In a probably-futile attempt to save myself some e-mail answering time, let me answer some questions here about the supposedly-threatened Stan Lee lawsuit against Marvel which may never be filed and, if it is, will probably never go to trial.  This is, from what I can tell, not an argument over who "deserves" what in the sense of whose contributions warrant the greatest compensation.  It's a contract dispute: Stan is saying his contract says he's entitled to X dollars and that Marvel hasn't given him those X dollars.  Marvel says they've given him whatever he's supposed to receive.

The real arguable part seems to come if, as stated, he's entitled to a percentage of profits.  That would mean this is probably all about what some call "Hollywood Accounting."  This is when the studio makes a movie, grosses twenty times its cost but arranges the bookkeeping such that every conceivable expense of operating the studio is considered an expense of the production in question…ergo, no profits for the profit-participants.  This happens often.  Until a few years ago, I believe Paramount was claiming that the entire Star Trek franchise had never shown a profit.  Eddie Murphy famously dubbed profit share as "monkey points" because, said he, no matter how much the film took in, the studio would always find a way to argue on paper that it was still in the red.  This is why stars like Murphy get their cuts from gross (all cash received) instead of net (all cash received minus expenses).  I once did a project where the definition of the profits in which I was to share was so unfavorable, it could have been replaced by the phrase, "There aren't any."  If the show had become a monster hit and taken in $100 million over its cost, the studio could have just paid itself a $100 million consulting or facilities fee and said, "Sorry, Mark.  Still not in the profit column."

Huge lawsuits are threatened every day in Hollywood over "Definitions of Profits" — contract riders that lay down the rules for what the studio can and cannot deduct as an expense of the production.  Sometimes, the suits are settled out of court because the studio finds an excuse to pay the claimant some cash in exchange for dropping all actions.  Frequently, the studio stonewalls and the participant in the theoretical profits gives up and goes away.  Only rarely do these cases get before a judge and, even then, they're usually settled before a verdict.  One of these scenarios will presumably occur with Stan's threat…though, knowing Stan, it will also involve an outer space invasion, a couple of gods and at least one tragically-misunderstood hero.  I do hope he gets every nickel to which he's entitled, if only so he can pick up the check next time we have lunch.

Sergio and I will not be traveling to Mid-Ohio Con (see previous item) via National Airlines, partly because they've never flown to Columbus, Ohio and partly because they went out of business yesterday.  This is sad news, and not just on account of I'm stuck with a mess of frequent flyer miles from a defunct air carrier.  No, the reason I have all those useless points is that I really liked National…as much as you can like an airline company…which, admittedly, is not all that much.  But any time I went to Vegas or New York on my own dime, I tried to fly National if the schedule even remotely worked.

The flights I flew were always on-time, the employees all did everything you'd expect airline personnel to do, and their section of the terminal in Vegas (their hub) was the most comfortable airport in which I've ever done time.  Whenever I was coming home from L.V., I actually used to go to the airport early because I could set up my laptop on a table in the food court, sit there and work in pleasant surroundings.  (Much of Fanboy, a comic I did recently with Sergio, was written in the National Airlines area of McCarren Airport…a fact I hope did not contribute to this bankruptcy.)

I suppose it's silly to "miss" an airline and I'm sure that, had I flown National more often, I would have had at least one of those nightmarish, "I'm never flying with them again" experiences.  I'm talking about the kind of trips that kept me off Southwest for years — until the day that was the only airline that could get me where I had to go.  Of course, they were fine then, which is good because it looks like that's how I'm getting to Las Vegas in the future.  Anyway, I just wanted to say that I'm sorry National is no more.  It's always depressing when someone can do at least part of the job well and not turn a profit.

If you consult your voluminous notes,you'll recall that my colleague Sergio Aragonés and I are among the guests at the fun and fabulous Mid-Ohio Con, November 30 and December 1.  You can get details by clicking here and (this part's the news flash) you can see a schedule of panels, including the three I'm on, by clicking here.  There's one with Sergio and me, one where I interview animation writer-producer Alan Burnett, and one where I ruthlessly interrogate EC editor-writer and Mad's head honcho, Al Feldstein.

