There is much to say about the supposed Pie Face game from Hasbro that was the subject of this morning's Video Link. Here's a couple of examples from the flurry of messages I've received, starting with this one from my pal Marvin Silbermintz, who has nothing better to do at the moment since he's a writer for Jay Leno. Before that, he was a game designer for Ideal Toys and he offers what he calls an educated guess…

I think it was actually manufactured. The product in the commercial doesn't seem to be a hand-made prototype:

The yellow base is made of two pieces, glued together at the very visible seam. So they actually made a mold, which is very expensive and not done unless the item will go into production. (Unless…..it was a cheap vacuum-formed mold that forms a sheet of plastic into the shape you want. That's a small possibility.)

The yellow base also seems to have inset screw-holes, which a modelmaker wouldn't have bothered to drill.

The red hand has a hole in the center, presumably to accommodate a 'pin' on the dish that guides the factory worker who glues them together.

The artwork on the board has a copyright notice below the name 'PIE FACE' — a detail that would be left out if it was just a prototype.

I can't see the box clearly, but it seems to have lots of detail, and cover art that was more than a magic marker sketch. More evidence that it was actually produced.

Toy companies as big as Hasbro expected about half of their new items to fail. So this could have been a real stinker that sounded great during the brainstorming sessions, but bombed. These items were shipped back to the manufacturer (it's not like the book business) who would sell them to junk stores. (Sometimes a deal was made with the original purchaser to sell them off at a very low price.)

And there were lots of reasons for it to fail…

• Parents would think it was too messy for their house.
• Parents realized the cost of whipped-cream would soon be more than the cost of the toy.
• Customers like to get everything they need in the box. (Except paper, a pencil, or water.) So why buy it and have to buy whipped cream too? You could have almost the same gameplay with a paper plate and whipped cream.
• The whole thing is just too clumsy. And big — the box looks like it's twice as big as the average action toy. That's extra cost for shipping and storing.

I guess I should be grateful this strike has given me more time for my true passion; Fifties Action Game Reverse Engineering and Retroanalysis.

And that's probably a lot funnier than anything Jay's going to be doing on Wednesday. Your deductions, Sherlock Silbermintz, are spot-on and though many an e-mailer joined me in wondering about this game we couldn't recall ever hearing about, it was real. A likeness of the box is posted above (thank you, Sid) and I have much testimony in e-mail, such as this from John Schwengler…

I seem to remember it from when I was in Grade Two (which would be around '67-'68) — a friend had gotten one for his birthday. Basically, it was a laminated cardboard screen with a clear plastic "bag" in the centre (gee, I wonder if the idea of a kid pressing his face into a plastic bag as he turned the spring, possibly asphyxiating himself may have something to do with it vanishing). If I remember (from the one time we played with it), the pie kept slipping off of the paddle after a couple of turns, it was messy and it turned into a war with the can of spray shaving cream (two cans of cream and a group of seven year olds — we didn't need a game!)

I do know that Hasbro re-released a product under the same name in the early nineties (I thought it was the original!) but it was more of a board and card game with no splat. Too bad.

Gary L. had this to say…

I saw your entry about Pie Face, and I can assure you the game actually did exist, because I owned it! I never saw the commercial you linked to, but I became aware of the game in a more interesting way: it was demonstrated by Johnny Carson, during a Tonight Show segment about new toys!

I was always a huge Soupy Sales fan, and thought this game was my best opportunity to get hit with a pie (as well as all my friends) without getting in any trouble. The game was actually a lot of fun, especially if you played without the protective plastic mask (strictly for cowards).

Alas, my Pie Face game is long gone, but I have seen it show up occasionally on eBay. That game, along with the Eldon Bowl-a-Matic (also a rarity), were probably my two favorite toys of the 60's.

Chris Smigliano remembers it, too…

I remembered those commercials, too, and yep, it existed. When I was a wee first grader in Catholic School, they actually used one of those things during a school fair. I don't think I tried it myself, but I remember someone complaining that there was no cream they could use for the pie. The only option was to be hit in the face with a plain round piece of foam rubber.

