The art, and the inspiration. Original photo taken by Limelight on twitter.
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
occasionally subtle
Not today Justin
Game of Thrones Daily
Monterey Bay Aquarium

ellievsbear
d e v o n
YOU ARE THE REASON
No title available
hello vonnie

gracie abrams
Stranger Things
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

Origami Around

oozey mess
RMH

No title available

@theartofmadeline
Xuebing Du

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from Indonesia

seen from India

seen from Germany
seen from Romania

seen from Malaysia

seen from Canada

seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from United Kingdom
seen from France

seen from Bangladesh

seen from Canada

seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from Brazil

seen from Malaysia
@gregxb
The art, and the inspiration. Original photo taken by Limelight on twitter.
ty ian mckellen
oh, Smaug from the cult favorite film The Hobbit (1977) 🥺
We are joined by Diedrich Bader and Scott Cleverdon—the voices of Jason and Jon Canmore—along with returning guests Jamie Thomason and series creator Greg Weisman to discuss the penultimate episode of the canonical animated series. From the Goliath, Elisa, and Hunter love triangle to the destruction of the Clock Tower, we examine the episode’s voice acting, animation, storyboarding, and the sublime script by the late, great Michael Reaves.
Along the way, we also explore Diedrich and Scott’s careers: how they each found their way into acting and voice acting, how Diedrich deliberately played against type in his portrayal of Jason Canmore, and how Scott views acting not simply as a career but as a way of life and a philosophy—from growing up in Scotland to moving to Los Angeles and eventually Madrid, saving Tim Curry’s life along the way, discussing everyone’s Scottish accents, voicing Carnage in Spider-Man the Animated Series, and sharing memories of a boldly political T-shirt once worn by Marina Sirtis.
Throughout it all, we also pay tribute to Jamie Thomason, one of the unsung heroes behind Gargoyles.
Available on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Audible, Spotify, and your podcatcher of choice! And join us on Patreon at SpideyDudeNetwork for the Exclusive Video Edition! Follow us on Twitter at: @FromEyrie Follow us on Bluesky at: @GargoylesPodcast Follow us on Instagram at: gargoylesvoices Visit Jennifer L. Anderson’s online stores at: Angel Wings and Demon Tails Jon Weisman’s Dodger Thoughts Visit Greg Weisman at: Ask Greg Follow Diedrich Bader on Bluesky at: @diedrichbader Follow Scott Cleverdon on Instagram at: actingcoach Everything you ever wanted to know about Gargoyles at: GargWiki
Berserk print and washi tape for SDCC 💋
Part of what is problematic to so many writers about the term "filler episodes" is that for some viewers, stories only count when they're sprinting breathless through the events of the story arc, if things aren't directly moving ahead or blowing up, which ignores the reality that those events have to have meaning to the characters, have to change them and react to them, and we can't see those changes, or understand those reactions, unless we understand the characters. This is the crucial difference between incident and story. Incident is "the king died, then the queen died." Story is, "the king died, then the queen died of grief." There's emotional connectivity that has to be built into the story. Yeah, you can jump into sex and just do all the things without emotion or foreplay or having any idea of who the other person actually is, and for some people that's just fine, but not, I suspect for everyone. Pausing all the Big Events to do a character story isn't "filler"...it's a part of setting the stage for the impact of those events. If someone doesn't care about the the people who these things are happening to, then there's no point to the story. Story events are things that happen to people; if you only focus on the former it's basically porn structure and empty; if only the latter, it's uninteresting naval-gazing. You have to service both sides equally. That's why character episodes aren't filler; they're where we see consequence and understand what all this means. Some folks say that because they're "filler" they must have been easier to write. Nothing would be farther from the truth. Take a movie structure: you know how you want to start the story, and how it ends...big, easy stuff...the hard part is keeping the audience's attention through the second act when there's not as much inherently exciting stuff to work with; usually just a lot of shoe-leather. There's a term writers of movies and novels use for the second act: "The desert of the middle." It's always the hardest part to write. Ditto TV episodes where you have to write the strong character episodes between the big explosive episodes. But if you don't have those things then you're not going to care about the big things when they happen, and for some folks, that's fine, they just want to see shit blow up. But I don't think that applies to most folks who want to relate to the characters in the story and to feel for them, the bad to fail and the good to