Monthly Archives: December 2007

This will interest those of you who have a love for the movie, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. I write a lot about it on this site and get a lot of mail about it. An oft-asked question is whether there's anything to the near-constant rumor that a full-fledged, updated remake is in the works. Answer: No, and I've long been skeptical that it even could be done. The joy of that film is in its celebration of a certain kind of comedian and character actor that just plain doesn't exist any longer. There are a lot of funny people in the world today but they're not funny in the same way that Phil Silvers was funny, that Buddy Hackett was funny, that Milton Berle was funny on those rare occasions when Milton Berle was funny, etc.

However, there have been movies that have attempted to replicate some of the spirit of Mad World. And as my fellow Mad World enthusiast Paul Scrabo reports in our video link today, there has even been one film that looks darn close to a remake…

Supposedly, a new offer is being presented in negotiations today, and the AMPTP guys are telling reporters that this will not be a "take it or leave it" offer but, rather, a starting point for further discussions. At the same time, the WGA is said to be readying some sort of proposal which, one assumes, will be on the same basis. That all sounds good if it actually comes down that way. My suspicion is that we're in for a few more rounds of the Producers presenting us with offers that they say are made of gold…then our guys do a little scraping and say, "Hey, this is just gold-colored lead paint over a lot of Play-Doh." Whereupon each side rushes to the press and accuses the other of not being serious.

Speaking of "the Producers," I have this from Jack Lechner…

I'm loving your analysis of the strike. But I do have to point out, as the Producers Guild already has, that it's a misnomer to refer to the AMPTP as "The Producers." Fact is, the AMPTP is the studios and the networks, and their affiliated lackeys, vassals, and subdivisions. Almost every producer I know is entirely sympathetic with the WGA. Hell, I've already suffered serious economic woe as a result of the strike — and I'm entirely sympathetic with the WGA. So please call a spade a spade, a producer a producer, and a greedy conglomerate a greedy conglomerate!

Well, the AMPTP does stand for "Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers" but in a sense, you're right. The noun "producers" does cover a pretty wide spectrum of folks in Hollywood. I've even been a "producer" on some of the shows I've written, though I can't recall doing many things on them that I wouldn't have done in my capacity as Writer. The title gets applied to folks who do the day-in/day-out business of getting a movie made or a show on the air and it also applies to the studio and the money men. I've also worked with people who had the title of Producer or even Executive Producer who insofar as I could see, didn't do a damn thing on the show except sometimes to watch it.

I've been using it rather generally and maybe I shouldn't, if only for the sake of clarity. I'll try to watch it…but everyone should be aware that not all "producers" are Mel Cooley. Some of them are Sumner Redstone.

While I'm in the "corrections" part of the e-mailbag, here's one from my pal Vince Waldron…

Nice piece on the oddly slanted coverage of Leno's damned-if-he-does-damned-if-he-doesn't behavior toward his workers and the strikers
outside. (Like you, I wonder why it's only talk show hosts who are expected to serve as mother hens to their studio hired staffs.)

But I'm actually writing about your parenthetical aside regarding The New Price is Right, in which you assert — jokingly, I assume — that the show has no writers. As you no doubt know, the show does indeed employ writers, and more than a few, to provide at least some of the words that Drew speaks, as well as pretty much everything his announcer intones, as well as all the words spoken by whoever it is that reads the prize descriptions. The fact that the show's writers aren't credited is almost solely due to show owner FremantleMedia's desire to avoid having to offer them the same industry standard benefits that accrue to writers on most other network shows. But, curiously, someone at FremantleMedia thought enough of their "writers" to submit three of their names to the TV academy for Emmy recognition, as Writers, for the 2007-2008 season — a strange gesture indeed for a company that claims not to employ scribes on their shows.

That and other subjects of more than passing interest to WGA members will likely be aired at this Friday's WGA rally to Win Industry Standards for Fremantle's writers, to be held this Friday at noon outside the company's Burbank HQ (at Pass and Alameda, just down the street from Bob's Big Boy.)

Hey, isn't that the Bob's Big Boy where Drew Carey always eats? Someone told me he owns it, and he may, but apparently he's there several times a week for meals. Maybe you could all go over there after the rally, see if he's eating at the counter and get him to spring for lunch.

