A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Spectacular Spider-Man, The

Archive Index


: « First : « 250 : « 25 : Displaying #311 - #335 of 1206 records. : 25 » : 250 » : Last » :


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


Bookmark Link

Peter Parker writes...

Is spiderman the mole ??

Greg responds...

Really? You thought this was funny enough to clog the queue?

Response recorded on April 13, 2012

Bookmark Link

Greg Bishansky writes...

One of Tombstone's first lines of dialogue was "In my life I've been known by many names, my favorite is Tombstone." So... would his least favorite be "Lonnie?" ;)

In all seriousness, I have to agree that Lonnie is a pretty undignified first name for a character of the stature that you reinvented Tombstone into. But I did enjoy that his middle name was "Thompson" making one of Spidey's biggest enemies and Peter's nemesis at school both Thompsons.

Greg responds...

Well, it's my least favorite, anyway.

Response recorded on April 12, 2012

Bookmark Link

Akeem M. writes...

Hello Greg,
A couple questions about Emily Osborn's inclusion in the series (don't worry, nothing having to do with un executed plans)

Anyway, when asked about keeping Emily Osborn alive, aside from having plans for her later down the road, you also decided out of the three friends who had single parent households (Peter, Gwen, and Harry) Harry would be the one where it wasn't fundamental to his character compared to the others. One of Harry's biggest traits is his messed up relationship with his father. It was also said that Noman's disdain of Harry came from losing his wife in exchange for Harry. Would you say that in Spectacular Spider-Man that Harry's problems came from his messed up family life in general with Emily being alive? Basically Harry's issues aren't solely on Norman, but Emily as well (whether directly or indirectly).

Also, it's of course a given why Peter has a single parent household, however, when choosing out of the other two when it comes to who HAD to be in a single parent household, what stopped you from letting Gwen's mother still be alive? Does it mainly have to do with the fact that Capt. Stacy was going to live throughout the series run, but Norman was going to 'die'?

Also, would you say that Emily Osborn loves herself an extemely tough steak?

Greg responds...

1. Yes.

2. Gwen being her daddy's girl seemed fundamental to who she was.

3. I'm not getting this reference at the moment. Wasn't she cutting a carrot or something on screen?

Response recorded on April 12, 2012

Bookmark Link

Roy writes...

What is the name of Hammerhead's chauffeur?

Greg responds...

SPOILER REQUEST. NO COMMENT.

Response recorded on April 11, 2012

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

You have said in the past that if you were ever allowed to use guest appearances in spec spidey(if it had continued) there was a particular Hulk story you wanted to adapt. Was it the story from Amazing spider-man annual 3? If not which story was it?

Greg responds...

Did I say that? A particular story?

I don't recall saying that. I definitely wanted to adapt that era when Hulk was practically a force of nature - and a bit of a Bigfoot-style legend, with very few people absolutely knowing for certain that he existed.

Response recorded on April 11, 2012

Bookmark Link

Algernon writes...

Hey again, hopefully the queue hasn't become to full by now. Anyway, I remember asking you once if you'd ever be willing to post the TSSM series bible online. As I recall, you said you'd think about it.

Just wondering if you've given the idea any further thought?

Greg responds...

Well, Algernon, as I respond to this, there's over 800 questions in the queue. EIGHT HUNDRED!!!

And I haven't even gotten to the airing of YJ episode 119 yet.

Anyway, I'm open to posting the SpecSpidey Bible, but the problem is I don't have it here at Warner Bros (for obvious reasons). So I need to be reminded either when I'm home or at my office in Beverly Hills.

Response recorded on April 11, 2012

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

When Miss Martian defeats Psimon, we see his "pupil" crack into a web-shapped crack that resembles a black web. Was this an intentional nod to SSM?

Greg responds...

No.

Response recorded on March 08, 2012

Bookmark Link

Finister2 writes...

In the final shot of The Spectacular Spiderman, we see what appears to be Norman Osborn boarding a plane.

My question is: Was that really Norman Osborn or the Chameleon in disguise?

Greg responds...

It was Mr. Roman.

