A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Biz, The

Archive Index


: « First : « 10 : Displaying #79 - #88 of 154 records. : 10 » : Last » :


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


Bookmark Link

Marc G. writes...

Is there a list online somewhere of all the overseas animation studios used for Gargoyles, by episode? It's frustrating because the credits always just listed "Walt Disney Television Animation".
Also, a related question: did you have control over which scripts were sent to which studios? Or was it purely dictated by scheduling and budgetary concerns?
Thanks!

Greg responds...

I don't have a list. Most of the first season was animated at Walt Disney Television Animation Japan, though I seem to recall that a couple were subcontracted out to Korea.

Season Two featured some eps by WDTVAJ, plus more from Korea (such as Hanho). But I can't remember who did what.

Scheduling tended to dictate what studio got what episode, but we did make an effort to make sure that "Bushido" went to Japan.

Response recorded on January 12, 2011

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

I heard that Young Justice's premiere was viewed by over 2.5 million people which apparently is very good. I dont know what numbers for channels like Cartoon Network are usually like, can you kinda explain how good that number is?

Greg responds...

In this day and age, it's GOOD.

Response recorded on December 27, 2010

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

Richard Jackson writes...

Hi Greg,

I saw in the archives how you've answered how long it takes to create a single episode (8 to 10 months). I'm curious how long it takes to write an episode or how long you give your writers to turn in a script after you've given them the story.

Greg responds...

I try to give them at least two weeks to write the script based on an approved outline. More if I can.

Response recorded on December 03, 2010

Bookmark Link

Algernon writes...

Hey again Greg,
You once said that while you were working at Sony, you and Victor Cook tried to get Sony interested in doing a Ghost Rider series. Now the impression I got was that the "Powers That Be" weren't interested and the concept never got far beyond the "I just had a neat idea" stage, so I understand if you didn't draw out some big five season master plan about how you'd handle the series.

But I was just wondering if you'd given any thought to how you would have dealt with a lot of the S&P challenges that related to the character. Mainly that both GR himself and a good chunk of his rogues gallery are literal demons from Hell. Is America ready for a superhero cartoon where the Big Bad is Satan?

Greg responds...

I would have crossed that hellbridge when I came to it.

Response recorded on December 01, 2010

Bookmark Link

Mike W. writes...

Hi Greg,

First, let me briefly state that Gargoyles remains among the best animated series IMO of all time. I particularly appreciated the classical and Shakespearean references, I'm not sure I would have been as big a fan of Shakespeare in school and today, were it not for Gargoyles. That being said, the animated shows today lack the originality, narrative, and cutting edge that shows like Gargoyles, Real Ghostbusters, Batman, and even Duck Tales had, which is a real shame. Instead, today's cartoon for adults and kids, fail to have any purpose to them, and seem to have deevolved to the level of entertainment for 5 year olds. The only ones in past decade worth viewing have been Justice League and Boondocks.

My question involves trying to connect the 'Golden Age' of cartoons in 80's and early 90s, with today. I'm looking forward to your new series, and had a thought. I know that Mike Reaves worked with Gargoyles, as well as other cartoons, such as Ghostbusters and Dungeons and Dragons. While Gargoyles got a proper sendoff with Hunters Moon, there was never a finale for the short, Dungeons and Dragons cartoon, even though it was still popular and in syndication over a decade later, with only a dozen episodes. However, there was a screenplay finale done by Reaves, just not animated. What about in your or your production's free time, with Mike Reave's approval, you animate the finale of Reaves' screenplay, providing a link to your new series, which will remind the fans of cartoons of the serious narrative medium that cartoons used to be, that your cartoon series will have that 'edge' and give free publicity with many views (likely viral views) about your new series when people watch the link to the finale that was never done for a famous cartoon from the 1980's? It sounds like a good idea, which is why I am suggesting it.

Greg responds...

Well, let me begin by RABIDLY DISAGREEING with your statement about today's cartoons. Some suck. Some are great. I'm proud as hell of the work I did on W.I.T.C.H., Spectacular Spider-Man and Young Justice, and there's no way I would pretend that I'm the only guy out there doing great work. I think Brave and the Bold is a TON of fun for both adults and kids. I thought Kim Possible was great. And I barely worked on either of those two series. And Avatar (which I never worked on) also seems great and rich. And that's just off the top of my head.

Your definition of "Golden Age" seems to have more to do with you than history.

As for your D&D idea, you just seem to have NO idea about the way the business works. I couldn't do what your asking even if it was my fondest wish in the world. Believe me, if I had that kind of power, don't you think I'd be doing more Gargoyles?

None of this stuff is up to guys like me or Michael. Different companies own the rights to different series, and most are uninterested in spending money on the kind of thing you're suggesting.

Response recorded on December 01, 2010

Bookmark Link

Comic Fan writes...

Do you have a premeire party when the shows you work premeire on TV?

Greg responds...

Depends on the studio.

Response recorded on October 22, 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

jacques agent jr writes...

dear greg weisman i wont ask what i really wanted too ask because too be honest i wanted too suggest a idea. i got something big in mind that i would love too see or even be apart of as far as gargoyles go. also i am a aspiring actor. i really dont have any expierince but i still would like too know how would i be able too be apart of your work. please email me back at agentjacques@yahoo.com i look forward too hearing from you.

