Monthly Archives: December 2007

Monty Python's Spamalot is playing all over the world. Above is a scan of a blurry Polaroid photo of me on stage with the national touring company when they were playing Columbus, Ohio a few weeks ago.

Meanwhile, an Australian TV reporter checks in on the London company of Spamalot. The gentleman wrongly thinks that "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life," which is in the show, was from the movie, Monty Python and the Holy Grail but otherwise, it's a nice little segment on the production with some good clips.

The other day here, I linked to a fine article by KC Carlson about what comic book collecting was like back in the (cough, cough) old days. Something later went amiss with the link so I took it down. This one should work.

In case you haven't heard, negotiations have broken down again in the WGA/AMPTP talks…although frankly, from what we've heard, it doesn't sound like a lot of negotiating was actually going on even when the two sides were together and talking. (In case you're not up to speed, here's a report on the breakdown from the AMPTP side and here's one from the WGA side. Guess which one I think is more rational and represents good faith bargaining.)

What does it mean? Well, the first thing it means is no negotiating for a while. The AMPTP has demanded that the WGA drop six topics from the talks or there will be no more talks. As a complete outside observer, it seems unthinkable to me that the WGA would just drop these issues except as trade-offs for genuine concessions. But the AMPTP is not offering anything in exchange for dropping them except a resumption of talks that, so far, haven't been particularly fruitful.

So it sounds like this strike ain't gonna end until '08. The AMPTP posture is not one from which they can easily back down. They can't come back in next Tuesday and say, "Hey, remember that stuff we said on Friday about how we weren't resuming meetings until you dropped six issues? Well, forget it. That was just the liquor talking." It's going to take a couple weeks of sidebars and backchannel talks before the two sides — probably with a couple of outside parties doing shuttle diplomacy — arrive at some sort of understanding that will allow the dialogue to resume. The AMPTP may even try to plunge into an early deal with the Directors Guild, although the DGA may decide its against their own best interests to be used that way.

One thing to keep in mind if you read over the AMPTP's list of the six areas they will not discuss with the WGA: In them, you'll see some references to the Guild demanding to be paid more than the producers receive for something. Here's an example from their press release…

The WGA proposed a system of compensation for Internet programming that, when applied to the WGA and the other guilds, could result in producers paying more to the guilds from Internet programming than the producers actually receive in revenue from such Internet programming.

What that's all about is what they call Hollywood Accounting…ways of hiding the money from people who receive a share. Here's how it works. Let's say I have a movie studio called Klopman Pictures. Let's say you write a movie for Klopman Pictures and according to our deal, you're to receive 2% of the revenues that the producer receives. Then let's say the movie makes a zillion dollars.

You probably expect to receive 2% of a zillion but that's not how it works, Bunky. You see, the zillion is what Klopman Distributing — a separate company that I just happen to also own — collects. Then Klopman Distributing has to pay its expenses, which includes half a zillion dollars to me as a consultant. Then they deduct a 25% distribution fee. Then they lop off their FedEx expenses and the cost of the staff and what everyone spent on lunch, plus they have to pay rent (to the Klopman Realty Company) for the suite of offices that house Klopman Distributing…and by the time all these amounts are subtracted, what they pass on to Klopman Pictures (i.e., "the producer") is considerably diminished. I just did a rough calculation and I figure it's about $17.45. So you get your 2% of that amount. Don't spend it all in one place.

So when you read that the WGA is demanding "more than the producers receive for something," it's all about that kind of math. It means the WGA wants some sort of compensation that's not reducible to 2% of seventeen bucks. The tip-off is that phrase: "…what the producers actually receive." That's language you stick into a contract when you're preparing to argue that there's some money involved that you didn't "actually receive." In our hypothetical example, I'd be arguing that $17.45 is what the producer "actually received."

So that's what that's all about. Most of the other areas they're resisting are ones that would give the WGA more power. It's all very depressing but I think they're wrong if they think it's going to weaken the Guild.

I've been feeling guilty lately because with my trip and with various deadlines and disasters at home, I haven't been able to picket as often as I feel I should. Looks like I'm going to have ample opportunity.

I am sitting here at Farmers Market, having lunch with my friend, Len Wein. Len doesn't seem to believe I can post to my weblog from my BlackBerry. So this is just to show him I can.

This is a fellow named Jeff Hoover who does an uncanny impression of…well, just watch…

L.A. Weekly columnist Nikki Finke is reporting pure pessimism about the WGA/AMPTP negotiations. Says she, the "moguls" are close to walking out and not returning until February at the soonest.

