Negotiators have adjourned until Tuesday in the talks between the AMPTP and the WGA. These are the talks that everyone hopes will lead to a new contract and therefore no Writers Strike. The contract expires at Midnight on Wednesday but even if there's no deal by then, there doesn't have to be a strike at that precise moment. If talks are proceeding and progress is being made, a strike could be delayed until it is no longer necessary or becomes necessary. Or they could call a walkout, a.s.a.p. No one can say for sure at this time.

The hopeful sign is that they are talking and demands are being withdrawn or modified. By contrast, at this point prior to the WGA strikes of '85 and '88, Management was refusing to even listen to WGA proposals. In both those years, the Producers' idea of "bargaining" was to run down the clock and then, a few hours before the old contract expired, they'd hand our negotiating team their "one and only offer," as they called it. And then they'd say, in effect, "Here — this is it. Now, go vote to accept it. We're going home."

I remember arriving for the Strike Vote in a ballroom at the Sheraton-Universal in '85. In that year, the strike vote occurred after the old contract had expired — the day after — unlike this year, when it came two weeks before.

A lovely man named George Kirgo, who was then on our Board of Directors (and, I think, the Negotiating Committee, as well) grabbed me and a couple of other writers he knew and pulled us into a huddle. "We have to vote this offer down," he said. George looked terrible. He hadn't slept the night before. He'd been up talking to other WGA officials and worrying and strategizing. The offer, he said, was designed to be voted down. It included a major financial rollback plus a major rollback in screen credits. The Producers' strategy, he said — and I'm quite sure he was right — was to force a strike but a short one. We would, of course, vote it down but the magnitude of the strike vote — how many people voted to walk versus how many didn't — would enable them to gauge WGA resolve and to estimate how little they'd have to improve the offer to get 51% of us to accept it.

After a short walkout, the Producers would pull the credit rollback off the table. The idea was that enough of us would then figure we'd "won" something and would accept the contract with the major financial rollback. George explained to us that most unions, faced with a rotten offer, can muster a strike vote but thereafter, each strike vote is a matter of diminishing returns. Members get worried and lose bravado as their jobs stop or they see projects floundering or hear the inevitable rumors that Management is equipped and determined to ride out the strike and break the union. That makes them especially eager to believe that a terrible offer, slightly improved, has become a good offer even though it's actually still terrible.

Anyway, that worked pretty well for them in 1985, aided by the fact that our leadership was in general disarray. We had a short strike, and then they dropped the credit rollback and we took what was still, even with that improvement, a terrible deal. No one in '85, even those of us who were against it, imagined how terrible it was because we didn't then dream how big home video would become. Since it had worked so well for them that year, the Producers tried much the same trick in 1988 but this time, the Guild was more solid and we not only turned down the really rotten offer, we voted it down after they bettered it slightly. And at that point, the Producers were stuck with no Exit Plan (insert George W. Bush analogy here) and they had a five month strike on their hands.

There's cause for limited optimism since bargaining is happening at all in advance of the contract expiration. It was announced today that a Federal Mediator will preside over Tuesday's session but I wouldn't expect that to change anything. Usually, a Federal Mediator comes in after a strike has been going on for a while, says "everyone needs to try and make this work," then goes home. Still, that phase is ahead of schedule, too, and that's probably a good sign, if only because it'll stop people from believing that a Federal Mediator will step in and drag unwilling parties into a settlement.

But if you asked me for my prediction — and amazingly, some of you have — I'd say we're going to wind up with a "final offer" that contains at least one major rollback that is in there so it can be dropped and one that they'll fight to the death to protect. It's been reported that the Producers already dropped a demand for a new residual structure that would essentially have reduced them from guaranteed compensation to something at the vagaries of Hollywood Accounting. Other, less important rollbacks have reportedly also been withdrawn, and we've given some on our side, as well. But my suspicion is that the negotiators for the Producers, to earn their keep and because they've been so ordered, still feel they have to come back with some significant giveback from the Writers. More importantly, on the issue of sharing revenues from new technologies like DVDs, they have to come back with some precedent that can be forced next year on the Screen Actors Guild and the Directors Guild and which will translate into not sharing revenues.

