DrFaust writes...

Re: Working time paradoxes.

I must confess, I've always liked "changing the past" time travel stories. I was indoctrinated by "Back to the Future" at a young age. <shrug>

Unfortunately, I have yet to find a book with Heinlein's "All You Zombies." All the libraries around seem to focus on his monumental novels that hammer home the same points over and over. (Annoying nit I feel obligated to mention: all his characters have the same vocabulary and speech mannerisms. Drives me nuts.)

So, er, about the paradox thingy. Wish I had more to comment on it. There is a certain sense of balance and rightness to a self-fulfilling paradox. Makes for a neater and cleaner story. The first time I came across it was a short story by someone I can't remember called "Up By His Bootstraps" (or something similar). The idea blew me away.

It's almost a kind of aethestic, I think. While there is the appeal of a neat paradox, some people like the messy timeloops. Take Lawrence Miles' Faction Paradox ("Alien Bodies" and "Interference"). One of their forms of punishment is for a member to kill his or her's younger self.

Of course, Simon Bucher-Jones suggested in "Ghost Devices" that a self-cancelling paradox would loop over and over, variating slightly each time until some sequence of events occurred that allowed the universe to go on. Sort of like that mythical first time around that Vashkoda suggested.

Aesthetically pleasing as it may be, I always thought this kind of history was somewhat depressing. How do you *know* it was free will? If there never was a first time, and you've always been doing a particular action, then there's nothing to you say you could change. Which you can't.

Anyhoo, just a thought or two buried in all that.

"...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..."

Jason Barnett writes...

I just read your thoughts on the X-men movie and the books' continuity. About Rogue, she actually first appeared in Avengers Annual 10 and apparently had several appearences in Dazzler, so she was with the Brotherhood for a little while at least. And as for the Ms. Marvel powers, they weren't that vague, super strength, invulnerability, flight. I always felt they were necessary to make a potentially interesting character viable. Half the time when she absorbed somebody their mind took her over so she was against the X-men, so she had to have something she could do to benefit the team.

demona writes...

greg could u give me some sits where i might find other gargoyle fans?

kevy writes...

Criky! I've just been looking at the archives and all I can say is thank you Greg! We fans are ruthless and relentless.

Blaise writes...

VOWS

First off, I hope you had a happy Thanksgiving!

Now, on to the episode.
The Pheonix Gate--I never dreamt of its power until Demona put it to use. I never even knew GARGOYLES would deal with time travel, but I was quite pleasantly surprised when it did.
On the subject of time travel, I really do prefer the way you guys used it. The "what's-happened-already-happened-time-is-immutable" method. You are right, it is far more satisfying for me (and in some cases, more fun as well).

Petros Xanatos is quite a guy. Usually, in animated shows with villains, they make the parents of said villain just as bad as their offspring, or turn them into comedy relief. It's refreashing that in this series, the parents don't approve of the more shady activities pursued by their children. Also, I think the way Morgan Shepherd (I know I misspelled that) reads each line is wonderful. And, like you, I think the "Mr. Big-Shot Time-Traveler" line and "American Penny" tag are wonderful moments.

In the initial airings, I did like seeing that Goliath bled from the mouth at the beginning. He wasn't quite so invulnerable after all. Unfortunately, they don't seem to show him bleeding in that opening fight anymore.
They also toned down Young Demona's over-enthusiastic greeting of Young Goliath the first time around. The second showing of the scene is exaclty as it should be, but the first time (when it's Goliath's flashback/dream) she no longer flies into his arms like before. I don't really understand why either of these alterations were made (or maybe I don't want to understand).

However, I MUCH prefer the REAL ending of VOWS (the flashback to the castle). When I first saw it, I felt "Okay, NOW this makes a lot more sense." So there is one person right here who likes the real ending.

In later viewings of this episode, I did pick up on Hudson's rather cryptic way of saying things, and liked it.
I'm also one of those people who think that Young Demona's visit to 994 may have played a part in her later machinations against the humans of Wyvern. She never knew WHICH humans were involved in the massacre, nor WHEN the massacre took place. Who knows how that may have eaten away at her?
And she could have avoided it if she had followed Goliath's advice. But she never did.

I was surprised that the Illuminati actually turned out to be real. And it made me happy.

The Archmage--well, I like the guy. And his revelation of the three talismans that would grant "the ultimate magical power" whetted my appetite for the day when we would see someone make that combination.

I wasn't surprised that Xanatos got married (I mean, he got engaged in the last episode, what's the next step?), but I was glad to see it happen. As for having a kid...best wait until we get to OUTFOXED.

Okay, this baby's getting a little thick, but that's only because you really did cram so much stuff into this episode.

Todd Jensen writes...

I was just looking over the two recently reprinted memos on all the variant names for the gargoyles. The part that really astonishes me the most about it is how many names were being suggested for the cast aside from the ones that they eventually wound up with. It seems so obvious to me now (although, of course, this is from the perspective of hindsight) that "Goliath" is the appropriate name for the "Gargoyle-Master" that I honestly can't imagine him being called anything else at all. (Ditto with the rest of the cast).

(Of course, I've come across this phenomenon in other "behind-the-scenes" cases; Tolkien, for example, originally considered naming the protagonist of "The Lord of the Rings" Bingo, but fortunately later on realized how inappropriately silly it would be and changed the character's name to Frodo).

Elisa Ann Goliath writes...

Hi! It's me again! Just wanted to ramble a little bit about E&G's relationship. (And a comment or two would be nice:)
Lately I've been thinking a lot about marital relationships. (You know, what makes a good one. My parents recently had their 41st anniversary, I guess that's why I'm thinking about it.) Now, I'm only 16, and I don't presume to know everything about marriage, but I think I can safely say I have a more realistic view of marriage than most of my peers.
In the series, as a HUGE fan of the E&G relationship, of course my main concern is for E&G to get "married", but really if you think about it, they already have a relationship that is.... I don't know, kind of marriage-like. In the Bible, men are commanded by God to love their wives as Christ loved the church (be willing to die for) and women are to submit to their husbands (like it are not, feminist ladies, it works best this way). With Elisa and Goliath, Goliath loves Elisa with all the tenderness of his heart, is willing to die for her, and he values her and her opinions, and is therefore always asking for her input and for her help. Also, since he loves her, he is not demanding or arbitrary, making it easy for her to submit. She, of course, loves him as much if not more than he loves her, is willing to die for him, and is usually ready to submit when he makes a final decision on something, whether or not it is what she suggested. As a proud, independent woman this cannot always be easy, but she makes the sacrifice because she loves him and because she knows that he is only doing what he thinks is best.
Well, I've just been wanting to get that down on record.
Thanks! TTFN!

Aris Katsaris writes...

More on fate and time-travel... :-)

I don't know if The Mighty Thor is Christian or not but if he is, then the following example from the bible may help explain the way that *I* view the whole fate/choice thing... Jesus several times reveals knowledge of the future. He says that St.Peter's going to deny him three times before dawn, that Judas is going to betray him, that the people are going to crucify him.

At the same time each of these choices belong to the people who made them: Free will is an important part of most Christian denominations. Peter *chose* to deny him, Judas *chose* to betray him, and the people *chose* to crucify him. Sure, God knew as he's supposed to know everything. But that He knew which choices they were going to make, doesn't mean that it wasn't *their* choices.

Personally, I don't believe in Christianity, nor do I believe that time-travel (either working-paradox or non-working paradox) will ever become possible... But I generally find it strange if one can accept the former's and isn't able to conceive the latter's strange blend of free-will and foreknowledge...