Greg responds...

<sigh>

As I've stated MANY times before, I do not respond to personal e-mails. If I did it once, everyone would expect me to do it, and that just isn't practical. Also, if you read the guidelines for this site, you'll see that appeals for work are not appropriate to this forum.

If you want some general advice on how to break into the business, that's one thing. Otherwise...

Response recorded on September 15, 2010

Bookmark Link

Greg Bishansky writes...

I wrote this blog entry up a few months back, and I thought I'd share it with you. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the matter:

Ever since Disney bought Marvel, people have been asking Greg Weisman if he has any interest in integrating the "Gargoyles Universe" (which would be the first sixty-five episodes of the series, and the two SLG comic series "Gargoyles" and "Gargoyles: Bad Guys") into the Marvel Universe, and Weisman keeps saying no. Yet people keep asking him.

I love "Gargoyles" and I love the "Marvel Universe." I love "Gargoyles" more, and I'm not afraid to say it. But this is a terrible idea, and I'm going to talk about why it's a terrible idea.

First of all, the two universes are pretty incompatible. Time travel works differently in both universe for one. In "Gargoyles" you cannot alter history, and that series is so much better for it. If it were a part of Marvel, it would be too easy for Goliath to, let's say, go back in time and prevent the massacre of his clan back in 994 Scotland.

I suppose you could retcon away those Marvel time travel stories like "Age of Apocalypse" and "Days of Future Past." While I would not mind that, it wouldn't be fair to the fans and creators of those stories.

Second, while I have no doubt the existence of gargoyles would be shocking to the people of the Marvel Universe, it wouldn't have the same impact it should. Not in a world where mutants, super-beings, Atlanteans, Inhumans, Eternals, Norse gods, and Fin Fang Foom are already known to exist with Galactus stopping by every other Tuesday.

Third, okay, Marvel's Odin is now a Child of Oberon, as are the Asgardians. Okay... how well do you think that's going to go over with the fans of Jack Kirby's Thor who have been reading it for nearly fifty years now? Hell, there are still some people who are uneasy about Odin being subject to Oberon in "Gargoyles." I'm not one of those people, but I understand where they're coming from.

Now, I know some people are bound to mention the NON-CANON Radio Play from the 2009 Gathering, that was a crossover between "Gargoyles" and "The Spectacular Spider-Man," so let's get this out of the way. That wasn't actually the Marvel Universe. It was a re-imagined, and stream-lined version of it. It also helped that both shows were created or developed by Greg Weisman. It was a lot of fun, and I enjoyed it, but I don't think anyone wants this to be a regular, or even a recurring occurrence. I think it worked well as a pandering love letter to fans of both franchises, and the voice actors who brought these characters to life.

Finally, and perhaps most important, the Marvel Universe is not really going anywhere. It is very cyclical. Things come, things go, status quos change and are restored. Spider-Man is married for twenty years, then he is single again. Magneto reforms, then is a villain again, then reforms, etc, etc.

For example, I respect a lot of what Joe Quesada has done for Marvel. However, the notion of him having any kind of creative influence over "Gargoyles" scares me. "Goliath and Elisa were more interesting before they finally declared their love and got together. The core of it was always impossible love, so now we have to split them up." You know it would happen.

"The Gargoyles Universe" is going somewhere, even if we're currently not getting any new fiction, it was always evolving. Never going backwards, but moving forwards. It was an evolving tapestry, and change was constant. Marvel, on the other hand, lives and breathes on the illusion of change, while actual change is non-existent. Death is meaningless. Characters don't age, and the status quo may shake up on occasion, but it is always eventually restored.

The Marvel Universe was built by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and Steve Ditko, and maintained by many very talented and creative people acting as custodians of that work. But, for better or worse, it is a soup with hundreds of cooks. Many great chefs, and more than a few fast food fry cooks.

"Gargoyles" was co-created by Greg Weisman, and while he had a lot of help, he was the only co-creator, and the one who never stopped working on it. He was the first author of "Gargoyles" and more than likely he will be the last author of "Gargoyles." For the better. We saw "Gargoyles" without Greg Weisman, and it was nothing good.

Both universes have their place, but you couldn't merge them without one of them being significantly altered in the process. Now, I will admit my bias again and say that I wish the "Marvel Universe" was more like the "Gargoyles Universe" but, there's no real point. It's been around for nearly five decades (over seven if you want to talk about Timely Comics), and it's not going to change. As I've made clear, I think that's kind of the problem, but an understandable one given the nature of Marvel Comics. DC too, for that matter.

Now, I realize a lot of the above makes it look like I'm saying "Gargoyles" is great and Marvel is awful, but I don't feel that way at all. I just don't think such a thing would work without one of the universes suffering for it.

Greg responds...

I agree.

The Radio Play was a ... lark, a goof. But even if we were ONLY talking about the Spectacular Universe merging with Gargoyles, I'd be opposed.

Response recorded on August 18, 2010


: « First : « 10 : Displaying #79 - #88 of 154 records. : 10 » : Last » :