So that'll be in there, maybe dressed up with language to suggest that we'll do some joint studies to determine if a better plan is feasible for the future. They often do that. It's like you and I make a deal where I get your pants, but to prevent you from feeling like a total loser, I'll agree that at some later date, we'll meet for exploratory discussions about me possibly giving you back some part of your pants.

They'll do that and then they'll include some other rollback that's in there to be dropped so that they can better the offer without altering the part they really care about. Maybe they'll keep the talks going so they can keep the work going until a better time for a stoppage, and maybe our leaders won't let them get away with that. Or maybe the Producers will try to hurry up the strike and get it over with so they can try the trick of dropping one rollback…and of course, at the same time they'll spread the word that they're quite prepared and even happy to ride out a long strike. We'll hear that they have a nice stash of game and reality shows that will do just as well…a claim that will not be believed by anyone who saw the debut last week of Phenomenon. (Who ever thought you'd see a TV show where Carmen Electra looked like she didn't want to be on it?)

As you can tell, I'm not all that confident in parts of my prediction because a lot of this is unprecedented. The WGA seems more "together" and determined than I've ever seen it, and I don't think the AMPTP can possibly underestimate that this time, as they have so many times in the past. The mere fact that the two sides are actually bargaining now suggests that a lot of the Producers' past methods are not in play this time. Still, some of those tricks have worked so well in the past, not just with us but with other unions, that it's hard to believe they won't try any of them again. So I'm optimistic but not optimistic enough to think there won't be a strike.

Just to get you in the mood for Halloween…

In 1964, animation producer Walter Lantz whipped up a syndicated Woody Woodpecker special called Spook-a-Nanny (or maybe Woody Woodpecker's Spook-a-Nanny) comprised of old cartoons and some new footage. Today's clip contains most of the new footage. The rest of the show was live-action intros with Mr. Lantz, some scenes of him socializing with an animated Woody, the old cartoons, and a couple of replays of the semi-catchy "Spook-a-Nanny" song that you'll hear if you make it to the end of this clip.

One of the thing that amazes me about technology today is how it's made a lot of stuff that was once impossible to come by not only available but almost effortless to obtain. I saw this show in '64 when I was twelve years old. That was about the age I started to outgrow these characters but I liked the little song and would have liked to have heard it again. This was not possible in the sixties or even the seventies. The program ran in 1964 and if it repeated anywhere, I sure didn't see it. And now, here it is on the Internet.

The most interesting this about this special is that Mr. Lantz stuck in most of the characters in his catalog, including several who by then existed only in merchandising and comic books. In '64, his studio was long past making cartoons of most of them, doing films in three series — Woody Woodpecker, Chilly Willy and The Beary Family. (Lantz was just winding down a fourth series, Inspector Willoughby.) I'm not sure why they didn't include the Beary Family in Spook-a-Nanny unless it was because Walter didn't want to spring for the rather minor dollars to bring in Paul Frees, who did the voice of Charlie Beary. In the clip that follows, Grace Stafford (aka Mrs. Lantz) did Woody and Splinter, while Daws Butler did all the other speaking voices, and Gloria Wood performed the song.

It was interesting to see Andy Panda included. The last Andy Panda cartoon was made in 1949, though he made a few cameos in later Lantz cartoons. Homer Pigeon is in there. Lantz made three Homer Pigeon cartoons — one in 1942, one in 1943 and one in 1956. I remember that when I was a kid, Homer was in a number of my comic books and on toys, and every article I read about Walter Lantz mentioned the pigeon among his list of animated superstars…but I still don't think I've ever seen a Homer Pigeon cartoon. Space Mouse was in there. As explained, here, he was a character from the comic books, though Lantz made one film with him. I believe his "Spook-a-Nanny" appearance was the only other time he was animated and based on his participation, it looks like they had this cartoon all storyboarded and then someone said, "Hey, let's stick that Space Mouse guy in it somewhere."

