A Station Eight Fan Web Site
Is Achilles gay? Was/is he in a romantic relationship with Patroclus?
I would say so. But honestly, I'm not sure why you're asking me.
Since you've written for the character before, what are your thoughts on the MCU version of Spiderman, and what do you think makes a good Spiderman adaptation as a whole?
Generally speaking, I like the MCU Spider-Man. There's a lot to like. I like his youth and inexperience. I like his good intentions, not always backed up by his relatively inexperienced actions. I may have quibbles here and there, but they're relatively minor.
What "makes a good Spiderman adaptation as a whole?" Well, for starters, you definitely need a hyphen. It's Spider-Man, not Spiderman.
Beyond that, I think I've answered this question in great detail - over two seasons and twenty-six episodes: it's called THE SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN. That's my version of the best way to adapt the character. I'll let it speak for itself.
I'm attaching a ramble J. Michael Straczynski posted back in 1995 on usenet in response to a very negative reaction to even a hint at a same-sex tryst on an episode of "Babylon 5". The point of Greg Weisman posting this is not to get into a discussion of religion or LGBTQ+ issues. Or even to get into a discussion of "tolerance," which was a big buzzword in the 90s, but which, as I've stated before in many ways, I find insufficient. The point of me posting this is to show that just because SOME FANS don't like something doesn't mean EVERY FAN feels the same way. And so, be careful what you wish for, right? Because if people start telling creators what they can and can't put into their shows, you may not like what ELSE they remove.
See, here's where I start to have a problem. For starters, I don't do any thing to be politically correct, or politically incorrect, I do what I do in any story because that's what the story points me toward. Anybody who says "It's not necessary" isn't entitled to that judgement, frankly; you don't know what's necessary to the story. And by framing it in the "is this NECESSARY?" way is designed to make you defend your position when such defense isn't the point; is it NECESSARY to have humor? to have a romance? to have correct science? No, *nothing* is NECESSARY. It's what the writer feels is right for that scene, that story, that character.
"Oh, well, I saw it, but was all that violence NECESSARY?" This is, frankly, a BS observation usually offered by someone with an agenda, who wishes to invalidate the notion of an artistic view and impose some kind of quota, or objective criterion to what is and isn't necessary for a movie or film. As far as I'm concerned, the first person to throw this into a discussion has, frankly, just lost the argument.
Point the second: one of the most consistent comments I get, in email and regular mail, is the spirituality conveyed in the show, that we have shown, and will continue to show, tolerance toward religion, even created sympathetic religious characters. "Thank you for your tolerance," they say...until we show somebody or some action THEY don't like...and at that point suddenly it's a lot of tsk-tsking and chest thumping and disapproval; so okay, how about I just stop all positive religious aspects of the show?
It seems to me, that if I do *all that* with religion, and with thje (the) simple act of showing maybe ONE PERSON in all the long history of TV science fiction across 40 years has a different view of life, that the show is somehow degraded, or downgraded, or dropped in opinion...this simply reinforces the notion, held by many, that a lot of folks in the religious right wish to make sure no other perspective or lifestyle is ever shown on television, at any time, unless in a negative fashion.
The thing of it is, while on the one hand I'm getting praise from religious folks for addressing spirituality in my series (speaking here as an atheist), I've gotten flack from others who think it has no place in a SCIENCE fiction series, and why the hell am I putting something in that goes right against my own beliefs? "Because," I tell them, "this show is not about reflecting my beliefs, or yours, or somebody else's, it's about telling this story, about these people, with as much honesty and integrity as I can summon up. That means conceding the fact that religious people are going to be around 260 years from now." Well, fact is, all kinds of people are going to be around 260 years from now. And what did the anti-religion folks say specifically about including spirituality in my series? "It's not *necessary*," they said.
Translation: they didn't like it. Well, tough. It was right for this story, and this show. And it seems to me rather hypocritical for some folks, who applaud the show for tolerance, for my standing up to those who want to exclude religion from TV, to then turn around and say the show is diminished because it showed that same tolerance...to another group or perspective. I guess tolerance is only okay as long as it's pointed one way.
You say that as a christian, you think any sex except that between a husband and a wife to be wrong. Well, as I recall, the bible also speaks against murder. We've depicted deaths by the hundreds of thousands. (And we're talking here about the *depicting* of the act, simply showing it, not the value judgements made after the fact.) Why does the one (which is so barely hinted at as to be almost invisible) cause the show to be diminished where the other does not?
My job is not to reinforce your personal political, social or religious beliefs. My job is not to reinforce MY personal political, social or religious beliefs. Then it isn't art or storytelling anymore, it's simply propaganda. My job is to tell this story, about these people, AS people, as mixed and varied as they are today. And there is no outside objective criteria as to what is, or isn't *necessary* in a story; that is the sole province of the author. You may or may not like it. You may or may not choose to watch it. Just as people who don't like to see religion and god discussed on TV may dislike it or choose not to watch it.
But you'll excuse me if I see complaints about this one little thing from the religious side, after all I've done to present religious characters and the religious life in a positive fashion, to be hypocritical and frankly somewhat ungrateful. It's as though all this means nothing because of one thing, one outside-imposed litmus test that disregards anything and everything else that has been done.
