When the Trades come out, I will be...
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:42:44 pm EST from 75.156.190.146

*sigh* Not another troll...

So, who else is exited for the trade paperbacks?
lonerider26 - [lonerider26 at gmail dot com]
The walking of the legs.
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:27:55 pm EST from 68.51.71.104

Todd: Not too sure, as I only saw bits from the beginning . . . I think the story had Merlin returning to Camelot after pulling a Rip Van Winkle, but I wasn't particularly interested so I kept flipping through the channels before ultimately reading the Saturday comics online. :)
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy Wonka
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:12:48 pm EST from 157.242.217.151

PHOENICIAN - Is that the BBC series running over in England?
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:24:38 pm EST from 4.244.210.48

Brook: That's not funny at all :P

I just randomly caught some bits from a Merlin miniseries over the weekend, making me want to see the conclusion to "the Rock" story all the more . . . .
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy Wonka
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:30:27 pm EST from 157.242.217.151

release is slated for early 2010.

Joking... ofcourse.
Brook
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 7:59:17 pm EST from 84.191.235.58

Heh heh, who isn't?
Grey Wolf
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 7:53:37 pm EST from 76.123.26.18

Grey Wolf: Normally, I would agree with you; that we should just be nice. But this guy has cussed us out and told us to shut up just because he doesn't agree with us. I'm not even a Spider-Man fan, but I take it personally when a newbie comes in and insults my friends. He's way out of line and I'm not going to be nice to somebody like that.

Still, I agree with Bluewyvern. Let's all just ignore the troll.

New topic. Who else is looking forward to the release of the new Gargoyles and Bad Guys trade paperbacks?
D. Taina - [demona3 at hotmail dot com]
"The story is told -- though who can say if it be true..." -Shari
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 7:48:23 pm EST from 74.213.121.140

That's what I said. I just think baiting her/him is a bad idea.
Grey Wolf
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 7:35:07 pm EST from 76.123.26.18

Grey Wolf> I respect the fact that everyone has their own opinions which may not line up with mine, but I also expect my opinions and those of others to be treated respectfully, regardless of whether one person does or doesn't like another's favorite character.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 7:18:27 pm EST from 146.115.115.33

Guys, no one likes having their favorite character slammed. How would you feel if a bunch of people got together and bashed Brooklyn or Demona? Yeah, s/he's overreacting, but still... please be nice.
Grey Wolf
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 7:06:17 pm EST from 76.123.26.18

Pssst...don't feed the trolls.

*resumes non-Gargoyles-related-discussion lurk mode (virtually indistinguishable from everyday lurk mode)*
bluewyvern
"Attend the petty jealousies and angers that prey upon your heart."
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:45:53 pm EST from 69.112.108.43

Haha, Spidey fanboys in defense mode.

Hey Spideyfan - why not try to give some arguments WHY Carnage is great?? I'm sure the others will appreciate. :) So far I only read MAXIMUM CARNAGE, and he didn't... well, "shine" there in particular...
Brook
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:38:18 pm EST from 84.191.224.224

Spideyforever: How about you make us? ;)
D. Taina - [demona3 at hotmail dot com]
"The story is told -- though who can say if it be true..." -Shari
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:15:00 pm EST from 74.213.121.140

*waits for Pete to provide some defending arguments*
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Though I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe." -Jubal Harshaw ("Stranger In a Strange Land")
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:11:05 pm EST from 71.62.136.51

ATTENTION ALL CARNAGE HATERS SHUT UP
spideyforever
peter lebrun
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 5:30:26 pm EST from 75.118.70.61

In other news. Apparently Disney is going to start releasing DVDs of the X-Men cartoon from the 90s. We'll see if it fairs better then their own creations I guess.

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/X-Men-Volumes-Announced/11203
Ozzie Arcane - [ozziearcane at yahoo dot com]
"Hello Booby! This is a trap!" - Eggplant Wizard
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:33:10 pm EST from 69.14.122.91

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

I just flipped through MAXIMUM CARNAGE, and, seriously... I get you guys.

Carnage really feels like Venom in "Hey, let's do Venom in a more 90s way, OK?? Like... more violence... more violence... he is VERY violent... and he kills people. And he looks cool."

OK, he does look cool, but besides - FAIL!! All of this could also be VENOM, and VENOM sure still looks better, has a chaacter and kicks some more adollardollar than Carnage.

I don't really see why they didn't spend some more time on VENOM and broadening his character. Thus he could have come close to becomming something like Carnage, instead of just going "Yeah, let's take some lucid maniac, give him super powers and butcher everybody."

Somehow, looking into Carnage, I feel like doing good by sticking to old Spidey (rather starting with old Spidey, that is). Whilst BATMAN still had a hell of cool stuff going on in the last few years (Black Mask, War Games arc etc.), what I saw from Spidey seemed unnecessarily drawn, badly characterised and a bit shallow.

I just wish that after SPectacular Spidey, Greg would do (next to more GARGOYLES) a new take on DAREDEVIL. Poor fella needs a better press agent.
Brook
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:49:49 pm EST from 84.191.224.224

Greg> Ideally he shows and starts ranting about how he's going to bring carnage to the world and then... Rhino steps on him. ;)
Algernon
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:34:15 pm EST from 149.157.1.184

Irony time.

I haven't seen the episode yet, but I hear Cletus Kasady has a cameo.

Sigh.... for the love of all that is holy, why? Why, Greg? Why?

;)
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"See how I'm not punching him? I think I've grown." - Malcolm Reynolds
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:47:13 am EST from 24.205.39.101

Brook> Sorry dude, I keep mixing you up with Ed for some reason. Just the early senility kicking in I guess. :)
Algernon
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:26:29 am EST from 149.157.1.184

Ah, hx loads, although my name on here is Brook, and noT Ed. ;)
Brook
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:18:37 am EST from 84.191.224.224

Sorry for the double post, the Shocker link didn't wor right. Here ya go...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shocker_(comics)
Algernon
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:52:48 am EST from 149.157.1.180

Ed> In the comics Shocker was a criminal inventor named Herman Shultz. In the Spectacular Spider-Man, Greg and co decided to give the Shocker's costume and powers to Montana of the Enforcers.

Greg's reasoning was that Shultz was a bland and uninteresting character, something I tend to agree with. Unfortunately, there are a lot of anal-retentive geeks who consider this nothing less then an act of sacrilege. Which just goes to show that some people can't see the forest for the trees?