Entity writes...

Vows -

Melissa wrote about how she thought Elisa overreacted to Xanatos' invitation to Goliath and came off too jealous in her attempts to dissuade Goliath from attending the wedding. I'd just like to say that I was satisfied by Elisa's reaction. I mean, look at the setup: The main villain invites the main hero to his wedding. If this were any other show, it would be pure corn. Elisa was the voice of reason, the voice that reassured me that this episode was not going to degenerate into an episode of G.I. Joe or Ninja Turtles. So, thank you for giving Elisa's role in the episode its due, considering how densely-packed it was. It made the difference between sophistication and corn for me.

Todd Jensen writes...

One thought of my own about the "fate/free will" argument. Somebody cited Demona in "Vows" as an example of this, arguing that because her future self who visits her in 975 is evil, Demona's doomed to become evil herself regardless of what she does.

Actually, my own thoughts on this was that the seeds of Demona's future character are already present even before Demona-1995 meets her. After all, she's already working for the Archmage, and stealing for him, suggesting that she'd started down that path already.

Aris Katsaris writes...

Time travel yet again!

Vashkoda> Ah, I think I get better now what you are talking about... I think I had a couple similar ideas when (pre-Gargoyles) I was trying to explain to myself the "working-paradox" of the Star Trek episode Time's Arrow. It's the episode where Data's head is discovered (among other things) in an archaeological dig, which leads Enterprise back in time to discover what happened, which causes Data to lose his head, etc, etc. I had then thought that perhaps once upon a meta-time (or "cycle" of time) , the Enterprise went for a different reasons in the past, there Data lost his head, etc. That's similar to your "missing origin" scenario, I think, right?

But the thing is that the butterfly effect still tears this down. In a sense there can be *no* small adjustments in the timestream, because there's no scientific distinction between "small" or "great" - the tiniest change in the combination of my parent's genes (a literally microscopical change) creates a individual which looks more like my brother, rather than like me. I really feel that a universe which has Xanatos in poor clothing go back in 975 couldn't possibly create a Napoleon (or Xanatos himself) the same way that a universe with Xanatos going back with rich clothing would... *Any* change means *huge* change...

(The Earth without Data's head buried in it couldn't have realistically spawned the same Picard/Riker/Data/Enterprise as the Earth *with* Data's head... Therefore the former idea of a "missing origin" must be disproven...)

Tim writes...

Vows-Loved this episode, it had Demona, Xanatos, characterization galore, intricate plot, everything that makes Gargoyles above and beyond other animated series. Favorite lines was Xanatos's "But you won't. Because you didn't. Time travel's funny that way." That is SO Xanatos! And Young Demona and Goliath's conversation gives me a lump in my throat, just because it is so tragic what ultimately happens. As to what was going on in her head when she flew down to the beach before the Massacre, I would say Panic. Full-fledged Panic. Heh, that's another beautiful scene. And the last scene in Vows when Goliath and Demona float off into the distance with those heart-strumming music chords playing is just wonderful and sad at the same time. A nail in the coffin, as you said.

Phil writes...

Continuing the recent discussion on the immutability of time and Mighty Thor's question about fate/predestination vs free will.

As an amateur writer I can relate to being the creator of a universe. When your characters are well developed, they do seem to have minds of their own. There are things they'll do and things they won't do. As "god," you can force them to do what you want, but then they're not the same person. You have to manipulate events so that choices they make are logical and in-character.

As I'm sure you've said, Greg, time is only immutable if you know about it. You can't change things that have happened, you can only work around them. And you can only fulfill things you didn't know about before.

The way I see it, our challenge as writers/creators is to arrange time/fate so that "independent" characters are "free" to make the choices we want them to make. It's often very difficult, but the result is so fulfilling when everything seems to work out naturally.

Thanks for reading my ramble, Greg. This is just my point of view. I'm interested to learn if and how yours differs.

SEM writes...

This is just a little follow-up to Faieq's question about Katherine and Tom not having children. Faieq assumed a fertility issue which Greg admitted not knowing for sure of either did or not.

There are methods of birth control that date back to the ancient Egyptians that involve acorns (given the variance of fan age involvement on the boards I won't go into much detail unless asked). Anyway, assuming acorns were accessible to Katherine that kind option would have been there.

But as Greg pointed out, Katherine and Tom probably wouldn't lean toward using any methods. And he's the expert.

Just got Toon Disney last night and am so thrilled to finally be able to catch up on ALL the GARGOYLES episodes I've missed!
Just putting the information out there for consideration.

Knoxville writes...

Hi Mr. Weisman,
This is only my second time posting here but I was wondering (you will probalby think I'm nutso or something)if you have ever found yourself saying that it would be wonderful to be a actual gargoyle like Goliath and the clan. I know I have, alot recently actually.
Thanks,
Knoxville

Jon writes...

Greg,

Like a lot of people, I'm sure, I haven't posted much to this forum, but have followed it avidly for as long as it's been running. I first wanted to thank Gorebash, Todd, and, most of all, yourself, for taking the time to keep this Ask Greg site up and going. It is just awesome that the fans that have received so much pleasure from Gargoyles (including myself) can communicate and share ideas with the creator of the show. It's particularly refreshing to see how much thought, effort, and soul (for lack of a better word) you have commited to Gargoyles; it's obviously not simply a product that you created for your job, you really believe in it and love it, which somehow affirms our own strong feelings for the show.

I started watching Gargoyles about mid-way through its first run. I was a graduate student (I guess you were WAY off your target demographic with me! :) ) at the time, and was hooked from the first time I saw it. I believe Long Way to Morning was the first episode I watched, and I taped every episode from then on until I had them all and could re-watch (and re-watch…) them in order. I loved the show for all the reasons that others have mentioned here; the complex characters, the mix of history, legend, and "realism", the continuity, the intelligent dialogue, and the magic that the story wove from episode to episode. But there was an aspect to Gargoyles that appealed to me on a much more personal level. I guess the best way to describe it is that the main characters in the show (specifically, the Manhattan clan and Elisa) exhibited a code of honor/respect/intelligence that I really appreciated, and often find to be lacking in today's world. The interactions of the Gargoyles sort of provided a model, or a reminder of a way of life that is often lost in the cynicism of the modern world. The meaning of Home. The importance of Accountability. The responsibility of Power. Trust. Friendship. Kindness. Loyalty. Humility. And perhaps most of all, Courage.

Somewhere along the lines, the Gargoyles became role models for me, in a strange sort of way. They embodied heroic characteristics, many of which I have listed above, that I guess I continue to try to live up to. As ridiculous as it might sound, I think Gargoyles has helped make me a better person.

Anyway, in closing, it seems like the world is short of great stories, and short on role models, but there are more of both since the airing of Gargoyles. Thank you, Greg.

Vashkoda writes...

Hey Aris. Well, the argument about missing loop origins is moot since Greg says there are none. Now I'm more interested in -why- these loops even exist. But I guess I'll explain more what I was thinking when I brought up the "missing origins".

