rampell writes about how an amazing number of people are misinformed about how the American economy is doing. And in the Washington Monthly, Robert Shapiro (not the O.J. lawyer) provides some strong evidence that the current polls are pretty meaningless in gauging who'll win in November.

Personally, I think the verdict in Trump's trial is not what's going to drive voters away from him. I think what will is how incoherent he has become and how the lies are becoming more naked and inarguable.

Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.) was shot shortly after midnight on June 5 of 1968 in a ballroom at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. You probably knew that already and may even have some theories as to how his murder changed history. I have no idea if he would have gone on to win the Democratic nomination for President of the United States and, if so, if he would have defeated Richard Nixon for the job.

But I can answer the question I just got from someone asking where I was when it happened and what it was like the next day. Not that I needed an alibi but I was sound asleep when Kennedy was shot. I had school that next day so I went to bed around 10:30 PM before anyone knew who'd won that night's California primary. I was sixteen years old and at that point, I wasn't particularly rooting for anyone. If you'd forced me to specify who I would have voted for if I could have voted then (which I couldn't), I probably would have picked Bobby Kennedy for a very bad reason…

He'd waved to me.

A few months earlier, my parents and I had dinner at Andre's, which was a rather swanky (by Evanier standards) celebrity-frequented restaurant on Wilshire Boulevard just inside the Beverly Hills city limits. Our good family friends The Zukors took us there and on the way out or the way in — I think the way in — we saw a group of men in dark suits coming out and in the middle of them was Senator Kennedy.

I waved to him and one of the men escorting him called me to his attention and he smiled my way and waved back. Then he got into a big black car and was driven away, end of story. I had no particular political reasons to vote for or against the man but I thought it might be nice to say, "Oh, yes — the next President of the United States once waved to me."

The morning of 6/5/68, I was up and getting dressed when my mother called to me through the door and I heard her say "Bobby Kennedy was shocked!" Still about one-third asleep, I thought, "The results of the election shocked him…but does that mean because he'd won or because he'd lost?" When I got to the table for breakfast a nearby TV was on and I understood: She said he'd been shot.

How bad was it? Obviously, pretty bad. I got the feeling that the newspeople were trying not to say "He's almost certainly going to die from those wounds" but that that was what they believed. At school that day, everyone seemed to have the same feeling. I remember one of my teachers — Mr. Kivel, who taught Government — had the TV on and tried to turn the period into an open discussion of what it all meant.

He and others kept saying, though the news had absolutely not used these words, "If Kennedy survives, he's going to be a vegetable," which I still think is a horrible, insensitive word to use about a human being. I said that then in the discussion and we wound up talking about that for a while. I recall that I got one of those forced laughter-in-the-face-of-tragedy laughs from the entire class when I said, "When a person gets shot, they don't turn into a radish."

But everybody could read between the lines of what the reporters were reporting: Even if he lived, Robert Kennedy was never going to be Robert Kennedy again and he certainly was not going to be the Democratic nominee. Regardless of how anyone felt about the man, it was a chilling event, especially coming not that long after his brother had been murdered…and then earlier that year, Martin Luther King.

We all awoke the next morning to the news that he had indeed died. I don't think anyone was surprised by that but we still all walked around like zombies for the next few days. In a way, the assassination of Bobby was more devastating than the shooting of his brother. You could kind of file away the killings of John F. Kennedy as Dr. King as outliers — one-time events. But then the killing of Robert F. Kennedy made a lot of us feel like political assassinations would become the new norm.

A few have been attempted since with varying degrees of success but I'm pleased to remind myself that they did not become as routine as a lot of us felt in the days after Bobby Kennedy was killed. Because it really felt like we'd have to put up with way more than have occurred since. I'd like it if we never have to have that feeling again.

There are now more podcasts on the Internet than there are grains of sand in the Mojave Desert. Don't believe me? Go count them. I'll wait. When I hear of anyone launching a new podcast, my immediate reaction is: "Oh, great! Just what the world doesn't need — another podcast!" But I don't feel that way about this one because it's hosted by Jon Stewart. Click below — or go almost anywhere you can listen to podcasts — to add another thing to your list of things you must do.

An exhibition of artwork from MAD is about to open at the Norman Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Massachusetts (details here). And here we have a little video about how the magazine was written and drawn back when it was written and drawn…

We all had a chuckle over this video which showed a man named Corey Harris zooming into a court proceeding while driving and being informed his bail was being revoked for driving without a license. Well, there's a little more to the story.