They also left out Oswald the Rabbit because this was 1964. Even before 11/22/63, Oswald was becoming a forgotten character and then along came Lee Harvey Oswald to despoil the name. Oswald Rabbit merchandising came to a screeching halt.

Anyway, here's the "Spook-a-Nanny." I'm not sure if it's a trick or a treat but it is something I remember vividly from my childhood.

On November 23, 1965, several months after Stan Laurel died, a very odd thing turned up on CBS in the time slot for The Red Skelton Show. It was produced by many of the same folks who did Mr. Skelton's program and it was advertised as a tribute to Mr. Laurel…and I guess it was. But it was a misguided tribute that obviously started out with good intentions before turning into a very sloppy variety show. It had a stellar guest list that included, of course, Dick Van Dyke…and also, Buster Keaton in what may have been his last TV appearance.

Those two men, at least, knew Stan and had some connection with him. Many of the others were there because, one supposes, they liked Laurel and Hardy, and were available (see "Romero, Cesar") and the "available" part seemed to be the more relevant. They performed material with little or no connection to Stan or Ollie and…well, a lot of us just stared at the screen with what I now call the "Springtime for Hitler" look. I was thirteen years old and I thought, "Hey, I could do a better Stan Laurel Tribute Show than this and I could do it in 8mm in my back yard and without Tina Louise."

Grainy tapes of A Salute to Stan Laurel make the rounds of Laurel and Hardy collectors and are usually watched once, not always all the way through. Someone has chopped the hour-long special in two and a week ago, they put the second half up on Google Video. I can't find Part One there but that's okay. You're not going to watch the whole thing, anyway. You're not even going to get all the way through Part Two…

For some reason, I'm receiving a sudden flurry this week of invitations to join this thing called LinkedIn that I don't really understand. Nor do I understand why, after getting one or two requests per month over the last year, I have about forty in the last six days. Friends, acquaintances and a few utter strangers write, "I'd like to add you to my professional network"…but these people can write to me any time they like and many of them are already sending me little e-mail newsletters about what they're up to, professionally speaking. What is going to happen after I join their "professional networks" that can't happen if I don't?

I've accepted some invites and I've browsed the LinkedIn site and I still don't have the foggiest. I'm not looking for a position as a Linux Systems Operator and there's absolutely no one who went to college with me I yearn to contact again. Matter of fact, I'd gleefully subscribe to a service that guaranteed I'd never encounter some of those people again.

What am I missing here?

There's still a lot of discussion on the web about the new book of Charles Schulz. The most interesting is over at Cartoon Brew, where the participants include Schulz's kids and a couple of people who knew him extremely well, Dale Hale and Lee Mendelson. In fact, I know Lee extremely well and if he told me Charles Schulz was an alien from Saturn, I'd be inclined to believe it.

Joe Conason on the Very Big Lie that's all the rage with people who want to be President or even Attorney General: "I'm not sure if waterboarding is torture." Of course, they're sure. There's no reason to do it if it isn't and if you don't think torture is desirable.

A lot of questions this morning about the Marx Brothers Cartoon Show I mentioned in an earlier post. Obviously, no such show was ever produced…but you might be amazed at the number of times it's been proposed and planned and led to pilot scripts and presentation art. I was once in a group of four other animation writers and the subject came up. All five of us, we discovered, had been approached at various times or even worked on various proposed projects featuring animated versions of the Brothers Marx. It's one of those ideas that always seem to be "in development" somewhere. In the eighties, that list also included shows about Michael Jackson, Elvira and — of all things — Wolfman Jack. I think one of the four thousand Wolfman Jack proposals actually got on the air briefly.

The last time I was approached about writing a Marx Brothers cartoon show, it was by a studio that had or thought they were about to get the rights to Harpo and Chico. A deal to include Groucho, whose likeness was controlled by a different wing of the family, had eluded these producers, though they thought it still might be obtainable. They wanted to know if I thought I could write a Marx Brothers show without him. The answer was no. Then they wanted to know: If you could write a Marx Brothers show without Groucho, would it be possible to write the pilot script so that we can show it to the Groucho People and they'll think it's wonderful and they'll want to give us the rights to him for a reasonable fee and then you can add him into that script?