Which leaves us with the question of whether…

1. Ms. Finke has solid sources within the talks that know of what they speak…
2. Ms. Finke is being "planted," directly or indirectly by someone on the side of the AMPTP who wants to throw a scare into the WGA and thinks that will hasten their concessions or…
3. Ms. Finke is passing on an honest assessment from someone with a vantage point into the meetings, but it's just one view and there are others.

Which is it? I'm inclined to think "c" is most likely with "b" as runner-up. There must be dissension among the studio heads and labor lawyers who are bargaining…or in some cases, refusing to bargain. And even the ones most eager to make a deal and end this thing probably figure the way to get there is to act like they're ready to walk out and let the WGA hang for a few months. A certain amount of what's going on is probably the Persistence of a Strategy. That is, the approach the AMPTP is taking to these negotiations of stonewalling and occasionally offering something that sounds generous but isn't…that's an approach that usually works for them. They've increased their revenues by billions (that's billions with a "b") with that approach.

It isn't working this time. We wouldn't be 33 days into a strike that is destroying all their schedules if it had worked, and it's showing no signs of starting to work, nor is there any reason to suspect it will begin working when it comes time to dicker over the same sticking points with the Screen Actors Guild. But it's kind of the only trick they know or can all agree upon.

Turning to my e-mailbag for a moment, I have this from Gary Emenitove…

Does NBC have any connection with Johnny Carson's Tonight Show episodes anymore, or is their ownership entirely elsewhere? Perhaps NBC could run old Carson shows rather than the old Leno shows? I'd imagine the ratings might spike — at least for older demographics — and this could even be a sales boost for the Carson DVDs that seem to be available everywhere. Personally, I'd make it a point to watch.

You, me and probably not a lot of other folks, Gary. No, as far as I know, the Carson family owns all those shows and NBC doesn't own any piece of them. Generally speaking, there hasn't been much interest in the marketplace in Johnny's old shows. I don't think the DVDs have even done that well. A couple of other folks wrote to ask me if NBC could stick on old Steve Allen or Jack Paar episodes. The answer is that even if those tapes existed — and sadly, very few do — they'd be a huge gamble that would go contrary to everything that ratings trends of the last few decades have indicated.

Since about the early seventies, a belief among those who program the late night shows has been that age lessens an episode's rebroadcast strength. I don't think you could look at the ratings and come to any other conclusion: Audiences do not want to watch old late night shows…and the older the rerun is, the less likely people are to watch. This was certainly Mr. Carson's belief. In the seventies, he got rid of his "weekend" reruns because of it. He cut back on his weeknight reruns and increased the percentage of new shows, even though it meant a higher percentage of all Tonight Show broadcasts would be guest-hosted.

He even changed the time frame from which they selected their reruns. In the sixties, when it came time to select an old Tonight Show to rerun with Johnny on it, they usually reached back at least a year. By the eighties, they were only reaching back a few months…and were avoiding shows with too many references that would remind viewers they were watching an old one. Even then, there was a belief that the program was particularly vulnerable on rerun nights. The occasional period when some other show seemed to be gaining on Carson was blamed, probably rightly, on that. During the period when Arsenio Hall's syndicated talk show was giving Carson a strong challenge, it was attributed to new Arsenio shows having the advantage on old Johnny episodes. Mr. Leno's ascension to The Tonight Show had a lot to do with countering that. Since J.C. wasn't about to start working more days per week and since his reruns were underperforming, Jay was hosting the show more and more and keeping the numbers up.

This all explains why Dave, Jay, Conan and the others usually draw their reruns from only a few weeks back and sometimes run an episode a third time, rather than go back even farther for one that's never rerun before. The older a show is, the more likely viewers are to change channels in search of something current. That's a pretty solid principle these days in late night programming…which is why I don't understand for the life of me why NBC is running Leno shows from 1994-1996. Not only that but throughout each episode, they keep putting up the original broadcast date to make doubly sure you know you're watching what is, by the current standards of network television, a truly ancient episode. As if seeing Chris Farley doing belly-flops didn't make the point.

Was this someone's bold notion? Did someone think viewers were dying to see Jay with darker hair (and sometimes even his old bandleader) making contemporaneous jokes about the Clinton administration? We always admire buck-the-conventional-wisdom thinking but given the numbers, it ain't working. Is NBC reasoning that since they're soon to lose Jay in that time slot, this would be a good time to drive viewers away from it? Letterman is running shows from last year — older than they would normally have selected but not as old as Leno's. Both shows are suffering. Even Nightline is sometimes beating them, which is remarkable given that we aren't currently in a hostage crisis or another Katrina. But Jay's being hurt a lot more than Dave. (Tonight's Tonight Show is from 2004, which is a little better.)

