A Station Eight Fan Web Site
Ask Greg Archives
Gargoyle Customs
Archive Index
: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #272 - #281 of 294 records. : 10 » : Last » :
Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :
Todd Jensen writes...
I liked your rambling on "Awakening Part One", and look forward to the rambles on the other episodes following.
Both I and a number of other Gargoyles fans had indeed picked up on Princess Katharine's hypocrisy that you mentioned, disapproving of "beasts" (i.e. gargoyles) in the great hall, but permitting the dogs to roam about in there during the feast. I was amused to learn about how you'd planned to make that bit more pointed with the dog making off with somebody's food.
The bit where Lexington and Brooklyn were talking to Tom about not having names, and calling each other "Friend" instead, was a part that I liked as well. It was at that point that I definitely decided that I liked gargoyles.
I don't remember for certain what I thought about whether Demona was alive or dead. I suspect, however, that I may have believed her to ultimately turn up again, simply because it struck me as improbable that a character with such a big role in Episode One would be killed at the end of it and never heard from again.
I very much enjoyed the medieval scenes, which reminded me a bit of David Macaulay's animated specials for PBS about building in the ancient and medieval world (particularly the first one, "Castle"). Not to mention (as I said before) that I was delighted with the Vikings looking much more historically accurate, with not a single horned helmet in sight, being already familiar with the way that they actually did dress (I know that I should be thanking the animators on this, actually, but there isn't an "Ask Frank Paur" page up anywhere as far as I know, so this'll have to do :)
Before the episode first premiered, I'd been aware of "Gargoyles" soon to be coming out, but wasn't certain as to whether I'd like it that much or not, fearing that it would just be another mainstream super-hero series. But when it quickly began the "Scotland - 994 A.D." sequence, I decided that I was definitely going to like it. (And indeed, felt slightly disappointed when I reflected that the bulk of the series wouldn't be set in medieval Scotland, considering how much I was enjoying that part of the story - I'm something of a Middle Ages buff - and began to fantasize about "Wouldn't it be great if they did a prequel series set in 10th century Scotland before the massacre?" - which, of course, I now know that you did indeed plan on doing later on.
At any rate, thanks for the ramble again.
Greg responds...
You're welcome. And thanks for responding in such detail.
In an ideal world I'd have definitely used the massacre to "kill off" characters that you got to know well, to make the tragedy more personal. But there was no room to include even Othello.
When you say that the "friend" conversation was the point where you decided you liked gargoyles, do you mean the series or the species?
Lynne Like writes...
I'm really glad I found your website! I'm more or less a newcomer--I watched the series when it first aired and loved it. Now I watch it on Toon Disney every night. However, tonight they air the final two episodes of TGC (which, I agree with you, should be ignored). But I'm hoping that they start the series again from the beginning. I don't think they aired each and every one of the eps...I discovered them late while channel surfing (glad I did)!
Anyway, I wanted to let you know that I feel your ideas in your "Ramblings" post on Jan. 24, 2000 regarding "re-awakening" the show are great! I guarantee if you pull it off, I'm there! How long do I have to wait? :*) Wanna see it before I get TOO old to get lost in fantasy anymore (that will never happen, especially since I'm an incurable romantic [fanatic??]). *sigh* I guess I can always read my Tolkien and Piers Anthony until you can get around to it... ;)
BTW, I love your dry sense of humor, too! A Gargoyle (Gargess in my case?) after my own heart.
Thanks for everything...
Greg responds...
One little correction first. This isn't my web-site. The site is owned by Gorebash, who graciously puts up with all the extra work involved in maintaining ASK GREG. Let's hear it for Gore.
And, you're welcome. Thanks for the kind words, Lynne.
By the way, in my opinion, the word "Gargoyle" conotes no sex. There's no need to feminize it to Gargess or whatever in order to talk about a female of the species.
Julie Cavignac writes...
Hey, Greg! I just wanted to say, thanks for putting up with all of our rantings, ravings and questions! I think it is so cool that you take a bit of your personal time to actually respond to all of these (sometimes really DUMB) questions. I also wanted to say how much I enjoy reading your answers. Your wit and humor really have no bounds. :-) You know, I am actually quite shocked that you answer some of the questions from the "Raging Hormone" group of teens and pre-teens about Gargoyle nudity, virginity, sex, and reproduction! Sheesh! It cracks me up! I have read some of the fan fic stories, and I have to say, their fantasies of seducing Goliath and baring their children...well, we won't go into that! Anyway, like I said before, THANKS, for everything. :-)
Greg responds...
