From the E-Mailbag…

I received many messages commenting on the clip I linked to of the "pitch" reel for The Muppet Show. Roy Currlin sent this one that I thought you'd like to read…

One of the CBS executives mentioned in the video (Lee Currlin), is my father. After his stint at the network, he was in charge of program acquisition for the CBS owned and operated stations. He bought The Muppet Show for the stations, so I guess the pitch kinda eventually did work? (Dad died over 15 years ago, so I can't ask him.)

And of course, the interesting thing here is that CBS may not have turned the project down because they didn't think it was any good. They may have said no because it didn't fit their programming needs at that moment…and then later, your father knew the perfect spot for it.

This one's from Craig Shemin, and I got this yesterday so the "tomorrow" he mentions is today…

As a former (and sometimes current) writer for the Muppets, and Vice President of The Jim Henson Legacy, I'm delighted you posted the Muppet Show pitch video, but I wanted to address what you said about it not being a good illustration of the content of the show. Actually, the video begins with "in conclusion" and as such, is really just the tail end of a longer pitch reel that included clips from various Muppet specials and television appearances that were similar in tone to what The Muppet Show became. The last couple of minutes was just a way to customize the pitch and end with a laugh — and to try to emphasize what many people were having trouble understanding since the success of Sesame Street — that the Muppets originally were made to entertain adults. (Jim Henson's first show, Sam & Friends aired twice a day in Washington, D.C. before the evening news and before Steve Allen's version of The Tonight Show).

Since this video of the pitch reel appears to be taken from the DVD release of The Muppet Show, it does not include the original tag which has Kermit in front of a CBS eye looking to camera and saying "What the hell was that all about?" I think Disney (owners of ABC) did not want to show (or could not show) the logo of a rival network.

Oh, and speaking of Sam & Friends, the original Kermit and the other members of the Sam and Friends cast will find a new home tomorrow, as they will be donated to the Smithsonian's Museum of American History.

You're probably right that they didn't want to show a CBS logo there. Some companies are very fussy about how their own logos are used and so they're extra courteous (shall we say…) with those of competitors. I'm still wondering if the direct references to CBS execs in the pitch hurt the show's chances more than helping them but I suppose we'll never know. I'm also wondering if they were angling the show for a specific time slot, which is how most development went in those days. There was a tendency for the networks to put out the word that they were looking for candidates to replace what they had on at, say, 8 PM on Thursday and not give a lot of consideration to putting the submission on in another spot. If so, it would be interesting to know what seemed more appealing than what Mssrs. Henson and Schlatter were offering.

Sergio on the TeeVee

aragonesfuturama

The episode of Futurama which airs this Thursday evening features a story about a comic book convention and among the guests is my amigo, Sergio Aragonés. He no longer has a body or (worse) his chin but the rest of him is reasonably intact, including his voice…which Sergio himself provided. I hope this appearance doesn't cause him to get a swelled head because, apparently, that will soon be all that remains of him.

Today's Great Money-Making Idea

Here's how someone could make a decent amount of cash. They take the time and energy to learn the ins and outs of all the different phone company plans, especially the cell phone rates. Then they charge some bewildered person — like, say, me — $25 to look over our recent bills and to have a phone conversation where they tell us if we have the right rate plan and if not, what to switch to. Maybe for $35, they teach us how to truly understand the bills we're paying and they do it slowly and in a way that doesn't presume we know anything. But even if we only went for the first option, I bet most of us would save more than the $25 and we'd all save time trying to understand that which was designed to not be understood.

Quick Question

Does anyone know of a website that with any accuracy at all lets you look up the schedules of all the domestic U.S. airlines? A commercial travel site like Expedia will show you all the flights from the carriers they can represent in a travel agent capacity but they don't have Southwest or Jet Blue or (usually) Virgin or a few others. There must be one that has them all.

Security is…

I am just back from Costco.