What I reasoned was that for a certain period of time (lets say the first few hundred cycles of time), time was new and malleable and could be "experimented" with. So if Xanatos got his hands on the Gate in the 1990's and then decided he wanted to go to the 900's, he -could-, and yes, it -would- mess with the timestream, but that obviously would have been his intent if he wanted to send himself the coin so that he could be rich. And yes, that would mean that the Xanatos he once was would never have existed because his actions would change his own history (hence the "non-working paradox"). But lets imagine that this situation happened to hundreds of individuals who tried to alter the timestream, and lets say that for the most part, they cancelled themselves out so that they never happened. But for a -few- individuals, maybe their altered history does -not- prevent their getting the Gate and going back in time as they had originally done (even in real life, some people do get their cake and eat it too). Except of course now, the Xanatos who travels back in time is not the same as the Xanatos who originally went back (this one's richer, for example). So small adjustments are made in the timestream, but nothing as drastic as when Xanatos first appeared in the 900's (now the Prince might notice that Xanatos is dressed nicer than before, but at least Xanatos's appearance itself doesn't trigger anything new). So as time as a whole repeats itself, adjustments are made and wrinkles are ironed out until finally everything -works- and makes sense. Sure, it might take hundreds of cycles, but at some point every predicted event will be accounted for and the timestream, at last, becomes "immutable".

And as for the butterfly-effect, who's to say that there originally was a Macbeth, Napoleon, or Kennedy? Maybe they're all the result of Xanatos or some other traveler going back in time? The way I see it, the present as it is now could just be the final result of all the alterations made in time. So it's not a coincidence at all that Goliath still exists when Xanatos comes back from his trip (for all we know, Goliath still exists only -because- of X's trip).

Aris Katsaris writes...

Vashkoda, you said: <<I had hoped that there indeed was a "missing origin" to the time loops, as the presence of such loops would have made a lot more sense to me. >>

This discussion interests me, so I hope nobody minds if I take part in it:

I've read and seen a *lot* of time-travel stories, and I have to say that the "missing origin" concept of time-loops, the idea that there can be time-travel which *does* change history, seems much more filled with plot-holes than the kind of time-travel we saw in Gargoyles.

For example consider your own scenario: That there was once a 975 which *didn't* contain Xanatos as time-traveller. Let's assume that history otherwise goes on as normal and creates a Xanatos which for some reason wants to go back to 975 and change history. Let's assume that he can.

The problem is that if he goes back to 975 he will change history *entirely*. By simply being there for a single second, he will displace certain molecules of air, which (the butterfly-effect) will displace more molecules. After ten years a couple storms will occur which wouldn't have occured, other storms which occur won't. More importantly among the millions of possible gene-combinations for every single child, surely a different one will be made at every conception. *No* individual conceived after Xanatos' arrival in the past will be the same as before his time-travel. By going to the past, Xanatos won't have just erased his own birth from history, he will have erased the births of Macbeth, Napoleon, Lincoln, Kennedy, etc...

The only way to have Xanatos go back to the past, *and* be able to return to an even remotely recognizable world, would be if all the trillions of changes that will take due to his being there are already part of his world's history - aka if there's no "first loop" aka if history is unchangeable... But having someone *both* to be able to change history *and* at the same time change it in such a limited way as to influence only a limited amount of events, is wanting to have your cake and eat it also... Atleast the "unchangeable history" is just illogical for our sequential minds - one could even go metaphysical and say that it's God who put the loops there... The "changeable history" version may be logical, but it's also impossible... :-)

Vashkoda writes...

I had hoped that there indeed was a "missing origin" to the time loops, as the presence of such loops would have made a lot more sense to me. My problem is not with grasping the concept of pardoxes, but with understanding the reasoning behind them. When I thought that there had been an actual origin to the loops, the loops made sense because they were initiated by individuals who had access to the Gate and the desire to alter time. But by telling me that these loops have always existed, I begin to wonder why they exist in the first place. Were they made intentionally, meant to serve a particular purpose, or is the timestream just "flawed" (well, maybe flawed isn't the best word, but the presence of random paradoxes certainly make me question the efficiency of who/whatever created the timestream). If the loops are intentional, it begs the question of who arranged for them to happen, and why. Because of its nature, one can't help but think of a time loop as a means to rectify a mistake or improve one's situation (saving yourself from a fatal fall, making yourself rich, etc). But if you're saying that the characters themselves aren't responsible and that loops were always present in the timestream, then one has to look at it from the timesteam's point of view, and what it has to gain from them. Some characters have greatly benefited from the loops (Griff and Xanatos, for example), so does that mean that the timestream is somehow biased to favor certain individuals? (but you'd still have to wonder why the stream went to the trouble of creating a *paradox* to make Xanatos rich or save Griff's life). Or was the timeline "drafted" with errors, which were then fixed via paradoxes when the timestream was finally created? For example, although Xanatos is a New Yorker from the 20th-21st century, the timestream may have goofed and placed him briefly at a Scottish castle in the late 900's. Then, to explain his presence, the stream sent in the Phoenix Gate and placed him in a situation where he would have access to it (this use for the Gate does in fact fit with your description of it as a kind of "pressure valve" for the Timestream--here, acting to fulfill events that were fated but can't otherwise happen within the normal constraints of time and space).

So is the presence of these time-loops intentional (and if so, who is responsible and why?), or is the timestream just "flawed" (for lack of a better word)?

Donald writes...

You know, of all the types of Time Travel stories there are, the "working paradox", as you put it, is my favorite. However, it does seem that many people, like Vashkoda, have fundamental difficulties grasping the one defining aspect of the concept.

Time is not linear. All of time exists as one unit...there is no beginning and no end. Think of it as a multi-faceted jewel, of which we can only see one facet at a time. The whole jewel is already there, but it is a limit of our perception that makes us think time is linear.

I suppose your love of the working paradox is why you like the first Terminator but not the sequel. I feel the same way. It is probably one of the more famous of the working paradox stories. Another good example is The Philadelphia Experiment, which was more purely focused on the concept.

In case you're wondering, the multi-faceted jewel explanation comes from Alan Moore's Watchmen, which did not really have a time travel element to it, but the roots of the concept were there with the Dr. Manhattan character's ability to perceive all of time within his existence.

Of course, that idea harkens back to poor old Billy Pilgrim in Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five. Of course, that's not really a time travel story either, but it does help explain the concept a bit.

Hope I haven't bored everyone ;-)

Melissa writes...

Hey Greg,

Just a few small comments on your ramble on "Vows".

Although I think this was a great episode and it had amazing dialogue moments, I thought that after seeing it a few times it became boring and I was less interested in it. I was definitely more "into" the second half of the episode when it got to conversations held by the old and young Goliath and Demona. The dialogue between all of them just seemed to fit so well and flowed beautifully.

I did notice the change in size of the Gate but I just thought of it as being bigger in human hands and smaller in the gargoyle's hands because of size difference between gargoyles and humans.

I also thought that Elisa (my favorite character) was acting way out of hand. I thought it was out of character for her to act so jealous. It wasn't even that, it just looked like she had PMS. I kept yelling at the tv (to Elisa) to back off his case!

Alright...I'm done.

Aris Katsaris writes...

You said: <<O.K. Thanks. So death was NEVER personified?
Certainly Uranos was personified in the mythology, right? And Eros, of course. >>

Umm, I'm not certain what exactly it is you mean by "personification", so let me be a bit more elaborate.

Pretty much *everything* was personified as a deity, including abstractions like "Victory"-Nike, "Peace"-Eirene, "Justice"-Dike, "Violence"-Bia, "Night"-Nyx, "Sleep"-Hypnos, etc. The name is the concept is the deity...

However most of these deities never seemed to have a solid existence in stories besides their very function - unlike gods and goddesses like Athena, Hades, Hermes, Thetis, Callisto, etc, who very clearly were "persons" with a history and personalities that was separate from their specific roles...

