Comment Room : Gargoyles : A Station Eight Fan Web Site

I think I'll stay clear of this Constance/pig discussion as I have nothing more to add.

ANTIYONDER: Thanks for that article. I came away with two things, well, two things I already knew. Michael Bay is an arrogant hack, and Megan Fox is really, really, really stupid.

I saw Megan Fox on Letterman. She was talking about how she dropped out of High School but at the same time puffing herself up by talking about how it was because she didn't get along with authority figures and how she was top of her class in the correspondence class she took instead of High School. That's called a GED, dear, and it's not really something to brag about.

And, well, while I appreciate her honesty... her job now is to PROMOTE THE MOVIE! PROMOTE! If this weren't Hollywood, she'd have been fired.

She's not smart, and I personally don't find her particularly attractive. But, if most people didn't think she was hot, she'd be flipping burgers with just her GED.

As for Bay... You know what gets me the most? Michael Bay taking credit for these peoples' careers.

Will Smith was already a star. A TV star and a grammy award winning rapper. He had signed on for Independence Day well before "Bad Boys" was released. Martin Lawrence was already a star too. Bay did not launch their careers. If anything, those two launched him by agreeing to be in his first movie... before that, all he directed were music videos.

He definitely exaggerated about Nic Cage. Hell, Nic Cage won an Oscar before being in "The Rock." Not to mention little movies like "Raising Arizona." Ben Affleck got a lot of media attention thanks to "Good Will Hunting." A movie for which he won an Oscar.

As for Shia... I think we all know Spielberg is the one who's investing a lot into making him a star. "Disturbia" was a DreamWorks film... Spielberg owns DreamWorks. Spielberg produced "Transformers." Spielberg directed "Indiana Jones 4." Spielberg executive produced "Eagle Eye."

I'll give Bay this, he did make Megan Fox.
Greg Bishansky - [<----- Gathering 2009]
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 2:37:32 pm EDT from 76.95.184.71

Brook> Well, muscle is heavier than fat, so...

Coco> Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but surely when you want to turn a stereotype on its head, you have to at least acknowledge the stereotype?
Supermorff
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 2:27:41 pm EDT from 81.155.46.2

Brook > That depends on which panel you're looking at. Hedgecock didn't draw her consistently. In the panel at the end of #7, I agree she doesn't really look fat. In that panel, she looks like she's just a bigger-boned girl with lots of muscle (almost like a female bodybuilder). But, in many of the panels in #8, she looks overweight to me, although she always looks really muscular as well.

Anyway, whether she's overweight or not, she most certainly is a "heavier" girl. She probably outweighs Angela/Demona/Una by a substantial amount, regardless of how much of that extra weight is lean body mass and how much is fat.

In thinking about it more, however, I think Coco's overall design does more good for the Gargoyles Universe than any harm her resemblance to a pig could do. It always irked me that male gargoyles had this huge range of appearances--some were hunky, some were tiny, some were cute, some were heavy, some were scrawny, some were unattractive, some had beaks, some had simian faces, some had huge under-bites, and so on and so forth. Although Ophelia does (arguably) introduce some diversity into female gargoyles (if you think she's unattractive, which I don't), all the rest of them fit the same basic model: thin, feminine, human-like, sexy. The only exception here is Una, but that's only because she's a member of the London clan and resembling animals is normal (and even despite her animal resemblance, she is still thin and feminine, and in my opinion, still sexy).

It would actually bother me MORE if there were males amongst the London clan who could be big, burly, and boar-ish, but the females only resembled aesthetically appealing animals and were always feminine and thin.
Rebel
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 2:26:46 pm EDT from 75.64.82.30

@ Rebel: But she isn'tvery heavy. She's more muscular/masculine, but definetely not "heavier" (or even fat).
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 1:38:32 pm EDT from 84.191.212.175

PGFish > "The point I'm trying to make is that I'm not happy that the only non hourglass figure female gargoyle we've seen resembles an animal that is frequently negatively associated with larger women."

I see your point, and I think I agree with you. Constance could have still been a heavy girl and looked like a different animal besides a pig/boar.
Rebel
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 12:51:38 pm EDT from 75.64.82.30

Purplegoldfish: I honestly don't understand your problem with this character. Coco kicks butt and is second-in-command of the London Clan. You'd think women of different body types would be happy that Coco gives them a good name. So, what if she looks like a pig? She's still awesome. That makes me happy anyway. Would you be happier if she didn't exist, or if she had a different look to her? Me, I love Coco the way she is and wouldn't have her any other way.

Can you imagine if Broadway had been Coco, as it was originally intended? People would still be arguing about it. We all lamented the fact that every female in the show had the same hourglass figure. Finally, Greg Weisman introduces Coco and people are offended. Now I understand why he changed Broadway's gender in the first place, and why all the females in the show look the way they do.

We all dislike people who believe in stereotypes. But I think it's just as bad when people look for stereotypes in everything so they can be offended. It's the reason everything has to be "politically correct" these days. People are taking it to extremes and it's only going to get worse if people insist on finding things to be offended about. I'm not saying that's you, of course. Just food for thought.

I think it's time to see this character in a different light. Coco's just a heavyset female gargoyle who happens to look like a pig/boar. No ulterior motive... no stereotype... and nothing sinister. That's all there is to it. ;)
D. Taina
RIP, Michael Jackson.
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 10:42:24 am EDT from 74.213.102.236

Purple> Oh really? heh. ^_^;; I'm a bit far behind in some of the 'latest' events with comics in the universe.. (my comic store wasn't getting my comics before the 'hault' happened) so I have been missing a few here and there. I saw it in the gargoyle wiki so I presumed it was revealed and I hadn't seen it (or Greg had mentioned it on Ask Greg?) Sorry for the accidental spoilers then. @.@;;

I can see your point of view, I just don't necessarily agree with it. :) Only again because as others have states, sometimes there is reasons behind character design.. especially in Greg's stories, and again, it's not what I personally saw. <:) (And lol I am insanely self conscience about my appearance/weight)

As for The London Gargoyles not fitting the standard 'gargoyle' look, it would really depend on what you perceive the standard gargoyle look to be? :) It is true, for the most part from the show we have had viewpoints three other clans, the Guatamalan clan, the Japanese clan, and the Wyvern/Manhattan clan which follow more of a humanoid look in design than animal one. :) BUT, we have _several_ clans not encountered that it could be that the humanoid-ish look is more of a rarity. (I mean, afterall, Zafiro isn't humanoid looking (arguably)?)

Also, while Raven's 'clan' was NOT based off of African American Gargoyles in general.. it had Goliath fooled enough to presume that gargoyles with animalistic traits exist/are common in the genepool.

I will agree, I think Una and Stagheart are too 'lanky' for my tastes and that's something I don't particularly like with their designs, but again, I honestly didn't really see the correlation between animal stereotypes and the London clans designs until you brought it up. :) (Wouldn't mind a burly stock horse either, since actually, most heraldry depicts unicorns as 'stocky'. (It's the tapestry pictures etc that make them gangly thin... but then again, tapestry pictures make ALL their subjects gangly thin. XD)

Still, interesting conversation, even if we disagree. :)
Siryn
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 9:27:04 am EDT from 75.186.8.243

Brook> That creatures not an actual pig though, it's a sea cucumber. By the way the reason pigs wallow in mud is to remove skin parasites, so they really are very hygenic in their own way.
Algernon
"Me have crazy times in 70s and 80s, Me like the Robert Downey Jnr of cookies" -Cookie Monster
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 8:01:19 am EDT from 149.157.1.180

PGFish> "And there's a flaw in your argument. people with backgrounds like Elisa, Morgan, etc, really exist. People with wings and pig snouts don't. It's not fair to compare the two."

- But in the Gargoyles Universe they DO exist. And Constance is one of them. That is just the way it is. It is what she looks like, not who she is.

As a gay man, I've given your fairy0winged and antennaed Staghart analogy a lot of thought. What occurs to me is that if a gargoyle had a good reason to look like a fairy and happened to be (possibly) gay, I can't see why it would bother me. London gargoyles take heraldic forms. A boar is a heraldic animal. Thus, Constance happens to have a boar form. Again, it is what she looks like, not who she is.

And I heartily agree that Constance isn't a boar, Una isn't a Unicorn, Leo isn't a lion, etc. The complaint has been made before, however, concerning how strongly they resemble these animals down to foot shape, bone structure, etc. That is a fair criticism of their designs, I suppose, but I chalk it up to Greg's Chameleon Mutation Gene or whatever. This is just the way that these gargoyles look. As with any gargoyles, some features just don't mix well. For instance, you likely wouldn't see a Hudson-like gargoyle with Lexington-like wings (fyi, this is a big reason I suspect wing types are directly connected with overall body size). So, a boar-like gargoyle might not be able to genetically mix with a slender gargoyle. Or maybe it can and does and Constance just isn't one of those gargoyles. But keep in mind that mixing does happen among the London Clan. Griff and Pog both display features from more than one beast archetype. And I suspect that in the Gargoyles Universe, the original source of griffon and hippogriff (and other) legends came from just such mixing in London Clan and probably other clans as well.

Even Constance herself does display some mixing of features apparently. Her wings are decidedly not typical of London gargoyles.

Alright everybody, I'm off to Chicago for the holiday weekend. Have a good Fourth of July if you are American and have a great weekend if you are not! Later!
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Farewell, my enemies!" -Macbeth Robot, 'The Price'
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 7:29:32 am EDT from 70.230.177.103

Sorry for the double

Siryn: I didn't say I had anything against big girl gargoyles. VERY far from it. The point I'm trying to make is that I'm not happy that the only non hourglass figure female gargoyle we've seen resembles an animal that is frequently negatively associated with larger women.

