A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Behind the Scenes

Archive Index


: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #109 - #118 of 536 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :


Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :


Bookmark Link

John Derrick writes...

I hate to say it, but I was extremely disappointed in the Young Justice premiere. Don't get me wrong--the animation was gorgeous, the dialogue entertaining, the story intriguing. But the gender imbalance was a huge turn-off for me.

Why was it that the women of the Justice League were only shown in the last five minutes of a two-part pilot? Why did the male sidekicks get to go on a rebellious adventure and force the League to accept them as a team of their own, while the first girl is only added to "Young Justice" at the very end, introduced by her uncle and guardian like some sort of token?

I expect that the women will have a lot more to do in the episodes to come, but I still find it profoundly problematic to introduce the characters in such an unequal manner. I believe there are too many men in the world as it is who see women as mere supporting players in their stories. Why reinforce this stereotype for a whole new generation of superhero cartoon fans?

Greg responds...

It's a legitimate gripe. And I doubt my answer will satisfy you, but it came down to a couple factors that we at least found important: (1) practicality and to a lesser extent - but intertwined with - (2) tradition.

Let's start with practicality.

You asked why there were no female Leaguers until the end. But where would they have fit? There are no female Leaguers with traditional first generation sidekicks. So Batman, Green Arrow, Aquaman and Flash could not be replaced by Wonder Woman, Black Canary or Hawkwoman. That leaves the four Leaguers introduced at the Hall of Justice. I needed Martian Manhunter to be there to set up Miss Martian. I needed Red Tornado there to set up his interest in the teens. I needed Superman there to set up Superboy. That leaves only Zatara. He was certainly replaceable. But then I would have had to hire another voice actress to read ONE LINE. I couldn't afford to do that. We have budgets. (And you'll notice that Red Tornado never speaks in the episode. Couldn't afford giving him a line either. None of which had anything to do with gender.)

There was NEVER any intent to introduce Artemis this early in the season for story reasons. Wouldn't make sense for her character. And I think the reasons why will become clear as the season progresses.

As for Miss Martian, yes, in theory, we could have introduced her sooner. Manhunter COULD have brought her along at the beginning. But then I'd have had FOUR characters running around the first half hour and FIVE in the second. That steals screen time and characterization from everyone. I think the entire production would have been weaker for adding another character -- ANY other character (gender notwithstanding).

Of course, that begs the obvious question - why not ditch one of the boys in favor of her to create a little balance.

But it seemed to us that would create balance at a cost.

There are FOUR TRADITIONAL sidekicks: Robin, Speedy, Aqualad and Kid Flash. To leave one out seemed wrong to us. Which brings in the Tradition argument, which I'll admit is somewhat feeble, but as an old comic book geek, I'll also admit it matters to me and to everyone else here.

The very first Teen Titans story ever in Brave and the Bold featured only THREE heroes: Robin, Aqualad and Kid Flash. Wonder Girl did not join until their second adventure. So we felt there was a precedent for beginning with Robin, Aqualad and Kid Flash and saving the real introduction of Miss Martian (beyond hellos) for OUR second adventure.

For what it's worth, if you give the series another chance, starting with episode three (i.e. the one immediately following the pilot "movie"), I think you'll see that female characters including Miss Martian, Black Canary, Artemis, Wonder Woman and MANY others will be playing ESSENTIAL roles in the show as we progress. I think the balance - and then some - is absolutely present in the first season when viewed in its entirety.

Yes, the pilot was very boy-centric, but that's not the rubric for the series. Personally, I love writing female characters, and if you're at all familiar with my past work, you'll know I have a history of doing them justice. (At least, I think so.) Gargoyles, for example, is FULL of strong female characters, including Elisa, Demona, Angela, Fox, etc. WITCH was nearly ALL female leads. Even Spider-Man had a strong female supporting cast, in my opinion at least.

If we did "reinforce a stereotype" (which I think is overstating it) then perhaps we've lured in kids that we will reeducate over the course of the season - organically without forcing it.

So I'd beg a little patience, a little indulgence... maybe even a little trust that we'll do right by this issue.

But judge for yourself.

Response recorded on December 21, 2010

Bookmark Link

Steven D. writes...

Hello again, Mr. Weisman.

I've had a question in the back of my mind for some time, and now seems like a good time to ask it.
Recently, you released the writer's rotation for the first 24 episodes of YJ.
I've always been fascinated with television writing,as there seems to be no one way to do it, so I wanted to ask a few questions on how you approach it.

