A Station Eight Fan Web Site
Ask Greg Archives
ASSURED MUSINGS 2022-06 (Jun)
Archive Index
: « First : « 10 : Displaying #26 - #35 of 54 records. : 10 » : Last » :
Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : All :
Guest Ramble
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.
Elm writes...
Has the production budget for Young Justice changed since it was on Cartoon Network? (Asking if S1, S3 and S4 have the same costs)
Greg responds...
It's basically the same. We have more money now than we had then. But things also cost more now. So overall, it's largely unchanged. We do have a higher budget for after-effects now in S4, then we did in S3, and WAY bigger than we did for S1 & S2.
Matt Itelson writes...
Since Alan shook Red Tornado's hand when he was inducted into the Justice Society, was he the leader then?
Greg responds...
I'm sure they all shook his hand - well, maybe not Fate - so in and of itself, that handshake doesn't prove much.
Anonymous writes...
What were the names of Billy Batson's parents?
Is Mary his sister?
Greg responds...
1. I don't currently seem to have that info. I'd research it before we named them in canon.
2. Biologically and emotionally, yes. Legally, no.
Mr Fan and Mr Disappointed writes...
Hi Greg ! Hope you're fine !
I have a really important question (and some criticism) to write. To explain quickly before :
I've just watched "Teg Ydaer" and I got to say this is the episode I hated the most of the show, and by far. And I'm afraid this will happen again. I hated it against my will, believe me, but that was too much. Aside the fact that this is Zatanna's arc and that she got like 3% of the screentime so far, with absolutely NO character development, I'm deeply angered that you introduced religion in such a central matter. We had a long part of the episode dedicated to religion and talking about how great it was, giving hope to people and so on ... And to me, during that moment, that wasn't a superhero show anymore ! That was religion propaganda. What's next then ? Telling kids how great it is to join the Jehovah's Witnesses or any other religion, sect or cult because it gives hope ? To someone like me, who considers (and I speak only from my perspective, don't want to offend anybody here) religion like one of the most silliest and dangerous things ever happened in human history, that's really disgusting. Not only that, but to see my favorite show becoming something absolutely irrelevant to its subject, I felt really sick.
Like I've seen in some comments before me, that feels like positive discrimination. It feels like Khalid is here ONLY because he's a muslim.
Now, I'm not a hater, I love this show, I don't want to get in a fight about religion or belief, I'm just a fan deeply concerned, sad and disappointed with the direction that the show is taking today, and who feels betrayed more and more.
SO, to come back to my question, have you planned to develop or talk again about religion ? And do you regret having done that in such a proportion, or done it at all ?
Thanks for reading, hope I wasn't too harsh or rude ;)
Greg responds...
Hm.
No regrets. And I suppose it SHOULDN'T come as any shock to you that I'm quite proud of that episode. Very proud, actually.
I personally have tremendous distaste for organized religion - including my own, i.e. Judaism. But that doesn't change the fact that faith is a huge part of many, many, many peoples' lives. We're telling a story about people. (Not about super-heroes, by the way, which is incidental - its eye-candy - but about people. If all you want is super-hero adventure, then you are shopping at the wrong store and have been since episode one of season one.) Please don't even start to tell me that I can't tell stories about the things that concern people. Irrelevant? Give me a break.
And that's aside from the fact, that although I don't think religion should be an out of bounds topic, I don't actually think that this story was about religion. It was about faith, through the vehicle of religion. But maybe that's splitting hairs.
I do resent the notion that Khalid only exists in the story because he's Muslim. I think that's very short-sighted. Why not say he's only in this story because he's a medical student, which got equal play in this episode and more play in the two episodes that preceded it? I believe Khalid is as fully realized a character as any we've had - relative to his amount of screen time. Do you think Zatara only exists in the story because he's Catholic. (But good on you that you're not a hater.)
(I also love that you think using Jehovah's Witnesses as some kind of ultimate example of cultish religious extremism is a-okay. It's not.)
Now, I will admit that I do wish we could find more room for Atheism in the show. Even for Agnosticism. Although I am neither, I admire both more than I admire any and every organized religion. But the problem with setting your series in a world with ghosts (like Secret) and demons (like Etrigan), is that it doesn't leave much space for doubt. [Artemis knows - KNOWS - that the soul exists because she's SEEN one, and so has our audience.] That's a puzzle I'm still trying to solve. But I have no intention of solving it by pretending that religion doesn't exist and doesn't mean something significant to literally MILLIONS of people.
(And for the record, I'm a secular pagan Jew and an animist.)