Here's more info on comic-book Shocky if you interested...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shocker_(comics)
Algernon
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:50:37 am EST from 149.157.1.180

Could somebody fil me in to the changes made to the Shocker??
Brook
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:36:48 am EST from 84.191.224.224

Gee, I don't recall going onto a Spider-Man forum and giving my profanity-laced opinion about Carnage when no one had asked me or anyone what they thought. Anyone else remember doing something like that?

I've realized that I really don't know enough about Carnage one way or another to really hate him. My impression was always that he was just a way of making a new Venom when Venom started turning into a hero rather than a baddie, but I could be wrong. I only ever remotely cared about Venom in the PS1 Spider-Man Video game prior to SS-M, so I really have no reason to care about the red Venom. If Greg decides to use him on the show, fine. I'm sure it will be interesting. If not, it won't both me.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:05:57 am EST from 146.115.115.33

Talking about how bad Carnage is, you really only have to think of one thing. There is a very good reason that Marvel killed him off.

As far s Maximum Carnage is concerned. A main reason that arc was enjoyable was not because of Carnage but rather the bizarre group he managed to throw together and the group that opposed them. The arc was more about how far a person can be pushed and whether or not Spider-Man could justify killing Carnage. Part of the reason it came out good? The people writing it hate Carnage but had him pushed onto them, so they worked with what they got.
Ozzie Arcane - [ozziearcane at yahoo dot com]
"Hello Booby! This is a trap!" - Eggplant Wizard
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:55:46 am EST from 69.14.122.91

Ed> I get what your saying. Part of what makes a great villain is that certain "chemistry" they have with their archnemisis, whether it's by acting as a thematic dark mirror to the hero or via a shared personal history.

Thing is Carnage has none of that. He's not some close friend of Peter whose been turned to the dark side, he's not a corrupted vision of what Peter might have become. Hell he's never even hurt anyone close to Peter. Sure he kidnapped J.J. once, but Jonah's like the village bike in that regard, every supervillain in Manhattan's had a go.

As far as Spidey is concerned, Carnage is just another nutjob with superpowers. Carnage himself doesn't even seem to have any grudge against Spider-Man; he's just the spandex clad do-gooder who shows up the most when Cletus is on a rampage. If anything carnage is Venom's archnemesis.

By the way I was born in 1984 and didn't start seriously reading comics until the early nineties. I knew who Venom and Carnage were before I knew who Norman Osborn was, and I still think Carnage is lame and that the Green Goblin is a badass.
Algernon
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 7:19:27 am EST from 149.157.1.180

Today is Robert Burns' birthday, though I don't know if Goliath and his clan would pay that much attention to that; he was after their time, after all. I wonder if any of them ever would take any interest in the Burns Night festivities.
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Sun, Jan 25, 2009 7:08:06 am EST from 4.244.211.113

Greg: On closer thought I regret using Demona as an example, but I still don't think she'd fit Spidey's world very comfortably. There are probably better examples though.
Ed
posted @ Sat, Jan 24, 2009 9:14:51 pm EST from 213.187.38.226

ED> <<Demona would be an awful Spider-Man villain.>>

She'd be a better Spider-Man villain than Carnage. ;)

While crossovers don't tend to be my thing, I actually think this is not too far of a stretch.

Spider-Man's motto is "With great power comes great responsibility." Spidey takes personal responsibility almost to an obsession, and there have been times when I as a reader have shouted "that was NOT your fault."

On the other hand, in Demona, you have a villain who does not take responsibility for her sins, and the things she's done wrong.

Thematically, for a one-shot in a vacuum, it could be a fun story if it were well handled and thought out. It's a compelling link. But then, that's why Demona is a compelling villain, and characters like Carnage or not.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"See how I'm not punching him? I think I've grown." - Malcolm Reynolds
posted @ Sat, Jan 24, 2009 8:36:41 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

HAHAHA holy crap! damn kid dont cry about it, its just peoples oppinions! and they're just fictional characters!

see, this is when fanism becomes unhealthy.
sTiTcH
posted @ Sat, Jan 24, 2009 8:27:10 pm EST from 64.12.117.134

Algernon: That was Brook. :) I agree on Carnage though. Of course, also, the Joker is a Batman villain. He's perfect for Batman. I don't think he'd be nearly as effective as a Spider-Man villain. Demona would be an awful Spider-Man villain. Doctor Octopus would make a pretty dull Batman villain.

Antiyonder: Who gives a monkey's what a tiny minority of Carnage fanboys think? There'll always be a contingent who don't want anything shaken up. But most people, including Carnage fans I'd like to think, want a good story, well told. Besides, I understand Bendis gutted the character but that USM trade is still one of the highest selling.
Ed
posted @ Sat, Jan 24, 2009 8:24:23 pm EST from 213.187.38.226

Fuck all you Venom and Carnage haters!!!!!!!!! I don't give a damn what comic age you grew up in!!!!!!!!!! Venom and Carnage are some of the most famous Spider-Man villains today along with all the other villains. They are also some of the biggest threats to Spidey because they know his secret idenity. Alot of fans want Carnage back in the comics and want to see him on the big screen. What you dumbasses don't get is a lot grew up with them so if you don't like them then just keep your unnecessary, unwanted, and way too big mouth shut.
spideyforever
peter lebrun
posted @ Sat, Jan 24, 2009 8:11:36 pm EST from 75.118.70.61

Considering that some fanboys found the changes to The Shocker to be blasphemy, it's a safe bet that changing Carnage greatly would result in equal criticism.

Actually, I retract my earlier statement. Even with the murder counts, Carnage still isn't compelling.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Sat, Jan 24, 2009 5:39:33 pm EST from 71.120.226.102

But if he doesn't include Carnage, he'll be criticised LESS.
Supermorff
posted @ Sat, Jan 24, 2009 5:28:50 pm EST from 86.131.13.78

Another way to describe The Joker's superiority over Carnage, does indeed have to do with Standards & Practices. Take away Mr J's murderous tendencies and you have the evil clown who wants to be funny. Take away Carnage's bloodlust and you have nothing personality wise.

But like I said before, Greg has a lose-lose scenario with Carnage. If he doesn't include Carnage, he'll get criticised for not using him. If he uses him, but gives him a different portrayal, he'll get criticised for not being faithful to the character.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Sat, Jan 24, 2009 2:48:26 pm EST from 71.120.226.102

@ ALg.: BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAAAA!!! Classic!! I know why the Joker is my comic equivalent for sure now. :D "Even Dolph Ludgren has got more sparkle and wit!" Brilliant!!

