A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Fan Comments

Archive Index


: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #810 - #819 of 995 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :


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


Bookmark Link

Aris Katsaris writes...

Btw, LSZ's "Zeroth" was a reference to some of Isaac Asimov's novels - mainly "Robots and Empire" if I remember correctly where the Zeroth Law comes to be added to the first Three Laws of Robotics. I assume you haven't read it? :-)

Greg responds...

Nope. Sorry.

Response recorded on September 12, 2000

Bookmark Link

Blaise writes...

Gotta say, I LOVE reading these early documents of GARGOYLES.

I was rather surprised that Amp had originally been two separate characters (Nick and Trouble), and that there was a second precursor to Lexington (Campbell, I think it was).
I was also surprised to find that Dakota's own precursor, Georgette was not originally the leader, but instead the "should-be-leader" character. You had mentioned that the reason you changed Dakota to Demona was that she was too bland and uninteresting to be the leader of a comic team. Why was she made the full leader when the cast was slimmed? Do you think her more "serious" character would have worked in the original role of Georgette?

Human-wise: I never even suspected the inclusion of Sidero, though it sounds like it could have made for some fun conversations. Xavier sounds every bit as Igthorn-ish as I imagined him to be (I don't know why, but just from your original description of him, I thought of Igthorn). And already, Morgan has gone through THREE changes of profession--before she was named she was a lab person working for Xavier, then she became a curator, and finally an archeologist. Actually, after that, she became BOTH of the latter. This woman just wanted to be everything, didn't she?

Owen...I can't help but smile at the image of an aardvark plunking away at a computer or hitting on a woman.

I have always been interested in how you guys originally developed the series. I remember asking the question of the comedic counter-parts of the characters way back when ASK GREG first went on-line. Now I'm learning more of it than I ever dreamed existed.

Thanks. I mean it.

Greg responds...

You're welcome.

You gotta remember that Development is a process. A series of choices. You can talk about roads not taken, but it's hard to get too hypothetical about them.

As for Morgan, now (as of the memos I posted today and yesterday) she's a pilot and inventor. And we're not done yet. What's interesting to me, is that I'm only re-reading these memos one at a time myself. So I'm often as surprised as you are.

Response recorded on September 09, 2000

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

Oh, and thank you for the "Owen as an aardvark" memo (this is one part of the original comedy development that I especially rememebered - I once mentioned it in a Gargoyles newsgroup, in fact - and promptly sent one of the other members into shock over it). It was interesting getting to see the "original draft" character descriptions for Elisa, Owen, and Xanatos (as Morgan, Owen, and Xavier).

And yep, I've got to agree with you that Xavier would have been annoying in a serious drama as a major villain, but works nicely as the main villain of a comedy series (just like Duke Igthorne, whom I recall quite well).

Greg responds...

I LOVED IGTHORN.

I love Hook.

But, no, I'm not sure what I'd do with them in the Gargoyles Universe. Though... Hmmmm.....

Response recorded on September 09, 2000

Bookmark Link

Kelly L Creighton / Kya White Sapphire writes...

ramble:

morgan and dakota as good buddies? o.O ahh?

seriously- thanx for all the pre-gargs info. i love to see what the show evolved from, and laugh at all the close calls ^_^ i still cant get over the pic of RALPH from g2k. oh my GHOD. the show wouldnt have gotten the respect that it did, and the following, if it had stayed in the gummy bears phase. im sure of it. (no offense, but gummybears didnt have that following, and i dont think gargs would have either)

*gets off her soap box* ^_-

Greg responds...

I never showed a picture of Ralph at G2K. You saw an early design of Hudson. Ralph looked very different.

And I also don't think the show would have had the following it had as a comedy. It would have been a great cartoon show. But not the six year ego boost that this show has been. :)

Response recorded on September 09, 2000

Bookmark Link

Aris Katsaris writes...

To Duncan Devlin who said: "I don't quite understand the response. From my experience, not ALL things are true."

Let me just paraphrase a sentence of Terry Pratchett: "All things are true, for a given value of 'true' "

Greg responds...

Yeah. Exactly.

By the way, thanks for reading the questions. It's very refreshing.

Who's Terry Pratchett?

Response recorded on September 09, 2000

Bookmark Link

Dracolich writes...

By the time you read this, you will probably have the answer, but just in case:

A poster has been asking you questions about the "connection" of the fey. I beleive what he or she is referring to is what powers or forces they are associated with. Example: Aphrodite, love. Seth(or Set), storms and evil. I hope this helps. See 'ya again! P.S. I'm shortening my name.

Greg responds...

Thanks. Yeah. A couple people pointed this out. But thanks.

Response recorded on September 06, 2000

Bookmark Link

Entity writes...

Hi,

I'd just like to back Mary Mack's summary/review of The Phantom Menace. It was everything she described it as.

I'd also like to voice my pleasure at the sight of Wrath of Khan in your list of favorite movies. It's in mine, too, but most of the time that film seems to get jipped. Either the person's someone who has an inexplicable (and I venture to say shallow) distaste for Star Trek, or they'd rather claim First Contact as the hands-down best film, ignoring the originals.

Incidentally, I thought First Contact was a travesty. Maybe think "First Knight" for Arthurian Legend, to get an idea.

Greg responds...