Again, I told them no. But I added that I thought The Groucho People was a great idea for a show. Wouldn't you want to watch a cartoon show called The Groucho People? Better than that, wouldn't you want to be one of The Groucho People?

The first time I was approached about a Marx Brothers cartoon show, the producers had — or more likely, thought they could get — the rights to Groucho, Harpo and Chico. They asked me who they should get to supply the voice of Groucho. I told them there was only one choice: Dayton Allen. This was back in the early eighties when Mr. Allen was still alive. Dayton was, for those of you who don't know, a great comedian — a part of the old Steve Allen stock company — and he did a fair amount of cartoon voicing. He also did an uncanny Groucho. One time on the old I've Got A Secret game show, Groucho was the guest star. The panel was blindfolded and they had to guess what Groucho was doing as he answered their questions. What he was doing was sitting there, smoking a cigar while Dayton Allen answered the questions in his voice.

I told them that story and the producers said, "Great! We'll get Dayton Allen! Now, what about Chico?" I told them that the great cartoon voice actor, Paul Frees, did a killer Chico impression. The Vincent Price movie, The Abominable Dr. Phibes, had just come out and there was a place in it where Mr. Frees had dubbed in his wonderful Chico imitation. If they wanted to hear it, it was on the movie's soundtrack album.

"Terrific," they said. Whereupon one of them actually asked me, "Who could do Harpo?"

I thought the guy was kidding so I answered, "Marcel Marceau." When he wrote it down, I realized he wasn't kidding and that these people would never do a Marx Brothers show. Nor should they.

Testifying before Congress, Paul Wolfowitz famously said that the Iraq War would pay for itself. People have since mocked him for this but, come on. He was only off by 2.4 trillion dollars.

To grasp the magnitude of this bad bit of estimation, consider this. You or I could have gone before Congress in his stead. And when they asked us how much the War in Iraq was going to cost, we could have picked any number between one and about 4.7 trillion at random…and we would have been closer than Paul Wolfowitz. They later made this man president of the World Bank.

2.4 trillion is a lot but don't sweat it. It's not like we have anything better to do with the money.

Feel free to copy this banner and to post it all over the web for the next two months. If it's too large for your weblog, don't worry. I will have others available here soon.

Guess I should have expected it. I wrote about the Abbott & Costello cartoon show produced by Hanna and Barbera, and I got a lot of e-mails that said, more or less, "So what was the deal with those Laurel and Hardy cartoons they did?" The deal, as I understand it, was something that Larry Harmon — best known as the proprietor of Bozo the Clown — put together. He knew Stan Laurel and around 1961, made an arrangement with him for a cartoon based on these caricatures. News articles dated October of that year said that it would be a prime-time series on NBC and that Mr. Laurel would consult and contribute to storylines. (It is worth noting that this was one month after the first cartoon series produced for television, The Flintstones, debuted on ABC. At about the same time, Screen Gems — then the parent company of Hanna-Barbera — announced that a Marx Brothers cartoon show was in the works.)

There was a flurry of merchandising in anticipation of the Laurel & Hardy show…but no show. Apparently, NBC was not as committed to the project as the articles had suggested, and then there were some complications over the rights. The complications got worse when Laurel died in 1965 and there was some sort of claim on the rights by producer David Wolper. A partnership or compromise was brokered and in '66, the deal was set, not for network prime-time but for the syndicated children's market. There was only one crucial element missing: No animation studio. Harmon's, which had produced the Bozo the Clown cartoons, was no longer operative. So an arrangement was made with Hanna-Barbera to do the series.

Harmon himself supplied the voice of Stanley. Jim MacGeorge, who often impersonated Laurel in front of the camera, was engaged to voice Ollie. (Any time you see Chuck McCann playing Hardy in a sketch or commercial, it's usually Jim playing Laurel.) The usual Hanna-Barbera storymen and artists and supporting voice players were in place, and the cartoons varied wildly as to their quality and appropriateness for Laurel and Hardy. Four years earlier, H-B had produced a series of cartoons featuring two characters named Lippy the Lion and Hardy Har Har. It has been rumored that many of the scripts for the Laurel and Hardy films were either leftover Lippy & Hardy scripts or close remakes. There were also scripts in which Laurel and Hardy became super-heroes and some of these, it is said, were rewrites of scripts that had been written for an unproduced series about two clumsy crimefighters. Quality-wise, the Laurel & Hardy cartoons weren't much different from Lippy & Hardy, which of course is what was wrong with them.