As for the BITCHING about Zatanna not getting enough attention, I officially roll my eyes at you. This is without a doubt Zatanna's story from moment one to moment last. I get why it's not clear to you back in 411, but, hey, way to be patient. And if it's not clear by the end of the arc, then all I can do is shrug. Zatanna doesn't need to dominate screen time to make this her story. That notion is just silly to me. I also find it sardonically amusing that at least some fan or another has complained to me about how the headline character of a given arc is not getting enough screen time or attention... in literally ALL six of the arcs. I think Nightwing fans may have some - small - justification for these complaints. But for the others, all I can say is that you've created your own expectations about what YJ:P was supposed to deliver for your personal favorite character. Instead, Brandon and I delivered what we wanted to deliver about each character. The rule, as always, being that if we aren't passionate about the show we're creating then how can we expect anyone else to even have a shot at being passionate about what they're seeing? There is no other way for us to create.
And, no, I don't think you were too harsh or rude (though your message above did read to me as obnoxious, which isn't the same thing). But I may be bordering on all those negative qualities in my response. If so, understand that I am truly inundated with comments from "fans" telling me I've done them wrong. With fans who are "sad" or "disappointed". With fans who are trying to convince me that I don't like my own show - or that I wouldn't like it if I simply listened to them and/or thought about if for a few minutes. (Your second to last paragraph is basically doing that.) But the thing is that Brandon and I listened to a lot of people and gave TONS of thought to everything in every episode. Way, way more thought than most shows get, I know. I know. I'm not saying we're above making mistakes, but we didn't do entire episodes by accident.
Now, before you say, "Hey, if everyone's telling you that your stuff sucks, maybe it does," you should know we get WAY more praise than we get criticism. Way more. And of course, the praise is nice but washes over me, and only the criticism sticks. I honestly should ignore ALL of it, criticism and praise, but I'm not that bulletproof. It makes me sad and disappointed. And frustrated. Very, very frustrated. Even if the nay-sayers are only a small (but vocal) minority. And that must be all they are, because our numbers this season on HBO Max are stunningly good. Today, I saw numbers that indicated we have more views this year than any other animated super-hero series on ANY streaming service. (Because, yes, we still have super-heroes in YJ, despite what you believe are my best efforts!) We even beat out a couple of prestige live-action super-hero series. Thus, not everyone thinks we suck. Most clearly don't.
So all of you out there who are going to read this post and feel the need to post a criticism of me here or on twitter (while tagging me) for responding in this harsh, rude obnoxious way... stop. Please. Put yourselves in my shoes for a minute. No one's saying you have to like the show. Certainly no one is forcing you to watch it. (Seriously, I think our season four hate-watchers alone must outnumber our entire audience for season one.) But that doesn't mean you need to sling your $#!^ my way. Be kind. Kinder than I'm being, I suppose. And I'll try to be kinder, too. Thanks.
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."
--Walt Whitman
Marvelman writes...
Mary still has 1/3 of the power of Shazam. Does she drain power from Billy and Freddy even when she is not using it?
Greg responds...
She doesn't drain anything from either of them. And certainly gets nothing from (or owes anything to) Freddy.
That power is hers now. Given freely and impossible to return.
Anonymous writes...
Mr. Weisman,
Given that Vandal Savage has lived over 50,000 years, he would likely have known many truths about various world events and countless unsolved mysteries throughout history, am I correct?
Greg responds...
That does sound likely. Although there's no guarantee he happened to be present to witness any specific event you might have in mind.
And before anyone gets any bright ideas, please don't start asking me if he witnessed this or witnessed that. Questions like that would be ideas masquerading as questions, and at best would get a NO SPOILER response. Or they could be deleted.
Artemis writes...
Re-watching Gargoyles for the first time in a decade now that it's on Disney+
I could't find anything in the archive. (I did find the answers about Goliath & Demon's ages/changes tho)
1) How old is David Xanatos ? (I'm guessing 37 in the first ep based off Vows)
2) How old is Fox?
3) How long did they know each other vs how long were they dating ?
4) Did anyone sign a prenup ?
5) How many languages do Fox / David speak?
Honestly, despite how dramatic their lives are, they seem like they have a healthy & strong relationship. They both put all their cards on the table & seem to really love each other. I think they have the most honest relationship & will die old & in-love together.
Greg responds...
1. David Xanatos was born in 1955.
2. Janine Renard was born in 1966. Fox was legally "born" in 1991.
3. Uh... they started dating in 1990. Obviously, they met at some point before they started dating, but I don't have an exact date for that.
4. Probably.
5. I'm sure Fox speaks many. And David speaks a handful. But I haven't counted.
Coby Michael Dupre writes...
Fellow writer (albeit an amateur) here, and I gotta say: Dang dude, nice episode and I love the hyping up of this "new" girl Child but you had to resort to a neck snap? I'm still recovering from losing my favorite version of Superboy ever to that, even if it was a villain this time.
Greg responds...
R.I.P. Teekl.
Anonymous writes...
When was Nabu (Savage's son) born?
Greg responds...
I could've sworn I've answered this, but, fine: Nabu was born in 1836 B.C.E.
: « First : « 10 : Displaying #26 - #35 of 54 records. : 10 » : Last » :