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").