Phone guy finally showed and managed to fix the problem in about three minutes. He's from San Jose, he says. The local company is so overwhelmed with trouble complaints that they've brought hundreds (he may have said "thousands") of technicians from other cities. He started work at 7 AM this morning and is expected to make at least two more stops tonight. Tough job.

I want to emphasize that I wasn't complaining earlier about the repair people. They've got a lot of fixin' to do and it would be absurd to expect them to always be able to predict how long each stop will take. (He was here for maybe six minutes. His previous stop, he told me, took two hours.) I just think that if companies want us to use the 'net more to transact business, they could give us something back — like more accurate info — via that same connection. And I guess I'm also amazed when they urge us to use their website instead of the phone but manage to make it less efficient. (I forgot to mention. I originally tried to schedule this service call through the phone company site but it wouldn't accept the appointment.)

Okay, I'm off to the market. Finally.

No sign of the telephone repairman. You know…the one who was supposed to be here between 1 PM and 5 PM?

One of my phone lines is out. It's been out for more than a week but that's okay. I have a couple of lines, and I'm sure that after the big rains that hit Los Angeles, there are folks who need a repairman more than I do. So I didn't flinch when, eight days ago, they said the earliest appointment they could give me was today, Saturday the 15th, between the hours of 1 PM and 5 PM.

Well, he — I'm assuming it'll be a "he" — still isn't here yet. A nice lady in the phone company repair division says he's still coming. Of course, at 5 PM, another nice lady in the same department told me he'd be here within the hour. These are not the first two nice ladies in my life to string me along and lie.

There's got to be a way in the age of the Internet and cell phones and pagers to make this process more efficient. Those nice ladies have computers in front of them that tell them exactly where the repairfolks are, how many appointments are ahead of mine, etc. When the service people leave one job, they phone in or otherwise inform HQ that they're on their way to the next. How difficult would it be to route that information to the consumer? Imagine if on a day when I'm expecting a visit, I could get periodic e-mails that say something like, "Repairman 37 is completing Service Call #6 for the day. You are #9. His current estimated time of arrival is between 7 PM and 8 PM." I could even route those to an account where I could pick them up via my cell phone. That way, I could go about my business and have a more useful idea of when I need to be here. I'd planned to go to the market and buy some things, dinner included, after the guy left…but that was when I thought that would occur by 5:00. Had I known I'd still be waiting here at 7:30…

My phone company (SBC) keeps trying to get me to contact them via their web page. When I call them, I sit through endless announcements that I can order services, check the status of an order, request service, etc., at their site. Which I'd do if that site ever worked. So far, every attempt to transact business that way has taken twenty minutes and led to a notice that my business cannot be processed at this time and I should phone them…which means listening again to all those recordings that say I should try using their website.

Assuming they ever get the site working — a big, perhaps foolhardy assumption — I would certainly use it. I'd especially use it if it did things I like just described, keeping me informed of when the repairguy's going to get here. How can a communications company be so bad at communicating?

After languishing way too long on a shelf over at Warner Home Video, Eric Idle's long-awaited sequel to The Rutles will finally have a DVD release on or around March 1. Longtime readers of this site will recall that I saw it at a screening in May of 2001 (as noted near the bottom of this page) and enjoyed it a lot. Mr. Idle plays the same annoying documentarian he played in the 1978 "mockumentary" (we didn't call them that then), All You Need is Cash, along with playing the Paul-like member of The Rutles. The sequel, Can't Buy Me Lunch, amplifies and expands on the saga of the Pre-Fab Four and you can pre-order it by clicking here. Between this and the Broadway debut of his Spamalot, Eric Idle's going to have quite a month of March.

In Broadway's rush to revive everything that ran longer than Carrie, it was inevitable that the return of A Chorus Line should be announced…and it has been. A new production is planned for next year…a re-creation of the original, complete with much the same choreography.

The original version ran fifteen years, making it the longest-running Broadway show ever until 42nd Street and a couple of Andrew Lloyd Webber efforts stole that distinction. But A Chorus Line has had a staggering number of regional and local productions over the years, which is one reason I'm skeptical that the magic will reignite. Even assuming the new production is as wonderful as the original — which is assuming a lot — the show has grown very familiar and also very dated. In fact, it grew dated while on Broadway. At some point in the original run, they declared it a period piece and added to the program books that the events were set in 1975. Apparently, that will be the time of this and all future productions, which is fine. Better that than someone interjecting gratuitous contemporary references. Still, it has that "seventies" sensibility and I suspect insufficient time has passed for it to become a genuine relic of another era the way Grease or 42nd Street or even any good mounting of Guys and Dolls oozes history. Twenty years from now, sure…but now?