But you're entirely right, Vince. That show has writers and like most writers on shows that are supposed to look spontaneous, they probably do a lot more than is readily apparent. This is one of our key issues in the current talks and I shouldn't have glossed over it as I did.

I'm hearing from a lot of folks who feel Jay Leno got slammed unfairly for…well, I'm still not sure exactly what the crime was. Something to do with assuring his staff they had nothing to worry about and not coming through with checks in the six hours after they were laid off. A lot of the pieces (starting with The Drudge Report, which is always a good place to get off track) said that Jay had fired his writers. Jay didn't fire anyone, especially his writers. They said he'd fired his staff…but the staff works for NBC. NBC laid them off, and this seems to have been done largely to send a message of fear out there. One of the Stupid Management Tricks that doesn't seem to be working this time is the concept that any time someone peripheral suffers as a result of the strike — a secretary being laid off, a business losing business, etc. — it's the fault of those awful writers for not just taking the rotten offer and getting back to work. It couldn't possibly be the fault of the AMPTP for giving them that rotten offer and refusing to budge off it.

That's worked in the past to ratchet up the pressure on us. But I don't think it's working this time.

Lastly, I need to clarify something that a number of correspondents and websites have gotten wrong. In 1985, a Writers Guild strike collapsed after three chaotic weeks and the WGA accepted what a lot of us think was the worst deal in the history of Hollywood labor unions. Some of us thought so at the time; others have since come 'round to that view. Among those who at the time campaigned for us to accept it, you now get a lot of, "Oh, no, I was never one of those idiots who were yelling that it was a good deal." What it was was an immense rollback in our compensation when a movie or TV show we wrote was sold on home video. As I've written here a couple of times, there was talk then of studies that would reassess the marketplace for video cassettes (this was pre-DVD) and some sort of upward adjustment if that industry turned out to be more lucrative than some thought.

Some people seem to think these studies were part of the '85 deal. They weren't. The settlement we accepted that year was that we'd take a whole lot less on home video, end of story. There was absolutely nothing in that contract that required the studios to spend ten seconds studying the marketplace or to give us ten cents more if, as it turned out, they were suddenly making billions selling movies on tape. The "talk" was all consolation statements…studio heads telling the press, "We're going to look into this…see if the writers deserve more…" But they were in no way obligated to do it so they didn't do it, and we all knew (or should have known) they weren't going to do it.

Moral of the story: We have a saying around the Writers Guild that if it ain't on the page, it ain't getting on the screen. It's the same way with deals. You don't get the money if it doesn't say so on the paper. And sometimes, not even then.

Here's a great example of someone furiously spinning the news to their advantage and getting slapped down for it. As you may have heard, two scientists — an American named James A. Thomson and a Japanese counterpart — recently announced they had developed an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells. This prompted columnist Charles Krauthammer to proclaim that the debate about embryonic stem cells was over and that George W. Bush had won. By insisting that science curtail the use of embryos in such research, Bush had spurred them on to find an alternative. Wrote Krauthammer, "Rarely has a president — so vilified for a moral stance — been so thoroughly vindicated." The piece, which ran in the Washington Post, was filled with quotes from Thomson that seemed to support all this.

That was last Friday. Today, the Post has a piece by James A. Thomson and a colleague, essentially saying that Krauthammer doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. The rebuttal, co-authored by the guy who was Krauthammer's star witness in support of Bush, says that Bush and Krauthammer were wrong both from a scientific perspective and as a matter of governmental policy. It's about as thorough a smackdown as I've ever seen in any newspaper and it concludes with a plea for Congress to override Bush's veto on the subject.

They should. There's no earthly reason to not pursue embryonic stem cell research other than a bunch of guys like Krauthammer, who don't have a clue about the science involved, have convinced themselves it's a variation on the abortion debate. They think they can't lose on one without losing on the other and they're wrong.

The new National Intelligence Estimate report says that Iran won't be "technically capable" of producing an atom bomb for quite some time. What does this mean? Fred Kaplan reads the thing so we don't have to.

