Thanks for sharing your travel experiences, morrand! I'm a sucker for behind-the-scenes stuff, so it's interesting to hear about Greg's experiences with Disney on the comic. I don't think anyone is surprised to learn that the company is in a particularly censorial phase right now. I've mentioned before how the Fantagraphics reprints of Carl Barks's comics are now unfortunately being censored (after being SO CLOSE to finishing the run without any censorship for most of it), sometimes with whole pages being cut. Most bafflingly of all, some of the edits have been restored in second printings, which then censor something else! There's very little consistency, and it seems like it really comes down to who is in the office on a particular day. I think there are some instances where censorship can improve a work by making the creator think through new possibilities ("Not a man within perished by the flame"), but overall, it's not like Greg has ever been the kind of creator who pushes boundaries without a reason, and it's annoying that they feel the need to interfere in the storytelling. I was amused by their initial attempts to be tactful (I guess?), but actually being insulting by implying that Greg doesn't know his own universe. I guess the main thing I wonder about now is how these notes are coming down. I thought Greg had implied in the past that his only contact on the comics is Nate. Are these notes filtering through him, or is Greg also interacting directly with people at Disney?

As for the live action series...I'm extremely dubious, and always have been, of the prospect of a live action Gargoyles. Even Greg and Michael Reaves's 1990s movie proposal never really sounded very good to me. The major appeal of Gargoyles to me has always been the complex ongoing story, so a reboot where things happen differently just isn't an exciting idea. I get Greg's stance that a successful live action project could bring positive attention to the series, but there's also a lot of potential for things to go wrong. It's absolutely not true that "any publicity is good publicity." There are plenty of examples of a bad adaptation poisoning a property, and ruining its good will with the public. That being said, I hate the people on Reddit who act like modern-day Disney is some monolith that ruins everything (most of the people expressing this sentiment also tend to use/misuse the phrase "woke"). Disney's batting average lately is certainly not very good, and there does seem to be a trend toward group-think, but it's a vast company made up of countless divisions and human beings. A show like Andor proves that Disney is still capable of letting a creative artist and his crew create something intelligent, brave, and deeply human, even within the context of an established IP. So it can be done. Is Gary Dauberman the guy to do it? That's another question... I worry less about the technical end than the storytelling. In the hands of a Jordan Peele, I think there could be a great version of the show; but in the wrong hands, there is a lot of potential for damaging the brand.
Craig
posted @ Sun, Aug 24, 2025 3:24:36 pm EDT from 69.118.30.106

Or they could always drop the notion of the gargoyles being gargoyles and make them humans disguising themselves as gargoyles in fancy costumes to strike fear in the hearts of cowardly and superstitious criminals - but that would alienate so much of the potential audience that it wouldn't be worth the savings to the special effects budget.
Todd Jensen
posted @ Sat, Aug 23, 2025 8:34:33 pm EDT from 68.99.93.213

Morrand> Thanks, not sure how that happened.

The only group I can think of that could come close to properly capturing the look of the gargoyles in live-action would be the Jim Henson Creature Shop. But then Disney doesn't have the best record with treating them well either.
Matthew the Fedora Guy
You're Gonna Carry That Weight
posted @ Sat, Aug 23, 2025 5:03:31 pm EDT from 184.23.35.150

Thanks for the compliments. I only wish I had the resolve to keep studying shorthand, and get my notes more accurately, more quickly. (BTW: if "Anonymous" is Matthew the Fedora Guy, your handle has slipped.)

And I agree that live action would be a mistake. CGI does a lot, and streaming is a whole lot less expensive than broadcast or syndication, but it feels like you could get the story told much more cheaply, and do much more, if it were animated. Plus, I have the dreadful feeling that a live-action Goliath or anyone else would be terrifying in that uncanny-valley way. One of the show's awesome transgressions was making the scary creatures the heroes, and I love it for that, but I wish they wouldn't push it. (I cannot imagine, perhaps don't want to imagine, how they would model a "live-action" Brooklyn, so maybe it's for the best if they don't have the whole team in the series.) Certainly, this is a show that demonstrated how serious an animated series could be; I don't get why it needs to be live-action other than the novelty and to show off someone's CGI capabilities.