Speaking of news flashes, the Dow Jones news ticker is reporting today that Stan Lee is threatening to sue Marvel Comics in a breach-of-contract type suit.  One suspects this is a threat that will never see the inside of a courtroom but it makes for colorful news.  Here's the story.

Some of you have been asking if there's a site where you can see a well-known M.C. Escher drawing re-created using Lego blocks.  Well, yes, there is.  (Thank you, Buzz Dixon!)

I just reread what I posted an hour ago and decided I could have said it better and shorter and clearer.  So I will now attempt that.

I think very few of the names that were on ballots today — Democrats or Republicans — deserved to win.  I think they're a lot of crooks and cowards and do-nothings and they're at the worst when they win big and think they're unanswerable.  I honestly think I'd feel the same way if the Democrats controlled as much of government as the Republicans now seem to control.

I do not believe the Republicans won because America really wants the agenda of John Ashcroft and Trent Lott and, at least on the domestic side, that of Bush and Cheney.  Nor does America want all of whatever the Democrats have to offer, assuming they ever figure out what it is.  What America wants is something much closer to the middle than what the Republicans will now argue they have a mandate to enact.

So my problem is not that the Republicans won big but that somebody did.

There.  Now, you don't have to read the previous post.  Good night.

Beginning Sunday, TV Land is airing one of its Inside TV Land specials that may interest you.  It focuses on "TV's Top 40 TV Themes and features interviews with composers, performers and historians.  One of the gents in the latter category is Earl Kress, a friend of this website (and its proprietor) who discusses Hanna-Barbera music.  Earl, by the way, produced several fine Rhino-brand CDs of such material, and we have him to thank for finding many of the masters in the vast, sloppily-catalogued H-B archives.

As I write this, it looks like a gala evening for the G.O.P. and a bad one for the Democrats.  I'm disappointed for a few reasons.  One is that, as my estimation of all public officials in both parties plunges, I've come to like the notion of divided government.  I think most elected officials are pretty awful in both ethics and in performance of their duties…and I think they're at their lowest when they think they're all-powerful.  Another reason is that I believe Bush, Cheney and many of their buddies should be investigated at least as thoroughly as Whitewater and Clinton's genitalia were investigated and that will never happen with Republicans in control.

And I guess I'm disappointed in a few races that misrepresenting your opponent and the issues seems to work as well as it ever did.  That was my biggest beef with the first President Bush.  I wasn't bothered when someone voted for him because they thought he was the best man.  I was disappointed in my country when they voted for him because they thought Michael Dukakis was going to let all the murderers out of prison or that our democracy was somehow threatened by flag-burning.

Right this minute, the Minnesota Senate race is still uncalled, but Mondale's running back and the guys on CNN are saying it's because voters were upset that the memorial service for Paul Wellstone was too partisan.  If voters went for Mr. Coleman because they thought he'd better serve their state, fine.  I don't know enough about him to say he would or wouldn't.  But to vote for him for any other reason is, I'm sorry, stupid.  He did not become more competent, nor did Mondale become less so, just because of how a memorial service was run.  (And I think Republicans, grasping for a quick issue to use against Mondale, did a good job of selling that event as much more partisan than it actually was.)

Lastly, I guess I'm disappointed for the same reason I'm usually disappointed in elections, no matter how they turn out.  It's that we can't rise beyond the notion that winning is all that matters; that everything the other side does is to be condemned and spun and even lied about, if necessary, while the sins of your side are denied or ignored.  I think both political parties in this country have behaved abominably and broken laws and taken money they shouldn't have taken.  And I don't think I have any respect left for people who only want to talk about the crimes and shoddy ethics of the other side.  Only when absolutely pressed to the wall will Republicans do anything about Republican wrongdoing or will Democrats condemn Democratic shenanigans.  If you win, you get away with it all.

If the Republicans control the Senate after tonight, it won't matter that much to me except in the ways just stated.  First of all, after Florida, it's now Standard Operating Procedure to re-fight some votes with court action and charges of fraud, and to talk of party-switching, so it may get undone.  Even if it isn't undone, the pendulum eventually swings back and unexpected things happen even before it does.  Maybe Bush will be a bit less eager to go to war with Iraq now that he has to start thinking about 2004.  Maybe Democrats will get their act together and find some better candidates than what they've offered us in the past.  I had to vote for Gray Davis today and, believe me, it didn't feel good.