I can totally see what you mean then - although I still like a psychotic and dadaistic villain, I still prefer an anarchic, stylish and surrealistic one. :) Just like I hold Sartre in a higher position than Ionesco. :)
Brook
posted @ Sat, Jan 24, 2009 1:10:16 pm EST from 84.191.204.129

Ed> "Also, why all the hate on Carnage? I really don't know the guy, but informed myself (ha!) and he seems to be a try to aim at a "Symbiote-Joker".>

And it's something he fails misrebly at. Carnage has zero depth and none of the Joker's inimatable style. He just runs around disembowling a bunch of nameless extras who nobody cares about.

Here, Mr. J himself can explain it better then I can...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?s=8e8717df5664adf03452d7e098f53a34&p=12037536&postcount=713
Algernon
posted @ Sat, Jan 24, 2009 12:01:30 pm EST from 149.157.1.180

@ ED: Thanks. You think I really should start off from the beginning?

Also, why all the hate on Carnage? I really don't know the guy, but informed myself (ha!) and he seems to be a try to aim at a "Symbiote-Joker".
Brook
posted @ Sat, Jan 24, 2009 11:40:50 am EST from 84.191.204.129

I totally understand all the anti-Carnage sentiment; the character has been a travesty all his existence. But perverse as it seems, I'd like to see a 'Greg Weisman' reinterpretation of the character if Greg does end up running the show for four or five seasons. Why? Actually, many reasons, but the headline reason is four little words: "Carnage is a bastard."

Brook: Stan Lee and Ditko & Romita's original strips are collected at relatively affordable prices and many of those stories -- especially after he gets into a groove -- still hold up well today.

Greg: I prefer "the dark age of Image". Not that they don't deserve the rap, but present-day Image has a great, diverse range of creator-owned comics.
Ed
posted @ Sat, Jan 24, 2009 10:18:19 am EST from 213.187.38.226

If anything, the comic version of Venom could have easily been a worthwhile part of the Spider-Man saga. The big problem isn't the character, but the fact that the creator didn't get to go with his original ideas for Venom (The first being the pregnant woman host who blames Spider-Man for the loss of her husband and children. The second plan was for Eddie to die in The Amazing Spider-Man #300 with the Symbiote looking for a new host and settling on a permanent host in #400.)

Now Carnage on the other hand I can fully agree that the character was a mistake. Like I said before though, my enjoyment of Maximum Carnage stems from my enjoyment of the game.

Though I would recommend that anyone here checkout Tom DeFalco's Carnage arc in The Amazing Spider-Girl #9-12 (Or the second volume of the trade). That story actually makes compelling use of the Carnage symbiote.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Sat, Jan 24, 2009 12:05:55 am EST from 71.120.226.102

I remember Greg saying at the Spider-Man panel last year that his goal with Eddie Brock/Venom was for them to act as a dark side of Spider Man. Peter Parker and Eddie Brock are two people who had something in common: they both lost their parents at a young age. However, since Brock didn't have any parental figures in his life, like Peter did, Brock is fixated with death. I think to have the character of Carnage on the SSM cartoon would cheapen that dichotomy.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"You know what the date is on this coin? ... 1958. It's been traveling twenty-two years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails. And you have to say. Call it." -Anton Chigurh ("No Country For Old Men")
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 11:50:54 pm EST from 76.27.174.85

It's been one issue. But just to let you know where I'm coming from.

Hated Avengers Disassembled.
Like New Avengers
Don't like Mighty Avengers.

So, we'll see. You can always read it in the store.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
George W. Bush finally GTFO!
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 9:41:45 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

Greg B> The concept sounds cool, just wish Warren Ellis or Mark Miller were writing it instead. How does it compare with Bendis'other Avengers work? It'll have to be a huge step up to entice my wallet.
Algernon
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 9:06:47 pm EST from 213.202.135.162

Algernon> It seems to me kind of like old school Thunderbolts. Except The Dark Avengers are masquerading as established heroes.

Dakken is Wolverine.
Venom is Spider-Man
Moonstone is Miss Marvel... the real Miss Marvel resigned out of protest, and Norman is going to have her hunted down.
Bullseye is Hawkeye.
Ares and Sentry are themselves
Nov-Arr is Captain Marvel.

And when Osborn's new assistant, Victoria Hand (cast iron bitch extraordinaire) suggested that the only thing missing was Captain America and Iron Man... Norman stole one of Tony Stark's suits of iron. Painted it up in the stars and stripes and is now wearing it as the Iron Patriot.

So far, so good. Bendis writes this team well. The Thunderbolts no longer officially exist, and now function as Norman Osborn's black-ops assassination squad.

Well, if you can get past the illogical idea of Norman Osborn making it this far in government, it's off to a solid start.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
George W. Bush finally GTFO!
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 8:51:10 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

@ Greg: I:) I just saw the first EP; but I dug it. Apart from that? I just love comics...
Brook
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 8:21:40 pm EST from 84.191.253.22

Greg B> I think if Marvel really wants to keep Venom as an a-list villain they really need to go back to the drawing board and make some serious changes o the character, like passing on the symbiote to someone who has some real motivation to hate Spidey.

By the way, what is Dark Avengers like? I've pretty much boycotted all Avengers material with Bendis' name on it but I'm still curious.
Algernon
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 8:15:37 pm EST from 213.202.135.162

Brook> At this point, I'd say just skip the comics and watch Greg's "Spectacular Spider-Man" cartoon. It's the best Spidey we've gotten in many, many years. Certainly better than those movies.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
George W. Bush finally GTFO!
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 8:09:05 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

@ Greg: I'm not saying she isn't a different character. I just think that for Nolan, doing her would pretty much be a regression to BEGINS. Yeah, this time they've got a relationship going on, sure... but apart of that, there really isn't a lot that makes a plot as different as TDK was from BB.

Nolan is a director who even stated he won't do certain characters to get too repetitive because they've been done in other film, namely Catwoman and Penguin. Others he finds too dull for his world, like Robin, the Penguin (again) and Poison Ivy.

Therefore, I doubt he'd do a film about the daughter of a villain he already introduced - just because it would be the same storyline to him to tell.
Think about it Harley Quinn is another different chaacter from the joker, but she is still a step back into the world of TDK, just like Mme Al Ghul would be a refression into BBs world.

