A Station Eight Fan Web Site
Rewatched "Enter Macbeth" today.
I can't help womdering what must be going through Hudson's head as he watches a Donald Duck cartoon, thoughtfully stroking his beard. The spectacle of a duck grown to human size, wearing clothes and speaking (kind of) could be an even bigger argument for not believing everything you see on television than the revelation of the Pack's true nature.
U remember in your ramble on "Enter Macbeth", your daughter spotted what looked like the Mona Lisa in Macbeth's mansion. This time around, I noticed a portrait of a man apparently in 18th century attire, who reminded me of portraits I'd seen of Bonnie Prince Charlie.
The doors to Macbeth get it both coming and going; they first get broken down when Bronx escapes, and when he returns with Goliath, they demolish a second pair of doors. (Of course, it becomes academic after the whole mansion gets burned down.)
Lexington talks about getting the clock working again; I wonder if he ever succeeded before the Canmores blew the place up.
1. Donald is a mystery to us all... ;)
2. I think Macbeth owned a lot of expensive art.
3. Yeah, so much destruction.
4. He never did.
I also rewatched "The Thrill of the Hunt" and "Temptation" today. Things I noted this time in "The Thrill of the Hunt".
1. Lexington, angered about the Pack's treachery, cries that they're like animals. I thought that appropriate, given the Pack's "animal names".
2. The Pack continue the "referring to the gargoyles as beasts" practice from "Awakening" and even speak of hunting them, such as Wolf's cry "Let the hunt begin!" - the talk about hunting them also made me think of the Hunters (though they wouldn't be introduced until Season Two, of course).
3. When Brooklyn and Broadway arrive at the end to tell Goliath and Lexington how they'd seen a report on the news about Fox and Wolf's arrest, they come gliding in from outside the castle - so apparently they weren't watching television with Hudson when they found out, but somewhere else. (I won't ask where, but this detail struck me for the first time.)
4. Dingo's cry of "Stone me!" upon seeing the photographs of Goliath felt like a particularly appropriate response to a gargoyle.
2. Common themes running through the series, I think.
3. Or they were watching t.v. earlier.
Am I missing anyone or adding someone incorrectly? So far Sevarius has the DNA of the following?
Goliath, Brooklyn, Angela, Broadway, Bronx, Lexington, Eliza, Hudson, Yama, Robyn Canmore, Dingo, Talon, Maggie, Fang, Claw, Wolf, Demona, Nessie, Deiliah (Mix)?
It's been a while since I saw the episodes. I guess he has Delilah, but then if you're including her, he'd also have Thailog, Burbank, Hollywood, Brentwood and Malibu. I guess he probably has Maggie, Fang, Claw and Wolf. But then I imagine he has Erin, Benny, Thug and Tasha, too.
Hello Mr. Greg! I would like to start of by saying that you are very admirable in your dedication not only to previous works but also to fans, as seen in keeping up this page. You're an amazing storyteller and as an author, I admire you greatly.
My question actually pertains to your series Gargoyles, which I have been bingeing non-stop recently. I saw in another ask that some gargoyles use weapons while others don't(ie Hudson). If you had to give each member of the Wyvern Clan weapons, what would they be and why?
Hudson does. He uses a sword.
Brooklyn, after his timedance, uses multiple weapons. (See Clan-Building, Volume Two.)
Lexington has been known to use what's handy.
The others largely don't.
Big fan of your work. Not really a question, but I felt the need to clarify after seeing your response to another question regarding queer-baiting.
In your response, you (respectfully) provide some push-back against the concept, while expressing a willingness to learn more. I had a few quick responses to your comments I wanted to share.
You talk about some of the examples given in the Wikipedia entry for queer-baiting to be unfair, citing Sherlock Holmes and John Watson as an example. To be clear, in both the Wikipedia article and in popular usage of this example, people refer to Holmes and Watson as they are depicted in the BBC series, "Sherlock", and not (necessarily) in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories or other adaptations.