While browsing its aisles, I suddenly remembered that I was darn near out of cotton swabs. I steered my battleship-sized shopping cart to the appropriate part of the store and bought the smallest (and only) package of Q-Tips offered there. It contains three smaller packages of Q-Tips, each of which contains 625 Q-Tips. So I just purchased 1,875 Q-Tips.

If I use one per day, it will take me five years, one month and eighteen days to use them up. I still have nine swabs from the old package left so I'll run out on Friday, October 16, 2015. That's assuming Carolyn doesn't sneak in and "borrow" some.

Maybe I'll go back tomorrow and get her a box. That way, I know I'm set through 10/16/15. In a world where so much in uncertain, it's nice to have one thing in your life you can count on.

This Nearly Was Fine

The PBS series Live from Lincoln Center broadcast South Pacific last evening — the same production I saw in New York in November of '08. What most struck me in watching it on TV is how emotionally diminished it was on TV. The material was the same. The staging was the same. The book and music were, of course, the same. And most of the cast was the same…

…so what happened?

I'm going to have to think about this for a few days before I expect to be satisfied with any explanation. Off the top of my skull, I'm chalking it up to the fact that TV just doesn't command the rigid attention of sitting there in a theater, almost in the midst of it (Carolyn and I had great seats) and with the characters breathing the same air you'e breathing.

It will certainly play well for someone who didn't see it on stage…so if that's you and it reruns on your local PBS affiliate, watch it. It's a wonderful production. It's just not as wonderful on TV as it was at Lincoln Center.

Wednesday on Stu's Show!

Photo by Dave Nimitz
Photo by Dave Nimitz

Tomorrow, Stu Shostak has himself a heckuva radio show. Stu's Show, the flagstone program on Shokus Internet Radio, will welcome The Legendary Ladies of Cartoon Voicing. They are, of course, (L to R:) Janet Waldo and June Foray, two of the grandest performers to ever work in animation.

Do I have to tell you what they've done? That Janet was the voice of Judy Jetson, Penelope Pitstop, Granny Sweet, Josie (of Josie and the Pussycats) and more zillions of others? That June was the voice of Rocky the Flying Squirrel, Natasha Fatale, Granny in the Tweety & Sylvester cartoons, Jokey Smurf and zillions of others? They'll be discussing their lives, work and craft with Stu and his genial co-host, Earl Kress.

Wanna listen? Of course. Well, as we often explain to you here, this is not a podcast. You have to listen when the show is broadcast over the 'net. That'll happen tomorrow (Wednesday) from 4 PM 'til 6 PM in the Pacific Time Zone, which means 7 PM to 9 PM on the East Coast…and you can probably figure out the time where you are. That's when they do the show live. That's when you'll want to point your browser to the website of Shokus Internet Radio and click where they tell you to click. The brilliant voices of Ms. Foray and Ms. Waldo will then come streaming through your computer speakers and you'll have a great time. I'll be listening.

This Week in Gay Marriage

You may have heard that a recent CNN poll found for the first time that a majority of Americans (52% to 46%) believe that gays should have the right to marry each members of the same sex. This is not so. A majority of Americans may now feel that way but that's not what the poll asked. It asked, and I quote —

Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?

That's not exactly the same thing. It's possible for someone to believe — and surely, someone somewhere does — that same-sex marriages should be legal but that it doesn't have to be a constitutional right. It's also possible (though less likely) that someone who favors gay wedlock could answer no to that question because they think it's already a constitutional right…or maybe even a right conferred by some higher order.

In any case, that's the question that got the 52% yes/46% no answer. The poll is more interesting when you contrast that number to the other question that was asked, presumably of the same respondents…

Do you think gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?

The vote on that one was 49% yes and 51% no. From that, we might infer the following. Assume that almost anyone who is dead set against gays being allowed to wed would answer no to both questions. We'll also assume for the moment that the exceptions I just wrote about are statistically insignificant. What you would then deduce is that 49% of Americans think same-sex marriage is okay and is already legal under our constitution, 46% think it shouldn't be legal, and 5% think it isn't a constitutional right but should be.