I joked the other day here that NBC was running them to see if they could embarrass Jay into returning to work. A friend of mine who works for Leno and is equally baffled called to say that explanation made as much sense as any of them. Let's see how soon the network reverts to recent reruns. If they don't and if this strike goes on as long as Nikki Finke thinks it might, NBC could do what CBS, ABC and others have tried and tried to do but never been able to achieve: Destroy The Tonight Show.

Judging from the ratings, not a lot of you are watching the hoary reruns of The Tonight Show at NBC, for some reason, is showing while Mr. Leno and his writers are on strike. Last night, it was a show from January of '96 and the lead guest was Chris Farley, who was either coked-up or might as well have been. Back when we could pretend his excesses weren't likely to kill him — he died in December of the following year — Farley seemed like a very funny, lovable boy. It's a little harder to see him that way now.

I find the old shows fascinating in their way but I'm not surprised America doesn't want to watch jokes — there was one on Tuesday's rerun — about how President Bill Clinton wasn't likely to get elected to a second term. It's interesting to see what passed for Current Events back then and also to see what Leno's show was like back then before he decided, for example, to stop trying to do characters in sketches.

More interesting to me would be to know what was on the mind of whoever decided that during the strike, they'd dip back into the days when Leno's hair was just going charcoal, and he was doing shows that he never wanted to have rerun. They're not making audiences happy and I doubt Jay is thrilled about them. So how come they're not dumping that approach and doing what Letterman's doing, which is to dig back no farther than last year, even if it means running some episodes for the third time?

This annoys me. We're on stormwatch here in Los Angeles and at the moment, it doesn't look like that big a storm. But you wouldn't know that from the L.A. Times. Here's the lead paragraph from an article they put up at 9:06 AM…

A significant rainstorm is expected to barrel into Southern California late today, dumping up to 3 inches of rain over two days and prompting the National Weather Service to issue flash-flood warnings.

And then later on in the article, it says…

The rains, which could range from 1 to 3 inches from downtown L.A. to the mountains, are expected to bring a considerable snowpack — with up to a foot of snow at elevations above 7,000 feet.

At least an inch of rain in downtown Los Angeles? Up to three inches? That's what they're suggesting but that's not what the National Weather Service — the article's only source for forecasts — is actually saying. This is from the 5:30 AM Special Weather Statement from the NWS, which as of this moment is still their official forecast…

General rainfall amounts are expected to range between one half and one inch across coastal and valley locations…with locally higher amounts possible across Los Angeles County and areas near heavier showers or thunderstorms. Most foothill and mountain areas can expect between one and three inches of rain…with highest amounts expected on the south facing slopes of the San Gabriel range.

1-3 inches of rain in the mountains is not uncommon from a storm that drops a third of that in the L.A. basin. Flash-flood warnings in mountainous areas that have recently burned are also pretty standard even with a weak storm. It looks to me like the forecast is really for a half-inch to an inch across most of L.A. and 1-3 inches in the surrounding mountains, especially the San Gabriel mountains, where the topography doesn't have a lot to do with what we commonly think of as Los Angeles. It could be seventy degrees where I am and snowing on those hilltops.

But the point is that there's a big difference between a half-inch to an inch of rain in the flatlands and 1-3 inches. This storm may do some damage and it may even be bigger than the National Weather Service is predicting. But their current forecast is being misrepresented here. I wish people wouldn't do that.

At the convention in New York a few weeks ago, I got to meet a lot of folks I previously knew only via e-mails and weblogs. One was Clifford Meth, who has become an important presence in publishing these days, especially working with a new firm called IDW. He has a new project coming out this month called Snaked, described as a "noir horror story." I've liked what I've read of Meth's work and the fact that he started developing this one with our mutual friend, the late Dave Cockrum, makes it especially intriguing. The art is by Rufus Dayglo, who's been working for 2000 AD, mostly on the Judge Dredd strip, so I'm going to keep an eye out for this one. Maybe you should, too.

Here's the wonderful performer Tom Lehrer…with Spanish, non-rhyming subtitles, no less!

Fred Kaplan on what should happen next with Iran. And I also think that a good indicator of what's going to happen there would be to watch and see when David Letterman starts booking new guests. Especially if he has Regis on.

