Here's an article about how late night TV shows have to avoid showing Mr. Schwarzenegger for fear they'll then have to grant equal time to his 4,204 opponents.
The piece might have mentioned that years ago, Johnny Carson made the mistake of having the Mayor of Burbank on his show during an election. He wound up having to bring on all of the other candidates.
Anthony Curtis is the main man behind The Las Vegas Advisor, your best guide to how to spend your bucks in that city. (It's also one of the few that isn't subsidized by hotel advertising, so they actually review things.) Most of the LVA site requires a subscription but if you go to Vegas, it's probably worth it. In the meantime, you can read this article on another site. In it, Mr. Curtis describes how a couple can have a terrific three-day vacation in Vegas, complete with an awful lot of cheap alcohol, for a little under $500.
Just found out that Harvey Pekar, creator and subject of American Splendor, has his own weblog.
I met Harvey exactly once…in the "Professionals Hospitality Suite" at a comic book convention in Chicago. Someone introduced us, Harvey immediately complained that there were no donuts on the refreshment table, then he walked out. I never got to tell him that I liked his work and occasional TV appearances, but given his style and personality, I was somehow not disappointed by our brief encounter.
One of the websites I check every morning is one that's offered up by The Comics Journal. It's called ¡Journalista! and it does a fine job of reporting on what's happening in the world of comic books and strips. Today's installment (here's a direct link to it) reports on a comic book company that seems to be very slow about paying its talent. I don't know a thing about this particular dispute but I think it's great that, since resolving it in private seems not to have worked, this kind of thing is getting covered.
¡Journalista! also points our way to this interview with Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster and to this reproduction of a 1933 fanzine story by Siegel and Shuster. It was called "The Reign of the Super-Man." Not a bad name for a comic book character some day…
Apparently, a number of comic book discussion boards are simultaneously discussing the fact that when Jack Kirby drew the Jimmy Olsen comic book in the early seventies, the company retouched his work. I am suddenly receiving a flurry of e-mails asking me to clarify what was done, who did it, etc. Here's the answer to the best of my knowledge. If you're immersed in one of these discussions, please enter the following into evidence or link folks to this page…
The first five stories Jack wrote and drew for DC were, in this order, Forever People #1, New Gods #1, Mister Miracle #1, Jimmy Olsen #133, and Jimmy Olsen #134. Superman appeared in the Forever People, and Superman and Jimmy Olsen appeared in the last two. When Jack delivered the material in pencil, some folks up at DC said, in effect, "We can't have Superman and Jimmy Olsen looking like that." The company went through periods when they felt it was essential to their merchandising plans for certain trademarked characters to not deviate from the approved company model.
I happen to think they were too fussy about this, and I'm sure that other management at other times wouldn't have cared. But at the time, that was the policy. (Retouching was also being done occasionally to other artists. Superman heads were redrawn in one or two of the Supergirl stories that Mike Sekowsky was then drawing for DC, even though Sekowsky's interpretation of The Man of Steel had appeared, usually unexpurgated, for years in the Justice League of America comic. Alex Toth drew a new story and new front and back covers for a 1975 Super-Friends special. Toth's version of Superman was left "as is" on the story and the back cover, and of course was appearing on TV every week. But for the front cover, the head of his Superman figure was replaced with an old Curt Swan photostat.)
At right, published version retouched by Murphy Anderson
So that's one reason they made the changes they made. Another, perhaps lesser one, was that DC was then very into cultivating a "DC look," with some there taking a certain pride in the fact that the art in their books didn't resemble the inferior (to them) artwork in the Marvel titles. So along comes Jack Kirby and what he does, almost by definition, is a "Marvel version" of the jewel in the DC crown, Superman…and to some in the office, that just didn't look right.
Anyway, Vince Colletta had been assigned to ink Kirby's DC work and he was asked to try and bring the Kirby drawings more into line with the "official" versions of Superman and young Olsen. A few other hands pitched in but after they'd done a few pages, it became apparent that they hadn't been improved. Some there felt they were worse with impersonal, frozen faces. Mr. Colletta has his defenders but I don't think any of them would claim he was as skilled a pencil artist as Jack Kirby.
Whatever, Kirby's DC debut was highly touted and it was decided that the books could not go to press with those drawings of Superman and Jimmy Olsen. (The Jimmy Olsen issues were scheduled to be published first, then Forever People would be the first of the new "Fourth World" books.) So they had veteran Superman artist Al Plastino take care of all the Superman figures and most of the Olsen heads.
At right, published version retouched by Murphy Anderson
Thereafter, except for two issues, Jack drew Superman and Jimmy Olsen his way, and Murphy Anderson did the adjustments. Sometimes, Anderson would re-pencil and then Colletta would ink the entire page. More often, Colletta would ink the pages and leave the Olsen and Superman drawings for Anderson to finish. The above panels represent a "before and after" of a panel that Jack pencilled and then Colletta inked the cape while Anderson inked the face. There were two issues of Jimmy Olsen that were inked by Mike Royer and on those, Mike did some "correction" of the Superman and Olsen drawings as he inked. Many of Jack's covers were inked by Neal Adams who brought the drawings more in line with accepted company policy.
Jack hated that they were doing this, though he was such a "good sport" about it that he apparently convinced some at the office that he thought he was fine with it. But he thought it was insulting, and he also thought that it was just bad business. If you're selling the fans a Superman by Kirby, you ought to give them a Superman by Kirby. Moreover, he was never that wild about drawing other folks' characters anyway, and he felt that if DC didn't want to publish a Kirby Superman, they shouldn't have him on a comic that featured Superman. He also thought it was odd that they were constantly talking about "modernizing" Superman and bringing him into the seventies…but confronted with a new approach, they immediately called in a guy (Plastino) who'd been drawing Superman since 1948. Plastino was not even being given work on the Superman comics at the time because his style was regarded as "old-fashioned."