And I'm glad that you didn't see the connection. You're lucky. Like I said in my most recent post, I'm a bit jaded, but that comes from personal experience, so I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me, but at least respect my view on the matter. (Oh btw, I don't think it was revealed yet that she was second in command ;))
Purplegoldfish
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 4:43:52 am EDT from 69.183.43.133

Constance- well, it seems this conversation got the room more active lol. That's always a good thing.

"But, I also think you risk falling into the stereotypecasting trap yourself. You see the character as she looks and are offended. But isn't that a stereotype itself? Are you not judging her by her looks? You are essentially saying, "I think this is a good character, I just wish she had a different appearance." What if someone said that about Elisa or Morgan or Chavez or Terry Chung? They might be labeled as rascist."

I see what you're saying. I admit I am being shallow, but that's the point. I don't dislike the character or think she has to look a certain way-I'm just calling as it as I see it-how I think others might see it. I admit I'm jaded and cynical, but there's reasons for that.

And there's a flaw in your argument. people with backgrounds like Elisa, Morgan, etc, really exist. People with wings and pig snouts don't. It's not fair to compare the two.

And I think people are misunderstanding me. I don't have anything against pigs. But when someone calls you or your friends "pigs", they're not referring to your intelligence. I think pigs get an unfair rap-but that doesn't change the fact that they are used in a negative conotation. Hey, fairies are cool, but how many gay guys like being called that? I'm pretty sure if Staghart sported fairy wings and antennae and had sparkles coming off of him, some people would be upset, and rightfully so. So why is it so hard to understand my gripe?

Again, Contance is not a boar, Staghart is not a deer, leo is not a lion ect-they're gargoyles-more related to Goliath and Demona than to lions and boars. Real boars and pigs have large bone structure. But that doesn't mean the same should be true of Contance, because she's not a boar. That's the problems with these designs-The characters resemble winged animals more than gargoyles and they're equated too much with their animal counterparts. From what I've gathered from some of the biological discussion in here (from the few things I understood, lol), the gargoyles don't share any sort of genetics with their animal counterparts-so it would be perfectly normal to have a thin boar-like gargoyles, or a "burly" horse/unicorn or deer gargoyle. But that's not the case with any of the characters we've seen-and that's why I'm calling "Stereotype"
Purplegoldfish
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 4:30:27 am EDT from 69.183.43.133

A while ago there was talk of making Phoenix Gate T-shirts in the style of the Superman 'S'. It occurs to me that we also need baseball caps with the Eye of Odin.
Supermorff
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 4:11:25 am EDT from 62.25.109.195

Greg's interview on 'Reinforcement': http://tv.ign.com/articles/100/1000892p1.html IGN always manages to eke out the best info.
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter feed]
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 2:28:15 am EDT from 72.11.100.194

Antiyonder> I tell everyone this. Wanna see true Michael Bay in action? Watch the Transformers movie making of special features where he talks about butt-hurt fans. Heh... He digs his own hole and puts up a gravestone to boot, but I still liked the movie. Loved it? No. The more I think of it, themore I laugh at the dumb stuff. But I still went to go see it and wasn't sorry. I WAS glad I waited till Woverine went to the $3 theater and saw it there however...
Jade Griffin - [jade_griffin at hotmail dot com]
"Food, food, FOOD!!" - Jade Griffin, on many occasions
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 1:57:26 am EDT from 71.94.79.73

Warcrafter> LOLmuch for the Nostalgia Critic Review of TF2, Roflmao!!
Jade Griffin - [jade_griffin at hotmail dot com]
"Food, food, FOOD!!" - Jade Griffin, on many occasions
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 1:55:42 am EDT from 71.94.79.73

Darn... More ppl are voting to make this a forum. I like the comment room form! Always have:) Well, Gore, Do whatcha gotta.

Purplegoldfish> I see a lot of stir over your comment. Don't take it the wrong way. Any gargoyles debate is usually a good one! You raised a valid point in your opinion and we're just expressing our views. It just looks like more people didn't see it your way.

Matt> You raised pigs, too? My dad's the true mountain man, makes his own shot, goes to rendevous, etc. He also fishes and hunts the old way. He's a bowman (also does shotgun, mind you) and back when it was still allowed on Catalina (California), he would go pig hunting. Sometimes he'd bring back a baby and we'd raise that little squealer:) Big fun! And boy did those wild stock get big!

Although they were imports, they were still considered wild pig. Not the English or Southern boar but close. A lot bigger than any peckary. And yes, they do like mud:) Pigs don't sweat so it keeps them cool, plus it keeps the bugs off! Smart animals? Sure. Smarter than cats and dogs? Not sure. Definitely trainable, but definitely more stubborn that a cat... And that's my "know" on pigs. Back to you, Vannah.
Jade Griffin - [jade_griffin at hotmail dot com]
"Food, food, FOOD!!" - Jade Griffin, on many occasions
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 1:47:10 am EDT from 71.94.79.73

Purplegoldfish> Actually, as someone who has been around pigs more than cats (that's over 20 years, mind you), I am very familiar with the physique of the porcine and I can tell you that even slim pigs are round. They are built to be slippery little buggars, and hardy, too. I don't think anyone has successfully pulled off a "slim" pig except the beautiful movie "Penelope". And she only had a pig nose. I'm only saying that it's a stereotype because it's kinda hard to draw a picture of an anthro pig and make it look "right" without making the character have big bones if nothing else. Pigs are robust animals like horses, instead of gracile like house cats and foxes. On that note, go rent "Penelope". It's a great movie:)
Jade Griffin - [jade_griffin at hotmail dot com]
"Food, food, FOOD!!" - Jade Griffin, on many occasions
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 1:31:53 am EDT from 71.94.79.73

Probably stating the obvious here, but Michael Bay strokes his own ego here: http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/us-magazine-megan-fox-bay.html
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
Algernon's comment about Norman Osborn: One of the neat things about Dark Reign is that it gives Osborn the chance to expand his horizons beyond tormenting a twenty nine year old who still lives with his mom.
posted @ Fri, Jul 3, 2009 1:10:38 am EDT from 71.115.231.114

Thanks for your help, everyone. Of course it occurred to me to check out Ask Greg AFTER I post. :-P

It's so sad that the Gathering bank is empty. It is with a heavy heart that I agree with Greg's suggestion. I will most certainly enjoy this Gathering to its fullest.
Guardian - [Guardian105 at gmail dot com]
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 10:55:50 pm EDT from 76.219.185.199

Just read the Gathering thing :( I've only attended one, the Orlando one. I haven't attended other mostly due to money. I'm a single mom and just not have the money to travel across country, but god did I ever want to.

I am saddened by the turn of events. But I don't think it has to be the end at all. Like Greg said, people can still put on Gatherings. I also think Gargoyles fans should take into account there are 100s of other cons out there we can piggyback with. The FX con I went to in Orlando a few months ago had a LOT of Buffy actors. Spike, Drusilla, Glory, Darla, among others. It was NOT a Buffy con, but a lot of Buffy actors signed on. Thus bringing in a lot of Buffy fans. And they had entire panels all about Buffy. I am sure if each one of us garnered more interest in our own local cons that visit near your hometown every year, we can start panels within existing cons. Its just an idea.
Siren
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 10:14:24 pm EDT from 72.188.167.24

Pigs are actually considered the smartest domestic animal. That includes being smarter and than dogs and cats. They have passed tests that only chimpanzees, dolphins, and humans have passed as well.
Siren
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 10:08:25 pm EDT from 72.188.167.24

@ Algernon- i used to raise pigs and the reason they get seriotyped that way is because they pretty much just eat and lay in the mud. they are smart though and can be trained.
Matt T. - [mattstewto at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 7:20:23 pm EDT from 66.233.9.44

As the person who 'voiced' Coco in the last radio play, I can tell you I wasn't offended at all that she was a boar - gargoyle, or that she was sizeable - or being 'cast' as her. (I honestly didn't even make the connection large gargoyle = fat pig until it was brought up here.)

I mean, from what I've observed, (and know) so far, she's an extremely fun loving/playful/loyal character. AND isn't she second in command of the London clan? Doesn't that stock up a few points to her credit? (The fact she's from the younger generation and is a second in command? When you've got a population of older gargoyles - unlike the Manhattan clan - to choose from as well?

I also love the tusks and pigtails in her design. *L* I think she's pretty sweet looking. XD

(Although, I'm the weird one - I personally LOVE Ophelia's design even though people have commented in the past it's rather 'manly' and she has weird horns).

And I don't really think a heavyset gargoyle is a BAD thing. Far be it for all gargoyles to be slim skinny barbie supermodels. :P Because, that ITSELF is ALSO a 'cultural stereotype.

(If this were so, we'd probably having a discussion on the unrealistic interpretation of the female body and how this comic like many others is helping to add to the media's distortion of woman's self esteem, etc, etc, etc.)

As people have pointed out, maybe the POINT of Coco's appearance is to defy 'common' established stereotypes associated... but again, as a viewer and speaker, I never have been offended or took personally of Coco's appearance or what heraldric animal she is... and yes, I am a girl. XD
Siryn
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 5:03:23 pm EDT from 75.186.8.243

@ Algernon: Well, google SEA PIG, and that pretty much tells you all you need to know.
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 4:25:18 pm EDT from 84.191.197.237

Lurker> http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10733
Anthony Tini
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 4:06:11 pm EDT from 159.240.11.254

Lurker> I'm not 100% sure, but Greg tends to avoid question like that, even in the general sense. I think it would be kind of tough to say even generally how many gargoyles there were on earth at the population's zenith.