You're welcome.
Actually, I don't feel like I get that many sex et al questions. Probably, just as well. Though people who attended the 98 Gathering got an earful from me.
Marc writes...
1.I was wondering about the Scottish Gargoyle's religion if there was one.
2. And in Scotland the Gargoyles are a very communal species focused on the good of the clan and do not individualize anyone (i.e. by not having names or parents). Yet almost immediately when the gargoyles arrive in NY they accept names, and then continue to break with their communal tradition by acknowledging Angela as Goliath's daughter and so on. Is this a practical adaptation that would occur when the Gargoyles encounter the US where individualism is treasured, or was it part of the philosophy of the show?(or maybe just necessary for the audience to identify them)
Greg responds...
All right, first off as Diane Maza pointed out, Angela is Goliath's daughter, by any definition.
So some of your assumptions are semi-faulty. But yes, some human customs are addictive and the gargoyles adapted. It wasn't a philosophy of the show, so much as it seemed real to us. As for the name thing, well, yes, we wanted the audience to be able to identify them, but we could have given them all biblical names back in 994 Scotland. We chose not to. And I like how we handled it. It doesn't have much to do with U.S. individualism. But I think we did want to contrast modern Manhattan with ancient community and clan.
As for Garg religion. Well check the Gargoyles Customs archive for more information. They didn't have a religion per se, but they had a set of traditions and belief in an pantheistic yet monotheistic guiding force.
AWAKENING, PART THREE
Watched this with the family half an hour ago...
More random observations...
RE: Our supporting cast...
Who knew that Brendan & Margot would wind up being so important? Credit Marina Sirtis, for making Margot so gloriously bitchy.
And then there's Vinnie's first appearance on that motorcycle. Of course, no one knew Vinnie existed back then, which is thoroughly appropriate to his character.
And credit Keith David with breathing real life into Morgan the cop. Morgan didn't even have a name then. He was just a place holder, someone for Elisa to respond to. But Keith made me interested in him.
Little things still bug me. Xanatos' floating ponytail in the scene where he and Elisa first meet.
In the Kitchen, the Freezer door was supposed to have one of those easy to open latches on the inside. The irony being that Broadway could easily extricate himself, if he just knew how to operate the latch (or even what it was). Something a kid could do, assuming the kid was born in the 20th century. But BW has to bust down the door.
In the original script and the recording of that script, it's Brooklyn who says "So many wonders..." and it's Broadway who says "Goliath said not to let anybody see us." But in those early days, lots of people in L.A. and in Tokyo kept confusing their names (and Bronx's) so the animation came back as you see it. And it was easier to re-record the voices then to reanimate. (Or am I getting all this totally backwards? I just saw the show again half an hour ago, and already, I'm confused.)
(CAVEAT: In all these little things, I'll probably be pointing out animation errors here and there. But please understand, I think most of the animation we got, particularly from Walt Disney TV Animation - Japan, was brilliant. I think those guys did a great job and don't get enough credit. But anecdotes generally come out of when things go wrong, not when they go right, so it may seem like I'm talking about mistakes more often than not. Sorry, in advance to Roy Sato or anyone else who might take offense.)
When Elisa is first being checked out by the Trio, there was a scene in the original animation where Brooklyn seems inordinantly interested in her behind. We had to call a retake, cuz the guy was practically drooling. I wonder if that's where I got the idea that Brooklyn would fall for anyone in a skirt (or with a tail).
Also, after Goliath saves Elisa from falling off the building we have a point of view shot from her. It begins at Goliath's feet and pans up to his face, as she takes him in. In the original animation, the pan started at his head and panned down. That seemed less effective, so we had our editors reverse the pan, without calling for a retake.
At the end of Act Two, the door slides open revealing Demona in silhouette, clearly plotting something with Xanatos. That always really bugged me. I didn't want to give away that she was alive in this episode. I didn't want to know who Xanatos was talking to. How did you guys react to this? Did that spill everything? Did any of you not know that Demona was alive? Did any of you, by this point, not know that she and Xanatos were the bad guys?
Elisa says something like "This is where Dracula shows up." when she's walking through the corridors of the castle. If you take that literally (and you might as well), then you gotta figure that someday, Dracula will be roaming that very hallway.