Response recorded on March 06, 2012

Bookmark Link

Laura 'ad astra' Sack writes...

I was wondering your opinion on the New 52. Not the execution, I have a hunch you don't have the time to read much of any of it, but the idea of it.

Although I have found a few books I really like, in general I object to heaving aside continuity and trying to rejam the history back into a too short time frame while wiping out character development. The idea of accessibility is a red herring because if they were capable of sticking to self contain arc inviting to new readers they wouldn't need a reboot to do so. Then again, I came into comics after Crisis on Infinite Earths and am conditioned into thinking it was necessary.

Greg responds...

As you noted, I have NOT had the time to read the New 52, so I will not comment on that specifically. Whether or not it works creatively depends more than anything else on execution. Since I haven't seen the execution, I can't respond to how it works creatively. But I KNOW that commercially it's been a HUGE hit. I like to believe that it wouldn't have done quite so well, if it wasn't executed well too.

But generally, on the idea of reboots, I do have a handful of thoughts:

1. I don't want to be a hypocrite. When we started Spectacular Spider-Man and again on Young Justice, we were effectively doing a continuity reboot. I feel when adapting something to a new media, that's essential, but it doesn't change the fact that (a) we did it and (b) I was relieved to be able to do it. Relieved to be able to jettison elements that I felt didn't work or were redundant or confusing, etc. Our goal, particularly on Spider-Man, was to come up with something Classic, Cohesive, Coherent, Contemporary and Iconic. So how can I object if the comics themselves want to do this?

2. In the end, whether or not either SpecSpidey or YJ was/is successful depends on our execution of our ideas, additions and cullings. I like to think both shows are successful, but that's a judgement each individual viewer would have to make for him or herself.

3. I was working on staff at DC Comics during the publication of the original Crisis on Infinite Earths. In fact, during my very first editorial meeting, I raised the question as to why we weren't starting ALL our books over (with the numerical exceptions of Detective and Action Comics) with issue #1. I remember very clearly a collective groan rising up from the conference room table. (They had dealt with this question for months before my arrival.) On the one hand, they wanted Crisis to be a real sea-change, a true reboot (before we knew that term). On the other hand, if you truly reboot Batman, then Robin doesn't exist yet. No Robin, no other sidekicks either. So no Teen Titans. And at the time, the New Teen Titans was the company's best selling book.

4. So the end result was that some things got rebooted and some did not.

5. This was complicated by the fact that certain creators came late to the party, and certain characters got reboots too long AFTER Crisis.

6. And so, as a READER, I couldn't help feeling that - rather than simplifying the continuity - Crisis made it more complicated. This will happen in general, naturally, as time passes and more and more comics are produced by a variety of creators and editors, but Crisis seemed to exacerbate the problem for me personally.

7. In part this was because, I really liked the DC Multiverse. I agree that it was abused to the point of confusion. (And I think it was nuts that Earth TWO had the forties heroes and Earth ONE had the sixties heroes. Just the odd backwards numbering itself created additional unnecessary confusion.) But if limits had been placed on the number of parallel earth stories and crossovers, I think it could have been fine.

8. ESPECIALLY, if they had created a new Earth-THREE, starting over with heroes of the eighties, with Superman and Batman (being new to the hero thing but) remaining relatively constant. But with a new Green Lantern (for example) as different from Hal Jordan as Jordan was from Alan Scott.

9. But that didn't happen. And in fact, though I've read very few comics since 1996, my understanding is that reboots have hit over and over at both DC and Marvel. That negates reader trust in the worth and weight of the stories they're reading. It's more insidious than obvious. And you risk alienating old readers, even as you may or may not attract new ones. You'll always get a short term gain off of a reboot, because everyone wants to check it out. But long term...

10. And going back to my first point - which is that most everything depends on execution - I personally didn't love the execution of some of the post-Crisis rebooting. Some people may have loved it. And that's totally legit. But some of the rethinking on certain individual characters didn't work too well for me.

11. Though personally I think the Bates-Weisman-Broderick reboot on Captain Atom from his Charlton incarnation was brilliant. ;)

12. So, personally, my feeling on reboots in general is that you either do them or you don't. You've got to be thorough and ruthless about it, or don't bother, because otherwise - long term - you're creating more problems than you're solving.