I think I understand why people vote Libertarian or Green or for some other party that hasn't a chance in hell of electing anyone.  I can't believe that too many people, Democrats or Republicans, felt that wonderful about the votes they cast today.  Unless, of course, all they cared about was winning.

Here's a more formal recommendation of the new issue of Comic Book Artist, which spotlights Gold Key Comics.  It's chock-full of info and interviews (including one with moi) about one of the most successful and ignored-by-fandom comic book companies of all time.  Western Publishing was an amazing operation that sold a staggering number of funnybooks in its day.  At one point, the books they considered unsuccessful were outselling the books that other companies considered successful and some of those were pretty good comics.  CBA editor Jon Cooke has gathered loads of valuable info about the company and some of the people behind its glorious history.

As Jerry Beck notes over at Cartoon Research, a number of great comic artists like Pete Alvarado are barely mentioned.  This is because the story of Gold Key Comics is too vast to be covered in one magazine, even as packed as this one is with info.  There is much more to be said, especially about the funny animal comics…and I hope we'll see a sequel in the not-too-distant future.

A dear man named Jonathan Harris has passed away just shy of his 88th birthday.  I call him a "dear man" because he always called me (and every male he met), "dear boy" and because he was an enormously charming gentleman.  He was everything you'd want an aging character actor to be — theatrical in gesture and melodramatic in every emotion.  He had about ten wonderful show business anecdotes and when I directed a show he was in, I heard each one about six times, sometimes twice in one day.  Each was a fully-realized performance, worth enjoying again and again and again…especially the one where he told about stealing his manner of speaking from Tallulah Bankhead.

Jonathan was best known for his years as permanent "Special Guest Star" on the TV show, Lost in Space, where he played the villainous-but-whiny Dr. Smith.  Cringing from outer space aliens or swapping banter with robots, he always had that "star" quality: You couldn't take your eyes off him.  Before and immediately after that series, he did dozens of guest star roles on television and whenever possible, returned to his first love, which was the stage.  He told me that, back then, he loved everything about acting except the inevitable fans who confused him with Ray Walston.  He would rant — hilariously — about the well-meaning idiots who thought he was the star of My Favorite Martian.  (The mistake was due to more than physical resemblance or the outer space motif of their respective shows.  Jonathan often toured in Damn Yankees, playing the role originated by Mr. Walston.)

Around 1970, Jonathan began to find a few more things he disliked about on-camera performing — the endless auditions, the childish (to him) casting agents, etc. — but he still loved acting too much to abandon it.  He turned almost exclusively to voiceover work and did quite well in it…though, in a fit of irony, one of his first animation roles was a character based on Ray Walston in the My Favorite Martians cartoon show.  Everyone loved working with him, though it was difficult to not go home talking like Jonathan…or maybe Tallulah.  He was truly infectious in only the best way, and he proved conclusively the show biz adage that the most glorious villains are played by the nicest people.

And it looks like Jesse Ventura ain't all that smart, after all.

Excellent article by composer Cy Coleman remembering his collaborator, Adolph Green.  Go read it.

And go read the transcript of Jon Stewart's appearance on CNN's Reliable Sources.  Mr. Stewart thinks CNN has failed us, and does not hesitate to use their air-time to say why.  He's also pretty funny about it.

I have no firm predictions for tomorrow's elections.  I know something utterly unexpected is going to happen, especially in Florida.  I know that a number of pollsters are going to have to explain why they missed by as much as they did.  I know that a real unpopular guy is going to win the gubernatorial race in California.  And I know that we're in for at least a couple of "post-election elections" with court challenges to the votes, plus attempts to get senators or congresspeople to switch parties.  But beyond that, I don't have a clue, and neither does anyone else.

The graph above is all about you.  It shows which browser software you folks used to connect to this site last week.  Around 84% of you use Microsoft Internet Explorer…mostly versions 5 and 6, though about 5% of you are still back in the Mesozoic Era with version 4.  (Upgrading that would not be a bad idea.  You're already not seeing a lot of websites with the formatting that their designers intend.)

