Laura 'ad astra' Ackerman writes...

I read _Viewing Violence_ which came to me attention from your comments. First off I would like to [publicly] compliment you on your modesty. You said she described Gargoyles (specifically Deadly Force) as an example of violence portrayed responsibly. That is an understatement- it was the ONLY such example she gave in cartoondom, and, at least for the first half of the book, non-educational children's program in general. That far I had seen her recommend just three television shows highly and without reservation, and those were Sesame St, Mr. Rogers and Gargoyles. Next up was Barney; its banality outweighed by its gentleness. Then Star Trek for its optimism; but only for children old enough to have truly begun to differentiate between fantasy and reality. Later she praised a host of the less pointlessly caustic family sit-coms ranging from Full House, to the Cosby Show to Roseanne that she felt dealt with the smaller day to day issues young children have to learn. Gargoyles got as much positive attention as ET and Stand By Me.

She did seem to put Gargoyles in the wrong chapter, although she probably did so to deal with cartoons as one unit. At that point she was dealing with shows appropriate for the very young before they have a sense of either fantasy versus reality or long-term perspective. Gargoyles fits into the next age group in which she felt it worthwhile to demand exactly what episodes like Deadly Force gave: real consequences.

Another thing the book had pointed out to me was the prevailing pessimism of today. I knew that crime has been dropping to all time lows and yet people are not feeling safe, but I had never connected it to entertainment so directly. [I had thought of violent media as symptomatic not causal, now I think it is both.] It made me stop and realize (among other things) that Gargoyles, despite its wonderful moodiness and difficult issues managed to be an optimistic series. Considering it is a series that starts with a massacre and has several powerful episodes that end on very low notes (ex. Metamorphosis, Sanctuary, etc) it is quite an accomplishment.

The author did not seem a fan of animation. In fact she seemed to think that little had changed since back when cartoons were more blatantly just merchandising and 'moral messages' were simplistic and tacked on. She did not seem to think about adult audiences being a big issue with cartoons, and didn't deal with other cartoons that might have strong adult fan followings. [Well..., she did say she didn't like X-Men.] Considering all that, I find it more impressive that she dedicated so much time to Gargoyles. It is impressive to have won her praise despite her bias, and given her focus on only young audiences, a good sign that the official target audience was well served.

While I did not agree with some of what she said, the book did make me think a bit more carefully about what I choose to watch.

Here is where I get totally subjective:
I really wish that Disney paid more intention to such things. I had enjoyed the Disney Afternoon increasingly leading up to Gargoyles, but less so after. In my opinion the following shows slid from respectable to hit or miss and finally to disappointing. Ultimately they ceased to be the most impressive force in Tv cartoons. [Now WB has taken over despite its over reliance on Pokemon. Fox is pushing hard, and the Cartoon Network grows stronger and stronger.]

I know that Disney is a business first and foremost, and I do not begrudge them being profitable- in fact I wish them great prosperity, but they do market themselves as Americana and a responsible influence on the country and world youth. I think they succeed most when they stay true to that vision. When they place profitability before vision instead of second or at most equal to it, the results are often formulaic and forgettable. I would have liked Disney to nurture and give time to Gargoyles above and beyond other offerings precisely because it was of such a high quality. It was a departure and radical in some ways, but in others, specifically the ways that _Viewing Violence_ spoke about, a logical extension of what Disney is all about. Still, I do realize that other times Disney has taken the high road profitability took years to become evident. The initial Fantasia was considered a flop, and I am very curious how well Fantasia 2000 did financially. Television is not a forgiving medium, and cartoons are very expensive.

In hindsight I can say Disney chose the wrong approach because it meant backing away from animation just before so many other studios were getting interested and anime influenced offerings were becoming mainstream. I realize some of it had to do with major broadcasting changes- namely acquiring ABC and the rise the WB as a network with its own competing programming, but I wonder, especially now that Disney tries to market Toon Disney, if there aren't execs slapping their foreheads and shaking their heads over some of the decisions made over the last few years. And if those execs exist, are they thinking, "How did we lose that advantage?" without a real sense of what they did to lose it, or are they looking at specific shows and saying, "that was real quality, why did we let that go?" Truth be told, the failure to are Deadly Force makes the second seem unlikely.

By now I have turned my praise relating to the book to a ramble, so I will stop.

Bråndeewine writes...

on 08-19-00, you said, "But FYI, we didn't have lackluster ratings our first two years. They were solid, strong ratings. They just didn't beat Power Ranger's ratings."

Uhh.... Gargoyles was lost to us, due to POWER RANGERS?!?!?! I Think I'll go throw up now.