Therefore my bet is on Black Mask and Riddler. Riddler will be totally "out there", but different to the Joker, and Black Mask will be a raging Psycopath warlord on the streets of Gotham city.

Personally, I'd love to see The Ventriquolist or how he's called. And Mr. Freeze. Nolan could come up with an interresting twist on him, I'm sure.

Spidey: COuld ANYBODY recommend me a place to start witht the comics?? I onlyknow the films and one or two issues here and there. I just started BLUE, that I really, really love.
Brook
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 8:07:23 pm EST from 84.191.253.22

Wingless> Disney owns Saban. Saban made the X-Men cartoons.

Algernon> Also, Carnage was created during what I like to call The Age of Image. Both he and Venom are the poster children for everything that was wrong with that era of comics.

And often times, some Venom fans annoy me. I once saw a few of them go on about how no other villain besides Venom ever affected Spidey's life the way he did.

Which of course prompted me to list Norman Osborn's accompliments.

- The first to unmask Spidey (I think he may have been the first villain to unmask the hero, period).
- Murdered Gwen Stacy (and brought the Silver Age to an end).
- Engineered the Clone Saga
- Killed Peter and Mary Jane's unborn child... or kidnapped it. Either way, that kid is gone.
- Drove Peter's best friend to insanity and to the grave (for a while anyway).
- Brain damaged Flash Thompson
- Came closer than any other villain on a constant basis to make Spidey break his one rule against killing.

Venom... scared Mary Jane once, and made her and Peter move a couple of times. That's it. Which pissed me off, because Spidey was written badly at the time. He never ran from Norman. I doubt the glorified stalker with fangs would make him budge if he were written correctly.

- Plus, Norman now has Venom working directly under him. First in the Thunderbolts and now in the new Dark Avengers... so who got the better of whom? ;)

Honestly, calling Venom Spidey's arch-nemesis over Norman or even Doc Ock is the equivalent of calling Wolf the better villain than Xanatos or Demona.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
George W. Bush finally GTFO!
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 7:52:02 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

Carnage's problem is that he's a one trick pony. Carnage breaks out of Ravencroft, kills a bunch of nameless background characters, gets the crap beaten out of him by Venom and/or Spidey then gets tossed back into Ravencroft ready to start the whole cycle over again. There I've just spoiled every Carnage story ever written!

It's sad that Carnage has already played a major role in two Spidey toons, while genuinely cool Marvel villains like Kang the Conqueror, Mephisto and Baron Zemo have yet to get decent animated potrayals.
Algernon
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 7:28:28 pm EST from 78.16.121.252

Fans of the original X-Men series rejoice-since 2 volumes are about to be released on DVD by none other than Disney!(how they ended up with the rights-who knows.

Early cover art available at my name link
Wingless
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 7:19:16 pm EST from 99.245.254.123

Oh, and I for one hope that Carnage never, ever, ever appears on this show. And no, I don't think he's too violent a character for the series. I think he is too worthless a character.

Of course, I tend to think that the symbiotes were the worst thing to ever happen to the Spider-Man corner of the Marvel Universe. They don't belong there. They just don't.

Greg did a great job with Venom, but I tend to think that one way or another, Venom would have been forced into the show. I hope Carnage manages to be kept out. Which is possible. He hasn't been in the comics in several years. He got quietly killed off, no one misses him, no one is clamoring for him to come back.

"The villain so awesome we had to put his name on the cover twice!" Awesome - yeah - that's it.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
George W. Bush finally GTFO!
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 6:58:01 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

Personally I've always imagined Carnage to have a really annoying high pitched voice like he's he's still half way through puberty.
Algernon
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 6:52:18 pm EST from 78.16.121.252

Brook> If you think it would be the same, then I don't know what to tell you. Talia (no H) is a very different character than her father.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
George W. Bush finally GTFO!
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 6:52:17 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

@ Greg: I know, but essentially, it would be the same, just with Thalia. And Nolan often stated how much he hates to do the same things twice in films.
Brook
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 6:42:13 pm EST from 84.191.253.22

Rebel : A belated happy birthday!
Spen
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 5:19:02 pm EST from 66.43.205.110

As I said before, if for some reason Greg decided to use Carnage, then it would likely be a different interpretation of the character.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 4:48:52 pm EST from 71.120.226.102

1. It's moving to Disney XD, formerly Toon Disney. I don't think it will be showing on the CW, except for possibly season one reruns.

2. So far as I know, it's just a rumor. It may be one of those things where someone made a post somewhere saying they hope Carnage will be on the show and it passes through several people and turns into "Carnage WILL be on the show" and spreads from there.

3. March.

4. Again, I don't know that he's actually going to be on the show. I would think it would depend if he has enough vocal range to make it sound like a different voice.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 3:59:57 pm EST from 146.115.115.33

A couple questions 1.Will the Spectacular Spider-Man continue to air on The CW because I read it's moving to Disney

2.Also what's up with some websites saying Carnage will be in it because it doesn't say anything about him on Wikipedia

3. When will it air in the US

4. Will Robert Englund voice Carnage because I think he'll do agreat job because I think Carnage has a similar personality to Freddy Krueger
Peter LeBrun - [lebrunar at aol dot com]
peter lebrun
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 3:44:19 pm EST from 75.118.70.61

I'm in vintage cartoon heaven!
Wingless
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 3:33:38 pm EST from 99.245.254.123

Greg B> Talia would be cool or maybe even Catwoman now that folks have forgotten that abominable Halle Berry movie. As much as I love Nolan's Bat-movies they are suffering from extreme estrogen depravation.
Algernon
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 2:15:13 pm EST from 149.157.1.180

Brook> I said Talia al Ghul. Not Ra's al Ghl.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
George W. Bush finally GTFO!
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 2:11:54 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

@ Greg & Rebel: NEVER in the WORLD would Nolan settle on Al Ghul, simply because he did him in the first film.

He will come up with either a well known villain (Riddler for example) or a rather unknown one (Black Mask, Hush).

I'd love to see Riddler and Black Mask. GOD, would that be amazing!! Just imagine BLACK MASK taking over Gothams underworld, whilst an unknown is dropping clues to the press on corpses about who Batman actually IS.