Two weeks ago in New York, I saw and enjoyed the new Broadway show based on the movie, Xanadu. Here's a five minute sampler of this fun musical…

I will be appearing (again!) this Wednesday on Stu's Show, the keystone program on Shokus Internet Radio. Matter of fact, it's the one-year anniversary of Stu's Show and since I was the first guest, host Stu Shostak is having me back to celebrate one whole year of his weekly broadcasts. We'll be discussing, among other topics, the Writers Strike, the new book on Charles Schulz, and the upcoming new Garfield cartoon show which I am writing these days since it is not affected by the strike.

The show can be heard live on Wednesday from 4 PM to 6 PM Pacific Time, 7 PM to 9 PM in the east. I'll post a link here among the umpteen reminders to which you'll be subjected between now and then. But make plans to be at your computer then so you can listen in.

Back in the eighties, I did a comic book called Crossfire, which was drawn by a superb artist named Dan Spiegle. Crossfire was a super-hero (sort of) who in his other identity was a bailbondsman. He drove around L.A. in a 1957 Thunderbird that was identical to a 1957 Thunderbird that I then owned and often drove around L.A. One day, Dan was drawing an issue and he called up and asked me what our hero's license plate was. He had drawn a panel that required that info…so I thought for about two seconds and said, "BAIL4U." Thereafter, whenever Dan drew the T-Bird, that was usually seen on the plate.

A few weeks ago, I was driving through a parking garage in Century City when I did an automotive double-take. I literally passed another car, saw something, realized what I thought I'd seen, hit the brakes and then backed up about ten yards so I could see if I'd actually seen what I thought I'd seen. Sure enough, it was the license plate from Crossfire's car…

Fortunately, I had my camera with me. Unfortunately, the plate was not on a 1957 Thunderbird. It was on a late model Mercedes that I'm guessing belongs to a rather successful person in the bail bond business.

There's really nothing more to this story than that. I just thought it was amazing that I noticed the plate, and I figured there might be one Crossfire reader who visits this site who'd be amused by it. I didn't stick around until the owner came back to the car. I was afraid it might be my character.

Another Private Snafu cartoon. It's called Gripes and it was directed by Friz Freleng and released in July of '43. (Someone added Freleng's name on this print. When these films were released, they were without credits.) This one has kind of an interesting moral. It's that if you treat our soldiers well, you'll get your ass shot off. So it's dangerous to complain if they make you peel a lot of potatoes. I don't buy it, either but that's apparently the message that the Army wanted the animators to sell.

Mel Blanc does all the voices except that in the crowd scenes, you can hear Tedd Pierce, a WB storyman who occasionally played parts in the films.

If you eat in chain restaurants, you might want to check out this list of The 20 Worst Foods in America. It's really amazing sometimes how many calories are in something you'd think wouldn't be as bad as it is.

Yesterday, Jay Leno was the subject of some press reports that cast him in a bad light for declining to pay the salaries of Tonight Show staff members who have been laid-off because of the strike. Today, it's being reported that he is paying their salaries on a week-to-week basis, but he's being portrayed in a bad light because he didn't come through faster with the assurance…or something like that.

Here's a link to the article and I'm a little mystified. The staffers were laid off on Friday and on Saturday, Leno's producer was phoning around to assure them they'd be paid. That's not soon enough? The guy's shelling out a pretty large piece of change to people who don't even work for him — they work for NBC — and the response is that morale among the staff members is low because of Jay's behavior? That strikes me as finding a negative where there isn't one. Last night, I spoke to one Tonight Show employee who painted quite a different picture and who said that everyone there understands that Jay is having some tough negotiations with the network that are unrelated to the strike.

But this article seems to be going out of its way to spin positives into negatives. Here are a couple of examples…

"A lot of people don't want to work for Jay anymore," another staffer said. "His true colors have shown. We were told he won't cross the picket line until David Letterman or Conan O'Brien do so that he can look like the good guy to the WGA."

Even assuming that's a true summary of Leno's mindset — and it may not be, since it's at best an anonymous third-hand source from someone who may have been speculating in the first place — so what? If Letterman, O'Brien and Leno all stay out until the strike is over, they will be "good guys" to the WGA. That's all the guild is asking of them.