I posted this because we're hearing a lot these days about the monopoly that Microsoft has in certain areas, particularly about how they've all but forced their browser on the public.  I assumed they had the lion's share of the market but even I was surprised by how large that red section of pie is.  It's significant because Opera is a faster program and Netscape offers a lot more features.  The advantage of Internet Explorer is in its availability and compatibility with other Microsoft products.  I use it because it interfaces so easily with Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Front Page, etc.  They're not leading the market because they're the best.  They're leading because they're the biggest.

As we all (sadly) know, Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota was killed in a plane crash, and it's up to Governor Jesse Ventura to appoint his replacement until such time as the victor in next Tuesday's election can take over.  The Governor initially said he'd pick a Democrat since Wellstone was a Democrat but, after deciding he'd been exploited at the memorial service, Ventura now says he might choose otherwise.  In the meantime, as this article explains, there is some dispute among the governor's legal advisors as to whether the appointment lasts until the winner is certified or until Wellstone's term expires.

Isn't this a no-brainer?  Isn't it obvious that Ventura should announce (if possible, before the voting) that, barring a Florida-style dispute, he'll appoint Tuesday's winner?  This would be the voters of his state picking their interim senator, which is way more democratic than the governor picking.  It would also give the state's new senator a little head start in setting up his office, hiring his staff, learning the lay of the land, finding a place to live in Washington, etc.  Best of all, it would neutralize the argument over the term of this appointment, which could get very nasty if it affects the balance of power in the Senate.

Democrats might not like the notion since there's the chance the Republican will win the state and if he immediately takes office, it would empower the G.O.P. side of the Senate right away.  They're still counting on Ventura picking a Democrat since Wellstone was one.  Republicans might not like the notion since they're running behind in Minnesota and, if they lose, it will give Walter Mondale that jump instead of some lame duck.  But Ventura is supposed to be an Independent, and what would be more independent than pissing off both major parties and giving the power to the people?

When Ventura was a professional wrestler, he initially billed himself as "The Body."  Later, he insisted that everyone refer to him as "The Brain."  He now has the chance to prove that he's the latter.  Let's see if he takes it.

Members of The Writer's Guild are currently voting on four proposals.  Actually, the ballots are already out and I suspect most members have already marked and returned theirs, as I have.  Nevertheless, the arguments continue, growing ever louder and more emotional.  This is the norm for WGA balloting, where discussions often seem to have little to do with the actual issues at hand.

In this case, the real issues have to do with how screen credits on movies are determined.  A committee has proposed four changes in the WGA Credits Manual.  If you're really interested in reading the precise text of the proposals — and I don't recommend doing this — you can download a PDF file (Acrobat format) by clicking here.  Or you can save your sanity and trust me to summarize.

Proposal #1 changes the rules of movie credit arbitrations so that the arbitrators are anonymous, as is the practice in arbitrations of TV credits.  Proposal #2 says basically that the screen credits will be arranged with the writer who made the greatest contribution coming first.  Proposal #3 states that in arbitrations of movies that are adaptations, the arbitrators will give more weight to each writer's choice and arrangement of elements of the source material, rather than to assess the use of basic story elements which any adapter would include.  And Proposal #4 will allow for more disclosure to writers when a "production executive" (that primarily means a producer or director) does a rewrite, and it would also make it easier for that production executive to receive screen credit.

There is almost no argument against #1, and very little against #2.  #3 seems to be double-talk, and I don't get that anyone knows for sure what it would do or why it is necessary.  And there is no real opposition to the "disclosure" part of the fourth proposal.  It is the last half of that fourth Proposal #4 that has prompted 95% of the yelling.  For reasons I outlined here, I think that change is a bad idea and have cast my vote against it.

I suspect the fourth proposal will not pass and further suspect that it may take the three less controversial proposals down to defeat with it.  That is, many members will just vote "no" on the entire ballot out of protest and disgust at #4 and/or at any attempt to change the rules.  A lot of our members seem to believe that the system is flawed but at the same time, they're suspicious of any attempt to change anything.  The "nays" on the first three propositions will be interpreted, probably correctly, as the votes of that faction.  If it turns out there are enough of them, we probably won't see any further attempt to rewrite the rulebook for a long time.