13. And still and all, ultimately, it all depends on execution.

Response recorded on February 15, 2012

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

Did mutants exist in the spider-man show?

Greg responds...

If you're talking Spectacular Spider-Man, then they might have if we had had more episodes and permission...

I definitely had plans for Cyclops, Beast and Professor X, at least. Iceman too. Heck, maybe Firestar, eventually.

Response recorded on February 14, 2012

Bookmark Link

Ronnie L. writes...

Have you considered pitching Religious Studies 101 as a one-shot, now that Disney and Marvel are one and the same?

Greg responds...

No. It would be impossible, even if I liked the idea (which I'm not sure I do).

See my recent post on why SpecSpidey went away for an explanation why Marvel/Disney couldn't use SpecSpidey materials.

Response recorded on February 09, 2012

Bookmark Link

PEJ writes...

Hey, Gregory,
I really REALLY want the Spectacular Spiderman series to continue. I want to see what happens next. Is there anything you can do to help it come back?

Greg responds...

Nope. Wish I could, but I can't. See my previous response.

Response recorded on February 09, 2012

Bookmark Link

Michael J. Eilen writes...

Hey greg, my name is Michael. I was a huge fan of your spectacular spiderman series. And I'm not sure if you're gonna know the answer to my question or not, but I'm just gonna shoot for it. Question: Do you have any idea why Marvel canceled it? I mean, both season 1 and 2 had decent reviews and many fans liked it. So, I gotta ask,Do you have any idea why Marvel made that decision.

Greg responds...

Marvel DIDN'T cancel it.

It's all very complicated, and we were certainly the recipients of bad corporate luck, but no single company cancelled the series. We just wound up with a situation where no single company could proceed with it.

I'll try to break it all down:

1. Sony had originally produced SpecSpidey as part of their overall entertainment license of the Spidey property (which of course included the extremely lucrative live action films).

2. But in order to win some concession on those live action feature films, Sony returned the animation rights to the character back to Marvel.

3. So now only Marvel could produce a Spider-Man cartoon. Sony no longer could, which meant SpecSpidey couldn't continue at Sony.

4. I have no idea whether Marvel was interested in continuing Spectacular Spider-Man or not. But let's assume for the sake of argument that they would have liked to.

5. They couldn't.

6. Why? Because Sony owned all the specific elements (designs, storyline, etc.) to the SpecSpidey VERSION of Spider-Man. So Marvel would have had to license all that BACK from Sony.

7. You can imagine how unlikely THAT scenario was. Marvel finally gets the rights back to do an animated version of their marquee character, and then they have to pay Sony to do it instead of just starting from scratch. That was never going to happen.

8. Of course, all this was complicated by the fact that Disney purchased Marvel, and Disney and Sony are direct competitors.

9. And I'm sure Marvel was excited to put their own stamp on an animated Spider-Man. Who could blame them?

10. So that was it. We were toast through no fault of our own. The folks at Marvel, Sony and even Disney all seemed to like our show, but the corporate mess made it impossible for us to continue.

11. And, yes, it is a bummer. (For me, at least.) But it's no single person or single company's fault. It's just how things shook out.

12. And finally, though I have no involvement with the upcoming Ultimate Spider-Man, you can't deny that a lot of great people have worked on it. There's no reason to think it won't be as good or better than SpecSpidey. To a certain generation, SpecSpidey will always be THEIR Spider-Man cartoon. But to a new batch o' viewers, I'm sure their Spidey of choice will be the Ultimate.

Response recorded on February 09, 2012

Bookmark Link

Eagle-Owl writes...

Have you seen the trailer for Ultimate Spider-Man? I'm asking because it looks horrible. I mean seriously, a Spider-toaster?!? I miss Spectacular Spider-Man. You know better than to give us Spider-toasters.

Greg responds...

I haven't seen it. So I don't know what you're talking about.

But I'm not opposed to Spider-Toasters on principle.

I miss Spectacular Spider-Man too, but I wouldn't count Ultimate out. There are some great people working on it.