The most interesting things currently going on with our favorite topic — the strike — are the reports (like this one) that the member companies of the AMPTP are not quite all on the same page with regard to how long they're prepared to take a hard line and not give the WGA enough of what it wants. In '88, as that work stoppage slogged on, we heard increasingly that this company or that one was eager — in some cases, almost desperate — to settle but that "The Monolith of Management" was holding together via its own internal pressures. And of course it stands to reason that, just as not all writers are being hurt equally by the strike, not all networks and production companies are looking at equivalent losses.

The other day, I heard someone compare it to Tournament Blackjack, which happens to be a game I've been studying lately. In Tournament Blackjack, as opposed to regular Blackjack, all the players simultaneously play against the House but more importantly, they play against each other so it's possible to gain by losing. If I'm playing against you and the dealer beats us both, we both lose our wagers…but if you've bet more than I have on the hand, you lose more than I do. So I gain on you or even pull ahead of you. You can lose every hand in a Tournament Blackjack competition and still win the game because you bet small.

So it is with a strike like this. Some of the studios are being hurt less by the strike so they're gaining a competitive advantage on the others. No one could reasonably expect that Sony or Universal is going to break away from the Alliance and cut a separate deal with the WGA…but someone in their internal meetings is more anxious to end the strike than someone else.

Yesterday in this space, we told you that the WGA wasn't going to settle this thing without addressing some of the issues that don't relate directly to dollars and cents…and sure enough, yesterday in the bargaining sessions, our team presented demands for the Guild to expand jurisdiction over so-called "reality" or "writerless" shows. Tomorrow, at about the hour the National Weather Service says it'll stop raining in L.A., there's a big rally out in Burbank outside the office of one of the main companies that produces such shows.

(By the way: I noted that the rally was near the Bob's Big Boy restaurant in Burbank, which is where one can often find Drew Carey dining, and I mentioned the rumor that he owns the place. I am informed that he does not, but that he may have set up some sort of running tab there, whereby he pays for the meals of any diner who flashes a WGA card. Check before you assume that's true. Mr. Carey does apparently own Swingers, which is a coffee shop near CBS Television City that is feeding WGA members for free.)

No new predictions on how long this thing's gonna last but the more I think of it, the more I think the best indicator that it's close to ending will be David Letterman. The late night shows are taking a bad hit during this strike and they'll rush back into production as soon as the picket lines go down. Jay Leno's having all sorts of problems with NBC that relate to his future, or possible lack of one at that network. Dave's going to hit the ground at full sprint to get back up and running — that's one of the reasons he's paying his staff to keep working. So the second it looks like there's an end date for the strike, CBS exec Les Moonves, who's in the thick of the negotiations, will surely alert Mr. Letterman. When we hear that Dave is lining up a real guest list for even a tentative resumption of tapings, that's when I'll start believing the rumors that the strike is near settlement. Not before.

Quick! Check the time down in your system tray! Is it between the hours of 4 PM and 6 PM Pacific Time? (That would be 7 PM and 9 PM in the East and other hours in other time zones.) If it is, you can tune in right this second and hear Stu's Show, a wonderful talk fest on Shokus Internet Radio that's on at this very moment with me as a guest!

We'll be discussing the Writers Strike. We'll be discussing the life and times of Charles Schulz (with his son, Monte, and long-time business partner and friend, Lee Mendelson). We'll even be discussing the new, upcoming Garfield cartoon show I'm working on, plus we'll be taking your phone calls if you want to comment or ask a question.

"But how do I get there?" I hear you ask! It's as easy as falling off a building. Go to the Shokus Internet Radio website. There, you will find three different audio browser links. Pick one, wait a few seconds for it to connect…and listen in! If it doesn't connect, which occasionally happens, try another browser link. But it's simple and it's free and it's all happening right this minute…

…unless, of course, you've missed it! But fret not: The show reruns tomorrow in the same time slot. It's not as good as hearing it live but it's better than nothing.

No word on what's up with the strike other than assurances that they're talking and that everyone is considering everyone else's proposals. This could mean progress or it could mean that any minute now, both sides will be out there accusing the other of not knowing a good formula when they see it.

These things are always roller coasters, always a matter of hopes being raised and then dashed, raised and then dashed. It can make the strike seem longer and more painful if you allow it to keep doing that to you. My guess is that when we are close to a real resolution, there'll be no doubt about it. It won't be a matter of unsourced rumors. Dave, Jay and Conan will be talking about booking actual guests the following week for tentative new shows. The WGA will announce a general membership meeting. The AMPTP will find a way to assure advertisers and theater owners that new product is on the horizon.