Amazingly, that wasn't the last time Laurel and Hardy were animated by H-B. In 1972, the studio had this odd incarnation of the Scooby Doo franchise called The New Scooby Doo Movies. In this case, a "movie" was an hour long episode with an odd guest star or two. Among those who "met" Scooby, Shaggy and the gang were Don Knotts, The Three Stooges, Jonathan Winters, The Harlem Globetrotters, Sandy Duncan, Sonny and Cher, some other even odder selections…and Laurel and Hardy. The characters were redesigned a bit to fit in better with the Scooby style and again, Harmon and MacGeorge provided the voices. It was not Stan and Ollie's finest hour.

Here's the opening of a 1966 Laurel and Hardy cartoon…

More recently, Larry Harmon's company has repackaged the cartoons. Here's the opening they produced which combines clips from the old cartoons with a new theme song…

And while we're at it, here's three minutes of Laurel and Hardy guesting on The New Scooby Doo Movies. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

A lady on MSNBC is talking about the allegations of sexual misconduct against magician David Copperfield. Yeah, that's sure the biggest story in the nation today. Not that the fires are all that's happening but this strikes me as one of those cases where the pundits don't know enough to have opinions but, hey, it's network television. Can't let a little thing like that get in the way of a juicy topic. As Jack Germond used to say, "We aren't paid to say 'I don't know.'"

I like Copperfield as a performer and from our ever-so-brief encounters, he strikes me as a good, hard-working guy. Someone wrote to ask me if I think the charges against him are true. I don't even think they're charges yet, merely allegations, and the leaked details seem thinly-sourced and ever-changing. It sounds like it'll come down to a he said/she said dispute or maybe several…but so far, we haven't heard from he, nor do we know who she is, or they are, let alone what's being said.

I know the guy is rich and successful and handsome and that as a magician, he often projects an air of "I can do things you can't," and I can understand why some wouldn't want to miss the opportunity for a little schadenfreude at his expense. But isn't it at least a little premature? Especially since all we seem to know at this point is that someone has accused him of something? And at least going by the lady on MSNBC right now, we're not sure who or what.

I'm going to try to get this blog off the subject of the fires. This week's issue of The New Yorker includes an excerpt from Steve Martin's upcoming autobiography. That article does not seem to be available online but you can listen to about five minutes of the audiobook.

From Steve Crooks…

There's a guy at work here who says he has little sympathy for all the people losing their homes and businesses from the fires because they knew they were building/buying in areas that were known to have a higher chance of being burned someday. He compared it to people who knowingly build in a flood zone. Just to put on the icing, he also claims that since these people are losing their "2nd or 3rd multimillion dollar homes" he really doesn't shed any tears.

He even sent me this link from which he pulled out quotes showing that people had narrowly escaped previous fires (and not learned their lesson in his view), and figures showing how homes are being built on "wildfire land."

For the record, I'm not standing with him on his position. But I'm curious how you'd respond to him. I don't really have time to dig around and find sources to show him why he might be wrong, but I thought since you are much closer to the situation you might have a more accessible response at hand.

I don't think you have to know those areas or people who live there, as I do, nor do you need detailed stats to prove he's got this wrong. You just have to look at the staggering number of people who've been evacuated and whose homes are gone or threatened. If the totals were 5% of what they are, he might be right. There are folks who buy and build in areas where this kind of thing is a little more possible than it is in other areas. I don't agree that they are undeserving of sympathy and assistance but even if they are, they're a tiny fraction of all those who are impacted. Over half a million people have been evacuated just in San Diego County. These people were not all living in places where they shouldn't, and I'd be surprised if more than a few hundred were losing their second, let alone their third homes.