OSCARS: Kust take a look at last years nominees:

"WINNER: There Will Be Blood (2007) - Daniel Day-Lewis

Other Nominees:

Eastern Promises (2007) - Viggo Mortensen
In the Valley of Elah (2007) - Tommy Lee Jones
Michael Clayton (2007) - George Clooney
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) - Johnny Depp"

3 of my favourite actors and 3 of the best performances ever onscreen that Depp, Lewis and Mortensen did!!! Dunno how you can beat that!!
Brook
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 2:07:17 pm EST from 84.191.253.22

Who do I think should be the villain in the next movie? I am rooting for Talia al Ghul and a re-grouped League of Shadows.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
George W. Bush finally GTFO!
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 1:37:01 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

I know that the people who choose the oscar nominees are only human and thus not immune from bias. And I know that there is no way to determine which performance is actually "best", since it's ultimately a matter of opinion and personal taste. What I think is that they need to make a good faith effort to consider NOTHING but the performances, not the dead/alive status of the actor, not their age, not their personal character or political views, etc. Of course they are subject to bias due to these things. But they need to make a good faith effort to disregard those biases, to the best of their ability, and judge only by the performances. If they are already doing that, great. If they aren't, change is in order.

By the way, yesterday was my birthday. I turned 23. My friends and I went to dinner at my favorite restaurant, Chile Verde, and while we were there we started talking about The Dark Knight. Apparently there were several of us in the group who hadn't seen it so we ended up renting it last night and watching it. The movie was great, and Heath Ledger was awesome--I think he may well have still gotten the nomination anyway even if he hadn't died. Christian Bale's "batman voice" got on my nerves a little, and I thought ****SPOILER***** it was a shame that they killed two-face off so quickly *****END SPOILER***** but other than that, WOW!

Who do you guys think the villains will be in the next Batman movie? If Ledger were alive, I'd love for the Joker to come back. But, since he's dead, I'd rather the character not come back at all than be played by another actor.
Rebel
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 1:29:18 pm EST from 199.80.70.71

"...so the Academy tend to just skip over the comedies and lighter fare in general in favor of serious or "important" movies. Some comedies and comedy performances have broken through, but they're generally few and far between." - Demonskyre

I completely agree. Thats the exact reason I usually just shrug off the Oscars. So many on the movies I care about are not considered 'important' enough to get a nomination. Its why, this year, the only movie Im cheering for to get an award is Wall-e.
Litwolf
<Be happy for me and for all who fly free.> - Tobias of Animorphs
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 12:53:50 pm EST from 209.243.38.9

"You could argue that the fact that "Dark Knight" didn't get nominated for Best Picture proves that Ledger's nomination was due to his death, "

No, nonono.

As mentioned before, even though I love the film, and it is brilliant in any way, it is far too fast for an Oscar nomination. The film would have gotten a nimonation if it would have been half an hour longer, no doubt!!

I'm still one of the people who think that Ledgers performance cpntributed to the state he was in that eventually led to his death (just take a look at all the medication he was taking). My best friend is an actor, and just recently played a character in a movie who commits suicide, and I can see how the role affected him, even though it was not particularily that torn like the joker. It has become a part of his, and a part of it still lives in him.

Looking at how Ledger booked a Hotel room and stood hours in front of a mirror, practicing to become one of the most menacing villains in history of movies, I can see how something stayed with him even after.
Brook
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 9:48:55 am EST from 84.191.253.22

........................Even though the actors/actresses (that have done voices on Gargoyles) deserve awards for their work on the show (which is what really counts, anyway)... have they won any awards for other tv shows or movies?

Vin
castle0909
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 9:08:53 am EST from 72.77.209.104

Oscars> There have long been issues big and small with the way the Academy Awards are chosen. One of the bigger ones is that, unlike the Golden Globes, the Oscars don't distinguish between comedy and drama, so you frequently end up comparing apples to oranges, or just skipping the oranges altogether. It's near impossible to determine if a really good comedy does a better job of being a comedy than a really good drama does of being a drama, so the Academy tend to just skip over the comedies and lighter fare in general in favor of serious or "important" movies. Some comedies and comedy performances have broken through, but they're generally few and far between.

Since we have yet to invent Film Judging Robot 3000, it's pretty tough to eliminate the human factor in the selection of Oscar nominees and winners. Most people do seem to feel that Heath Ledger deserved to be recognized for his performance as the Joker. Would he have received the nomination if he hadn't died, or would the stigma of playing a comic book villain have kept him out? I don't think anyone knows for certain. You could argue that the fact that "Dark Knight" didn't get nominated for Best Picture proves that Ledger's nomination was due to his death, but I personally think the film did have some issues, not the least of which was Bale's performance as Batman. (He's a fantastic Bruce Wayne, but he seems oddly uncomfortable in the Batsuit.) Anyway, if you're an Academy voter and you already think Ledger's performance as the Joker was top notch and you additionally know that this is your last chance to honor Ledger's work, maybe that is going to influence how you vote. If Ledger had given a really mediocre or bad performance and he still got nominated, I'd be willing to call shenanigans. But as is, it feels more like people being human. You could pick a jury of voters and sequester them away from all news and hype for the entire year and you still wouldn't be able to totally eliminate the role of personal biases and feelings in the voting process.

As long as the Oscars are picked by people - people in the filmmaking industry at that - concerns beyond the actual films and performances will influence the selection process. Someone who's reaching the end of a long career in film may have a better shot at winning than a new face who voters may feel will have plenty of time to do more and potentially better things. I've heard it postulated that the Oscars given to "The Return of the King" were partially meant to honor the achievement of the entire "Lord of the Rings" series, and what single film can hope to compete when one of the nominated films is really three? There's the rumor that Eddie Murphy's chances of winning the Oscar for his role in "Dreamgirls" were crippled by his less than Oscar friendly performance/s in "Norbit." And possibly the biggest Oscar scandal of all, the whole "Hoop Dreams" fiasco. The last of these was pretty obviously shady, but most of the other stuff is harder to pin down. Oscar voting ultimately comes down to people's opinions, and no matter who you are, those can be influenced.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 8:56:12 am EST from 146.115.115.33

Patrick> What is a "best boy" anyway?
Algernon
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 7:35:15 am EST from 149.157.1.184

The Academy Awards have always been a real "whatever" thing for me. There are a lot of movies that I've thought were terrifc that haven't been Oscar winners, and a lot of really lame ones that have. As for actors, directors, composers, best boys, key grips, and the like... an Oscar and $3.50 will get you a cappuccino at Starbucks.
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 7:02:26 am EST from 66.61.27.56

Rebel> "Nor should they be denied a nomination because they're dead--not that I have anything against the living, but the dead deserve fair and equal consideration regardless of their dead-ness."