Of course, all of that assuming starts with ignoring that the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5%…so really what you have here is a split decision. The country's just about even on both these questions. What I get out of all these surveys is that the momentum is moving in one direction. That's what all the mainstream polls — every one, I think — taken collectively seem to indicate.

Meanwhile, if I understand it, the folks who opposed Proposition 8 are worried that if and when the case gets to the Supreme Court, it will be overturned by Justice Kennedy, while the folks who backed 8 are worried that if and when it gets there, it will be affirmed by Justice Kennedy. Some among the latter are so concerned that there we have prominent opponents of Gay Marriage suggesting that their cause concede California so as not to suffer a loss on a nationwide scale. Some of them also think that the way the laws are written, they may lose on sheer technicalities.

Personally, I think this thing will go the distance…but isn't it kinda sad that this issue could get decided, not on the basis of what's morally right but on how certain unrelated statutes about who has standing and how to file an appeal are written? It's also regrettable that our Supreme Court has become so polarized that not one human being on this planet seems to have the slightest doubt how eight of the nine Justices will vote. If and when the case gets there, we oughta have those folks stay home, skip the argument in the courthouse and just let the opposing attorneys take Kennedy to lunch and debate it over cheeseburgers. They have Five Guys in the District of Columbia so that would work fine.

The Late Show

For a few months now, I've been in private correspondence with a gent who's fairly new to the art 'n' craft of writing comic books. He's sold a number of things and seen them published…and he'd hoped that by this time, his career would have picked up some momentum and he wouldn't still be scrounging for assignments like an absolute beginner. That has not happened. His old credits have not led to new ones and his dream — to give up his non-writing day job and become a full-time professional author — appears more remote than ever.

Many e-mails have been exchanged and we got to talk for a bit at San Diego. He suggested I quote here, so all could read them, some things I wrote to him in recent messages. I edited hunks of a few messages together and made a few changes so it makes more sense yanked out of the context of our back-and-forth…and here 'tis, for whatever it may be worth to someone. This is me writing advice to a friend who's having career trouble…

Your problem, pure and simple, is that you were late with your work. It is all well and good to rationalize, "Well, it's more important that I deliver a good script than that I deliver it according to some editor's schedule"…and yes, there are times when a deadline is utterly arbitrary and they tell you they need it in June when they aren't going to do a damn thing with it until August. But not all deadlines are like that and to let a real one go by unattended is a luxury that we rarely have in the writing game, especially when in a new relationship. There are times even then when they can give you an extra two weeks. There are also times when they can't…or when to give you that two weeks means taking it away from your collaborators; i.e., the artist is going to have to draw the comic in three weeks instead of the five he expected to have.

You may also have harmed his income. He expected to have that script next Tuesday. He planned his life and maybe turned down other work so he could start drawing your script then, plus he counted on being paid for it by the time his next mortgage payment is due. But because of you, he has nothing to draw next week and no way to make money on the days he cleared to draw your script…and he may have to turn down the assignment he was going to do after he finished your script because he's now not going to be done with it when he expected to be. Ask anyone who's worked in comics for a few years and they'll gladly unload a tirade of anecdotes about how someone else's lateness screwed up their lives and maybe even prevented them from doing their best work.

There is nothing noble about being late, nothing that suggests your work is better because you fussed longer with it and did that extra draft. Creative folks can meet deadlines and still be creative. Laurence Olivier somehow managed to be on stage when the curtain went up at 8 PM. He didn't tell them to have the audience come back at 9:30 because he needed more prep time to give the best possible performance. You can do good work and get it in when it's supposed to be in…or reasonably close to it. (When I write here of being late, I'm not talking about being a day or so late or even of skirting phantom deadlines. I'm talking about being late on a real deadline such that it causes problems.)

