Last Friday evening, Carolyn and I attended a production of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, the season's closing production for the Reprise! series.  Reprise! (they spell it with the exclamation point) is the west coast equivalent of the New York-based series called Encores! — also spelled with an exclamation point.  The premise with both is to revive, however briefly, old musicals for short runs with, they hope, all-star casts.  Initially, the premise also included that these shows be staged with no sets, no costumes and no choreography…but many enterprises that mount such shows are now presenting minimal sets and a fair amount of costuming and choreography.

The amount of memorization expected of the cast has similarly evolved.  Initially, when a show was offered in a "concert version," they stood at music stands and read from their scripts.  Then some shows began building in more movement, and the actors took to carrying their scripts about, which generally meant learning the dialogue to the extent humanly possible and referring to the books when necessary.  Nowadays, no scripts are in sight.  As a result, these shows sometimes remind one of the proverbial dancing bear: You're impressed not with how well they do it but that they can do it at all.  Given as little rehearsal time as the budgets permit — in some cases, they're still operating with "concert style" schedules and fees — for the actors to simply learn it all and do it all is a Herculean achievement.

Reprise! does each show for less than two weeks.  My subscription tickets are always for late in each run, whereas my friend Len Wein has tickets for early in the run.  We compare notes and generally come to the conclusion that I'm seeing better performances than he is.  After their version of Strike Up The Band, I spoke with one of the actresses in it who said, "What you saw [at one of the final performances] was what we should have had on opening night."

The problem with Gentlemen Prefer Blondes the other evening was, I suspect, largely one of insufficient rehearsal and tryouts.  The book to the show — which I'd never seen before — is by and large a dated snooze.  Still, there might not have had so many awkward silences had the cast performed it 10 or 20 more times.  Some shows and performers require more work than others and, this time, I got the feeling everyone was still trying to remember where to stand; forget about finding the best way to deliver any given line.  Alice Ripley, who performed the lead, exuded charm and sexiness and there were others on the stage who sometimes rose above the prep time.  But overall, it reminded me of one of those shows one occasionally sees where an understudy has gone on in a key role and you're just praying from them to get through it in one piece.  In this case though, it wasn't one actor.  It was everyone…and it probably wasn't their fault.

Speaking of mad worlds, any of you following the saga of Kenneth Lay and the Lincoln Bedroom?  It's kinda interesting as an example of how inept (not biased; inept) the press can be and how phony reports seem to live forever.

You can read the whole saga over at www.spinsanity.com, though some of the
better episodes may require that subscription to Salon I've been recommending.  I especially love the parts where a newspaper prints the story, retracts the story and then one of their columnists repeats it.  The Washington Times printed the story, retracted it, printed it again, then retracted it again…and the day after the second retraction, radio newsman Paul Harvey broadcast it, citing that newspaper as his source!  (The Times, of course, got it from The Chicago Tribune, which had long since retracted it.)

This kind of thing is probably more common than we believe, especially since so many erroneous reports aren't as cleanly disprovable as this one.  And I guess what really rankles is that, in the age of the Internet and services like Nexis, this kind of thing ought to be extinct.  I can sit here, well outside the news biz and — employing only a free search engine — find multiple corrections and retractions of the story in less than thirty seconds.  Apparently, folks at papers like The Washington Times are not even bothering to search on their own web sites.  In this electronic age, there's no excuse for this…not that there ever was one.

Ahem! Coming your way in about 120 days — it's supposed to be out in time for the Comic-Con International in San Diego — is Comic Books and Other Necessities of Life, a paperback collection of columns I wrote over the years for Comics Buyer's Guide about the creation and collection of the great American funnybook.  They're a lot like the columns I have posted on this website except that they aren't posted on this website and you'll have to pay money and read them on paper like a normal human being, instead of off your computer monitor.  (By the way, we haven't made the final selections yet so if there's a specific piece you think oughta be included, drop me a line.  There will also be a couple of never-before-seen essays.)  The volume is being issued by TwoMorrows Publishing and above is the cover which, like a number of interior illustrations, is drawn by some guy named Sergio Aragonés who claims to know me.

I hope you like the cover because, if you visit this site, you're going to see a lot of it in the months to come.  I'll also be telling you how to order the book and practically shaming you into so doing.  This will be difficult — the book will only appeal to comic book fans, and comic book fans are notoriously difficult to shame — but trust me.  I will find a way.