Queer-baiting refers to creators of media actively misleading a fan-base with hints or indications of "queerness" without any intent of follow-through. NOT -- as you indicated in your prior comment -- a fan-base misinterpreting close same-sex friendships and sexual. "Sherlock" (the BBC series) is a famous example of queer-baiting, as the series very often hints at homoerotic attraction between the two leads in the series' writing, the performances of the lead actors, and in the ways that other characters in series refer to their relationship. I won't go into specific details and examples from the series, but if you are interested in examples there are scores of them documented and easily locateable on the internet.
The key aspect of queer-baiting is the attempt to take advantage of queer fans by providing the bare minimum of queer(ish) interactions, without ever following through for fear of alienating a non-queer audience. This is very different from both presenting close same-sex friendships without any romantic or sexual relationship developing between the two characters, and the presentation of queer characters without the ability to actively show examples of their queerness due to external factors, such as network interference (such as Lexington in "Gargoyles" or Korra in "The Legend of Korra"). These are non-malicious and do not seek to mislead a queer audience.
To be clear, I don't think you have been guilty of queer-baiting in any of your work. I simply wanted to clarify the concept a bit more so that you can hopefully understand where the concern of the initial comment came from. Looking forward to "Young Justice" season three!
I get the concern. I do.
And my response probably shows my (relative) queer blindness. I've seen every episode of "Sherlock," and never noticed any significant difference between how John and Sherlock are depicted here than in other versions.
I don't want to be defensive; I want to be open. But as you indicated, I've never intentionally queer-baited. Lex was gay to the extent allowed at the time (which was not at all). Some fans read a homo-erotic charge into the Dick/Wally relationship and the Bart/Jaime relationship, but that was never our intention - and I sincerely don't think we were trying to fool anyone. (Though one of those four characters is gay, in our minds, at least. But not in the minds of TPTB, even though TPTB did allow us to be objective about other characters on the show, starting with Season Three.)
You mentioned that gargoyles and gargoyle beasts are distinct from most mammals and are classified as "gargates." Given their traits of milk production and warm bloodedness while laying eggs, I'd be tempted to classify gargoyles as monotremes, a subset of mammals that includes platupi and the echidnas, though I would need to look at their biochemistry to be absolutely certain (which has obvious logistical issues). I remember reading in the archives that gargoyles are the first "sentient" race, emerging sometime in the same time magnitude as dinosaurs. Classing gargoyles as monotremes could fit in with that time frame, because birds/dinosaurs and mammals diverged some time in the Carboniferous, significantly before the Triassic. This would put them in the same ecological classification as other monotremes (which you had demonstrated reluctance to accept before vis a vis platupi), but given the long time period, I would EXPECT them to look more and be more different from other monotremes than, say, a sparrow does from a T-rex, since their most recent common ancestor was much longer ago. Oddly enough, the most difficult thing about figuring gargoyles out is the difference between Lexington and the rest of the clan, because four vs six limbs is a major difference, and figuring out that phenotypic difference that still leaves the two types of gargoyles able to create viable offspring wasn't very easy. However, I think I managed to crack it. It is most probably a trait of the MOTHER of the gargoyle, not the gargoyle in question proper (so if Lexington decided he wanted a kid and found a willing female gargoyle (ignoring for thought experiment purposes that he wouldn't be interested in women), he probably wouldn't be able to pass it on). At some point, some female proto-gargate from just as gargoyles and gargoyle beasts were starting to diverge had a mutation that probably added an extra pair of limbs on their back. These extra limbs could have been useful, and could have evolved over time to help gargoyles fly (well, glide) through the power of "jazz hands" (like how bats fly proper). Eventually, another female gargoyle had another mutation that essentially told her kid's biological plan to omit the first pair of "arms" and only have the second kind (the ones that look wingish). Both phenotypes produced viable offspring with roughly the same ability to reproduce, but the second mutation probably started out rarer because it came later. So the general timeline looks like this:
Mammals and dinosaurs diverge -> Platupi diverge from other monotremes -> Gargates diverge from other monotremes (this comes after platupi because female gargoyles have mammary glands, and probably came about as a result of developing the first rudiments of stone sleep) -> Dinosaurs come on the scene -> Gargoyles and gargoyle beasts diverge from each other (probably via gargoyles becoming bipedal) -> Gargoyles evolve six limbs and this variant overtakes the population while the two back arms become more winglike -> the Lexington variant of gargoyles evolves -> Dinosaurs kick it -> Gargoyles gradually become more intelligent as their longer lifespans and lack of natural predators (thanks giant meteor) makes intelligence a more viable strategy for survival to make them more cooperative.