I do flash back to that snippet of conversation that I heard in the back of the doughnut shop in Minneapolis last year, something about Thailog and Chicago. I do suppose that you could build a series on that premise if you needed to limit it to a single gargoyle: Goliath (presumably, with maybe sometimes Thailog as the Big Bad) got pulled away from New York somehow and was working to get back home. I'm not saying that is the plot, because of course I have no idea (and eavesdropped snippets of random conversations in Minnesota doughnut shops are not reliable sources), but it's at least not implausible that you could do something of that kind (for better or worse) to save on both CGI and explanations.
morrand - [morrand276 at gmail dot com]
posted @ Sat, Aug 23, 2025 10:47:25 am EDT from 108.69.72.60

I remember Greg Weisman discussing a rejected outline he'd done for a "Gargoyles" live-action movie (back when the animated series was originally airing), which had the awakened gargoyles being just Goliath, Lexington, and the not-yet Coldstone (whose shattering in stone sleep would apparently take place in the present, as a set-up for a potential Coldstone-centered sequel) - though the rest of the clan would be introduced at the very end.

Of course, the live-action movie might wind up getting abandoned before it makes it to the screen.

(Speaking of abandoned Disney proposals, a while ago, I came across a proposal for what would apparently have been a "portal fantasy" animated series, that looked quite good, but wound up being rejected:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjen38ofZsw

and:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3__xmgN4jw


I thought it a pity it didn't get made, but Disney did come out with a couple of good "portal fantasy" animated series after that anyway - "Amphibia" and "The Owl House" (the latter a definite case of "very good"), which serves as some consolation.)
Todd Jensen
posted @ Sat, Aug 23, 2025 9:23:36 am EDT from 68.99.93.213

A live action series would undoubtedly be one of the worst decisions Disney could make. Because of the fantastical nature of the show, the clan would all have to be SFX as makeup and prosthetics wouldn't be able to cover the function of their wings nor with Bronx. Plus the fact that tv tends to operate on seasonal budgets so showrunners and producers need to be wise on how each episode uses the budget for the season.
Something I learned from watching Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and even Stranger Things was how to properly utilize the allotted budget because SFX, especially good SFX is expensive and can eat through funds quickly. That's why bottle episodes are so crucial for saving money for those big moments in the season when it really matters. Unfortunately making good bottle episodes is something of a lost art.

And that's what concerns me with the possibility of a live series. Not having the money for a whole clan of gargoyles so someone on the corporate ladder decides to shrink it to just one. And then they'll have to come up with some excuse on why only Goliath was awoken.
Anonymous
You're Gonna Carry That Weight
posted @ Fri, Aug 22, 2025 11:57:39 pm EDT from 184.23.35.150

MORRAND - Thanks for the con report. (The comment room was silent for the last three days; it's a relief to have someone posting here again.)

On the upcoming live-action series: I'd read that Goliath would apparently be the only gargoyle in it. While it's obviously easier on the special effects budget, it has the disadvantage of not matching the title; "Gargoyles" would require more than one gargoyle to make the title accurate. And retitling it "The Gargoyle" would obviously have its own problems. (Of course, it would also feel not quite as much fun with Hudson, the trio, and Bronx omitted.)
Todd Jensen
posted @ Fri, Aug 22, 2025 8:23:14 pm EDT from 68.99.93.213

Thanks for the rundown on Fan Expo, Morrand. You do some really good, in-depth summaries of panels, something I noticed at last years Gathering.

Disney meddling in the affairs of the comics really isn't surprising. Over the years and in regards to the stories involving executives needing to give "suggestions" in every single one of their properties, well it stands to reason someone would need to hover over the comics industry as well. I like to call it "Supervisors need to justify their phoney-baloney jobs."

