Our friend Gary Sassaman does a real nice video series about comic books that meant a lot to him when he was younger. I like it because, among other reasons, the same comics meant a lot to me when I was younger. Here's what Gary's working on for this year…

Good obit about our pal Michael Schlesinger in Hollywood Reporter. And you can watch a number of his film criticism reports on this page at Trailers From Hell.

That's the Big Town Market. It was located at the corner of Pico Boulevard and La Cienega in the eastern part of West Los Angeles but it's no longer there. Twenty…probably more like thirty years ago, it and the "dime store" (that's what we called them even though nothing there was a dime) next door were replaced by a building that now houses a Chase Bank, an Autozone and a big retail space that's been unleased for quite some time. For a while in my teen years, I was a frequent patron of the Big Town Market even though I don't think I ever bought anything edible there.

Why was I a frequent patron when I wasn't buying food? To explain that, I have to explain how we bought comic books in those days.

There were no comic book shops or conventions and certainly no Internet. Comics were distributed like magazines. A store that had rack space for them would get deliveries of the current magazines, usually on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The store took them on a consignment basis, meaning that they put the magazines on display for sale…then they paid for the ones they sold and returned the ones they didn't sell. They could also return the ones that got wrinkled and shaggy from browsers poring through them without purchasing. They could also return the ones they didn't want to display or didn't have room to display.

Let's take Action Comics as an example. It came out monthly so every month, a store would get in X number of copies of the new issue of Action Comics. "X" was determined by the distributor's representative and the store manager taking a look at how many they were selling, how many they were returning and (mainly) how much rack space was available. They generally did not look at how individual titles were selling or whether the store's customers seemed to like super-heroes or talking ducks. The distributor gave them an assortment and the store manager might say, "Give me 20% fewer comics next week" or "I have space on my racks…give me 20% more comic books."

The store would keep the January issue of Action Comics on the rack until one of these things happened..

1. He was sold out of it.
2. The remaining copies became too tattered to sell.
3. The February issue of Action Comics arrived or…
4. The rack was getting too crowded so he'd return some of the comics that had been there for a few weeks to make room for the new arrivals.

Regarding #4: Curious about the process, I asked a few storekeepers how they decided which ones to send back. The unanimous reply was "The ones that look like they've been there for a while"…meaning the ones getting wrinkled and tattered. Comic books then were printed on the cheapest paper possible so they had a tendency to wilt easily in the racks.

This decision was usually made with no regard to the content of the comics or the publisher or anything. The guy who ran the store didn't know one comic from another and they made too little off each comic they sold to bother paying attention to whether their patrons preferred Archie over Casper. But there may have been one exception to this.

I have a theory that one of the reasons Marvel did so well in the sixties — to the point where they had DC sweating — is that some Marvel fans made their presence felt. They actively began asking at stores when the new Marvels would be in or complaining because the store was sold out of Fantastic Four. I don't know if Marvel fans were more plentiful than DC fans but I think they were more loyal. It may also may have had something to do with Marvel doing so many stories continued from one issue to the next.

The arrival of the February issue of Action Comics was, in theory, the time to send back the unsold copies of the January issue.  In truth, most distributors would take back any unsold product at any time.  Also in truth, most comics did not get a full month on the racks.  See #4 above.

And in my theory, when it came time to send back unsold comics because they needed the space for newly-arriving books, some store proprietors were aware they had kids asking about the Marvel books and chose to not send them back. So the Marvels got more time on the racks and therefore, more time to sell.

Now, I know this is getting too deep into the weeds for some of you and you may be wondering what this has to do with Mark going to a supermarket often to not buy any food. I'll get to that in Part 2, which will be up here in the next few days.

You can read Part 2 of this article here.

And here's another one of those YouTube presentations of a feature film which may be free to watch, may be free to watch with ads, or just plain might not be free at the moment…but that can change. From 1982, it's the movie which caused a helluva lot of people to decide to try to become stand-up comedians. It's Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip. Caution: Contains Language…

This is probably silly and trivial but I'm sure I've posted sillier and more trivial things on this blog. I continue to be amazed that big companies do this. I copied it off the website for Ralphs Market, which is what they call Kroger Markets in what's left of California.

These were on the same page: Your chance to buy four 14.5 ounce cans of Chef Boyardee Spaghetti & Meatballs for five bucks or you can buy the same four cans with a wrapper around them for $1.49 more.  And I'm guessing that if you go into the store, these are right next to each other on the shelf and enough people buy the four-pack for the store to continue to stock them…and those customers think they're getting a bargain.

The last time I pointed this out, the four-pack was $6.29.  By the end of the year, it'll probably be seven bucks.

You may have heard of industrial musicals.  They can be performed live or filmed and they're often produced on big budgets and with major talents involved.  But they're not seen by the general public.  Some company makes them as a sales tool for their products or to teach or energize their employees of…well, there are a lot of purposes.