Which is always fun. Here's a message from Marc Thorner…

Here is a memory for you. I remember watching an episode of the old Merv Griffin Show when he use to demonstrate the latest gadget and toys for the holiday season. What I remember about this was that he played Pie Face with his cohort, Arthur Treacher. What I remember was that bit was funny in that Mr. Treacher was the one who got pied and that Merv made a big deal out of over doing it with the whipped cream. Man, the crap I do remember…

I think I do vaguely recall Johnny or maybe Merv showing the game. I'm just pretty sure I never saw the commercial and (speaking of remembering crap), I usually remember the commercials better than the shows. I think it's pretty obvious why this one never caught on. Isn't the premise of a pie-in-the-face that the person doesn't want to get hit with a puss full of cream? The game not only made it voluntary but inevitable…plus, of course, all the safety gear really made it sterile and non-spontaneous.

For the record: Soupy Sales used to get whacked with pie shells full of some brand of shaving cream that didn't sting the eyes. Some did but Soupy had found one or two that didn't. The shaving cream clung to the face better than anything edible and it cleaned up much, much easier. When I visited the set of his seventies show, I saw them using a Wet-Vac style vacuum cleaner to effortlessly suck it off Soupy's set and even his chest…and it wiped clean from his face with a towel without even disturbing his make-up that much. I got to lob one of the pies at him in a sketch that involved him being hit with around forty or so of 'em and I swear…two minutes after it was done, there wasn't a trace of shaving cream on the set or Soupy, and he was ready to tape the next spot. Isn't science wonderful?

PBS has a couple of things coming up this week that I haven't seen but which may be of interest to the kind of person who'd come to a site like this…

New Year's Day (the night before in a few cities), they're running Words and Music by Jerry Herman, a new documentary on the man who wrote the scores for Hello, Dolly and Mack & Mabel and La Cage aux Folles and so many others. Further details are available over on this page.

Then on Wednesday, most PBS stations will run the first of four one-hour documentaries entitled Pioneers of Television that explore great old programs of the past. The first is about situation comedies and the second is about late night programming. This webpage will give you more info.

Like I said, I haven't seen any of this. But I will. Keep in mind that some PBS affiliates seem to delight in running the network's programming at the oddest times…or not at all.

There are now more theories about how Benazir Bhutto died than there are about John F. Kennedy. I vote for the one about Bhutto being slain by an army of Cubans hiding on the grassy knoll.

It's been a while since we dug into the ol' Strike Mailbag. Let's start with this one from Bolera, whoever he or she is…

I'm reading on some boards that many WGA members are mad about the settlement with David Letterman's company and may go back to work and break the strike. Do you think that's really going to happen? And in light of that, do you think the deal with Dave was a bad idea?

I don't think that's really going to happen. I mean, there are probably a few guys out there who have been itching all along to cross the picket lines and go back to work, and who've been waiting for some excuse to be outraged and do so. You have that in any union. So far in this strike, I've seen a lot less of that than I did in the four previous WGA strikes where I carried a picket sign. In each of those, we had a band of name writers announcing — and not anonymously — that if the strike wasn't settled in X days or weeks, they were going to return to work and sabotage (or quit) their own union. In '85, we had a large group that said that before the strike, before we'd even gotten the AMPTP's "final" (and terrible) offer.

As far as I know, none of those threats were ever really acted upon. In 1985, the strike did collapse before the dissidents had to make good on theirs. In other years, anyone in that position kept postponing the pulling of the trigger until it became moot. Interestingly, I can think of at least three writers who made such pronouncements in years past and are among the most militant members supporting the current strike.

So far, what I've seen is probably what you've seen: A few anonymous people posting such threats on the Internet…or warning that they know of vast quantities of unnamed showrunners who are convening and agreeing to head back to work any day now. Some of these messages are obviously bogus and I don't necessarily think they're AMPTP plants trying to undermine us. Some may be WGA members who wouldn't actually risk their own careers to take that action but who want to nudge their Guild to make more concessions and end the strike sooner.