Greg's advice for writers, especially the first part about reading a lot reminds me of advice I heard once, it might've been King or Gaiman but it was basically "You can only write what you know, so be sure to read more than just your personal interests." It's good advice and a good reminder why many successful books have the authors thanking others for providing information necessary to make the story work or more realistic.
Anonymous
You're Gonna Carry That Weight
posted @ Fri, Aug 22, 2025 7:08:05 pm EDT from 184.23.35.150

Todd Jensen: Not seeing the Stone was not that disappointing to me, as I'd seen it last time I was in Scotland, while it was at Edinburgh Castle, although the display in Perth appears from the Museum's photos to be quite a bit more dramatic. As for the Three Fates of Hercules, that was exactly the curator's reference. I was hopping in my shoes to mention the "Gargoyles" connection, too, and perhaps I should have after all, but the time didn't feel quite ripe to do that without disrupting his speech.

--vvv--

Part 2:

When it rains, it pours. This was true in Chicago last week, not only because of heavy rains that flooded parts of the city, but also because, hot on the heels of vacation time, Fan Expo came to town, and Greg Weisman scheduled to come with it.

Fan Expo is not C2E2, the other big local con that I've attended. It was darker, but also much less crowded (though being Sunday might have helped that) and, to my eye, more orderly. But many of the same vendors, some of the same artists. Better food court. Smaller booths, generally. I wander around dozily and eventually find Greg Weisman's booth, in Artist Alley. He's away, but the schedule posted on his table has him at the booth most of the day, excluding 2 PM, when he has a panel scheduled. Great! My nerve is not up to saying hello yet, anyway, and I wander off to continue dawdling.

There are a few people around in "Gargoyles" T-shirts. No costumes that I can see (though I saw mention of a good Owen afterward on Facebook) but it's a welcome change from the past many years to see anything at all. I look down at my own shirt, the same motorcycle one I've worn before to hide at cons. Humph. Some fan. Some cranky fan who needs a mild stimulant, probably.

The black tea I order from the coffee trailer in the food court is fine. Hot and plentiful, a full pint. I don't ordinarily drink tea, but here we are, jet-lagged and looking for something stimulating, but not exciting of the nerves. Some kids sit at the table I'm at and keep kicking it, and I have to pick up my tea to keep it from sloshing over. My mood fails to improve.

Round to the end of Artist Alley. Greg's there, scrolling. I walk by, trying to be all casual, and feign a disinterested look. He has some issues of "Gargoyles" on sale, a couple of others titles too. I keep going. Dither, dally, finally make a broad P-turn, double back, go the other way, and dive straight in. Quietly pick up one of the issues, look it over. Pay my $20 and he offers to personalize it. He was on his third day of the con, and I was tired, and I was also trying way too hard to be cool, and consequently I give the transaction all the warmth and joy of renewing license plates. I trundle off, comic in hand.

"You're being creepy," my right brain says.

"Shut up, I'm tired," answers my left brain, and I hike all of us, left brain, right brain, corpus callosum, belly full of tea, and the rest, out toward the panel rooms to watch a Star Wars meetup from afar and try not to fall asleep.

So much for solipsism: on to the 2 PM panel. This was the "Spectacular Greg Weisman" panel, as they titled it, attended by probably a little more than a dozen people. The panelists were a moderator and Greg himself (and really, who else do you need) and while the graphic on the panel's projector was from "The Spectacular Spider-Men," naturally, lots of the conversation turned to "Gargoyles." He told the story about the person at Disney who insisted that Goliath should have a big "G" on his chest and Eisner's response to it (I think this is also in the latest "Voices") and a couple of others.

He mentioned that his conflicts with Disney on the recent runs of comics have been more to do with violence than other things: that there are things they had been able to do on the show that no longer pass review as easily. The initial notes back had been along the lines of, "That's not true to the show," which Greg found annoying, given he's in an excellent position to know. More recent notes have been a bit more direct, just outright saying certain things won't be allowed. (Thinking back, this does seem to line up woth a thing or two we've seen in the comic: Elisa stun-gunning someone off-panel, for example.)

A question came up from the audience about the supposed live-action movie. Greg corrected this and said the announcement had been that a live-action Disney+ series was in development: more accurately, that it had been sent to a separate production company for development (and therefore not being produced directly by Disney+). Everyone's waiting to see what happens with it. (I take this to mean it might be produced, or might not, and if it is produced that we have absolutely no reliable timeline for it.) There was some brief discussion about casting. Greg said his own hypothetical preference would be for the original voice cast to come back together (presuming that all the gargoyles would be done on CGI) with, of course, a couple of necessary exceptions; he did also suggest that both Elisa and David Xanatos would likely need to be recast, simply because their original actors have gotten to be 30 years older than their characters ought to be. This is all, of course, strictly hypothetical and nobody seems to know (or at least nobody is talking openly about) anything related to this production.