Response recorded on January 20, 2012

Bookmark Link

Greg Bishansky writes...

Thank you for your informative reply on my Betty Brant post. Now, and this is a question I've been pondering for a while, how did you go about your approach to Aunt May?

I love Stan Lee's run on Spidey, but this is one of the few cases where I have to admit that I greatly preferred other writers' takes on the character. Stan's Aunt May was constantly in and out of the hospital... and constantly, dimwitted. I preferred Roger Stern, Tom DeFalco, J.M. DeMatteis, and J. Michael Straczynski's takes on the character.

I can forgive and understand her being overprotective. It's been mentioned later that she had lost a child, and Ben's death was just as traumatic for her as it was for Peter. But what always seemed unreasonable for me was how she thought Dr. Octopus was a good and nice man. She didn't realize that she was being held hostage, that he was a dangerous supervillain, or even that he had these giant metal arms attached to him. And then there was the story where she took him on as a border. I'm not even going to get into that weird story where she almost married him... but that wasn't Stan, that was Gerry Conway.

Your Aunt May, while being protective of Peter, wasn't overprotective to the point of absurdity. And one of my favorite Aunt May scenes was in "Group Therapy" where she stood up to the entire Sinister Six to prevent them from attacking Spidey. And Ock's almost gentlemanly approach insisting that she step aside was, I think, a nice nod to Ock liking her in the comics. I also loved that she never referred to Spidey as "that awful Spider-Man!"

So, what did you think was the core truth of Aunt May? How did you go about interpreting her in your show?

Greg responds...

Our May Parker was a single parent due to a couple of horrible tragedies. That informed how she behaved both in her own life and toward Peter.

We leaned toward making her a little more savvy... but also somewhat unprepared. Uncle Ben did not leave her in a great financial position. (Because if he did, why would Peter constantly need money?) We kept a bit of her naivete, but tossed in some inner strength and acuity, especially when it came to Peter's love life. She could take action (or give solid advice) - not just relative to the Sinister SIx, but more relevantly when it came to some of the ladies in Peter's life: Betty Brant, Mary Jane Watson, Liz Allen and Gwen Stacy.

She wasn't a young woman - certainly older than the parents of most of Pete's friends - but we didn't want to make her ancient. And we figured one trip to the hospital was plenty, i.e. once she had one heart attack, she would begin to take better care of herself.

And since she was always a great cook, we figured she'd build on that when she needed money, which gave us the cookbook that she authored.

Her life did revolve around Peter but wasn't exclusively his. So she had her friend and her theater and her cooking and her work, etc. We just tried to make her a fully realized character.

And... I should give a TON of credit to DEBORAH STRANG (as directed by Jamie Thomason), for truly bringing May to life. Couldn't have done it without her.

Response recorded on December 13, 2011

Bookmark Link

Eagle-Owl writes...

I don't know if this would count as spoiler request (please tell me if it is), but had The Spectacular Spider-Man continued and had Pete looking at different colleges, what other colleges (aside from ESU) would he have looked at?

Greg responds...

I don't know. He'd have wound up at ESU though.

Response recorded on December 12, 2011

Bookmark Link

Patrick writes...

Hello, Mr. Weisman! I'd first like to say that I'm a big fan, and I'm thankful that you take the time to answer all of these questions despite how frustrating it must get at times.

Since I can't think of a non-spoilerific YJ question, here's a Spectacular Spider-man related one: In "Reactions," why did Green Goblin try to kill Otto? Did he know that he was creating another supervillain?

Greg responds...

No, he thought he was getting rid of a witness and weak link.

Response recorded on December 12, 2011

Bookmark Link

Greg Bishansky writes...

Out of curiosity, how old was Silver Sable in season two of "Spectacular Spider-Man." She doesn't seem older than thirty... I'm just curious, because if Hammerhead worked for her dad before he went to prison, twelve years prior was she above the age of consent when they had a relationship?

Greg responds...

I don't think so. Which is part of the reason Hammerhead (1) now has a new skull and (2) why he no longer is working for Silvermane.

