A Station Eight Fan Web Site
Ask Greg Archives
Spectacular Spider-Man, The
Archive Index
: « First : « 250 : « 25 : Displaying #306 - #330 of 1206 records. : 25 » : 250 » : Last » :
Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :
Zach Baker writes...
Hey Greg!
I recently saw this line from an interview with Steven Bochco in the early 80's, talking about Hill Street Blues (which currently has its first two-and-a-half seasons on Hulu Plus, by the way):
"Maybe the biggest problem with Hill Street, in terms of popular success, is that it is a show that demands to be watched. And most people do not watch television. They simply are in its presence."
I love that quote. What an insightful way to encapsulate about what was essential and great about Hill Street Blues, without going into all the details of what made it so outstanding. Just leave at this: unlike nearly anything before it, in many ways it was a show that demanded to be watched. I think that characteristic also applies to Gargoyles as well, no doubt due to the major influence Hill Street Blues had on the show (as you've often mentioned).
Nowadays, that quality, of being a show that "demands to be watched," is characteristic of so many excellent shows that appear on HBO, Showtime or AMC (before hitting DVD boxsets and iTunes), places where popular success isn't the one and only yardstick. And again and again, we've seen how this kind of series can flourish in the atmosphere of creative freedom offered by these outlets.
Can viewers hope that someday soon, that kind of environment will produce an animated serial drama that has the same level of quality, complexity and acclaim as these channels' current headline series? If so, what might it take for that to happen?
Greg responds...
Hey, Zach. Long time no see. I'd heard that quotation about Hill Street before, and couldn't agree more.
I appreciate you think Gargoyles falls in the same category. It's flattering and certainly what we strived for. I don't pretend that we were as good as Hill Street Blues, but no one can accuse us of not going for it.
As to your question, I like to think that W.I.T.C.H., Spectacular Spider-Man, Young Justice and Young Justice: Invasion also qualify. At least at Gargoyles' level. So I think it's already possible. But that's just my - apparently not so - humble opinion.
SIGNING ON FCBD
SIGNING ON FCBD
This Saturday, May 5th, 2012 is FREE COMIC BOOK DAY. (It's also the premiere of YOUNG JUSTICE: INVASION's second episode, "Earthlings", on Cartoon Network.) Victor Cook and I will be signing copies of issue #1 of MECHA-NATION (and whatever else gets stuck in front of us) at MELTDOWN COMICS from 12 noon to 2 pm.
Meltdown Comics
7522 Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA. 90046
http://www.meltcomics.com/blog/
So if you're in the neighborhood of Los Angeles, come on down. Check out the Mecha-Nation. We've completely finished the final issues of the mini-series, which will see print in time for ComicCon this summer in San Diego. (Mecha-Nation was created by Vic, developed by Vic, Greg Guler and myself, written by me, illustrated by Antonio Campo and published by Ape/Kizoic.) We're very excited to finally get this great project out to everyone. So stop by and take a peek. You can harass me about the time-skip (but please keep the language clean). Or you can just say hi. Plus, hey, Vic Cook!! The SpecSpidey partners together again!
Hope to see you there!
Fluttershy writes...
Hey greg what's up I would love to ask you a questions regarding your story telling techniques
You have said in the past that you could go be telling stories forever if you wanted and in fact sometimes not even the tv show is enough for them hence the comics.
But have you ever considered in giving your characters and stories a Grand finale?.
I think something that has made me a bit sad is that in your past shows you have been cut short due to executive decitions out of your control and we have been unable to get anything resembling an ending that actually gives closure (w.i.t.c.h,Spectacular spiderman, gargoyles etc)
However it is always nice when a tv show character directly says goodbye to te audience(like batman the brave and the bold) or when every major plot point is solved at the end.
A big trait of western media in it's majority like tv shows and specially comics is that the characters "are frozen in time".
Spiderman for instance will always be a young man that fights crime and the story won't go beyond that,same for superman and batman. When the story gets after a certain point we as fans tend to get reboots reapeaing the smae story.
I would like to ask you if given the chance will you give us a finale to your works like gargoyles.
Will we ever see the closure of them?
Do you believe in "grand finales"?
Or do you want simply to never give them a real ending o your shows and simply give the idea that the story will be around forever?
Greg responds...
Yeah, I'm not so much into Grand Finales. Probably why I'm more of a television or comic book guy than a movie or graphic novel guy. I believe (whole-heartedly) in the on-going story. That's what LIFE feels like to me.
Gargoyles is a perfect example. Characters come; characters go and some even die, but the world goes on. I even know (but don't ask) how Goliath dies, but I don't see it as the end of that world. It's only A FINALE, because there is no THE FINALE.
I suppose if one was writing a story with a single lead, a la Spider-Man, and either (a) one killed him off or (b) one really ran out of stories to tell, then I could see staging that big Grand F before you waved goodbye forever. But that assumes there isn't a new Spider-Man waiting in the wings and/or that a guy like me would actually run out of stories. And that hasn't happened to me, at least not yet.
Sam writes...
You've said before that you like to partake in mental casting for characters that you never got to animate in Gargoyles. Did you do this as well for Spectacular Spider-Man's unmade third season, and if so, any chance you could tell me what voice actors you had in mind for the new characters?
Greg responds...
Well, Marina Sirtis for Emily Osborn. I can't think of any others off the top of my head. And mostly, I don't do that 'mental casting' until after I've written (or edited) a script, so that I have a character's 'voice' in my head. Since we never wrote any scripts, I probably didn't pre-cast much.
Lavariel writes...
Dear Mr. Weisman,
Thank you for all the wonderful work you've done from Gargoyles, to Spiderman, to Young Justice. Been a fan for years.
1) From your experience, what was more enjoyable to work with? Working on a show that was completely yours to control - Gargoyles - from character development, plot, and storyline? Or Spiderman and Young Justice where the basics has already laid out?
2) Was there more pressure to succeed working on Gargoyles because it was original and the creativity was your to control? Or was there more pressure to work on an adaption on Spiderman and Young Justice because the bar has already been set?
Greg responds...
1. They're different. Gargoyles is my baby. But in terms of the actual work, I don't think I had any more or less fun working on SpecSpidey, W.I.T.C.H. or YJ.
2. I think the pressure rises with each series, but I blame the internet more than anything inherent in the series. (I blame the internet for a lot, which is not to say I could go back to living without it.)
Peter Parker writes...
Is spiderman the mole ??
Greg responds...
Really? You thought this was funny enough to clog the queue?
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.
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?
Roy writes...
What is the name of Hammerhead's chauffeur?
Greg responds...
SPOILER REQUEST. NO COMMENT.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
: « First : « 250 : « 25 : Displaying #306 - #330 of 1206 records. : 25 » : 250 » : Last » :