Beyond Leno's misplaced optimism about the financial well-being of his staff, he further damaged himself — in the eyes of some workers — with his public behavior. While he privately expressed concern for the jobs of all staff members, to the media he seemed preoccupied with supporting striking writers, including handing out doughnuts to picketers and mugging for press photos.

Translation: At a time when his staff members were still being paid, Leno was out supporting his union. In case no one's figured it out, the WGA has asked actors and performers to come out, join the picket lines and be photographed with us.

Just what is it Leno allegedly did wrong here? The staffers had not yet been laid off and might not have been laid off if, as many were speculating, the strike was close to a settlement. Apparently, he was supposed to not go out and back his guild. He was supposed to be lining up jobs for these people who don't work for him and might not have been laid off…this, despite the fact that employees are being laid off all over town and no star is helping them find work, and most aren't offering a dime out of their own pockets. (It is apparently only late night talk show hosts who are expected to come up with their staff's paychecks during a strike, not stars of sitcoms or dramas or anything else.) I don't get it.

I like the fact that Jay went out and bought doughnuts for the picketers. It's a good, blue collar way of telling America that he's behind the strike, as if closing down his show wasn't enough. I helped run the picketing of NBC in '88 and I don't recall Mr. Carson coming by and passing out crullers. That strike might have lasted a few weeks less if he had.

Actually, because I usually picket over at CBS, I really like the fact that Drew Carey, who's inside there most days hosting The Price is Right (a show without writers, let's note) has been arranging for pizzas to be sent out to the WGA members marching about outside. One day, he arranged for a dozen to be delivered and one writer outside told a reporter, "We want to thank Drew for sharing half his lunch with us."

I'm starting to lean towards the idea that The Strike could last a lot longer than the optimists among us have been suggesting. "Could" is the operative word in that sentence.

It's difficult to predict these things because at various points, the companies that comprise the AMPTP have to caucus among themselves and their CEOs or reps all have to sign off on a new offer or a new strategy. Outsiders are not privy to those discussions. At any given point, the Producers have a reasonably good idea of what it would take to settle with the WGA — how close to our demands they'd have to come to get 51% of the membership to vote to take the deal and get back to work. That they don't just offer that is because at least one of the member studios in the multi-employer bargaining unit thinks a better deal (for them) is attainable at a cost-effective cost.

Of course, it could be more than one member corporation that doesn't want to make that kind of settlement offer. It could be all of them. But during the long strike of '88, rumors circulated — who knows if they were true? — that at a certain point, Paramount wanted to make a real settlement offer, whereas Disney vetoed it. Or was it the other way around? There were also rumors that some of the companies were squabbling over matters unrelated to our strike, and that these squabbles were getting in the way of them getting together on an offer that would end our strike.

The point is we don't know. When the WGA has a rift in its ranks, as we did in '85, it's a matter of public record. When they get to fighting in the AMPTP, it's a carefully-guarded secret.

So that's one reason it's tough to forecast how this thing will play out. The other biggie is that there are wildly-varying estimates of how much money is involved in certain deal points, especially the ones that relate to new technology and expanding markets. You could see this vividly with the latest offer, the one that got summarily rejected last week. The Producers say they're offering a $130 million increase. The WGA analysts say it's a rollback. How good is it really? You can't answer that easily and since you can't, you can't say at what point it makes financial sense for one side or the other to pack it in, rather than hold out.

The other day, the WGA put out a statement that included the following…

On Wednesday we presented a comprehensive economic justification for our proposals. Our entire package would cost this industry $151 million over three years. That's a little over a 3% increase in writer earnings each year, while company revenues are projected to grow at a rate of 10%. We are falling behind. For Sony, this entire deal would cost $1.68 million per year. For Disney $6.25 million. Paramount and CBS would each pay about $4.66 million, Warner about $11.2 million, Fox $6.04 million, and NBC/Universal $7.44 million. MGM would pay $320,000 and the entire universe of remaining companies would assume the remainder of about $8.3 million per year.

Observers look at that and say, "So what's the standoff here? The Producers say they're offering $130 million and the Writers want $151 million. They're only $21 million apart. That's about what this strike if supposedly costing Hollywood per day! Why can't the two sides split the difference and end this thing so we can get fresh Colbert Reports?" The problem is that even if both sides' numbers are honest — and they may not be — nobody really knows how much loot will eventually be involved. We're talking a three year contract here and no one can say precisely where the home video and Internet Streaming markets will be in three years. The dollar figures cited are guesstimates extrapolating from where those markets are today.