You could probably make a reasonable guesstimate about the current gargoyle population. Some clans we know the numbers for (assuming you mean present day in the Gargoyles universe, not 2009) and maybe we could even sort out a rough average number of members in a healthy gargoyle clan for those we don't. I believe Greg once said that the original Wyvern clan had around 200 members at its largest, and we know the London Clan has close to 200 gargoyles currently. But the Wyvern Clan existed a thousand years ago and the London Clan has been practicing population control for an unspecified amount of time and has no gargoyle beasts. So maybe we can assume that a modern clan, protected from any major population decreasing disasters and free to grow without worry of overcrowding their current home, might be somewhat larger than 200 gargoyles?
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 4:03:50 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

Has Greg ever addressed what the current world gargoyles population currently is and what it was at its highest? Not talking an exact number, just something like, its currently in the ten of thousands range and highest was in the millions range, something like that.
Lurker - [johnr783 at hotmail dot com]
I have officially lost my namesake.
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 3:46:02 pm EDT from 70.115.200.18

Guardian> I would still recommend you read Greg's ramble on the subject, but the shortest way to put it was that the Gathering was losing money. Not that I have any personal experience, but as I understand it, the ideal situation is for a convention of any size and sort is to make money that can then be put towards next year's convention. Breaking even is not great, but can work. Losing money is unsustainable. Between the costs of putting on a good con and steadily falling attendance, the Gathering was costing more money than it was taking in and the difference was coming out of the staff's own pockets. So rather than hand a new convention staff a pile of debt instead of a war chest, the staff took Greg's suggestion to make this the last Gathering.

Aside from knowing that it's a risky proposition, there isn't really anything stopping another group of people from starting up their own "Gargoyles" convention. Before now, you probably could not call that convention "The Gathering of the Gargoyles," but I don't know whether that name would be free to use after 2009. You would have to ask the staff, though I would suggest that a new name would help to make it clear that this was a different convention run by different people. I'm pretty sure anyone who has been on the Gathering staff would tell you that it takes a lot of work to put on a convention and that you should be prepared to either start out very small or sink a good amount of your own money into it.

That's pretty much the story from last week, before the fights broke out.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 3:31:25 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

Specifically, Greg's explanation as to why there will be no more Gathering As We Know It (but if you want to do your own we won't stop you): http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/latest.php?rid=818
Karine "Kanthara" Charlebois - [kanthara at gmail dot com]
I kick ass and take names.
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 3:26:03 pm EDT from 208.84.104.226

Guardian: Well, you could just look at the morass in last week's CR archive . . . but I'd recommend Greg Weisman's ramble (which was also posted last week).

Greg explained it as honestly and succinctly as he could, in my opinion, but I'll let you make your own judgement on the matter.
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy Wonka
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 3:12:51 pm EDT from 70.190.63.238

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I'm still trying to find a reason as to why the Gathering will be done after this year. Is there a page I can visit that has the reasons behind it?

Additionally, if it's simply that the current staff has had their fill (thirteen years IS a long run, I will admit), would it be possible to inject new blood into the system somehow?

Any assistance is appreciated.

By the way, absolutely LOVE the new look!
Guardian - [Guardian105 at gmail dot com]
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 3:04:23 pm EDT from 76.219.185.199

Why is everyone so down on pigs anyway? They're cute, intelligent, hygenic animals yet people equate them with ugly, stupid slobs. What did pigs ever do to you?

http://www.oneinchpunch.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/cute_pig08.jpg

If that doesn't melt your heart then you simply have no soul.
Algernon
"Me have crazy times in 70s and 80s, Me like the Robert Downey Jnr of cookies" -Cookie Monster
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 1:44:53 pm EDT from 149.157.1.180

I sincerely hope we meet more members of the London clan when the trade comes out. And not just Lunette and Old Pog, but quite a number of Gargoyles. Even if they don't have speaking parts, I just want to see more London Gargoyles.
Rebel
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 1:07:10 pm EDT from 75.64.82.30

Skye - Great point...and I have to admit, I like the tusks too. Not to mention that if they weren't there, the pig confusion would just multiply ^^'
Venus/Rika - [VenusAD at gmail dot com]
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 1:02:54 pm EDT from 169.253.4.21

Constance> Well she's not literally a boar. She's a gargoyle who happens to look like a boar. So it's not unreasonable for her to have some features that wouldn't make sense on a female wild boar. I happen to like her tusks because they make her look more unique and a little more threatening, even if she doesn't actually use them to fight in any way.

It'll be interesting to see if any female lion-like gargoyles in the London Clan have something akin to a "mane" or hair, even though lionesses don't.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 12:58:45 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

Re: Constance - I think just about everyone has touched on any point I could make about this...well, except for one that I just thought of:

First off: Constance is AWESOME.

Anyway, about her body type...I checked out her picture again just in case, and noticed that she's not technically overweight...she has a different body type, yes, but she's more very muscular and stout. Which, is really just like a boar.

With the animal-like gargoyles, they seem to all have body types that are appropriate to the animal: Una is very slender and lanky like a unicorn should be, Leo is very stout and barrel-chested, as is Griff, etc etc.

Honestly, if a Boar-goyle were made--male or female--I would be highly irritated if they didn't have that sort of bodytype.

But my ONE beef, I must confess...is that she has tusks! Female boars don't have tusks. And her nose is pink, which I think is what causes people to confuse the pig thing. Boars noses are a very dark brown. Not pink.

...but I completely do agree that the only females we have seen until now have all had slender, fit builds in one way or another. And I know that may be the ideal and it's certainly the go to for drawing it...but women are so underrepresented and so objectified in comics as it is. It may be difficult, but we should all stay aware of projecting stereotypes and including different body types.

Constance is an awesome start, but we definitely need to see more gargoyles with different body types. I remember being just nine years old and wishing there were more females for me to run around on the playground pretending to be.

Instead, we just turned Brooklyn into a female. That's right.

Hah!
Venus/Rika - [VenusAD at gmail dot com]
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 12:01:20 pm EDT from 169.253.4.21

I guess my concerns about Constance are less that she's a heavyset female gargoyle who resembles a pig/boar and more than she is the first and so far only heavyset female gargoyles we've seen and she has the features of a pig/boar. I think when we start to see more gargoyles with varying body types - as I hope we will - Coco looking somewhat like a pig will seem less significant. Personally, I like Coco quite a bit, including her design. Visually, she may well be my favorite new character from the comics so far. But I can see how someone would look at the fact that the first female gargoyle we've seen who doesn't have an hourglass figure also resembles a pig and feel a little uncomfortable, at least initially.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 10:31:14 am EDT from 146.115.115.33

Adam> Scroll to the bottom of the Comment Room and look at my first post this week. Hopefully that answers your question(s).
Anthony Tini
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 10:22:41 am EDT from 159.240.11.254

I think Constance goes all th way when Greg stated he wanted to have a not-thin female character that would be prominent.

I really dig her. Not cause I think she provides some sort of "ugly-but-tough-character", but rather because she comes off as something new. Apart from Demona, she certainly is the most masculine and tough female Gargoyle, and I really like that addition. And she certinly seems a stronger character than Angela. ;)

Whilst we're add it, what do you guys actually think of Angela?

I've never really voiced that opinnion on here, but I still think she's my least favourite Gargoyle from the Manhattan clan. Although she is likeable (and hot), she's a bit of... well, hard to get a grip on. Especially with TGC, you could see how different writers tried to apply any character trait they wanted on her. That wasn't the case during S2, but she still felt a bit "rough" in her character outline, at least to me.
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 10:20:05 am EDT from 84.191.185.195

PGFish> I kinda agree with you when you say that Constance is not a fully-fleshed out character yet. She is a new character. We are just starting to see beyond her appearance. And I can understand why her appearance might bother you.

But, I also think you risk falling into the stereotypecasting trap yourself. You see the character as she looks and are offended. But isn't that a stereotype itself? Are you not judging her by her looks? You are essentially saying, "I think this is a good character, I just wish she had a different appearance." What if someone said that about Elisa or Morgan or Chavez or Terry Chung? They might be labeled as rascist.

I'm sure that among the London Clan there exists a wide range of forms like any other gargoyle clan. There are larger memebers, smaller members, taller, shorter and all sorts of heraldic forms (though for the record, I doubt tigers, ostriches, giraffes and the like will appear as they are not traditionally UK heraldic beasts). Some gargoyles are going to be female and some of those will have a boar form and some of those will have a heavier frame (and note I didn't say fat as I don't even think Constance IS fat, she isn't slender like Una, but she seems to have a somewhat average and healthy bodyweight to me). Constance is one of these gargoyles. So what?

Did Greg make a conscious decision on appearance when outlining the character? Sure. But if he did it was so that he could completely demolish the stereotype. Given time we would see Constance as she is, and anyone seeing only a "fat pig gargoyle" (whether out of ignorance, annoyance or even the desire to combat and ridicule steretyping) isn't seeing the character anymore.

Frankly, I'm glad of Constance's form as it allows yet another opportunity for Gargoyles to go beyond appearances to what people really are inside. But, mostly I don't even notice her form much anymore as I find her developing personality to be more interesting.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"You're judging it the way humans have judged you..." - Elisa, 'Awakening'
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 8:56:10 am EDT from 70.230.162.173

Wild boar (which Constance stands for) don't represent gluttony or fatness so much as they represent fierceness in battle. The wild boar was one of the toughest animals in medieval Europe - so tough that boar-spears had to have a cross-bar on them, because if you didn't have one on your spear, the boar would just go charging up the spear and rip you apart with its tusks before it succumbed to its wound. And there were many legends about hunts for enormous wild boar that needed a band of heroes to take them down, such as the Calydonian boar in Greek mythology, or the great boar Troit in the tale of Culhwch and Olwen, whom King Arthur and his men hunted.