Todd Jensen writes...

In your first season Gargoyles Bible, you raised the question of whether gargoyles fought in the Battle of Britain, a notion that eventually became "M.I.A." in the second season. This indicates that the notion of gargoyles protecting London from the Germans in 1940 was one that you'd had quite early on in the history of making the series.

Is there any particular reason why you had thought of gargoyles as participants in the Battle of Britain?

Marjorie Harris writes...

I am a huge fan, and because of my work schedule, I rarely get to watch the show. I met Keith David on the street, and his brother is a neighbor mine, and I think he is cast well for the voice of Goliath. I no longer have cable and was wondering when does the show (if at all) on regular television. I know UPN here in NEw York plays many of the Disney cartoons, in the AM. I am in New York City, when and where does the show air here?

Thanks for your help!

Marjorie

Jenn :) writes...

Why did you stop the show anyway? What's up with that? Did you have a buget problem?

Abigail Thorne writes...

A few days ago I took out my store-bought copy of "Gargoyles, The Movie," which is the first five episodes without commercials. I was trying to remember why I hadn't watched it in a while. That question was immediately answered once I started watching it.

There are certain details in the movie--background music, sound effects, scene editing--that are either off or just plain wrong. The sound of Goliath crushing Elisa's gun, the arrows flying through the air during the Viking battle, the metallic sounds of the Steel Clan opening their wings and firing their cannons--they are all different, and they drive me crazy!! Then there's the background music, which either starts too late or is completely wrong for that particular scene. But the most excrutiatingly obnoxious error of all is the sound of the gargoyles gliding--it's this high-pitched swooping noise, like a mechanical glider, or something, I don't know what exactly, but it's NOT RIGHT!! {Loud scream of frustration!!!!!!!}

I know, I know, these are fussy nitpicks, but the little details really do effect the quality of the program. I'm a diehard Gargoyles fan who's seen these episodes dozens of times, so hearing a difference makes me cringe. So yeah, what's the point of this post? To ramble, to complain, and to ask if anyone else (yourself included) had noticed and were annoyed by the changes made in "Gargoyles, The Movie."

Thanks for letting me rant. And vent. I feel better now.

Anonymous writes...

Why did Gargoyles go off the air?

Matthais writes...

At www.xanatos.com, there is an actual company called Xanatos Enterprises. Is this the source of the name, or visa-versa? That is, did they name the company after the character from Gargoyles? Or were you unaware of this company's existance?

dracolich5 writes...

Hello again, Greg! I've decided to start posting questions more frequently, and I've got an interesting assortment of production questions.
During the creation of characters, how were their eventual designs chosen? Did the artists in question work on one design only, or were several designs tried? If so, is there any way we can ever see these unused designs? My interest in unused character designs started when I purchased some Japanese Godzilla books that showed alternate designs for machines and creatures. Just curious to see if similar interesting designs are around.

On a side note, IF any alternate character designs were made, were any of these re-used for later characters? Just checking!

Blaise (repost by Aris) writes...

TEMPTATION

While this isn't the ep that cemented Brooklyn in my head as "Favorite Character," I have to admit he is GREAT in it.
I still love Lexington's remark about building a horse from spare parts.
Demona's tour of the city--Yeah, the DEAD BODY surprised me too. Very powerful, very good, as were Demona's other two "examples" of humanity. Bennett and Sirtis did WONDERFUL jobs with their voice acting here.
As for the bikers not noticing Brooklyn, yeah everybody notices that. I just try to ignore it and that seems to work. If nothing else, most of the bikers in that scene WERE wearing sunglasses at night (as someone else already pointed out). Come to think of it, some of them weren't even wearing helmets....;-)
Elisa's finger--great, now that you've mentioned it, *I'LL* probably look for it and not be able to see anything else in the scene.
I was surprised to hear that Brooklyn's description of the Cloisters was taken by some folks as "proof" that gargoyles were not native to this planet. Anyone who saw the first two episodes should have understood what Brooklyn meant. Come to think of it, why WOULD people want the gargoyles to be from another planet?
One of my favorite lines in this episode--Brooklyn: "You hold the book, Demona. But *I* hold the *spell*!" I just LOVE that.
The resolution of the spell may have been a bit of a cheat, but it WAS a creative and original solution to the problem. So, you guys still get some points in that area.
Lex and Brooklyn talking about the motorcycle at the end and Lex's reaction are always enjoyable.
Pointless note: Hudson doesn't speak a single line in this episode. Odd, when I think about it. Still, you do at least SEE him a few times.

Good ep.