And to further throw uncertainty into the mix, the Producers aren't thinking about how much it would take to sign the WGA. They're thinking of that amount plus how much they'll then have to give the Directors Guild and the Screen Actors Guild and other unions that will demand and presumably get similar increases. (The precise multiplier is arguable because not every concession applies to every union…but for example, a movie has a lot more actors than it does writers. So conceding another dollar to writers might translate to four or five more bucks to actors.)

Beyond that, the Producers probably have two related concerns. One is that for the past 30 or so years, they've done a pretty good job of keeping the unions from making major gains. None of them expect a lot, which is why even the supposedly-militant WGA is (see above statement) willing to settle for a 3% increase in an industry that they project will grow at a rate of 10%. From the employers' POV, there's a certain value to not disrupting the momentum of not allowing unions to win demands. The 22-week Writers Strike of '88 could never, in and of itself, have been cost-effective from the Producers' standpoint. Some estimates say they lost $100 million for every million bucks they managed to deny us. But they also scared the hell out of all the unions in town. In the two decades since, no union or guild (including the WGA) has tried to gain much and most have eaten a few rollbacks, rather than get into another all-out war. That's worth something to the studios.

The other, connected consideration is this: Delivery of entertainment via Internet is a new frontier, a new place the industry seems to be relocating. There are undoubtedly those who dream of settling that territory without unions and labor getting a real foothold. The studios had to concede to principles like residuals and paying health benefits in the old venues and you can almost hear them saying, "Let's not make that mistake this time" or at least, "Let's not make it before we absolutely have to." That's one of the reasons all the other unions in town are lining up behind the WGA. They all sense that the business is being redefined and in their own ways, they'll all have to battle to not start over from scratch, fighting for the benefits they now take for granted.

All of this makes it very difficult to gauge how long it could be before the Producers decide they're losing too much. Could be tomorrow, could be April. I still don't think it'll be April because if they settle with us then, they'll be getting scripts just in time to face the possibility of a strike by the actors and maybe even the directors. That could throw the entire industry into chaos for all of '08 and do some irreparable structural damage to the biz, like putting theaters out of business for lack of product or causing major advertisers to largely abandon broadcast television.

Right now, a major date to keep in mind is February 24, 2008. That's the scheduled date for the Academy Awards. In order to have a relatively normal Oscarcast on that date, the strike would have to be darn close to over by the end of January. If it's still going strong the day of the Oscars, all the unions will boycott. Jon Stewart, the announced host, certainly wouldn't be up there in his tux and even if he would, can you imagine what that monologue would be like? I'm guessing twenty solid minutes of CEO-bashing, followed by no one of note presenting to a lot of recipients who couldn't be present to accept because they were outside with signs. The show would be a fiasco, sending word around the globe that the American film industry can't deliver product…can't even produce its annual tribute to itself.

If I were the AMPTP, I'd start pressuring the Academy to move the ceremony later in the year…maybe even into early April, which is when they used to have it. Like I said, I don't think the strike will last that long but if the Producers aren't prepared to settle by the end of '07, they're going to have to at least pretend they're willing to hang tough and hold out for several months beyond that. Delaying the Oscars, or at least trying to delay the Oscars, would be a convenient scare tactic. Let's see if they try it.

Say…just how do you make the perfect chocolate chip cookie?

I just corrected Wikipedia on this for the third time: I did not create or co-create the 1992 sitcom, Bob — the one that starred Bob Newhart as a comic book artist. The show was created, produced and largely written by Bill Steinkellner, Cheri Steinkellner and Phoef Sutton. I merely wrote one episode and, in an unofficial capacity, provided some "technical advice" about comic books and the comic book business.

Someone keeps changing it back to say I created the show. I'm a little sensitive about usurping the credits of others, even accidentally. So if it's you who's been posting that, please stop doing it. Bill, Cheri and Phoef are great folks, they did a fine job on that show and they deserve recognition for their work.