Here's a filmed one that runs a little over a half hour and it stars Stubby Kaye, who presumably was paid well for his participation.  It was made for the Bell Telephone folks to push the idea that florists can network over the phone to get flowers delivered to customers.  I don't know much more about it than you will after you watch it if you watch it. Thanks to several different folks who sent me links to this…

Here are five more pretty-good (I think) movies that are currently free to watch on YouTube. As with all of these, they may suddenly not be free or may not be free without ads but right now, they're free. Someone has classified them as adult in some undefined way so YouTube will not allow me to embed them but if you click on the hyperlinked name of any of these movies, you should be able to watch it — at the moment, free and without ads…

I always really liked Billy Wilder's 1960 movie with Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine, The Apartment.

And I always liked another film made the same year, Inherit the Wind, starring Spencer Tracy and Fredric March. Hard to believe this film was directed by the same man who, just three years later, directed Tracy in It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

And also from 1960: The Magnificent Seven. If you know, you know.

And moving up more than a few years, here's the Director's Cut of Mr. Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Warning: Don't watch this if you're seated next to Abe Vigoda. Here's why and yes, I know Abe Vigoda has passed-away but with him, it was hard to tell.

And I can't embed it but if you're in a Christmasy mood, you might enjoy one of the most-imitated movies ever made, Die Hard.

I have a question from the Netherlands — from Theo van Amelsvoort…

A few posts ago you mentioned that you received a free link to see the SNL movie. I was always under the impression that the companies who wanted to promote their movie for awards would send out free DVDs to people eligible to vote. And that voters would get dozens of DVDs. Do they still do that? Or do some do and others via a link to view online? Do you have a preference?

Yes, they used to do that…and I would get tons of them each year, way too many to possibly view. I got them as a member of the Writers Guild. I got them as a member of the Television Academy. I got them as a member of ASIFA, the Animation Society, which I don't think I belong to anymore. I got an awful lot of them…and a lot of them had these dire threats to prosecute the hell out of me if I didn't destroy them after one viewing. It was like: "You didn't ask for this but since we sent it to you, you're obligated to follow our instructions as how to handle them or we'll put you behind bars!"

But that was before most of us were hooked-up for streaming services and being able to watch stuff on the Internet on our TV sets and such. It was also before someone realized what a tremendous waste of money and time and resources it was, to say nothing of the environmental impact, to send out zillions of unsolicited DVDs. (And before that, they used to send out VHS tapes.) Some of them came in very elaborate, expensive packaging.

So I think some of the studios got together and switched to sending out links with passwords to watch their offerings online…and I think pretty much everyone else fell in line. I only got about ten "For Your Consideration" DVDs this year. One of them was Anora and a lady friend and I were halfway-through watching it when all my electricity went out a few nights ago.

Thus, the answer to your question is: Yes, they used to do that…and no, they don't do it very much anymore. I do however get a number of copies of the screenplays to read, as well as some links to read them online.

It's hard to get my mind off the fires. They're still raging, still very far from me, still likely to continue for some time. I'm saddened for the folks whose homes and even lives have been destroyed. I'm angry at the political types trying to blame this on their opponents. (Politifact and FactCheck.org both have good summaries of lies being told.)

What little I've seen of the news has spent way too much time focusing on the celebrities whose homes burned. Then again, I don't see what's achieved by interviewing anyone, famous or not, at one of the worst moments of their lives. I remember a local disaster when I was young — I think it was when the Baldwin Hills Dam burst and flooded local neighborhoods. It was not as big a catastrophe as the current one but just as painful to the people who were affected.

One of the local TV stations that was covering it all had its News Director (or someone in charge) taking phone calls live. My mother called up, got on the air and asked, "What good does it do to shove a camera into the face of someone who's just lost their home? Aren't these people entitled to a little privacy at an hour like this?" The News Director (or whoever it was) said, "You obviously have no idea what news is," then he punched a button to disconnect her call.

I remember her standing there, holding the phone handset in her hand and saying, mainly to herself, "Well, now I know what it's about on your channel."

I feel bad for all the people affected including those who are or will experience collateral damage. The guy who cleans my pool stopped by this morning to do his duty here and then he asked if I could pay my next few bills in advance because he's lost a third of his clients. Some of those whose homes were destroyed owed him for past services and he can't bring himself to send them bills for what they owe him. It's not a huge amount of money compared to most losses but he needs it to pay his rent, buy groceries, etc.

Meanwhile, we're all checking on our friends, breathing barbecued air and getting very frustrated that there's no instant cure to stop the devastation. I'm going to try to work on assignments and when I do post here, it'll mostly be things unrelated to the fires, just to get my mind off these horrid events. Maybe some of it will help you do likewise.

Of course you want to help. You're a human being, you're horrified by the destruction here in Los Angeles and you want to do what you can to help the folks whose homes, jobs and lives have been damaged by the fires. So once again, I refer you to my favorite charity, Operation USA.