Some recommended reading: Paul Krugman has an article in The New York Times that claims that all this talk of drilling for oil in Alaska is not the work of the oil companies.  That oil, he says (referencing some earlier N.Y.T. reportage), would cost too much to tap.  Says Krugman, the demands to drill are the work of a bizarre coalition: Union leaders want to show their memberships that they can force the government to do what it takes to create jobs…and certain right-wingers want to pass it just because it'll piss off conservationists.  This is either brilliant insight or crackpot analysis by Krugman.  Judge for yourself by clicking here.

As you may recall, we've been waiting, as if for Godot, for The Game Show Network to run the two episodes of Press Your Luck in which an unemployed air conditioning mechanic named Michael Larsen won over $110,000. We still don't know when that might be…but we do know that GSN is currently taping an all-new, higher-tech version of the show, which they're calling Whammy! They taped two pilots — one with original PYL host Peter Tomarken, one with Todd Newton, who emcees another of their original series, Hollywood Showdown. They picked Newton…and we'll see how he does and what they've done to our beloved Press Your Luck when the new version debuts on April 15. One does suspect that if they don't air the Larsen episodes soon, in order to promote Whammy!, they never will.

Jim Hanley calls my attention to a recent piece by Ron Rosenbaum that updates the 1971 article I mentioned here twelve hours ago.  Here's that link.

And speaking of hackers, Slate Magazine recently got taken in by an e-mail hoax.  This has led to this interesting article about their search to find the prankster…and this interesting article that describes, in layman's terms, how e-mail can be spoofed.  Well worth checking out.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. I've been cooking lately.  And that's scary because I belong in a kitchen the way Soldier of Fortune magazine belongs on Rosie O'Donnell's coffee table.  I have the ability to combine five very tasty ingredients into a dish, the taste of which is indistinguishable from sweat socks, fresh from the dryer.  About the only things I can manage are chicken breasts and the occasional turkey breast — that's right, I'm a Breast Man — both of which I usually nuke in my George Foreman Home Rotisserie.  They have two models.  I bought the smaller of the two, loved it and went ahead and purchased the larger.

The larger turned out to be clunkier and less efficient, so I went back to the smaller one and with it, I employ two secret weapons.  One is Love's Barbecue Sauce.  As mentioned elsewhere on this site, the Love's restaurant chain is not what it used to be.  Only a few remain open, all far from me and (apparently) far from their old excellence.  Fortunately, they haven't changed the sauce and I was able to connect with an exec from the company who sold me a case of it.  And when I don't feel like the taste of Love's, I've had good luck with the products of the Soy Vay company, especially their garlicky Chinese Marinade.  Soy Vay puts forth a small line of sauces, all strictly Kosher and without MSG, and I pick 'em up at Trader Joe's.  Give 'em a try…but if you do, keep the following in mind: You're taking cooking advice from a guy who could make Kobe Beef taste like last year's Odor Eaters.

Hawaii's goodwill ambassador of cartooning, Dave Thorne, calls our attention to this collection of editorial cartoons paying tribute to the late Chuck Jones. Thanks, Dave… and thanks to Daryl Cagle for assembling it!

In 1971, Esquire Magazine published an article by Ron Rosenbaum about "phone phreaks" — kids who'd figured out ways to hack Ma Bell's system and make free calls.  The "hero" of the tale was a blind gent who went under the handle of Captain Crunch because, incredibly, he'd discovered that a whistle that came in packages of Captain Crunch cereal could enable you to call all over the world without paying a dime.

The article was enormously influential.  In the computer age, many successful entrepreneurs would cite it as having inspired them to get into electronics.  Some became hackers of a new generation of technology; others founded the companies that were and are ripped-off…and, of course, both have a lot more in common than the source of their inspiration.  If you'd like to read the Esquire piece, someone typed the whole article out and put it on his website here.  I suspect this is a violation of copyright but, in this case, that seems somehow appropriate.

Speaking of clairvoyant Salon columnists: Eric Boehlert is the guy who wrote that series last year that was dead-on accurate in predicting the fate of the XFL.  He has a piece up now about the Letterman-Nightline scuffle that is pretty hard on Dave but probably not far removed from what most in the industry are saying today.  (Well, it's nicer than what Howard Stern said this morning…)  Basically, he endorses the assumption that everyone's making; that Letterman's side leaked the story that ABC wanted him and suggests a bit of hypocrisy in the assertion that ol' Dave would do nothing to hurt the esteemed Mr. Koppel.

