Scott Dunbier calls my attention to what may be the last chapter in the saga of Gary Coleman's pants.

On January 17, the auction ended with a winning bid of $400,000 placed by an eBay member named dfwgixxer. There were actually two bids for that price but dfwgixxer got his or her in first. Several other bidders went well into the six figure amounts.

So now, what did we think the odds were that anyone would actually pay $400, let alone a thousand times that amount for a pair of Mr. Coleman's old sweatpants? I'd say about the same as the chances of a grassroots "Mike Gravel for President" movement cinching the nomination for him.

It doesn't come as a huge surprise but on January 24, the pants seller posted the following negative feedback for dfwgixxer…

Scammer!!! NEVER RESPONDED!!! RISKY EBAYER!!! NON-BUYER!!!

What's funny, of course, is that the seller expected a response. Also, that despite this, dfwgixxer still has a 99.2% positive feedback score…and especially that eBay, which previously declared all six and seven figure bids "bogus bids" and cancelled them allowed this one to get to 400 grand. Like maybe that might be a real offer.

And one more stage appearance by Tony Curtis! (I hadn't meant for this to become a topic on the blog, honest. But if we're going to talk about it at all, let's exhaust the topic.) B. Baker writes to tell me…

Since you mention it, the actor's ill-fated stint in Simon's I Ought To Be In Pictures wasn't actually Tony Curtis' first attempt to crack B'way. In the early '70s, Curtis opened in Detroit in an odd Broadway-bound comedy first called Turtlenecks and later re-titled One Night Stand. The play, by Bruce Jay Friedman and Jacques Levy, was in a considerable state of flux during its Detroit run. The reviews were not kind, but to be fair, Mr. Curtis wasn't seen as the show's principal problem — the show's basic structure and lack of laughs were judged as faulty. The show, which also featured William Devane and the always welcome Sammy Smith, was closed by producer David Merrick in Philadelphia a month later before reaching NY; I'm not sure Curtis was still with the play by then.

You're probably always asking for trouble when you title a play One Night Stand.

I actually like Tony Curtis quite a bit. I saw him in the Neil Simon play before his meltdown and he was quite good in it. So was Dinah Manoff, who played his daughter. (I've always liked her, too. My first week on Welcome Back, Kotter, she had a very brief role — one or two lines — and she showed enough talent that there was talk of bringing her character back. They didn't but it was astounding that anyone noticed her at all, given how small her role was.)

Curtis was great, of course, in Some Like It Hot and films of that calibre. I always thought he showed his worth when he was cast, as he so often was, in something that would have been an utter turkey without him…like Houdini. It's not at its core a very good film but something about Curtis makes it sorta watchable. And I thought he was the best thing in The Great Race, though that isn't a huge compliment. We don't have a lot of that kind of movie star these days.

Several of you have reminded me that Tony Curtis made at least one other stage appearance. In 2002, he toured for a time in Sugar, the musical comedy adaptation of the movie that made him famous, Some Like It Hot. In this case, he didn't play his old role. He played Osgood Fielding III, the role Joe E. Brown had played in the film. As one person wrote me, "He got star billing even though he was only on stage about fifteen minutes." Since the script was already frozen, he only had to learn the role once.

And since we're talking about Tony Curtis, let's mention his memorable performance as Stoney Curtis in an episode of The Flintstones. A pretty good episode, I should say.

Earlier this week, I wrote a post about how the weather forecasters usually do a great job but, regarding the storms that have affected Southern California this past week, they didn't have much of a clue. The above radar map, which is from about fifteen minutes ago, is a good example of how capricious this can be. The red arrow, which I added, shows the approximate direction in which all this weather is moving.

We are presently under a Severe Thunderstorm Watch in Los Angeles — where at the moment, it isn't even drizzling, let alone thunderstorming. We had a lot of rain overnight (a lot for us) but it's been pretty much light showers for most of the day.

That's here. As you can see, there's been a ton of stormy weather moving through Long Beach and into the area just east of L.A. The red dots represent the most intense storms, the orange are close runners-up and the yellow is moderate rain. We have a little cell of possible light showers — indicated by the green — about to move through parts of L.A.

That Severe Thunderstorm Watch isn't wrong. It's just wrong for right this minute in right this area. The folks at the National Weather Service don't predict for your block and even if they did…well, take a look. A couple good gusts of wind and all those warm colored dots could have been over us here at the moment or even down in Oceanside. It's too much a crapshoot out there for them to know precisely where all this weather is going to go. We could still get lightning 'n' thunder later this evening.