Uranus was ofcourse personified - he was a person who was defeated and castrated by Cronos, etc, etc. And in fact he was probably personified so much that the meaning of his name being "sky" was probably almost forgotten, and Zeus was considered the god whose province was the sky, etc.

Eros is a weird case: The story which "personified" him as the son of Aphrodite and the lover of Psyche, was written very late, 2nd century AD I think, by a Roman writer. In that one he was obviously a seperate person, "personified" with any definition one can come up with.

But before that, Eros seems to have been much more of an abstraction, one of the very first gods who was birthed by Chaos: For if there had been no Eros (no love) later gods (like Gaia and Uranus, or Cronos and Rhea, or Zeus and Hera) could not have loved each other. More of a force, less of a person.

Now Death-"Thanatos" was ofcourse personified like anything else: he's supposed to be the son of Night, and the older brother of Sleep (Hypnos). But besides that, he seems to me to be much more of an abstraction like Nike, and less of a person like Athena. He's referred to as a person occasionally (Zeus sends Hypnos and Thanatos to carry the body of Sarpedon with honour away from Troy, I think that Hercules is supposed to have wrestled with Thanatos in one case) but those two are pretty much the only occasions I remember him be a person...

I don't know if the above helped clarify or confuse...

Kalafarski writes...

A couple comments on your Vows ramble....

As I've said in a couple of posts about the Phoenix Gate before, I love the way you handle time travel. It just works so perfectly.

But here's what I found interesting. Demona has brought her past self nineteen years into the future. She shows her that her home has been invaded, her clan has been betrayed, her brothers and sisters are dead. And her true love has been turned to stone.

I thought it was interesting that Demona doesn't try to convince her younger self that Goliath is naive, too trusting of humans, or foolish. She doesn't even try to tell her that all this destruction will be Goliath's fault. Instead, she plays off of young Demona's love for Goliath, blaming the humans for what has happened to him. But it's not like the humans are the only ones old Demona blames in her own head right now. Goliath is clearly there. "Do not share it with....do not share it!"

So my question is, why does Demona do this? Is she certain that, knowing how she herself thought 1000 years ago, her younger self would never turn away from Goliath? Or is it that Demona's plan is to use her past self's own "foolish trust" in Goliath to serve her own ends?

Jon writes...

Well, now that I've posted once... :)

After reading your ramble on Vows, I wanted to comment a bit about it. It is an excellent episode, and one of the things I noticed is that Goliath sure gets the crud beat out of him in this one, first by Xanatos at the Golden Cup, and then by Demona after he barges in on her reunion with her younger self. Both animation sequences showed Goliath bleeding from the mouth after various blows. For some reason, that just awed me (and still does). This is a cartoon where the "hero" gets hurt!! I was always ridiulously amazed and pleased by this, maybe because it is so unusual to have that level of maturity and realism incorporated into a cartoon.

The animation sequence where Goliath and Demona are flying down to the watch the wedding is just terrific, really gives a sense of the power of movement of the gargoyles.

I never thought about Demona's overly excited greeting to Goliath that we see at the beginning and end of the episode was because she was just shook up about the encounter with the future Goliath. Very sophisticated.

I was always very amused at the concept of Goliath as Best Man for Xanatos. Not only is it ironic given their history, it's just funny to see Goliath in a role that is so "human".

I had a few questions, too:
1) The older Demona tells her younger self "Do not share it [the Gate] with... Do not share it!" Who did she mean her younger self shouldn't share it with? You may have said this before, sorry if I missed it.

2) Was the scene where Owen offers Goliath a bow tie cut during production (you mentioned it in the memo, but, unfortunately, it's not in the show)?

3) Did the younger Demona have any reservations about stealing the Gate? I'm still a bit shocked that the she stole it so willingly. While I know that this sort of foreshadows her personality to come, I'm still surprised she didn't have a bit more moral fiber at the time. Maybe she was living in fear of what the arch mage would do to her if she failed? Or perhaps she just didn't place any value in the trinkets or possessions of the worthless humans?

4) Was Demona's abuse by the Arch-mage intended to be a primary motivation for her general hatred towards humans? Early in her life she was mistreated by a cruel human that was more powerful than herself, and her self-loathing at carrying out his evil little errands could very easily have created a guilt cycle that resulted in a desire to kill ALL humans, as sort of a payback for what the Arch-mage did. All of which was compounded multifold by the events of the massacre, but still, her early suspicion/dislike of humans could have stemmed solely or at least primarily from the abuse of the Arch-mage. Ok, I'll stop trying to psychoanalyze Demona. But she's so FASCINATING....

Thanks!

Ed writes...

'VOWS' - what an episode. So many twists, so much drama, and some brilliant comedy from the Xanatos family. The thing that always occurred to me when watching this is: who on earth in Shari Goodharz? She only wrote the one episode that I recall and yet this is one of my favourites, if not my favourite outright. And yet she never did anything else. I guess looking at your outline she had a lot of dialogue to work in but even so, it was pretty damn good.

Actually, it always seemed like quite an intense episode to put before a multi-part story. I didn't watch it in order properly until I knew the whole season ('CITY OF STONE' aired at the beginning of the season here in two back-to-back weekends: accompanied with some stunning preview adverts of Demona blasting the stone humans).

Just one reply:

You said…
"But the gate stays open long enough for him to go with. Did it ever occur to her to go somewhen else other than 994? I guess part of it could be chalked up to dim memory. It was over a thousand years ago. And Demona lived through that 1000 years. Even for a very significant event in her life, it must still be very hazy."

Apart from the shock factor of the castle still burning (in this episode) and Goliath in stone, I think this would have meant most to Demona. But another possible explanation is in your outline:
"But choosing requires incredible concentration. Otherwise, the chooser's emotional or mental whim of the moment may cause the gate to drop everyone off at Burger King instead of Fort Knox."

Seeing as how Demona claims to have a clear memory of Goliath's 'inspirational' presumably this is the thought that would have dragged her to 994.

I really like your explanation of the Gate's changing size as being due to its 'time valve' function. Was this something you ever planned to develop or at least mention out loud in the series? I guess we'd get some hints from what you've told us about 'TIMEDANCER' so far.

Todd Jensen writes...

One other interesting feature about "Vows" that I forgot to mention in my ramble last night. When Goliath is talking to Hudson in 975, he indicates that he is afraid that Xanatos went back in time to 10th century Castle Wyvern to plot some sort of skullduggery against the clan then. But in fact, it turns out that Xanatos's real purpose for being there is to receive the coins from Prince Malcolm, not because of the gargoyles, and that it's merely a coincidence (insomuch as anything in the Gargoyles Universe can be considered a coincidence) that he received those coins at the old home of Goliath and his clan.

I mention this because it brings up one of the interesting features of Xanatos that makes him different from the conventional "main villain" in an animated series. Most such "main villains" focus their schemes almost exclusively on settling their feud with the protagonists, to such an extent that it often results in the rest of their objectives failing because they let themselves get sidetracked by their obsession. But Xanatos didn't. A lot of his schemes turned out to be, from his own perspective, only marginally involving the gargoyles, while really focused in a different direction ("Leader of the Pack" is a good example of this, where it turns out that Xanatos's real interest was in getting Fox out of prison rather than in defeating the gargoyles), and in fact, he often accomplishes a lot of his objectives (the ones that didn't involve capturing Goliath and Co. - or, later on, becoming immortal). Other antagonists in the series do strike me as thoroughly capable of letting themselves get sidetracked by the feud to the detriment of their other goals (Demona, the Archmage, and the Pack spring immediately to mind in such a category), but Xanatos seemed more inclined to focus his attention elsewhere than on the clan.