One other question of note: Greg's advice to young writers. I may summarize this into three points. First, read a lot, and not just modern stuff: classics as well. Second, go where the work is (and if you have the ability to do something else besides writing to support yourself, do that, and write alongside it). And third, learn to proofread: he told a tale of having taught composition, assigning the first essay, and watching all these students come back with essays on what they expected to get from their "collage" education.

There was more that I did not take notes on, largely because I wasn't intending to: a couple of "Young Justice" questions and another anecdote or two. It was only a 45-minute panel and the Expo was enforcing that firmly. But it was brisk and entertaining as Greg Weisman panels often are.
morrand - [morrand276 at gmail dot com]
posted @ Fri, Aug 22, 2025 6:08:03 pm EDT from 108.69.72.60

MORRAND - Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. I thought it a bit of a pity that the Macbeth exhibit didn't delve more into the historical side, though I suspect that the Shakespeare play will always overshadow it. (Last week, to commemorate the anniversaries of Macbeth's victory over Duncan (August 14, 1040) and his final defeat by Canmore (August 15, 1057), I read the entry on Macbeth from my copy of "101 Great Scots" by Allan Massie, a collection of mini-biographies of famous Scots throughout history; it focused on how Shakespeare's play, if not quite historically accurate, makes a more exciting story than the actual story - though "City of Stone" showed that you could get a lot of effective drama out of something closer to the historical original as well.) I was a bit surprised at the mention of Disney's "Hercules" at first (and it probably was a bit of a disappointment for "Gargoyles" fans), until I remembered the depiction of the Three Fates in the movie (who were merged with the Graiae as well - a bit like the Weird Sisters of "Gargoyles" being a sort of merge of the Fates, the Furies, and the Graces).

I was visiting the site "Beautiful Britain" (which contains a list of events from British history for each day of the year) earlier this morning, and one of the events for today in it was the start of a major Jacobean witch-trial; the timing got my attention, after your mention of how the Macbeth exhibit focused on Jacobean witches and witch-hunting.

And too bad about not getting to see the Stone of Destiny during your visit - though at least you got to see many other things.
Todd Jensen
posted @ Tue, Aug 19, 2025 9:32:14 am EDT from 68.99.93.213

Sounds like a great trip, morrand, thanks for sharing.

"The Stone was apparently not available for comment." Ha!
Matt
"My daughter?! How dare you mock me! I have no daughter." - Demona, 1996
posted @ Tue, Aug 19, 2025 8:17:30 am EDT from 204.184.178.1

Happy birthdays!

---

"But why can't we see the Stone?" the little girl bouncing up the stairs at the Perth Museum asked.

"Well, a few weeks ago, someone came into the museum and they smashed up the case with a hammer," her father said, as he followed along behind her, his level pace contrasting with her sprightly one.

"Why'd they do that?"

"Well, this person was crazy," he said resignedly, and they rounded the corner and the echoes off the stone walls smudged their conversation out of my hearing. This story, as it turns out, is more or less correct: according to multiple reports, on the 12th of July, a kilt-wearing man from Australia (specifically, from Sydney) attempted to break into the case with a hammer, for reasons not elaborated on in the reports, and was subsequently charged with malicious mischief. I haven't got enough information to support the judgement of "crazy," but it seems plausible as anything right now.

The Stone was apparently not available for comment.

Consequently the Stone was off-view for conservation work when I visited last week. The front desk was very apologetic about that, but no matter: I'd primarily gone to see the "Macbeth" special exhibition (running through the end of the month). The exhibition actually only mentions the historical king briefly (mostly to mention that the play got him wrong) and focused largely on the treatment of witchcraft accusations during the early 17th century (in brief: horribly) and on various interpretations of the play.