succeed. One last point about "filler episodes" is that the term has, or had, a very specific industry meaning only when it came to daily soap operas. Soap opera weekly structure is: Monday resolves the Friday cliffhanger and introduces a new story element or controversy. Tuesday nothing new is introduced, it's everyone talking about, repeating, or worrying about what it all means. This is a filler episode. Wednesday there's usually some small spike, a new bit of information. Thursday back to talking about, repeating or worrying about what came up Thursday. Filler. Then Friday comes the cliffhanger/story event, which is resolved Monday, rinse and repeat. (This is more relevant to old-school soaps than some of the newer ones, but even there you can see echoes of that structure.) That's how "filler episodes" were/are generally seen in the industry. Within some of the public, it's anything that doesn't rocket forward. I remember when "Comes the Inquisitor" was described as just "filler" when it first aired because it didn't move the story along. But would the story have been as meaningful without it? To dismiss something as "filler" is to hand-wave away the effort that went into it, and ignore the point of character-based episodes: to make the story *matter* to the characters and the audience. Otherwise, why the hell even tell it? -- J. Michael Straczynski
Outdoor in sun perfec t place for president to do speech! Outdoor very warm very soft put old man on green lawn under sun. Put old man in warm sun. no problem ever in warm sun because good view and audience can see long speech. Nice podium outdoor sunny perfect place for old president can trust warm sun to give nice view to President good luck to President. friend sun.
there are some movies where people will be like “I think it needed more female characters :/” but I think the lack of female characters makes complete sense because this is dumbass guy behavior. this is a fool’s plot that the average woman would have handled better or totally avoided. the hubris of men was a core element of the film. not that women cannot be blinded by their own hubris but there is a reason guys are more likely to die in bizarre freak ‘accidents’. I say this as a man. it’s why horror movies with a final girl make sense, a 22 year old guy would be sooooo certain he could take the slasher in combat and die badly.
in a misogynistic society, men are taught from birth that they should be able to dominate others automatically, they often develop the false impression that they are untouchable and capable of defeating any threat. women are repeatedly reminded that they can be harmed and told it is their fault if they are harmed, that makes them more likely to be risk aware and risk averse. again, I’m not saying women cannot do risky things and make boneheaded choices, I’m just saying that it makes more sense for a bunch of men to go on a failed expedition and start killing each other. because they keep doing that.
it’s why the horror trope of the wife repeatedly telling her husband there is something wrong with their new house/they are in danger and the husband totally discounting her worries makes so much sense, similar things happens in real life every day
But so much of these bad decisions make for interesting stories and it’s more important for women characters to have their share than be statistically compliant,
We head into the second season finale—and the finale of the original animated series—with this monumental three-parter that changes everything.
Joining us are Robyn and Jon Weisman as they discuss their careers, what it was like growing up with Greg Weisman, and the unique experience of having two sibling Hunters named after them. Along the way, we explore the introduction of the modern Canmore descendants, how the story bookends the series’ beginning, the significance of the phases of the moon, a very strange “cameo” by the three street thugs on another television series, Goliath’s vow of vengeance, and much more.
We also discuss Keith David receiving a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, Mondo’s increasingly ambitious (and expensive) Gargoyles merchandise, and the upcoming relaunch of Gargoyles’ ongoing comic series from Dynamite Entertainment.
Available on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Audible, Spotify, and your podcatcher of choice! And join us on Patreon for the Exclusive Video Edition!
Follow us on Twitter at: @FromEyrie Follow us on Bluesky at: @GargoylesPodcast Follow us on Instagram at: gargoylesvoices Visit Jennifer L. Anderson’s online stores at: Angel Wings and Demon Tails Jon Weisman’s Dodger Thoughts Visit Greg Weisman at: Ask Greg Everything you ever wanted to know about Gargoyles at: GargWiki
Gargoyles #2 Written by Greg Weisman Art by Gerardo Gambone Colors by Robby Bevard Tentative Release Date: September 9th, 2026. On AVALON, the GREEN KNIGHT emerges from a slumber of more than a thousand years. And in MANHATTAN, the GARGOYLES are still desperate to recover the GARGOYLE EGG, stolen by DEMONA. The clock is ticking, because they must recover it before it hatches...
The Powerpuff Girls S01E08
The Problem With Simplifying Demona