My own opinion — and that of several folks like Marv Wolfman who saw Jack's untouched pencils — was that DC overreacted. Yeah, Jack couldn't draw Superman's chest emblem. (It was the one thing in the world I drew better than Jack Kirby and he had me draw it for him in some issues.) And yes, he often did not get that distinctive forehead curl right. But I thought his Superman was otherwise just fine and by retouching, they wound up with a jarring clash of styles and a lot of puzzled readers. I also think there would have been no problem if Colletta had been replaced with a better inker — say, Frank Giacoia or Wally Wood, both of whom were turned down for the assignment. I believe either of them could have made minor adjustments that would have made Jack's Superman acceptable to all. Even having Murphy Anderson ink the book would have lessened the awkwardness of two opposing styles in the same panel.
DC recently issued the first of two volumes reprinting Jack's Jimmy Olsen stories, just as they were originally published. There is no way to actually restore what Jack did — only a few stats of a few panels have survived — but there was once talk of having someone (probably Steve Rude) redraw the redraws into more of a Kirby style. In fact, I somewhat instigated such discussions before finally becoming convinced that it was impractical. You really wouldn't be resurrecting what Jack did since those drawings are lost and gone forever. You'd just be trading one set of non-Kirby drawings for another. It might have a certain commercial appeal but it wouldn't exactly undo what was done to the work in the first place.
Rude did take an unused Kirby cover sketch and turn it into the cover of one of the Olsen reprint volumes. That's Jack's sketch that I've posted as an illustration above. If you click on it, you can see a larger version and get a little better idea of how Kirby drew Superman and Jimmy Olsen, even though this is a rough sketch and not a finished drawing.
As you can tell, I think DC made a colossal mistake in how they handled this. One exec over in the licensing division at the time argued that it would seriously damage the value of the property to have Superman drawn "off-model." I think hindsight has shown that far more harm was done to the character by putting out a bland, uninteresting product…even if it did stick to some official corporate interpretation. One of the significant evolutions since then in the field of Creator Rights is that this kind of thing is never done to an artist's work now.
I don't think I've mentioned him before but I really like Mark Fiore's little animated political cartoons. Here's a link to his latest one, which is about the George W. Bush action figures. You need the Macromedia Shockwave plug-in to view such things. If you don't have it, click here to get it.
Over at Animation World Network, they've posted an article in which various attendees of this year's Comic-Con International discuss the event. I am among them. Go there by clicking here.
My deathless appearance this A.M. on The Paul Harris Radio Show can now be listened-to online at Paul's website. It's a little under 17 minutes, which is about how long I can stand me. Anyway, you'll need RealPlayer installed to listen to me, which on its own is not a good enough reason to install RealPlayer. So while you're there, listen to some of Paul's other fine interviews.
Want to help get Eric Idle's new movie released? As noted, the folks at Warner Brothers presently have no plan to release Rutles 2: Can't Buy Me Lunch. Perhaps they'll come up with one if enough of us write letters to…
Mr. Eric Frankel
Warner Brothers Television
4000 Warner Blvd.
Burbank, CA 91522
When you write such letters, the important things are to (a) be polite, (b) not sound like a form letter and (c) suggest that you will purchase or patronize the item and that you believe your friends will, as well. What I usually write is something like…
You are probably buried in letters from people who are eager to spend money on Eric Idle's new film. If you aren't, it's probably because most Eric Idle fans don't know where to write, because there certainly are a lot of us. Anyway, here's another one for the pile.
Will it work? Maybe. Some day they'll wise up and put it out and when they do, you'll be able to tell yourself that your letter was the one that brought Time-Warner to its knees.
As I mentioned here some time ago, the Imperial Palace hotel in Las Vegas is trying something new. In one section of the casino at specified hours, they have Blackjack dealers who are also celebrity impersonators. You can have your money taken from you by Elvis, Madonna or even a Blues Brother. They call them "dealertainers."
Here's an article about this. The thing I think is especially funny is that one of the dealers is playing Ray Charles. It's humiliating enough to be wiped out at the tables. But to be beaten by a blind guy–?
Many hotels also offer a line of slot machines that feature the real Ray Charles and his voice. As I mentioned in that piece, you kinda hope that when it takes your last coin, the machine doesn't start singing, "Hit the road, Jack."
Last Saturday, a local film festival held the world premiere of Eric Idle's The Rutles 2: Can't Buy Me Lunch. The infamous Monkeyspit gives us a brief I-was-there account.
When I saw the film two years ago, it was close to 75 minutes. The current cut is around 55, which is the preferred length for a possible BBC telecast. What I viewed was very funny with a few weak spots which I presume are now relegated to what filmmakers used to call "the cutting room floor." Now the preferred term is, "We'll include it on the DVD." Either way, I can't imagine the 55-minute version not being a joy.
But most of us will have to imagine or not for a while longer. Apparently, the lovely folks at Warner Brothers still have no plans to release Mr. Idle's film anywhere at any time. Petitions like this one are springing up to convince them that there's a market out here for this funny film. (I don't think online petitions do a huge amount of good. On the other hand, they don't do any harm, either, nor do they require great effort to sign. There's always the chance that if the folks making the decision are really and truly on the fence, something like this could nudge things over to the proper side. Nudge, nudge.)
In the meantime, the illustrious Idle is about to kick off another tour, singing his silly songs all across this great land of ours. This one is called The Greedy Ba$tard Tour and when I hear about a schedule being posted, I'll let you know. I saw him in his last go-round and had a very good time, even during the live, on-stage liver transplant.