We seem, as a Guild, to be very much together on the position that there must be a real share in New Media before a contract will be acceptable. On other issues, there's a majority but not as overwhelming a one. I had a friendly debate the other day with a writer who believes — and I think he's dead wrong about this — that if we only drop the notorious Six Demands, the AMPTP will scurry back to the table and give us everything we want in DVDs and Internet Streaming. Yeah, and if he also loses ten more pounds, Rebecca Romijn will leave her husband and move in with him.

Frankly, observing from afar, I think workable compromises are possible on a couple of those areas…and the ones about Fair Market Value and Distributor's Gross are too important to abandon. Those two are about closing the loopholes that allow studios to agree contractually to pay us a fair share…and then not pay it. Giving those up is like getting someone to agree to give you a share of the profits but granting them the power to define what constitutes profit.

I'd also add that just because you read an anonymous message in which someone says "I'm a WGA member and a staff writer on an NBC series," it doesn't mean the guy who wrote that message doesn't really work in the stockroom at Best Buy. I have an acquaintance who sends me a tirade about once a week — a fellow who occasionally sells a comic book script or two. He's angry that he doesn't sell more. He's furious that he's never gotten a TV job or sold any of the dozens of screenplays he's written. And he's especially livid that we've walked out on jobs that he would do for free, and which I suspect he's now offering to do for almost free. But no one wants his work…which, by the way, I'm not knocking at all. I've never read any of it. It could be brilliant for all I know, and he could just be doing a rotten job of selling it or having bad luck. (I suspect the former and that it's only going to get worse. The more desperate and bitter you seem, the less likely anyone is to even read your scripts or consider hiring you.)

Anyway, I'd wager that this guy — or others like him — are writing some of those messages, trying to gin up a little Schadenfreude. Look it up if you don't know the word. There's a lot of it in our profession. Some are probably nurturing the fantasy that not only will the strike collapse but that the producers will all say, "Let's never hire any of those people again. Let's find all our writers from now on by checking out the stockroom at Best Buy."

The deal with Letterman's company has probably put a very small dent in WGA solidarity for some while at the same time heartening a much larger number of members. If it's followed in the next week or two by other such interim contracts — especially if there are some significant independent movie companies in there — it'll be seen as a brilliant strategic move. Even now, most WGA members are not unhappy to see someone going back to work, especially since it's Dave's crew, which has been as supportive and loyal as anyone on the picket lines. I was leery of it at first but the more I think about it, the more I think it was a good gamble.

Our next question is from Shel Weisman…

So Letterman's writers go back to work and Craig Ferguson's do, as well. Does this mean no picket lines around the places they tape their shows? Doesn't Ferguson tape at the main CBS studio?

Well, it definitely means no picketing of the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York where Letterman does his show. In the case of Mr. Ferguson, he does tape at CBS Television City at Beverly and Fairfax, and that would ordinarily present a problem: How do we picket CBS, which we're still on strike against, without picketing Craig Ferguson? As it happens, the WGA decided two weeks ago to stop picketing that CBS facility, which is where I picket, and to move those picket teams over to Paramount. Picketing will continue at the CBS lot in the Valley.

I wondered at the time why we were abandoning Beverly/Fairfax since that's a very visible, important place to demonstrate. Maybe it was because they anticipated this deal. We have some pretty sharp folks strategizing so it wouldn't surprise me.

From "Dina B" comes this query…

So how do you think Leno without writers will fare against Dave with writers? I like both guys and would like to see the WGA show do better but fear that America long ago decided it liked Jay over Dave and that that's how it will go.

I don't know what'll happen because it's so unprecedented. A lot of it will depend on guests. Can Jay and his staff get enough interesting people to cross the picket line and come on? Will all the Big Names stampede to Letterman? Or if Jay's show is a disaster, will more people enjoy watching the train wreck over there? I have no idea. The first few nights both shows are back, the ratings probably won't be indicative of anything other than which way the Curiosity Factor is playing out. After a bit, some sort of trend will set in and I'm guessing it'll be a stronger Letterman show and a weaker Leno one, even if Dave does not retake the lead.