I don't know if this perfectly fits with what you have, but I did the best I could with the information (both show/FAQ-wise and through a degree in biochemistry) I had. What are your thoughts?
I love all this.
A couple thoughts that might or might not influence your thinking...
Lex has six limbs. The middle "rib" of his wings is actually a limb. In original development art (which you may have seen on the first season DVD) he has four hands: the two we're all used to and two more coming off those mid-wing arms. So what you're seeing in his final version his six limbs, but the middle two limbs have, uh... devolved into ribs.
We've discussed in the past that Gargoyle Beasts have vestigial wing bones beneath the skin.
A few things I've been wondering
1)Is Matt considered part of the Manhattan Clan or just a friend?
2)We know Broadway loves old detective movies but what film genres do you think the other members of the clan enjoy most?
3)Do any of the other Gargoyle clans enjoy aspects of human culture like music, books, comics, film or television?
1. An ally.
2. Brooklyn likes swashbucklers. Lex likes SciFi. Hudson likes Celebrity Hockey. Bronx likes anything that's muted.
Topic: Gargoyle Biology
Question 1: Given the Gargoyles' wings are like bat or bird wings, nor noticeably have a smaller pair of hands, could there possibly have been a Gargate species that existed with two sets of arms, instead of a pair of arms and a pair of wings?
Question 2: Given the immense diversity between Gargoyle appearances, including the Loch Ness clan being semi-amphibious, do Gargoyles have a high genetic mutation rate or a special genetic adaptivity depending on the environment?
1. Well, I suppose. Interestingly, an older design for Lexington gave him two sets of true arms, including two sets of hands, with his wings largely unchanged, i.e. that middle set of arms that you can see in the center of his wings were still there, but they were more firmly developed and had actual hands at the end.
2. Maybe? I'd have to consult with some of our fan-biologists on the possibility. But keep in mind, Gargates are a VERY old species. They've had tons of time to evolve. Way longer than humans have had. The miracle is that they have maintained as much cultural, um, "integrity," as they have.
I've recently rewatched Awakening, and the scene where Goliath tells Demona that she can't kill an enemy unless it is "in the heat of battle" sparked a question in me: as of Phoenix, which members of the Manhattan Clan have actually killed someone?
Most have, in battle, in the tenth century. Angela hasn't. Egwardo hasn't. Nashville hasn't. Maybe Lex & Broadway haven't. But that seems unlikely/unrealistic.
Oh, and if you're counting her, Elisa hasn't.
Hey! Young Justice is my life. As of the time I'm sending this, Pride Month is almost over. I read over lots of the asks and replies you get on here and a fair amount are about something LGBT related, whether its about something thats akin to Fanfiction or borderline homophobic. I'm sure you might have come to dread those types of questions, but mines is a bit different.
I don't want you to think that I'm requesting this, i guess at the end of the day i am, but i mean so in the most respectful way possible. Please... If there's ever a time when you might include LGBT content or anything like it in YJ, please don't let it be queerbaiting. Its such a horrible thing to do to us. I don't think I'd be able to handle it from my favorite show. I don't think you'd ever let that happen, and i don't even think we'd get LGBT relationships in the show, but i just had to say it. For myself, just in case.
I had to look up queerbaiting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queerbaiting
Some of the examples given on the wikipedia page seem unfair to me. (Though I'm happy to grant that as a straight male, I'm coming at this from a very different point of view.) For example, calling Holmes and Watson queerbaiting actually seems outrageous to me. Creators need to be able to present two male or two female best friends in a close but non-sexual relationship without being accused of trying to "bait" anyone.
I'm not going to address anything related to YJ, since that would involve spoilers, but I will bring up some Gargoyles stuff, as an example.
