Comment Room Archive : Gargoyles : Station Eight

ok i found it, but totally misread it the first time. i must have been only skimming. here's the actual quote from the FAQ:

"In my head, Gargoyles are a separate classification which (in the past) I've nicknamed "Gargates". Both Gargoyles and Gargoyle Beasts evolved from this grouping, just as Primates include both humans and various apes. The Gargate-ancestor species go back to the time of the dinosaurs, so to answer your first set of questions, I'd have to ask you how you are defining the word "Dinosaur"? Colloquially, i.e. to include all species that existed during what we popularly think of as the age of dinosaurs, or are you using the term in a scientific sense, which would leave out a number of species that we generally think of as dinosaurs?"

i thought that last line was suggesting they were primatively a part of the "dinosaur" species, however not necessarily our idea of rapters and t-rexes.
(though brooklyn does look suspiciously like a teridactle(sp?))
sTiTcH
posted @ Fri, Jan 16, 2009 11:19:58 am EST from 64.12.117.134

Someone was talking about the Electrik Tiki Statue... its not on their site yet, is it? I couldnt see it, so what are you all talking about?
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Fri, Jan 16, 2009 11:03:49 am EST from 75.156.190.146

Curloo> But you said it yourself. The poor kid's dad didn't keep him clean. With proper hygiene, there's nothing demonstrably wrong with having a foreskin. I highly doubt all male children would be born with something that always negatively impacted their health or potential for having kids. It's for the protection of the urinary tract, to keep the area at the right humidity level, and it makes penetration easier (and some say more fun).
Kerry (Kth) Boyd
posted @ Fri, Jan 16, 2009 9:27:45 am EST from 71.56.36.35

DEMONSKRYE - The first mentions of Excalibur (in places like Geoffrey of Monmouth) just make it Arthur's sword, without saying where he got it, though Geoffrey says that it was forged on Avalon. Robert de Boron introduced the Sword in the Stone in his "Merlin", and identified the sword as being Excalibur. A later French work, "Mort Artu", brought in the story about Excalibur being thrown into the lake after Arthur's last battle. After this, the author of another work called the "Suite de Merlin" apparently decided that this account of Excalibur's departure didn't match the account of its coming, and so had Arthur break the sword that he drew from the stone while fighting King Pellinore and receive Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake and the arm rising from her lake; that way, it would make more sense to have it thrown back into the lake at the end of the story. Malory followed this (though at one point, he mentions Excalibur in a battle Arthur fights before his meeting with the Lady of the Lake, suggesting that even he'd gotten Excalibur and the Sword in the Stone confused).
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Fri, Jan 16, 2009 8:54:58 am EST from 4.244.214.18

If you go back far enough, we are all related. Classifications like 'birds', 'reptiles', 'dinosaurs', 'mammals' and 'gargates' just serve to make things a little easier. Actually, all five of those things could be considered reptiles as they all have their roots among the reptiles. But all of them ultimately could be called 'fish' for the same reason. Humans could accurately be called fish that have, over millions of years, totally adapted to life on land.

The point is, these are all just names to make broad generalizations easier. In reality, we are all related.

But for the record, I am also of the opinion that gargates evolved from the mammal-life reptiles.

As for gargate penis', well, I think they are kept inside the body. Bronx and Zafiro both seem to show this. Thus, when Greg W says that gargoyles are born circumsised, I believe he means that the genitalia is something like a dog's. Mostly kept inside the body, thus the foreskin is the body itself really.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Must you humans name everything? Nothing is real to you til you've named it, given it limits..." - Hudson
posted @ Fri, Jan 16, 2009 8:36:06 am EST from 70.230.182.76

Todd> An Arthurian question for you. A new image on GargWiki recently reminded me that in the Gargoyles Universe, the sword in the stone is Excalibur. I know that some versions of Arthurian legend say that they're two different swords. So my question is, which take on the swords came first and where did the other one originate?
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Fri, Jan 16, 2009 8:26:26 am EST from 146.115.115.33

Personally, I've always gone with the theory that Gargates evolved from mammal-like-reptiles ala Dimetradon, hence why they have traits usually associated with both groups.
Algernon - [PadraigG8 at yahoo dot com]
"I'd rather be a climbing ape then a falling angel"- Terry Pratchett
posted @ Fri, Jan 16, 2009 7:36:54 am EST from 213.94.183.196

Birds evolved from dinosaurs, but they are not reptiles.
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Fri, Jan 16, 2009 6:57:07 am EST from 66.61.18.93

Stitch: Do you have a link or something? I'm pretty sure Greg had always intended for gargoyles to be their own species, without any ties to anything else.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Though I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe." -Jubal Harshaw ("Stranger In a Strange Land")
posted @ Fri, Jan 16, 2009 6:49:34 am EST from 71.62.136.51

Rebel & Stitch> i don't know wher you heard that foreskins protect but there actually worse. males (who still have there fore skins) are more likely to get infections. my poor nephew almost lost his "little anton" because his dad faild to keep it clean.
Curloo - [mattstewto at yahoo dot com]
Curloo
posted @ Fri, Jan 16, 2009 4:24:21 am EST from 66.233.13.93

didnt greg once say gargates are partially evolved from dinosaurs?
sTiTcH
posted @ Fri, Jan 16, 2009 12:32:03 am EST from 64.12.117.134

Demonskyre> Wow. I can't really decide which injoke I like the most. They all are an easy number 1.

Since you brought up "And Justice For All":

Police Officer (thinking about the gargoyle who's on trial): Seriously, what's next? A mountain lion on trial for murder. Heck, we might as well put a monkey a trial for theft.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 10:26:18 pm EST from 71.120.226.102

Gargoyles are NOT part reptile. They're not mammals either. They're gargates. A new classification entirely.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Brave words for a man who hides his face behind a hood." -Goliath
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 9:41:22 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

Where did you hear that gargoyles are part reptile?

Anyway, even reptiles, despite lacking foreskins, have the means to accomplish the same purpose that foreskins accomplish. They keep their penises stored inside their bodies, thus they are safe and protected, and there is no need of a foreskin. If gargoyles keep their penises inside their bodies except when they need them, then I guess it would make sense for them not to have foreskins, but I don't know if this is the case.
Rebel
GOLIATH: I SHOULD SAY SOMETHING SHAKESPEAREAN NOW.
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 9:29:15 pm EST from 76.165.36.243

@rebel
if a gargoyles only real use for it is mateing and theres no risk of desease or illness (from exposure), i guess he doesnt really need it. foreskin seems more like a human or mammal need. gargoyles are part reptile, and they have stone rejuvenation sleep. ..no need for safe helmet storage.. it'll only get caught on things in the heat of battle. :-)
sTiTcH
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 9:15:59 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

"Out of curiousity, why is the Gathering going to be in August?"

Because that's when a hotel with a conference center and in a good location had space available at a reasonable price.
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 8:50:31 pm EST from 66.61.18.93

lonerider26:

I'll let Greg answer this, but I'll just say that the only reason I know is from the Seinfeld episode, "The Serenity Now"

Good episode.
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy Wonka
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 8:26:43 pm EST from 75.148.6.218

Greg>What in the heck is a shiksa?

Out of curiousity, why is the Gathering going to be in August?
lonerider26 - [lonerider26 at gmail dot com]
"The story is told--though who can say if it be true..."~Shari
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 8:15:55 pm EST from 68.51.71.104

***Shivers***

(It's so cold in DC I doubt anything could make it warm . . . and they say it's only going to get colder.)

Montalban: I always loved that man's amazing voice; I loved the bulk of his roles, but my most recent favorite was "Senor Senior Senior" from Kim Possible. My favorite line: "Come, why don't we work on our EVIL laughs together, yeh?"

He will be missed :(
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy Wonka
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 7:45:43 pm EST from 75.148.6.218

Trying my best to compose myself in here-you people are too funny today.

On a sadder note - Ricardo Montalban passed away. Along with his obvious appearances on Fantasy Island and Star Trek: This is a guy with a long Film and TV history-and along with his serious actiing side - he had an obvious sense of humor-appearing on everything from The Lucy Show, Carol Burnett, Laugh-In, Hollywood Squares, Escape from the Planet of the Apes, Along with animated series like Kim Possible, Freakazoid & Family Guy

Check out my name link for his filmography - Think some of it will suprise you
Wingless
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 7:36:25 pm EST from 99.245.254.123

Maybe the original Magus was a Jew and had a particular interpretation of 'humility'.
Landon Thomas - [lumpmoose at googles dot email dot service]
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 7:34:59 pm EST from 216.243.177.48

And this is why we have the Blue Mug every year at the Gathering! Click on my name to register. You know you want to. ;)

As for why male gargoyles are born circumcised, well, shalom...

... Elisa is such a shiksa.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Brave words for a man who hides his face behind a hood." -Goliath
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 7:19:06 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

Stitch > I don't know exactly what female gargoyles are like under those loincloths, but male gargoyles have penises. Greg W has said that male gargoyles are "born circumcised". Generally I like all of Greg W's decisions but I personally don't understand this one. Foreskins serve a very valuable purpose so I don't know why gargoyles would have evolved without them. Obviously they aren't NECESSARY, as a huge number of male humans can manage without them, but they are nonetheless useful, at least according to what my uncircumcised friends say.

I suspect female gargoyles have parts similar to female humans.
Rebel
GOLIATH: I SHOULD SAY SOMETHING SHAKESPEAREAN NOW.
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 7:13:26 pm EST from 76.165.36.243

I've been rereading Roger Lancelyn Green's book on King Arthur (an Arthurian mailing list that I joined recently chose it for the book to read that month), and the chapter I most recently read (this afternoon) mentioned Michaelmas as one of the great feast-days of King Arthur's court when his knights all gather about him. While Michaelmas was a major medieval holiday, it stood out to me this time because: a) we know that Green's book is one of Greg Weisman's leading Arthurian sources (he drew Blanchefleur from there, for example) and b) Michaelmas has turned up often in the Gargoyles Universe (the dates of Macbeth and King Arthur's coronations, and Constantine's intended marriage to Princess Katharine, among other things).
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 6:56:14 pm EST from 4.244.211.117

lol hey for me its not a "fanfic" thing, its a science thing. if they're a different species, i just wonder HOW different. ..whether or not all those "upskirt bloopers" are even worth the "squee's" of a thousand teenage girls it usually gets.
sTiTcH
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 5:30:43 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

"i always wondered what exactly is under those loin cloths."

Now, before I make you the subject of numerous jokes and perversions, I guess this has been covered by way too many fanfic authors.