Elisa loses the first in her series of guns, when Goliath crushes it near the end of Act One.
Goliath tells a joke: "And please, don't fall off the building this time." Goliath tells a joke. Can you believe it? It wasn't bad either. We should have let him tell jokes more often.
Elisa's surprise that Goliath can talk is indicative of what I thought a 20th (or 21st) century initial response to the gargs would be. That's why Goliath Chronicles' trial episode bugged me so much. I don't think humans would take for granted sentience. And I think most humans, those less open than Elisa, wouldn't even buy talking as enough evidence that the gargs weren't just beasts. (Cf. Margot Yale.)
Goliath is a pretty begruding hero. That's somewhat unique for cartoons. Elisa asks if there are more gargs, and Goliath responds: "Barely." He cuts her very little slack. But already you can see their relationship developing. I still think Hudson's expression after Goliath sweeps Elisa up into his arms is just priceless.
In that same scene, Hudson gets named for the river. I love that scene, as I loved the scene where Tom, Brook and Lex are talking about names. Of course, the desire not to name most of the gargoyles until we got to NYC '94, was mostly pragmatic. It allowed us to use those fun, cool NY names for most of the characters. But once we came up with the rationale for it, and once I managed to explain it to everyone, I really fell in love with the concept. Hudson's lament, here, that humans don't think something is real until they've put there stamp on it, is, to me at least, so damn true. And Elisa's response is so feeble and circular. "Things need names." Pathetic. But I'm no different. <SIGH> I'm such a human. But I aspire to gargoylosity. Anyway, after Hudson points to the river, and Elisa basically tricks him into taking that name, she used to have a line, as I may have mentioned before, where she said (under her breath) "Good thing we weren't facing Queens" -- implication being that Hudson nearly ended up being called Queen, I guess. It was always funny, but S&P didn't care for it, and I couldn't really defend it. So out it went. We tried another version, where she just says, "Good thing we weren't facing East." But it didn't play. So out it went too.
The thing that struck me most, however, was the almost thorough lack of action in this episode. After all that Viking stuff in Part One, and Vikings and a full act of commandos in Part Two, Part Three is a mood and character piece. Sure Elisa falls off a building, but that was a problem easily solved. Until the commandos' Central Park attack in the last seconds of Act Three, nothing else happens that could genuinely qualify as action. That was mostly a result of what was once a four-parter being turned into a five-parter. The reason we made that change is because Michael Reaves wrote a brillaint four-part script. It was amazing. But it was WAY too long. I was faced with either having to make drastic cuts (as I would later have to do in Avalon and Hunter's Moon) or expand it. Fortunately, Gary Krisel and Bruce Cranston saw the wisdom of expansion. For one thing, it would save us money. But also, it made sense because we could run the five parts across a whole week of the Disney Afternoon like a mini-series special event. It wouldn't require us to re-program one day of that first week. So we were all agreed, the four parter would become a five parter.
But that meant adding act breaks, and redividing everything. The episode that most benefited was Part One. In the orignal version, Part One covered all of what is currently part one, plus the first act of what's currently part two, i.e. ALL the Scotland stuff. The episode ended with Goliath's "suicide". A great ending, but we would have obviously had to cut a TON out of the flashback. This way we were able to expand into part two and preserve almost all of the story.
So Part Three winds up being nearly action-free. And by the way, I love that. I still think the episode works great, and it proved to me that the charcters themselves could really hold the audience's attention. (I'm such a proud papa. Unashamedly so. It must be pretty obnoxious.) I wish we had always had the luxury to be so... well, luxurious. To expand and play character. But generally a half-hour format makes it tough. I'm very sick of writing half hours, actually. But the powers that be in Animation believe that kids can't or won't sit through an hour long show.
As usual, I welcome posts here responding to this episode. Both your original reaction to seeing it for the first time, and your current reaction if you've seen it again recently.
kjay writes...
Dear Greg,
1. How long ago did Gargoyles started helping humans? Did
it started before 900 A.D? If so why aren't there pictures/paintings of Gargoyles on anicent human artifacts or whatever(ex. cave paintings, egyptian art)?
thanks
Greg responds...
Who says there aren't?
Todd Jensen writes...