There are also other dangers in life. Often, to live in an area where there's a low probability of fire means to live where there's a higher chance of flash flooding or quakes or other disasters. After the big Northridge earthquake, one writer I knew who lived out in Valley decided to move to Virginia…where he got hit by a hurricane. There probably is a place in this country where where there's little chance of disaster but we can't all live on that block, wherever it is.

I was amazed to read the article he sent you. He really had to scour to find some scant indicators in it that the people losing their homes are living in fire-prone areas or that they have multiple residences. It made me wonder why anyone would try so hard to feel some reason not to have any compassion or caring about so many people whose lives have been devastated…and then I remembered something that a friend of mine once said. "Some people," he remarked, "are just assholes."

The fires raging through Southern California continue to horrify. Those of us who are nowhere near the flames can only watch and mutter inadequate words. I have a number of friends who I think have lost their homes…or are probably waiting somewhere in a motel to find out if they have.

I keep getting e-mails asking me if people in the comic book community are okay. I know of one person involved with the Comic-Con International whose home is gone, and a couple of creators who are nervously watching the news or perhaps being evacuated. Whether those people would want their names mentioned here, I don't know so I won't. They don't need any more problems right now.

The news coverage is uneven, as I guess it always is in situations like this. Years ago, I heard a TV News Exec say that in covering catastrophes, there were four categories of stories — and I hope I remember them correctly. They were Service, Strategy, Superheroes and Suffering. Service refers to the plain, important facts that the public needs to know…in this case, where the fire is, what is likely to happen, where to go for help, how to help, etc. Strategy is the nuts 'n' bolts of how the responders are responding…in a situation like this, explaining about water drops and backfires and such. Superheroes would be the human (or superhuman) side of the responders, focusing on their challenge and how they're meeting it, and Suffering would be all the shots of homes burning.

I understand how the Suffering part is the most dramatic footage and also the easiest to present, so we get an excess of that. At times though, it feels like someone thinks we're tuning in to enjoy watching lives being destroyed. In the new era of split-screen news coverage, when they like to put little boxes on the screen, some channels seem to think one must always contain flames, even if it means endlessly repeating the same tape. Couldn't that space on my screen be used for a little more Service and Strategy?

And couldn't we have less of one other "S" word, Stroking? Right now on KNBC, we have a lot of politicians commending the fire fighters and each other on the fine job they're doing. That job seems to consist of getting in front of news cameras and commending the fire fighters and each other for the fine job they're doing. My city councilman is standing next to Governor Schwarzenegger, waiting (I guess) for his chance to get to the press microphone and add his commendations for the fire fighters and each other for the fine job they're doing. He probably thinks this will cause his constitutents to note that he's on the job and contributing. I think I'll drop him a letter and tell him it makes me think he's not.

You all know Alan Young as the Horse Whisperer, Wilbur Post, on the classic TV series, Mr. Ed. It was such a great role that people forget that Young was a successful comic actor before that, and that he's done plenty of great non-equine work since. Years ago in Las Vegas, I saw him do a superb job in the lead role in a very slipshod production of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. Everything about it was a mess except that Young was so good, he made it all work. I've also been honored to have him perform in a number of cartoon shows I've written (where I hope he didn't have to pull off the same kind of miracle) and to chat with him from time to time. He's a very nice man who's very serious about acting.

He'll be talking about his incredible career when he appears on today's live broadcast of Stu's Show, the cornerstone program of Shokus Internet Radio. He'll be on with Stuart Shostak from 4 PM to 6 PM, Pacific time, which is 7 PM to 9 PM on the right-hand coast. I'm sure they'll talk a lot about Mr. Ed but I hope they also discuss Alan's radio stardom, his earlier TV roles, his movies, his theater work, his cartoon voiceovers (he's the voice of Scrooge McDuck for Disney) and everything else. I may try to call in and ask a question or three, myself.

You can probably listen to the show on the computer you're using to browse this very web page. Just go to this web page at the proper hour and select an audio browser. It's a rare opportunity to hear a great performer discourse on his life and career…kinda like Inside the Actors Studio except that the host isn't as pompous and interested in talking about himself.