In San Diego, you went on and on about how [name of his editor on a recent project] had screwed you up by not answering questions or getting you certain reference materials you needed or…well, I'm sorry but my brain tuned-out after a certain amount of that. But let's say you're right. Let's say he is a bloody incompetent who couldn't handle his end of things. That does not give you special dispensation to be late. It's not like "He did these things wrong so I'm allowed to do some things wrong." If his actions made it impossible for you to meet the agreed-upon deadline then you should have told him that at the time and worked out a new, realistic deadline. (One thing I've learned to do: If someone hires me to write something that I can't start until they send me a piece of reference, I don't agree to deliver by a specific date. I agree to deliver X days after I receive the reference material. The clock starts ticking when I can start, not when they hire me to start. It minimizes the problem you had.)

If you don't renegotiate the deadline, you should still meet it. Why? Because it's professional and because it gives you standing. I'm going to tell you something I've learned in more than four decades of professional writing for a pretty wide array of media and editors and producers: On any project, you should never expect to win an argument about anything unless your work is more-or-less on-time. If you're late to the point of creating production problems, you lose some or all of your rights even if it's someone else's fault. If the work is on time, you have standing to complain about what others do to your script, you can debate changes that the boss wants to make, etc. If the work is late, you lose a large chunk of the moral authority to say, "This needs to be fixed."

Two other things about being on time. When you're late, it's the easiest thing in the world to have a good reason why it isn't your fault. I know writers who are often tardy and they always have a good reason. Always. There's a power failure or a sick mother or a dental emergency — and they aren't fibbing. I used to say of one writer I worked with, "His greatest skill is in having disasters occur when a deadline is looming."

Eventually, I thought of a clearer way to look at it. Disasters can and do happen to everyone — I've certainly had them interfere with my writing — but some folks make those situations more destructive to the schedule than necessary. I'm talking about the kind of person who, deep down, is always looking for reasons not to work. So if Mom gets sick or the computer's on the fritz, they immediately let that stop them. It doesn't always have to. There's a famous story they used to tell around the Marvel offices about the great New York blackout of 1965 when power was off everywhere for about twelve hours one evening. Most everyone showed up at the Marvel office the next morning without their homework, figuring they couldn't be expected to write or draw by candlelight. Stan Lee, however, came in with all his pages done, having labored by candlelight. And the point of the story was that Stan was amazed that everyone else hadn't done that. It had simply not occurred to him not to write even though he had a perfect excuse. Which is one of the reasons he's Stan Lee and you and I are not.

Disasters are also more likely to stop you if you're the kind of writer who puts things off 'til the last minute. If you have all of November to write a script and you don't start 'til the day after Thanksgiving, you're gambling. That guy I said was really good at having disasters occur when a deadline was looming…I think that was his problem. He wasn't to blame when that car hit him two days before the script was due. But he was to blame for not starting on the script until three days before it was due.

The other thing I need to say is this: Don't get mad at other people because you're late. Don't get mad at people who may have contributed to your being late and especially don't get mad at people who didn't. I did this a lot when I was starting out. Secretly, I was angry at myself for screwing up but I couldn't cope with that so I found ways to direct that anger at others — at my editor, at my collaborators, at innocent bystanders even. Far better to be mad at them than mad at me. But I learned…and while I still occasionally still make that mistake, I don't make it for very long. Ultimately, it's a much easier problem to correct if you're clear on who's responsible for it.

You made a bad mistake being late with your first few jobs. I tell beginning writers, "Never get a reputation for unreliability. You will never lose it," which is an exaggeration but only a slight one. What you need to do now is cultivate the opposite rep and maybe, just maybe, the new one will trump the old one. If not…well, you just may have to look for another career. I'd check into jobs at United Airlines. Based on my last few flights with them, I'd venture you can make a good living there if you're always late.

Go Read It!

Jay Weston is a movie producer who has a second career as a reviewer of Los Angeles restaurants. I know people who are reticent about dining anywhere that has not received the blessing of Weston. In this article, it goes to the place he's decided has the best pizza in this city and I just know he's right. It's the same place I said here, here, here, here and, here has the best pizza in Los Angeles.