1. Back when i first wanted to ask this, I checked the SpecSpiderman archives to see what you mentioned about writing for that show. When going over writing duties, you mentioned that some of the episodes that you "reserved" some of the episodes you wrote. Since Young Justice finds you in a similar position of being both a producer and staff writer, I'm curious to know, what factors do you use when picking episodes to reserve for yourself (and confirming that reserve wasn't just a metaphor you were using)?

2. While I'm here, I was hoping you could also shed some light on how much freedom your freelance writers are given. Do they ever get the chance to write an episode completely from scratch, or because the shows you work on are so arc based, are they always given a firm foundation to start with, and if so, how rigid is this foundation (generally)?

Thanks!

Greg responds...

1. Sometimes I end up writing an episode for pragmatic reasons... or a combination of the creative and the pragmatic. For example, I wrote the two-part pilot of Young Justice (i.e. episodes 1 and 2). Of course, I had a creative desire to write these episodes, but it also would not have been pragmatic for anyone else to write them. I needed to set the tone of the series for the other writers to be able to get it.

Another example: staff writer Kevin Hopps and I were set to write the last two episodes (25 and 26) of the first season. Though we know the basics of what takes place in them, based on meetings that Kevin, producer Brandon Vietti and I had over a year ago, we hadn't broken those episodes yet, and creatively I hadn't decided which of the two I wanted to write. But scheduling realities last week made it apparent that Kevin would HAVE to write 25, meaning I was writing 26. All of which is just as well. I started the season; I might as well finish it. But the decision wasn't creative; it was purely pragmatic. The creative decision might have been no different. But the creative decision became moot for pragmatic reasons.

On the other hand, I've also written three other episodes. In those cases, the pragmatic need was for me to write one episode each between 6-11, between 12-17 and between 18-24. Within those parameters, I chose 11, 15 and 19 for purely creative reasons. Those were the ones I felt a special affinity for (based on reasons I can't reveal now without spoilers). So going into the three writers' meetings for each of those three "sets" of episodes, there was SOME flexibility as to which writer took which episode (keeping scheduling pragmatism in mind), but I had "reserved" for myself the one I wanted to write in each case.

2. My freelancers have, for better or worse, very little freedom when it comes to WHAT stories we are telling. The premises were all approved long before the freelancers came aboard. If a specific writer feels no affinity for a specific story, then he or she doesn't have to take that episode. I always try to give each writer an episode that jazzes him or her. But the basics of the stories are set. Now, the writers are very involved in the execution of those stories. That's where their freedom comes in. But they still have quite a gauntlet to wade through... beat outlines, outlines, scripts (and notes from many sources). Ultimately, I take responsibility for every episode, and I'm the guy doing the final pass on every beat outline, outline and script. But I couldn't do this job without stellar writers providing me with great stuff. And on this series, I couldn't do it without Brandon and Kevin actively participating in the inception and breaking of every single story.

Response recorded on October 22, 2010

Bookmark Link

Clark Cradic writes...

Any characters you were surprised to see becoming popular? The ensemble darkhorse in other words.

Greg responds...

What series are we talking about here?

I guess I'll assume we're talking Gargoyles. And, no, not really. Perhaps I underestimated the Trio's popularity a bit, but I never thought they'd be UNpopular. But we can pretty much see who's popping as we're making the series.

Response recorded on August 20, 2010

Bookmark Link

Jurgan writes...

Not a question so much as a comment. You've said several times you think you missed a bet in "Grief-" namely, that Coyote should have killed the travelers, to show that death was impossible with Anubis locked up. I may be in the minority on this, but I prefer the story we got to this alternate version.

First of all, it would reopen the Highlander-esque questions that you get regarding Demona and Macbeth. So, Angela's shot through the heart but doesn't die- when Anubis is freed, is the wound still there? If so, would the wound then kill her? If Goliath were decapitated, would the head still talk, or would it sprout spider legs and walk back to him (sorry, I just watched The Thing the other night- incidentally, Keith making a surprise appearance in a movie is something that always makes me smile)? I imagine that, if only for S&P reasons, the death would simply be through bloodless laser beams (sorry, "particle beams") and the issue wouldn't have come up, but it's still confusing.