What worries me most about a non-Greg Weisman version of Demona isn't that another writer would make her worse. It's that they would make her simpler.
That may sound strange. After all, adaptations change characters all the time. Some changes work. Some don't. I've spent years arguing that characters like Megatron can survive wildly different interpretations. Megatron can be a gladiator, a revolutionary, a tyrant, a fascist, a tragic idealist, or even a redeemed former villain and still remain recognizably Megatron.
Demona is different.
What makes Demona great is not any single aspect of her character. It's the tension between all of those aspects. Remove any one of them and the entire character begins to collapse.
A lesser writer might look at Demona and see a misunderstood freedom fighter. After all, humans did betray her. Humans did slaughter her clan. Humans did spend centuries persecuting gargoyles. It wouldn't be difficult to build an interpretation that emphasizes those injustices and presents her primarily as a victim of history. The problem is that Demona is not merely a victim.
Another writer might go in the opposite direction and decide that Demona is simply a monster. After all, she has attempted genocide multiple times. She has betrayed friends, allies, lovers, and even her own daughter. She has repeatedly chosen hatred over happiness whenever given the opportunity to do otherwise. The problem is that Demona is not merely a monster.
Both interpretations contain truth, but neither contains the whole truth. What makes Demona extraordinary is that Greg Weisman never allows the audience the comfort of reducing her to a single idea. Every time you start to feel sympathy for her, she commits another atrocity. Every time you decide she's irredeemable, you glimpse the pain, loneliness, and grief that have driven her for a thousand years. Every time you think she has learned a lesson, she finds a new way to sabotage herself.
Demona is a character defined by contradiction.
She hates humanity because humanity destroyed her life, yet she repeatedly destroys her own chances at happiness. She wants gargoyles to thrive, yet she is often one of the greatest threats gargoyles face. She craves love and acceptance, yet she pushes away nearly everyone who offers it. She views herself as a protector, a survivor, and a victim, while simultaneously becoming the architect of countless tragedies.
Most villains are easier than this.
Skeletor works because he is Skeletor. You can make him darker, funnier, more competent, or more dangerous, but his core appeal remains largely intact. Theatricality, arrogance, pettiness, and an unapologetic love of being evil are the character. Demona isn't built that way. Demona's complexity is the character.
Strip away her guilt and she becomes a generic villain. Strip away her cruelty and she becomes a generic antihero. Strip away her grief and she loses her emotional core. Strip away her responsibility for her own choices and she becomes little more than a victim. Every piece matters because every piece is in constant conflict with every other piece.
That is an incredibly difficult balance to maintain, which is why I worry about future reinterpretations. What concerns me isn't the possibility that another writer would dislike Demona. What concerns me is the possibility that another writer would love her for the wrong reasons.
A writer who sees only the victim might sand away her worst qualities in an effort to make her more sympathetic. A writer who sees only the monster might strip away her humanity in an effort to make her more threatening. A writer who wants a redemption arc might decide she simply needs to forgive herself and move on. A writer who wants a revolutionary might decide she was right all along. All of those approaches would make Demona easier to understand, and all of them would make her less interesting.
The tragedy of Demona is not that she cannot be redeemed. The tragedy is that she repeatedly chooses not to be. The tragedy is not that the world refuses to forgive her. The tragedy is that she cannot forgive the world. The tragedy is not that she lacks opportunities for happiness. The tragedy is that she destroys them whenever they appear.
Demona is one of the most self-destructive characters I have ever encountered in fiction, and that self-destruction is inseparable from her intelligence, her strength, her passion, and her pain. She is not trapped by a curse. She is trapped by herself.
That's why she has endured for so long. Many villains are complex because writers continually add layers to them over decades. Demona feels complex because all of her layers were there from the beginning, constantly pulling against one another. She is victim and victimizer. She is sympathetic and horrifying. She is powerful and broken. She is capable of great love and immense cruelty.
Most characters eventually resolve their contradictions. Demona lives inside hers, and that is what makes her compelling. She is a character who understands exactly what she has lost and yet remains incapable of escaping the worldview that cost her those things in the first place.