There are many fine agencies out there but I know some of the people behind this one and I know that they spend very little on administration and themselves and that most of what you send them will be put to good and immediate use.  That's where I send whatever I can afford to give. Here's their ad banner. Use it in good health and spirit…

Skywald Comics was a short-lived comic book company that went into business in 1970 and out in 1975. It was an alliance between Sol Brodsky (former production manager and occasional artist for Marvel) and Israel Waldman, a publisher specializing in low-budget periodicals including (at times) comic books. Waldman's main venture into comics previously has been with a company called variously I.W. Publications, Super Comics and I think some other names. To quote Wikipedia, they issued "…in the late 1950s and early 1960s…unauthorized comic book reprints for sale through grocery and discount stores."

Brodsky had had a major falling-out with Marvel publisher Martin Goodman and left the company. He teamed up with Waldman, they published some comics (mostly on the cheap) then Brodsky pulled out and returned to Marvel after Goodman left.

And now, following up on my follow-up to this question, Rob Allen asks…

Following up on your post about why Jack never worked for Western, I wonder about another path not taken.

Did Jack consider joining Sol Brodsky in his new venture with Israel Waldman? It seems likely that Skywald couldn't afford Jack's page rate, but if they could, the possibilities seem enticing. I think the Fourth World would have sold better than the Western comics that Skywald did produce. And Skywald had more success than DC in black & white magazines. Jack and Sol left Marvel almost simultaneously; did they talk to each other about their plans?

Nope. They weren't quite as simultaneous as that in their departures and Jack probably wouldn't have left without an offer than would pay him as well or better…which, as you note, Skywald was unlikely to do. There was also something chintzy and crooked about the company and Jack didn't like that, which is why he rejected the occasional suggestions of Steve Ditko that he work for Charlton.

Simon and Kirby had briefly done some work through Charlton and had never been paid-in-full. Jack once said of that company something like, "The guys who run it don't belong in comics…or anywhere that's not a prison." That's an approximate quote. He liked Sol Brodsky but Sol never made an offer and Jack recalled how Waldman had reprinted Simon & Kirby material without their permission.

Just to head off further questions about other companies then publishing comics: I don't think there was anyone besides DC and Marvel that had the stability and the budgets that Jack felt were mandatory. He either didn't trust other publishers because of past dealings or knew they weren't interested in the kind of material he did or just knew (roughly) their page rates. He was approached by a few different people who wanted to get into the business but none of them seemed to have the start-up capital, an understanding of the industry or the connections to get decent distribution.

He'd also heard stories from Wally Wood about how he (Wood) believed Tower Comics had been sabotaged. Going with an unestablished publisher was not a gamble Jack was prepared to take. In a very real sense, he was trapped working for DC or Marvel…and I don't think either one treated him very well. Maybe they would have later but not then.

Since I've been writing about Mike Schlesinger here, I thought I oughta post this photo that was taken on September 29, 2019 at the Cinerama Dome Theater. That was the theater in which It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World opened — a theater literally built to show it — and a bunch of us were there that day to see it for the umpteenth time on that amazing screen. The pins we're wearing were to commemorate whatever anniversary it was.

Dave Woodman is a fine cartoonist and Mad World historian.  The other three are Mad World historians who are heard on the commentary track for the Criterion DVD and Blu-ray of that movie.  Paul Scrabo is a producer and jack-of-all-crafts in the TV and movie businesses.  Collectively, the four of us have probably seen this movie three jillion times.  After the film, my lady friend and I left but Mike stayed around outside for an hour answering questions about the film for all who had just enjoyed it.

Last night, we showed you our pal Mike Schlesinger talking about a favorite movie, 1776. Mike noted how in its initial release, the film endured some unfortunate cuts because of pressure from the administration of Richard Milhous Nixon, a man who no longer holds the title of being our most sinister president. This morning, I awoke to this message from Steve Bacher…

I'd like to know if the version of the movie 1776 currently available on YouTube (at 2 hours and 45 minutes) is the restored version or the one with the Nixon-mandated cuts as described in the trailer.

It's the restored version and here it is…the whole thing, including the song "Cool, Conservative Men," which was the main thing Nixon wanted out. The cut version runs 148 minutes. As is the case with these YouTube uploads, they are sometimes free, sometimes free with ads and sometimes they cost money to watch and some of them change back and forth. Don't ask me why.

My friend Mike Schlesinger was a frequent contributor to Trailers From Hell, a series of videos which use the trailer for a movie as an excuse to discuss the movie. Here's Mike talking about one of our favorite films, 1776…

In the next day or four, we'll be doing some of the software upgrading that your generous donations helped pay for. You don't notice any difference on this blog from your end but you may notice it being offline for five or ten minutes now and then. Do not panic. The changes will prevent longer outages.