Wednesday Afternoon

Okay, so the judge here has overturned Proposition 8 and the right-wing pundits and politicians couldn't be happier. They don't really care about Gay Marriage — or if they do, it's secondary to the big prize, which is an issue to outrage their base and motivate it to march and vote and buy books and watch their shows and most of all, donate money. They were all disappointed when they lost Flag Burning as an issue that had that power. It was good for a time but it was so damned stupid, it soon collapsed. They all know Same-Sex Wedlock will eventually be of no use to them. The trend in this country is moving inexorably towards its acceptance. But they had hoped to get a few more years and a few more election-cycles out of it…and now they will. Rush and Hannity have to be turning cartwheels.

I have no idea what's going to happen with the courts on this. It probably has something to do with where it heads, how quickly it gets there and who's on the various benches when it arrives. Eventually, it'll get to the Supreme Court, I guess. Before then though, a lot of people are going to rake in a lot of cash.

Al Gore News

Portland authorities have cleared Al Gore of criminal wrongdoing in the sex assault case filed by masseuse Molly Hagerty. Too predictably, right-wing websites are already asserting that the fix was in; that Portland being a strongly Liberal city couldn't possibly have done a real investigation and Gore, of course, paid bribes to get that outcome. (One decent joke I saw on three sites was that he didn't pay them off with cash. He gave them Carbon Credits.)

It's sad that political rancor has reached this level in America. The premise seems to be that if you don't like a guy's politics or public statements, then any accusation against him has to be true. The claims of Ms. Hagerty always seemed pretty feeble…and I don't just mean because she failed a polygraph and her "semen stain" evidence turned out not to be that. I mean there was no reason to believe her except maybe that you hated Al Gore and thought this would wound him. So a lot of folks believed her and will probably never let go of that. There's no possible proof in this world that will ever convince some folks that Barack Obama isn't a Muslim who was born anywhere except in the United States, either. Why? Because the lie empowers them and the truth isn't useful.

Saturday Morn in San Diego

I perfectly timed my re-entry into the Eisner Awards: They were just about to start giving out the Hall of Fame Awards…to Burne Hogarth, Bob Montana, Steve Gerber, Dick Giordano, Mike Kaluta and Mort Weisinger. Of these, the only one who's still with us is Kaluta and he wasn't with us last night. A friend accepted for him and relatives accepted for all the others. Mary Skrenes, who co-accepted for Gerber along with Steve's daughter Samantha, isn't a relative but she was about as close as you could be to one. Paul Levitz, co-accepting with Weisinger's daughter, was particularly eloquent in…well, I'll say this bluntly: Particularly eloquent in explaining why an editor who was so notorious for being rough on his people was still deserving of the recognition for his amazing body of work.

Bill Morrison and Maurice LaMarche did a nice job hosting. Bill's stunning spouse Kayre did a nice job of course-correcting 87.3% of the presenters and winners who attempted to exit the stage on the wrong side.

I have to get over to the hall to do an interview and handle a confusion about one of my panelist's badges and prep for my panels and do my panels and…oh, it's going to be a long day but a good one. They always are at Comic-Con.

Oops!

Still don't quite have the hang of blogging via iPhone. I meant to end the previous post by saying I have to get back inside and will write more later.

Good Godfrey!

Dick Cavett has more about Arthur Godfrey. I'm not as familiar with Godfrey's work as Mr. Cavett is, which may be why my impression of Godfrey is nowhere near as favorable. There were a lot of flukes in radio and in the early days of television where folks of limited talent and charm were somehow in the right place at the right time to have grand careers and stardom. Can you say, "Ed Sullivan?" (And yes, that still happens…) Godfrey had an avuncular folksiness and I could understand audiences enjoying his company…but I always had the feeling that his presence on 93 shows a week, or however many he had, had a lot to do with him ingratitating himself with the ad agencies and sponsors. America was always watching him because they were always putting him on the air.