(By the way: If someone thought that all this publicity would catapult Letterman out of third place, they were wrong.  Last night, Leno had a 4.5, Nightline had a 4.2 and Letterman had a 3.9.  One suspects that reporters — eager to prove that news should not be bumped by entertainment programming — will now be more inclined to report stuff like that.  Dave may have a terrific new contract but he's also got a lot more folks rooting for him to fail than he did before.)

By the way, I erred in the item I posted here earlier.  A year's subscription to Salon is thirty bucks, not twenty, but it's still worth it, especially for thoughtful, original pieces like this.  If you've already subscribed, here's a direct link to the piece.

One of my favorite political writers, Joshua Micah Marshall, posts interesting (and sometimes, clairvoyant) items almost daily on his Talking Points Memo website.  He also turns up in magazines and other websites like Salon, where he has a terrific piece on the final report from the office of Independent Counsel (i.e., Robert Ray, successor-in-interest to Ken Starr) on the matter of Clinton's alleged "crimes" in the Lewinsky caper.  I believe — and I expect this will be the judgment of history, if it isn't already — that the whole thing will be seen as a colossal waste of government funds and resources, and an appalling example of prosecutorial abuse.

That last aspect hasn't gotten nearly enough attention.  One of the moments when I found myself genuinely taken aback during it all was during a conversation with a friend of mine who regards himself as a Militant Libertarian.  He hates Democrats and considers Republicans the lesser of two evils…but still evil.  For years, I have heard him rabbit on about how government surveillance is immoral; how every teensy thing "they" do is an erosion of our freedoms; how the Feds shouldn't have the right to even know your address, let alone whether you own guns, smoke crack or hump small barnyard animals.  But it was perfectly fine with this guy that some of the Feds investigated our president's personal life and published the most personal, irrelevant details — especially the part about him masturbating in the sink.  That was just great because any principle can be overlooked if it harms your enemies…and this guy regarded (still regards) Bill Clinton as his enemy.

This is a disappointment I have in some way with all our leaders — Dems, Repubs, Greens, whatever.  It's the placing of simple political expediency — harming one's foes, especially — above principle.  Did you ever see one Clinton opponent speak up and say, "This has gone too far?"  I didn't.  Most of them would not defend Starr's goons leaking to reporters, releasing slime and scaring the bejeesus (and life savings) out of almost anyone who worked around the Oval Office.  But if one of them ever said, "This is not right," I sure didn't hear it…and the Democrats who hid under their desks were no better.

Marshall's Salon piece points up how disingenuous much of the Ray report is, especially in its contention that they could have indicted Clinton but chose not to — a conclusion designed to please no one and put nothing to rest.  Starr was said to have a political "tin ear," showing no concept of how certain actions and statements would be received by the public.  The guy who followed him into the job has demonstrated similar people skills.  He's said to be about to announce for the Senate but who, on God's green earth, would vote for the man?  If you hate Clinton, you're mad that Ray supposedly had tons of evidence of criminal-wrongdoing but chose not to use it.  If you love Clinton, you're pissed at the whole drawn-out Witch Hunt.  And if you're indifferent to Clinton, you're still fed up with the whole story and unlikely to reward the guy who prolonged it into its second century…and who still hasn't issued the final reports on Travelgate and Filegate.

If you'd like to see what Mr. Marshall has to say, I can offer two options.  The article is on Salon but it's in their premium section, which costs $20 a year to join.  It's well worth it and if you've already gone that route, here's the link.  If you're too cheap to do that — or already (wisely) donating all your discretionary income to this site, the piece is copied over at www.smirkingchimp.com.  This is a website that started out to be one of those inane "Doesn't George W. Bush look like an ape?" things but it's evolved into a serious presentation of liberal issues.  Alas, it's on a server that moves at about the speed of a deadlocked Congress…but if you're willing to wait a spell for a good essay to come up on your screen, here's a direct link to it.