Jay Leno's a very nice, hard-working fellow who in the past has demonstrated an uncanny willingness to extend himself to help others and to do what's right. I think he got some very unfair, undeserved slams during the Tonight Show Wars, painted as a guy who elbowed the King aside and seized the throne away from its rightful heir. That was nonsense. He's always been one of the good guys and he's also a much better ad-libber than a lot of people think.

Unfortunately for him, he'll be hampered not only by the guest problem but by this lovely Catch-22: The funnier his show is and the more he does what he does best, which is monologue-style jokes, the more he's going to be accused of scabbing and employing scabs. I don't think a lot of folks resent him going back. He does have a perfectly valid, legal contractual obligation as a performer. He does have a staff (a very fine staff) that was about to be laid off. He did, at considerable personal expense, shut down for two months rather than to rush back on like Ellen DeGeneres. He has demonstrated his support for the strike and says he will continue to do so.

But if he goes out there and does a bad show, he's going to get hammered for that. And if he does a good one, he's going to get slammed for violating the rules of a strike he professes to support…and all of that effort is going to bolster a franchise that he's being forced to leave, anyway. So he's in a tough position, which is not to suggest I feel particularly sorry for the guy. I never feel that sorry for the career travails of anyone who makes that kind of money.

And our last question this time is from Billy Batson, who I'm guessing is not the kid who turns into Captain Marvel, but is actually someone who just likes those comic books…

I don't understand how the WGA can fight for jurisdiction over Animation from the studios. Isn't that some other union's job? Or isn't it up to the people who write Animation to decide what union they want to have represent them?

The Animation Guild, Local 839, has jurisdiction over some Animation Writing. At the moment, it's a majority but it's not exclusive. The WGA has jurisdiction over some, as well. There's a lot that is not covered by either. Obviously, it's a long-range goal for the WGA to cover all of it but that's way in the future, maybe on some other planet. The immediate battleground is those jobs that are completely unrepresented for collective bargaining. We want to give those writers the opportunity to elect, if they wish, to have the WGA represent them. (Full Disclosure: I have occasionally been one such writer.)

That "if they wish" is a key point to remember because the AMPTP is talking like we're asking them to just give us jurisdiction over everyone, regardless of what those writers want. Not so. First off, the writers working at studios signed with 839 are not in play. Nothing in the current negotiations (or probably the next one or the one after that, etc.) will affect their status. Insofar as the rest are concerned, what the WGA is asking for is for the AMPTP to get out of the way and not prevent a standard, garden-variety National Labor Relations Board action wherein those writers would get to vote for WGA representation if that's what they want. The AMPTP knows they will almost all want it.

We're making a completely reasonable demand here: Just let the basic process work. I hope the WGA doesn't get steamrollered into dropping it. I mean, I know that at some point, we're going to have to drop a couple of items on our Wish List that we really, really want and should get. We're expecting the studios to drop a couple of their fondest desires (like, say, to keep all the money from selling our work on the Internet) so we'll have to abandon some things. It would be a shame if this one had to go.

And right now, I have to go. Sorry this was so long. Tune in later today (maybe) for a long discussion of something that really matters: That Pie Face game.

Comedienne Beverly Wines, who went by the single stage name of Pudgy, was found dead of natural causes in her Las Vegas home the day before Christmas. Often described as a cross between Don Rickles and Totie Fields, Pudgy (which was usually written out as Pudgy!, with the exclamation point) got her start waiting tables in her native Chicago. She was a funny, acerbic waitress and more than a few patrons told her she belonged on the stage. She thought so, too…and wound up there, becoming a regular in Chicago night spots, especially the Pump Room.

Her career was intermittent, reportedly by choice. She valued raising a family more than stardom and only accepted performing gigs when she thought they wouldn't interfere. Sometimes, they were Vegas jobs and in 1993, when her kids were old enough, she moved to that town and began a string of long-term engagements, usually as emcee of hotel burlesque revues. I saw her when she hosted Crazy Girls, an otherwise unimpressive girlie show at the Riviera. Audiences came for the promise of nearly-naked women but they wound up clapping the hardest for the mistress of ceremonies who insulted them relentlessly when she wasn't mocking her own chubby appearance. She was fast and she was funny and an amazing percentage of her stream of conscious invective seemed to be ad-libbed on the spot.