That's why I dread a reboot that doesn't understand her. Not because I believe no one else can write Demona, but because simplifying her would be so easy. It would be easy to make her more sympathetic. It would be easy to make her more evil. It would be easy to make her more heroic. It would be easy to make her more monstrous. The hard part is keeping her all of those things at once.
That's the Demona I love. Not the victim. Not the monster. Not the antihero. The contradiction itself is the character, and once you lose that contradiction, you've lost the thing that made her special in the first place.
Honestly at this point I’m not even sure Greg Weismann knows how to write her well. I liked that the original show was less about these simple villains and kept them all in a rather grey area. And it seems that this is kind of still true when it comes to characters like Xanatos. But I feel that Demona is being pushed more and more in the pure villainous category, and I’m not a fan of that. I fear that she will turn into a simple villain, with a more complicated backstory for sure, but it would do her character good to be allowed more than simply being someone for the Manhattan Clan to fight against.
And I still hope that no reboot will happen. I know Disney, just like all the other companies, is running out of ideas. But especially this live action reboot makes me rather unhappy. I can already see all the female characters being made into “eye candy” and that is nothing I want!
(Unfortunately the answer button didn’t work for me. :P not sure if it’s my weird Internet connection or some kind of setting…)
The comics was a mixed bag for me. There were glimpses of character development, but they generally didn’t go “deep” enough for me. It always feels like the stories only scratch at the surface, like you always just get the tip of the iceberg and you know that there is something else, but then it’s just not given to you. I still haven’t read Quest, since the package gets delayed further and further, but from the Gargoyles wiki it doesn’t seem to go much deeper as well. Should that not be the actual case I will be more than happy.
I'm going to bow out here. If you're going to argue that Greg Weisman no longer knows how to write Demona, I think it's reasonable to expect that you've actually read Quest before making that claim. You're certainly entitled to dislike the direction of the character, but declaring that the creator no longer understands her while simultaneously admitting you haven't read one of the most significant recent Gargoyles stories isn't an opinion I can take seriously. Have a good day.
So I recall you mentioning not caring for the Red Hulk during a review of Avengers EMH. Any particular flaws well besides Loeb being the one to create him and his writing not being good?
It's been a long time since I gave Red Hulk any serious thought, so take this with a grain of salt. My issue was never really that he was badly written on a scene-by-scene level. It was more that he felt like a character created backward from a marketing hook.
"What if Hulk, but red?" immediately became a giant mystery box where the conversation centered on who he was rather than whether he was an interesting character. Once the mystery was resolved and it turned out to be Ross, I didn't feel like it justified the enormous amount of attention devoted to it.
Beyond that, I always felt Ross becoming a Hulk undermined part of what made Ross work. Ross was compelling as the military man obsessed with controlling or destroying something he couldn't control. Turning him into yet another Hulk made him feel less distinct instead of more.
Admittedly, I haven't followed the character closely in years, so there may have been stories since then that changed my mind. But my initial reaction was that he felt more like a successful publishing concept than a character I found particularly necessary. It's the same reason I find Ross more interesting than Red Hulk. General Ross already had a role in the mythology. Red Hulk mostly turned him into another super-powered puncher. I didn't think the Hulk mythos was lacking those.
The Problem With Simplifying Demona
What worries me most about a non-Greg Weisman version of Demona isn't that another writer would make her worse. It's that they would make her simpler.
That may sound strange. After all, adaptations change characters all the time. Some changes work. Some don't. I've spent years arguing that characters like Megatron can survive wildly different interpretations. Megatron can be a gladiator, a revolutionary, a tyrant, a fascist, a tragic idealist, or even a redeemed former villain and still remain recognizably Megatron.
Demona is different.
What makes Demona great is not any single aspect of her character. It's the tension between all of those aspects. Remove any one of them and the entire character begins to collapse.
A lesser writer might look at Demona and see a misunderstood freedom fighter. After all, humans did betray her. Humans did slaughter her clan. Humans did spend centuries persecuting gargoyles. It wouldn't be difficult to build an interpretation that emphasizes those injustices and presents her primarily as a victim of history. The problem is that Demona is not merely a victim.