At the same time, of course, Goliath always seemed ready to take an angle towards Xanatos as though he really was the "stereotyped master-villain" above, automatically assuming that Xanatos's schemes were directed towards the gargoyles (as per the case above) or even initially thinking that he was behind somebody else's scheme (as when he initially believed that it was Xanatos rather than Macbeth who stole the Scrolls of Merlin). That helped make Xanatos's break with "cartoon tradition" all the more noteworthy, in having Goliath's perception of Xanatos being closer to how such a conventional villain acted than Xanatos in person actually was.

Revel writes...

Regarding your "Vows" ramble

I think More's the pitty is kind of like Ignorance is bliss. You've just heard it so many times no one knows who origninally said it.
(my opinion of course)

Todd Jensen writes...

My ramble/reply to your ramble on "Vows".

I very much liked this one. We got the time travel story at last (as I mentioned in my ramble/reply for "Lighthouse in the Sea of Time", I'd read that there was going to be time travel in the second season of "Gargoyles", but initially mistakenly believed that it would be in the "Lighthouse" episode because of the "Sea of Time" part of the title). I've always been fond of time travel stories, particularly ones sending the characters into the historical past, and this one I very much enjoyed, particularly since it led to more "10th century Castle Wyvern scenes" (one of my favorite parts of the series). I also noticed the care used (both here and throughout "Gargoyles") with how time travel doesn't change history but is simply part of the already extant history (which makes all the more sense to me since I've been working on a fantasy novel for some time now, begun before "Gargoyles" ever came out, which made similar use of time travel, with even a time loop or two similar to those in "Avalon Part Two" and "M.I.A." - which helped me understand those episodes better, but that's another story). Certainly that kind of time travel helps make certain that there's no cheating.

I also liked seeing the Archmage again, and hearing the mention of the Eye of Odin (without realizing the full significance of that part, though). One interesting piece in this episode is that Hudson seems to already suspect, by 975, the Archmage's true nature (given the bit where he comes to the aid of Young Demona near the end).

I was half-expecting the Hudson of 1995 to mention Goliath's showing up in 975 at the end, after Goliath returned to the clock tower; he didn't, but his behavior in the modern day does make more sense in light of his meeting the present-day Goliath back in 975.

I learned about the "King Lear" quote from a friend, and was amused to discover that in its original place in the play, it was spoken by Lear to his daughters Goneril and Regan; trust Xanatos to reverse the parent/child roles when he quoted it! :)

I was very interested to see Xanatos wearing an Illuminati pin and to have the Society's existence confirmed (doubly so with the Norman Ambassador). I can definitely remember what I thought upon seeing that bit: "I wonder what Matt would say if he could see this."

And yes, I was definitely surprised to see Xanatos getting married. (Maybe all the more so since the main antagonist of the aforementioned fantasy novel has some Xanatosian qualities - coincidental, since his basic character was worked out before "Gargoyles" ever came out - but is a very solitary figure, whom I definitely can't imagine ever developing genuine feelings of the sort that Xanatos had for Fox). Very daring, I've got to agree.

One interesting feature about Young Demona's visit to 994 (incidentally, that means that there were *three* Demonas existing simultaneously at that moment, the Demona of 975, of 994, and of 1995 - good thing that the 994-Demona didn't show up or things could really have gotten confusing:) is that she learns about the future Wyvern Massacre, which probably subtly influenced her towards eventually working with the Captain to betray the humans. It's been suspected by many fans that Young Demona might have believed that it was the humans native to the castle who carried out the massacre (note that 1995-Demona never says that it was an outside enemy who destroyed the clan - or, for that matter, that the reason why Goliath was turned to stone was because he begged the Magus to do it), so in her scheming with the Captain to avert the prophecy, she actually helped fulfill it. (A time-honored literary concept, of course, going back at least to Sophocles' "Oedipus Rex" where similarly Laius and Oedipus's very efforts to prevent Oedipus's prophecied destiny of killing his father and marrying his mother actually help bring that destiny about). A very chilling concept.

I've seen the phrase "more's the pity" used a few times in works that I know that I've read before "Gargoyles", and even used the phrase at least once in something that I wrote before "Gargoyles" ever premiered, but I've no idea myself where it comes from. Maybe it's one of those general phrases with no single originator.

At any rate, I enjoyed the rambling - and am looking forward to the comments on "City of Stone".

Todd Jensen writes...

I just read your two recently-posted memos for "Eye of the Beholder" and "Vows". Thank you for posting them (and I'm looking forward to the "Vows" ramble/review).

These inspired three comments, which I thought that I'd post (though all three separately, of course).

This first comment is on the "Eye of the Beholder" memo. One thing that stood out to me is that in the memo, Xanatos mentions that legend had it that the Eye of Odin was literally that, but this doesn't pop up in the actual episode. Actually, I'm glad that it didn't, because I feel that it made the impact of Odin showing up to claim the Eye in "Eye of the Storm" more dramatic as a result. Up until that episode ("Eye of the Storm") aired, I'd assumed that the Eye was just given a fancy name borrowed from Norse mythology, so it was more of a surprise when it turned out to be the actual eye that Odin gave up to Mimir than it would if Xanatos had mentioned rumors about that in "Eye of the Beholder".

Todd Jensen writes...

A bit of a ramble on the Hunters, particularly the Canmore trio, inspired in part by your answer to my last question about them.

One interesting element that becomes apparent when you put "City of Stone" and "Hunter's Moon" together is that the Hunters did, oddly enough, become somewhat more likable over the centuries.

The initial three Hunters depicted in "City of Stone", Gillecomgain, Duncan, and Canmore, all struck me as among the nastier villains in "Gargoyles", with very little in the way of redeeming features. Gillecomgain might have had a bit of sympathy from us (the audience), given Demona's wanton attack upon him when he was a boy. (I believe that it was more a deliberate act of hatred than a matter of self-defense, given her "That'll teach you humans to betray us" remark, something that better fits a calculated action). But then he quickly loses that by not only vowing revenge upon her entire race rather than just Demona, punishing the innocent alongside the guilty, but also willingly becoming Duncan's hired assassin by 1020, and also willingly entering into a loveless marriage with Gruoch twelve years later. Duncan was a suspicious tyrant ready to murder anybody whom he even suspected might threaten his claim to the throne, even when that person in question was innocent of such designs (as Findlaech and Macbeth both clearly were) and Canmore clearly followed in his father's footsteps; while both didn't like gargoyles much, it does seem that a lot of their persecution of the gargs stemmed from the fact that they were Macbeth's allies.

But when we get to the modern-day Canmores of "Hunter's Moon", the "powermonger" angle has clearly gone. Apart from their war on the gargoyles, the Canmores come across as quite sympathetic, more like basically decent people trapped by a horrible family tradition. Jason clearly has enough nobility in him for Elisa to develop genuine feelings for him, and he for her. The Canmores of "Hunter's Moon" are in the wrong, but they come across more as misguided than as truly villainous. Which makes them all the more into tragic figures, particularly Jason and Jon in their different ways (Jason learns the error of his ways in time, but loses the use of his legs; Jon half-realizes that what his family has been doing is wrong and almost turns aside from the path, but in the end yields to it in his weakness and undergoes the transformation into Castaway). It's one of the elements, in my opinion, that makes "Hunter's Moon" so effective.