So straight up...if I should stop tolerating or showing viewpoints that are not my own (spoken as someone who is absolutely straight), then should I now stop showing religion as well? Because that's what this comes down to. Is that what you want? Because religion is included at my discretion as well as anything else on this show. You want me to be less tolerant? Just say the word.
1: Has Lois won a pulitzer in universe?
2: How proud of you about the continued success of Kaldur'ahm? DC's Aquaman: The Becoming shows that he's become a mainstay of the DC universe
1. Hm. Not sure. I'd want to discuss that with Brandon.
2. I know I should just say, "It's great!" But iIs it fair to say I have mixed feelings? On the one hand, I feel like the Jake that's soon to star in his own show is two iterations removed from Kaldur (via Jackson), and that Brandon, Phil and I don't get the proper credit for creating what was the basis for the character. On the other hand, I'm glad that his reach is expanding on any level. It's a conundrum.
Have you by some chance seen or read "March Comes In Like A Lion"/"3-gatsu no Lion", somehow the storytelling in that is very reminiscent of your style of writing, if you have not I highly recommend you watch it.
I have not.
Hi Mr. Weisman, really love watching Phantoms and the fruits of your labor! I had a bit of a different question for you.
You said in the past that you were impressed with Avatar: The Last Airbender and you were planning on watching The Legend of Korra after.
1) What did you think about the sequel series? Particularly in relation to its predecessor?
2) I know you try to keep your own work original and you try to avoid taking outside ideas, but were there certain elements (story or character) from either Avatar:TLA or TLOK that you felt were interesting to use in your stories?
3) If you had an opportunity to work within that universe, would you craft a story with gambits that you're so famously known for or would you take a different direction than usual?
Thank you again. Young Justice and Avatar/Korra were large elements of my childhood and what stands out to me are the very strong themes, characters, and over-arching narrative. I feel pretty blessed to be part of a generation that could have not only enjoyed it but grew up with them as well.
1. I haven't watched it yet. I watched Avatar with my son. Now, he's all grow'd up and living 3,000 miles away, and we don't have the same kind of time to sit together and watch an entire series. Still would like to someday.
2. I actively try not to think that way.
3. That's such a massive hypothetical, I don't even know how to answer it.
Unrelated to the last one and thought I'd ask.
Are/were there any other series, beside Scooby Doo, that you explored/are curious about crossing into YJ from beyond DC (I assume if you are, say, in talks for Ben 10 x Young Justice you can't say)
Not sure how the legalese of that question works, as sometimes it feels like rights get lost in WB sometimes.
I can't think of anything, honestly. Doesn't mean some random idea wasn't tossed out at some point, and I've simply forgotten. But nothing's coming to mind.
Unless you count the just-for-fun Gargoyles/Spectacular Spider-Man/Young Justice crossovers I wrote for various radio plays at various conventions, all of which can be viewed on YouTube.
Hello! I was wondering if you ever watched Robert Kirkman's Invincible (2021) animated series? It's about superheroes and gave me the same vibes as Spectacular Spider-Man and Young Justice (just WAY gorier). I really enjoyed it, and one aspect of it that I absolutely loved was the longer episodes, running about forty-to-fifty minutes each. I know it's way above your pay-grade, but I was just curious, if you had the choice, would you want to extend your episodes to fifty-some minutes like Invincible? Or would you want to keep them a little over twenty minutes? Assuming of course you'd be able to still produce twenty to twenty-six episodes for each season, which Invincible didn't do at just eight episodes per the first season.
Anyways, Happy Halloween! I'm eagerly awaiting the next episode of YJ Phantoms! Artemis' arc is looking to be fantastic!
I haven't seen Invincible.
In some ways, I'd love to stop worrying about episode lengths entirely. But I'd still want the same quantity of episodes (or more). And budget is definitely a factor. It's been great on the last couple of seasons of YJ that if we have (within our budget) been freed from the constraints of a maximum length. But I don't feel like we've been hugely restricted by running between 22 and 27 minutes. Don't know that we need "fifty-some".
1. Do you consider yourself a fan of the horror genre?
2. I read on here that you watched the pilot of Penny Dreadful. What did you think of the show in its entirety, assuming you continued to watch it? Personally I thought it was one of the best shows of the 2010's.
3. Did you enjoy the FX show Legion?
1. Not particularly.
2. I liked it quite a bit until the last season, where I felt they were working REALLY hard to tie it all up and finish it. I also watched Penny Dreadful: City of Angels and wasn't as thrilled.
3. Most of it.
A couple of weeks ago or so, the comic strip "Sally Forth" had a scene where the family was discussing Halloween decorations for their house - and suggested gargoyles, but wanted to make them the ones from the "Disney nineties series". I thought it was a pleasant surprise for the show to get a casual allusion like that (and in the Comics Kingdom discussion section, a few posters had fond memories of the series; one particularly praised the voice actors).
That's nice. Sally Forth isn't in the Los Angeles Times anymore, so I missed that. Too bad.