Undead Yes! Unperson No! Though in all seriousness, Ledger totally deserves the nomination if not the award; his portrayal of the Joker was nothing less jaw dropping.
Algernon - [padraig dot j dot griffin at nuim dot ie]
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 5:57:59 am EST from 149.157.1.180

not to say his acting could ever be matched, but atleast his makeup and his character were so extreme that a replacement for the next one might not be so jarring. obviously the new joker couldnt get much screen time (they'd most likely be centering a new villan anyway), but they could easily avoid it looking like he just disappeared.
sTiTcH
posted @ Fri, Jan 23, 2009 12:49:04 am EST from 205.188.117.134

Rebel, don't forget the money and the meaning that is tied to an academy award.

3 Oscars = upayable!! If you've won 3 Oscars, studios are bidding the highest sums for you - which might be cool, but als quite bad, considering that you cannot play the films you want, because those films cannot afford 50 Million dollars to pay you!!!

Apart from this, a.) watch the Dark Knight b.) I think Heath Ledger should have ben nominated both for his acting in MONSTERS BALL and I'M NOT THERE, aside from DARK KNIGHT and c.) he OWNED that film. Put an F word before owned. He's a goddamn maniac in that film, and achieves a performance, that I've seen very seldomly on screen. He certainly was satring into the abyss, and the abyss might have stared back at him... who knows...
Brook
posted @ Thu, Jan 22, 2009 6:44:33 pm EST from 84.191.215.64

I think the oscar people need to re-do how they do things then. Whether someone is dead or alive, old or young, new to acting or a veteran, in prison or a philanthropist, or just a normal person, it shouldn't make any difference in the nominating and awarding decisions. Also, how recently their last nomination/award was shouldn't matter either. The only thing they should be considering in making the nominations and giving the awards is whoever gave the best performance that year. That's it. Nothing else.

I haven't seen the Dark Knight, so I can't comment on Ledger's performance. But, if the fact that he's dead is part of the reason why he got nominated, then that's totally inappropriate. Nobody should get nominated because they're dead. Nor should they be denied a nomination because they're dead--not that I have anything against the living, but the dead deserve fair and equal consideration regardless of their dead-ness. The only thing that should matter is their performance.

Even if this means giving it to someone who is young and will go on to give much better performances and win more awards. So what if it means they might win an award several years in a row? That should make no difference. The past and the future should not be concerns, only the performances from the year in question, and whose were best.
Rebel
posted @ Thu, Jan 22, 2009 5:39:42 pm EST from 76.165.33.224

"Jim Carry, The Truman Show - for one"

I disagree - I thought his acting in there was over the top and a bit wide-eyed-and-clichee... OK, the whole film could be called that.
But yeah, he did not get a nomination for his haunting performance in ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, neither did the film for best picture.
(also keep in mind that Indie-films like these are nominated in the fewest occasions)

Ledgers nomination has also something to do with Oscar rules. Usually, an actor has to wait for what is considered to be his definite role to win an Oscar. Take a look at Johnny Depp: he has soooooo many brilliant roles - yet is there one DEFINITE role where he brings it all on the point, that you think first of? It might be argued to be either EDWARD, which was an indie film, or Charlie, which he got a nomination for (I still think it is not his greatest though).

It is a lot about politics. Whilst I didn't think BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN was that good a film, Ledger was stellar as an actor, yet the business thought him to be too young, with loads of roles still to come that would outshine this - Both the depiction of The Joker and Bob Dylan proved that. I think that after PARNASUS..., we might have seen his definive role, close to what he did in MONSTERS BALL.
Strange thing, really, that his talent really shone when he was already dead, both I'M NOT THERE and DARK KNIGHT came out sooooooooo way too late... :(

I find it laughably that BAADER MEINHOFF COMPLEX was nominated. Looking at the film, it is a desaster, close to the desaster DER UNTERGANG was. The film is full of bad writing, stupid characters and clumsy research and pathos. Yet, OF COURSE, Oscar nom!!!

If this one wins over WALTZ WITH BASHIR, I'll be REALLY angry. I mean, what they did last year was bad enough with not giving it to DelTorro for his masterpiece, although I can see why THE LIFE OF OTHERS won, and I really likd that film.
Brook
posted @ Thu, Jan 22, 2009 12:33:41 pm EST from 84.191.247.120

Battle Beast > You are such a sweet cousin! ^_^ Any chance you could post a picture of the cell? It might be fun to play guess the episode. No big deal if you cant though.
Litwolf
<Be happy for me and for all who fly free.> - Tobias of Animorphs
posted @ Thu, Jan 22, 2009 12:03:43 pm EST from 209.243.38.9

Sorry.

Brook> After they Nominated Ledger for the Golden Globe, I knew he had a chance to Get an Oscar Nod, although if he didn't I wouldn't have been surprised... that's something the Academy usually does - Not nominated good performances that win the Globe (Jim Carry, The Truman Show - for one).

But when Heath WON - I knew he'd get the Oscar nod. And I belive that he was nominated because he died... it is really hard to say if he would ahve been nomianted had he not died. If he was nominated and was still alive, it would have meant a lot more because the Academy NEVER nominates a performance like Heath's.
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Thu, Jan 22, 2009 12:00:54 pm EST from 75.156.190.146

bROOK> Lord of the Rings 1 did get four Oscars and thirteen Nominations.

Yes, Fellowship was a better film than "mind."

Litwolf> My Scene is of Elisa nd Goliath, although I am trying to figure out from which episode.
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Thu, Jan 22, 2009 11:57:48 am EST from 75.156.190.146

@ Battle: Although I LOVE The Dark Knight, from a technical viewpoint, it is VERY fast cut!!!

I think the film will definetely stand the test of time, but also is looked at a bit as an outsider, kind of how LORD OF THE RINGS 1 didn't et an Oscar, when it would have been more appropriate then when he got one for 3 (when a load of better films where nominated and a better film could have actually won - instead of 2002, where it went to that s***fest A BEAUTIFUL MIND).

That said, I didn't think they'd nominate Ledger. Some might hesitate in voting for him, because they fear the press might say it is due to his death he received it, but I think he deserved it.

Aside from that; i think ARONOFSKY shoud have gotten a nomination for best director, aswell as best film. I hope Rourke gets the statue. :)
Brook
posted @ Thu, Jan 22, 2009 11:43:50 am EST from 84.191.247.120

Battle Beast > What scene does your Animation Cell show?
Litwolf
<Be happy for me and for all who fly free.> - Tobias of Animorphs
posted @ Thu, Jan 22, 2009 10:52:14 am EST from 209.243.38.9

Heath Ledger was nominated for Best Supporting Actor! As usual, the Academy REFUSED to honor a great film with the Best Picture nomination when they failed to give The Dark Knight a nod. Chris Nolan didn't get a nod either, although the flim as a whole got 8 nominations. That's pretty good.

At any rate, check out my web site (clicky on my name) and also check out the OSCAR TRIVIA section, too. that was also updated.

(I am a big Oscar Buff. Sorry for the plug but I kn ow y'all don't mind... besides, how often do I plug my website? Once? Twice a year? Like Siren Says... this isn't spam.)
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Thu, Jan 22, 2009 10:39:00 am EST from 75.156.190.146

I had bought a Gargoyles Animation cel for my cousin, Elisa, who is now only a few weeks old. It came yesterday, and my gosh is it beautiful! I got to show her and she smiled!

Woot!

Oscar Nominations! Now! Woot!
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Thu, Jan 22, 2009 8:39:02 am EST from 75.156.190.146

Newsarama reports that Diamond is increasing the sales threshold for an appearance in Previews: http://www.newsarama.com/comics/010919-Diamond-Thresholds.html Dan Vado of SLG is the first insider to comment and is thus the de facto independent publisher representative to the press: http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/cr_sunday_feature_dan_vados_informal_letter_on_diamonds_new_edicts/

Gargoyles is not directly related since it was always above Diamond's new sales threshold. However, Gargoyles was SLG's best selling floppy during its release months, so maybe this belt-tightening will give it a new focus.
Landon Thomas - [lumpmoose at googles dot email dot service]
posted @ Wed, Jan 21, 2009 3:41:14 pm EST from 128.101.32.234

Antiyonder here.

Algernon> I agree that his luck with women improved, but the whole bad with women is something that did (use to) make him relatable as opposed now. Much like how he use to wear glasses.
Anonymous
posted @ Wed, Jan 21, 2009 12:36:48 pm EST from 66.225.14.190

The main thing that I have in common with Peter Parker is our last name. That and an interest in science, I suppose.

Quiet week.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Must you humans name everything? Nothing is real to you til you've named it, given it limits..." - Hudson
posted @ Wed, Jan 21, 2009 8:48:03 am EST from 70.230.145.71

Antiyonder> Frankly I've never really bought into the whole idea that Pete's unpopular with the ladies. If you actually look at the comics particularly when Lee was writing, pretty much every attractive girl Peter's ever met has lusted over him at one point or another, sometimes all at once. In fact the only girl who didn't seem to show any immediate interest at first was ironically enough, Mary Jane.

Peter's never had any problem attracting women. His real problem is that he keeps blowing them off to go fight Doc Ock then tries to cover his ass with lame excuses. It's not that girls think he's a geeky loser, It's that they thing he's a selfish jerk.

For a more in-depth look at this topic, I refer you to Madgoblin's excellent "Why did it have to be you Mary Jane?" essays.


http://www.spideykicksbutt.com/WhyYouMaryJane/WhyYouMaryJanePart1.html
Algernon
posted @ Wed, Jan 21, 2009 7:51:30 am EST from 149.157.1.180

Kind of dead today, huh?

Antiyonder : Hm. Tough question. I don't think I really have much in common with our favourite web-slinger. About the only thing I can think of is that we both dated one of our best friends from high school: and in both cases it ended rather messily. (Though Sam, thankfully, was *not* thrown off a bridge.)
Spen
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
posted @ Wed, Jan 21, 2009 3:41:03 am EST from 66.43.205.110

I don't think this is actually relatable, but I got a kick out of the scene in the season finale when Peter tries cooking Thanksgiving dinner - and it's a complete disaster. (I've cooked my own Thanksgiving dinners for the past twelve years or so without similar mishaps - but then, they tend to be much simpler than what he was going for.) Not to mention the moment at the end when he pours the gene cleanser down the drain, with the grand dramatic moment about accepting his role as Spider-Man - and then it turns into a big foamy mess that he has to clean up all over again.

J. Jonah Jameson touched on that aspect of Peter Parker/Spider-Man in the Shocker episode with his talk about the public wanting to see their heroes fail (though I think most of us would have put it less cynically than he did).
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Tue, Jan 20, 2009 7:39:45 am EST from 4.244.212.235

I've been meaning to have this particular Spider-Man discussion on here for quite sometime, and figured with some recent discussions on the character that I'll post my question.

One More Day events aside, one aspect that has made Spider-Man a popular character is that in his civilian identity for the most part that he is an everyman. Not a brilliant scientist on the level of intelligence like Reed Richards, Tony Stark or Bruce Banner for instance.

That said, which about the character do/did you find relatable?

For me, it's the lack of popularity with the opposite sex. Not that I'm incapable of speaking to a girl mind you. Also, even when I'm in my best shape, I'm certainly no jock. Then of course I too require glasses.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Tue, Jan 20, 2009 5:57:08 am EST from 71.120.226.102

Litwolf> you can always use Google's site search feature: just type your query followed by site:http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/ in the search box.
bluewyvern
"Attend the petty jealousies and angers that prey upon your heart."
posted @ Tue, Jan 20, 2009 1:03:02 am EST from 208.194.97.9

Greg> When I said I didn't find anything about the anthologies on Gargwiki, I meant like a reference to their existance, like under the Gathering of the Gargoyles section. I thought the titles for each book might be listed with the year it came out. I never expected that the stories would be written about and tied in with the cannon material. I know that would just open up a worm whole for fanfiction everywhere. Like I said, I just thought the titles/topic of the books might be linked to the Gathering pages. But I guess not.
Charisma82
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 11:37:32 pm EST from 64.128.148.204

Quick question: I remember some time ago, someone showed a trick for how to 'Search' through the Ask Greg questions without going through the actual 'Search' function, since its still on the fritz. Does anyone remember how that trick went? I think there was a link or something and Im having trouble finding it.
Litwolf
<Be happy for me and for all who fly free.> - Tobias of Animorphs
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 11:29:06 pm EST from 209.243.38.9