In our minds, Lexington is gay. But in those mid-nineties days when the series was originally on the air, there was absolutely no way Disney would let us objectively show this. Nevertheless, we strove to write the character to be consistent with his orientation. We thought we were doing the best possible alternative. So were we queerbaiting? And what would the alternative have been? Not depicting any LGBTQ characters at all?
I, personally, don't have the clout to make (successful) ultimatums to my employers. I could, of course, have insisted on being allowed to show Lexington kiss a guy. But if I had insisted that it's the kiss or I walk, Disney would have shrugged and waved goodbye to me. And my replacement would likely - if only to reassure his or her bosses - have made Lex objectively STRAIGHT. Is that better for anyone?
This kind of thing is simply a reality of the industry. It is getting better. There are plenty of series we can point to that demonstrate that. And I like to think I'm trying to help make things better still. But I'm going to - for my own mental health - reject the notion of queerbaiting almost entirely.
Maybe I'm not yet 'woke' enough. That's certainly possible. But I'm going to consistently push to depict what I can, to suggest what I cannot and to not for one second shy away from depicting two same sex characters having a close but platonic relationship, because (for example) one or both might be heterosexual. Because I write characters. I don't write agendas-masquerading-as-characters. I have agendas, but I don't write characters who are nothing but. I try to keep my characters consistent and true to themselves. But I'm not baiting anyone. And I'm certainly not trying to trick anyone with this sort of thing. Quite the reverse. I'm simply trying to do the best I can under occasionally hostile conditions.
Sorry if that's disappointing. But it's the best 2018 Greg Weisman can give you.
How old was Thom Adcox-Hernandez when you asked him to do the voice of Lexington for Walt Disney's Gargoyles in 1994?
That would depend on how old he was in 1994.
I know that Lexington is the tech gargoyle of the group, do you think Lexington ever thought of find a mate that has his science and tech mind?
I think Lexington wants to keep his own mind.
You've revealed that Lexington is gay; that Fox and Puck are bisexual; and that Owen is asexual.
So, if you're inclined, I'd appreciate if if you finally settle the debate. Is Demona heterosexual, bisexual, or something else?
Using the word "revealed" makes me uncomfortable. What I say in different contexts doesn't make it canon. Yes, Lexington is gay, in my mind. The rest sound like things I might have said at a Blue Mug or something. Nothing said at a Blue Mug should be taken as definitive canon. Nothing is canon that can't be confirmed from the 65 canon episodes or the 18 canon comic book issues.
In any case, NO SPOILERS.
I have a question about the Avalon Clan and their biological relationships to the Manhattan Clan. I am going to use the "placeholder names" for those Gargs that don't have given names in cannon.
Can we assume that Hudson does not have any biological children there because Hyppolyta, Broadway, and True are his only three offspring?
You've mentioned before that Angela is the only biological child of Goliath's, and she is no longer there, so none for him either.
Brooklyn had at least one brother, Brooksbro...was he and older or younger brother? If older, then there is a potential for him to have a biological sibling on Avelon...is that the case?
Does Lexington have a younger biological sibling on Avelon?
3. Brooksbro is older. (But Brooklyn had MANY brothers and sisters. Stop thinking like a human.)
4. No comment on whether or not Brooklyn has a younger biological sibling among the Avalon clan.
5. No comment.
6. No comment.
I scoured the unanswered questions and the archives. As far as I can tell, nobody has asked this of you before:
1.)When did you know while writing Lexington that he would eventually realize that he's gay?
I'm a 25 year old gay man living in Minnesota. I loved Gargoyles as a kid. I had almost all the action figures (couldn't find the castle play set so I made my own out of cardboard boxes lol) and all the VHS tapes. Now I have all the released seasons on DVD. I grew up feeling different all the time from my peers. Your show resonated with me! It's still a viewing pleasure of mine. In retrospect, I think the clan was an allegory for how I felt in the world. In the minority, alone and isolated and misunderstood by society. I was always cheering when more Gargoyles were introduced from Avalon.
I have one more question that is about the writing of the show:
2.) Were you and the show's writers warned or advised that kids couldn't follow continuity in an animated series?
I was between 5-7 years old while Gargoyles aired and I was fascinated that the show relied on flashbacks and foreshadowing and slow builds of the storylines.