Some shows have a way of becoming too familiar. There are plans for Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick to reunite in The Odd Couple, another play that I love but feel has been done to death. I'm guessing tickets will be hard to get for that production but not because anyone is dying to see The Odd Couple. Big, billable star names are simply one way a revival can justify its existence. Another is if the material has been rethought and modernized in some manner…but this revival of A Chorus Line will have neither of those qualities. It's not being updated and the show, almost by definition, cannot have stars. The whole point of it — and one reason the movie with Michael Douglas missed the point — is that the quasi-anonymous members of the chorus are the stars. (The tepid reception to the movie also does not bode well for the new Broadway version.)

What the new Chorus Line will have going for it is that the original was around so long that it was many a theatergoer's first great stage experience. We all have those shows that loom large in our memories…that wonderful evening that changed our lives, at least a little. Like junkies desperate to relive that first great high, we trudge to a lot of plays, hoping to experience the tingle yet again. So when tickets go on sale for this new production, a lot of people are going to pounce, figuring the experience will roll back 25+ years and bring forth the same feeling of wonderment. Many will want to take their children so that they might experience the same thing. This will sell a lot of tickets but I can't help but anticipate a lot of disappointment for both adults trying to buck Tom Wolfe and revisit their past…and kids who've been told how transforming it will be. After a few decades of MTV dancing with special effects and rapid cutting, the choreography will seem unremarkable…and the stories of the dancers, which seemed raw and emotional at the time, will seem sitcom simple. Everyone has heard more candid self-revelation on reality shows…and from the real people, not from actors reading lines. A lot of tickets will be sold but I'm guessing a lot of people will exit the theater muttering, "Uh, they must have changed something…"

Incidentally, the press releases all make the point that this new production is under the supervision of "the surviving creators." It's being directed by Bob Avian, who assisted the late Michael Bennett in staging the original, and Marvin Hamlisch — who wrote the music — is overseeing the arrangements and whatever. But one key "creator" is still unmentioned, that being Neil Simon. For years, until it was mentioned in a couple of books, one of the worst-kept secrets of Broadway was that Mr. Simon did a surreptitious punch-up on the script for A Chorus Line, adding jokes where applicable, as a favor to Bennett. For this, Simon received neither cash nor credit…which would be a major injustice if anyone thought the man had any lack of either in his life. He had to be content that he did it for love.

Frank Rich rips Armstrong Williams into teensy-weensy bits over the latter's ethical transgressions as a news commentator.

If you are desperate for a hotel room for the Comic-Con in San Diego…or if you just are going somewhere and crave the best possible deal…here's a tip. Travelaxe is a free service that has sure helped me find cheap lodgings. It's a piece of software that you download to your computer. You tell it where you want to go and when, and it scans the websites of travel agents and finds you an array of rates. There are times when I've found a better price at a given hotel that way than I could have gotten by booking through the hotel's own website. Anyway, it's always worth a try.

Around 60% of the folks who attend shows in the Broadway area of New York are from out of state. This article in the New York Times reveals that and some other interesting facts about the theater-going audience.

Hotel reservations for this year's Comic-Con International in San Diego were snatched up at a staggering rate yesterday. Heidi MacDonald is covering the story here and later here on her fine comics news weblog.

Friday the Thirteenth is a day ahead of schedule. That's right: It's fallen on a Thursday this year. You can read all about this amazing phenomenon over at The Official Pogo Possum Website where, today only, they're celebrating a whole year of just being The Official Pogo Possum Website. Which is a fine thing to celebrate!

Here's a comparison of the Dan Rather scandal with the one about those elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction.

As many of you race to secure rooms for the Comic-Con International in July, let us remember that there's another great California comic convention in February, and it's even operated by the same folks. This year's WonderCon occurs in San Francisco the weekend of 2/18 to 2/20 and as you can see at the convention website, I am among the guests.

I'll be taking it relatively easy and only moderating seven panels at WonderCon. One will be a tribute to the late, great Will Eisner. Another will be our festive "Quick Draw!" game, and there will be a Sergio/Mark panel and a Golden/Silver Age panel. The latter will feature Russ Heath, Creig Flessel and Arnold Drake.