Until then, assume the strike is indefinite.

Even when we have the above indicators, there may be stumbling blocks. The deal isn't the deal until the rank-and-file of the Writers Guild membership votes to accept. If the Guild's Negotiating Committee and Board of Directors vote to recommend it, then that will probably happen…but it isn't one of those George Tenet brand slam-dunks. Expectations among the members are high, not so much for the dollars and cents involved but that a number of the so-called "moral issues" will be addressed and improved.

The WGA never strikes only for money. We always have issues relating to the way the business works…matters such as screen credits, expanding the Guild's jurisdiction (into reality shows and animation, for instance), separation of rights, etc. Two big concerns that have loomed large the last few years are the matters of Late Payments and Free Rewrites. A number of employers have quite consciously opted to make the checks late so they can collect interest on the money a little bit longer. I once worked for a producer who had that built into his budget. It was planned that all checks would be two weeks late because this would net him an extra $1200 or thereabouts.

In the era of electronic payment, you would think this kind of thing would be ending…and in some areas, it is. I'm working on a project for a European company and when I hand in a draft, they sometimes have the payment in my bank account within six hours. But if I work for certain major studios in Hollywood, it will somehow take three weeks.

We'd like to mop that up and we'd also like to stop Free Rewrites. The contract between the AMPTP and the WGA specifies a certain number of drafts that you do on a script for the agreed-upon fee. Producers have been known to pressure writers to do more…and often, it can turn into writing a whole new script as an alleged "rewrite" of another. After you've delivered the final draft of the script in which everyone goes to the planet Neptune in search of water, the producer decides it'll be too expensive and instead, they want it to be a story in which everyone goes to Starbucks in search of Colombia Nariño Supremo. Well, okay, those decisions get made…but to get out of paying you or another writer to write that new script, they want to consider it a rewrite of your old one, the one you finished, and have you not charge them. We'd like that to stop, too. There are also matters relating to age and racial discrimination, product placement, honest accounting and several others.

Every negotiation, the WGA comes to the table with issues that are more involved with ethics and creative control than cash, and every negotiation, the AMPTP seems to take the attitude of, "Oh, they aren't really serious about anything but the money," which is always wrong. A large part of the Guild cares at least as much about the moral/ethical/creative concerns as they do about how much loot goes into our wallets. In the current bargaining, if you hear that they've settled the money questions, that may not be the end of it.

That's Charles Schulz, not long after he'd begun drawing a comic strip that was somewhat successful.  As you may know, a highly-controversial book was recently written on Mr. Schulz. That book will be the second topic tomorrow on the first anniversary broadcast of Stu's Show on Shokus Internet Radio.

I will be the main guest for the two-hour program which you can hear live on your computer at 4 PM Pacific (7 PM Eastern). This is not a podcast that you can download at your leisure or listen to whenever you like. It's a streaming audio program and to hear it, you have to be at a computer when it's streamed. (It reruns in the same time slot for a week after but again, you have to tune in when it's being streamed.) This may sound a bit difficult in this era of TiVos and VCRs — actually tuning in to a show when it's broadcast — but those who make the effort seem to find it quite enjoyable. And you can also phone in while we're on the air and ask questions.

As I said, the book of Charles Schulz will be the second topic, which means we'll get to it after Topic #1, which will be my views on the Writers Strike for the benefit of anyone who's not sick of reading them here. So some time around 4:15 (Pacific), we'll begin discussing the book, and our host Stuart Shostak has lined up perhaps the two most-qualified people on the planet to join us for this discussion. Monte Schulz, son of Charles, will be participating and so will Lee Mendelson, who co-produced all the Peanuts animated specials and series. So you have the man's son and one of his closest business associates and long-time friends. Can't do much better than that.

Following that, if there's time, we'll be chatting about the new, upcoming Garfield cartoon show I'm writing and also about my past association with the character. And you can call in and ask me to talk about something more interesting than that.

Okay, now let me tell you how to listen to Shokus Internet Radio. Go to that website. Select an audio browser. Click and listen. And you can do that at any hour of the day because there are always interesting shows to be heard. Go there right now and try it out if you don't believe me. It's free. It's easier than you'd think. And it's addictive.

That's Stu's Show, tomorrow (Wednesday) from 4 PM to 6 PM on this coast, 7 PM to 9 PM on the East Coast, and if you're somewhere else, you can probably figure it out from that.