Todd Jensen writes...

Note to Sapphire about the "Gargoyles/Buffy" crossover possibility:

While my thoughts on this one probably count less than Greg's (he's the creator of the series; I'm just one of the fans), I do think that such a crossover, while in some ways more feasible than, say, "Gargoyles/Batman" or "Gargoyles/Superman", does have a few snags to be overcome. One is legal ownership (Disney owns "Gargoyles", WB "Buffy"). Another is geography (Buffy and Co. live on the West Coast, the gargoyles on the East Coast).

(Of course, there's no danger as yet of "Gargoyles Universe" vampires being incompatible with the Buffyverse, since all that we know about "Gargoyles Universe" vampires is that they're vulnerable to silver - Princess Katharine mentions this in "Ill Met By Moonlight" - which doesn't contradict any statements about vampires in "Buffy").

But as I said, I don't view such a crossover as something all that likely for the near future, myself.

evil circus midget writes...

I don't really have a question..I just want to say that this is really cool how you take the time to answer all these questions...even the dumb ones. So thank you.

Tim writes...

Eye of the Beholder: Always loved this episode, from Fox's transformation scenes, to Xanatos's spilled milk and Plan D, E and F, to Owen's smile and the revelations of the Eye of Odin. One question: What WAS that sound of Fox's roaring at the end of the episode when she's transforming back to herself? If you turn your volume up it makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up and it is VERY disturbing. Great sound! Just wondering if you knew what that sound was.

Can't wait until you cover City of Stone!

Todd Jensen writes...

This is a sort of unofficial comment/reply to Sapphire's question about why some gargoyles (such as Yama) might want to reveal themselves to the human world. Of course, I believe that Greg has the final say here, but I thought that I'd give my thoughts on this topic (carefully staying within the rules for submitting questions such as "don't provide ideas") because it interests me.

While the existence of gargoyle-haters such as Castaway out there does make the gargoyles' secrecy a sensible decision, at the same time, there does seem to be something to the notion of the gargoyles making themselves public. For one thing, the main reason why humans hate gargoyles so much is because they're afraid of them, and the reason why they're afraid of the gargoyles is because they know so little about them, and so it becomes easier for them to be convinced, either by the demagoguery of others such as Castaway or by their own fears, that the gargoyles are a danger to them and have to be contained or destroyed. So one could argue that as long as the gargoyles take the route of lying low and hiding, they make it easy for the hatred and fear to continue, and that the only way that they can reverse this trend is to make themselves public, tell their side of the story to the humans, let them know the truth. The gargoyles' secrecy, in a way, plays directly into the hands of people like Castaway, for it keeps the humans ignorant of what this race is really like and therefore makes things easier for the hatemongers.

I'm enough of a realist to admit that even if the gargoyles did give some sort of public press conference announcing themselves and their mission of "protect the innocent" to the world, a la Superman, it wouldn't be likely to make the hatred and intolerance go away just like that. But it could certainly help to weaken their foundations at least a little.

(Not that I can truly blame Goliath and his clan for choosing the path of secrecy up until the destruction of the clock tower; they had reasons enough from their own experience to be cautious - between their treatment by the humans in 994 and their betrayal by first Xanatos and then the Pack so soon after awakening - not to mention that the preference of their chief human confidante, Elisa, to keep them a secret must have influenced them here as well).

Blaise writes...

EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

Elisa in a Belle gown dancing with Goliath--always the first image in my mind when this ep is mentioned.

I was quite surprised (and delighted) by the display of Xanatos's feelings for Fox in this episode. I mean, the beginning proposal to Fox literally sounds like a BUSINESS proposal, and it just kills me every time I watch that scene. The whole growth of Xanatos throughout this episode--his facial expressions and attempts to save Fox--is really a highlight of the series. A show in which the "BIG BAD GUY" is not all that bad. Of course, he naturally denies having any traits that could even remotely be considered "noble" in his character, and it leads to that wonderful final exchange with Owen.

Goliath himself actually gets a couple of jabs in at Xanatos' expense. "I don't suppose you have a Plan D?" I just love that line. That's probably...the second joke he's told in the series.

Of course, I love the whole Halloween block party. It's great to see the Trio finally being able to interact with the humans without the latter running away in fear. Still, I like how in their initial shot at the block party you can see the Trio are still a bit wary.
So Keith David's the voice of the witch! I always wondered who did that voice. I mean, that's one of the funniest moments in the episode--here comes this haggard witch that speaks in a deep male voice. Just totally catches you off guard.
Goliath and Elisa, one of the great couples of our time. I might as well say this now and get it out of the way--I think Elisa looked DAMN FINE in that costume. MAN that was good. When she had her gun I wondered where she had pulled it from, and I was glad when I saw the holster/garter.

As for the Eye and the Werefox--I never dreamed that the Eye had magical properties when I saw it in THE EDGE. Heck, I never expected to see it again. This added another dimension to it. The transformations to and from Werefox are terrific, and I love the animators' work on it. Some of the best character movement in the series. Being the dense person I am, I didn't entirely get all of Fox's internal conflict in the first few viewings. It's more clear to me now, though. Frankly, I'm glad that you guys were able to take the realistic approach and have Fox be naked when she changed back to human form.

On the subject of getting away with things, I was surprised that the engagment happend, myself, let alone that it panned out the way it did. Then again, by the time OUTFOXED came around, I had gained enough respect for the series to not be too terribly surprised that Fox was expecting.
Still, how many series have the villain get married?

An episode that I always enjoy watching.

Todd Jensen writes...

Another "rambling" on my part, this time on Future Tense and its relationship to the actual events in the gargoyles' lives after the Avalon World Tour. As we all know, one of the big questions in the fandom is how much the events in "Future Tense" reflect the actual future in the Gargoyles Universe, thanks both to the fulfillment of two of them (in a way) before "The Journey" and Puck's little "Was it a dream or a prophecy?" remark (although I think that that line of his was done just to tease Goliath).

Now, two "prophecies" in "Future Tense" were fulfilled. Xanatos and Fox did have a son named Alexander Fox Xanatos, and the clock tower was destroyed. But I'm not so certain that either of these are quite so significant. As Owen, Puck would obviously know what the Xanatoses were planning to name their baby, after all. As for the clock tower, the destruction of the gargoyles' home would be a natural part of any "gloom-and-doom" scenario for them (not to mention that in the "Future Tense Universe", the clock tower would more likely have been destroyed by Xanatos or Lexington masquerading as Xanatos, rather than by the Canmores - whose existence Puck might not even have been aware of at that point).

Two "prophecies" that seem to be on their way to fulfillment in the future, based on your earlier MasterPlan comments, are the Ultra-Pack and the forty-year separation of Brooklyn and Goliath (brought about by the Avalon World Tour in the "Future Tense Universe", by Brooklyn's Timedancer adventures in the actual Gargoyles Universe). The first of these, of course, can again be easily explained: the Pack getting upgraded again does strike me as something that anyone who had paid close enough attention to their past career could have expected. The 40 years timedancing is a bit more of a poser, but I imagine that if you make enough statements about the future, a few are going to turn out correct, and the only real similarity is the "40 years" element (and the number forty has long held a certain symbolic significance, anyway - the rain that caused Noah's Flood lasted for forty days, the Israelites under Moses spent forty years wandering in the wilderness, etc.).