One evening at a San Diego Comic-Con — this is maybe 10-15 years ago — I was having my usual great time when I ran into someone I've known for a long time though I wouldn't use the word "friend." "Acquaintance," maybe. He was deep into his umpteenth cocktail and announcing what a not-very-good time he was having at the con. The reason, which he expressed loudly to all within earshot, was how lousy the bars were: Too crowded, too noisy, too expensive and too full of idiot bartenders who didn't know how to pour a proper Vodka Gimlet.

I think it's okay to write about our brief encounter now. There's a decent chance he didn't remember it the next day, let alone this many years later.

As some of you know, I don't drink alcohol. Never have and probably never will. I have no problem if you do as long as you (a) don't have a problem that I don't and (b) don't allow your drinking to affect my life. This goes for any kind of intoxicant or any kind of smoking. Do whatever you want. Just don't do it around me. (Regarding a, it's amazing how many people who do drink think you're faulting them if you don't.  Or trying to make out like you're better than they are.  Or something.)

This guy that Saturday evening at the con was a great example of someone who viewed the gathering — and probably everything else in his life — through the prism of his own needs and desires.  He was like the artist I once heard complain that the con "sucked" because no publisher there offered him work…or the writer who said the con was "f*cked" (he put a "u" in place of the asterisk) because not enough fans there wanted his autograph.

It might also be worth noting that within walking distance of the convention center — even walking as unsteadily as he was walking that evening — there were probably more than a hundred bartenders on duty.  Even as drunk as this guy was, he couldn't possibly have tested the skills of all or even most of them.

As I've probably said too often on this blog, Comic-Con is a great place to visit if — and this is a Big If for some people — you can find the mini-con you want within the dozens that take place in and around that convention center.  If you want to learn more about comic book history, for example, you have to comb the Program Schedule and find those events.  They won't come to you.

(One of my few complaints about the con — and I've probably said this too often, too — has to do with people who want to see more panels about comic book history and then don't show up for the ones that are offered.  Conventions do not program for empty seats.)

I'm thinking about this today because I'm prepping the schedule of panels I'll be moderating at this year's Comic-Con starting in 49 days.  At the moment, I'm up to 13 and will probably add at least two more.  You may think that number is too high but I'm still recovering from a broken ankle and right now, it represents 13-15 opportunities for me to sit down for an hour.  I'll tell you about the panels when the time comes but right now, I'll just say that the Saturday Cartoon Voices Panel and the Sunday Cartoon Voices Panel have the two strongest lineups of actors I think I've ever had.

But let's get back to that drunk fellow outside the convention center some years ago. He was mad because he couldn't find a drink made the way he wanted his drinks made.

He was ranting and complaining and making an Industrial Strength Ass of himself and it was all about "ME, ME, ME" — or to put it more accurately, "HIM, HIM, HIM."  He'd driven all the way to San Diego and spent beaucoup bucks for a hotel room.  The convention organizers therefore had some moral obligation to hold the event where there were bartenders who could mix his favorite beverage…and no, I have no idea how they could make sure of that.  He was a living, walking (barely) example of someone who goes through life doing everything to make sure he is never satisfied and so has grievances aplenty about which to bitch.

I am not in any way an employee or staff member of Comic-Con International.  I'm just a guy who's there all the time…but he wasn't the first person to mistake me for the con's Complaint Department and he began ranting in my direction.  I forget exactly what he said but I'm quite sure he was rude and insulting and he vowed to never in a million-billion years, attend that &%#@!!! convention again.  He said it in one of those "they'll be sorry" ways like the con would suffer greatly from his absence.

Somehow, it hasn't.  Somehow, it's sold out every year since, usually in about the time it takes to takes to microwave a Hot Pocket®.  And what prompted me to tell this story is that last night, I got my annual e-mail from him saying that he couldn't get a badge for this year's Comic-Con International and is there any way I can help him get in?  I cut-and-pasted last year's reply and sent back my usual "Gee, I'm sorry but…" message.

When people talk about influential stand-up comedians, not nearly enough recognition goes to Robert Klein.  Here's a special he did for cable in 1984, back when very few comedians were venturing into that marketplace…

Here's something I could probably figure out if I spent some time on it but I'm busy today so maybe one of you can help. Last night, Jon Stewart did an extraordinary Daily Show in two acts. Act One was him commenting on the Trump verdict. Act Two was an interview with former Republican congressman Ken Buck. I'm embedding the YouTube versions of these two segments here.