The wild boar's formidableness in battle fits well with Constance, who is so physically strong that she can rip both arms off a Steel Clan robot with her hands (outdoing Beowulf with Grendel).
Todd Jensen
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 7:45:40 am EDT from 4.244.208.30

@ Purplegoldfish: As somebody who's rather "post-gender" in such things, I've got no problem whatsoever with her design.
I mean, if she was a guy, people wouldn't mind at all.
Her Boar-features rather might imply a hard-boiled, tough character than a chubby, messed-up girl. I mean Griff wasn't like this dude, so Coco doesn't have to be like Miss Piggy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skkM2zPFPy0

@ Patrick: o_O
OK, now we REALLY know...
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 7:31:46 am EDT from 84.191.185.195

Miss Piggy might debate the point that pigs can't be sex symbols. But has anyone checked the "Ask Greg" archives to see if an exchange like this exists?

Q: When will Lexington meet his future romantic interest?
A: When pigs fly.

50 days left until the 13th Annual Gathering of the Gargoyles in Los Angeles, CA!
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 7:00:56 am EDT from 173.88.135.205

sorry Greg but i woulden't use your brothers judgement if i where you after all he is a Dodger fan. ;)
Matt T. - [mattstewto at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 4:17:56 am EDT from 66.233.9.44

Purplegoldfish - I don't personally have a problem with Coco or her design. And I'm definitely not sure about a tiger or some of the other animals you named. Are there heraldic tigers? (I'm not too up on my heraldry, I'm afraid.) But it seems like a legit question to me. So why not go to the source and "Ask Greg"? I'd be curious to hear (well, read) his response.
L.T. Williams
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 2:58:29 am EDT from 68.183.95.134

Landon: yeah, but these are gargoyles. They hatch from eggs. So if a gargoyle with "burly" genes hatches it has to look like an animal counterpart stereotype? That doesn't make sense.
Purplegoldfish
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 2:05:27 am EDT from 69.183.43.133

"Well, "don't judge a book by it's cover" has always been a theme on "Gargoyles." Always. Constance, from what we have seen, is a fully defined character and does defy stereotype."

Technically she's not fully defined yet, she's a new character. I'm not talking about gargoyle biology here, I'm talking about the creative process. These characters aren't real, they're created, so some thought has to go into them. All I'm asking is out of all heraldic animals, why was a pig (or boar) chosen to represent the heavy female? It's a little insulting condsidering, like I said before, that pigs (or pig like animals) are frequently used to taunt overweight people. I know she's a strong character, but I'm focusing on her appearance in this instance. And keep in mind, she's the only heavy female gargoyle we've seen.

I mean Broadway is heavy but grew through the series into a very multi-faceted character, so much that his personality shines through and it's easy to look past his exterior. But Constance presents a constant reminder to us that she's fat with her obvious huge pig snout.

"And, given Greg's track record when it comes to writing female characters, I think we should trust him. I think he's earned that trust."

I agree he writes some of the best female characters I've ever seen. But I think with this character, a cultural stereotype seeped through, maybe unconsciencly. I forgive him though, whatever the case may be. It happens to the best of us.

"It's not like he created a gorilla-gargoyle and had it talk in stereotypical inner city slang, and a gold tooth"

Exactly. But to me a pig-faced fat female is just as bad. Maybe it's a girl thing?

And I know she's a boar, and that it's dignified in the UK. Most of the comic's buyers are from the U.S though, and many probably don't have knowledge of heraldic animals...so to many idiotic people, she's the fat pig gargoyle. And just to be annoying even further ;), I have a book on some heraldic animals that could have been chosen as a design for constance:

tiger, dragon, eagle, falcon, greyhound, pegasus, swan, donkey, sheep, goat, owl, squirrel, leopard, fox, badger, bear, ostrich, peafowl, duck, camel, giraffe...I could keep going.

Now, if Constance were a heavyset cool tiger gargoyle, THAT would defy stereotype.
Purplegoldfish
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 2:02:50 am EDT from 69.183.43.133

Thanks Ed. Although you don't have to do it on my behalf anymore (and I was a bit too hysterical this morning). I made a new URL for buying the comics: http://tinyurl.com/GargoylesComic It's perfectly fine for now.

This is the flyer I put up (in addition to Patrick's): http://www.tc.umn.edu/~thom1576/gargoyles/comic-flyer2.pdf I hope you don't mind, I stole your opening lines. Christopher Jones is highlighted because he's on the convention board and people would recognize him. Here's a more generic one: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~thom1576/gargoyles/comic-flyer1.pdf It's no where near as good as Patrick's, but it'll do for the weekend.

I think the London clan physically match their heraldic types. Una and Amp are tall and fit like a horse and stag. Leo is strong like a lion. Griff is athletic like an eagle. Constance is 'burly' like a boar (to use Greg's adjective on her spec sheet). And besides, aren't fat people called pigs because pigs look fat from a human perspective? From Constance's perspective, she might be average.
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter Feed]
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 1:51:01 am EDT from 216.250.163.157

I'd also like to point out that Constance is a boar, not a pig, and boars have indeed been part of heraldry and bears quite the noble qualities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boars_in_heraldry
Karine "Kanthara" Charlebois
I kick ass and take names.
posted @ Thu, Jul 2, 2009 12:29:14 am EDT from 24.203.64.193

I agree with Greg here. Just because she looks like a pig doesn't mean she is going to act like a pig, although pigs are intelligent animals and Constance is quite intelligent.

and as for the Gorilla comment. It could even be worse. We could of had two annoying and idiotic monkey gargs that like to swear and slap each other around.
Spacebabie - [spacebabie at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 11:56:23 pm EDT from 74.195.255.169

Well, "don't judge a book by it's cover" has always been a theme on "Gargoyles." Always. Constance, from what we have seen, is a fully defined character and does defy stereotype.

And, given Greg's track record when it comes to writing female characters, I think we should trust him. I think he's earned that trust.

Besides, the London Clan have always been heraldic animals. Nothing new here.

It's not like he created a gorilla-gargoyle and had it talk in stereotypical inner city slang, and a gold tooth.
Greg Bishansky - [<----- Gathering 2009]
"And we have no more stupid people in this country, everyone has 'a learning disorder!'" -George Carlin R.I.P.
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 11:49:49 pm EDT from 76.95.184.71

There's a time and place for everything. I don't get upset with curse words if used correctly. Spewing them all over the place for no reason is dumb, but they can be a powerful tool for emphasis, especially on the internet where we can't see facial expression and body language. Haven't we've debated this in here multiple times?

Now I will say something that might stir up another debate...I'm sorry but this just came into my head the other day and it won't leave me alone till I get it out.

Why does Constance have to have the face of a pig? I wonder about this because a pig is an animal in our culture heavily associated with heavy people, particularly women, and is used frequently as a degrading allegory. Why does the only heavy set female character in Gargoyles resemble an animal frequently used as a negative metaphor for "fat people"? Why couldn't she have the face of a bird, or a deer, etc..These aren't real animals, these are gargoyles who resemble animals-so the heavy one just happens to resemble a pig.

I'm not angry at this, just...sad, that Greg W. or anyone for that matter who is an advocate for women resort to such basic stereotypes. Still, I do like Contance's personality, and I'm glad we haven't seen her eating huge amounts of food (thank goodness.)
Purplegoldfish
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 11:13:09 pm EDT from 69.183.43.133

I have not seen any updates in a while, but the the trade paperbacks for Gargoyles #2 and Bad Guys still scheduled for July and August? If they are, does anyone know the date of their release. Thanks.
Adam - [Carlson]
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 9:56:01 pm EDT from 76.113.176.63

Patrick, I don't think it's fair to say that. If you don't want to see profanity here, that's fine, say so. But what you just said basically equates to: "This is my opinion and I think everyone who disagrees with me is somehow deficient."

My vocabulary is quite substantial and I'm skilled in debating, but in my opinion, curse words have more power than non-curse words and can add something extra to a statement that non-curse words can't. A specific instance comes to mind for me, from this very CR--I remember Harvester of Eyes (I think) was talking about some band, and he commented that their early music was "mind-fuckingly-awesome".

Without profanity, that sentiment could not have been expressed in a way that was nearly as powerful, or nearly as awesome.
Rebel
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 9:47:58 pm EDT from 75.64.82.30

Landon: Yeah, I'll be updating gargoylescomic.com this weekend. For reasons hardly worth going into I've had some problems with it and so I'm more delayed than I intended. Sorry about that. But thanks.

Board Issues: Some guidelines might be a good idea. But really, most people know where the limits are. It's having someone to step in and enforce them. Absent that, my suspicion though is that whenever they're most needed they'd be most ignored.

Modding is a pretty unpleasant gig. I've run a board before and to get these things heeded you ultimately need some kind of moderator who'd probably need to sink a fair amount of time in and be a lightning rod for all sorts of controversy. It's an unenviable, time-consuming job. Taken all the way, it can work a treat. Television Without Pity is the only site I know where discussion runs pretty much perfectly; always reasoned, lucid, on-topic. But they have a team of moderators, paid I think, who behave like ruthless fascists enforcing a rule list as long as your arm (link below). They even go in and edit in good spelling and edit out lip and off-topicness. But it's more of a debating club than a community. What you gain in a wonderful discursive atmosphere you lose in individuality.

The CR as it is seems the opposite; it allows people to express themselves, warts and all. And naturally people squabble and argue and rant and wind each other up. And some people out-and-out troll. But given the board's been around 11 years, you have to ask what's changed? We've had nutters and wind-up merchants and out-and-out trolls before. I tend to think a lot of the recent fractiousness is down to (1) the current make-up of the board -- i.e. the PEOPLE and the unique interpersonal balance of the current board; and (2) the situation -- lots of disappointing news in quick succession.