Demonskrye >> That's not bad, considering this is coming from IGN. Now I'm curious as to the criteria they used...
The One Known As Mochi - [shogi dot keima dot 08 at gmail dot com]
Current Mood: (>-.-)> Zzz...
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 7:48:39 pm EST from 72.220.141.188

Largely video game focused website IGN.com has been running a countdown of their top 100 animated series of all time. Some of the selections seem a little questionable to me, but several positive mentions of "Spectacular Spider-Man" (which hasn't claimed its own spot on the list just yet) kept me waiting to see if a particular related show would make the cut. Click my name to see what joined the luck 100 today, with a pretty good write-up to boot.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 7:23:48 pm EST from 146.115.115.33

I was rereading my copy of Roger Lancelyn Green's retelling of the Arthurian legend today, and noticed this passage at the end of his account of the Grail Quest. In Green's account, after the Grail Quest ends, Percival and Blanchefleur are married and rule over Carbonek and the lands about it. Green then says "But when the last battle had been fought and the realm of Logres was no more, Percivale's kingdom made still a little light in the darkness of a Britain conquered and laid waste by the barbarians."

I wondered if this passage could have been Greg Weisman's inspiration for the notion of Percival founding the Illuminati. The word "light" would be particularly appropriate, since "Illuminati" is Latin for "enlightened ones". It would certainly make sense for Percival to initially found the Illuminati as an antidote to the troubles of the Dark Ages, following the end of Arthur's reign. As soon as "Ask Greg" goes up again, I'll have to ask him about it.
Todd Jensen
www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 7:08:32 pm EST from 4.244.209.225

Wow... I completely forgot about this year's anthology! Luckily, I already had somewhat of a head start, but I haven't finished anything yet. And if there's one thing I learned from seeing my artwork in last year's anthology it's that I went too heavy with the dark colors (and the "clouds" I created didn't come out very well either). I'm avoiding that this year.

Back to lurking I go...
The One Known As Mochi - [shogi dot keima dot 08 at gmail dot com]
Current Mood: (>-.-)> Zzz...
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 6:24:14 pm EST from 72.220.141.188

In reference to contacting SLG (or at least getting their attention), their Contact page on their website has a phone number and an email address for questions. Has anyone tried contacting them that way? I might do so if no one else has, I just wanted to know if anyone has taken that route yet.
Litwolf
<Be happy for me and for all who fly free.> - Tobias of Animorphs
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 4:34:37 pm EST from 209.243.38.9

Charisma> The reason the anthologies are not listed on the GargWiki is because they are fanfiction. The GargWiki focuses on canon, canon-in-training and official apocrypha. Nothing else. If we started including fanfiction, the flood gates would open, the wiki would lose sight of what it's about, and it certainly wouldn't be Greg friendly.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
George W. Bush is finally GTFO!
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 4:02:58 pm EST from 24.205.39.101

Hey. I've heard about the anthologies that are sold each year at the Gatherings and they sound interesting. I've been trying to find info on them like on Gargwiki, but they aren't listed there. I was wondering if someone who has read a few of them could answer a few questions about them for me.

Like, about how many stories are allowed in each book? How long have the books been in past editions? What are the titles of the anthologies that have come out so far (I know last year's was called "Items of Enchantment", but besides that, I don't know any of the others). Is there anywhere online you can buy any of the past anthologies?

I'd also appreciate any information people have about the anthologies that I didn't ask about as well. Thanks in advance for any info you can give me.
Charisma82
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 3:58:14 pm EST from 64.128.148.204

And we haven't got an update in 3 months, except for Hutchison's censored cover art. AskGreg isn't accepting questions, so if someone has a Twitter account, they could tweet SLG about it: http://twitter.com/SLGPublishing
Landon Thomas - [lumpmoose at googles dot email dot service]
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 2:51:20 pm EST from 128.101.32.234

I guess no new gargoyles comics this month. So much for a January release.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happened to simplicity?
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 2:38:15 pm EST from 98.20.154.9

sorry for the double I mean to say moved to LA, although I'm sure the context was clear enough lol
Justin
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 1:44:39 pm EST from 75.84.195.165

hey ,
many of you know me as the occasional lurker.
I wanted to inform all of the LA area garg fans that I've moved t
Just got in Friday, any tips or advice would be awesome!
Justin
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 12:30:47 pm EST from 75.84.195.165

Damn I missed out, my fault for getting up late
VickyUK - [vickyfanofwwe at aol dot com]
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 7:21:20 am EST from 64.12.117.134

11th of the name of barely missing.

Oh, yeah, there is no 11th.

Never mind. :)

Vin> I'd like to know as much as you do, maybe even more.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 7:19:49 am EST from 69.223.183.185

Tenth.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Though I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe." -Jubal Harshaw ("Stranger In a Strange Land")
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 6:43:31 am EST from 71.62.136.51

........................9th... Any word on when the last issue/book of the Gargoyles comic is coming out?

Vin
castle0909
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 6:22:12 am EST from 72.77.209.104

I'm guessing 8th? In the name of... well, loving Gargoyles? That sounds good.
Charisma82
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 3:52:44 am EST from 64.128.148.204

Popping in to remind folks that submissions are still open for this year's Gathering Anthology! Theme is "Hotel Cabal."

Deadline for stories and art has been moved back a month, to April 1st, so there's plenty more time if you need it!

Guidelines here:
http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2009/anthology.html

LJ community here:
http://community.livejournal.com/g_anthologies/
Christine - [christine at sabledrake dot com]
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 3:11:43 am EST from 70.56.94.10

Sixth!
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 2:26:03 am EST from 75.156.190.146

I plead the 5th.

Although, if my math is right, if we don't hear any news about any of the trade paperbacks this week, it'll be February before either comes out.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happened to simplicity?
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 1:42:32 am EST from 98.20.154.9

Fourth!
lonerider26 - [lonerider26 at gmail dot com]
"The story is told--though who can say if it be true..."~Shari
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 1:23:09 am EST from 68.51.71.104

Third for being in the National Mall today (and being frozen to the core) . . . .
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy Wonka
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 12:39:15 am EST from 75.148.6.218

****Blaise flies in.****

SECOND!

****Blaise flies out.****
Blaise
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 12:35:29 am EST from 68.122.164.111

First!

First on a very special day.
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Register for the Gathering of the Gargoyles]
George W. Bush is finally GTFO!
posted @ Mon, Jan 19, 2009 12:27:16 am EST from 24.205.39.101