If you didn't catch the show, I recommend taking the time to watch these two segments and if you did watch the show, you might want to watch them again.  Furthermore, if you only have time to watch one of 'em, I suggest you watch the second. It was a fascinating conversation, the kind that Mr. Stewart does so well and no one else does at all: Two people who respect each other having a conversation with no talking points, no obvious questions, no insults — just two men discussing topics on which they differ with no histrionics. [SPOILER ALERT: They find out they don't differ as much as at least one of them thought going in.]

These versions are shorter than what aired last night on Comedy Central. For the first segment, they edited down the intro and Jon's throw to commercial and on YouTube, it runs 18:01. For the second segment, they trimmed Jon introducing his guest and the throw to commercial and it runs 24:24. That's 42 minutes and 25 seconds total.  I didn't notice if either YouTube video contained content I didn't see last night…

…but watching them both still doesn't give you the entire show. It doesn't include the commercials and an additional 2-3 minute segment Stewart did with Ronny Chieng, who's hosting the rest of the week. I watched the show live last night and saw the whole thing…I think.

This morning, I decided to watch the show again and I turned on my Roku TV on which I get Comedy Central shows via the streaming service You Tube TV. It gave me my choice of three versions…

• A 36 minute one that literally cuts off during the Ken Buck interview…
• A 46 minute one that seems to have the entire show I saw last night but I'm not sure or…
• A one-hour and one-minute version that I don't have time to watch today and it won't allow me to fast-forward through to see what's in it.

I don't get this.  I don't get this at all.  Why are there three versions of this show?  And even if you don't have the answer, make sure you watch what I've embedded above, especially the second segment.

Devin "Legal Eagle" Stone covers the verdict in the Trump Hush Money Trial, though most of the heavy lifting is done by his associate, Liz Dye. Even if you think you understand what happened here, you might want to watch it all laid out in linear fashion. And there's a commercial in there for the same company that sponsored the last Randy Rainbow video…

I have a number of folks writing to me to try and identify the actors seen along with William Daniels in the opening number from 1776 that I posted last night.

Ben Franklin was obviously not Howard DaSilva, who originated the role. In case any of you don't know the story, DaSilva suffered a minor heart attack a few days before opening and refused to go to a hospital. He had been a blacklisted actor and apparently that underscored his desire to make it to opening night playing one of our nation's Founding Fathers.

He played the last few previews, performed on opening night and then, after the curtain went down, got into an ambulance and finally went to the hospital. His understudy, Rex Everhart, played the role until DaSilva returned and it's Everhart, not DaSilva, playing Franklin on the cast album. (DaSilva did do the movie and he's on the soundtrack album of that.)

Anyway, that's not DaSilva in the clip so it might be Everhart. (Interesting aside: The original production of 1776 ran from 1969 to 1972. I saw it twice during its 1997-1998 revival. The first time, Franklin was played by Pat Hingle. The second time, it was David Huddleston. And the understudy in the role, who I didn't see, was Rex Everhart who probably needed less "old man" makeup by then.)

And I should point out that Benjamin Franklin is not in opening number in the show when you see the entire production. He makes his entrance shortly after. They just stuck him in there for Mr. Sullivan's program.

Based on a little research and a lot of e-mails from readers of this blog, I believe the others in the clip include Roy Poole as Stephen Hopkins, Ronald Holgate as Richard Henry Lee, Ralston Hill as Mr. Thomson, Emory Bass as Judge Wilson and William Duell as McNair. By this point in the run, Ken Howard — who had originated the role of Thomas Jefferson — had left to star in the play Child's Play and Clifford Davis — the original Edward Rutledge — had left to star in the short-lived production of Tennessee Williams' play, Camino Real. Jefferson here is probably played by David Cryer and Rutledge is certainly being played by John Cullum, who went on to play the part in the movie.

And finally: If you enjoyed that short clip from The Ed Sullivan Show last night, you might enjoy this longer one that I didn't know was on YouTube until everybody told me…

This is short but oh so sweet. It's William Daniels and most (probably) of the original Broadway cast of 1776 performing on The Ed Sullivan Show for October 4, 1970. 1776 opened at the 46th Street Theater (which is now the Richard Rodgers, which is where Hamilton is playing) on March 16, 1969. So it had been running a year and a half before its producers decided to let it be seen on TV. Back then, that probably meant the box office needed a boost.

But it seems to have worked. Soon after this performance, the show moved to the St. James Theater to make room for No, No, Nanette and later, it moved to the Majestic. It played there until it closed on February 13, 1972 after 1,217 performances…which was and still is a pretty good run.

It was playing there when I went to New York in 1970 and I still don't know why the hell I didn't go see it. I did a lot of stupid things when I was young — not to be confused with all the stupid things I've done since I became not young…