People often moan that the forecasts are wrong, ignoring that the forecast was correct for most of the covered area. The N.W.S. and the private meteorologists do get it wrong, of course. They say it's going to rain and then there isn't a storm within a thousand miles of you. But sometimes — most of the time when the forecast seems to be wrong — what's happening is that the forecast is right for the area it covers. It just isn't right for the part of it that you're in at the moment.

We're fans here of the musical based on Al Capp's comic strip Li'l Abner and elsewhere on this site, you'll find articles that I wrote some time ago about that show as it played on Broadway and also as it was turned into a movie. I consider myself a bit of an expert on it, and have briefly been involved in some aborted attempts to revive it. Amazingly, though it was rather successful when it first played The Great White Way, and it's constantly produced around the country, it has yet to have a full-scale Broadway revival. Gypsy is about to have its seven-thousandth (or so it seems) but Abner has been represented on stages only by an endless stream of regional, college and high school productions.

Its popularity in those venues makes sense. It's a very easy show to mount. The costumes are mainly hillbilly garb and you can do most of them just by rummaging through a few closets or thrift shops. The sets can be pretty simple and cartoony. Most of the songs do not require great voices. The dances just have to be energetic. Most of the roles can be filled by college age performers. In fact, with a little make-up (and it doesn't have to be convincing), they can all be filled by college age performers. Also, the cast is very large and can be just about as large as you want it to be.

A large cast is a liability for a professional production where everyone must be paid but, as a director of such shows once explained to me, it's an asset at the Community College level. Since people aren't being paid or aren't being paid much, you might just cram that stage full of as many bodies as you can. It will be impressive and all those performers will get their friends and family to buy tickets.

But it's never been back to Broadway, though there have been talks and even options. One such attempt I know of was some time ago. Elliott Caplin, brother of Al Capp and manager of some of the Capp estate's affairs, helped me with my articles and it led to a casual friendship by telephone. Soon after, he called to see if I'd be interested in helping revise/update the book for a producer who was trying to arrange a new Broadway production. In ways that I did not fully understand and probably never will, Tony Curtis was somehow involved. I'm not sure if he was a producer or what but the effort seemed to revolve around him, which struck me as very odd.

Mr. Curtis was great in many movies but his total experience on the legit stage, as far as I know, was confined to one disastrous experience starring briefly in the debut of Neil Simon's play, You Oughta Be in Pictures. As the story is told, Simon cast Curtis, who'd never done a play before and never had to really memorize any more lines than was necessary for one day's filming of a movie or TV show. With enormous effort and insecurity, he learned the role in the new play for an outta-town tryout in Los Angeles and did well on opening night. Then Mr. Simon began rewriting (as playwrights always do on a new play) and Curtis couldn't unlearn the old lines and learn the new, at least not as rapidly as was necessary. He wound up exploding in the middle of one performance, unleashing a torrent of vulgar ad-libs, then getting dressed and going home at intermission, leaving a puzzled audience in the hands of an understudy who didn't know the lines, either. Ron Leibman eventually took over the lead and played it in New York.

Elliott Caplin told me that Curtis, despite the above — and also the fact that he's not exactly a singer and this is a musical — would appear in the proposed revival of Li'l Abner. I asked, of course, "In what part?" "Well," he said, "That's what they haven't figured out yet." I'm not sure of all that it takes to get a show up and running on Broadway, but I would think that deciding what role your star will play is high on the list. Elliott continued, "I think they're figuring that he'd play a lot of non-singing cameo roles, like the Mayor or the Newscaster." It all sounded quite unlikely so I told Elliott that if the deal did proceed, of course I was interested, but I'd bet him a thousand dollars it would never happen. Being a smart guy, Elliott declined the wager and then passed away before I could even call him for an "I told you so." (A few years later, I met Tony Curtis, asked him about it and he did not seem to ever have heard of Li'l Abner or, for that matter, Broadway.)

Later on, another producer — one with some actual credits in this area — contacted me about participating in a revival. Again, I was interested and again, the deal fell through. This guy couldn't even get together enough funding and elements to obtain an option. In 1998, the Encores group that mounts "staged readings" (actually, stripped-down productions) at New York's City Center did a four-performance revival which I attended and which was quite wonderful. There was some brief talk that it might morph into a full-scale production — the City Center version of Chicago did and is still running — but Abner Yokum wasn't so fortunate.

Opening this week in Los Angeles is another stripped-down production. The Reprise! group, which stages wonderful shows up at U.C.L.A., is doing Li'l Abner with a preview performance on February 5 and a grand opening on the sixth. The show runs through February 17 and stars Eric Martsolf as Abner, Brandi Burkhardt as Daisy Mae, Michael Kostroff as Marryin' Sam, Cathy Rigby as Mammy Yokum (which probably means Mammy will be turning backflips), Robert Towers as Pappy Yokum and Fred Willard (!) as General Bullmoose. Fred Willard is an intriguing choice for that role and I'll bet Kostroff will be superb.