The bigger point, though, is that it cheapens the characters' abilities. I've read most of the Lee/Ditko and Lee/Romita Spider-Man comics, and while they're great stories, one thing that always bothered me was how supervillains always let Spidey live. Typically, a new villain would dominate the wallcrawler and then arrogantly announce "I don't need to kill Spider-Man- I can beat him any time I want!" I don't have a count, but I really think this happened dozens of times in the Silver Age. I could understand if the villain had a reason to run, like Doc Ock's power running low in your show, but most of the time they just seemed stupid, since of course Spidey trounced them next time. The point is that it seemed like he was surviving more through luck than any particular skill. Likewise, our gargoyles have survived countless battles because of their own abilities. To say that they finally lose- but it doesn't count because, for this one day, they can't die, seems to cheapen their earlier successes. It feels like the only reason they're winning is because the writers want them to win, and if they get in big trouble, a deus ex machina twist will save them. The show starts to feel artificial, and I wonder if these characters are really that special, or if they're just the designated heroes.

Now, of course, this is hypothetical. It's possible that, if I'd seen the episode the way you envision, I would have loved it. As it is, it's kind of hard for me to imagine it working. Just something to chew on.

Greg responds...

I guess I wouldn't agree about one lucky break cheapening earlier victories... I guess I wouldn't agree with that at all.

I'm also not big on deus ex machina saves myself, but when an ENTIRE episode is ABOUT arresting death, having them live because death has been arrested doesn't feel like deus ex machina at all to me, even with a deus (Anubis) present.

And, as you noted, the beheading (et al) issue just wouldn't have come up.

I know you're arguing for the success of what we made, and I'm in the odd (very odd) position of arguing that we could have done better, but I still think a bet was missed...

Response recorded on August 17, 2010

Bookmark Link

Laura 'ad astra' Sack writes...

I’ve heard you mention several times that you have had very good luck with S&P over several series, praising people who really understood the series and were more interested in showing consequence than keeping any violence off screen. When they put their foot down it was generally to avoid what a child can copy, even willing to have a different violent action in place they couldn’t. Did you ever have bad experiences? (Either on a series you were running, or one you freelanced on.)

Greg responds...

Yes, I've had many. Some completely inexplicable. Others explicable, but still wrong-headed.

Taranee on W.I.T.C.H. was a constant problem, as her power was fire and the S&P executive was very uncomfortable with... I'm not quite sure... the notion that we were encouraging child pyromania? The possibility that kids would use magic to generate flames?

I can't think of a really funny example just this second, though God knows I have more than a handful.

Response recorded on August 03, 2010

Bookmark Link

Trevor Duke writes...

Why does Lexington have different wings from the four other gargoyles of the manhattan clan? The behind the scenes answer please!

Greg responds...

Behind the scenes? We thought they looked cool on him, and we wanted diversity.

Response recorded on June 29, 2010

Bookmark Link

TZ writes...

Tana writes...
You Asked:
"Does anyone know if "Maza" means "iron" in any Native American language or dialect?"

According to my book of names (it's got like 20,000 names and their meanings, which is totally cool, especially the Athurian names) Maza blaska, which is a Dakota name means "flat iron." So if it's one of those languages where the adjective comes after the subject, then Maza does infact mean Iron in Dakota. Which interestingly enough adds more irony since Dakota was an early choice for Demona's name. ^_^

And you know that J.R.R. Tolkien claimed that all of his novels were fact...you seen to have the same symptom with the Gargoyles.

Greg responds...
I'm not claiming they're fact so much as acknowledging that sometimes storytelling on this show just seems to click with history, existing legend and with dramatic necessity. It's a rare feeling, and I'm humbled by it. All I'm saying is it sometimes feels like the stories are true somehow somewhere, and all I'm doing is (imperfectly) tapping into them.

But I'm not actually delusional.

Ok, this is TZ now......

I was looking over the archives and was simply amazed by this response of yours, Greg. I have always felt that art (in all forms, from literature to sculptures to music) is discovered, not created. I subscribe to that theory because there are such famous examples of great work that endure for years, sometimes even centuries. Why would something like Michelangelo's David or Beethoven's 9th remain so popular through the ages? I think it's because those pieces already existed and were "discovered" by those artists, because certain works like theirs touch us so deeply. When one of us "finds" that piece of art, and shares it, it seems to strike something in all of us. I think creativity is God's alone, but I think He gives some of us a gift to find or tap into (as you've put it) something He's already created that reveals a great truth or lesson or feeling. Anyway, just a ramble of mine to share based on something I was amazed to see here. I'm not sure if I got my point across to others (I found it really hard to put this into words) but I think you get it. Thanks for "discovering" more great art for us all!