Response recorded on November 17, 2011

Bookmark Link

MasterGandalf writes...

Quick Spec Spidey question- is Silver Sable an albino? I was just wondering because in addition to her white hair, her skin's notably paler than anybody else's (except for Tombstone, who of course *is* albino) and her eyes are an odd pale violet. Not a huge question, I know, but I was just curious.

Greg responds...

I don't think so. And is her hair truly white or platinum blonde?

Response recorded on November 17, 2011

Bookmark Link

Antiyonder writes...

Rewatched The Spectacular Spider-Man Season 2 this year, and I have to say that Growing Pains after several more viewings has really grown on me, especially having read many "Spider-Man has been framed" stories.

Now of course whenever said frame up occurs, Peter tends to recall them. But New Yorkers (whether they are civilains or fellow heroes) barely seem to recall that someone like the Chameleon or Mysterio posed as Spider-Man before.

Growing Pains on the other hand takes the more plausible route of having someone question whether Spidey's gone bad. Captain Stacy's comment towards Jonah sums it up: "This isn't the first time that the Bugle got it wrong when a copycat dressed up as the webslinger. Now do you really want to embarrass yourself and your paper! Again?"

Greg responds...

Thanks. We tried as much as possible to play the world consistently and let the many points of view there be voiced.

Response recorded on November 15, 2011

Bookmark Link

Harlan Phoenix writes...

Though I know your mind isn't the kind to play favorites, but given how you acknowledge The Mirror as your favorite/the best episode of Gargoyles, I think this might be able to fly.

Do you have any particular episodes of WITCH or The Spectacular Spider-Man that, if it wasn't your favorite necessarily, you felt was the best of those shows? And for what reasons, if so?

Greg responds...

At the moment, I can't think of just one for either series. But it's been a while since I've watched them.

Response recorded on October 31, 2011

Bookmark Link

Greg Bishansky writes...

I realize you're still not keen on revealing future plot points for what would have been season three and beyond of "Spectacular Spider-Man." But this question is about the first two seasons, although if the answer ever came, it would have been later. Which I guess places this in a murky gray area. Anyway, because I've been dying to know...

During the two seasons of the show, did Mary Jane Watson know Peter Parker is Spider-Man? In the comics, she knew since the night Uncle Ben died, so I ask if this was the case in "Spectacular Spider-Man" as well. A lot of her behavior towards Peter seems to point towards this.

Greg responds...

NO COMMENT.

Response recorded on October 27, 2011

Bookmark Link

Matthew writes...

This is about pretty much all the series you've worked on. I've noticed that most of your series has a large cast of recurring characters (and that despite this characters tend to be very well delineated.) Now for Young Justice, WITCH, and Spectacular Spiderman that may be just because they were pre-existing properties and already have large casts. However, Gargoyles also had a large cast.

Was this a because of conscious choice?

Do you perfer working with a large cast of characters?

Greg responds...

I do. I like creating worlds that feel real and populated.

Response recorded on October 12, 2011

Bookmark Link

Greg Bishansky writes...

Another Spidey question. This one is both Spectacular related, and about your Amazing Spider-Man back-up story.

When you wrote and produced "Spectacular Spider-Man," you tried to get to the core truths of who each and every character was. Well, I need to ask you about who Betty Brant was in your series. We've never seen much of her besides Peter trying to ask her to the Fall Formal, and Ned asking her out on a date. She didn't even have a single line of dialogue in the entire second season.

I ask, because in the comics, and this is something that often seems forgotten by most people, Betty Brant is a pretty horrible human being. It's not something I was even really conscious of until my friend, Josh Bertone, started writing a series of articles documenting the history of this character.

She was pretty bipolar when she dated Peter. Constantly flipping out at him if he so much as glanced at Liz Allan, or another human being who lacked a penis. And then, turning around and playing around with both him and Ned Leeds.

She later married Ned and then abandoned him on their honeymoon. Had a one-night stand with Peter, and was later on having an affair with Flash Thompson that lasted for months and months. Which was driving Ned nuts, although, his brainwashing at the hands of the Hobgoblin arguably made things worse. But the affair started well before this Hobgoblin business. Hell, she had the nerve to ask him if their marriage meant anything to him as he was walking out on her, and he replied with "more than it means to you" and he was right.