I'll quote one paragraph from the Marshall piece because I think it's so important.  Remember, if you will, that the TV show 60 Minutes gave a woman named Kathleen Willey a whole hour to tell her tale of being groped by President Clinton, and that Starr's office prosecuted — and darn near destroyed the life of — a woman named Julie Hiatt Steele who refused to verify certain details of Willey's claim.  Marshall writes…

So how credible is Kathleen Willey? Apparently, not very credible at all. And that's not the word from some Clinton lapdog, but from the OIC itself. Appendix B of Ray's report analyzes Willey's accusations and concludes, rather hermetically, that "there was insufficient evidence to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton's testimony regarding Kathleen Willey was false." But that conclusion is a comic understatement when read in the context of the report's Appendix B. The OIC lawyers couldn't even convince themselves that Willey was credible, let alone prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. They had already concluded that Willey was a liar.

So why is no one screaming about what was done to Julie Hiatt Steele?  During the impeachment mess, some Republicans spoke of perjury as a crime akin to molesting toddlers, and spoke of the "Rule of Law" being annihilated if a prominent perjurer went free.  How come they aren't calling for Willey's prosecution and 60 Minutes isn't airing this view of her?  Answer: It doesn't advance anyone's cause at the moment.  And these days, adhering to a principle ain't nearly as important as winning the current skirmish.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, David Letterman is electing to remain at CBS under a "5-year contract."  I put that in quotes because, if the reports are to be believed, he will have — commencing in 2004 — the annual right to quit.  (For more details, consult my pal Aaron Barnhart's article by clicking here.)  I suspect that particular clause will be significant in the future; not that Dave will exercise it before the term is up but that, as with Carson's last decade or two, we'll hear many a rumor of impending early retirement.  Actually, we heard them aplenty when Dave didn't have that out.

I mentioned earlier that this Late Night War struck me as even dumber than the last Late Night War, and it still does.  This one was utterly needless and it may actually lead to some casualties.  Despite the hype and attendant TV-movie, the squabble over who'd get Johnny's job was a "war" that yielded no real bloodshed, no real losers.  When the dust settled, Letterman and Leno each wound up with the best job either has ever had or will ever have.  Today, they have two of the more secure positions in all of show business.

The brouhaha just concluded, however, will probably result in someone going down and I don't mean Ted Koppel.  He was slapped and slapped hard by whoever leaked the story that ABC was willing to dump him for Letterman.  (The reporter who broke the story — Bill Carter of The New York Times — has said it didn't come from Dave's people.  I'd be very surprised if there's ten people in all of show business who believe it came from anywhere else.)

Still, unless the folks at Disney are uncommonly lucky or reckless, it'll be a while before they find something with which they can replace Nightline.  With the entire press corps eager to condemn the replacement of news with entertainment, ABC won't be able to put a new show in its stead unless they come up with something absolutely sure-fire and with some amount of prestige.  There are probably some there who are now arguing it isn't worth the risk for anything besides a proven commodity…and, with Dave and Conan under new contracts and Jay not about to budge, there are none.  So Ted's secure for now and, when it's time for him to pass from the 11:35 slot, they'll pay dearly for him to go quietly.

Bill Maher will probably also not be a casualty of the latest "war."  Apparently, his days at ABC were numbered some time ago and he was already entertaining other, better offers.  The rumor mill says that HBO has the inside track but even if he doesn't go there, he'll land somewhere — and on his feet.  ABC is probably now looking for a one-hour entertainment show to go into Maher's position, with the distant hope that it might develop into enough of a hit to eventually move to 11:35.  The future of Politically Incorrect on ABC will hinge on how soon they find something promising…but even if they want to keep Maher, he may elect to flee to a more compatible venue.

My prediction, for what it's worth, is that the real casualty of the Letterman renegotiation will be The Late Late Show With Craig Kilborn.  If Dave is looking at retirement in 2-5 years, it's not too soon to begin grooming his replacement.  What better way to do that than to find someone who, in the interim, can boost his ratings a tad the way Conan helps Jay's?  Perhaps Jon Stewart will finally get the job that he should have gotten back when Letterman's company had him under contract…and left him on the bench.

Video Maven Stuart Shostak operates one of the largest companies that sells videotapes (and, now, DVDs) of old TV shows.  I've been an occasional customer of his since…well, I still have Beta tapes I purchased from him.  Does that date me?  Anyway, you can browse his catalog over at www.shokus.com and if you see something you like — and you will — order with confidence.  He's been around a long time and everyone's been happy with the service and the quality.