(The irony is that Brooklyn's Timedancing adventures would have to be the consequence of Puck's whole "Future Tense" vision to begin with, since they came about because Goliath threw the Phoenix Gate away into the Time-stream, which he did because of the "Future Tense" vision; a good case of a self-fulfilling prophecy).

(I've also spotted a possible fifth "twisted fulfillment" of a "Future Tense" event in the outline for "Gargoyles 2198" that you posted, but I'll wait until after the contest is over before naming it and asking you if you'd intended it as such - you can, of course, in the interim, have the fun of guessing which part of "Gargoyles 2198" I had in mind when I wrote this paragraph :)

And, of course, the way that things were going by the end of the series (at least by the end of "The Journey"), I think that we can safely conclude that Xanatos isn't going to declare war on the gargoyles, kill Hudson at the cost of his own life, drive the surviving members of the clan into the Labyrinth, and take over New York (to be succeeded after his death by a traitorous Lexington using him for a facade).

At least, that's my own two cents' worth on the relevance of "Future Tense" to the future of the Gargoyles Universe.

Todd Jensen writes...

This is a question on Nokkar, but don't worry; it's about him as portrayed in "Sentinel" and isn't "Gargoyles 2198"-linked.

I've noticed that a great many "Gargoyles" fans have displayed a low opinion of Nokkar as a character because of his treatment of the gargoyles, mistaking them for spies for the Space-Spawn and refusing (until almost the last moment) to reconsider; they've considered him a stubborn fool. While I can't approve myself of Nokkar's attitude of "I've already made up my mind; don't confuse me with the facts" myself, I have wondered from time to time if we haven't been doing him something of an injustice.

The big element in this pondering is this question that I find it's occasionally useful to ask ourselves regarding those enemies of the gargoyles who fought against them because they believed the gargs to be evil monsters; would we have felt the same way about these people if the gargoyles really were a race of evil demons? In some cases, my answer would have been "Yes". I would have felt the same way about the Pack in "The Thrill of the Hunt", for example, or Castaway in "The Journey", because their reasons for going after the gargoyles were ignoble ones (the Pack motivated by a desire for simple excitement, Castaway by hatred and a desire for revenge) rather than for the purpose of protecting the community, and because they were willing to endanger innocent bystanders in a very ruthless fashion to achieve their goals.

But with Nokkar, my response is different. For one thing, he really does come across in "Sentinel" as genuinely concerned for the well-being of the inhabitants of the planet that he's been assigned to protect. He clearly shows concern for Elisa - he immediately asks her, after bringing Goliath down, if she's all right, and trusts her enough, in fact, to give her the personal guided tour of his spaceship. When Elisa finally, out of instinct, sides with the gargoyles and comes to their rescue, Nokkar still does whatever he can to treat her gently, and asks her (and actually listens) why she insists on risking her own life to protect them. (He also mentions having had a good relationship with the original inhabitants of Easter Island who built the moai statues of him, and seems willing enough to make friends with the two archaeologists and Dr. Arnada at the end of the story and share his mission with them). Indication enough that he was no simple mercenary but someone with a genuine protector instinct.

As for his treatment of the gargoyles - again, it wouldn't have hurt for him to have kept an open mind. But to return to my original point, would I have felt the same way about the guy if Goliath, Angela, and Bronx really had been an advance scouting party for the Space-Spawn? I will admit that I wouldn't. Even when Nokkar was about to execute them, he made it clear that a) he was doing this because the laws of his people forbade Sentinels to take prisoners and b) he was going to give them as merciful and painless a death as possible. (And, also to be perfectly fair to the guy, what proof did the gargoyles have to offer him that they weren't enemy aliens? To the best of my knowledge, none).

So this consideration does lead me to wonder whether we may not have done Nokkar a bit of an injustice in how we viewed his actions in "Sentinel". At any rate, I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on the matter.

Maria writes...

Hmm, in answer to your question, I honestly can't remembre
where I saw the word 'convenient' posted. I am pretty sure you had said it though. Someone had asked a question and you had said something along the lines of 'adoption probably being more convenient'. And, of course, that is probably true. I am certain that many of the fans, myself included - would be happy to just see Goliath and Elisa tie the not basically and at last rise a family. That in and of itself would be a nice closure to the romance to, even though it would forever continue.
Also, it strikes me as strange that G & E would break up so soon after 'Hunters Moon' and then have a double date like that following Halloween. But, someone in the comment room mentioned that 'Hunters Moon' had fallen on the 26th of October in 1996 - correct? So wouldn't the Halloween date take place in '97? And if so, why so long?
I know the general outline of what they'll go through and decide, having discussed their relationship and then find it a little too difficult. (But would that just be Elisa who feels that way, or would it be Goliath too?)
Somehow, I get the impression that they wouldn't break up for that long at all. But have we misunderstood the time line somehow? And wouldn't things work out to where they might have a commitment ceremony of sorts sooner than expected? It almost seems strange for them to want to drag it out, and yet at the same time, I can see why they would. Although they would be back together, they might still be afraid of total commitment. . .for obvious reasons. No kids.
But, how long exactly would thier triangle last? I don't think that Goliath would enjoy a date with Delilah, and she might in turn find it a bit odd to go out with the one who is Thailog's 'father' basically.
Anyway, you gave some good points and I do agree. I just have my own views too. Which we all do. And that is important so long as we don't obscure it for someone else or twist it around. And it's always important to be loved for who we are and to not judge others when it isn't our place. If I have come off judgemental - which I doubt I have - then I do apologize. (I apologize WAY too much! ^_^)
Anyway, good points.
Thanks. :)

zippysquir@aol.com writes...

...I don't think Goliath is the kind of guy who ranks his favorites.

I'm not either really.

----------->William Shakespeare

demona writes...

greg i have my one clan and we will bring them back will u help us

Todd Jensen writes...

Just read your "Eye of the Beholder" piece. Oddly enough, I watched that same episode just a few days ago (I like to watch my tape of it every Halloween, one of three "Gargoyles" episodes that I watch on tape for annual holidays. The other two are "Sanctuary" for Valentine's Day and "The Hound of Ulster" for St. Patrick's Day).

This episode I very much enjoyed. I will confess that, even though I'm quite fond of Norse mythology, I never suspected, even after the revelation that the Eye of Odin was a magical artifact, that it was literally that (the eye that Odin gave up for a drink from Mimir's well) - in fact, I never even thought along those lines until "Eye of the Storm" came out. But the revelation that it was magical got my attention.

I also noticed the development for Xanatos here, how he proposes to Fox in the manner of a business proposition, particularly his reasons, but then in the course of the episode realizes that he is in love with her. (I particularly caught the very worried expression on his face after his "Spilt milk").

I caught the "Beauty and the Beast" reference with Goliath and Elisa, but I will confess here that I wasn't seriously imagining anything going on between them at the time. (Kind of embarrassing in hindsight, I must admit).

I caught the significance of the trio's costumes (including Lexington as a pilot being a reference back to "Her Brother's Keeper") - and I've got to agree with you that Broadway's belch was probably the crudest sound effect that "Gargoyles" ever had :)

And of course, the exchange at the end between Goliath and Xanatos that you quoted ("So now you know my weakness." "Only you would regard love as a weakness.") is one of my favorite moments in the series. (And I also very much like the last shot being of Owen smiling as he watches).

John writes...

Hi Greg,
Now here comes a verry wicked question: What did you think, is the best point to end the show? I know, and I hope, that you get the show back someday, but someday it has to end...
CU, John

Blaise writes...

THE SILVER FALCON

I finally have some time to comment on this.