It's kind of a toss-up as to who had the worse week, P.R.-wise: Rudy Giuliani or Carson Daly. "America's Mayor" is being battered by one revelation after another about trysts and cheating on his wife and using city funds and facilities to chauffeur his lady friend about. The host of Last Call with Carson Daly is losing respect left and right for his decision to cross the WGA picket line and resume the taping of his show.

Not that he had a lot before that. It is worth recalling the history of that show, which used to be called Later. It was hosted by Bob Costas. It was hosted by Greg Kinnear. It was hosted by Cynthia Garrett. It was hosted by a pretty wide array of temporary guest hosts who were auditioning for the permanent gig. What NBC came to decide was that it almost didn't matter who hosted it. The ratings were a rather predictable function of two factors: How "promotable" the lead guest was, and the size of the lead-in from Conan O'Brien's program. Of the two, the latter has probably been the more important. The host? Not that big a deal.

Mr. Daly, who does a nice enough job in the post, was chosen for a couple of reasons, one being that NBC felt they had to pick someone. Another was the hope — which has been generally realized — that his age and MTV background would draw in, if not a larger audience then at least a younger audience. The most important thing though was that NBC was hoping to use the slot to groom a new NBC star — someone who might be of value to them in earlier day parts. If Daly suffers in any way for his picket-line crossing, it will probably be in that area…but perhaps that was already a lost cause. It's been a long time since I heard his name mentioned as a possible replacement for O'Brien when he takes over The Tonight Show. Or for anything else.

It's easy to get angry at Daly…or at Ellen DeGeneres, who is also doing her talk show, sans writers. The decision to go back could be opportunism or it could be a genuine concern for the future of the show, the incomes of the staff, etc. The assumption out there seems to be that Daly was told, in effect, "Go back and do your show or you're fired." NBC can't afford to punish Conan O'Brien for staying out, and Jay Leno is leaving anyway…but they could put a gun to Carson Daly's head. If they indeed did that, it was probably just pique. The network's late night numbers are in the sub-basement, Conan O'Brien's show is delivering low lead-ins…and new episodes of Last Call probably won't do markedly better than reruns.

Obviously, as a loyal WGAer, I'd have preferred that Ellen and Carson not go back. Obviously too, we can't fully assess the pressures and reasons that both chose to risk damage to their images and the wrath of certain friends. I find it a little difficult to get too outraged over the choices they made, especially since I don't know much about the "why" of those choices. In any case, I don't think it does much to change the dynamic of the strike. The networks are still without too many of their money-making programs. They wouldn't be any more eager to settle thing if they didn't have new episodes of Ellen and Last Call.

Mr. Leno is presently getting some bad press because, though David Letterman and Conan O'Brien have announced they will continue to pay their staffs during the strike, Jay has not. Since he's soon to vacate his show — and since, unlike Letterman, he isn't sole owner of his show — he's in a little different situation. More significantly, Leno has been locked in his own negotiation for some time. I never thought NBC could have done much to change the "Who will replace Johnny?" scenario. I think there was really only one way that whole thing could have played out, which was the way it did. But now they're into a train wreck — Leno being ousted when his popularity is still high — that didn't have to happen. Last I heard, talks to keep Leno with NBC in some capacity (or at least, off Fox) were getting hot 'n' heavy.

Which makes me curious why, as noted here earlier, NBC is rerunning ancient Leno Tonight Shows, episodes that Jay himself has said many times he never wanted to have seen again. Does that mean the haggling is over? That NBC is now presuming Leno is going to be competition? Or is this just some sneaky way to pressure him to come back to work and/or sign a new NBC deal? I have no idea…but there's something going on there and it ain't just about the strike. Maybe when all the dust clears, NBC is going to need a new host for one of its three late night shows. I have a hunch Rudy Giuliani may be available.

Ben Wallace-Wells has an article up over at Rolling Stone entitled "How America Lost the War on Drugs." Its subtitle is a pretty good summary: "After Thirty-Five Years and $500 Billion, Drugs Are as Cheap and Plentiful as Ever: An Anatomy of a Failure." Looks like another one of those cases where no one will dispute that the problem isn't being solved but it's easier to keep staying the course and wasting $$$ than to admit that.