Apart from that - I guess so.
Brook
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 4:51:51 pm EST from 84.191.224.120

little anton... i think in IMAGES damnit!!
that is just all kinds of wrong... haha!

not to be even more gross, sorry if this has been covered, but do gargoyles have the same..lower anatomies..as humans do?? i always wondered what exactly is under those loin cloths.
(i was watching city of stone last night and there is a DANGEROUSLY detailed up-skirt view of demona after canmore killed her and macbeth. but only enough to suggest she has very nice glutes)
sTiTcH
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 4:32:26 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

Demonskrye> LOL! That last one nearly made coffee come out of my nose, though I suppose it's my fault for having a sip while reading stuff I was warned would be funny. ;P
Kerry (Kth) Boyd
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 9:53:47 am EST from 71.56.36.35

Rupert. I meant Rupert. Confused the Murdochs. :(
Brook
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 9:20:31 am EST from 84.191.224.120

S&P: "We allow this, since you never name his..."

Stuart Murdoch: "STOP, JUST STOP!!"
Brook
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 9:17:07 am EST from 84.191.224.120

Todd> My mistake. I checked it out and you're right; Owen is the one who starts to suggests the they only have to wait until the gargoyles are asleep. The obvious conclusion is that he would have suggested smashing the clan, but it's possible he had something less violent in mind, since a sleeping gargoyle can also be moved to a secure enclosure without much trouble, or at least, without as much trouble as a gargoyle that's awake would make. Maybe Xanatos had previously instructed Owen to hint at the possibility of smashing the gargoyles around Demona so that he could observe her reaction without necessarily hurting their alliance. Or maybe Puck was just curious about how either Xanatos or Demona would react to the suggestion. Either way, I kind of doubt that either Owen or Xanatos seriously wanted to destroy the gargoyles and I'm almost certain they both found Demona's reaction to the suggestion very intriguing.

In typical form, while Xanatos doesn't active seek to kill the gargoyles, he seldom goes out of his way to ensure that they aren't killed in the course of his schemes either. If he's actually on the scene, he might take action to avoid any casualties, but in other situations, it's not clear if he's doing anything to avoid that outcome. Maybe he instructed Fox to keep the Pack from actually killing the gargoyles if it ever came to that, but maye not. His apparent goal in taking Macbeth up on his offer to remove the clan from the castle is to learn about Macbeth, but we never see him ask about what exactly Macbeth intends to do with the gargoyles, so far as I remember. He may have never actively wanted to kill then clan, but it seems like there was a time when he wasn't all that concerned about keeping them alive either.

TGC In-jokes for the series> Here's one that I came up with:

GOLIATH: My participation in this trial could do much to improve relations between humans and gargoyles.

BROADWAY: This isn't like on TV, Goliath. They're not gonna let you just swoop in at the last second like Perry Mason with a piece of evidence that clears you.

GOLIATH: Perry who?

BROADWAY: Forget it.

Or, an argument between parent and child.

NASHVILLE: No one cares about me here! I'm leaving!

BROOKLYN: And then what? Are you going to befriend a bunch of runaway humans and start a new life on the streets? This is real life, Nash. It doesn't work like that.

Or, Sevarius showing off his latest creation:

SEVARIUS: I was going to call him "Little Anton," but on further reflection, it seemed in rather poor taste to call my latest work the same thing I call my.....

GOLIATH: Stop. Just stop.

(I am so sorry.)
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 8:35:35 am EST from 146.115.115.33

I don't think Xanatos wanted to kill the gargoyles. Why spend an astronomical amount of money moving the Castle to wake the clan only to have them perform one act of corporate sabotage and then be done with them. Xanatos didn't turn $20,000 into being the world's richest man by making foolish business decisions. Owen suggested killing the gargoyles (twice actually, once in Awakening Part Five and once in Enter Macbeth), but Xanatos never did. Why would he?
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"I'm just so tired..." -Macbeth
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 8:14:02 am EST from 70.230.182.76

DEMONSKRYE - If I recall correctly, it was Owen who made that suggestion, not Xanatos.

This has probably been said before, but I think it was a big advantage to the series to have Xanatos *not* out to kill the gargoyles - and indeed, to indicate that most of his seeming attacks on them were really designed for a different purpose. By making Xanatos's real goal something other than killing or capturing the gargoyles, it allowed them to survive (a necessity if the series was to continue) without making him appear incompetent.
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 7:42:59 am EST from 4.244.215.151

Thank you all.

My uncle had a great long and healthy life. He had taken out the garbage and came back in the house. My aunt came down from upstairs and found him in his easy chair. It appeared he sat down and had the heart attack soon after. But it appeared he suffered little to no pain and it was very fast. I feel very bad for my Aunt Val having to be the one to find him though. I keep her in my thoughts that she heals from the sadness soon too.
Siren
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 6:05:27 am EST from 72.188.139.212

and thats what really counts.

i've watched enough pets, friends, and loved ones die to know that seeing them at peace is usually better than seeing them in whatever state they were in before. ofcourse it hurts that they had to leave but it would have been cruel to try and prolong their suffering any further.
atleast its over with and the healing can begin.
sTiTcH
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 3:34:52 am EST from 64.12.117.134

Thanks a lot everyone! At least my father's pain is over.
Vinnie - [tpeano29 at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 2:24:06 am EST from 69.54.209.22

Sorry.

SIREN. Sorry for ur loss two.

where are you all seeing this èlectrik tiki` gargoyles statue?
battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 12:37:02 am EST from 75.156.190.146

Sorry, Vinnie. :( I lost a Small friend, you lsot a dad. Very sorry for you!
battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Thu, Jan 15, 2009 12:27:52 am EST from 75.156.190.146

haha yea i was about to say :-)

@tony
we're talking about his wanting to kill them possibly conflicting with him supposedly meeting a timedancing brooklyn from the late 90s, in the 1970s.
sTiTcH
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 11:08:43 pm EST from 205.188.117.134

Tony : For some odd reason, I don't think that would have really been on Xanatos' mind at the time :)
Spen
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 10:22:44 pm EST from 66.43.205.110

I don't think Xanatos wanted to kill the Gargoyles in the fifth episode because then the rest of the season would have really sucked without them in it.
The Gargoyles Pulse
~ Tony Tini
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 9:53:00 pm EST from 70.15.84.29

Greg B> I'm still on the fence about whether Xanatos ever actually intended to kill the clan. I think it's highly possible that if he had the opportunity to call off the Steel Clan once it was clear that Goliath and crew were no match for them, he would have done so, if only to avoid being wasteful. The only time he actually suggests shattering them while they sleep is when he's talking to Demona and my personal theory is that he just wanted to see how she would react: would she merely shrug, essentially saying "Sure. Whatever." or tryt to tear his throat out for even suggesting murdering what's left of her family? Of course, she did neither, which I'm sure he found interesting.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 9:28:54 pm EST from 146.115.115.33

BB> Sorry to hear about your loss and your arm. At least the latter is okay.

Vinnie, Siren> My condolences, also, for your recent losses.
Asatira
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 8:22:40 pm EST from 68.190.20.172

hm.. i guess it could also be written that, since to her knowlage she was the last person to possess the gate, brooklyn must have gotten it from her in the future. ..which is why she would need to convert him in "temptation".

you think puck and the third race have some ability to see the future?
sTiTcH
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 7:51:35 pm EST from 205.188.117.134

Stitch> I'm not counting on Brooklyn actually meeting a young Xanatos. I tend to think he'll play a more behind the scenes role there.

But it's not like Xanatos ever tried to kill the clan anyway. Well, just once in "Awakening Part 5" and then he realized it was a mistake to do so.

Demona on the other hand, if she is aware of Brooklyn's time travel is far easier to explain. She might not get the whole "time being immutable" thing... in fact, up until "Vows" we know she didn't.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Brave words for a man who hides his face behind a hood." -Goliath
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 7:19:31 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

all this about xanatos is exactly what i'd been saying all along.. that it was unrealistic for him to become mr.clean, but also unrealistic for him to still be a threat to the gargoyles concidering everything thats happened.

i also would love to see how xanatos plays out in timedancer.. what part brooklyn could possibly play in introducing mary to him. and how season 1 and 2 would play into xanatos (and demona right?) knowing for a fact that brooklyn survives long enough to atleast get the pheonix gate, yet both seem to think they have a chance of killing him and the clan before then.
sTiTcH
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 6:52:22 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

Antiyonder here.

Brook> Actually, Xanatos' amoral behavior is what keeps him from becoming predictable. If he becomes a good guy, then we can easily expect him to never commit another crime or any other suspicious behavior. As it is now, he'll either do something beneficial for the clan, something of negative consequence or might not figure into the story at all.

Hence, he's unpredictable.
Anonymous
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 6:42:03 pm EST from 66.96.64.38

@ Greg: I'd agree, but only so far as the series went. I don't want him to be Mr. Clean either, but I think if he stays like this longer, it becomes predictable in some way. He's been the villainous pragmatic for a long time now, and personally I just think somebody else should take his place.

Like John Castaway.
Brook
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 6:17:36 pm EST from 84.191.189.236

Thanks Patrick! I will do that if I go!

Vinnie, my condolences. My uncle passed this morning too. :(
Siren
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 5:36:51 pm EST from 72.188.139.212

Demonskrye> Exactly, Xanatos has many reasons for the things he does. In "Possession" I do believe that helping Coldstone was a sincere thank you to Goliath, but I don't think that's the only reason why he did it. Coldsteel has since proven to be useful to him, and down the line Coldstone and Coldfire may prove to be useful to him.

Xanatos is a trickster. He doesn't hate Goliath and his clan, and he never did. I do believe he is sincerely grateful to them, but that doesn't mean he is above using them to achieve his own ends.

And frankly, he is just more interesting that way.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Brave words for a man who hides his face behind a hood." -Goliath
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 4:29:39 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

@ Vinnie: My condolescences. I hope he had a gifted life.
Brook
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 4:26:11 pm EST from 84.191.189.236

Vinnie> Sorry to hear that, man. You have my sympathy.

Xanatos> I'm wondering if we'll be seeing a younger Xanatos sometime during Brooklyn's timedancing in 10-12. If we do, would he be a schemer then as well?
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 4:23:43 pm EST from 69.223.183.185

Vinnie> My condolences. I'm sure it's a very difficult thing to go through. My best to you and your family.