Board fights happen. They happen when personalities clash, and they happen when people get upset, they happen when people see an opportunity to mouth off on the net. But what's impressive is that for most of the last 12 years this *hasn't* happened all too frequently. Sometimes, sure, but not *that* often. And I'm not, like some here, that bothered about arguments popping up. A ruck here and there where there's a controversial or confronting topic actually isn't the end of the world as long as people keep some basic control over themselves, total trolls are nixed and the room is reset at the end of the week. Some people will walk away -- but some people always away from boards. That's in their nature.

Sure, moderation can help; but fundamentally it's not about solving problems but shifting it. Behind closed doors hopefully, but not necessarily. To me, it's very clear how last week could have been moderated. Some people are clearly out of order and just trying to aggravate, others are blunt but totally fair. But I know others have a totally different view. And because it's a small board, the supposedly-independent moderator is all the more likely to be called out when it all heats up. If you think people have problems with in-crowds and out-crowds wait until a controversial issue needs moderating. If the, what, dozen regular posters on this board can't get along without some kind of formal moderation, it's not an issue with the board but the people.

Personally, I tend to think we get, on balance, more from the CR as it's open, simple, emphasises community and refreshes itself every week. There's a danger in blaming systemic problems for what are really human problems. Guidelines and attempts to 'nudge' are fine but it's human nature at play here. Ultimately if we're saying the board is open to everyone, that should mean we allow people enough rope to hang themselves. Obviously a good example from the rest of the CRers is part of this.

If moving to a fully-moderated board would change the facts -- i.e. more people commenting, more discussions, etc. -- I might see the value in it. But it currently strikes me as much like trying to diet by frequenting KFC instead of Burger King.
Ed
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 9:07:55 pm EDT from 213.187.38.226

My opinion has long been that anyone who "needs" profanity for emphasis actually needs a bigger vocabulary and/or better debating skills.

51 days left until the 13th Annual Gathering of the Gargoyles in Los Angeles, CA!
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 9:04:21 pm EDT from 173.88.135.205

I think once the decision on which format people wants comes down, we should have a discussion on what kind of rules make sense and seem fair to us, considering all possible ramifications. For example, if we want to ban profanity, what do we define as profanity? Would we have to refer to "the part where Angela calls Thailog an "illegitimate child,"" even though she uses the actual word in the actual comic? If we want to make the Room appropriate for all ages does that mean we can't discuss hypothetical romantic encounters between characters? Christine Morgan's stories? Lex's sexual orientation?

I'm not trying to say that we definitely shouldn't have a rule that bans profanity or rules to make the CR more kid friendly. After all, if we don't want "Gargoyles" to become completely irrelevant in a generation or two, we need younger fans and it's not like there's a great kid oriented "Gargoyles" forum they can go to instead. All I mean is that we should consider the pros and cons of any rule we adopt before we tell Gore what we do and don't want.

If we went to a message board system, we could have section of the board for more adult conversation if we wanted with an age restriction. Just sayin'.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 8:40:25 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

I think profanity ought to be allowed here. Not the really really bad stuff, but the standard fare one often hears in a casual conversation with friends is fine with me. A little profanity sprinkled in a paragraph can really add emphasis to what you are saying, in a way that non-profane words can't.

Besides, although clearly children can find this place if they wanted to, what are the odds that they would? Most of the people who are fans of Gargoyles are now adults. Furthermore, this is the internet. The sorts of things that kids can easily find on the internet make a few curse words seem tame.

I may be alone in this sentiment but personally I have no problem with a little profanity.
Rebel
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 8:29:13 pm EDT from 75.64.82.30

Greg W. - Very well put by you..and your brother ^_^ Though admittedly, my eyes just about completely crossed when it got into the baseball stuff.

But the profanity thing...I didn't know light profanity wasn't allowed here. I guess I was under the impression that it was more pg-13 than anything?

Re: Lion King - Okay okay, I'll give him that the plot is hobbled together. I mean, I love my Disney and all, but that movie was clearly inspired by Tezuka's jungle emperor, if not an early rip of it. Then they were told to add a little Hamlet, and you get that. And I will definitely give that Simba does a complete 180 from kid to adult and there isn't much explanation for it. It just reeeeally bothers me that he brushed over the fact that Simba, as a child, behaved and reacted in all the ways a privileged kid could. And admittedly? I thought he was kind of a creep when I was a kid. I liked Zazu best. ^^

Oh, and the love story thing. He didn't seem to connect young Nala with grown Nala at all. And she had personality...she was grumpy and serious because she'd likely grown up half starving to death....

Honestly, the thing that threw me the most about that movie when I was young was the fact that Simba and Nala were clearly siblings, and I didn't understand why Nala wasn't killed when Scar took over. But then again, I watched waaay too much discovery channel as a kid.
Venus/'Rika - [venusad at gmail dot com]
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 7:32:20 pm EDT from 96.255.132.107

Since were talking about Transformers 2...........Here's the Nostalgia Critic's quick review.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/8875-tf2
Warcrafter - [grafixfangamer1 at sbcglobal dot net]
Chuck Norris has never been denied anything. NOT EVEN REVENGE!!!
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 5:35:14 pm EDT from 69.231.225.28

Greg W> Thank you for taking the time to post your views on this matter. I personally voted "yes" on the poll. While I respect the points you make and pretty much agree with most of them, I have long felt like a message board format would be a better choice then the one we have now for the Comment Room. From my perspective, the problem is not just that we have a few people who come in here and misbehave from time to time or there's a heated argument and people get upset and say things they may regret later; it's that in most cases nothing gets done about it. I recognize that Gore is busy and has other things to do, but whether the Comment Room changes format or not, I think we are going to need real moderation, if not from Gore than from someone Gore appoints to enforce whatever rules we may come up with. Policing ourselves would probably work fine if we were a private forum with a selective membership, but we're not. The Comment Room is a public forum and I don't think any of us want to make it into an exclusive "members only" group. But the downside of a public forum is that along with all of the interesting people who stop by to listen or contribute who want to behave themselves, you get the handful of people who only want to cause trouble. I'm not talking about people with differing opinions; if someone wants to come in here and make a calm, reasoned case for why he or she thinks "Gargoyles" is the worst TV show ever, fine. I'm talking about the people who come in here repeatedly and do nothing but spew profanity about what stupid and useless people all of us are. Ignoring them can work to a point, but if we're going to have rules, I think we also need someone with the power to do things like delete posts or ban people if necessary in accordance with those rules. Because otherwise, the rules are dependent on everyone playing along and it can get to the point where they only apply to the nice people and anyone else is free to do whatever they want.

I feel like a message board system would be easier to moderate. It's more familiar to a lot of people, so it's possible that it would get more use. I find message boards easier to read since conversations can take place in separate threads and you aren't trying to follow and respond to several separate conversations at once. When there's a lot going on in here, I find the Comment Room very hard to read. I know Gore has expressed the concern that a message board without a lot of members can look pretty empty, but if someone happens to wander by the Comment Room while it's taking an hour or more go from "fifth" to "sixth," it can look pretty empty in here too.

What it comes down to for me is that I don't feel like the current Comment Room has any major strengths that couldn't be replicated with a message board. That's my opinion and if the majority of people who vote disagree, then I'll be okay with that. But I do think there needs to be some kind of change here and i think some posted rules - and a way to enforce them - would be a good start.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 4:43:48 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

Before I begin, let me make something perfectly CLEAR. The Station 8 Comment Room is NOT my comment room. It is the property of and under the management of Gorebash for him to run as he sees fit. Personally, I like the Comment Room as is. I'm not a big fan of forums. If the vote goes that way, and Gore decides to make a change, so be it. But I voted against the change. My problem/issues with the comment room is about the (occassional) bad behavior of some people who post and what I perceive as the over-reaction of other people (often the same people, I suppose) to what I perceive as innocuous (or only slightly bad) behavior. But to reiterate, I stand by whatever decision Gorebash makes.

So what follows is only my opinion. Not even that really. What follows is my brother's opinion. And it's not even his opinion on the Station 8 Comment Room or on anything Gargoyles related. As some of you know, my brother, Jon Weisman, has a blog: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dodgerthoughts/

This blog on the Los Angeles Dodgers gets more hits in a day then we get here in a week. Or two. Probably even three. One of the main features of his blog, one of the things that he has told me is a big draw for DodgerThoughts, is the comments that his readers post regularly, their exchanges and their dialogue with him and with each other. So Jon has developed some basic guidelines for commenting that I think are calm and intelligent and worth considering for what we do at Station 8. Here they are:

Dodger Thoughts Commenting Guidelines
Thank You For Not ...
1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with

-----
I think these guidelines are very common sense and with the possible exception of #9, apply directly to Station 8. #12 seems particularly applicable. I'd actually add a #13:

13) thinking that just because no one has responded to your post that you are unwelcome. (Your post may simply have inspired no comment.)

These guidelines seem SO straightforward to me, I was stunned to learn today that some people over at DodgerThoughts OBJECT to them. So here's the post Jon made responding to these objections:

Dodger Thoughts commenting is healed - in practice, if not in spirit
After nearly two months, the folks at Typepad have finally solved the bug that prevented comments at the bottom of a page at Dodger Thoughts from appearing until several had been cached. So in that respect, we're back to smooth sailing. Any of you who departed out of frustration, please feel encouraged to return.

On another commenting note, some have voiced to me, either on the site or in e-mail, dissatisfaction about the commenting guidelines and a feeling that only one point of view at Dodger Thoughts is tolerated. I'd like to address these concerns in this post. ...

Starting with the guidelines ... I realize that they are not everyone's cup of tea, but I still feel they do far more good than harm. Conversation can quickly become heated on the Internet, and I firmly believe the guidelines keep things from getting out of hand. It'd be nice if we were all mature adults -- but we're not. Myself included.
The guidelines are meant for everyone, and they apply to the most diehard regulars. If, for some reason, you feel that a comment has been posted that should be deleted, don't hesitate to let me know, either here or via e-mail. If you find the guidelines too confining, then consider the big picture of what they accomplish. If that big picture doesn't look attractive to you, well, I've learned all too well that I can't please everyone. Believe me, it's been humbling.