I think First Contact was a MUCH better Star Trek film than First Knight was an Arthurian Film. First Knight with Connery as Arthur was a movie I was very looking forward to and wound up being a HUGE disappointment to me. Though perhaps not for the reasons you might think. I was going with it for awhile. But ultimately, I couldn't bear it.

First Contact on the other hand seemed like a great, exciting movie to me. I've heard people bitching about the fact that Cochrane was supposed to be born on Alpha Centauri and not Earth, but a look at any (even pre-First Contact Trek Timeline) reveals that to be impossible. And the original Cochrane Trek episode never said he was BORN on A.C. The time travel, to my tastes, is messy, but I'm used to that vis-a-vis Star Trek. Etc., Etc., I'm not saying the movie is flawless. But Star Trek was never flawless. Wrath of Khan wasn't. (Though it's still my favorite.) And I've been watching Trek for a VERY long time.

So I definitely do NOT get the comparison at all. But all of the above is just my opinion. Nothing more.

Response recorded on September 05, 2000

Bookmark Link

Kelly L Creighton / Kya White Sapphire writes...

*reads your post about needing a tape recording of her voice* well, i work at an 800 number. ill send it to gorebash, and you can feel free to call me any time. ^_^ im the receptionist, so unless im at lunch (generally between 11:45 and 12:45 eastern) ill be the one to answer the phone!

Greg responds...

Thanks. I'm mostly teasing you. I do think you have a great voice, but I'll try not to bug you at work. :)

Response recorded on September 05, 2000

Bookmark Link

Matthew Smith writes...

hey Greg, what's up? Well, this isn't really a Gargoyle related question, it's more about one of the movies you mention being one of your favorites: Ghostbusters. That is one of my all time favorite movies. I see you didn't seem to like the sequel. I rather enjoyed GB2, heck I bought both movies last weekend, but I guess i can see why you didn't like it. I mean walking Statue of Liberty, "Mood Slime" that responded to good/bad vibes...ect...
My passion for Ghostbusters goes back to my when I was 5. Oh I remember religiously watching "The Real Ghostbusters" every day before kindergarten. Me and my brother used to dress up in old pyjammas, which our mother altered to have the Ghostbuster logo on the shoulders, and would run around the neighbourhood pretending to "bust" ghosts.
Anyway, back to the movie. My mother must have hated that movie with a passion, simply because it was the only thing we'd rent whenever we'd go to our grand-parents house (who had a VCR when we didn't) must have seen the movie like 60 times back then, and that was before I could appreaciate the witty humor, let alone understand the plot.
Last year, I watched the movie for the first time in about 10 years. I never realized excactly how clever of a movie it was. It was hillarious, yet not off the wall not to be taken seriously. Even the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man provided a serious enough threat.
Come to think of it, this actually is a Gargoyles question. Gozer's Terror Dogs, the one's who possessed Dana and Louis reminded me an awful lot of Bronx. Did this in anyway inspire you to create the Gargoyle Beasts? Also, the Terror Dogs came to life by breaking out out of it's stone shell, much like the way Gargoyles do. Is this simply a coincidence? I remember you stating that your inspirations for Gargoyles were Gummi Bears, actual stone gargoyles, Hill Street Blues. But is it possible that Ghostbusters is among one of the inspirations for Gargoyles? Or am I just making wild speculations in hoping that one of my favorite movies helped inspire one of my favorite animated shows?

Greg responds...

The terror dogs might have influenced Frank Paur, who redesigned Bronx to the shape we currently know and love. But I wouldn't want to speak for Frank. You'd have to ask him.

But I did like the movie a lot.

Response recorded on September 05, 2000

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

This is a sort of response to your comments on doing or not doing a Gargoyles/super-hero crossover of any sort. You mentioned that you didn't see it happening, short of a crossing between parallel universes, because the Gargoyles Universe and the super-hero universes of DC and Marvel Comics are very different in style. From what I know of mainstream super-heroes (which, I will confess, isn't all that much), I can certainly agree with you.

Take Batman, for example. The Batman Universe is clearly different enough from the Gargoyles Universe. In the Batman Universe, the "super-villains" are more out in the open, with the public all too aware of them. In the Gargoyles Universe, the "super-villains" are more low-profile; the general public don't know that Demona, Thailog, Oberon's Children, and the Illuminati actually exist. They know about Xanatos and Macbeth, but only in terms of their public personas; they know about the Pack, but only as "TV actors who went bad" - I haven't seen any indications that the general public know as yet about Jackal and Hyena being cyborgs now or Wolf being a mutant wolf-man. They don't even know for certain about the gargoyles until the end of "Hunter's Moon Part Three" - and even then all that they know is that the gargoyles exist, and nothing more than that.

In conventional super-hero universes, the weird and paranormal is very public and high-profile, known to the public. In the Gargoyles Universe, the weirdness exists just as surely, but is far more "covered up". For this reason, I can't seriously imagine Batman or Superman or Spiderman or the X-Men existing in the same universe as the gargoyles.

Greg responds...

They clearly don't exist in the Gargoyles Universe. I suppose it's possible that parallel versions of the Gargoyles exist in THEIR universes. But for a variety of reasons, I don't see it happening any time soon.

Response recorded on September 05, 2000


: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #810 - #819 of 995 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :