A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

COMEBACKS 2007-02 (Feb)

Archive Index


: « First : « 10 : Displaying #70 - #79 of 104 records. : 10 » : Last » :


Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :


Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

RelenaS
Level 2
Sweat Hog
Posts: 2 35. Re: W.i.t.c.h. in the U.S.A. | 06/20/2006 7:32am
A hint I would love to give most corporations who are interested in markets by gender on the TV: Despite it being an action based series, with fighting and good verses evil, if it has female main characters, heroes, ect. It has a female audience. Period. There are girls out there who enjoy action, adventure, and seeing their heroines focusing their attention beyond cosmetics and boys. It is extremely biased to assume that all females love to see cartoons on the newest hair accessory. More over, it's biased to assume that only males enjoy action cartoons.

They can keep W.I.T.C.H. as it is, it doesn't need a "makeover" to appeal more to females for merchandising, nor does it need its more female relationship aspects toned down to keep it a male focused show. They tried to tone down the female aspects in Card Captor Sakura on Warner Brothers and look what happened.

Fans would appreciate it if the companies, who are broadcasting the cartoon/animation, would not mess with the original version more then absolutely necessary, and means of marketing are not such reasons.

Understandably this isn't marketed on the main stream Disney because it doesn't follow the same kind of animation produced for the main stream. Its more anime like, and thus gets anime status on a circuit that doesn't show random episodes, but the order of the episodes. Thus Jetix. Cartoon network did something similar with Toonami and the new Maguzi. The problem is they focus on action, and thus assume only male base audiences. The reason why they seem action like is they actually follow a somewhat coherent story, unlike other such shows, like Jake Long and Lilo and Stich, which although they have a story line and an order of episodes, they don't need to be played one right after the other to make sense, they work beautifully as individual episodes. As such they are easier to present to America as very few people have the dedication to actually track a series to find the next newest episode to continue the plot.

The only problem the Fundamentalists running America would have with this show is A: its name (Witches have been their enemies for ages. B: the Elemental basis on power (too earthy and pagan like for them) C: where that power comes from, they weren't exactly born with it, it comes with age, and was not granted to them by a single deistic power. Thus the show must be teaching immoral lessons on power and encouraging some kind of nature worship. In addition there is a female power focus. All the main high power characters in this show are female. The guardians, their mentor, the principal, while the King was bad, the Queen is good ect. A few exceptions, the rebel leader and the Oracle are both male, but you get the gist. Despite all this however they really shouldn't have much of a problem with the show. It's not like the fundamentalists to attack anything unless it shows a considerable threat to their cause (IE Harry Potter).

For fear of rambling I shall stop now. But keep WITCH on.

Greg responds...

It's not up to me. You know that, right?

Response recorded on February 09, 2007

Bookmark Link

Twiggess writes...

I'll try to keep this short, as I kinda already gave my 2 cents yesterday.
I didn't catch the Star Trek reference at the time, b/c I hadn't heard of that episode. Now that I've seen clips of it, I realize it was a brillant (for want of a better term) spinoff. Although I think over all the Angie-Desie-Broad-Cold kiss was better than Kirk and Uhura (spelling, sorry- that chick who voiced Diane! That'll work!)'s. I mean, I haven't seen the whole Star Trek episode, so I don't know what the alien's relationship was like, but those 2 were so freakin SHAKY. They looked like they were having a seizure out of passion, or something.
(I am sorry if this offends any Treky's out there. Like I said, I haven't seen anything but a 5 minute clip of the kiss. I'm much more of a Next Generation gal, anyway. Two words: MARINA SIRTIS. Plus it's really fun to see "Xanatos" and "Demona" flirting.)
I'm assuming you left Ms. S out of the TNG voice credits in your ramble cuz she wasn't in the episode. I'm cool with that, and I realize that if you gave credit to all the Star Trek voices, we would be here all day.
So yeah. I'm not really a big Cold trio fan (although I am a big fan of Coldstone's icecream-sorry, couldn't resist! I think of Micheal Dorn whenever I go in that creamery now!), but this episode was okay. And I was really excited that I finally got to see Angela (even if she WASN'T white with red hair like I always imagined. Don't ask me WHY.)
Oh and one little confession: Before I could remember what her name was, I used to call Coldfire "Starfish Face." I sincerely apologize for this crudeness. I never really got a good enough look at her, and I thought her horns kinda made her look like she had a starfish on her head. I really hope the animators and fellow fans forgive me for this, as when I got a better view of her in "City of Stone" and "Legion", I realized she was actually quite pretty.
OK, so that's my confession for the day (again, REALLY REALLY sorry!) Now I better go before some random Treky or Desdemona fan gets some vitual tar and feathers for me!
P.S.: Was it ever confusing to have both a Demona AND a Desdemona? I realize that other than in the first "City of Stone" they never had an episode together (CF wasn't in "Reawakening, was she?) but it's still seems like kind of a nusiance to me.
P.P.S: Have i mentioned I'M SORRY?!