There are a few other points I'd like to emphasize:
*Although off-topic conversation is allowed at Dodger Thoughts, it is meant to broaden the discussion and the community here, not narrow it. If someone's talking about television when you want to talk about Chad Billingsley, then make a comment about Chad Billingsley. There's nothing stopping you.
*No Dodger Thoughts rule prevents a point of view. Every point of view is welcome.
*People who agree on some issues disagree on others. We're all human.
*There is no ban on any style of conversation that would be allowed in a civil, offline venue.

One quirk that occurred to me overnight is that the people who complain the most about the site's rules tend to be the people who, frankly, are most protected by them. A primary purpose of the comments is to safeguard those who have minority viewpoints.

Since more than one reader is encountering this problem, I take it very seriously. I want to remind people to treat everyone with respect -- especially those with whom you disagree. This is of the utmost importance.
At the same time, I'd like to remind those whose comments meet opposition that disagreement is not censorship. It's easy to become defensive -- it happens to me, like anyone else -- but if someone is rebutting with you without attacking you personally, the simple thing to do is respond to the rebuttal. Or write it off. The point is, we're all here for the same purpose.

If you feel you are being chased away, let me know. But first, examine if that's truly happening. It's not easy to be in the minority on an issue, but inevitably, someone is going to be.

My transition to The Times has not gone as smoothly as I had hoped, for three reasons that I can name (not counting the requirement to capitalize both Ts in "The Times"). One has been the technical problems, and another has been a bit of a culture clash between readers.

Perhaps the oddest wrinkle in the transition has been the effect of the Dodgers surprising all of us by having the best record in baseball. That itself has led to a divide between those who find some complaints about the team petty, against those who feel that no problem is too small even when the team is winning.

It's not so much that there's heated disagreement on the main issues, as there is disagreement about how to respond to those issues. For example, I would say a minority of readers believe Matt Kemp should bat low in the order, but a majority feel it hasn't been worth losing sleep over. A minority of readers think the Dodgers have a playoff spot locked up, but a majority don't seem to think it's time to panic. And so on.

I can see both sides. The level of negativity this season has struck me as remarkable and kind of depressing, not because I'm a knee-jerk defender of all things Dodgers (another accusation I've encountered more than once lately) but because I simply want to savor the good times as they happen. That being said, I should probably be more tolerant of the negativity and not make such a big deal of it.

But also, maybe that means that some other commenters shouldn't make such a big deal over some things as well. From the site's very first day, long before commenting was even a notion, I've wanted Dodger Thoughts to be a place to seek perspective on the team (and the sport, and life). That doesn't mean a "No Griping" rule. But it does imply that the gripes should have a sense of context -- and sometimes, I feel that is lacking.

In the end, I consider this site my responsibility. As we near the All-Star Break and I look back at the first half of the season, aspects of site management that I could have handled better shout out at me. I am going to do my best to improve over the second half of the season, which may bring us a breezy jaunt to October or a tense pennant race. I hope, win or lose, people continue to find this a nice place to hang out.

-----

Greg again here. What strikes me is that even though Jon is discussing very specific Dodger-related issues above, it's stunning how much this seems to apply to us here at Station 8. For example:

*Griping is totally legit. But griping without any sense of context does get old and leads to temper flare ups.
*The MORE you disagree with someone, the MORE respectful you should be. If you can't be respectful, don't respond. Or at the very least, GO AWAY for an hour or two until you calm down.
*Don't sink to the level of the most obnoxious posters. If we've got a troll, it does NOT help to troll back at him or her.

I think it would be a good idea, no matter what format the comment room takes going forward if some version of the DodgerThoughts guidelines were adopted and POSTED on the sidebar for everyone to see every time they post.

Again, that's merely my opinion. Gore can and should simply do whatever he wants.

Finally, I want to thank my brother, whom I admire to no end. I'm sure he has no idea of the problems we had here last week. It's not like I planned to post anything else on a subject that has largely gone still. But I check Jon's blog daily, and there this was. This incredibly well-written common sense response to a problem he didn't even know I was having. Thanks, Jon.
Greg Weisman
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 3:57:50 pm EDT from 64.236.243.16

@ Rika: You have to have a certain knowledge of who Michael Bay is and what he actually does.

BAd scripts are not an excuse for a bad film nowadays. For example, COLLATERAL had a very dumb script, yet the director (Michael Mann) somehow made it to transform a shallow, unintentionally funny and over-the-top scripts into a very realistic and memorable film which set standarts for the Thriller-genre.

Michael Bay for example has sort of a "wild card", where he can add anything to the script he wants. This isn't usual in Blockbusters, just look at what happenned with WOLVERINE.
Bay has a say in every little aspect of his films. EVERY! If he wants to change Optimus Prime into a Power Ranger in post prod., he's allowed. Thankfully he hasn't made that bad decisions so far.

As for the review, first of, subjectively spoken, in the scene he shows there is no joke present, apart from 8probably) his mother flipping him off, which is also not a joke. AT ALL! You could also let a girl walk by him and drop soda on him without explanation, and him saying "Who, whatever!" It's not a joke.

As for the LION KING review - he got it, spot on. I hated this film when I saw it as a kid, and I still hate it, for all the reasons he pointed out, mainly the protagonist being an asshole in the first place, and later on a vegetable with zero character traits whatsoever. It was the first Disney film I didn't enjoy, and - sadly enough - it was followed by equally big let downs. Remember Pocahontas? *shudders*
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 3:39:14 pm EDT from 84.191.194.180

Demonskrye> Be my guest. :)

RIKA> I like the Lion King but a lot of Confused Matthew's critisisms are fairly legitimate, Simba's character really is all over the place.
Algernon
"Me have crazy times in 70s and 80s, Me like the Robert Downey Jnr of cookies" -Cookie Monster
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 3:33:43 pm EDT from 149.157.1.180

RIKA> << I know the director always gets blamed for like..everything. But if the script isn't there, the movie won't be either.>>

Well, the reason the director gets blamed for everything is because the director is responsible for everything that winds up on the screen. The director has final say on the script. The director (usually) has final cut on the movie.

Michael Bay was given a lot more freedom on this one than he was on the first. Spielberg was a lot more heavily involved as producer on the first movie. But, this time, he stood back and let Bay do his thing.

This sums him up pretty well:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155700
Greg Bishansky - [<----- Gathering 2009]
"And we have no more stupid people in this country, everyone has 'a learning disorder!'" -George Carlin R.I.P.
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 3:01:55 pm EDT from 76.95.184.71

Algernon> May I quote that? I don't know in what context I would use it, but I know I want to.

Transformers> Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and I don't think Greg is being unreasonable in stating his. I haven't seen the new movie myself, but I did enjoy the first one. I didn't think it was great, but I went in with very low expectations and had a good time. (Didn't hurt that we saw it at BotCon either.) My husband and a friend of mine, who also felt at least OK with the first movie, did go to see the second one. My husband's expectations were extremely low. My friend was likely expecting something akin to the first movie and was more excited. And did I mention that they are both longtime Transformer fans? They both HATED the movie and advised that i not see it, period. Not "Oh if you're in the mood for a movie where things blow up and not much else, then you might want to go." Just outright "Skip it." What really surprised me was that my husband said it was actually rather boring and not very exciting at all, which was the least I expected from it.

The whole "it's just a movie to sell toys to kids" argument just doesn't fly with me. Not anymore. I've seen too many good stories in various media based on toys properties for that to be an excuse. "Beast Wars" was intended to sell toys. So was "Transformers Animated." Heck, even "Cowboy Bebop" came out of somebody wanting to sell toys. Yes, it's a summer movie and I'm not going to go in expecting it to feature mind blowing acting or deep insight into the human experience. I went an saw the first "Night at the Museum" because I wanted to see some fun special effects and a not terribly challenging movie and I had fun. But that isn't an excuse for bad characterization or a boring and confusing script or sexism and racism, which really doesn't help much in selling toys to kids. Just as there is no reason a movie nased on a toyline can't be good, there is no law that says a movie can't deliver both an adrenaline rush and a good story with great characters. Look at the new "Star Trek," which had the same writers as "Transformers," which I believe is the reason Greg thinks Bay deserves the blame for the latter film's problems. Look at "Spider-Man 2." Look at "Dark Knight." All action movies, all with interesting characters and solid stories. Which is why I'm not going to be satisfied with just some cool looking action scenes, especially when the movie is adpating a property that I care about.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 2:51:32 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

Venus> "Okay, I just watched his Lion King review and lost whatever like I had for him. I don't care whether he thought it was good or not, but he seems to be completely devoid of understanding kids or dynamic characters.

Although I will give him that Timon and Pumba are total jerks. But you can have antagonists without them actually being evil or even against the protagonist directly. They just have to somehow be against what is trying to be accomplished. Also, it's called comic relief."

Are we talking about the review of TLK by ConfusedMatthew?
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 2:38:34 pm EDT from 99.22.69.203

Hah! Yeah, that'd work if it wasn't for the fact that when they're out of your species it's not just a question of subjective beauty.
I personally think he/she/it is ADORABLE. ^^

Okay, I just watched his Lion King review and lost whatever like I had for him. I don't care whether he thought it was good or not, but he seems to be completely devoid of understanding kids or dynamic characters.

Although I will give him that Timon and Pumba are total jerks. But you can have antagonists without them actually being evil or even against the protagonist directly. They just have to somehow be against what is trying to be accomplished. Also, it's called comic relief.