Of course, Betty now blames the Hobgoblin for all of her marriage's problems and never once really acknowledged any wrongdoing on her part. It's almost Demona-esque how neatly she's able to deflect any feelings of guilt.

And finally, there was Betty's appearance in the back-up story for Flash Thompson that you wrote (loved that story), and when Betty first sees Sha Shan, she is mad. I think I'll quote my friend Bertone, who said it better than I could:

"The icicle speech balloons are a cool callback to the Ditko days but take a look at that scene again. Betty isn’t responding to Sha Shan…Betty starts it! Betty doesn’t greet Sha Shan with an apology or any remorse. No! She’s mad at Sha Shan! Why? What did Sha Shan do to her? It’s not like they had a Betty/Veronica relationship. Betty stole Sha Shan’s man! Sha Shan has a right to be mad! Betty doesn’t!

"Betty Brant is the only woman who will have an affair with your boyfriend and then somehow be mad at you as if she was the victim. What a horrible person."

The above isn't a criticism of the story, or how you used Betty. It's a criticism of Betty as a person.

So, I have to ask. Would your interpretation of Betty, had the series gotten more in depth with her have been this terrible, awful individual? In the comics, she makes Sally Avril look as cool and fun to be with as Mary Jane by comparison! If so, I'd say Peter dodged a major bullet there, when Aunt May put a stop to this in "The Invisible Hand." Come to think of it, May never liked Betty in the Lee/Ditko run either. Betty is definitely not the girl you bring home to meet mom.

Greg responds...

I think the thing to keep in mind about ANY character in a shared corporate universe is that multiple writers, editors and artists have had at him or her, with different agendas - often agendas that had little to do with the character him or herself - and more to do with how that character plays with, in this case, Spider-Man/Peter Parker.

Me, I'm fond of Betty. Probably originates with her being THE girl in the 1960s Spider-Man cartoon. I clearly like her more than either you or Bertone, but I haven't tracked each and every appearance. I just try to get to the heart of who I think she is. To me, in the Lee/Ditko era, she was a high school age girl who dropped out to work, because she had to. So she wasn't mature, but she was extremely competent. One of the few human beings who could handle J. Jonah Jameson. That to me is the fundamental TRUTH of her character. Anyone who can hold her own with Jameson and put up with his... crap, has to have something solid in her. The fact that Lee/Ditko occasionally played her as a jealous harridan ... seems more indicative of the tropes of romance comics of the day than with anything inherent in who she was. And what other writers did with her in the post Lee/Romita era (after she had already been reduced to the fourth or fifth most important non-Aunt May girl in Peter's life) carries even less weight with me.

Is that selective on my part? Damn straight! But we were always selective on SpecSpidey. Had to be. Too much inconsistencies in the canon for us to do otherwise.

So, what did we decide?

Well, first of all, we wanted a sixteen year old Peter, as he was in the early days of Lee/Ditko. But no one's going to buy - in a modern context - a sixteen year old Betty working full-time for Jonah. So we made her nineteen or twenty (can't remember, but something like that). So we gave a nod to the original Betty/Pete relationship, but as you saw made it awkward because of an age gap that would be insignificant in ten years (at age 26 and 29) but is just too wide at 16 and 19. We had fun with that. But we also started to build the Betty/Ned relationship too. We did have a couple Betty/Ned scenes written and recorded for Season Two, but they wound up getting cut for time before being animated... mostly because (a) we were long and (b) they were scenes we could sacrifice. Ned and Ned's relationship to Betty would have been important in season three, and we wanted to set it up, lay some pipe, etc. But there were always things we needed for Season TWO that were more important. So we figured we'd worry about Season Three if and when we got there. And of course we never did.

As for that one Betty and Sha Shan scene in the comic, I think you're overthinking it. The two are both cold to each other. They have an unpleasant history. No one's apologizing. No one's asking for an apology at this point. Neither "started it". Looks must have come before words. And looks said it all. The words were simply the "icing" (pun intended) on the cake.