I have nothing to do with this production other than helping its publicists with a little history, but I'll be there and all indicators are that it'll do the show justice. Here's a link to an article with a full cast list and some photos. I believe tickets are becoming scarce but if you'd like to try and score a few, this link should do it. If you'd like to wait until I see the show and post a review, that's of course your right but don't be surprised if the entire run is sold out by then.

Costco is a great place to shop but not on a Saturday.

Rumors during the current Writers Strike have been about as reliable as rumors in past strikes. They're spreading faster, thanks to the increased presence of the Internet, but they're not getting any more reliable. About a third turn out to be true, about a third have some nugget of truth in them, and the rest are utter swamp gas. In show business — and I presume it's like this to some extent in most fields — people don't like to admit that they're out of the loop and don't have the kind of great insider connections that give them instant word on all the secret goings-on. So they pass on and amplify rumors, no matter what the source, and sometimes just make things up.

In the '81 strike (I think it was…they all run together), a writing team I know decided to invent a few rumors and pass them around, just to see what kind of life they'd have. One I recall was that the lead negotiators for both sides had taken the night off, gone to dinner separately…but found themselves by coincidence in the same restaurant, sitting at adjoining tables. This had not happened. The writing team just invented it from the whole cloth and told a few (just a few) people. To their amazement, the tale came back to them from a number of sources, some of whom had added details and embellishments, including a bit of food-throwing by the lead negotiators and even the name of the restaurant where it had allegedly occurred. One person said he'd heard it from someone who was there at the time and had witnessed the whole thing.

It helps to remember that sometimes there's no truth whatsoever in a rumor. Zero. It doesn't come from anyone in a position to know. It also helps to remember that it's not unprecedented for one side to plant a rumor that they think may sway public opinion and put more pressure on the other side.

At the moment, the grapevine has it that informal talks in the WGA Strike are going quite well and that may be so. I mean, this one sounds likely. Informal talks often go well because they're conducted in a friendlier atmosphere. The participants are less worried that they're about to agree to something foolish and permanent. After all, they still have the formal talks to act as a kind of fail-safe stage wherein they can dance away from something agreed-to in the informal chats.

Also, of course, it is not uncommon to use the informal talks to soften up one's opponent, lulling them into the mindset that all is well, that the end is in sight and that the formal talks are just…well, a formality. Then at the last second, you toss in a hand grenade — some small but potent loophole or demand that favors your side — in the hope that the other side is so emotionally committed to this being the end that they won't put up a fuss. A lawyer once told me that he was always wary of what was said on the way out of a negotiation…

You have your briefcase packed and your coat on and your car keys in your hand. You're thinking, "Well, that's finally over" and you're trying to decide where to stop and pick up a pizza on the way home. That's when, ever so casually, the other side mentions, "Don't you worry…we'll draw up all the paperwork and we'll make sure we include that language about revenues from Brazil." Sometimes, you're so weary and eager to get home, you let it slide. And sometimes, you're home and eating pizza with anchovies by the time you realize, "Hey, we never agreed to anything about revenues from Brazil!"

Stuff like that. So when you hear that they have "an agreement in principle" or that "they just have to put it on paper" or "it's for all intents and purposes, a done deal," be wary. At that stage, the agreement could still explode…and sometimes doesn't but should. And maybe the report wasn't even true in the first place.

None of this is meant to suggest that I think we're close to that phase or that the current rumors are surely wrong. I still believe the strike will be over sooner rather than later, and that the studios want to get it over in the next few weeks so they can get some production done before the expiration of the Screen Actors Guild deal at the end of June. But wanting to end one of these and actually doing so are two separate matters, especially if the core member companies of the AMPTP are not precisely on the same page with it all. Do yourself a favor and stay off the emotional roller coaster of getting your hopes up with every unofficial report. We probably have another couple of big "downs" before this one is settled…and the rumors that trigger the "ups" may not even be accurate.

Still battling with computer viruses. That's right: Plural. It looks like the first virus I got knocked out my virus protection software, thereby enabling another one to slip in. I think I've fixed one of my two computers — the one I'm writing this on — but the other one's going to need professional help. And now I'm too far behind to take it in…or even to post much here for a while.

But I thought I oughta put this up. Remember that that is not a poll as to who you'd like to see be the Democratic nominee. This is just a prediction on who you think it'll be…though I threw in Mike Gravel just for laughs. I also put in Someone Else even though it's been some time since I heard anyone suggest that Al Gore or anyone else could still get into the race. Someone Else beat Ron Paul, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter in our Republican poll so let's see how he or she does here. This poll will close in one week.

At first, I wasn't too concerned about finding a virus on my main work computer. After all, I have my backup computer. Then I found the virus was also on my backup computer. "Oh, well," I thought. "At least I have both of them backed up to external hard drives." Then I found out that the virus had made my external hard drives inaccessible. At some point in there, I started to get concerned.

I think the data is all there on both computers and both external drives. It's just a matter of getting to it and getting rid of the virus. I think I have it largely off one of the two computers but there's a lot of cleaning to do. You may not hear from me for a little while…

I have what's supposed to be a great virus checker program but somehow, a virus turned it off, infiltrated and did nasty things to my computer. I'm doing repair work and it may be some time before I'm answering e-mail again or posting here.

You have any idea who that is in the photo above? If you guessed "Groucho Marx," you're close but wrong. That's Frank Ferrante, the world's best Groucho replicator as he looks when he's touring with a show in which he channels Dr. Hugo Z. Hackenbush, bringing him back to life on the stage. I've plugged his performances here in the past and I've received a lot of e-mails from folks who've gone and were grateful for the suggestion. It's a loving, accurate and very funny simulation, and you don't even have to be a Marx Brothers devotee to enjoy it.

Frank is all over the country with this thing. This Saturday night, for instance, he's at the Canyons Performing Arts Center, which is located at 26455 Rockwell Canyon Road in Santa Clarita, California. It's at 8 PM and if you're around, you can call (661) 362-5304 to get tickets.

If you're not around, check out this page at Frank's website to see when he'll be in your neck of the woods. I'm unfortunately committed this Saturday night or I'd drive the 32 miles (I just Mapquested it) to see Frank. Next time he's within a hundred, I'm going.

Letters…we get letters…we get stacks and stacks of letters…like this one from Keith Holt…

I've got a WGA negotiations question because I'm sure you haven't received enough of these yet. I was speaking with a friend recently about the strike, and though we both support the writers fully, he had some issues about how the strike's been handled. Neither of us are WGA members and we get most of our information from friends who are WGA members and writers who blog, like you.

From what he's heard, the writers are asking for a "per click" residual for programming viewed online. Which would mean, based on his friend's interpretation, that every time a program is clicked, even after the viewer pauses it to go to the bathroom or answer the phone or whatever, the writer would get the click residual; sometimes 3 or 4 clicks per episode. The producers contend that the writers should only receive credit for the first click, which doesn't sound unreasonable to me, speaking from my side of the TV set. I hoped to get your input.

On another question, do you know how residuals are divided for TV series box sets? If, for example, let's say a series had three credited writers for each episode of a series, and the series had 100 episodes. The series is released in a box set of 10 dvds with 10 episodes per disk. Is the .04 cents paid out per disk (meaning .40 cents for the entire set)? If so, are the 30 writers who wrote those 10 episodes expected to divide the .04 cents between them? And are the 300 writers for the entire series only receiving .001 cent for each episode they wrote? I could go on and on with different permutations of this, but you get the idea? How does this work?

The joke/true answer to how it works is "Not very well," in that those DVD sets don't pay much money to the writers of the shows. We have a lousy formula for this kind of thing — the result of the kind of crummy deal we're now trying not to repeat — and it doesn't seem to even yield the kind of bad money it was supposed to yield. I would guess that if you polled writers who've had shows released on DVD, 90+% of them would tell you that they haven't even received the meager payments they're contractually guaranteed, let alone anything that seemed fair. Most would also tell you that they didn't even get a free copy of the DVD set containing their work.

But here's a more serious answer to your question: My understanding is that it's all pro-rated. If they put Season 1 out on DVD and you wrote 2 of the 24 episodes then you get one-twelfth of all the money that is collected for writers on that set. The guild's computer works it all out.

As for the click situation, I don't have any direct knowledge but I would imagine that we're trying to link to the way a website is compensated for its advertising on a per-click basis. So however the rules for that works would be the model for how our shares would work. Most of the WGA proposals in New Media are on a "when you get paid, we get paid" basis.