On Xanatos> I think that the portrayal of Xanatos that we're seeing in the "Gargoyles" comics falls somewhere between "He hasn't changed at all from his worst moments in the TV show" and "He is a completely changed person who will never do anything bad again." I don't think I can say it better than Greg W did himself. Xanatos is still an ambitious guy with big goals. On top of his own schemes, he's now got to answer to a higher power, since the Illuminati appears to have specific plans for him, some of which he may not really enjoy carrying out. But as Greg points out, Xanatos's priorities have changed since he first moved Castle Wyvern to the top of his skyscraper. He genuinely cares for his family and though it's hard to be sure, I think he might put their well being before his own if it came to that. At the end of "Hunter's Moon," he talking about how Goliath and the clan have saved his son, not him. His second priority, I think, comes from the fact that he's realized that money and power aren't always enough to get him the help he may need. He's always known that he can't do everything on his own; his various employees and allies over the course of the series show that. But his money and power and everything he's gained through that hasn't been enough to protect his family. The gargoyles, who he could never manage to control, were the only thing capable of stopping first Oberon and then Demona. I think he's realized that having them on his side is far more valuable than he ever could have imagined when he first got the idea. As Greg B has pointed out before, he's pretty much got what he initially wanted: the gargoyles are back at the castle protecting his home. But he seems to understand now that his initial attempts to get that result were a bit..."misguided" shall we say?

I think the best example of what Xanatos's relationship with the gargoyles will be like for the time being is "Possession." Granted what happens in that episode is probably mostly Puck's doing, but that's how I see things playing out. Xanatos's schemes could ultimately end up having a neutral or even beneficial effect on the clan, but while they're being put into action, the gargoyles may see them as a big headache at best. Either Xanatos or Puck could have easily gone over to the clock tower and explained the plan to sort out Coldstone's multiple personalities to the clan, but that's not how either of them operates. If Xanatos does something good for the clan, they may not see what he has in mind until its all over. And if he does something potentially harmful to the clan (and I don't think he would do that without another objective in mind that he felt couldn't be achieved any other way), they may well not know that he was behind it.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 4:10:45 pm EST from 146.115.115.33

Electric Tiki statue > I think it looks great. Also, I don't think it looks very suggestive at all. I doubt Goliath's penis looks like anything like a steeple. But you never know.

Greg Weisman > I doubt you'll read this, but in case you do, any word on the progress of the TPB and when it might be released?

There's something I wanted to address here. Do you guys think gargoyle beasts were actively "domesticated" by gargoyles, similar to the fashion in which humans domesticated dogs/wolves? Or do you think it's something that just sorta...happened? If gargoyle beasts are as smart or smarter than chimps, it seems likely they might have just started hanging around with gargoyle clans of their own accord, and consuming scraps given to them by the gargoyles, and that their subsequent domestication might have happened naturally with little deliberate effort on the part of the gargoyles.

Also, on the wiki page for Iago/Coldsteel, it says this:

"Physically speaking, there is some evidence to suggest that Iago may have been biologically related to Goliath. They have similar wing and hair coloring and similar brow horns."

I'm not really sure if this should be there. This seems like conjecture to me. It's true that they do have some similar traits, but there is no reason to believe that those traits aren't fairly common traits amongst the Wyvern clan. Using this same logic, we could also conclude that Lexington and Broadway are biologically related since they both have somewhat simian-shaped faces and are hairless, or that Coldstone and Broadway are related since they have similar ears and somewhat similar skin color. Personally, I suspect that all of the gargoyles in the Wyvern clan are related to each other in some fashion, though perhaps distantly, and I doubt Iago is any more related to Goliath than Othello or Desdemona is. Just my thoughts. The wiki staff can talk about this amongst themselves and decide if it's worth changing or not.

Lastly, does it seem to anyone else that the Wyvern clan gargoyles are somewhat duller or more muted in color compared to the Mayan clan? I mean, compare Brooklyn's red to Zaphiro's red, or Lex's "green" to Jade's green. Or Demona or Broadway's blue to Turquesa or Obsidiana's blue. It's very possible that this is mere coincidence, but perhaps the Mayan clan is, in general, more brightly colored than other clans from colder climates. Many plants and animals from tropical places are more brightly colored than animals and plants from colder places, so maybe this is true of gargoyles as well? Just a thought.
Rebel
GOLIATH: I SHOULD SAY SOMETHING SHAKESPEAREAN NOW.
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 3:39:01 pm EST from 66.218.211.93

Vinnie > You have my condolences. So far I haven't lost either of my parents, but I can't imagine how painful it must be.
Rebel
GOLIATH: I SHOULD SAY SOMETHING SHAKESPEAREAN NOW.
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 3:09:48 pm EST from 66.218.211.93

Personally I don't know why people seem to be so rushed to turn Xanatos into the TGS version. At least in TGC Xanatos had a few moments of scheming, but in TGS Xanatos was nothing more then an Iron Man ripoff.
Vinnie - [tpeano29 at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 3:05:30 pm EST from 69.54.209.24

Well, don't want to continue to beat the TGC horse, so I figure, here's Greg's own words about Xanatos:

***

Xanatos went through a protracted, gradual change over the course of 65 episodes. Hopefully, you all thought it was organic and believable. But I never said he had stopped scheming. (Keep in mind, I had nothing to do with how he was portrated in the last twelve episodes of CHRONICLES.) I don't even believe that his goals have changed that much. But his priorities have definitely shifted, plus he gained a great deal of self-knowledge and a clearer view of what matters most in life. First and foremost, his family. Second, true friends (or at least allies) that you can really count on. He has learned that you have to give if you ever hope to take. (But that doesn't mean he's done taking.) As to his plans, I still think he wants immortality, so that's not over. And I felt he needed to deal with the Illuminati, who are likely to expect things from him that he's not prepared to deliver. Don't expect his methods to change much.

***

So, there you have it.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Brave words for a man who hides his face behind a hood." -Goliath
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 2:43:30 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

By the way, it is my opinion that High Noon is the single best episode of the whole series, in terms of animation and overall visual appeal (ESPECIALLY that scene with Coldstone, Macbeth, and Demona in Macbeth's mansion before they reactivate Coldstone). I rarely see people in this comment room mentioning this episode at all, much less talking about how great the animation is. It's not my favorite episode but it'ss probably the one I've watched the most recently just because I like looking at the animation. The next time you guys watch this episode, take special notice of how great the animation is especially in the scene I mentioned, and I think you'll agree it looks really great.

There are a few major, glaring errors that keep it from being perfect. Like that scene towards the end where they majorly bungled up Coldfire's hair, or the scene where Brooklyn opens the closet door in Macbeth's mansion and he is actually shorter than the lightswitch (Maybe Macbeth just has really high lightswitches though, I dunno). But overall the animation is great.

One thing which I think is really great in a cartoon is when they animate the characters' chins to move along with their mouths when they are talking. A lot of cartoons just have the mouth move, but the chins don't. This episode has lots of moving chins, if I remember correctly. I feel weird for saying this.
Rebel
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 2:41:10 pm EST from 66.218.211.93

I understand where all of you are coming from with complaining about TGC's portrayal of Xanatos.

But at the same time, I really, really think that the events of the latter half of Season 2 need to have a serious impact on Xanatos and how he sees the clan. He shouldn't become some kind of all-American hero or anything, but he needs to be affected somehow. The clan just SAVED HIS SON and the world. If, despite this, Xanatos continues behaving (towards the clan, at least) in exactly the same way he behaved before, then I'm going to find that really boring. If the clan saved his son and this doesn't affect how Xanatos feels about them in a noticably positive way (reflected in his actions towards them), then I'm going to find him static and boring.

Do I want him to be the All-American good guy that he was in TGC? No. But I don't want him to be the same as he was pre-The Gathering and pre-Hunter's Moon, at least where his feelings and actions towards the clan are concerned. If he lapses back into his old ways, then I'm going to throw up my hands in frustration.
Rebel
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 2:34:07 pm EST from 66.218.211.93

On sad note, my dad passed away on Monday afternoon about 3:30. :(
Vinnie - [tpeano29 at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 2:12:57 pm EST from 69.54.209.20

I'd love to see a Timedancer scene where Brooklyn is trying to explain to Katana and Nashville (after viewing TGC) just how badly history has remembered the clan.
Vinnie - [tpeano29 at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 2:07:04 pm EST from 69.54.209.20

Todd on Patricks idea> I like it. "if only it were that easy..." thats something I thnik even Greg W. would like.

EVERYONE> Thanks for the thougths. my arm is really sore today. :/

and marshmallow is beside me on my desk in his little ern. :)
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 1:43:07 pm EST from 75.156.190.146

Siren > For big items that aren't plane-travel friendly, just ship them to yourself at the hotel ahead of time. UPS and FedEx usually give an accurate enough estimate of delivery time that you can make a package arrive the day you check in.
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 6:58:14 am EST from 66.61.18.93

Greg B: during either TIMEDANCER or 2198, I'm sure.
Brook
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 5:47:40 am EST from 84.191.212.171

Greg W. has spoken.

In other slightly unrelated news...I posted a link here a few weeks ago for a website that makes "quadsuits"...and how I thought it would be a great place to look at getting a gargoyle beast costume made. I decided to bite the bullet and I am commissioning her to do an original beast design of mine. She won't do Bronx or Boudicca, because they are copyrighted, so don't ask her. IF I have the money for the flight and hotel, I will attend the Gathering this year and bring the suit...though it will be big so I am not sure how I'll get it there :\ I don't dwell on that thought seriously till I know for sure if I can go.
Her website again is www.beastcub.com she is not taking commissions till after March though. And no, this isn't spam, thankyouverymuch :P
Siren
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 4:48:21 am EST from 72.188.139.212

Antiyonder> To add onto that...

Broadway suddenly starts wearing shades at night, and Brooklyn asks 'Hey, can I borrow those?'
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 3:34:22 am EST from 69.223.183.185

TGC could fit into the series canon as a fiction novel series of sorts by the later 2100s. And basically, the series would sugarcoat or tame down the more serious complex moments in history and make them simple (Xanatos becoming the All American Hero for one, as well as John Castaway being the mustache twirling villain) since the story entitled The Journey was too complex for readers of the series.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Wed, Jan 14, 2009 3:08:01 am EST from 71.120.226.102

Matt> TGC as our "Future Tense"? Hmmm, I guess I can see that.

So how long till the Amish kid shows up?
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Brave words for a man who hides his face behind a hood." -Goliath
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 11:59:39 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

oh god.. that "jasmin" elisa in the new animation studio.. that got under my skin like you would not believe!!
they made her look like such a priss!!..walking around like she was constantly trying to seduce the camera. yes im aware she's hot on her own, but that was never supposed to be the main focus.
sTiTcH
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 7:45:31 pm EST from 205.188.117.134

I remember that some years ago, Patrick Toman had the image of Elisa having a dream about the gargoyles rescuing a passenger train from the Quarrymen and getting accepted at last, then waking up and saying "If only it was that easy."
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 7:42:05 pm EST from 4.244.214.160

Just for the sake of discussion, if you could make some injokes for the comic/graphic novel to reference The Goliath Chronicles, what would they be?

Nothing uncivil, just a nod to the show. A couple that come to mind:

1. A citizen in New York is mentioning some bad habits he'd like to kick with his friend recommending some self help tapes made by an Egon Pax :-).

2. The Gargoyles are reading a paper and stumble onto an article about a election for mayor, and upon hearing the name of a candidate being Pat Doyle, Lex states that something about him makes him feel uneasy.

Yeah, my ideas probably suck, but I had to let them out sooner or later.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 7:34:16 pm EST from 71.120.226.102

MATT - And we also have one of the better ideas incorporated from "The Goliath Chronicles" in the comic; Jeffrey Robbins figuring out on his own that Hudson's a gargoyle.

(One other element from "The Dying of the Light" that I liked was the remark that medical procedures designed to cure glaucoma in humans might not work as well on gargoyles, given that they're a different species. I was glad that the writers were aware of that possibility.)
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 7:08:52 pm EST from 4.244.214.160

Battle Beast> Sorry about your loss.

As for Seeing Is Believing, I suppose I do like the ending scene where Goliath and Jasmine embrace, with Hudson reminding them of the sunrise.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 6:59:06 pm EST from 71.120.226.102

Demonskyre> I'm amazed you have not seen the final (thank goodness) TGC episode. It is on YouTube if you ever want to take a look.

Stitch> Though the main target audience for the show was preteen boys, I know that Greg has said that they intentionally did what they could to make the show appeal to a much broader audience of both sexes and of all ages. The fact that the fandom is full of people of both sexes and all ages is not a coincidence.

Battle Beast> Sorry about Marshmallow and your arm *ouch*.

Seeing Isn't Believing> The animation on this one always cracked me up. There is one part where Proteus is disguised as Elisa and is being all seductive to Goliath and then, out of no where, GROWLS. It is freakin' hilarious.

Todd> "Elisa's resemblance to Jasmine in "Seeing Isn't Believing" *does* gain new significance after issues #4 and #5 of the Gargoyles comic book."

You know, that gives me a thought. What if TGC is, in fact, our "Future Tense". We suddenly have this nightmare world of poor animation and even worse characterization thrust upon us and live througha season of it only to find in the end that it isn't canon, isn't real. And with Greg doing his third season via the comic books we realize that TGC wasn't a prophecy, but a bad dream, though many elements, slightly distorted, find their way into the canon third season. Poor animation in TGC gave us a Jasmine-like Elisa, but in the comics Elisa dresses as Jasmine. A silly script in TGC had Sevarius acquiring DNA samples of the Manhattan Clan, but a brilliant script in the comics had him accomplish the same thing. Brooklyn's silly TGC angst is so similiar, but so different than his angst in the comics, as is his "running away". And I could go on.

Anyway, just an interesting thought. Perhaps the best way to look at TGC is that it is, for us, like going through what Goliath went through. An alternate reality where everything is wrong and difficult to watch, but turns out to be mostly fictional, with only skewed prophetic elements. Kinda cool in that light.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"I'm just so tired..." -Macbeth
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 6:58:44 pm EST from 70.230.182.76

BATTLE BEAST - I'm sorry about your loss.

Elisa's resemblance to Jasmine in "Seeing Isn't Believing" *does* gain new significance after issues #4 and #5 of the Gargoyles comic book.

DEMONSKRYE - I suppose one rationale for the humans' change of heart at the end of "Angels in the Night" is that the same beings whom they had constantly mistreated and persecuted for months came to their help when they were in trouble, rather than turning their back on them. When you've just had your life saved by someone whom you've been mean to, it can be a sombering experience. Not that I'd go too far with that argument, though.
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 6:38:05 pm EST from 4.244.214.160

Demonskrye - To be honest, other than seeing a few minutes of "Mysterious Cities of Gold" in French", I don't think the show ever aired in this part of Canada in English. I know Gorebash and a few others in here were fans, thus the reason I've been posting updates when I see them. Kind of like what "Battle Of the Planets" was for me in the day I suppose. I wish that show would get a proper DVD release
Wingless
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 6:35:57 pm EST from 99.245.254.123

Wingless> Thanks for the heads-up about "Mysterious Cities of Gold"! I will more than likely pick that up and hope its as good as I thought it was last time I saw it (which was back when Nickelodeon was running it.)

Battle Beast> Geez, what a lot to deal with all at once. I hope your arm is better soon and I'm really sorry to hear about Marshmallow.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 6:18:20 pm EST from 146.115.115.33

If TGC came out on DVD, Would I buy it? Of course I would. I can't imagine they'd release Chronicles before issuing S2-V2. It just doesn't make sense. I don't see them doing either at this point-but I keep hoping. If they' just stop issuing stuff like Hannah Montana, That's So Raven, Life With Derek, Zack & Cody & crap like that and issue more of the Disney afternoon toons.

Battle Beast-as for the Aladdin "Elisa" -that was "Seeing Isn't Believing". If I remember right, Nelvana couldn't complete all 13 episodes, so the last few were done by other studios, that one(if memory serves, was done by Disney Australia. The character models were way off, but I loved the flow of the animation on that episode.

Battle Beast-sorry about your ferret marshmallow and your arm *gentle hug*
Wingless
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 6:10:51 pm EST from 99.245.254.123

Greg. W: I don't think you'll read this, but... don't stop comming in. :)

I didn't like the Goliath Chronicles (Aladdin-esque Elisa in the ep where Taurus comes springs to mind) but I didnt hate it, either.

i WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT ON DVD as a tool to get more Comic or what have u out.

MY two cents!

On two sad notes, I fell down the stairs yesterday and broke my arm. for the thrid time. :(

And my beloved ferret marshmallow died. :( :(
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 5:53:34 pm EST from 75.156.190.146

@GREG W.
well, im the one who STARTED this whole chronicals convo so this particular debate was my fault. i shit you not, i had no idea a gargoyles community still existed untill i accidently stumbled upon it recently. so i had way of knowing people felt so strongly about TGC that it might actually be a dangerous subject.
as i've said before, it IS grose compared to yours.
the controversy, i meant they allowed things on gargoyles that they normally didnt allow on other shows. if "controversy" is the wrong word (since there were no real complaints), please tell me SOMEONE knows what im trying to say.
about you dreading comeing here, you put fans of any cult classic in one room together and war WILL sometimes break out. (dont ever go to "dragon con".) discussions wouldnt be nearly as interesting if everyone agreed with eachother.. haha!

and to others who asked
what i meant about it being a kids show is the audience it was aimed at (boys age 6 to 11), not who it actually wound up appealing to. "target audience" from the networks point of view, not gregs.
sTiTcH
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 4:41:11 pm EST from 205.188.117.134

Sorry for the double post.
Mysterious Cities Of Gold Fans: This has been a long time coming-but there's finally release info and package art for the upcoming release of the series-and it's being released in 2 configurations, a standard and deluxe version-the later having posters, 2 booklets, postcards. There's pictures of the set in my link.
Wingless
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 2:50:07 pm EST from 99.245.254.123

Greg W. Don't stop coming by. We all really appreciate when you drop by. Actually, I think if you came by more often throwing in your 2 cents(which is worth a lot more than our 2 cents), meybe it would help keep some of the speculation and squabbles to a minimum. ^_^
Again, thanks for stoppin by, and, on a personal note-thanks for the well wishes.
Wingless
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 2:39:36 pm EST from 99.245.254.123

So recently I had a Gargoyles-related dream, which I might as well mention here because nobody else I know is going to care (or have a clue what I'm on about).

It was sort of set during Hunters Moon 3, except that Andrea Calhoun was there as an ally of Demona. Now, I haven't read TGS in a long time (a REALLY long time), and even then I didn't get through very much, so I'm not entirely sure who Andrea Calhoun is. I sort of recall she's a pro-gargoyle person who somehow befriends Demona. Anyway, she was there, fighting Goliath and the Hunters. Why? Not a clue. Maybe she wanted to kill all humans, or maybe she didn't know what Demona was up to, or maybe dreams just don't make that much sense. Anyway, halfway through this fight, her eyes turn green and she become slitted like a cat's, and it turns out that she's a werecat. And not only that, she became a werecat after running into Odin in the middle of New York (sometime earlier in the year - possibly he'd come looking for his Eye just a little too late and Goliath and co. were already en route to Avalon). And she thought Odin was Santa Claus.

So that's the dream. No ending (probably because I woke up), but plenty of weirdness. I hope you are all as baffled as I am.
Supermorff
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 1:17:58 pm EST from 83.245.110.2

Oh, also take note that saying "not as bad as some say" doesn't mean "OK". I dislike TGC a lot. But as a stand alone series, if we would never have seen Gargoyles, it would have been OK. I doubt I would have enjoyed it or cared for it or would have stuck with it, but... it is OK...
Brook
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 10:57:18 am EST from 84.191.236.68

@ Demon: Yeah, I know. I just hope that NONE of my films or written words will EVER be that... mangled and fucked up.

I hope I can do a living and still be enough, eeh, "underground" to not have people call me and tell me they want to do a sequel or something...

In other news, DONNIE DARKO 2 IS GOIN IN POST PRODUCTION!!!!!!!! -.-
Brook
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 10:47:22 am EST from 84.191.236.68

Greg W> I am truly sorry if I inadvertently belittled your achievement in killing the "Split the Clan" ending to TGC. I was just throwing out theories, which I shouldn't have been doing because I still don't have enough of the facts to make educated guesses at what was going on. The reason I was so incredulous about the "Split the Clan" ending being seriously considered is because it just seems so out of step not only with the original series, but with TGC itself and pretty much every Disney TV series in existence. Maybe it's just that I don't understand exactly how the episode would have played out, but it does seem like what happens is that the clan abandons their protectorate, all but conceding victory to the Quarrymen. I just can't see how Disney would have gone for an ending right that, regardless of whether it was intended to be the end of the entire series or not. Most of the other big decisions made on TGC I can understand the logic of, even if I don't agree with it and believe that better choices could have been made. But the proposed ending just baffles me.

For the record, when I said that I thought the "Split the Clan" ending was the more "realistic" of the two, I was in no way saying that it would necessarily be better. Keep in mind that I haven't seen either the ending that exists or the one that doesn't. I don't think either story is particularly realistic, but I saw the question as asking me to choose the more realistic outcome of the two in light of the events of TGC, which I don't think are realistic either. So in my mind, the question is "What is the more likely outcome given that no matter what good acts the gargoyles perform and how public they are or how many times the Quarrymen endanger the lives of innocent civilians in an attempt to bring down the gargoyles, the public continues to hate and fear the gargoyles and accept the Quarrymen: that the clan would leave New York (which assumes that Broadway, Angela, Hudson, and Bronx weren't going to remain in New York and continue trying to protect the city and change New Yorkers' opinions of gargoyles) or that one more civilian endangering plot by the Quarrymen getting foiled by the gargoyles would suddenly cause the whole population of New York to love and accept the clan? Under those circumstances, I thought the clan leaving New York was the more likely of two extremely unlikely scenarios. That doesn't necessarily mean I think it would have made a better episode or a better ending to the story, because I don't. I had never viewed it as the clan intentionally splitting up since the only characters we know about going somewhere without the rest of the clan are Lex and Brooklyn who I had assumed would get their own Avalon skiff ride and eventually return. If I had thought the episode was setting up a more intentional, long-term split of the clan, I might have changed my answer.

Greg B> I know you're a smart guy, but I'm honestly not sure what kind of answer you're hoping to get beyond the ones you've already received about why some people are OK with TGC. I really don't think anyone is going to say something that turns on a light bulb in your brain so that while you still don't like TGC personally, you have a completely logically satisfying explanation as to why some people do. I can't speak for anyone who does like TGC to whatever degree, but from reading what's been said here, it seems like some people are viewing TGC outside of the context of it being a third season of "Gargoyles" and are just more OK with watching a show that is merely OK rather than really good. I watch the 1960s "Batman" TV show. If someone were to ask me why, I would say that I totally realize that it's a silly show which frequently does not make a ton of sense, but I enjoy the silliness and I only ever watch it with my husband so we can laugh at how silly it is together. Given enough conversation, I could probably be made to admit that there are better shows on TV which I could be watching and, in fact, there are better things that I could be doing with my time that have nothing to do with watching TV. But that probably wouldn't stop me from watching "Batman"' and enjoying it. Everyone seems to be in agreement that TGC was not as good as the first two seasons of "Gargoyles" and that Greg W's third season would have been much better. I think that's enough common ground to work from.

Brook> I sincerely hope that you are lucky enough that you are able to retain the rights to everything you create and still manage to both get your work out there and make money. But I'll tell you right now, that's not a tremednously common occurrence. If Greg had attempted to develop "Gargoyles" in such a way that he owned the rights to it rather than pitching it to the company he was working for at the time, there's a pretty good chance we wouldn't all be here discussing it right now. The upside of holding onto the rights to your creations is that you're in charge of what's done with them. The downside is that all of the production and promotion help that you would get from working with a big company is now your responsibility.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 9:17:52 am EST from 146.115.115.33

Greg W> It's always nice to hear from you. The behind the scenes information is interesting to hear, and it's good to know you still drop by to read whatever we're on about from time to time.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 8:57:28 am EST from 71.56.36.35

Greg W> Thanks for all that. And I really hope you don't stop dropping by here. I know we all appreciate your input.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"I'm just so tired..." -Macbeth
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 7:36:34 am EST from 70.230.182.76

@ GREG W: Cheers to you FOR comming here and post. :) We appreciate it and (at least I) won't misquote you. :)
And I give you huge kudos for changing the ending. I remember seeing (rather witnessing) TGC for the first time with... yeah, 14 or something, and I remember thinking that at least the ending was "decent".
But I think if ANY only REMOTE material I created would be treated like it was with TGC, I'd call a lawyer. Or a psychiatrist. :s

@ Greg B: I'm OK with that. I don't expect people to like things that are overally bad. Personally, I tend to see the silver lining inbetween the clouds though. Guess you've got to if you're trying to be reative and earn money by it. ;) ;)

On the controversy... I can totally see where Stitch is heading. I mean, I saw GRIEF with 13 and was shocked. Not by the content itself, but by its existence. NOTHING of THIS I EVER imagined seeing on a TV show that Mickey Mouse Magazine said was "considered for children 8-12". Heck, I didn't watch the show in the first place because it was marketed over here like some brainless action cartoo a la Mighty Ducks, which wasn't my cup of tea altogether.

Whilst GARGOYLES never really stirred a controversy, I can see why people consider its material "controversial". I mean SWIMMING POOL was a rather controversial film, then again it didn't stirr any controversy.
I never considered Disney to drop to TGC level, but I considered that at some point, the quality would worsen. I was 13, and used to Disney shows that, even though they had appeal (Darkwing), they were quite up and down in quality (to me). I thought that at some degree, it might stop working, or writers would change or the show would "lighten up". With HUNTERS MOON, that changed. After that finale, I expected EVERYTHING to come. I must not mention I was disappointed.

I'm just so glad we got CLAN BUILDING that I lighted up a bit, I guess... Who still thinks it matters that Goliath looked like a douche in TGC when we've got him STABBED INTO THE STOMACH BY THAILOG in CB??
Brook
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 4:57:57 am EST from 84.191.236.68

With a real sense of "Don'tGetInvolved" doom -- because every time I weigh in here, I tend to regret it -- let me weigh in here in the hopes of clearing at least a couple of point up.

First off, to anyone who enjoyed Goliath Chronicles, in whole or in part... It's fine. A lot of people worked very hard on the season with a nearly impossible schedule, including no real time to familiarize themselves with the first two seasons to any real degree. It's perfectly cool that you appreciate their efforts, whether that appreciation is relative or absolute.

Second, no, Chronicles was NOT part of ONE SATURDAY MORNING. That came later. But the fact that Disney bought ABC was a factor in Gargoyles getting picked up for what became Goliath Chronicles. ABC was looking for a boys action show with some marquis value. Gargoyles fit the bill.

Third, the "Split the Clan" ending of Chronicles wasn't simply a notion that might have gone away. It was part of an executive-approved premise. A written document. No sane story editor would write up and turn in a premise that he or she wasn't okay with. So they were really planning to do it. No sane story editor would get an approval and then decide to make a major change to the ending. Kiboshing that ending was my one... shall we say HEROIC ACHIEVEMENT on Chronicles. So please don't undercut it. I feel guilty enough.

Fourth, no executive EVER asked me to dumb down the series. Whether they asked my replacements to do that, I can't say for certain, but it seems unlikely. There was no controversy over subject matter though - so it's a bit silly to think that an executive would ask anyone to change the series to avoid a controversy that never existed. ABC's S&P executives were less understanding than Adrienne Bello had been on the first two seasons, but you can't blame everything on S&P. Executives did insist on the opening and closing Goliath narration -- I was told in an attempt to separate the series a bit from its predecessor. The narration wasn't, to my knowledge or understanding of the business, specifically designed to dumb the show down... whatever the arguable result.

Finally, I will reiterate what I've always said. Every Goliath Chronicle episode (including even the aired version of "The Journey") was very painful for me to watch. I've watched "The Journey" many times -- although not recently. I didn't want to see it again before I wrote "Nightwatch" and "The Journey" for the comic book. (And since writing those issues, the only point in seeing it for me is to hear my daughter's voice as Alex.) The other twelve episodes I've watched exactly once each. I felt that nearly everyone in nearly every episode was mischaracterized to greater or small degrees. I felt stories I suggested were crushed into parodies of what I had tried to achieve. So if you don't like Goliath Chronicles even one little bit, that's okay with me too.

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT... I'd suggest for the sake of the room... stop beating this dead dead horse. If you have ANOTHER point to make, by all means. But everyone seems to just be reiterating the same points over and over.

Just my two cents.

(I gotta stop coming here.)
Greg Weisman
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 3:07:56 am EST from 68.183.95.134

Anyone who thinks Gargoyles was only meant for small children apparently never saw Elisa bleeding out on the kitchen floor.
Siren
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 2:44:36 am EST from 72.188.139.212

Given we're so in depth into discussing TGC, I'm wondering if people have a theory as to why the abrupt change occurred. I always assumed it was due to Disney buying ABC around that time. With a new broadcast channel at their disposal, they no longer had a need for syndication markets. Thus the fall of Gargoyles could demonstrate the starkest difference between creative freedom in syndication and development hell in broadcasting.

One discrepancy I've found:

http://gargoyles.dracandros.com/Goliath_Chronicles

says TGC was a part of "Disney's One Saturday Morning" on ABC, as does Wikipedia. The Journey aired on September 7, 1996. But this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Kids_(US)#Disney.27s_One_Saturday_Morning

says One Saturday Morning didn't exist until September 13, 1997. Was TGC part of some primordial version of ABC's new cartoon block?

Regardless, stockholders approved the Disney/ABC merger on January 5, 1996. I know the general narrative is that the new Gargoyles producers were obstinate, but it must have been a turbulent time for everyone. However, Greg has said before that lots of executive drama during production (presumably Wells/Katzenberg) had caused them to mostly leave Greg alone. Since Greg was a former exec himself, they trusted him to make the right choices, and Gargoyles was the better for it. Now with the new drama caused by the Disney/ABC merger, they dump Greg and go crazy. Why did they decide to throw everything out the window this time? Did new ABC goons overthrow Disney TV to make a statement?
Landon Thomas - [lumpmoose at googles dot email dot service]
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 2:18:06 am EST from 216.250.163.157

Samuel> Of course it's good to do, but as mentioned before, the redeeming values pale in comparison to the faults of the show. While Dying Of The Light as a whole wasn't good, it did make for a good turning point for Hudson and Jeffrey's friendship.

I do enjoy Broadway Goes Hollywood only because it is fun and it certainly gives a better portrayal of Fox than Ransom. Genesis Undone only because it serves as a break from the Gargoyles/Human situation.

Going back to Runaway, the redeeming value isn't enough to make it a decent episode, I did like how Kenny didn't fall prey to the reluctant antagonist reforming and being arrested since he turned 18 (Happy Birthday indeed).
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 1:52:32 am EST from 71.120.226.102

I don't think it's so bad to look for a silver lining, even in storm clouds.
Samuel - [AnglOfHellO at AOL dot com]
Noodles, anyone?
posted @ Tue, Jan 13, 2009 1:22:00 am EST from 68.55.57.46

Stitch - Honestly, your idea that we should have been prepared for the quality of Gargoyles to drop between seasons is terrible. People get hooked on things (movies, books, TV shows) because of the original so the original has to be good and each piece that comes after it must keep the quality or it will lose viewership.

I read a lot of books. Im a bookworm. I have series I follow religiously. However, if I went to the bookstore tomorrow, picked up one of my favorite author's newest release, and found spelling errors that would be obivious to a first grader, characters acting completely against their nature, and storylines that are outright weak, I would walk back to the store and return the book. I have put down books that have a really interesting plot just because the writing bugged me.

But back to Gargoyles, Disney should not have been surprised when viewership dropped during the third season given how the butchered it. If the quality had been kept, fans would have stayed. No amount of loyalty can make me enjoy something that is such poor quality compared to the original I fell in love with.
Litwolf
<Be happy for me and for all who fly free.> - Tobias of Animorphs
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 11:16:23 pm EST from 71.206.9.183

sTiTcH> i base SOME of my judgement on hypotheticals to give the whole series as much credit as possible. people like to judge gargoyles by todays story standards and we have to remember that consistancy and depth werent as important in the early 90s as they are today.. especially on a show meant for young kids.
not that i dont see it for EVERYTHING it was, but i try to look at it the way the network expected us to, and agree that it did live up to THAT standard.
this way i can love EVERY part about it without haveing too much to complain about.

Again, some of us can appreciate a simple show. But when the simple show continues from a complex show, it leaves an empty feeling.

If The Batman and Batman The Brave And The Bold were continuations of Bruce Timm's Batman The Animated Series, my enjoyment of the show would lower, but as their own shows, they make for some harmless fun.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 10:16:39 pm EST from 71.120.226.102

Your assumption that Gargoyles was meant only for small kids is mistaken. The show that Greg created was intended to appeal to a wide range of age groups, as something parents could watch with their kids and enjoy, as opposed to, say, television as a babysitter programs like Barney. Obviously the show appealed to an older audience or most of us wouldn't be here. I was a college junior when the show originally aired. The reason TGC was a disappointment is because most of the aspects that made it appeal to more than just "small kids" were thrown out the window.
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 10:04:54 pm EST from 66.61.18.93

i base SOME of my judgement on hypotheticals to give the whole series as much credit as possible. people like to judge gargoyles by todays story standards and we have to remember that consistancy and depth werent as important in the early 90s as they are today.. especially on a show meant for young kids.
not that i dont see it for EVERYTHING it was, but i try to look at it the way the network expected us to, and agree that it did live up to THAT standard.
this way i can love EVERY part about it without haveing too much to complain about.
sTiTcH
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 9:56:53 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

Harvester of Eyes> You rock!

Matt> You rock!

I love this place :)

STITCH> I am not trying to be rude, but you seem to be basing your viewpoint entirely on a hypothetical.

Could the Disney execs have come in and said "Hell no"? Yes. But a massive earthquake could have also swallowed the studio into the ground during production as well. Nothing like that happened. And I don't think it's wise to base your viewpoint on a hypothetical.

But, in the end, I guess, we all come to this show seeking different things and got different things out of it. And there is nothing wrong with it. For some, TGC still had aspects of the show they enjoyed. But for me, the aspects I enjoyed the most were gone.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Brave words for a man who hides his face behind a hood." -Goliath
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 9:38:13 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

harvester
i was refering to him wrongly simplifying my original points, and trying to squeez my typeo's into his rebuttals. it seems a little "british agressive" for a simple conversation about a tv show.
sTiTcH
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 9:37:46 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

Ha!

Greg B> "I didn't buy the Quarrymen hiring Jackal and Hyena to frame Broadway to make gargoyles look like evil monsters. As far as the Quarrymen are concerned, the gargoyles *are* evil monsters. Why would they need to frame them?"
Actually, that is a good and valid point. Okay, I guess TGC sucks ENTIRELY now.

Gee, I'm so upset...

And now I'm over it.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"I'm just so tired..." -Macbeth
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 9:31:49 pm EST from 70.230.182.76

you're confusing controversy with actual problems. gargoyles did MANY controvercial things even if it never suffered for them. point is at any given moment the exects could have come in and said "hell no".
and if you remember, i didnt bring up controversy as a reason for it being cancled, i brought it up as a reason for my not expecting them to let it stay as great as it was.. i.e.: not following gregs game plan for the third season and dumbing it down to its most basic form instead.
sTiTcH
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 9:31:01 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

Stitch: How exactly is Bishansky being rude? He asked you to cite your source, and I think you should, as well. If I'm interpreting you correctly (and please forgive me if I'm not, I have difficulty reading run-on sentences), you're saying that The Goliath Chronicles were dumbed down because Disney thought the content of the first 65 episodes was too controversial.

Looking around the ASK GREG archives (an actual source) tells us something different:

http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/archives.php?lid=186&qid=8052
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Though I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe." -Jubal Harshaw ("Stranger In a Strange Land")
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 9:26:03 pm EST from 71.62.136.51

STITCH> There was no controversy attached to "Gargoyles." None. No one ever complained about it. There was no angry letter writing campaign. No parents groups or church groups or anything like that. The execs at Disney generally supported it, and if you ask Greg, even Michael Eisner was a supporter. They had a terrific S&P executive who understood story, and let them do just about anything they wanted.

So, what happened? "Gargoyles" did well, but it wasn't the mega hit some people had hoped it would be. It still did well. It was just going to end after sixty-five episodes, like most other shows do.

"Gargoyles" wasn't canceled due to controversy. It was all about the Benjamens.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Brave words for a man who hides his face behind a hood." -Goliath
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 9:20:07 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

im just a lurker and greg always seems to get rude in here, he thinks he rules the place
Anonymous
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 9:07:54 pm EST from 66.153.14.16

Antiyonder here again.

Thing is that the series under Greg's direction made it up to 65 episodes while TGC died after 1 season. So much for the simpler series reigning supreme.
Anonymous
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 9:06:07 pm EST from 66.96.64.38

greg
what i mean is you seem to be getting a bit emotional here... its starting to border on rude.

and there was pleanty of controversy. if death, blood, suicide, slight profanity, and medevil weaponry werent enough, the fact that the show itself was better understandable to an older audience than what they aimed at was a risky thing for it. most of the time i was expecting the network to decide gargoyles really didnt belong in that timeslot, or even on their network.

and a correction to my last post: i said "PATRICK", when i meant TODD. sorry
sTiTcH
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 8:57:51 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

@patrick
thats the thing i never understood. they proved SO MANY TIMES that they could talk and think like normal intellegent beings and yet people were always suprised.
you ever see an interview with marilyn manson?
to everyone else they ask "so whats your view on politics" or "what did you think of tom cruse in MI". but to him on the same shows they ask things like "so how do you do your laundry?" "do you like fast food?" "whats your morning routine?"
like they cant get their brains around the notion that this is a regular human being who just happens to look different.
watching the humans around gargoyles had the same vibe.. come on! they're obviously similar to us in almost every way so what the hell with the dumb questions! lol
sTiTcH
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 8:45:04 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

Stitch> Who needs to calm down? I am perfectly calm.

"since it was treding on controversial ground from the start."

It's spelled 'treading.' And it was treading on controversial ground? Really? It was so controversial, Greg has said they got a whopping two letters from people who thought it was Satanic without having seen it. Hell, Disney let Greg do just about anything he wanted during the first two seasons. What happened with him during season three had nothing to do with the content of the first two seasons

Where was this controversy? Please cite your source.

PATRICK> <<I didn't realize I was such an elitist by expecting something more from my entertainment.>>

Well, you just reminded me of one of my favorite Harlan Ellison quotes...

"It is a love/hate relationship I have with the human race. I am an elitist, and I feel that my responsibility is to drag the human race along with me- that I will never pander to, or speak down to, or play the safe game. Because my immortal soul will be lost."

And I think my sig will be one of my favorite Jon Stewart quotes...
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Doesn't elite mean good? Or are we just not looking for that anymore?" -Jon Stewart
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 8:40:43 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

So in other words...

Aim for mediocrity. Settle for adequacy.

That sounds exactly like the American public schools since about 1990, actually.

I didn't realize I was such an elitist by expecting something more from my entertainment.
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 8:36:42 pm EST from 66.61.18.93

PATRICK - Yes, but first you'd have to convince the talk show people that the gargoyle is a thinking being and not a dumb beast.
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 8:31:31 pm EST from 4.244.208.8

wow dude calm down.
im not trying to make it look better, im saying the 3rd season not being like the first 2 shouldnt suprise and anger you so much. you also probably shouldnt have relied so much on gargoyles staying the way it was, since it was treding on controversial ground from the start.

the reason im able to somewhat appreciate TGC is because i NEVER expected them to keep the show as deep as it was. i always knew they didnt see that as very important so i fell inlove with it for its...we'll say "shallower" aspects: like the fact that it had a unique way of touching on issues, that it was a more serious cartoon than anything else in its lineup, that the imagery was like nothing TDA had ever allowed, and that the characters were interesting on many levels. all THOSE aspects DID carry over into TGC, but i knew the intricacy of 1 and 2 were too good to stay true. if i had focused completely on it being an epic teen series somehow fitting in between aladdin and darkwing duck, i'd be thoroughly disapointed like the rest of the fans.
not to say i didnt appreciate it for its depth ofcourse, i just didnt depend on it.
sTiTcH
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 8:29:21 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

Todd > What better way to prove they AREN'T talking animals than put a gargoyle on a talk show? And I'm not talking David Letterman's Stupid Pet Tricks. Fox should have put Broadway on something like Larry King's show, where people take it seriously and serious conversation could be had.

Heck, if the timeline were running a decade later, even The Daily Show would be a good candidate.
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 8:14:52 pm EST from 66.61.18.93

Stitch> What exactly is the point that you're trying to make? We're not talking about Disney's motivations or corporate strategy. We are talking about the quality of the show itself.

"TGC is what they would have been doing all along if greg had just handed them some characters and a plot summary, and then sat back with a bucket of popcorn for 3 years."

And what does this have to do with the debate? Because if the entire series were like TGC, I know I wouldn't have been a fan of it back then.

You're not making TGC look better, sorry.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"I don't know how you perceive my mission as a writer, but for me it is not a responsibility to reaffirm your concretized myths and provincial prejudices. It is not my job to lull you with a false sense of the rightness of the universe. This wonderful and terrible occupation of recreating the world in a different way, each time fresh and strange, is an act of revolutionary guerrilla warfare. I stir the soup. I inconvenience you. I make your nose run and your eyeballs water." -Harlan Ellison
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 8:10:26 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

@greg
when it comes down to it, i think you're just asking too much of a TDA cartoon. the first 2 seasons being all kinds of incredible and amazing were a fluke for disney, and mostly due to the creators. in truth, i think all that epicness and broken ground was pretty take-or-leave for the corperation. TGC is what they would have been doing all along if greg had just handed them some characters and a plot summary, and then sat back with a bucket of popcorn for 3 years.

as i've said before, disney knows that target audience mostly only cared about action.. not consistancy and character growth.
sTiTcH
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 7:55:27 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

not really because he wasnt really leader yet. he was only temporary leader during the world tour and goliath didnt really get to see any of that for himself.
seeing as this is TGC we're talking about i dont doubt it was just a genuine inconsistancy, but unlike some other mistakes in the season, it could atleast easily be SEEN a different way by anyone who really cares to.
(we and greg have done it many times for inconsistancies in 1 and 2)
sTiTcH
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 7:48:34 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

Brook> See, this is where we differ. I can't give TGC points on the excuse that it "could have been worse." That's like asking me if I'd prefer being stabbed in the face or in the gut.

I don't grade on a curve. Sorry.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Brave words for a man who hides his face behind a hood." -Goliath
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 7:46:21 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

Antiyonder here on a library computer.

Problem with Runaways is that it ignores Brooklyn becoming the clan leader during The Avalon World Tour with the whole "Brooklyn will make a great leader someday".
Anonymous
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 7:45:09 pm EST from 66.225.14.190

if i had to choose any TGC episode, i might have to go with "runaways". it may not have played into anyones characters, but atleast it didnt depict anyone the wrong way. if goliath chose brooklyn as second in command, i can see why he'd get extra pissed at him for screwing up.. and by the same token, i can see why brooklyn would get so pissed at goliath being too hard on him after declaring him better than the rest. ..and it also had a good PSA.
but then again, i am partial to brooklyn.
sTiTcH
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 7:26:25 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

Yes, that's one of the biggest plotholes in "The Goliath Chronicles".

I've sometimes wondered if the production team did it to ensure that the Quarrymen would come across as thorougly villainous. If these people believe that the gargoyles are evil monsters, then it could just be argued that their actions are excusable. Making it clear that the Quarrymen know the truth about the gargoyles and still want to kill them all ensures that they're made the bad guys.

(I don't think that this makes much difference. Castaway's motives were not to protect the city from the gargoyles but to satisfy a private vendetta - and to avoid facing the responsibility for what he did to his brother. Even if the gargoyles were demonic monsters, his purpose would still be ignoble. For that matter, the Hunters' main target for most of their career was Demona - whom we *know* is a threat to the human race - and they still come across as dark and unsettling.)
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 7:22:28 pm EST from 4.244.208.8

@ Greg: Ah, there you go, I frogot that. Thought the same back then: "Hey, why are they HIRING them, if they could just kill him and do the... oh, TGC, yeah..."
Brook
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 7:17:11 pm EST from 84.191.207.200

@ Greg: Sure, you are right. But still, it wasn't the worst SHOW. It was the worst that happenned to GARGOYLES. But not the worst show on earth. I don't watch it, for a good reason. I never want to hear Egon Pax and Baby Anton again!! EVER!!

But as a show, there is worse.

Just like it is with films. Look, I did not particularily like MONSTERS BALL, but it was a darn well done film, and I'd rank it 7 out of 10. I hated MATRIX REVOLUTIONS, but it had a nice action scene near the start, one or two shots were well done, Monica Bellucis costume... no further mention, and the lightning and collours were still cool. 4 out of 10. However, SHOWGIRLS was such a bad film, without ONE good performance, without ONE outstanding shot, WITHOUT ONE memorable moment apart of the hillariously stupid scenes and lines, that I could only gove it a 1 out of 10.

TGC HAD some good moments. And semi good EPs. And the Journey. I see it just like a 14 part fanfic series - sure, on a bigger scale and clumsily done, but there could have been SO MUCH MUCH more worse!! Imagine Goliath getting all arrogant, Demona being killed by Canmore (!!!) or Vinnie being integrated into the clan and hooking up with Elisa (no more mention of the relationship, of course). Imagine your worst fears and multiply them with 10. THAT would be a desaster.

@ Matt: "As for that episode (Dying of the Light or whatever), I never understood the appeal of it in particular. When Gargoyles fans discuss their favorite TGC episode (or the one they despise the least), I'm always amazed that this one gets a lot of mention. I found it rather dull. Meanwhile, "Broadway Goes to Hollywood" is somewhat realistic in their portrayal of the Fox setting up a media connection to the gargoyles. In fact, I would think Fox coming up with a Xanatos-esque scheme in this episode would earn it a lot of points."

I think it is because even though the EP has its faults, it still stands close to some of the character traits. It has one really awesome scene, and Hudson with a blindfold was quite a sight.
I just HATE how they depict BROADWAY in that EP. And I'm not even a Broadway fan.And although some of the characters stay true to their nature, the EP just feels cheesy and unnecessary to me. But because I've not seen it for 6 years or even longer - shall I revisit it, what do you think?
Brook
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 7:16:09 pm EST from 84.191.207.200

I didn't buy the Quarrymen hiring Jackal and Hyena to frame Broadway to make gargoyles look like evil monsters. As far as the Quarrymen are concerned, the gargoyles *are* evil monsters. Why would they need to frame them?

It's like setting up people in trouble so the gargoyles could attempt to protect them, but are really being lured into ambushes. Just doesn't make sense.

Demona hiring them would have made more sense, if any of our villains did.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Brave words for a man who hides his face behind a hood." -Goliath
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 7:13:32 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

"hudson! your eye!" ..oh god i forgot about that! haha!!
i might be mistaken because i havent seen those eps in about 2 years, but wasnt that a dream sequence of some kind? because in "long way till morning" (i believe it was.. the one where demona tried to poison elisa with a dart) nobody cried out anything when hudsons eye got wounded.
so is it possible that it was (or atleast can be seen as) goliath crying out in his OWN head? not in the flashback itself, but in the present?

and before we go implying that anyones an overobsessive dork, we're a group of adults on a 10-year-old message board argueing about an old disney cartoon that lasted 3 seasons, and was apparently not even popular enough to get its last dvd fully released. ..sorry to be "THAT PERSON", but its true. we're all geeks here. so go nuts!! ^_^

(speeking of that though, how the hell did SONIC THE F#@KING HEDGHOG get its whole series released in one pack, but gargoyles is allowed to go incomplete?? even if they think it DOESNT have a large enough fan base, how can they just do it so halfassed like that??)
sTiTcH
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 7:11:54 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

MATT - Yes, I thought that "Broadway Goes to Hollywood" had some fun moments (though one wonders whether any talk show would take the idea of a gargoyle as a guest seriously, in light of almost everybody thinking that they're like wild animals). Particularly Fox's scheme of having a couple of friends of hers pretend to be in trouble so that Broadway can rescue them in front of the cameras, and Jackal and Hyena engaging in all their gleeful mayhem (including Jackal just having to don a beret before shooting the big scene, and Hyena's "We can't all marry billionaires, you know" line).
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 7:06:38 pm EST from 4.244.208.8

Greg B> I hate to defend TGC, but I always figured the "Hudson! Your eye!" moment wasn't as much a flashback as it was a dream of Hudson's. And dreams are weird. So perhaps Hudson heard his name when he dreamed that old dream. Just my take.

As for that episode (Dying of the Light or whatever), I never understood the appeal of it in particular. When Gargoyles fans discuss their favorite TGC episode (or the one they despise the least), I'm always amazed that this one gets a lot of mention. I found it rather dull. Meanwhile, "Broadway Goes to Hollywood" is somewhat realistic in their portrayal of the Fox setting up a media connection to the gargoyles. In fact, I would think Fox coming up with a Xanatos-esque scheme in this episode would earn it a lot of points. And Jackal and Hyena being hired by the Quarrymen was kinda cool. And they seemed to be a lot of fun. Crazy and being mercenaries, but still full of wise-cracking humor. Just my take.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"I'm just so tired..." -Macbeth
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 6:51:41 pm EST from 70.230.182.76

DEMONSKRYE - I think it would take a great effort for Goliath and his clan to leave New York. Look at how much of a struggle it was to get Goliath just to move to another part of the city, and that was when his idea of the protectorate consisted of just the clan and its roosting quarters. Getting him to agree to abandon an entire community that he and his clan had sworn to defend would be even harder. (And even being treated with similar ingratitude by the original human inhabitants of Castle Wyvern a thousand years before had not gotten him to leave - even when Coldstone suggested the idea.)

Of course, the main conflict by that point in the series was the gargoyles versus gargoyle-haters who were ready to let their attempts to kill the gargoyles spill over and endanger the human population. It is possible that Goliath might decide that their presence in Manhattan was making things worse for the humans rather than better - that if they left, the Quarrymen would no longer have a reason for carrying out their activities and might disband. (Or, of course, they might simply start looking for fresh targets.) And the city would still have a police force (not to mention that New York doesn't seem as dependent on gargoyle protection as, say, Gotham City on Batman.)

The new production team did seem more focused on the gargoyles as victims of human prejudice than as protectors, so maybe they didn't think about the idea when they proposed it. Or maybe they were just too keen on wrapping up the series to care.
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 6:42:17 pm EST from 4.244.208.8

Brook> But Gargoyles had more of the creator's imput than Batman and had more of a storyline and continuity. With Gargoyles they took a complex storybased show and made it into a simple cartoon. Now I like simple cartoons as well as the complex ones, but Gargoyles doesn't really fit as a simple cartoon.

To go a step further, I'd say another problem with TGC is Generations. Aside from the lack of mentioning Demona's genocide attempt, the episode plays as rehash of The Reckoning.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 5:56:36 pm EST from 71.120.226.102

Brook> And I *don't* see it in it's context?

"Goliath Chronicles" had a flashback to the dark ages, where after the Archmage blasts Hudson in his eye, Goliath cries out "Hudson! Your eye!"

Yes, I realize I sound like a huge dork here. But we're all dorks. Hudson doesn't get his name for another 1,010 years. The Hudson River wasn't even named until Henry Hudson explored it in 1609. And they had Goliath calling him that in 984?

Sorry, but I don't think it was just another cartoon. Yeah, maybe I should, but those first two seasons were just so well done, with so much put into them, it became an instant classic.

Was it perfect? No. Nothing is. It was a flawed masterpiece, but it was still a masterpiece. A beautiful tapestry with great storytelling and layered characters.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Brave words for a man who hides his face behind a hood." -Goliath
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 5:44:26 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

Cause a cartoon show is not a really big work of art for me.

See - I LOVE Gargoyles. I really do. But it is not KUBRICK for me. Just like there are bad Batman films. Still, the third one had it's moments (in contrast to the fourth one, that had none).

I just see it in its context - it is not by Greg - still, it has got some good moments.
Sure, it is bad Gargoyles - but it has still got its moments. It isn't particularily a Russ Mayer film, you see...
I'm not that black and white, it is that simple. I watch things more analytic, and try to add up good and bad. Even if bad overweighs - there might still be some good moments.
Brook
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 5:19:35 pm EST from 84.191.207.200

I'm definitely in the same boat. The worst Weisman episode is better than the best non-Weisman episode.

I still would like to understand why TGC is acceptable to some people. I have seen the "it's better than nothing" reason, but I disagree with that. I'd rather have no "Gargoyles" than bad "Gargoyles."
Greg Bishansky
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 5:09:50 pm EST from 76.191.115.16

Brook> I'll readily admit the "Monsters" and "Mark of The Panther" aren't my all time favorite episodes nor groundbreaking TV by any stretch, but I'll happily take them over any episode* of TGC every time.