Another writer might go in the opposite direction and decide that Demona is simply a monster. After all, she has attempted genocide multiple times. She has betrayed friends, allies, lovers, and even her own daughter. She has repeatedly chosen hatred over happiness whenever given the opportunity to do otherwise. The problem is that Demona is not merely a monster.
Both interpretations contain truth, but neither contains the whole truth. What makes Demona extraordinary is that Greg Weisman never allows the audience the comfort of reducing her to a single idea. Every time you start to feel sympathy for her, she commits another atrocity. Every time you decide she's irredeemable, you glimpse the pain, loneliness, and grief that have driven her for a thousand years. Every time you think she has learned a lesson, she finds a new way to sabotage herself.
Demona is a character defined by contradiction.
She hates humanity because humanity destroyed her life, yet she repeatedly destroys her own chances at happiness. She wants gargoyles to thrive, yet she is often one of the greatest threats gargoyles face. She craves love and acceptance, yet she pushes away nearly everyone who offers it. She views herself as a protector, a survivor, and a victim, while simultaneously becoming the architect of countless tragedies.
Most villains are easier than this.
Skeletor works because he is Skeletor. You can make him darker, funnier, more competent, or more dangerous, but his core appeal remains largely intact. Theatricality, arrogance, pettiness, and an unapologetic love of being evil are the character. Demona isn't built that way. Demona's complexity is the character.
Strip away her guilt and she becomes a generic villain. Strip away her cruelty and she becomes a generic antihero. Strip away her grief and she loses her emotional core. Strip away her responsibility for her own choices and she becomes little more than a victim. Every piece matters because every piece is in constant conflict with every other piece.
That is an incredibly difficult balance to maintain, which is why I worry about future reinterpretations. What concerns me isn't the possibility that another writer would dislike Demona. What concerns me is the possibility that another writer would love her for the wrong reasons.
A writer who sees only the victim might sand away her worst qualities in an effort to make her more sympathetic. A writer who sees only the monster might strip away her humanity in an effort to make her more threatening. A writer who wants a redemption arc might decide she simply needs to forgive herself and move on. A writer who wants a revolutionary might decide she was right all along. All of those approaches would make Demona easier to understand, and all of them would make her less interesting.
The tragedy of Demona is not that she cannot be redeemed. The tragedy is that she repeatedly chooses not to be. The tragedy is not that the world refuses to forgive her. The tragedy is that she cannot forgive the world. The tragedy is not that she lacks opportunities for happiness. The tragedy is that she destroys them whenever they appear.
Demona is one of the most self-destructive characters I have ever encountered in fiction, and that self-destruction is inseparable from her intelligence, her strength, her passion, and her pain. She is not trapped by a curse. She is trapped by herself.
That's why she has endured for so long. Many villains are complex because writers continually add layers to them over decades. Demona feels complex because all of her layers were there from the beginning, constantly pulling against one another. She is victim and victimizer. She is sympathetic and horrifying. She is powerful and broken. She is capable of great love and immense cruelty.
Most characters eventually resolve their contradictions. Demona lives inside hers, and that is what makes her compelling. She is a character who understands exactly what she has lost and yet remains incapable of escaping the worldview that cost her those things in the first place.
That's why I dread a reboot that doesn't understand her. Not because I believe no one else can write Demona, but because simplifying her would be so easy. It would be easy to make her more sympathetic. It would be easy to make her more evil. It would be easy to make her more heroic. It would be easy to make her more monstrous. The hard part is keeping her all of those things at once.
That's the Demona I love. Not the victim. Not the monster. Not the antihero. The contradiction itself is the character, and once you lose that contradiction, you've lost the thing that made her special in the first place.
it's literally the evilest thing in the world to finally have time to write but then be tired. like wow you're telling me these two hours before going to bed are completely free but my brain is just Not Feeling It? fuck off
"my life isn't a crime, I'm not one of those people -"
"you sure? new parameters for Those People just dropped. check again."
And if you truly cannot imagine this, if you're convinced that it will never happen to you, consider this one thing.
Would you want scammers to know the state of your loved one's dementia?