Greg responds...

You're welcome. Glad you get what I'm getting at, more or less.

Response recorded on May 13, 2010

Bookmark Link

RandomStan writes...

What animal noises and sound effects were used to make the gargoyle sounds, like when they roar, growl, sigh? Also for Bronx and gargoyle beasts as well? What sound was used for when the gargoyles would dig their claws into stone? That one sounds a bit familar, almost like popping bublbe wrap.

Greg responds...

I don't recall. Sorry. Been too long. And I was never at foley sessions anyway. Just the mixes, when the effects had already been created.

Response recorded on February 23, 2010

Bookmark Link

Landon Thomas writes...

Hi, I'm posting on Disney/Marvel Merger Day and I'm looking for some historical perspective. Someone in the comment room says "I recall Greg once saying that back in the 90s Disney was interested in buying Marvel, but instead decided to create their own universe with Gargoyles." I've found this on the New Olympians episode ramble:

"ORIGINS
Well, the Greek Myths of course. But that's not really what I'm talking about. As many of you know, The New Olympians was a concept -- originally created by Bob Kline -- that we began developing at Disney TV Animation even BEFORE Gargoyles. It was definitely a concept that evolved, but it was also a concept that we felt fit nicely into the Gargoyles Universe. So this episode was created as a backdoor pilot. At the time we had big plans for the Gargoyles Universe. Hopes that it would eventually evolve into Disney's equivalent of the Marvel or DC Universe. The World Tour expanded our Universe in many ways -- mostly for the sake of the Gargoyles series itself. But also to demonstrate that our universe had the "chops" to go the distance."

Could you elaborate?

1) Is it true that Disney considered buying Marvel in the 90s?

2) Did the Disney higher-ups want a Gargoyles Universe to rival Marvel/DCU, if briefly, or was that your idea?

3) How heady were the days of season 2? Was Gargoyles being positioned as a significant face of Disney? I remember the Anaheim Gargoyles baseball team memo is from around that time too.

Greg responds...

1. Yes.

2. It was my suggestion, but it was a suggestion that my bosses, including Michael Eisner liked. At least for one meeting.

3. They weren't all that heady. There was a lot of potential in the property, but the schedule was also both long and brutal, and we were still producing episodes into May of 1996, even though the season had premiered in September or October of 1995. By January it was pretty clear that reruns, preemptions, the O.J. Simpson trial and Power Rangers had combined to severely damage our momentum. In addition, the death of Frank Wells and the departures of Jeffrey Katzenberg, Rich Frank, Gary Krisel and Bruce Cranston, i.e. some of the people who had been such great backers of the property, hurt too. As did Eisner's decision to step back from the hands-on decision making he had done vis-a-vis Disney T.V. Animation. It left us quite at sea. New people came in who had no affinity for the property, long before we were even done producing Season Two.

Response recorded on January 22, 2010

Bookmark Link

Tonya writes...

Hi Greg! I was reading an earlier post of yours where you mentioned that it's harder to pitch original ideas (I'm guessing to networks, but maybe it's the same with comics, books, etc...?) now than it was when you originally pitched Gargoyles:

1. Why is it more difficult to pitch original ideas now than it was then? (I would think they'd be anxious for new concepts???)

2. What's probably the #1 thing that the people being pitched to are looking for?

3. Is a successful pitch sometimes tied to the person you are pitching to? (I mean, if you're pitching to one guy on Tuesday, but had you gone on say, Thursday and had a different guy, could the outcome of the pitch be different? I guess I mean do you depend on getting lucky with whomever you're scheduled to pitch to? And if not, can you ask to pitch to someone else?)

Thanks! I hope my questions were clear enough to get across what I'm trying to ask. I'm thinking of writing professionally (IF I'm any good) and wondered how hard it would be to "pitch". Thanks again! (Love your work by the way.)

Greg responds...

1. They're not. They're afraid of new concepts and would rather have something that's "proven" in some other medium or era. This, in my opinion, is a direct result of the vertical integration of these companies that makes the decision making process a long uphill struggle.

2. It differs all the time, but marquis value doesn't hurt.

3. Luck-of-the-draw and incidental timing are huge factors.

Response recorded on November 02, 2009


: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #109 - #118 of 536 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :