Comment Room Archive : Gargoyles : Station Eight

'Alice' is decent. Visually stunning and sharply performed. It does a good job of being both a tribute to the source material and a riff on it. It does descend into a predictable brawl-'em-up at the end, but that's not its big problem.

Its big problem...

*** SPOILERS ***

...is what I can only describe as thematic schizophrenia. It wants to be a smart, thought-provoking film -- but in the end, everything it sets out to prove, it actually proves the EXACT OPPOSITE.

On the ethics of murder. Alice won't kill because it's against her nature -- oh, scratch that, killing's fine.

On capital punishment. Anne Hathaway won't kill because it's against her vows. Contract killing on the other hand...

On societal expectations. She's not going to conform to what society expects of her. But she'll accept special treatment based on who her daddy is.

On free will. Alice isn't going to let her fate be dictated by some old prophecy -- oh, wait, yes she is.

On the double-standards of cheating husbands. From now on, she's jolly well going to keep quite a close eye on things. From China.

On female empowerment. Alice is completely disempowered, to be married off to someone who has no respect or understanding for her intelligence or imagination. But when she gets her hands on her very own, ahem, vorpal sword she is TOLD not to think too much because her weapon will do it all for her.

I was enjoying the film but spent the last third perplexed, and have stayed that way since. It's a mass of contradictions that looks superficially clever but upon close inspection turns out to be a load of nonsense.

Wait, maybe the filmmakers knew what they were doing after all...

*** /SPOILERS ***
Ed
posted @ Sun, Mar 7, 2010 5:14:52 pm EST from 213.187.39.228

I sure wouldn't judge Tim Burton's new movie based on the old animated Disney version. That makes no sense at all.
Patrick
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Sun, Mar 7, 2010 4:20:00 pm EST from 173.88.135.205

Sorry for what I presume will be a double-post.

I have two friends that have told me about having seen Alice in Wonderland. One friend said it was 'okay', and the other said it was 'a great way to end his night' and that it was awesome. The friend who didn't like it as much, suggested that I still watch it. So. That helps?
Samuel
Now, now. Language...
posted @ Sun, Mar 7, 2010 1:39:35 pm EST from 76.111.94.63

Since we're talking about SSM....

I never read the 616 Spider-Man comics, but I watched the cartoon in the mid 90's while growing up, and I currently collect the Ultimate Spider-Man books. My point is that my exposure to Gwen Stacy has been very limited, but I don't care too much for SSM's Gwen. She's a pretty dull character, but she does reinforce the nerdy quality of Peter Parker. I do kind of wish that she'd been more inspired by Ultimate Gwen Stacy, whom I think is pretty bad*ss.

One thing I really like about SSM, though, is the racial/ethnic diversification of the cast. I also love that they aren't creating new characters, but instead representing more historical material. Like Sha-Shan Nguyen, I thought was invented for the show (which made me sad because it broke the 'no original characters' rule), until I found out she was based on a fairly obscure character, Sister Sun. (I assume she's obscure, I'd never heard of her before.) So... props. :)

I do hope they greenlight Season 3 for production, though. Has there been any word on it? I do so enjoy Scorpion as a villain. (Especially Ultimate Scorpion).
Samuel
Now, now. Language...
posted @ Sun, Mar 7, 2010 1:33:48 pm EST from 76.111.94.63

Rebel> I can't give you a review either way on the new live-action Alice, but if it helps any, what I understand is that it's not actually a retelling of the original story, but a tale of an older Alice returning to Wonderland.
Demonskrye - [<---"Toy Story 2" (last part) at The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Sun, Mar 7, 2010 1:27:33 pm EST from 146.115.115.75

I plan on seeing the new "Alice in Wonderland" movie at some point, and in the spirit of things, I decided to watch the old Disney version today. I never realized as a child what a lousy, shit-tacular movie it was. Seriously, that's an hour and twelve minutes of my life that I will never get back. The whole movie is just the same thing over and over (Alice encounters someone crazy and then leaves to find someone else who is also crazy). And in the end, she does seem to have learned something, but not enough to justify the hour of repetition that the viewer has just endured.

I wonder if I should even bother seeing the new live-action one. If it's going to be the same kind of crap as this, I don't know if I want to waste the 10 bucks.
Rebel
posted @ Sun, Mar 7, 2010 1:23:41 pm EST from 66.57.121.227

*Scrolls down the page*

Not again...

*sighs*
The One Known As Mochi - [shogi dot keima dot 08 at gmail dot com]
Current Mood: (>^^)> 3D Dot Game Heroes
posted @ Sun, Mar 7, 2010 12:41:49 am EST from 72.199.86.107

"5. Venom is not going to become a good guy, and frankly, it'd be stupid if he did. That was a terrible mistake Marvel of the 90's made, which they even admitted was a mistake. Weisman and his team are too good to repeat that misstep."

Really, they admitted it? I've never heard that (then again, "Marvel" is a big company, so opinions probably vary depending on who is asked). Regardless, I agree that the "Lethal Protector" was pretty terrible. That said, I don't think it's completely impossible that Venom could become a good guy (I like to think that everyone is ultimately capable of redemption), but it would have to be done a lot more gradually than Marvel did back in the 90's, showing consistency with the character and not just having him change on a whim. Greg's already proven that he can handle the gradual character arcs well. After all, the original Venom's main problem was that his reasons for being a villain were nonsense, retconned in to preexisting stories just to give him some excuse to fight Spider-Man, but then his reasons for switching to good were just as pointless. SSM's Venom became a villain naturally, so I'm sure if Greg decided to change him back to Peter's ally, he could make it work. I don't think he will, but I think it could be done as long as they showed patience in the transition.
Jurgan - [jurgan6 at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Sat, Mar 6, 2010 9:15:54 pm EST from 71.204.227.228

"<<ps: who the heck else on this planet could voice Xanatos except for Johnathon Frakes, Marina Sertis for Demona>>

I don't know, I think Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis could do almost as well as that Johnathon guy and the Sertis woman.

Sorry, could not resist ;)"
....................

Lmao!!

Yeah, names are not my strong point! And besides, it's beyond me as to why 'SpellCheck' doesn't include the actors and cast of ST:TNG, ST:DS9 or ST:Voyager!!

=^^=
mia

:p
lady of shalott - [paulizdreamy at yahoo dot com]
"...Not all who wander are lost-" J.R.R. Tolkien
posted @ Sat, Mar 6, 2010 9:07:17 pm EST from 98.200.67.165

<<ps: who the heck else on this planet could voice Xanatos except for Johnathon Frakes, Marina Sertis for Demona>>

I don't know, I think Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis could do almost as well as that Johnathon guy and the Sertis woman.

Sorry, could not resist ;)
Greg Bishansky
posted @ Sat, Mar 6, 2010 8:07:45 pm EST from 68.199.5.105

"Dear Marino,

You are the worst troll EEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVEEEEEERRRRRRRR!!!!!

No love,

Me."
....................

**gigglez**

Me thinks ditto timez ten!

=^^=
mia

ps: who the heck else on this planet could voice Xanatos except for Johnathon Frakes, Marina Sertis for Demona or Brent Spiner for Puck, and especiallllllllllllllllllly Keith David for Goliath!! Sheesh!! Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the Series was called "Those Mar-vel-ous Gargoyles" **snicker**

pss: gads, that Marino post disrupted me while I was doing my nails! durn! now I have to start my pinky all over!!

:p
lady of shalott - [paulizdreamy at yahoo dot com]
"...Not all who wander are lost-" J.R.R. Tolkien
posted @ Sat, Mar 6, 2010 7:49:34 pm EST from 98.200.67.165

Dear Marino,

You are the worst troll EEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVEEEEEERRRRRRRR!!!!!

No love,

Me.
Patrick
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Sat, Mar 6, 2010 7:30:32 pm EST from 173.88.135.205

Now, with that out of the way, I am going to address that bastion of mental stability that is Spideyforever, or whatever he's calling himself this week:

I don't know why I am bothering, as this has all been explained to him before. He seems unable, or unwilling to understand it. But I am trying again.

1. It is not up to Greg Weisman whether the series gets another season or not. Television does not work that way. Marvel and Disney are the ones who decided whether to produce the third season, not Greg Weisman.

It costs millions of dollars to produce a thirteen episode season. Not to mention that Disney and Marvel own the series and the characters.

2. Greg Weisman and his team have plenty of ideas for the series, and do not need yours.

3. They cannot use the Kingpin, the Mandarin, Iron Man, or anyone else. Other license holders have the rights to those characters.

4. What's your problem with the voice cast that you want to re-cast them? Lacey Chabert is perfect as Gwen Stacy.

5. Venom is not going to become a good guy, and frankly, it'd be stupid if he did. That was a terrible mistake Marvel of the 90's made, which they even admitted was a mistake. Weisman and his team are too good to repeat that misstep.
Greg Bishansky
posted @ Sat, Mar 6, 2010 6:49:49 pm EST from 68.199.5.105

Just so everyone knows, Mark Marino there is Spideyforever. He's also a raging anti-semite.
Greg Bishansky
posted @ Sat, Mar 6, 2010 6:35:58 pm EST from 68.199.5.105

Dear Weisman,

Why the hell aren't you doing season 3??? People are waiting for you to put the third season into production and they didn't want you to cancel it with 3-4 unfair cliff hangers remaining! You better get the third season ready before the fall or else you will be considered the worst series producer EEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVEEEEEERRRRRRRR!!!!!

If you need ideas, here they are:

Main Cast
Spiderman - Josh Keaton
Venom - Ben Diskin
Gwen Stacy - Lisa Ortiz(Replaces Lacey Chabert)
Harry Osborn - James Arnold Taylor
Liz Allen - Alanna Ubach
Tombstone - Keith David (reprises role)
The Mandarin - Michael Ironside
Kitty Pryde - Veronica Taylor
Mary Jane - Vannessa Marshall
J. Johna Jameson - J.K. Simmons
Aunt May - Deborah Strang
Norman Osborn - Alan Rachins

Villains

Carnage - Mark Hamill
Electro - Crispin Freeman
Kingpin - Michael Clarke Duncan
Vulture - Robert Englund
Hobgoblin - Tony Todd (replaces Courtney B. Vance)
Whiplash - Mickey Rourke
Scorpion - Nolan North
Rhino - Clancy Brown
Sandman - John DiMaggio
Jackal - Fred Tatasciore (replaces Brian George)
Fin Fang Foom (Charlie Adler)
Killer Shrike - Lex Lang
Kraven the Hunter - Jess Harnell (replaces Eric Vesbit)

Supporting Cast

Black Cat - Tricia Helfer
Flash Thompson - Josh Labaur
Kenny Kong - Tracy Morgan
Rand Robertson - Phil LaMarr
Glory Grant - Cree Summer
Sally Averial/Blue Bird - Grey Delisle
Sha Shaun - Kelly Hu
Prowler - Gary Sturgis(replaces Charles Duckworth)
Robbie Robertson - Phil LaMarr
Betty Brant - Grey Delisle
Foswell - James Arnold Taylor
George Stacy - Clancy Brown
Iron Man - Jason Griffith
War Machine - James Avery
Daredevil - David Kaye

Episodes

1.Prey and Predator - Spidey vs. Scorpion, Peter and Liz become a couple again after Peter tells Liz the truth, Venom returns and Carnage appears

2.Choice - Venom takes over protecting the city after Spidey loses his powers, Carnage breaks out Rhino, Mark Allen and many othe convicts at Rykers'

3.Rivalry Venom and Spidey become allies and start by taking down Rhino, Sandman, Electro and Scorpion, Eddie tells Gwen and Harry that Peter was really Spiderman all along so that they can know why Peter was acting strange

4.Past vs. Future - Spidey and Venom vs. Carnage and Jackal, Liz chose to be with Eddie as Peter starts his relationship with a new girlfriend named Kitty Pride

5.A New Allience - Venom and Spidey face off against Silvermane when a villain called the Mandarin appears

6.Enemy Grounds - Mandarin and his goons kidnap Mary Jane to lure Spiderman and Venom into a trap

7.Tales of Suspense - The Mandarin awakens an alien dragon Fin Fang Foom to terminate Spiderman, Iron Man and War Machine help out

8.H2o
9.Treachery
10.Wolf Pack - After ending the Jackal's threat once and for all, Peter resigns himself from ESU to prevent causing anymore trouble for Dr. Connors

11.Illusions - Mr. Fear and Daredevil appear

12.Hidden Empire - Kingpin escapes before being captured

13.Gangstrike - Ultimate showdown with Spiderman, Venom, Tombstone, Daredevil, Iron Man and War Machine against the Kingpin, Mandarin,Hammerhead, Doc Ock, Whiplash, Killer Shrike and their goons.

I hope that you will use these ideas to help you start off season 3. Please don't let us down.
Mark Marino - [markmarino39 at yahoo dot com]
Mark Marino
posted @ Sat, Mar 6, 2010 6:13:35 pm EST from 74.65.33.208

I've got a question. What would the Ishimuran clan think of the dolphin slaughters that occur in the coastal town of Taiji? This question came up while listening to a radio program talking about the award winning documentary "The Cove".
Gargoyleslady - [kendal dot renfro at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Sat, Mar 6, 2010 4:56:07 pm EST from 166.183.187.60

Fyodor Dostoevsky, I believe. Goliath has varied taste in books. And it's spelled Elisa, with an E.
The Barracuda
posted @ Sat, Mar 6, 2010 12:57:56 am EST from 204.174.35.33

On episode 9 I think, Alisa asks what Goliath is reading, he responds something like "Dustieski" What is that?
Dustieski?
posted @ Fri, Mar 5, 2010 11:38:36 pm EST from 129.71.73.243

Justin -- Hey, great to see you in the CR :D How you enjoying your hand-sized Phoenix Gate? (I'm still loving its necklace counterparts) d:
Phoenician

Hi Phoenician, sorry it took me so long to respond. Being so busy on my end. Thanks for the welcome. Great to know its great to see me. I am still loving my Phoenix Gate. Did Jen tell you about the one I had made for her?
Im guessing your one of the two others I had my photo taken with when we all won the various Gate items?
Justin "Id Rather Be Pillaging"
And if sometimes our dreams come true, then what of our nightmares?
posted @ Fri, Mar 5, 2010 10:49:44 pm EST from 76.29.2.195

Patrick> "The only absolute in science is that there are very few absolutes. The speed of light is a much better example."

And even that isn't an absolute on the quantum scale. Reality is nuts.

Paul> "2+x=4, therefore x=2, end of story."

10 + y = 5 where y is an positive value is a valid equation under a certain commonplace condition. Math does indeed deal with absolutes more than science, but it's all still relative to the system. Consider 7 + z = 14; z could equal 5 in octal (base 8).
Brainiac - [OSUBrainiac at gmail dot com]
There is balance in all things. Live in symmetry with the world around you. If you must blow things up and steal from those around you, THAT'S WHAT RPGS ARE FOR!
posted @ Fri, Mar 5, 2010 9:00:22 pm EST from 174.101.249.151

Water boils at 100 degrees C isn't even universally true on this planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheated_water

The only absolute in science is that there are very few absolutes. The speed of light is a much better example.
Patrick
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Fri, Mar 5, 2010 5:42:04 pm EST from 173.88.135.205

It reminds me of the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning: Inductive reasoning tries to argue that something is probable, while deductive reasoning tries to prove that something is absolutely true. But I think that the only thing that can be proven deductively is a mathematical equation; even science relies on induction. (The only way to prove deductively that water boils at 100 degrees Centigrade would be to apply heat to all the water in the universe, a logistical impossibility.)

While I understand and mostly agree with the argument that nothing can be proven deductively, I'd like to note that math (or algebra, at least) is an exception. 2+x=4, therefore x=2, end of story.
Paul - [nampahcfluap at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Fri, Mar 5, 2010 3:50:01 pm EST from 74.205.192.14

Guys, check the IPs for Lady of Shalot and Sah.
They are only the same for a short period of time.
Also, don't the two posters seem to have slightly different attitudes and personalities?

Lady of Shalot:

You have very good points: we must always be aware that the universe is not constrained by our present ideas, and that we make certain assumptions to get through existence that nonetheless may be inaccurate.

Absolute proof is impossible, after all (thank you Goedel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GÃ¶;del's_incompleteness_theorems ).
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Fri, Mar 5, 2010 2:35:06 pm EST from 75.102.128.9

<<Who would vote for Demona as world dictator?? I would, I luv her, poor misguided creature that she is.>>

Probably a Jew that would vote for Hitler.
..........

Hey Greg, I do hope you are joking. Because I am. My comment was meant as some levity cuz things were kinda outa control.

I am a new fan and have only been watching the series for three weeks now. Last nyte I just got through "City of Stone parts1-4". And thats as far as I currently am in the series!

I think Gargoyles is/was an awesome series. I think it was far more than the network was asking for and that is a good thing! Most "cartoons/anime" these days seem to serve only one purpose, and that is in "dumbing" down children. Gargoyles had/has a story to tell and is simply kool as all hell.

Anywho, thats where I am.
..........

I really don't want anyone to be mean and I hope you are not purposefully being mean to me. I do not like conflict and am simply a new fan who has not even finished watching the series yet and is still experiencing it for the first time and am excited about it!!

luvz
=^^=
mia

ps: to boot I am a huge Star Trek fan. My friend only got me to watch Gargoyles cuz many of my fav TNG actors were involved. I didn't know this when I was initially exposed to the series in HS. Though it's pretty obvious now as I listen to the voices. And it seems that the artist went through some trouble to make Xanatos look abit like Johnaton Frakes!
lady of shalott - [paulizdreamy at yahoo dot com]
"...Not all who wander are lost-" J.R.R. Tolkien
posted @ Fri, Mar 5, 2010 1:49:45 pm EST from 98.200.67.165

<<Who would vote for Demona as world dictator?? I would, I luv her, poor misguided creature that she is.>>

Probably a Jew that would vote for Hitler.
Greg Bishansky
posted @ Fri, Mar 5, 2010 12:02:26 pm EST from 68.199.5.105

Nope,

1. "Sahyinepu" and "Lady of Shalott" are not the same person. True we are friends, but my friend Sah was using the computer right next to me and I jumped onto hers to comment real quick, however she didn't think to change the avatar AND I got mad at her post because I felt she was trying to make excuses for me. Personally I don't think acouple of folk understood the point I was trying to make but thats okay.

2. I also stated in my first post, on this forum, that my "friend" recently got me into Gargoyles. "Sahyinepu" happens to be her.

3. Additonally, every "forum" has it's main folk that post and comment along with it's own "feel". I am new to this site (as Sah has been here on and off over the last few years). The point? New dynamics from a new person can ruffle feathers. Why? because YA'LL do not know my humour as well yet, or the way I look at things.

But fear not, if there is a convention we will be there. And not joined at the hips as mentioned earlier, but at the skull!! That should look really kool. :)
..........................

Now that that has been settled.

Who would vote for Demona as world dictator?? I would, I luv her, poor misguided creature that she is.

luvz
m
lady of shalott - [paulizdreamy at yahoo dot com]
"...Demona for President in 2012....Demona for World Dictator in 2016...Vote Early and Vote Often!..."
posted @ Fri, Mar 5, 2010 10:58:53 am EST from 98.200.67.165

Sorry for the double post, but:

BRAINIAC - Yes, one of the "substitute knights" was given the Lancelot role - the only original knight of the Round Table represented in the series.

(There was one detail in an episode that coincidentally - I think it was coincidentally - matched the Arthurian Age, though that of history rather than of legend. The "original Arthur" was mentioned as having made an alliance with a certain King Clovis against Morgan le Fay - with Morgan later on using an illusionary Clovis and his army, having apparently answered the summons, to lure the substitute Arthur and his knights into a trap. There was a real King Clovis around the time that Arthur is usually placed on the timeline, the late 5th and early 6th centuries, a Frankish king who ruled over most of what is now France from 486 to 511 and who was one of the most important rulers in western Europe during that time. But I think that was just a coincidence and that the scriptwriters didn't have him in mind.)
Todd Jensen
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 8:42:34 pm EST from 4.244.212.206

BISHANSKY - Yes, but considering that this is a series aimed at children - that makes it all the more unexpected.

(There's a parallel situation in an old Welsh legend, where a human king named Pwyll inadvertently offends Arawn, the ruler of the faerie-folk, and asks how he can make amends. Arawn has Pwyll go to his kingdom, taking his place there for a year and wearing his form, and at the end of the year, to face a rival faerie king named Havgan in battle in Arawn's place. During the year that Pwyll spends at Arawn's court, he refuses throughout to take advantage of the situation to lie with Arawn's queen, always sleeping at the far end of the bed from her, turned away, at night, to her astonishment. At the end of the year, after Pwyll duels Havgan and slays him, he and Arawn meet again in private, resume their old places and forms, and Arawn goes home to his castle to embrace his wife. She asks him why he's been so distant from her for the past year and only now displays his affection; Arawn, astonished, asks her what happened, and when he learns about it, is pleasantly surprised and impressed at Pwyll's conduct, after which he explains to his queen what had happened.)
Todd Jensen
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 8:38:15 pm EST from 4.244.212.206

Lancelot's different too, so that's two new boytoys for the Queen! I'm betting Todd's right and that was an S&P miss more than S&P understanding.
Brainiac - [OSUBrainiac at gmail dot com]
There is balance in all things. Live in symmetry with the world around you. If you must blow things up and steal from those around you, THAT'S WHAT RPGS ARE FOR!
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 8:37:33 pm EST from 174.101.249.151

TODD> Is that really all that much different than Merlin disguising Uther Pendragon as Gorlois and allowing him to rape Igraine?

I mean, considering the times that these stories come from... even the heroes are dicks.
Greg Bishansky
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 8:17:33 pm EST from 68.199.5.105

Looking back for a bit at "King Arthur and the Knights of Justice", since I mentioned it earlier today:

There was one element in that series that I suspect the production team never thought about. In it, the real King Arthur and his knights have been magically imprisoned by Morgan le Fay, and Merlin has to transport a modern-day football team through time to Camelot to defend it in their place, becoming substitutes for Arthur and his knights (in my more cynical moments, I suspected that the whole point of that idea was simply to allow the title characters to speak in a "Let's do it, dude!" style without appearing glaringly anachronistic). Everyone at court except Merlin believes them to be the real Arthur and his knights - and among these people is Queen Guinevere. Meaning that Guinevere's now living with a man whom she thinks is her husband, but who's really a lookalike (from another century, at that). Granted, the substitute Arthur seemed too honorable to take advantage of the situation, but all the same, I suspect that the production team must have not considered the implications when they came up with the premise. (And evidently Standards & Practices didn't consider it, either.)
Todd Jensen
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 7:57:43 pm EST from 4.244.211.47

GregX> I figured as much when the Demona avatar suddenly showed up for Sahyinepu as well, but I like to humor those who do something like that. Plus I really don't care. Also, I read your blog when you commented on the IGN Top 100 villains list; this has led me to have intense disdain for you due to your commentary on #17. Heh.
Brainiac - [OSUBrainiac at gmail dot com]
There is balance in all things. Live in symmetry with the world around you. If you must blow things up and steal from those around you, THAT'S WHAT RPGS ARE FOR!
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 7:46:47 pm EST from 174.101.249.151

Same IP, but maybe they're one of those BFF couples joined at the hip and sharing a keyboard. I can't see either of them, so I don't know if either of them really exist.

"Fifteen hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." - K, "Men in Black"
Patrick
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 7:36:57 pm EST from 173.88.135.205

Okay, in case my previous post was too vague. Everyone here is aware that lady of shalott and Sahyinepu are the same person, right?
Greg Bishansky
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 7:27:38 pm EST from 68.199.5.105

Sahyinepu> My major in college was Molecular Genetics, basically a combination of a Molecular Biology and a Human Genetics major. I'm currently in the process of figuring out what to go back for a more advanced degree in (at the moment, I'm leaning towards a education degree).

I've been a science geek for a very long time and have some passing knowledge of most fields (and outside the sciences, I'm familiar with multiple different world mythologies) so I can talk about quantum physics, cosmology, etc. Of course, I'm nowhere near an expert in any field (even my own at this point).
Brainiac - [OSUBrainiac at gmail dot com]
There is balance in all things. Live in symmetry with the world around you. If you must blow things up and steal from those around you, THAT'S WHAT RPGS ARE FOR!
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 7:05:23 pm EST from 174.101.249.151

Brainiac...waht sort of sciences did you study? I am in college still, at the junor college level but almost finnished.

I read a lot of books on quantum mechanics but my main area of study will be artificial intelligence and machine learning and robotics. I attended the DARPA Urban Challenge out in Victorvile California back in 2007 and loved it. I don't know if you know what that was but it waas an autonimous vehicle competition hosted by our good friends in the Department of Defense and DARPA.

Anyhow, i took astronomy classes at the junior college level a few years back...kinda taking it slow in college as i am autistic and can't take a full course load. But my plans are to work on AI and autonimous vehicles and robots, etc.
Sahyinepu
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 6:29:43 pm EST from 96.228.66.3

Lady of Shalott> "Braniac pointed that..."

I am not obsessed with Kellogg's Raisin Bran, thank you very much.
Brainiac - [OSUBrainiac at gmail dot com]
There is balance in all things. Live in symmetry with the world around you. If you must blow things up and steal from those around you, THAT'S WHAT RPGS ARE FOR!
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 6:25:36 pm EST from 174.101.249.151

Good lord!! so much acrimony!!

Ya know, for the record: I don't believe there are Vampires, Werewolves, or a Santa Claus in the world (though there are alot of people who do good at Christmas and quite a few folk who like to hurt others). I also don't believe in most of the worlds religions. Religion is a horrble activity.

However, I believe in Science and Spirituality. I believe (just as science has proven) that there are still many more things in this universe that we do not know of.

People who turn into wolves at night??, people who sprout fangs?? nope. However, is the "soul" something that is untangable? Does our spirit come back again? To either finish up business or part of some larger spiritual journey in this world/universe?? Do our spirits comes back in different forms on this planet??

Well...maybe, just maybe.

=^^=
mia
lady of shalott - [paulizdreamy at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 6:14:49 pm EST from 96.228.66.3

::looks at the last two posts::

Yeah, I'm posting this link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoJWSqP2Y_E

I also like the way Snrub thinks.
Greg Bishansky
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 6:12:53 pm EST from 68.199.5.105

hi all(walks in with flame retardant suit)

i love to talk science and discuss otherworldly stuff....I know Mia well and she is my friend, so I know she means well. ;)
Sahyinepu
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 6:03:28 pm EST from 96.228.66.3

Algernon> I wouldn't even call this science versus religion. I'd call it sanity versus completely stupid argument.

1. Goodness gracious! haven't you folk ever heard of a little thing called an ANAOLGY or called a METAPHOR. For the argument I could easily have used any object in the night sky or subject from science that is not readily observable by the human senses as an argument.

And sanity?? does that mean you accept anything hand feed to you that you read in a science journal or by someone with letters in front of their name?? (btw: I happen to have two BA's and am almost done with a Masters in sociology/psych--but thats another argument).

In sociology we use a series of arguments called "thought experiements"...this requires that one step "outside" of their point of reference. Technically speaking (if we use scientific methodology) we could say Religion doesn't exist or any thought or idea that is independent of that which is observable in the physical world. Doesn't mean it not there.

Braniac pointed that: "Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it is there..Well this is true. But by logical deduction the opposite is also true:

"Just because you can see it, it doesn't mean it IS there."

And that is simple basic Logic in any Logic 101 class.
..........

You realize, Mia/Shalott, that for your argument to make any sense, you literally have to target only those without the resources to use a telescope capable of finding Neptune? That you can't actually use your train of thought on people who CAN look at Neptune whenever they want? Or any equivalent tangible object?

2. Lord, read my above comment. (**rolling eyes**)

3. I picked Neptune because at one time in human society folk would sworn everything they know and own that it did not exist. Science (as brainiac pointed out) proved that it did. The point? The unkown is simply that which we have yet to become aware of.
..........

Doesn't that strike you as even slightly intellectually dishonest?

4. Doesn't it strike you as being slightly intellectually dishonest to consider things outside of what is known? After all, most of what we currently "know" about the world and the universe was at one time...unknown. And THAT did not make it less in the end.

mia
lady of shalott - [paulizdreamy at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 5:58:01 pm EST from 96.228.66.3

Methinks someone is taking my sarcasm way too literally.

If you told me you were a vampire and showed me your published autobiography that says you're a vampire, I still wouldn't believe you.
Patrick
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 5:48:53 pm EST from 173.88.135.205

I have seen Neptune. It's real. End of story.
Greg Bishansky
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 5:17:04 pm EST from 68.199.5.105

Again, I have no problem with any system of beliefs. I just don't think that any of them can pass the same litmus test as science. Science is about people coming up with ideas about how the world works and then going out and putting them to the test. They are considered "true" (to the degree that science considers anything true) only if other people can repeat the same tests as the originator of the idea and get the exact same result. Yes, even a scientific theory that has been verified by independent sources can be disproven down the line as new discoveries are made and new technologies allow us to observe what we couldn't before, but that's why science uses careful language and rarely refers to anything as absolute fact.

Religion and belief systems don't have these checks and balances. You are presented with a collection of ideas and asked to believe them. Religion deals with a lot of things that we have no way of testing, such as what happens to a person after death. There is no predictable outcome to faith, or we wouldn't have questions like "why do bad things happen to good people?" This doesn't necessarily make faith "wrong" or invalid; it just adheres to a different set of standards.

You seem to have demonstrated that you can prove that there are books about reincarnation. While I consider myself an agnostic and am open to most possibilities about what may happen after death, the existence of books on a subject does not qualify as proof. Someone could write that my hair is black and put it in a book, but it wouldn't make it true. (It's naturally blonde, currently red.)