Originally I wasn't all that impressed with this ep--maybe because it only had one gargoyle (Broadway) in it, but then again THE MIRROR is a tough act to follow.

Over time, however, I've come to appreciate it a lot more.
The little touches--Broadway's reading, Elisa keeping her gun locked up, Matt looking for the Illuminati--were things I picked up on and appreciated right away, but the dynamic between Elisa and Broadway started to grow on me over the repeated viewings.

I didn't know that Benton and DD were one and the same when I first saw the episode until the final revelation. But I LOVED it! I thought it was just a wonderful pay-off, and so was the marbles in the bag.

I didn't think Hacker would be that important a character in later episodes (it was still early in the 2nd season, yet), but I liked that the characters had backgrounds and past relationships that had repercussions on the present.

Yeah, it's a pity that the "guy in the trench-coat" was immediately recognizable as Broadway. That extra suspense might have been real sweet.

Since you're putting up some fav quotes here's one of mine. Broadway's hit Dracon with the fire escape (OUCH!) and is quoting his favorite movie, and all Dracon can say is "Not you guys again!" I don't know why--maybe it's Richard Greico's (sp?) voice acting--but that line just makes me laugh every time.

All in all, an enjoyable ep, and a good beginning for Cary Bates, a name I'd come to find familiar in the closing credits of GARGOYLES.

Todd Jensen writes...

Note to Aris: Good point, and I certainly never thought that the similarities between "Gargoyles" and "X-Men" were based on anything other than the same theme. But I was raising the question as to whether anybody at Disney had that fear, in light of the documented fear that some of them had that "Gargoyles" might be perceived as a "Batman"-rip-off. (Which fear was strong enough to lead to Greg producing that short essay on the differences between "Gargoyles" and "Batman:TAS").

Todd Jensen writes...

Ah, a ramble on "The Silver Falcon" at last - and it was worth the wait, too.

Looking back on the episode, the main thing that I can remember from the first time that I watched it was a bit of initial disappointment when it turned out that what Matt (and, after him, Elisa and Broadway) had stumbled upon wasn't actually an Illuminati scheme but Dracon going after some stolen jewels; I was very much intrigued with the Illuminati, after all. But I think that the story worked out nicely enough to make up for that, in that it was very atmospheric, with some nice twists as well, and Elisa and Broadway getting to both show some real detective-instincts in them.

And I certainly was surprised when it turned out that Benton and Dominic Dracon were the same person; I hadn't been expecting that. (Although, looking back on that episode, the revelation at the end puts an interesting twist on Benton's complimentary description of DD in the photo :)

One of the big impressions that this episode made on me, by the way, was the dizzying heights at the skyscraper in the climax; I certainly didn't envy Elisa's situation. (I've always had a poor head for heights, myself).

VF writes...

I really admire the patience and dedication of longtime fans and admirers (including yourself) of "Gargoyles." I only discovered the show for myself (with the help of my two young daughters) a bit more than a year ago, and I KEEP hoping that "some day" will come already and new episodes can be made.

Folks can say what they want about Toon Disney, but that's how my daughters found it and shared it with me, so the channel is at least providing the opportunity for a few new viewers to discover the show.

It's clear from watching the series, and then finding this Web site and learning more about the behind-the-scenes processes involved in its making, that there were a lot of thoughtful, creative, talented people behind it. Your ideas about characterization and story continuity have prompted me to post some thoughts and an inquiry here. (It's at the heart of one of the main reasons why I really lament that there aren't any more episodes being made ... yet.)

From a writing point of view, I think "Hunter's Moon, Part III" -- which I realize was a season finale -- would have served as a much better "final" finale for your involvement than "The Journey," which just left everything dangling for me like an unfinished book. Maybe I should say "like an unfinished chapter" because I don't want the book to end. At least in "Hunter's Moon," it ended with a bit of a payoff: an open declaration of mutual love between two main characters ("You know how I feel about you, right?" "How we both feel, yes." and even a kiss). It helped bring together a few loose strands that had been threading from almost the very beginning of the series without completely shutting it off from future development (far from it, actually).

In "The Journey," there is an aborted, sort-of date with very little discussion between Goliath and Elisa about what is really happening between the two of them or that very significant exchange between them from the previous episode. Also, from the information shared in this site, it seems you knew this was your farewell episode in many respects. So I would be interested to learn what you intended to have at work between Goliath and Elisa in this episode because I'm not sure that I "got it" all. I think an argument could be made that the episode, coming immediately in sequence after "Hunter's Moon," implies that a relationship between the two is A-OK with them without any internal conflicts.

Did you really want to make things seem less defined between them and let some time pass before they actually had The Talk about their relationship, specifically to help sustain fans' interest at a time when you may not have known what the future held for the series and their story?

Sorry to ramble on, but I don't want to appear as though I'm sorry you stayed on for one episode too many (again, far from it!) I'd like to learn your thoughts about the episode from a story/character development perspective.

Thank you.

Ray Kremer writes...

Aris-

As long as we're chatting, well, yes. It is annoying and boring. That's unavoidable, but also why I only did a handful. Unsportsmanlike? Absolutely. Which is why I'm more than a little sorry for doing it. Though it honestly didn't occur to me before that the robot numbers would have some logic behind them, I figured they were random (guess I wasn't thinking about how Greg operates). Maybe I won't be able to work up the guts to do more acronyms later, we'll see. This time I was swept up in the excitement of knowing two letters for sure. If you want, we can make a note that the point I got for the "994" is tainted. And I'm not sure the website completely atones for my sins, either. But really, is it so much worse than when the clans contest was going on?

I suppose Greg will be reading these. His challenge will be making the next contest one he won't end up regretting...

Aris Katsaris writes...

Btw, (and so that I'm not negative all the time), I want to thank you, Ray, for the page with the text and the blanks filled in. That *does* atone for the brute-force tactics :-)

Aris Katsaris writes...

Sorry about this, but it must be done. :-)

Ray, don't you think that the brute-force tactics you are constantly employing are a bit annoying *and* extremely boring, not to mention unsportmanslike?

Once again, sorry...

Todd Jensen writes...

By the way (also on that same document) I agree with you that a big problem with the notion of "Goliath as a human who was transformed into a gargoyle" is that the audience would be expecting and wanting him to find a cure, which of course would be out of the question in a television series since it would automatically end it. I found that particularly interesting since I've noticed that there are many cases of television series which have an explicit or implicit specific objective for the protagonist(s) which, if achieved, would automatically force the series to conclude. Thus, unless, the concept is handled extremely carefully, the series develops a note of frustration about it as the protagonist always has to fail to achieve his or her objective, to keep the series going.

"Gargoyles", fortunately, managed to avoid that problem by making the protagonists' goal something that was a journey rather than a destination. The gargoyles' goal is to survive in this strange new world, understand it, and protect it, all three ongoing quests rather than ones with a specific end of "We've done it; now the story's over". Which, I certainly believe, was a good thing for "Gargoyles".

(Of course, some of the spin-offs might be described, from what you've said about them, as falling into the "concrete objective" category, but even there, there were solutions to that here and there. For example, in "Pendragon", Arthur and Griff's goal is to find Merlin, but from the evidence that you've given, the story would definitely not be over after they do find him and get him out of the Crystal Cave. "Timedancer", of course, would be a different story, since the series is definitely over once Brooklyn gets back to Castle Wyvern, but since that won't be for forty years after his adventures begin, there's room enough for a lot of stories there).