Greg responds...

The episode with the famous Kirk-Uhura kiss was not the episode I was referring to as inspiration. I'm talking about an episode guest starring Diana Muldaur.

Desdemona was never a name used in dialogue.

Response recorded on February 09, 2007

Bookmark Link

Blair writes...

Hi! Before I ask my question, I just want to ask what the chances of a fourth season are. But thats not my question. If there were to be a fourth season, when and where would it take place? WOuld it take place right after the last episode, or many years into the future? Also, instead of making a fourth season, would Disney ever redo the whole series? Thank you so very much! :)

Greg responds...

Thre are no current plans for a fourth (or even a real third) season of the series on television, but you can look to the comics to continue the series, picking up right where Hunter's Moon left off.

Response recorded on February 09, 2007

Bookmark Link

Peter Brülls pb@rogue.de writes...

Hi.

Ypou write

"4. Would Disney ever consider selling the rights to Gargoyles?

No. They won't even let go of Clarabelle Cow. They don't want to take the risk that someone else could make a mint on their property and make them look bad."

"Clarabelle Cow" is actually a bad example, I think. She's making regular appearance in Non-US Mickey Mouse stories, acting as best female friend to Minnie Mouse.

Greg responds...

You're talking LICENSING, not selling the rights. Clarabelle acting as Minnie's best friend does not mean they've sold the rights... unless you think they've SOLD THE RIGHTS to Minnie Mouse. (And just to be clear, they HAVE NOT.)

These are two very different financial concepts.

Non-US Mickey, Minnie or Clarabelle stories are under a licensing agreement. But Disney retains the rights.

It's the difference between leasing a house and selling one.

Response recorded on February 08, 2007

Bookmark Link

Battle Beast writes...

Posession>

<<FINALLY...
We wanted that giant pocket watch (or whatever) that Puck pulls out at the end to be a MICKEY MOUSE WATCH... but Disney would just not allow it. They were afraid it would come off as product placement in a kid's show or something.>>

...Because Puck is a mickey Mouse kinda guy???

Greg responds...

Because it was more specific, and thus funnier. Not to mention the in-jokiness of it.

Response recorded on February 08, 2007

Bookmark Link

Abby writes...

I enjoyed your ramble on "Possession." This episode holds a special place for me as one of the very first I saw. In your "pre-ramble" you mention the complexity of this one - imagine the confusion to someone unfamiliar with the characters! But this complexity is part of what drew me to the series and why I still enjoy it so much. I still catch new things when I watch this episode.

I did, however, immediately notice the "Bewitched" reference as well as the parallels to the Star Trek body-switching episode (which helped me better understand what was going on, especially on repeat viewings). I'd wondered if the inspiration for the switching triangle came from Trek; thanks for the clarification! (Incidentally, that Trek episode was called "Return to Tomorrow." I much prefer "Possession" - it's a much better description of the action, and made me think of that old line "possession is nine-tenths of the law" when the characters were tempted to keep their new bodies).

I also prefer the "Gargoyles" resolution to the dilemma of where to put the newly-transferred personalities. In Trek they go off into oblivion, having decided our species isn't ready for them yet. But "Possession" offers the prospect of future stories with these characters.

I enjoyed seeing Alex's winged plushie and the expressions on Broadway's and Angela's faces when Othello and Desdemona leave them mid-embrace.

Other one liners I like are from Michael Dorn (Puck-as-Coldstone): "I trust you have no more questions" and "Wouldn't you like to know."

Thanks for the ramble.

Greg responds...

We were heavily inspired by that particular Star Trek episode, but I do hope that we made it our own, so to speak. Organic to our series. And not slavish to the inspiration.

Response recorded on February 08, 2007

Bookmark Link

Christine Morgan writes...

Hi, Greg!

Here's my Gathering 2006 Report! Which, since it weighs in at almost nine thousand words, I'm submitting via link: http://www.eskimo.com/~vecna/gathering_06_text.html

Otherwise, Ask Greg might pop like a balloon and I'd hate to be responsible for that! But if you really want me to, just say so!

Greg responds...

I want you to post it here!

(Next time we open the posting function.)