I met her after the show and we wound up sitting in the lounge, talking over beverages, until she had to get back for the next performance. She said that it was a constant challenge — two shows nightly, three on weekends — to "win over" an audience that didn't come to see a fully-clad fat lady. She said that about half the time, someone in the audience would yell, "Put it on!" The joke didn't bother her but "they're always so smug, like they were the first person to ever think of that. Sometimes, they aren't even the first person that night to yell it out." At the performance I caught, she left the audience wishing there'd been a little less of the naked women with the bad implants and more of the fully-clad fat lady.

Wish I could remember some of her lines to quote here. Most of them were funnier for their speed and attitude than for anything else so maybe they wouldn't translate. But I do remember thinking she deserved to work much bigger venues than the Crazy Girls Theater at the Riviera.

I occasionally write here about games and toys I remember from my childhood…but I absolutely do not recall ever hearing or seeing this one, even though it allegedly came out in 1968, a year when I watched every danged cartoon show I could. It's called Pie Face and apparently all it did was to enable you to hit yourself in the face with a pie in what looks like the safest, least fun way imaginable. It looks like it was designed by someone who actually could not grasp the basis for humor in the act of being hit with a pie.

A quick Internet search reveals no one writing about owning it or playing it…no antique toy dealers selling it…no eBay auctions of old Pie Face games…nothing. So I'm wondering if it was ever actually produced or if the commercial that is our link today was done for some sort of test marketing that did not yield an actual product. A few people on the 'net are looking for it. No one seems to have it. Is there anyone reading this who is prepared to swear on the good name of Soupy Sales that they actually owned and played Pie Face?

Here. Have a look at this thing and tell me if it looks familiar…

Our pal Dave Cockrum died last year. His lovely spouse Paty is selling off some of Dave's comic book collection and I'm going to direct you to this link so you can get some great comics for good prices and she can make some bucks. Truly a win/win situation.

Here's a number from the 1992 Broadway revival of Guys and Dolls, which was a terrific production…one that made clear what a fine, well-crafted show Abe Burrows and Frank Loesser wrote. Before I saw this revival, I'd seen others which had not, especially one in 1980 that was directed by one of the show's original producers, Cy Feuer. Milton Berle starred as Nathan Detroit and mugged his way through the proceedings, winking at the audience and delivering asides that were not in the original text. The reviews said things like, "If you thought it was impossible to ruin Guys and Dolls, this new version will disabuse you of that notion." It played Los Angeles and San Francisco, allegedly to get the bugs out before they took it to Broadway. Instead, it closed in California and seems to have soured the theatrical community on further revivals for years after.

Mr. Feuer reportedly did not like the '92 version but he was just about the only one. I sure enjoyed it and this clip may give you some idea why. The first three actors you'll see on stage have all gone on to considerable success. The gentleman playing Nathan Detroit is, of course, Nathan Lane. The man in the magenta suit is J.K. Simmons, who seems to be in half the movies being made these days, including his role as J. Jonah Jameson in the Spider-Man films. And the gent in the blue-green suit is Walter Bobbie, who is now one of the top Broadway directors. Here they are doing Frank Loesser proud…

Starting next week, GSN (the channel formerly known as Game Show Network) is restoring its old seven-nights-a-week black-and-white game show block. Every night at 3 AM (Midnight on my coast), they'll be running a vintage What's My Line? followed by an old I've Got a Secret. These were all run on GSN a few years ago but it'll be nice to have them back every night instead of once a week.

Even as I was posting the previous message, I received an e-mail from the Guild that included the following…

Second, this is a full and binding agreement. Worldwide Pants is agreeing to the full MBA, including the new media proposals we have been unable to make progress on at the big bargaining table. This demonstrates the integrity and affordability of our proposals. There are no shortcuts in this deal. Worldwide Pants has accepted the very same proposals that the Guild was prepared to present to the media conglomerates when they walked out of negotiations on December 7.

So the terms of the deal are acceptable to us and we're already using it to tell the world we're not asking for anything so unreasonable. Okay, let's see if we can predict the AMPTP press release…

We respect the position of some independent producers to enter into arrangements that will spare them from the damaging, costly strike that the Writers Guild has caused in our industry. However, a company like Worldwide Pants is not engaged in areas such as Animation and Reality Programming that make the WGA demands so unacceptable to most production entities. The WGA demands would harm and cripple any studio engaged in those areas so we cannot and will not entertain them.

Something like that. It should be out any minute now…

Just got back from the market to a whole batch of e-mails asking me what I think of news that David Letterman's company, Worldwide Pants, has made an interim deal with the Writers Guild. I think you'd have to look at the terms of that deal to decide if it's a good thing for the WGA. If it establishes some meaningful gain that advances the ball on the issues that matter in the current strike, it's great. If it just means that CBS gets back one of its major points of profit, then I don't think much of it.

There is a slight potential bit of division possible within the Guild if some writers go back to work while most are hiking about with signs. I don't think it will divide us in any significant way if it seems like the interim contract will help our mission, even a little. Some members will complain but the WGA can't hire a new janitor without someone complaining. Most will see it as a good thing, especially if Letterman's ratings show a clear advantage over his competition, and if Dave's on every night speaking of Network Weasels. If the Guild can field a few more of these, it will do a lot to combat the AMPTP claim that it's impossible to make a deal with us.

And a happy birthday to Smilin' Stan Lee…from Madcap Mark, as I was once dubbed by him. You're nobody in the comic book business until Stan has assigned you an alliterative adjective.

May you have 85 more, Stan. Either that or we're going to freeze you inside a glacier so that one day, you can be found and thawed out and resume your amazing career. (If I were you, I'd just keep on living and forego the glacier option. Glaciers don't seem to be doing too well these days…)

Everyone knows the Carl Reiner-Mel Brooks routines about the 2000 Year Old Man. What some don't recall is that they did other routines on their first records. Here's one, from what I think is a 1962 Timex All-Star Comedy Special. It's introduced by an obscure comedian named Johnny Carson…

No, I'm not being paid a damn thing by the makers of Cheerios®.

I need to get back to work but before I do, I wanted to say something here about Cheerios®. I haven't mentioned much about Cheerios® here lately and that's an oversight I need to correct. Because Cheerios® are important. Cheerios®, I realized not long ago, are truly Nature's Most Perfect Food. They're tasty. They're crunchy. They're healthier than most other things I eat. Did you know that they may help lower Cholesterol? That's not a proven fact but they may, which puts them ahead of all those foods — like bacon and butter and In-and-Out Burgers, that we're pretty certain do not lower Cholesterol. But Cheerios® may and that's good enough for me.

Please note that I am writing here of plain, old-fashioned Cheerios® — the kind in the yellow box. I have never tried Honey Nut Cheerios® and I never will, partly because I'm allergic to almonds and partly because I simply resent the notion that Cheerios® could be improved upon. I also have no use for Berry Burst Cheerios®, Yogurt Burst Cheerios®, Multi Grain Cheerios®, Cheerios® Crunch, Fruity Cheerios®, Frosted Cheerios® or Apple Cinnamon Cheerios®. For obvious reasons.

Over the years, I've occasionally shifted my affection to other cereals but rarely for long. I always come back to Cheerios®. Recently, I went through a brief Corn Flakes flirtation but it faded. When you put them in a bowl with milk and sugar, they're almost as good but Cheerios® are much, much better when you just eat a dry handful right out of the box. Which is how I eat most cereal.

These days, I really only eat two cereals. One, of course, is Cheerios®. The other, which is also quite wonderful, is Barbara's Shredded Oats and I kind of think of it as Designer Cheerios®. Barbara's Shredded Oats is denser and crunchier and a little more expensive. It's kind of like Cheerios® on a higher budget.

This is all I have to say about Cheerios® at the moment but there will be more. I can't say enough about Cheerios®.