*With the exception of "The Journey" of course.
Algernon
Help! I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body!
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 2:16:08 pm EST from 149.157.1.180

TGC "Alternate Ending"> I'm not doubting that this was actually suggested, but I do have a hard time believing that anyone ever seriously thought this would make it to air. My best theories are that either this idea came up before the tone of TGC was arrived at and the crew wanted to do a dark and serious ending, not realizing that they were doing so at the expense of staying true to the characters, or the dark ending was kind an overblown reaction to the direction Greg wanted the series to go in, possibly designed to make the "real" ending look better by comparison.

It's hard to say which ending would have been more realistic, especially since I haven't seen either of them. But given the events of "The Goliath Chronicles," I'm kind of leaning towards the alternate "dark" ending being more realistic. It still has the problem of the clan essentially abandoning New York, which I don't think they would do. But in light of the citizens of New York appearing to be so dense over the course of TGC that the clan could each one of them $500 and a puppy and they would still hate and fear the gargoyles and be pretty much OK with the Quarrymen, I could see how the gargs might decide that they would be better off somewhere else. It is, at least, more believable to me than the train rescue suddenly shaking New Yorkers out of their stupor and making them realize that Gargyoles are good when nothing else could convince them of that.

A lot of TV series are written so that the end of the season can also be the end of the series, "Gargoyles" included. Greg purposefully tried to give each season finale a kind of open-ended closure, not tying up every story thread, but giving the feeling of an ending point, if not the ultimate ending point. If "Gargoyles" had ended with the first season, we would have at least known that the clan had found their purpose in life as protectors of the city. Had it ended with season two, we would have seen the clan restored to their ancestral home and Goliath and Elisa fianlly acknowledging their feelings for one another. Both endings would leave unanswered questions, but they wouldn't have left us in total suspense as to what happened next.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 11:47:56 am EST from 146.115.115.33

@ Stitch: that is what I meant "flawless". :) And the characters did not act as stupid as in the rest of the EPs.

I have my own problems with the world tour. Some EPs I cannot stand at all, and yeah, G&E&A all over again and again for 15 weeks was rather, urhm, dull.

Still, there are some brilliant EPs here. Grief and MIA and Bushido all provide some great action, characterisation and storytelling.

I'm so curious how TIMEDANCER and post Clan Building will end up... There just HAS to be another Comic!
Brook
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 11:33:58 am EST from 84.191.242.64

to answer brook, i'd say "angels in the night" was the closest (though not by much) because it showd that gargoyles would EVENTUALLY be accepted by humans.
if a continuation had to be made from TGC but at the same time wanted to depict that acceptance is never that easy, it could be written that it was only that train of people and that particular news station that became gargoyle-loving converts. there still could have been just as many groups being assholes toward them.
sTiTcH
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 11:06:14 am EST from 64.12.117.134

i would assume that after a certain amount of seasons (say TWO for example) it was the general disney mindset to treat every following season like it might be their last. not only did their target audience have a short attention span and not care so much about the story as they did about the action, but a show with 2 or 3 seasons under its belt makes it a perfect candidate to be bumped out for a newer one.
i dont think they wanted to put THAT MUCH into gargoyles anymore at that point.. especially a timedancer story. we can all appreciate them now that we're older, but most of the other kids i talked to when the series was on HATED the avalon episodes. some even said it became a "girl show". they didnt wanna watch a show where mythical creatures were on a magical quest, they wanted to see gargoyles fighting crime and kicking ass in the city. some (like myself) had favorite characters OTHER THAN goliath and elisa and were pissed off they werent seeing them anymore.
even if the series had continued, i dont think they ever would have done timedancer.. or just shortened it to 4 or 5 episodes of periodic flashbacks while the status-quo was still going on.
but point is, now that i think about it, i think at that point they just had make the show as simple as possible, and be prepared for exects to knock on the door at any given time and say "hey, this is gunna be the last episode so try to come up with a closure".. so "angels in the night" was probably on the shelf as their failsafe. ..doesnt need a multi-parter, nothing really had to blend into it from previous episodes, it was perfect for its purpose.
sTiTcH
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 10:55:51 am EST from 64.12.117.134

@ Demonskrye: I'm with you here. I mean... back when I first heard about TIMEDANCER... I was how old... 14?
Brooklyn was my favourite character, and all I thought was "WHAT THE... has GW gone MAD???"
I'm really looking forward now how he handles this. It is just one massive... MOUNTAINHIGH hump of time... 40 years... I'm 23 now, imagining me with 63 years...
It certainly is one of the darker turns the series went... I'm very giddy on this now, but back then, it just seemed like SO much... basically, we will see a different character alltogether.

Shame Greg couldn't remember what they had in mind for Angela, Hudson, Bronx and Broadway.
I must admit, whilst teh ending is atrocious... I would have kind of liked to see it... just, you know... see it, even if it would have been a "alternative last EP" on the DVD that Disney stopped the last second...

What do you guys think, which one was more "realistic" in the context of the TGC universe: the AotN version or the scrapped one??

Any other things that Greg told them not to do?
Brook
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 10:43:39 am EST from 84.191.242.64

DEMONSKRYE - Actually, the plan that Greg Weisman nixed was more than the trio going on their own World Tour; it was the gargoyles abandoning New York in the final episode, apparently for good. (Lex and Brooklyn would be the ones to go on the world tour; Goliath would move to Chicago with Elisa, who would change her name; Greg doesn't remember what would have become of Hudson, Bronx, Broadway, or Angela.)

It would certainly have been a downbeat way of ending the series. (I suspect that even if Greg hadn't opposed it, one of the execs at Disney would have, on the grounds that it showed the protagonists just giving up and running away - and what kind of message is that to send the audience?)
Todd Jensen
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 10:21:57 am EST from 198.209.226.130

Brook> I'm not entirely certain, but I would imagine that much of what Greg W suggested for TGC was what he himself had planned for the third season, such as TimeDancer. If you look at "The Journey," I think it gives you a pretty good idea of what Greg had in mind for where some of the character arcs were going in the future. I think the problems wasn't so much that TGC ignored these ideas; they just didn't do anything to really expand on them. All of the character centered episodes seem to just repeat the character beats from "The Journey" without actually developing them any further. And of course, some aspects - like Goliath and Elisa's relationship - get almost completely ignored.

As for what Greg W advised the TGC crew NOT to do, I remember hearing about an idea for the Trio going on their ow World Tour. Now I can see the logic here. I seem to recall that Brooklyn suggests the idea at the end of "Turf" and since so many minor comment in "Gargoyles" end up being foreshadowing for future stories, I can see how they might have thought that giving the Trio a World Tour of their own was just making good on a promise from season two. But given how many viewers ended up just as anxious as the travelers on the skiff to get back to Manhattan, starting up another World Tour right away probably would have been a disaster. As for Brooklyn's line in "Turf," I'm now inclined to see it as foreshadowing of his personal World Tour-like journey when he encounter the Phoenix Gate.

To be fair, I can understand why Scott Thomas didn't want to do "TimeDancer: as their Brooklyn story. Yes, the way he went about doing it was less than polite - smiling and nodding to Greg's face and then doing something completely different as soon as Greg's back was turned. But even under the best of circumstances, "TimeDancer" is a complex story, a game changer. It's not something that can be fully explained in the course of one episode. It pretty much demands that the spin-off, or at least some kind of later accounting for what happened to Brooklyn during those 40 years later on in the series. I don't know if it was clear from the start that TGC would be the final season of "Gargoyles," but it is pretty clear that the show wanted to simplify the story rather than further complicate or expand on it. (Given the "tiers and tentpoles" suggestion that Greg got while working on season two, it may be that this simpler, "Status Quo is God" version of the show was pretty much what Disney wanted.) Their goal was to fulfill the expectations set up in "The Journey" (even if that just meant restating each point made in that episode by giving it a full episode) and wrap everything up. An episode that suddenly aged one of the characters 40 years and added three more characters to the mix with an egg that promised a fourth was pretty much the opposite of what they were looking to do.

I'm not saying it was the best way or the right way to go about it, but it's not beyond understanding.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 7:51:25 am EST from 146.115.115.33

No one's saying that Greg is perfect, but his successful moments on the show greatly outweigh his least successful moments. TGC on the otherhand has more weaknesses than strength.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 6:29:29 am EST from 71.120.226.102

"Stitch> The thing is, they had Greg. Kind of. They paid him to consult. He did make a lot of suggestions, and none of them were followed. They only listened to him when he said "for the love of god, don't do this" but never listened when he said "it would be cool if you did this."

Lydia Marano told this story at the 2001 Gathering, and I will never forget it. Greg was suggesting "TimeDancer" as their Brooklyn focused episode. Lydia said she'd like to write it, she worked on previous time travel episodes in the second season. New producer, Scott Thomas smiled and nodded, and as soon as Greg left the room, he turned to Lydia and said "we're not doing that" and we got "Runaways" instead."

Greg, could you tell some more about this?

Because I'm very curious of 2 things: what Greg suggested apart from that, and what he told them NOT to do.

I mean, I'd really be interrested in seeing what TGC would have done without Greg.

And yeah, a terrible, terrible man, this producer, indeed. Guess this is standart with Hollywood, looking at WOLVERINE ORIGINS.
Brook
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 6:26:39 am EST from 84.191.242.64

"Brook> Actually Mark Of The Panther has some important character moments:"

Important does not equalise with good for me. ;)
I know of these things... I still hate the EP and a few others. *coughMonstersanyonecough*
Brook
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 6:21:46 am EST from 84.191.242.64

sTiTcH> but i dont think its really worth the hatrid some feel toward it. compared to what greg would have done, it does look like they butchered it.. but compared to what they could have done, they did try to do the series justice and i dont think they failed so miserably.

Of course, the crew should get some credit for trying to do a season in the time that they had, but criticism comes with the territory.

Now as I've stated before, I can understand them struggling to be consistent with Greg's work, but they should have at least been able to stick with what they've establish.

As the review for Angels In The Night states, Margot should have at least been on her guard around Castaway considering that he was arrested for using dangerous weapons in the city.

Seeing Is Believing also raises the question on how Sevarius got arrested. Any crimes committed leave no evidence for the police or any law officials to charge him for.

Plus in the early portion of the show, Castaway shows genuine belief that Gargoyles are evil, yet in the finale he acknowledges them as protectors of the public and is willing to kill some civilians to catch them.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Mon, Jan 12, 2009 5:23:24 am EST from 71.120.226.102

Comment Room Archive

Comments for the week ending January 19, 2009

Index : Hide Images