Response recorded on February 08, 2007

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

Thanks for your "Possession" ramble, Greg. (Just think - all that you've got left is "Hunter's Moon" and you're done with Season Two!) A few comments.

That opening with Xanatos hunting Coldstone down in the Himalayas makes more sense to me now that I know about that Marvel Comic story that you were going to write but never got to do.

The first time that I saw the episode, I initially thought that what Xanatos and Owen were trying to do (and needed more than technology to do) was repairing Coldstone after the damage done in the recent battle, but afterwards I understood that their goal was transferring Desdemona and Iago to Coldfire and Coldsteel. (And I agree that it would be like Xanatos to say "Chin up" to Coldstone while his head is disconnected from the rest of him.)

I like Alex's winged teddy bear, too.

I agree that Coldfire is a much better name than Goldfire; it certainly fits the pattern with Coldstone and Coldsteel in the way that Goldfire wouldn't. (It even makes me wonder how "Goldfire" was even a candidate to begin with.)

Another thing that I picked up on in later viewings was the consequences of Brooklyn's "Me three - except that you don't need three" line.

One of the big elements for me in the episode is how the voice actors demonstrate their versatility (as you pointed out); instead of taking the customary approach in cartoons of "when people switch minds, they also switch voice actors", we here got to hear, say, Bill Faggerbakke and Brigitte Bako altering their delivery to sound more like Michael Dorn and C. C. Pounder. And it was a very admirable performance.

One of my favorite bits: Puck-as-Coldstone saying, "Naughty, naughty, sneaking up like that on Uncle Coldstone". (As much from how Dorn delivered it as from the actual words.)

And I think that we can all agree that this is just the way that Puck *would* educate Alex.

Again, thanks for the ramble.

Greg responds...

Thank you.

I can never praise our voice cast (and voice director) Jamie Thomason enough. We were constantly presenting them with new challenges, and they ALWAYS rose to the occassion.

Response recorded on February 08, 2007

Bookmark Link

Twiggess writes...

Ah, good ol' Possession. Oi, what a headache THAT was. Still, there's a little special place in my garg-lovin heart for this episode, as it was the first I ever saw with Angela in it (I started watching Gargoyles in summer 2004. Techincally the first WHOLE episode I ever saw was "Outfoxed", although I remember seeing the scene in "Long Way till Morning" where Hutson renounces his leadership to Goliath while channel surfing some years previous. "Outfoxed" was on at night, while about 2 weeks later "Posession" was on ABC Family on Saturday morning, to explain the long episode gap.)
Anyway. I was scratching my head a bit while watching this episode, but I thought over all the sentiment was sweet. And, in hindsight, the whole Brook/Iago thing was a good metaphor for Brooklyn's jealousy of Broadway and Angela. Nicely done.
Of course, it's always wonderful to see the Puck in action ;) I wish we could have seen more of that little guy in the series. Particularly along side Demona (amazingly, I'm not just saying this as an excuse have more Demona eps!) I mean, those two TOTALLY stole the show in "The Mirror." Yes, yes, the sexual tension between E and G was all very lovely but COME ON! That's like EVERYBODY's favorite episode (which I didn't get to ramble on, so sorry I'm losing focus on "possession.")
ANYWAY (pardon my short attention span), I don't really remember this episode too well since I only saw it once 2 years ago and I was too busy trying to figure out what the heck was going on and who was in who's body to pick up on the minor details (alright, plus I was secretly hoping Demona would show up at some random moment, that way if I didn't understand anything at least I'd get to see her. I didn't know about "The Reckoning" at that point. Sue me!) I do remember liking Xanatos' "wiggle your nose" line, which I still think is funny. I had heard from Danielle, my gargoyle mentor who got me into the show in the first place, about Puck but like Angie I don't think I had seen him prior to this episode.
Okay, to sum up, great episode, great series, created by a great guy named Greg (isn't iliteration fun? Particularly when it's spelled incorrectly?) and I'm hoping for a GREAT comeback! SPREAD THE WORD ( to quote X in "Reawakening", "I've ALWAYS wanted to say that.")

Greg responds...

Thanks. Possession was fun to work on, juggling all the misdirection.

Response recorded on February 08, 2007

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

I read and enjoyed your "pre-ramble" for "Possession". One tidbit that I especially liked was the very appropriate concept of Xanatos and Fox's specific destination when they went out that evening being a performance of Verdi's "Otello". Pity that it wasn't mentioned in the actual television episode.

Greg responds...

Yeah, why wasn't it mentioned? Fell away, I guess.

Response recorded on February 07, 2007


: « First : « 10 : Displaying #70 - #79 of 104 records. : 10 » : Last » :