Personally, I can't see Betty with Flash long term... though I guess that's the longest relationship she's ever had - mostly by default. Now, I see them as good friends. Maybe occasionally friends with benefits, but these two are never going to be much more than that in my mind.

Of course, to me the perfect girl for Flash was always Sha Shan. (Someone who could kick his ass - at least figuratively, if not literally.) So what do I know...

Response recorded on September 29, 2011

Bookmark Link

Zeke Hero writes...

Greg,

First of all, I'd like to say I'm a huge fan of your work since Gargoyles made my young mind snap from "short attention span" to "give me more character-driven serial fiction!" during the Disney Afternoon days (jeez, I'm old...). When I heard you were doing Spectacular Spider-Man, I knew I was going to be in for a treat and while the show only got two seasons, DAMN were they exactly what I needed out of a Spider-Man show.

I've read the questions posted and have sat here making sure I won't ask an *eye-roll*-worthy one or something that will inspire the "no comment"-of doom, so here goes:

Gargoyles and Young Justice both have a family quality to the teams of characters that are our protagonists. We're introduced to a small band of 6-7 heroes by the writers and over the course of adventure after adventure we the viewer comes to feel as much as a part of that "family" as they do with each other. My question is (and I am in NO WAY fishing for spoilers or hints or what have you) what are your feelings on shows that expand these bases down the line? I remember, for example, that when Avatar added Toph her initial episodes didn't seem to gel with the audience I was viewing the show with and it felt like (to us) that the character didn't fit into a narrative we'd become accustomed to, yet by the end of the season (and this was our fault for not trusting the writers), Toph was a great piece of a larger cast that grew organically. Do you feel that adding, say, Angela as a new member of the Gargoyle family can hurt the narrative established with an audience burned time after time by artificial 90's cartoon storylines or does the idea of getting to add, say, the Wonder Twins (again, not fishing hence why I use these guys) offer up an opportunity to you as a writer for a left turn in the plot that you get to have a "trust us, we know what we're doing" stance with your audience?

(man that was a huge run-on senence...)

second question

When you and Brandon were mapping out the season (I saw the great behind the scenes video from SDCC), what was the best ah-ha moment (related to something we've already seen, not a spoiler or fishing trip) that you as a team came up with? Mostly I'm just looking for an anecdote about working as a team, you could even be vague and pronouny.

Third and final quesiton

You've now gotten to work on Marvel's Spider-verse, and the entire DC universe. I've noticed that in both cases you've gotten to go your own way on certain characters you've gotten to use (e.g. Silver Sable was a villain on Spider-Man with a relationship to Silvermane). Which comes first in cases where this occurs? Do you riff on story ideas and go, "we need a psychic badass" and then go, "let's use Psimon, but let's tweak him a little" or do you (or someone on the team) say, "Man, we REALLY need to use Abra Kadabra and I think I know how we could do that!" Since both shows have shown you dipping into a huge pool of characters, what about a character makes them a "semi-blank canvas" character that you can take as an opportunity to fit within your storybeats versus a character that you feel is fully-formed and just needs an artistic tweak to fit your plot?

Again, thank you so much for this board, your time, and this show. You've contributed so much to quality animation and, I hope you see the compliment here, but when I and my friends push Gargoyles on to newbies, we usually describe it as, "It's like the Wire, but with Shakespere, monsters, and the NYPD"

Greg responds...

1. I don't see how expanding the cast ORGANICALLY hurts the narrative.

2. I don't know that we had a single "Ah ha!" moment on YJ. But when things are working, they just begin to come together.

3. We've worked it from both directions. Ultimately, we ALWAYS try to be true to the spirit of the character - though sometimes we are intentionally introducing the character at a pre-classic stage. Silver Sable is a perfect example. We had long term plans for her that would have eventually brought her closer to the Sable from the comics. But we liked this backstory for her - and connecting her to Silvermane helped preserve the coherence of our universe.

Response recorded on August 09, 2011


: « First : « 250 : « 25 : Displaying #311 - #335 of 1206 records. : 25 » : 250 » : Last » :