Stuart writes to remind me of a correction I meant to make (and have just made) in a column posted here — the one about Soupy Sales.  The director of Soupy's short-lived TV series in the seventies was Lou Tedesco, not Lou Horvitz, who is another fine director of television programming.  Lou Tedesco is the gent I was thinking about as my fingers, darn them, typed the wrong surname.  This is embarrassing, especially since (a) I knew the difference, (b) this column was published in 1995 and Stuart's only the second person to point this out to me in all that time and (c) the column was reprinted in Soupy's autobiography…with the error intact.  One of these days, someone is going to look it up in there, get the wrong name and say, "Well, if Soupy published it in his book, it must be so."  It's times like this I almost wish I was a rabid, right-wing Republican so I could blame it on Bill Clinton.

Since we've written here about the Li'l Abner Broadway show and the movie, we oughta mention that a company is now auctioning off the costumes used in the latter.  They're up on eBay from time to time, going for a wide range of prices.  The Daisy Mae outfit worn by Leslie Parrish just went for $511.  (Here's a link, which will soon expire, to the listing.)  Costumes worn by anonymous dancers are going for considerably less…but if they have Julie Newmar's Stupefyin' Jones suit, watch out.  It may set a record for the highest price ever paid per square inch of fabric.

A follow-up query from Jeff Glover:

Interesting explanation of Carson's rerun problems.  How does this tie in with the reruns they used to run on Saturday (Sunday?) nights?  I don't recall if it was The Saturday Tonight Show or The Sunday Tonight Show.

It was both.  From the late sixties through the mid-seventies, NBC offered its affiliates a weekly Carson rerun that was intended for the 11:30 PM Saturday night slot.  It initially opened with a graphic and a voiceover by Ed McMahon that proclaimed it was The Saturday Tonight Show.  Alas for the network, a number of affiliates decided there was more profit in running an old movie or some syndicated offering in that position.  Some didn't broadcast the Johnny rerun at all while others bumped it to 1:00 AM or to Sunday at 11:30.

In other words, The Saturday Tonight Show was running in a large part of the nation on Sunday.  Even a few of the NBC O-and-O's ("owned and operated" by the network itself) began to delay Johnny to less desirable slots…so NBC made up a secondary opening — one in which Ed announced you were about to see The Sunday Tonight Show.  Each week's episode was distributed with both opening billboards, one after the other, and stations were supposed to edit out whichever was not applicable.  At least in Los Angeles, they usually got sloppy and left them both in.  Eventually, it dawned on someone to change it so Mr. McMahon proclaimed you were watching The Weekend Tonight Show.  Increasingly, viewers watched neither and the ratings for the reruns declined.

Around the beginning of 1975, Carson decided he wanted the weekend reruns off, which gave NBC an opening.  Two years earlier, they'd begun airing a rock music program — Midnight Special — after Johnny's Friday night airing and it had snagged a lot of advertisers who weren't buying into NBC's other programming.  Some exec decided they should try to come up with a music/variety/comedy show with the same sensibility to replace the Carson reruns.  Even though they didn't have a format or host or anything specific in mind, they named the project Saturday Night Live.

I've never seen this mentioned anywhere but it always seemed obvious to me why they picked that name and why they decided the show would be broadcast live, even before they knew what the show was.  If they'd called it almost anything else, affiliates could have run it where most of them were, by then, running Johnny's old shows — at 1 AM Sunday morn or 11:30 Sunday night.  By doing the show live and calling it Saturday Night Live, they kinda forced affiliates to run it at 11:30 on Saturday night.

By the time the show debuted, however, Howard Cosell was hosting a doomed variety show for ABC called Saturday Night Live, so NBC's offering wound up being called NBC Saturday Night for its first 41 airings — a distinction that almost no one noticed.  Everyone thought it was called Saturday Night Live and, once the Cosell program became a distant memory, it was.

One other thing: Most of the shows that tried to park in the NBC Saturday night slot before SNL are long-forgotten but one lingers in my mind.  Does anyone reading this recall The Lohman and Barkley Show?  Al Lohman and Roger Barkley were popular L.A. radio personalities but for 26 weeks (I think) around 1974, there was an attempt to syndicate a very funny talk show that they did in conjunction with the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles.  Craig T. Nelson, Rudy deLuca, Barry Levinson and Alan Thicke were among the behind-the-scenes people involved.  I'm going to see what I can dig up on the show and post it here but if you have any info, drop me a line.  It sticks in my memory as a show that was waaay ahead of its time.

One of our readers, Jeff Glover, writes to ask:

This week, Letterman is running reruns from just four weeks ago.  What gives?  I understood after 9/11, the late night shows didn't want to go too far back for fear the Bush-bashing would seem unpatriotic but why can't Dave and Jay rerun shows from a little farther back?  Or why wouldn't they go back and pick older shows but edit out the dated parts?  Why don't they do the reruns as "best of" shows?

After 9/11, Bush jokes were briefly a consideration but time and pretzels seem to have alleviated that concern.  No, the problem — and this goes back a bit — is that Americans are increasingly reticent to watch dated episodes of what is supposed to be a topical show.  This became a problem back when Johnny was in power.  Once upon a time, they'd run shows from (often) a year earlier with only a modest drop-off in the ratings.  Some combination of increased competition and changing audience tastes has caused viewers to be less tolerant of this so Johnny had to start plucking his reruns from not-so-long-ago and to stop billboarding them as "The Best of Carson."  The hope then, as it is now with Dave and Jay, is that if you pick a fairly recent show, a lot of viewers won't realize it's an oldie and the ones who do won't be discomforted by a lot of glaringly past-tense references.  For a time, Carson's talent coordinators tried to get guests to not mention dates; to say, "My new album comes out in two weeks" instead of "My new album comes out May 3rd."  This was so that, if and when the episode was recycled, there wouldn't be that extra reminder of its age.

Weakening ratings for reruns were high among the factors that led to Johnny's decision to retire.  You may have read that, at one point, Arsenio Hall's show was looming to move into first place.  A close analysis of the ratings at that time yielded the deduction that Johnny's reruns were his Achilles' Heel.  Arsenio brought a lot of new viewers to late night TV but to the extent he took audience from Carson, it was largely because of Johnny's reruns.  People saw that Johnny had a show that was notably out of skew with the day's events so they'd flip over to see who Arsenio had in his house and, sometimes, they enjoyed that show enough to tune it in even when Johnny was new.  (Oddly enough, "This is an old show" seems to be more of a turn-off than "I've seen this before.")  The nights Leno was guest-hosting, The Tonight Show did fine — generally garnering ratings as high as Carson's but with younger demographics.  When Johnny did new shows, he also did fine, at least in the raw numbers, leaving aside the age of his viewership.  It was his recycled episodes that weren't competitive for any audience and that led to this dilemma: What would they do when some real competition — i.e., someone more threatening than Pat Sajak or Alan Thicke — came along?  Johnny didn't want to work more nights and if they'd cut back on reruns and increased Leno stints, Jay would have been hosting Johnny's show as often as Johnny.  Couldn't have that.

Letterman's people once tried a week or two, pasting together "best of" reruns from earlier shows but it didn't work.  The ratings were no higher than any other reruns and may even have been lower than unedited shows would have received.  Folks at both the Letterman and Leno operations have occasionally discussed whether it might make their old shows more palatable if they taped new intros to them.  The general consensus at the moment seems to be that it's not wise to call attention to the fact that an episode isn't brand, spanking new.

Rumor has it that Dave's current negotiations involve the possibility that he will use guest hosts in the future.  This may be simple hypochondria or it may indicate a desire to model his schedule more on Mr. Carson's.  Either way, it probably reflects an awareness that the day may soon come when, to be competitive, a late night show will go with even fewer…possibly no reruns.  They'll re-air the shows in the early A.M. or perhaps on cable channels, but not in that choice 11:35 time slot.  (And what do we think the odds are that Jay Leno will take a night off?  Oh, I dunno…what do we think the odds are that Kenneth Lay will be sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom again any time soon?)

The networks are starting to really screw with us TiVo owners.  Last night's episode of Saturday Night Live was on from 11:30 PM until 1:01 AM…so if you marked it and a show commencing at 1:00 AM, one or the other would not get recorded.  Nickelodeon and TV Land have both been sliding their shows around: This one starts a minute early so the beginning gets cropped off; that one starts two minutes late so you lose the end.  If you have a Digital Video Recorder, you'd better check your listings carefully.  You don't want to miss Paula Jones boxing Tanya Harding, do you?