It is true that I have never observed Neptune for myself. I guess what it comes down to is that the idea that numerous astronomers the world over astronomers have observed Neptune and written about Neptune and taken pictures of Neptune because there actually is a planet Neptune makes more sense to me than the idea that it is all some giant hoax. There seems to be a lot more consensus about Neptune than there does about religion. It is possible that Neptune does not exist because I have never seen it for myself, but I've never seen Australia or Texas or my in-laws new house, yet I believe that these things exist with a high degree of certainty.

Science and religion are two ways of explaining the world and I don't personally believe that they are mutually exclusive. Both have concepts they cannot explain (yet) and both can be misused by people with other agendas. But they do have different standards. I'm fine with people believing in either, both, or neither. I just have an issue with them being treated like the exact same thing.
Demonskrye - [<---"Toy Story 2" (last part) at The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 5:13:45 pm EST from 146.115.115.75

Algernon> I wouldn't even call this science versus religion. I'd call it sanity versus completely stupid argument.

You realize, Mia/Shalott, that for your argument to make any sense, you literally have to target only those without the resources to use a telescope capable of finding Neptune? That you can't actually use your train of thought on people who CAN look at Neptune whenever they want? Or any equivalent tangible object?

Doesn't that strike you as even slightly intellectually dishonest?
Harlan Phoenix
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 5:09:56 pm EST from 76.2.91.55

Alright, Science vs Religion Round 5,436,655,021!
Algernon
"God, I'd go gay for that voice" -The Nostalgia Critic on Keith David
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 5:01:28 pm EST from 86.40.240.77

Shalott> I...really? You're just gonna keep...even though...really?

You're...really?

Not even gonna recognize that a giant floating sphere is more recognizable than an intangible ob..ject...really?

You make me sad.
Harlan Phoenix
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:33:08 pm EST from 76.2.91.55

Sahyinepu> "Observable and falsifiable doesn't work in the quantum cause the minute you think you know where a quantum particle is it is no longer there...it is all a series of possible solutions, if I recall correctly."

You're talking about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which basically boils down to you can't know a particle's momentum and position at the same time. It isn't directly observable with modern scientific technology (the principle is, after all, primarily a mathematical construct) but it is falsifiable in the sense that it could be proven incorrect at some future date (however unlikely that chance may be). Frankly though, a lot of quantum mechanics can drive a normal person crazy. At the quantum level, nothing works like things do at our classical level. It's why one "motto" of quantum mechanics is that it deals with "Nature as She is — absurd."
Brainiac - [OSUBrainiac at gmail dot com]
There is balance in all things. Live in symmetry with the world around you. If you must blow things up and steal from those around you, THAT'S WHAT RPGS ARE FOR!
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:26:55 pm EST from 192.44.136.113

So Brainiac...you seem like you might be a bit open minded...I like quantum field theory and relativity....even though they discuss two entire different sides of the same spectrum. Quantum mechanics describing the chaotic, unknown position of quantum particles, the "small" aspects of reality, such as quarks and charm particles, if you can call them particles, while relativity describes the "smooth" large aspects of reality, such as galaxies and the such.

Both are still needed to explain black holes and the such that require both coflicting laws and reallities.

I also love how quantum field theory allows for altermnate reallites, being in multiple dimensions and the possible existance of multiple universes.

I love how you can take a pinch of your own skin and not be "touching" anything at all. I find the small worlds really facinating. I also think quantum mechanics can be very spiritual. Doesn't proove reincarnation or even a spiritual afterlife, but seems to be the science to do it if any ever does.

Observable and falsifiable doesn't work in the quantum cause the minute you think you know where a quantum particle is it is no longer there...it is all a series of possible solutions, if I recall correctly.

This can be a very fun discussion.
sahyinepu
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 3:51:35 pm EST from 96.228.66.3

Lady of Shalott> No offense, but you're kind of missing the point about science. One of the basic tenets of the discipline is that it deals in the observable and the falsifiable. All science has the potentiality to be proven wrong. It's how we went from the Ptolemaic view of astronomy to the Galilean, from Newtonian mechanics to relativity and quantum mechanics. And there are several scientists who have learn how the brain works in many of the ways you described as "unknowable."

You are right about humanity still having a tendency to think of itself as important on every scale. It's a weakness, I suppose. But in a sense, that sense that we are important can just as easily lead to spiritual or religious revelations as scientific ones, so it can easily cut both ways.

In the end, being a scientist myself, I tend to operate on the tenets of the potentially observable and repeatable. As we often say to those who insist "Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's there," just because you can't see it doesn't mean it IS there.
Brainiac - [OSUBrainiac at gmail dot com]
There is balance in all things. Live in symmetry with the world around you. If you must blow things up and steal from those around you, THAT'S WHAT RPGS ARE FOR!
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 3:34:35 pm EST from 192.44.136.113

"Verifiable proof" might be a better term. Something that can be checked out and confirmed by an independent source or, in theory, anyone."

1. Well, I can confirm by independent sources that there are many books on the subject of reiencarnation and verily many spiritual leaders who espouse reincarnation and "souls" that transmutate as they make their way through their spiritual journey.

So that passes your litmus test above.
..........

"I may not have seen Neptune personally, but I have read from trustworthy sources that numerous astronomers have observed the planet. If I had the time, expertise, inclination, and money, I could either go to a powerful telescope or build my own powerful telescope and observe Neptune for myself. Some people prefer that approach to taking anyone else's word."

2. Well I think you missed the point on this one. Here it is: just because you cannot see it, does not mean it is not there. In the end you are still choosing to "believe" that the data from those astronomers is correct...are you not? You are choosing to believe that if you go purchase a telescope you will see Neptune (btw: i have it on good info that Neptune is not veiwable with ordinary telescopes. Therefore unless one can afford over 250 grand to purchase one that powerful, they are still choosing to believe in someone elses data.
..........

"As for me, there are certain things I am willing to trust people who are acknowledged to be experts in their field on because I am confident that the methodology to prove their claims exists and can be explained and verified."

3. Well, experts during all times in human history have sworn by their "data" that something did or did not exist...only to be proved wrong later. That is the danger isn't it?

Remember: No one knew about heavenly bodies beyond Jupiter before 1750...but they were still there. Including all the Galaxies, Spiral Galaxies and Nebuli we have since discovered. However, WE did not DISCOVER these things, just as WE did not discover America in the 1600's. These things were already there. Mankind always acts like it's such a big surprise when "he" discovers something he has never seen before. Like it only became important the moment HE found it.

Galileo would have told you he believed there were more objects...but he would not have been able to back it up. He just had "faith" that they were there.

4. No scientist on the planet can prove where human thought comes from, exactly how the brain stores and retrives data or why we experience love. There are plenty of guesses...but even some of these may or may not be incorrect. If any of these "theories" turns out to be incorrect, they will not negate the fact that you and I can engage in intellectual discource.

mia
lady of shalott - [paulizdreamy at yahoo dot com]
"existence operates outside of human proof"
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 3:01:04 pm EST from 98.200.67.165

lady of shalott> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that someone's claimed preincarnated origins are a little less provable than a giant planet anyone with a telescope can see.

Like, anyone with a telescope.

Seriously, like anybody. It wouldn't have to be in print for someone to believe because it's tangible and existing. Whether or not Patrick's word usage was correct (though this all strikes me as splitting hairs anyway) aside...comparing claimed spiritual origins from supernatural beings or animals to a tangible celestial body in terms of possible existence just might not be something resembling a good point.

Just throwing that out there.

Unless you mean Neptune the deity. Which I would then ask why you'd bother bringing up an archaic belief system (which is not an insult, as I'm a polytheist of something akin to that variety) before tackling the whole Christ point.

BUT WHAT DO I KNOOOOOOW?

Otherkin in general> Meh, I don't care. I knew one of those otakukin people (those who believe themselves to be reincarnated anime characters) and his band of misfits were delightfully insane. So they were kind of fun to be around if you could handle the crazy.

But in general, I really don't care what people believe as long as my beliefs are respected (don't even have to be liked, just respected...if they even come up, which is rare) and if they aren't hurting anybody. If they wanna believe they were once a psychic vampire Super Saiyan who caught them all and saved the universe from the D-Reaper and his evil legion of putty patrollers, they can knock themselves out.

Rather than worrying about it, I'd just make a sandwich. I am also going to go make a sandwich.
Harlan Phoenix
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:31:22 pm EST from 76.2.91.55

Maybe it's just because I've read/watched/played too much fantasy and sci fi... stuff... but I always associated souls with personalities. (This is partly due to Gargoyles, to be honest; Coldstone had three distinct personalities depending on which soul was in control.)

By the way, unless there is something magical about Wind Ceremonies, I'm pretty sure that the gargoyles don't reincarnate. Nothing happened to the souls of the Coldtrio between the Wyvern Massacre and "Reawakening," as far as I know.
Paul - [nampahcfluap at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:27:13 pm EST from 128.255.108.63

SAHYINEPU> Reincarnation is a longstanding fixture of many mainstream religious traditions, though from what I understanding such beliefs are often a lot more complex and nuanced then they're often portrayed in popular culture.

Certain schools of Buddhism seem to regard the essence that gets passed along the cycle of reincarnation as something quite distinct from the identity or personality of the individual bearer. The metaphor I've heard to describe it is a flame being passed from one candle to another without it being quite the same flame as the previous candle. It seems this essence is referred to "the soul" simply because there's no real equivalent word in English. Much how the Ancient Egyptian concept of the Ka is often equated with the western concept of the soul even though the actual truth is way more convoluted.
Algernon
"God, I'd go gay for that voice" -The Nostalgia Critic on Keith David
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:45:43 pm EST from 86.41.124.57

Many people believe in some sort of afterlife...was just curious of what people here thought of the transmigration of souls from one kind of life form to another...what "otherkin" seems to be.

I think it is a neat concept, even if some of the previous forms were a bit out there such as werewolves and vampires. Eternity is a long time to be stuck in only one life throiugh which to experience things, and if incarnation is entertained, to be stuck in only one incarnate form.
sahyinepu
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:21:25 pm EST from 96.228.66.3

"Verifiable proof" might be a better term. Something that can be checked out and confirmed by an independent source or, in theory, anyone. I may not have seen Neptune personally, but I have read from trustworthy sources that numerous astronomers have observed the planet. If I had the time, expertise, inclination, and money, I could either go to a powerful telescope or build my own powerful telescope and observe Neptune for myself. Some people prefer that approach to taking anyone else's word. As for me, there are certain things I am willing to trust people who are acknowledged to be experts in their field on because I am confident that the methodology to prove their claims exists and can be explained and verified.
Demonskrye - [<---"Toy Story 2" (last part) at The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:39:31 pm EST from 146.115.115.75

As a general rule, I don't believe anyone who claims to be a werewolf, a vampire, an alien, Jesus Christ, a proctologist, recently reincarnated, born-again, telepathic, or any combination of the above without some sort of written proof. I don't know what otherkin is but it sounds like something I'd add to my list.
Patrick

.....................

I find your "Written proof" argument to be abit odd. What is "written proof" other than somone putting an idea into print. Are you saying you believe anything or only believe something/idea once it is in print?? Thats an odd way to believe in things.

Do you believe that Neptune exist?? You haven't seen it personally, maybes it's not actually there. Oh but wait, it's in "print" in the Harvard Dictionary...but wait, so are terms: gargoyle, unicorns, and elves and jesus christ...hmmmm, what does this mean???
-mia
lady of shalott - [paulizdreamy at yahoo dot com]
"the only thing we have to fear...is fear itself."
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:28:47 am EST from 98.200.67.165

are you allergic to otherkin topics Emily? ;)
sahyinepu
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:06:29 am EST from 96.228.66.3

(sneezes)
Emily - [poogleann at yahoo dot com]
Goliath you and I aren't so different we're hated by the normal people outcasts attacked by those who refuse to get to know us (Romania the vampire from my gargoyles in Romania fic)
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 9:19:16 am EST from 209.124.210.239

Otherkin> I try to give other people's personal belief systems and lifestyle choices a wide berth. So long as you aren't hurting yourself or others, I don't really care. The only think I take issue with is the attitude of "If you don't believe what I do, it's offensive to my beliefs." I'm fine with respecting the rights of others to their own world view, so long as they respect mine in turn.
Demonskrye - [<---"Toy Story 2" (last part) at The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 8:18:10 am EST from 146.115.115.75

Oops, left something out.

There's also the idea that the "other" in an otherkin is the set of instincts and behavior patterns that are more primitive and less acceptable in society; everyone has these, but the otherkin give a shape to theirs. Some use that to gain better control, others use it as an excuse ("I can't help being snarky and unpleasant! I'm a raven, that's what we do!").
Kerry (Kth) Boyd
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 8:12:23 am EST from 24.99.188.243

Otherkin> It's not always a reincarnation-based belief. There are others whose form of spirituality accommodates things like spirit guides, animal totems, and whatnot... so sometimes it has to do with that.

Other people feel it's a psychological thing, like tapping into the Universal Unconscious or identifying oneself with an archetype that the animal/mythical being represents for the person.

Others feel a really deep connection with [insert animal/mythical being here] and foster the positive aspects that they believe that connection brings out in them.

And others just want to be cool, feel different, and/or get away from whatever life they usually lead.

So the "reason" behind an otherkin has varying believability depending on
A. The version of "why" the otherkin is using.
B. The beliefs of the observer.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 8:04:20 am EST from 24.99.188.243

This seems to be a week for Arthurian animation; I've read that the DVD of "King Arthur and the Knights of Justice" was released on Tuesday. (I always thought that series even worse than "Quest for Camelot" - though I'd better not say more, in case some of my remarks turn out to be unprintable.)
Todd Jensen
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 7:34:09 am EST from 4.244.212.168

Me too. Gotta be quick, there's a long line of me waiting to use the computer this morning. >_>
Patrick
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 6:59:26 am EST from 173.88.135.205

And so am I.
Patrick
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 6:58:28 am EST from 173.88.135.205

I'm reincarnated from a Tribble.
Patrick
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 6:58:09 am EST from 173.88.135.205

No, the Gargoyles-Fan website is back up now. No worries!
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:13:20 am EST from 75.159.239.62

Todd> An otherkin is someone who believes him or herself to be reincarnated from some sort of...non-human or magical being or something or other. This can also extend to fictional characters.
Harlan Phoenix
posted @ Wed, Mar 3, 2010 9:08:36 pm EST from 76.2.91.55

Oh Noes! The Gargoyles-Fans.org site is down :( :( :(
This Just In
Owh Crap!
posted @ Wed, Mar 3, 2010 8:29:52 pm EST from 129.71.73.243

As an addendum to my previous post: How far back does the term "fight like a demon" go? I don't think that either the Christians (who considered them servants of the Devil) or the ancient Greeks and Romans (who simply considered them spirits) thought of demons as being particularly good fighters.
Paul - [nampahcfluap at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:39:59 pm EST from 74.205.192.14

I shouldn't ask, but what does "otherkin" mean?
Todd Jensen
posted @ Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:31:44 pm EST from 4.244.215.71

I was reading about the "City of Stone" episodes, and how Macbeth's use of the word "bedlam" was anachronistic, and it got me thinking that perhaps his use of the word "demon" may have also been anachronistic.

The word "demon" originally comes from Greek, via Latin, and as far as I know, most such words came via Middle English (i.e. after the Norman Conquest in 1066). I checked at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=demon, which seems to confirm that the word "demon" wasn't used in English until the 14th century.

On the other hand, if Macbeth had studied Latin and/or Greek by 1040, he could have learned the word "daemon" that way, I suppose. But I think most Latin and Greek students in medieval Europe learned the language from the Bible, and I'm pretty sure that the word "daemon" had diabolical connotations...

...which would make "Daemona" a perfect name for a gargoyle who would rather be feared than respected. I guess it does make sense after all.
Paul - [nampahcfluap at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:28:36 pm EST from 74.205.192.14

sahyinepu - I consider otherkin to be just another fandom that has taken escapism beyond societal norms. Like Trekkies who get married in Klingon costumes, LARPers, furries, and some of the crazier segments of Ren-fest. But unlike those four, who usually only consider it roleplaying, otherkin take it to the level of reinforced belief. So I guess that makes them unique but probably unhealthy.
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter Feed]
posted @ Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:05:42 pm EST from 128.101.32.234

sahyinepu> As someone who is familiar with the term otherkin. Those people are either deeply stupid, or mentally ill. Or both.
Greg Bishansky
posted @ Wed, Mar 3, 2010 5:27:05 pm EST from 68.199.5.105

anyone here familliar with the term otherkin? if so, what do you think about people claiming to be otherkin, etc?
sahyinepu
posted @ Wed, Mar 3, 2010 4:12:12 pm EST from 96.228.66.3

Ahh [i]Quest for Camelot[i], a perfect example of the Made by Commitee style of film-making
Algernon
"God, I'd go gay for that voice" -The Nostalgia Critic on Keith David
posted @ Wed, Mar 3, 2010 2:51:20 pm EST from 86.40.11.114

Having just watched it myself, yes, it really is that bad. In fact the Critic was so busy destroying Chicago twice that he left enough for me to write about the movie that won't feel like repetition of what he's already said.

Todd, I'll give you the credit with no link, but let me know if you do get your own website and I can add the link in later.
Demonskrye - [<---"Toy Story 2" (last part) at The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Wed, Mar 3, 2010 1:10:44 pm EST from 146.115.115.75

Wow. Quest for Camelot was so bad, the Critic destroyed Chicago with pure rage. Twice!

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/17979-quest-for-camelot
Brainiac - [OSUBrainiac at gmail dot com]
There is balance in all things. Live in symmetry with the world around you. If you must blow things up and steal from those around you, THAT'S WHAT RPGS ARE FOR!
posted @ Wed, Mar 3, 2010 11:10:04 am EST from 192.44.136.113

LOL.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"For science, which, as my associate Fang indicated, must move ever forward. Plus there's the money... and I do love the drama!" -Sevarius, 'Louse'
posted @ Wed, Mar 3, 2010 11:01:54 am EST from 70.230.167.138

But I bet the fights are much better.
Harlan Phoenix
posted @ Wed, Mar 3, 2010 2:37:18 am EST from 76.2.91.55

I'm rather tempted to bring up Celebrity Hockey, and how much Hudson seems to like it. Then again, I can't see Celebrity Hockey being nearly as serious as professional Hockey.
Paul - [nampahcfluap at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Tue, Mar 2, 2010 9:59:04 pm EST from 74.205.192.14

Battle Beast & Patrick - Re Hockey: A far cry from Canada where 80% of the country watched at least part of the Canada/US Olympic game on Sunday. Biggest viewed TV program in Canadian History apparently.
Wingless
posted @ Tue, Mar 2, 2010 7:25:25 pm EST from 99.245.254.123

DEMONSKRYE - I linked to "Gunnerkrigg Court" long ago as part of a post about it, and never got around to changing the link. I don't have a web site at present, though that might change in the near future (which is all that I'm willing to say about that for now), so you can thank me in your article without providing an actual link.

I reread the abridged version of "The King's Damosel" in my copy of "The Pendragon Chronicles" today (enjoying it a lot, incidentally). I spotted some more elements that were carried over into "Quest for Camelot", incidentally:

1. Lynett's father is named Sir Lionel in the book - also the name of the heroine's father in "Quest for Camelot".

2. I mentioned earlier about the link between Ruber in the movie and the Red Knight in "The King's Damosel"; when rereading "The King's Damosel" today, I discovered that Ruber was also the name that Chapman gave to the Red Knight.

3. Lynett has a pet falcon named Jeanne who helps her several times during the story; in "Quest for Camelot", the hero and heroine are helped several times by a falcon, though it bears a different name (and works for Merlin).

Thanks for asking me about "The King's Damosel", Demonskrye; your question led to my rereading and enjoying a good Arthurian story. And I look forward to your article/review.
Todd Jensen
posted @ Tue, Mar 2, 2010 6:17:28 pm EST from 4.244.211.95

understood
Emily - [poogleann at yahoo dot com]
Goliath you and I aren't so different we're hated by the normal people outcasts attacked by those who refuse to get to know us (Romania the vampire from my gargoyles in Romania fic)
posted @ Tue, Mar 2, 2010 4:58:02 pm EST from 209.124.210.239

Emily> I'm going to assume you meant to end your post with a question mark. And my answer is "no." Much as I would like this to be true, I doubt that a rumor on a random message board is going to be a reliable source of information. Anonymous commenters on the internet have little to no accountability; if someone asks them for more information or points out that they've been an unreliable source, they can just disappear. If there was any serious talk about Gargoyles coming back as a show, Greg Weisman would probably have mentioned it. If he or someone else who would have reason to know says it's happening, then I'll believe it. Until then, I'm very skeptical.
Demonskrye - [<---"Toy Story 2" (last part) at The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Tue, Mar 2, 2010 4:38:47 pm EST from 146.115.115.75

okay so I found a rumor on a fan board forget where that says they're going to renew gargoyles as a show so think its true
Emily - [poogleann at yahoo dot com]
Goliath you and I aren't so different we're hated by the normal people outcasts attacked by those who refuse to get to know us (Romania the vampire from my gargoyles in Romania fic)
posted @ Tue, Mar 2, 2010 3:47:18 pm EST from 209.124.210.239

Patrick> I've said it before and I'll say it again: YOu slay me. YOu really, really do. :)
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Tue, Mar 2, 2010 2:09:28 pm EST from 75.159.239.62

Todd> Thanks for the additional info. I was thinking Gunnerkrigg Court because that's what your name is linked to here. If you have any more appropriate website or would prefer to link at all, just let me know.

Madame M> There are no plans for a Muppet Robin Hood movie. I just that figure if the main Muppet Show comic is analogous to the old TV show, then the miniseries are kind of like the movies, such as Muppets Christmas Carol and Muppet Treasure Island. Sorry for the confusion.
Demonskrye - [<---"Toy Story 2" (last part) at The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Tue, Mar 2, 2010 10:42:49 am EST from 146.115.115.75

I'm sorry if this is a bit redundant, I've been out of touch for a few weeks. Muppet Robin Hood, is that still just a comic or will it be made into a movie?

Patrick, Hockey for some isn't just a Canadian thing! But I'll refrain from further mention!
Madame. M
posted @ Tue, Mar 2, 2010 10:29:53 am EST from 66.240.60.129

DEMONSKRYE - Thanks. I realized one more tenuous link between "The King's Damosel" and "Quest for Camelot" after my post last night; the villain of "Quest for Camelot" was named Ruber, which is Latin for "red" - and one of the antagonists of "The King's Damosel" was the Red Knight who threatens Lynette's home, prompting her to go to Arthur's court to request a champion (who turns out to be Gareth).