A person who asked to remain nameless sent the following some time ago, before the Golden Globes and before the WGA decided not to picket the Grammy Awards…

I'm a little befuddled as to how the WGA is picking and choosing which awards shows they give a waiver to, or plan not to picket. I understand the Golden Globes and the Academy Awards are high-profile events involving Hollywood that get worldwide coverage (well, the Oscars do). But if they decide to picket the Globes, and the broadcast is cancelled because of it, why do they not do the same for the SAG Awards, which is also broadcast (albeit on lowly cable stations)? And what's up with the Grammy Awards? Why won't they grant a waiver to something that is essentially a music industry showcase? Is it the high-profile aspect of it? Aren't they running the risk of just pissing off the viewing public eventually? (Not that I'd ever watch the Grammys.)

It's all strategizing, trying to pressure those we want to pressure. The Screen Actors Guild has become an inseparable ally in this strike. If and when someone writes a dispassionate history of this strike, they'll need to dwell on that unprecedented and important symbiosis. So of course, we're not going to move against the SAG Awards. At some point, it was presumably determined that the Grammy Awards were far enough removed from the central battle — or maybe that we couldn't have much of an impact on them — and our Guild decided not to make a stand there.

Our next one is also from someone who didn't want their name used…

I'm still fuzzy on what it means that the WGA decided to drop its demands on Animation or what it would have meant if their demands would have been met. Also, didn't your president promise that Reality (or as you type it, "Reality") would be in the next contract? How can he promise that and then take it off the table?

The same way the AMPTP can swear up and down and on a stack of stockholders' reports that they will never give in on certain points and then later, they give in on them. In negotiations, both sides say plenty of things that they must later back away from. In '88, I think the studios gave us at least three separate "final offers," each time vowing that there would never be another offer if we didn't grab the current "final offer." It's a lot like the way even the most honest elected official has to quietly renege on or finesse his way around a campaign promise or two.

But in actuality, I don't believe Patric Verrone did say that our new demands relating to reality (or as I type it, "Reality") would definitely be in the next contract. I think if you find the exact quote — as I can't at the moment — you'll see that he said something like, "Reality will be in the next contract because Reality was in our last contract," and he noted how the WGA does cover many of those shows. What we were after in this negotiation was an increased presence in that area and also, I believe, to knock down some of the ways in which producers hire writers, have them write for low money, and then call them something other than "writer" to try and elude WGA jurisdiction.

Animation is a little different. The WGA represents some animated TV shows and will surely represent more in the future. Some shows and studios are already signed with The Animation Guild, which is Local 839 of IATSE. Those shows and studios, we cannot touch and our proposal (which I quoted here) specifically said it did not apply where an existing collective bargaining agreement was in place. But there are many studios that are not signed with 839 and the WGA has made inroads there.

This is not always possible. There are cartoon studios that are fiercely determined to remain non-union, just as there are live-action movies and TV shows produced outside the jurisdiction of the WGA, DGA, SAG and other labor organizations. But the WGA has made, and I believe will continue to make progress in organizing animated TV shows. Where it hasn't had as much luck has been in the area of animated features. There's language in our Minimum Basic Agreement that defines the WGA jurisdiction for movies as confined to live-action. When the folks behind the Simpsons TV series wanted it to be a WGA show, the head guys over at Fox had to say yes. When the same folks wanted the Simpsons movie to be WGA, Fox was able to say, "Sorry…the Writers Guild MBA says it doesn't cover this kind of thing" and they were able to say no. What the WGA wanted out of this negotiation — the demand that was just dropped — was basically to alter the language that allowed them to say no.

Dropping this demand is disappointing to Animation Writers who, by a margin I'd estimate at better than 96%, want WGA coverage…but it's not a total disaster. One of the things you have to remember is the old "rising tide raises all ships" principle as it applies often to union activity. The presence of a union deal in a marketplace usually improves things at even the non-union houses. They need to stay competitive in order to attract the talent they need and also to keep the union out. I worked briefly for an animation company called Film Roman back when it was keeping 839 out…a feat they accomplished largely by giving their employees darn near everything they would have gotten with a union contract. (It was not until the firm was sold and new management made some cutbacks that the union was able to win representation there.) In the same way, the proximity of WGA deals in animation has forced some studios to treat writers better even on non-WGA shows. As long as the WGA is not abandoning Animation altogether, which it has no intention of doing, it's going to be improving conditions for folks who write cartoons.

We (of course) wish it could do more. But the WGA is at war right now, and settling this war means compromises from both sides. I thought there was a decent shot at not compromising on this but something has to go, and I'm not sure what else I'd have picked to sacrifice. Having talked extensively with Patric about Animation and knowing his determination in that area — which even goes beyond the fact that he works in it — I know it was not a decision made lightly. In past AMPTP/WGA negotiations, when the studios were refusing to even listen to WGA demands, the "Animation Proposal" never even made it onto the table for discussion. This time, it not only did but was serious enough to become a partial obstacle to a deal. That's progress.