One of the things that's getting me to San Francisco this year, apart from the fact that WonderCon is always a great convention, is that Arnold will be present. Long before I met him, he was one of my favorite writers. (Not that this is likely but if DC Comics ever launches a reprint series, where the idea is to present great stories regardless of the "commercial appeal" of the characters or creators, they could do no better than to tap the five Showcase issues of Tommy Tomorrow published in 1962-1963. They appeared, as did too many comics of those days, without writer credits so it was years before I knew they'd been written by the co-creator and/or writer of the Doom Patrol, Deadman, Stanley and His Monster and so many of my favorite DC Comics of the sixties. Later, I met Arnold and found him to be among the most articulate, interesting comic book creators I've ever known.

Arnold will sit for a one-on-one interview by me, and will also be on a panel on Kids' Comics I'm hosting with, we're hoping, Gail Simone, Amanda Conner, Scott Shaw! and Bill Morrison. There will also be a panel on the fine art of drawing comic book covers with, tentatively, Neal Adams, Alex Ross, William Stout, John Cassaday and Adam Hughes. I'll post a full schedule as we get closer to that weekend.

A P.S. on my earlier item about how Mary Poppins was the only Disney movie for which Daws Butler recorded a voice. This is probably true, though I should have mentioned he was up for one other job there.

For about about a half century, comedy legend Stan Freberg told folks that when Mr. Disney was casting voices for his version of Alice in Wonderland, he'd been personally cast by Walt to play the Jabberwocky, but the role was cut. This was doubted by some. While a lot of unrealized or abandoned Disney movie sequences still exist, at least in rough sketches, there was then no evidence of any "Jabberwocky" scene in the movie.

Well, of course, it turned out Stan was right. Years later, historians unearthed some papers that listed Walt's casting ideas: Freberg with Daws Butler and The Rhythmaires, which was a singing group headed by Jud Conlon. The paperwork is reproduced among the extras on the current Alice in Wonderland DVD.

The Rhythmaires are heard in the final movie, and Freberg is allegedly heard in a few tiny parts…but it does not appear Daws ever recorded anything for the film. At least, he never mentioned it to any of us. He did do some voices in the 1966 TV version of Alice in Wonderland that was produced by Hanna-Barbera, subtitled "What's a Nice Kid Like You Doing in a Place Like This?" That's the one that had Sammy Davis Jr. as the Cheshire Cat, Zsa Zsa Gabor as the Queen of Hearts, and Bill "Jose Jiminez" Dana as the White Knight. It also had pretty good songs by Lee Adams and Charles Strouse (same guys who wrote the score for Bye Bye Birdie and other hits) and I'm surprised it's never been released on home video. Here's a web page about it.

Getting back to the Disney Alice: It's interesting that Disney would have thought of casting the Freberg-Butler duo at the time, which would have been around 1949. (The movie was released in '51) Both men were doing cartoon voices but had yet to really establish their reputations, either individually or collectively. Stan didn't even make his first comedy record until '51. They were first teamed on the Time for Beany puppet show, which went on the air in February of '49…so that must have been what caused Walt to think of them, not only as worthy performers but as a duo. Shows you, I guess, that Walt really did have a knack for spotting talent.

There's a new book out about Daws entitled Daws Butler, Characters Actor, and I hear it's good. But I haven't received my copy yet.

Online hotel reservations for this year's Comic-Con International in San Diego opened this morning. If you're even contemplating attendance of this fine convention, get over to the site and book a room immediately. Tomorrow may be too late.

And if you don't do this, don't whine to me in June that you're paying $400 a night to share a cot at a Motel 6 with three guys in Klingon suits, none of whom have bathed since DeForest Kelly died.

The search for Saddam Hussein's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction has been quietly abandoned, the Washington Post reports. [Registration maybe necessary] Here are a couple of excerpts from the article, and I want to discuss the third paragraph I'm quoting…

The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.

[…snip…]

Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring. President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons, and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States.

[…snip…]

Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small.

Okay, question: Is Bush disappointed for any other reason than that it means he and his men were spectacularly wrong about a key reason (some would say "main reason") we are now immersed in a war that is costing us a lot more American lives and dollars than anyone anticipated? I mean, isn't it good news in a way that it showed it isn't always necessary to go to war to disarm a tyrant? Sanctions and inspections, which were previously mocked as wimpy, ineffective tactics obviously worked a lot better than some had thought. Isn't that preferable to the conclusion that they couldn't possibly stop someone like ol' Saddam from getting nukes and passing around biological timebombs?

Isn't "he never had them" better news for us than "he had them but he smuggled them out to those al Qaeda affiliates"?