It was not bad and it certainly had a lot of material and artifacts on those two topics (a copy of the First Folio, for example, alongside a couple of other contemporary books) but I have to admit I was hoping for more about the real King, allowing that there isn't a huge amount in the official record from the time. The most we get on that topic is an 11th century sword: not even King Macbeth's sword, necessarily, but a sword typical of the time. Still, setting context around the play, and showing both the influences on its development and its influences in turn on the rest of the world, were a good set of topics on their own. And while it didn't draw the connection explicitly, the idea that the play wound up exacerbating or exploiting the witch mania in Scotland under James I was definitely established. There may be other places to go to learn about Shakespeare, but having that local connection was an extra flourish, even if the exhibit didn't lean into the history of the ancient King as much as that of James I.

The museum also had a special event on Friday evening, an allsorts event with a bunch of actors roaming around portraying various characters, that I only found out about as I was leaving on Thursday. Having traveled so far, of course I wanted to see that, and happily tickets were still available. We got a King Macbeth playing foil to King James I's description of the play (short version: that play has got it all wrong, and haven't we heard that before), and a couple of witches and witch-hunters, mostly played for comic effect (successfully). The curator spoke about the historical basis of the play in more detail, and on the treatment of witches, and did address the Weird Sisters and their origins. There was a thrilling moment where he began to mention a Disney portrayal from the mid-90's, and my ears went way up...and then said "Hercules," and they went back down again. To close the evening, there was an abridged but vigorous performance of the final fight from the play. It was a lot of fun.

The museum's permanent collection of early artifacts and its presentation on the development of Perth into a city also give a good view of the place circa 1000 CE and beyond. But since it didn't really tell much about the king himself, a side trip up to Scone Palace seemed especially in order. This is a historically-significant site: the "crowning place of Scottish kings," as they proudly advertise, and they do have a display on the history of its place in Scotland's monarchy. It includes King Macbeth's rule prominently (no shock there given his fame, for better or worse) and mentions Malcolm Canmore (boo, hiss) as well. The palace itself otherwise is a very grand house: the owners are quite fond of their tea sets and other bric-a-brac, which is fine, I suppose. The grounds are the more interesting from a historical perspective. There is Moot Hill, on which the actual coronation of the kings had taken place, and that has a mock coronation stone set up ... and it's about this time in the tour that I got that geeky-awesome sense of actually walking through the story. This is a nifty side effect of grounding the story in history: you can go explore the history, and there's the fiction, walking alongside of it, in arm's reach even if it is just a shadow.

It also started to rain, so that was about it for the day's adventures as I'd also walked the two miles up from Perth. It wasn't quite the end of the week, though, and I'll have more to tell about further adventures stateside.
morrand - [morrand276 at gmail dot com]
posted @ Tue, Aug 19, 2025 7:10:19 am EDT from 108.69.72.60

Yeah! A double happy birthday!
Matthew the Fedora Guy
You're Gonna Carry That Weight
posted @ Tue, Aug 19, 2025 1:27:48 am EDT from 184.23.35.150

Happy Birthday to you two from me.
Antiyonder
posted @ Mon, Aug 18, 2025 10:30:04 pm EDT from 68.119.3.1

Yes, happy birthday to you both!
Todd Jensen
posted @ Mon, Aug 18, 2025 8:10:34 pm EDT from 68.99.93.213

And Happy Birthday Greg Bishansky and Karine Charlebois!!!
Matt
"My daughter?! How dare you mock me! I have no daughter." - Demona, 1996
posted @ Mon, Aug 18, 2025 7:57:08 pm EDT from 69.229.197.48

Third...

And just arrived in my classroom for the first day with students. Here we go again!
Matt
"My daughter?! How dare you mock me! I have no daughter." - Demona, 1996
posted @ Mon, Aug 18, 2025 7:49:04 am EDT from 204.184.178.1

Second!

And I will have more to say once I finish composing the report on last week's thrilling excursions, both foreign and domestic.
morrand - [morrand276 at gmail dot com]
posted @ Mon, Aug 18, 2025 7:15:28 am EDT from 108.69.72.60

First?
Algae
'Nuff said
posted @ Mon, Aug 18, 2025 6:20:29 am EDT from 88.87.179.191