Another question about the gargoyles. Technically, their protecting New York might be considered vigilantism; after all, they're not recognized agents of the law, even if they serve as secret and unofficial partners of a sort to a police detective. Had you ever intended to do anything with the vigilante issue where the gargoyles' patrols were concerned?
Greg responds...
Eventually.
Aris Katsaris writes...
In the gargoyles bible for the first season you had made mention of the existence of a 'very wise man' who first made an alliance with gargoyles building his castle of a gargoyle rookery and who ushered in the golden age of gargoyle-human relations...
Is this still how you picture it happening? The existence of a specific 'very wise man' was intriguing to me - is he just a generic figure, or someone whose name we would recognize? (I have my own idea on the subject ofcourse but I refrain from suggesting it in case it's considered a story-idea)
Greg responds...
I was being generic in the bible on purpose to simplify things. Honestly, I don't think I ever really thought there was just one person who did that. The world was too big a place and there wasn't any internet back then to facilitate communication. So that "wise man" was a place holder in my mind for a number of intelligent humans and gargoyles who made multiple alliances over multiple centuries in multiple places.
One such alliance of "wise men" was the alliance formed between Hudson and Malcolm, which was brokered by Robbie.
Another alliance was that formed between Xanatos and Demona, brokered by Owen, with a little help from Brooklyn, Mary and Finella behind the scenes.
Heather N. Allen writes...
I'll mention here that I've reintroduced myself to Gargoyles only this summer via fan webpages and I've managed to get Toon Disney for only a month. Therefore, while not completly updated on every detail of each episode, I do remember quite a bit from the original airdates of them. And if this question has been asked before, forgive me, but I've only frequented Ask Greg for three months. If it's in the archives somewhere, just point the way. SOOO, without further ado...
I remember in a past question where you mentioned recycling characters. (Morgan, Margot and Brendan, Vinnie, etc.) While watching the AVALON episodes, I noticed that many of Angela's rookery sibs were identical to those gargoyles seen in Demona's renagade clan from 2nd century, right down to the clothing. As I understood it, she collected THEM from other clans that were destroyed throughout Scotland. No way for their eggs to end up in Wyvern's rookery, or even on Avalon for that matter.
So, here's the question: were these gargs mearly another batch of recycled characters? And if so, why use them on Avalon? Did you see any kind of conflict coming from this? Or is there another reason altogether that I'm missing entirley?
By the way, I REALLY envy you for having created such a great story, with all these fictional and factual elements mixed in to create the best animated series ever. Wish I'd thought of it :)
Greg responds...
If you're looking for the "Behind the Scenes" answer it's pretty obvious. We couldn't afford to design multiple clans of background gargoyles everytime we did a flashback story or went to Avalon. So we reused the models, figuring most people wouldn't notice.
But there's also a within the Universe explanation that works for me. When a Gargoyle clan gets too large for it's location, it splits and colonizes. The Wyvern Clan had been living in relative peace under Prince Malcolm. In my mind it got up to about 100 or so Gargoyles and Beasts. That was too large a number for Wyvern to sustain, so approximately half of the gargoyle population moved on to found a new colony, start a new clan. But all the eggs were left behind in the established Wyvern rookery. The new colony obviously didn't fair any better than Wyvern ultimately, but Demona collected up a few of its survivors, during the Maol Chalvim/Duncan era.
But some of those survivors left eggs behind at the Wyvern rookery, which explains why there are some look-alikes on Avalon.
As for the clothes.... Give me a break.
Aris Katsaris writes...
About garg clothing turning to stone you've given the explanation about the Magus of Rome casting a spell causing that to the whole gargoyle race...
1) Would that mean that he was a wizard of tremendous power (since he was able to cast a spell on a whole species) or did he simply have access to a spell or trinket of tremendous power? (the same way Demona had access to the praying gargoyle for example - the power that protected all the gargoyle race not being hers)
2) I know that the reason for this explanation was so as to explain the real-life standards & practices need of not having the gargoyles fly around naked, but still: did you ever plan to make an ep concerning the casting of this spell? Or would it be rather difficult to even approach the subject of gargoyle nudity? :)
Greg responds...
1. I don't pretend to have worked out the details of it.
2. If I had gotten to do TimeDancer, I would have made a sincere attempt to try and do a light-hearted episode that covered this. Don't know whether it would have made it past Standards & Practices, but I would have given it a shot.
: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #272 - #281 of 294 records. : 10 » : Last » :