Though I'm puzzled at your request for a link to Gunnerkrigg Court, since I just read it; I don't write or draw it, or have any other role in its production.
Todd Jensen
posted @ Tue, Mar 2, 2010 10:19:17 am EST from 198.209.226.130

Thanks so much, Todd. I'm glad I'll be able to write about the (tenuous) relationship between the book and the film with more authority now.

I'd like to thank you when the article goes up. Would you like a link to Gunnerkrigg Court or would some other site be better?
Demonskrye - [<---"Toy Story 2" (last part) at The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Tue, Mar 2, 2010 9:10:39 am EST from 146.115.115.75

Attention Americans: It is now acceptable to go back to not giving a flying fig about hockey until 2014.

Sports media has already begun since the biggest story yesterday was Shaq's sprained thumb.
Patrick
"And if life is just a highway, then the soul is just a car. And objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are." - Meat Loaf
posted @ Tue, Mar 2, 2010 6:53:31 am EST from 173.88.135.205

To clarify my first paragraph a little:

I've seen the complete Arthurian trilogy by Vera Chapman ("The Three Damosels" trilogy) during my boyhood in England in the late 70's. But over here in the States, I haven't been able to find complete copies of the first two books (they must have done better in the UK than in the U.S., I suppose).
Todd Jensen
posted @ Mon, Mar 1, 2010 7:12:57 pm EST from 4.244.215.131

DEMONSKRYE - I've read an abridged version of "The King's Damosel" in an Arthurian anthology I have ("The Pendragon Chronicles" by Mike Ashley) - which, unfortunately, is the only version I've been able to find (I have a paperback copy of "King Arthur's Daughter", another book in Vera Chapman's Arthurian trilogy, though).

"The King's Damosel" is a kind of "what Malory didn't record" treatment of Lynette, the sharp-tongued damsel who accompanied Sir Gareth on his first quest, telling her story both before she came to Arthur's court as a petitioner, and after the quest. As a young girl (around thirteen), she is raped by a family friend named Bagdemagus, who intimidates her into silence, leaving Lynette with a deep-rooted hatred for him. After the conclusion of Gareth's quest, Gareth marries Lynette's sister as in Malory, with Lynette realizing too late that she'd fallen in love with him and even more upset at not being able to wed him - while being married to Gareth's thoroughly boring older brother Gaheris (also a detail taken from Malory). Unhappy with her married life (and Gaheris has no interest in keeping her as his wife), Lynette enters King Arthur's service (at Merlin's suggestion) as a court diplomat, meeting with Arthur's chief nobles and under-kings and finding out how things are going in the outlying parts of the kingdom. In the course of her missions, she encounters Bagdemagus again (now become a semi-rebellious lord) and seizes the opportunity to bring about his death - with complications later on, particularly when Lynette succumbs to temptations raised against her by Morgan le Fay. She also eventually embarks on a quest for the Holy Grail (a preliminary quest, not *the* quest), with Lancelot, Bors, and Percival accompanying her for the first part of the way before they have to each go their own separate direction - culminating in her meeting and falling in love with a blind young man who is slowly dying. The climax comes when she achieves the Grail and learns that it can cure the young man's blindness or save his life - but can do only one, not both....

It doesn't have much in common with "Quest for Camelot" (which I saw on local television a couple of months ago, incidentally - it had a few good moments, I thought, but had several weaknesses, including the old animated film convention of everyone breaking into a song at the slightest provocation), beyond the Arthurian setting and one of the major characters in the movie being a blind young man - it's a source largely in name. (I enjoyed a couple of touches in the movie, though: the notion of Camelot being built around a Stonehenge-like stone circle where Arthur performed his Sword in the Stone feat as a youth, and the "Just Knighted" scene at the end.) If you can find Vera Chapman's books, though, I recommend them to you; I've rather enjoyed them.
Todd Jensen
posted @ Mon, Mar 1, 2010 6:26:20 pm EST from 4.244.215.131

Pardon the double post.

Uncle Deadly> I should have figured with a screenname like yours that you would be reading the Muppet comics. I agree that the "movie" comics (I think of them that way because they feel like the subject matter that would be tackled in Muppet movies: retellings of classic stories with a mainly Muppet cast) are not as impressive as the main book, but I don't know if anyone can do Muppet comics qute as well as Roger Langridge. I was familiar with his work before he started doing Muppets comics and when I heard that he was attached to that particular project, it struck me as a perfect match. Nonetheless, I dug noth of the miniseries, and actually got a little choked up over Peter/Kermit cradling the fading Piggytink. But then again, Muppets have that effect on me sometimes. I cannot wait for next moth when the traveling Jim Henson exhibit comes to my town, literally!
Demonskrye - [<---"Toy Story 2" at The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Mon, Mar 1, 2010 6:11:05 pm EST from 146.115.115.75

Antiyonder> Yeah, that's actually why I'm tackling it now. I've have sort of a rule for myself that I can't watch a Nostalgia Critic review for an animated film I haven't seen. But I love watching the Nostalgia Critic, so I never want to wait. I broke my rule for Bebe's Kids, mostly because Netflix doesn't have it, but this one I couldn't justify it.
Demonskrye - [<---"Toy Story 2" at The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Mon, Mar 1, 2010 6:01:48 pm EST from 146.115.115.75

WINGLESS> You don't know how much pride I am STILL bursting with, even a day after the games end. :D
Battle Beast - [Canada]
GO CANADA GO! - Canada Kicks Ass!
posted @ Mon, Mar 1, 2010 5:53:52 pm EST from 75.159.239.62

Demonskrye - I've been really enjoying the Muppet King Arthur. I picked up number 2 over the weekend and was amazed at how good it was. As much as I liked Muppet Peter Pan and Muppet Robin Hood, neither wowed me like the main Muppet Show title did.

I hope if/when you pick it up, you enjoy it too.
UncleDeadly
posted @ Mon, Mar 1, 2010 5:48:56 pm EST from 128.114.248.32

Demonskyre and Todd> Thought I should bring this up. Tomorrow the Nostalgia Critic will be doing a review for Quest For Camelot.
Antiyonder
posted @ Mon, Mar 1, 2010 4:35:42 pm EST from 96.239.198.131

Todd> Glad to hear you enjoyed Muppet Robin Hood. I thought {i]Muppet Peter Pan[/i] turned out well and I'm also looking forward to their take on King Arthur.

Speaking of which, I could use your help with something Arthurian. I'm about to do an article on Quest for Camelot which I've only recently discovered is (loosely) based on The King's Damosel by Vera Chapman. I've never read the book and I don't think I have the time to track it down and read it before I want to have the article done. So I was wondering if you were familiar with it and if so, whether you would mind giving me a brief rundown on it.

Back to the comics....

Amazing Spider-Man #622> Picked it up on Saturday and finally got around to reading it on Sunday. As I mentioned before, I have a personal bias in favor of both stories, as I know the artist on the first and Greg is the writer on the second. I ended up liking both. Joe is an extremely talented artist and definitely someone to keep an eye on, as I'm sure he'll be making even bigger waves than he has already in the comics world. The story was not the best O've ever read, but still solid, even though I haven't been keeping track of current Spidey continuity. Greg's story was a very well done character piece. Again, I wasn't up on everything that had happened to these characters in recent years, but I had very little trouble following what was going on. Lots of realism and sensitivity, as well as plenty of convincing reasons why Flash can't just be "fixed" in a place like the Marvel universe. Definitely worth picking up.
Demonskrye - [<---"Toy Story 2" at The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Mon, Mar 1, 2010 2:25:39 pm EST from 146.115.115.75

Comment Room Archive

Comments for the week ending March 8, 2010

Index : Hide Images