I'm so glad that the show was on when I was young. It had a profound impact on me. Lexington was ALWAYS my favorite and I just recently found out he was to be gay. Thanks for making me feel less alone growing up. I wish you continued success!
Thank you for your time!!
1. I don't remember exactly. (Twenty years ago, you know.) But it was probably some time during Season Two. Definitely before we wrote Turf.
2. No. Not then. That's come up on other shows since, but I was following a simplified version of the Hill Street Blues model on Gargoyles. One clean story per episode. Multiple storyLINES in play.
Stop #6 on the Gargoyles Twentieth Anniversary Tour is LONG BEACH COMIC CON: http://longbeachcomiccon.com/
The full schedule can be found here: http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=55700
But here's MY schedule. I'll only be there the one day - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - but as you can see, I'm certainly keeping busy, with five panels and three signings!
LONG BEACH COMIC CON
Saturday, September 27, 2014
11:30am - 12:20pm - Room 102B/C
GARGOYLES TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY
Moderator: Greg Weisman (Creator, Producer, Writer)
1. Thom Adcox-Hernandez (Voice of Lexington, Brentwood)
2. Vic Cook (Storyboard Artist)
3. Elisa Gabrielli (Voice of Obsidiana & Maria Chavez)
4. Frank Paur (Producer, Director)
5. Dave Schwartz (Development Art Director)
12:30pm - 01:30pm - Signing Area
I won't be attending this signing (because I have to rush off to another panel), but the rest of the Gargoyles panelists will probably be there.
12:30pm - 01:50pm - Hero Complex Theater, Room 104A
WARNER ARCHIVE COLLECTION PRESENTS YOUNG JUSTICE
Moderator: Jevon Phillips (Los Angeles Times)
1. Phil Bourassa (Emmy Winning Character Designer)
2. Cameron Bowen (Voice of Robin/Tim Drake)
3. Kris Carter (Composer)
4. Nicole Dubuc (Writer, Voice of Iris West-Allen)
5. Oded Fehr (Voice of Ra's al Ghul)
6. Kevin Grevioux (Voice of Black Beetle)
7. Kevin Hopps (Writer)
8. Bryton James (Voice of Virgil Hawkins/Static)
9. Josh Keaton (Voice of Black Spider)
10. Curtis Koller (Talent Coordinator)
11. Eric Lopez (Voice of Blue Beetle/Jaime Reyes, Scarab)
12. Michael McCuistion (Composer)
13. Jay Oliva (Director)
14. Mark Rolston (Voice of Lex Luthor, Jonathan Kent)
15. Jason Spisak (Voice of Kid Flash/Wally West)
16. James Arnold Taylor (Voice of Flash, Neutron, Topo, Burton Thompson)
17. Brandon Vietti (Producer, Writer)
18. Greg Weisman (Producer, Writer, Voice of Lucas Carr)
19. David Wilcox (Line Producer)
02:00pm - 03:00pm - Signing Area
YOUNG JUSTICE SIGNING
I plan on being here for only the first twenty minutes or so - before I have to run off to yet another panel. But for as long as I can stay, I will sign for free, anything you put in front of me. I will also be signing and selling copies of my animation teleplays for $20 cash. Among the series you'll have to choose from are Gargoyles, Men In Black, Team Atlantis, W.I.T.C.H., The Batman, The Spectacular Spider-Man, DC Showcase/Green Arrow, Batman: The Brave and the Bold, Young Justice, Beware the Batman and two radio-plays: The Spectacular Spider-Man Meets Gargoyles and Gargoyles Meets The Spectacular Spider-Man Meets Young Justice. All while supplies last, and for as long as I can stay. So show up promptly at 2pm.
02:30pm - 03:20pm - Room 102B/C
THE SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN
Moderator: Greg Weisman (Supervising Producer, Writer, Voice of Donald Menken)
1. Kevin Altieri (Director)
2. Kris Carter (Composer)
3. Victor Cook (Supervising Producer, Supervising Director)
4. Nicole Dubuc (Writer)
5. Elisa Gabrielli (Voice of Ashley Kafka)
6. Sean "Cheeks" Galloway (Lead Character Designer)
7. Kevin Hopps (Writer)
8. Josh Keaton (Voice of Peter Parker/The Spectacular Spider-Man)
9. Andrew Kishino (Voice of Kenny Kong, Ned Lee)
10. Phil LaMarr (Voice of Fancy Dan/Ricochet, Joe "Robbie" Robertson, Rand Robertson, Homunculus)
11. Joshua LeBar (Voice of Flash Thompson)
12. Eric Lopez (Voice of Mark Allen/Molten Man)
13. Michael McCuistion (Composer)
14. Daran Norris (Voice of J. Jonah Jameson, John Jameson/Colonel Jupiter)
15. Deborah Strang (Voice of Aunt May Parker)
16. James Arnold Taylor (Voice of Harry Osborn, Frederick Foswell/Patch, Alan O'Neil, Homunculus)
17. Wade Wisinski (Line Producer)
03:30pm - 04:20pm - Room 102B/C
DISNEY AFTERNOON: THE CONTINUING LEGACY
Moderator: Aaron Sparrow (Writer of Darkwing Duck: The Duck Knight Returns)
1. Jim Cummings (Voice of Darkwing Duck, Bonkers, etc.)
2. Jymn Magon (Creator/Producer Talespin)
3. Greg Weisman (Creator/Producer Gargoyles)
4. Mark Zaslove (Story Editor/Producer Talespin)
04:00pm - 05:00pm - Signing Area
SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN SIGNING
I'll have to miss this one too, as I'll be in the Disney Afternoon Panel, followed by the Disney Afternoon signing.
04:30pm - 05:20pm - Disney Afternoon Reunion Booth/Signing Area
DISNEY AFTERNOON SIGNING
I'll be at this one for the entire signing. Again, I'll sign anything you bring along for free. And I'll also be signing and selling my teleplays.
05:30pm - 06:20pm - Room 102B/C
RAIN OF THE GHOSTS
Greg Weisman (Author)
06:30pm - 7:30pm - Booth 104 on Show Floor
MYSTERIOUS GALAXY SIGNING
I'll be selling and signing copies of my two novels, RAIN OF THE GHOSTS and SPIRITS OF ASH AND FOAM.
my question must have gotten deleted last time i asked this, because i cant find it anywhere. it was part of a post with a bunch of questions, but this one is the only one i really want to know about, so i hope this one wasnt the one that made it not go through
after his journey through time, does Brooklyn still consider himself a rookery brother to Lexington and Broadway?
also, since he is a generation older than Goliath, does he still consider himself his rookery son?
would he now technically be a rookery uncle to any or all three of them, and Angela?
if so, how does he view his relationship to Hudson, since they cant technically be rookery brothers? (like cousins mabey?)
2. He never did, so no.
4. He still sees Hudson as a mentor/father/grandfatherly figure.
One aspect that I always liked about "Gargoyles" was that most of the individual characters had someone they considered their own personal nemesis.
Brooklyn had Demona (but I doubt she thought enough about him to feel the same, her focus was always on Goliath). Lexington had the Pack (though, again, I doubt they gave him as much thought as again, Goliath). Broadway had Dracon (again, I tend to think Dracon gave Goliath more thought, and especially Elisa).
Actually, while writing this post, it just occurred to me that these people the trio despised probably didn't give them individually all that much thought... kind of says something about how the futility of holding such contempt for someone, only for that other person to probably not spend all that much time thinking about you. See, I love "Gargoyles," I'm always seeing things in new ways.
But I guess what I was originally going to ask, before my little revelation there was this. Did you have any rivalries like that planned with the Redemption Squad?
For Hunter, Demona or John Castaway being her personal nemesis seems like a given. Though I wouldn't be surprised if we get a new character there. Dingo seems to have Falstaff for that role, especially if he ever discovers how his mother died.
Yama, Fang and especially Matrix are harder to pin down for this. I suppose for Yama it could be Taro, but I'm not sure... he seems to blame himself for what he did rather than Taro. Fang doesn't seem to hold any real ill will towards Sevarius. And Matrix doesn't even have emotions and can't take things personally.
Of course, the ultimate example of what you describe in your third paragraph is with Gillecomgain. He's obsessed for years over the gargoyle that scarred him. And when Demona sees his face, she has absolutely no memory of the incident.
As for the Bad Guys characters, things would evolve in the fullness of time.
Hey again Greg, I have another question for you
How do gargoyles view homosexuality? More specifically the Manhattan clan sense Lexington is confirmed to be homosexual, but knowing about the other gargoyles would be nice too.
Thanks Greg, I wish Peter David the best and I'll see if I can help.
As for Peter, I'll thank you on his behalf.
As for your question, I'm afraid it's been ASKED AND ANSWERED over and over again. Please check the ASK GREG Archives under either "Lexington" or "Gargoyle Customs" or both.
Are there fans who do not believe Lexington is gay?
I honestly believe he is not gay.
I guess you answered your own question. Or are you not a fan?
Hey, Greg! I have just a quick question on Lexington's biological parents. I do realize Gargoyles don't care about that sort of thing, but for some reason I do. (so human, I know) So, I noticed the only web-winged Gargoyle we actually see is "Sacrifice" I am wondering if
1. She and her mate "Second" are Lex's biological parents, maybe?
2. And if not then would that mean there were a different pairing we haven't been able to see?
Thanks for taking the time to look at this question. Cheers!!!
1. SPOILER REQUEST. NO COMMENT.
2. See above.
I know you've said you can't actually show LGBT characters on the show, but I think I saw you said that there was one who was just closeted. Would you ever "out" this character outside the show itself? Or would you not be allowed to? I think it's pretty horrible that you aren't allowed to have LGBT characters, it's the 21st Century and considering how isolating being young and gay can be, with no role models it can be incredibly difficult! But I understand this is not your fault.
We show LGBT characters on the show all the time. We just can't acknowledge it. There's a difference. And I never said the LGBT characters on the show were closeted. I never said anything one way or the other about whether or not they were closeted - or at least, I don't remember saying anything about it. A character like Marie Logan can be out as far as she's concerned, without mentioning it out loud on the series.
And, there. I think I've just answered your question. (See also: Lexington.)
Here's hoping you're in a sharing mood. From your timeline, you have revealed the following vague events that line up with a Gathering date and a character played by one of the special guests:
July 19, 1997: Goliath makes a bargain.
August 14, 1998: Vinnie visits family.
June 25, 1999: Lexington goes into business.
June 22, 2001: A crisis brings together representatives of four clans.
June 28, 2002: Vinnie's quest begins.
June 27, 2003: Lexington holds a press conference.
August 6, 2004: Goliath is briefly forced into hiding.
July 29, 2005: Lexington takes a chance and loses.
June 23, 2006: Obsidiana comes to the United States of America.
June 22, 2007: Lexington continues his journey.
We're still missing Gatherings 2000, 2008, and 2009. Any chance that you're in the mood to give us the last three?
August 3, 2000 - Lexington faces an extremely hostile takeover.
June 27, 2008 - Eggs are stolen from the Manhattan rookery.
August 21, 2009 - Thailog attacks.
How would Lexington react to all the alien technology we've seen in Younh Justice: Invasion? Would he be all giddy like a schoolgirl?
Shrug. I guess.
An iPhone would probably make him salivate.
When asked how Lexington homosexuality will be portrayed in the future you answered:
âGargoyles is owned by Disney, and I'd be kidding you and myself if I didn't recognize that there are certain limits to what Disney will allow. My goal with Lex is to be honest and consistent in HIS portrayal. Not to be titillating (let alone pornographic). Frankly, I wish I had the freedom to be more forthright. Perhaps there's an element of cowardice in my middle ground position. I'll cop to that. But I'm just trying to tell stories honestly. I face restrictions. I live with those restrictions. What that means practically, is that few people beyond the hardcore fandom will see Lex's orientation as any kind of issue at all.â
I understand what you mean by that I truly do. I was just wondering if you face the same issues now. If any character were to appear gay to you in young justice could you accurately portray it now or are you faced with the same restraint?
Probably. Things have progressed... some. But almost not at all in anything perceived as children's programming.