And yes...yes, you can pretty much convince a kid that ANYTHING is their fault, especially when they've just had a traumatic experience. That would be why abuse often goes unreported for so long. (Granted, the adults not questioning it when Scar's story starts falling apart was not only hilarious but too true).
Venus/V/Rika/Thatchickinthebikerhat - [VenusAD at gmail dot com]
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 2:28:13 pm EDT from 169.253.4.21

Venus> Beauty is also subjective, some people like blondes others prefer brunetts but nobody thinks Cthulhu is sexy.
Algernon
"Me have crazy times in 70s and 80s, Me like the Robert Downey Jnr of cookies" -Cookie Monster
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 2:01:55 pm EDT from 149.157.1.180

Oh oh, also, for the reviewer guy Brook (i think it was) linked?

How can you go on and on saying that liking a movie is subjective and then later state that something is unequivocally not funny? Comedy is also subjective, duh. My ex used to do that...and it made me want to punch him in the face. >_<
Venus/V/Rika/Thatchickinthebikerhat - [VenusAD at gmail dot com]
And the jock didn't have to do anything bad to show that he was a jerk...did you see that backwards baseball cap? Clear sign of jerkiness.
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 1:51:48 pm EDT from 169.253.4.21

Greg B. - Hey now...be a little reasonable. Yeah, the story was terrible...but the action was explosive and terribly entertaining. I'll give Bay that. Also, he didn't write the script for either movie. I know the director always gets blamed for like..everything. But if the script isn't there, the movie won't be either.

Not to say he hasn't done terrible stuff (for instance: the "leading lady" shots were all nothing but masturbatory material that didn't add anything to an already shallowly written character)...but you've got to allow for the fact that he didn't write the crap in the first place.

That review was amusing, but Oh my god, It dragged on! And also? I actually laughed all through transformers. It was awkward and silly. That's pretty much what made me like it. Well, that and mindless action sequences.
Venus/V/Rika/Thatchickinthebikerhat - [VenusAD at gmail dot com]
And the jock didn't have to do anything bad to show that he was a jerk...did you see that backwards baseball cap? Clear sign of jerkiness.
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 1:49:18 pm EDT from 169.253.4.21

Matt> Technically, my sister is of the opinion that you should watch a movie or show before you diss on it, otherwise how can you validate your opinion if you haven't even seen it. And... I did not know about Ed! Ack!! So many big flowers wilting in the Sun of Ages. SIgh...
Jade Griffin - [jade_griffin at hotmail dot com]
"Food, food, FOOD!!" - Jade Griffin, on many occasions
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 12:43:29 pm EDT from 71.94.79.73

MATT> Well, to answer your question, I'm a big movie buff. I graduated from film school with degrees in producing and screenwriting. So, I try to see every movie from the big blockbusters to the little art house movies. I don't make it to every movie out there, but I try.

And I love to review movies. Hell, I have fun trashing bad movies... it's a guilty pleasure of mine. This one, however, was beyond bad.

RIKA> See, that's the thing. We've had good "Transformers." Yeah, the original cartoon was really stupid. But a good portion of the original comics weren't. Simon Furman tried to tell some fun, epic, science fiction stories there. "Beast Wars" came along and did well. Hell, even the recent "Animated" told a pretty good story. Why couldn't this movie? Especially since it had the talented screenwriters behind the new "Star Trek?" ... oh, right, Michael Bay.
Greg Bishansky - [<----- Gathering 2009]
"And we have no more stupid people in this country, everyone has 'a learning disorder!'" -George Carlin R.I.P.
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 12:27:43 pm EDT from 76.95.184.71

HAPPY CANADA DAY!!!
battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 12:17:06 pm EDT from 75.156.190.146

REGARDING ALL THE TRANSFORMERS TALK:

I think I should link to this --> http://confusedmatthew.com/Transformers.php

Hillarious, as allways.
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 11:16:21 am EDT from 84.191.194.180

Shameless Friend Promotion> My friend Les draws comics for a living, the most high profile of which was "The Middleman," which was made into a TV show. A while back, he offered to do 5"x5"commissions for people of whatever character they would like for $10 each plus shipping. So he's doing it again. Among Les's talents is his ability to draw pretty much anything and draw it well. So if you want a nice piece of artwork of your favorite "Gargoyles" character, he could probably do it for you. Plus, the last time he did this, he posted all of the drawings he did on his website. Like so:

http://lesmcclaine.livejournal.com/64213.html#cutid1

(That's just one page of his commissions. He actually did do a total of 100 drawings, spread out over several posts.)

So if you do decide to order a "Gargoyles" drawing, you will not only have a nice piece of artwork of your very own, but the drawing will show up on Les's site, giving "Gargoyles" a little extra publicity. And if someone viewing his site sees the drawing and says "Hey, I remember that show," you can bet I will be there talking up the DVDs and the comic.

I will try to avoid any more ad-like posts for at least a while.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 10:22:20 am EDT from 146.115.115.33

I posted this to the contact link at gargoylescomic.com, but I thought I'd post here in case someone knows who runs it. The site could use an update. I think Clan-Building volume 2 and Bad Guys - Redemption should get a prominent spot instead of Bad Guys #4 and Gargoyles #8. Links:

http://www.amazon.com/Gargoyles-Clan-Building/dp/1593621671
http://www.amazon.com/Gargoyles-Bad-Guys-Greg-Weisman/dp/1593621930

Also the orange box has old info, as does Ricky's Blog and the t-shirt is gone. Also I don't know how useful the 'Ordering Information' and 'Amazon Product List' links are. Most comic resellers will be sold out of the single issues by now. And it's always difficult to find the new trades by search on amazon.com; they're never on the first page and they aren't on the 'Product List'. Direct links are really all that work. Embedded YouTube trailers would be great too.

If this could get updated today, I can do a two-page flyer deal at CONvergence and really have a presence. What I really need is a useful, easy-to-remember URL for the trades with Amazon links, and GargoylesComic.com will be great when it's up-to-date. If you want to email me FTP user info, I'd be glad to update it all myself. I should have thought of this earlier, but I'm checking into the hotel tomorrow, so today would be best.
Landon Thomas - [lumpmoose at gmail dot com]
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 10:00:17 am EDT from 216.250.163.157

Anon - You mean like the animated one? I dunno. I'm referring to the first live action, Michael Bay one. I liked that one. Too many human characters and some REALLY stupid use of things like "above top secret" and "hotwiring" a computer...oh, and the fastest hotwiring of a vehicle EVER (she is so lucky she didn't actually have to open the panel or cut anything...or she just has MAD SEXY SKILL). Oh, and pointlessly hot girlthatbelongsinadoritosadorsomething got on my nerves with all the pointless sexist scenes that were pathetically excused by the "oh hey, she isn't a stereotype because works on cars, that's it!" device, but...

What was my point again? Oh. MOAR GIANT ROBOTS. I loved Barricade. And as long as they have the original (dub) voice for Optimus, I'm in everytime. ^^
Venus/V/Rika/Thatchickinthebikerhat - [VenusAD at gmail dot com]
I have that Taylor Swift song "Love story" in my head and I cannot get it out....please shoot me.
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 8:55:48 am EDT from 169.253.4.21

Do you mean the first first movie or do you mean the second first movie?
Anonymouse
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 8:34:42 am EDT from 89.246.176.89

Re: Transformers - Uh, am I the only one that seems to remember that this is a series created entirely to push a toy line? I was never a fan as a kid until Beast Wars...and I loved the first movie, but still haven't seen the second...but I'm not expecting anything amazing.

Racism in Transformers? NO WAI. I shall use a quote from VG Cats to express my opinion on this: "...did they just kill off the only BLACK robot?!"
...yeeeeah.

Re: American Military involved in everything.
Dude, have you LIVED in this country? You cannot have a giant war going down without the military getting involved. Honestly, them not blowing crap up would be totally unrealistic and even stupider. Besides, our men and women in the military branches need all the support they can get...so if movies paint them in a good light, I'm all for it. Eeeven if it short changes the value of robots from outerspace. ^^

Re: GATHERING - I have successfully found nicely priced tickets and booked our flights out to LA. If anyone is still looking, I highly suggest Orbitz. It seems to usually have the cheapest total (with fees and tax and all). Once Nikki (Hecate) gets her side done we shall be solid for attendance! See you guys there!
Venus/V/Rika/Thatchickinthebikerhat - [VenusAD at gmail dot com]
I have that Taylor Swift song "Love story" in my head and I cannot get it out....please shoot me.
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 8:21:49 am EDT from 169.253.4.21

Well, that's a neat trick. Pay money to verify your opinion, ensuring that you have the right to express it...

Maybe it'd be better to just say, "I didn't see this movie because I don't generally like this guy's movies." That is an opinion also and it'd save you ten bucks.

Don't ask me why i'm rambling on about this subject. Nothing against you, Greg B, or anything.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Without a mind to direct the Gate, it'll be forever lost in time..." - Angela, "Future Tense"
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 7:14:27 am EDT from 70.230.159.196

Matt: " Why would you go to see a movie you know you won't like? If you hate this guys movies, why pay to see them? "

Because if you don't see them, the people who do like them will make the case, that you can't possible now what happened and whether the movie is really that bad, because you didn't see it. You are only allowed an opinion if you are part of ticket sales.

The vote doesn't work for me, no, I'm not turning on whatever for it.
Anonymouse
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 3:43:21 am EDT from 89.246.176.89

Greg B> Why would you go to see a movie you know you won't like? If you hate this guys movies, why pay to see them?

Jade G> Don't forget Ed McMahon...

Demona/Time Travel> I wonder if Demona would've ever bothered to try to change time if Xanatos hadn't come to her with the opportunity. Perhaps she didn't REALLY think it'd work, but since Xanatos gave her the chance she took it. Nothing lost if it didn't work, afterall. She clearly isn't even all that surprised or upset when they all return to 1995 and they discover nothing has changed. I mean imagine her anger and irritation when her Hunter's Moon or Titania's Mirror schemes were thwarted. In Vows, she all but shrugged and glided off.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Without a mind to direct the Gate, it'll be forever lost in time..." - Angela, "Future Tense"
posted @ Wed, Jul 1, 2009 12:12:53 am EDT from 70.237.140.124

test
battlebeast
posted @ Tue, Jun 30, 2009 8:22:30 pm EDT from 199.126.242.82

Hurray! Just ordered my Bad Guys and Clan Building #2 TPB's! Can't wait to get them!!
Jade Griffin - [jade_griffin at hotmail dot com]
"Food, food, FOOD!!" - Jade Griffin, on many occasions
posted @ Tue, Jun 30, 2009 4:43:22 pm EDT from 71.94.79.73

Um... Has anyone else noticed the high amount of high profile deaths this month? Billy Mays, Michael Jackson, Farrah Faucett, The Gathering... Steee-range. Glad we're more on the positive side of The Gathering now.
Jade Griffin - [jade_griffin at hotmail dot com]
"Food, food, FOOD!!" - Jade Griffin, on many occasions
posted @ Tue, Jun 30, 2009 4:28:21 pm EDT from 71.94.79.73

Jade Griffin> Just one more reason why I wished I'd bought a 360, instead of my used PS2.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Tue, Jun 30, 2009 1:51:38 pm EDT from 99.22.73.83

Jade Griffin> It looks really good, but I can't force myself to pay $59.99 for a video game. I'll wait awhile and get it eventually since I've heard mostly good about it and I'm a huge GB fan. I just got the movie on blu-ray for $10.
Anthony Tini
posted @ Tue, Jun 30, 2009 1:46:01 pm EDT from 159.240.11.254

@ BB: Michael Bay guarantees #1 for the weekend. So why bother? ;)
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Tue, Jun 30, 2009 1:38:00 pm EDT from 84.191.247.2

BTW, husband bought the new Ghostbusters game for xbox360. Wow... Fun to watch or play! And I am mentioning it in here because it has stone gargoyles brought to life:) They don't look like the show gargs but seeing stone gargs on fire attacking the Ghostbuster crew was just too cool not to mention:)
Jade Griffin - [jade_griffin at hotmail dot com]
"Food, food, FOOD!!" - Jade Griffin, on many occasions
posted @ Tue, Jun 30, 2009 1:15:28 pm EDT from 71.94.79.73

Greg B.> Funny... I always saw Duke Igthorn from Gummi Bears as kind of like Demona in that way. Great ideas, poorly executed from Igthorn (or always thwarted by the gummies) but with Demona it is more like poor ideas executed well. Except that spell from City of Stone. THAT was a great idea. Hooking up w/ Thailog, no. And I guess Coldstone was a good idea but it was probably Xanatos's, lol. What do you think?
Jade Griffin - [jade_griffin at hotmail dot com]
"Food, food, FOOD!!" - Jade Griffin, on many occasions
posted @ Tue, Jun 30, 2009 1:13:57 pm EDT from 71.94.79.73

I liked TF2, I'll admit, but I thought from minute one of the first film it could have been A LOT better. I mean, the TF's don't look like TF's; The story is totally new, and Michael Bay. Come on, couldn't you get a GOOD director?

They could have made the film closer to G1 and from the ROBOTS point of view, not from the tired, warn out "American Government defeats the enemy again"

I'm SICK of films where the US army blows up the enemy and the people rejoice. (Mars Attacks, Independance day, MIB, TF, ETC.)

If you watch the original series of TF, You'll notice that the American Government and Army are minimally involved.

Yes, in the new film there where alot more robots. That was good. That FAQ Greg posted was pretty much right on the money. There were many plot holes and plain crappy parts of the movie, but I still enjoyed it.
battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Tue, Jun 30, 2009 12:23:20 pm EDT from 75.156.190.146

Demonskrye> Yes, I saw the movie. I'd rather not go any further here. But I saw it.

This speaks volumes also:

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/orci-and-kurtzman-respond-to-claims-of-racism-in-transformers-2.php

Now, to get back on topic...

Demona and the time stream: The key thing to remember about Demona is that she doesn't learn from her mistakes, even though she witnessed this one. But yeah, in the episode, she did try to leave with her younger self before Goliath showed up.

"I know from experience that my arrival through the flames will attract one other."

Demona, and I love her, is a screw up. It's a major character aspect, and one I tried to capture when I wrote "Rhapsody". It's part of what makes her so fascinating.3dc
Greg Bishansky - [<----- Gathering 2009]
Michael Bay is essentially what you get when you take a porn director, give him $200 million, and tell him to film anything he wants, except actual sex. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is proof of this.
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 10:30:00 pm EDT from 76.95.184.71

Demona and Time Travel> I kind of doubt she cares about preserving the integrity of the timestream, assuming she even understands it at all. Goliath would be concerned about not harming the past. Xanatos wants to ensure that things happen as they are supposed to, but for his own gain. I don't think Demona would go back in time just to ensure that nothing happened differently than the way she remembered it. She was hoping for a different outcome. I imagine you guys were right and she was too worked up to think straight about what argument would actually be effective in convincing her younger self that she is right or remember how it felt to be in that position listening to her older self. Plus it's been over a thousand years since she met up with her older self. Considering that I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday, it's possible that she didn't realize that she was saying the exact same words that she heard and rejected from her older self.

I'm not quite convinced that Demona now knows that history is immutable. Maybe she realizes that, despite her best efforts, everything still happened exactly as she remembered it and nothing changed. But she didn't have a definitive experience like Goliath did in trying to bring Griff home that showed her that time will always ensure that the outcome is the same no matter what you do and that any attempts you make to change the past always have happened and always will happen, so you can't really change anything.

Transformers: RotF> Did you actually go to see the movie, Greg? Or are you just going on what you've heard? I'm not trying to call you out or anything; I just want to know where you're coming from.

I have heard a lot of bad things about that movies from critics and fans alike, including people who really like Transformers and enjoyed the first movie for what it was. It doesn't seem to be hurting it's box office take any though.

Shameless Promotion Department> I have a new blog about animation! Click on my name or go to http://inkandpixelclub.livejournal.com/ to check it out. I just launched it tonight so I'm pretty excited. I don't intend to spam the comment room every time I have a new post up, but I would like to ask for your opinions. I am planning to do a post about "Gargoyles" at some point. I think the sanest way to tackle it is to write mainly about a single episode, or else it will just feel like way too much material to cover and I'd worry readers would just be lost. I'm trying to decide what episode would work best. The ones I'm thinking about are "Thrill of the Hunt," "Temptation," "Deadly Force," and "Reawakening." What do you think? Is there one you think would work better than the others? A different episode that would make an even better article? A different take on the series aside from an episode analysis that you would like to see?

Thanks for your help.
Demonskrye - [<---The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:47:17 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

I was writing a reply, but it turned into a really long rant on how terrible Michael Bay and his movies are. So, I'll just share this link:

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php

100% accurate.
Greg Bishansky - [<----- Gathering 2009]
Michael Bay is essentially what you get when you take a porn director, give him $200 million, and tell him to film anything he wants, except actual sex. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is proof of this.
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:38:50 pm EDT from 76.95.184.71

I thought it would have been okay if it weren't for all the juvenile jokes.

SPOILERS

Like the tiny decepticon humping Megan Fox's leg, the giant pyramid-eating decepticon having huge metal testicles, and the two twin autobots being SO stereotypically ghetto. These are just a few examples.

SPOILERS OVER

If all that crap had been cut out, it probably would've been decent, at least as far as big dumb action movies go. But all that juvenile humor made it where I couldn't really enjoy it that much.
Rebel
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 9:11:05 pm EDT from 75.64.82.30

Well, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" may have been one of the most disgusting pieces of crap ever puked onto the silver screen by Damian the Antichrist aka Michael Bay.

But, it did give us this humorous gem:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v661/gregx/Gargoyles/vlcsnap-15995447.png
Greg Bishansky - [<----- Gathering 2009]
Michael Bay is essentially what you get when you take a porn director, give him $200 million, and tell him to film anything he wants, except actual sex. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is proof of this.
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:54:27 pm EDT from 76.95.184.71

Warcrafter here with another video.

This person made of sort of remix of the Gargoyles theme, only made it more orchestry, not like the other types of remix's we are used to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79bW5_e98vQ#
Warcrafter - [grafixfangamer1 at sbcglobal dot net]
Chuck Norris has never been denied anything. NOT EVEN REVENGE!!!
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 8:43:11 pm EDT from 69.231.225.28

Well, not a formal announcement yet, but our latest Gathering guest is one I'm very excited about.

Steve Blum, voice of the villainous Green Goblin in "The Spectacular Spider-Man." Chameleon too. He's awesome in the role too:

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

He was also Spike Spiegal on "Cowboy Bebop", Vincent Valentine in "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children", Jamie in "Megas XLR" and Wolverine in "Wolverine and the X-Men."

Spread the word!
Greg Bishansky - [<----- Gathering 2009]
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:53:42 pm EDT from 76.95.184.71

Karine: Thanks for saying it, all the same. That pretty much sums things up.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"'In the end?' Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends..." -Dr. Manhattan ("Watchmen")
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 7:05:44 pm EDT from 70.177.182.14

The poll will be up for at least another week. I want to try and get as many opinions as possible. Then I'll start worrying about what changes need to be made and how easy said changes would be.
Gorebash
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 6:16:39 pm EDT from 70.22.242.54

I'd chalk Demona's actions to a couple reasons:

A. She was merely trying to preserve history.

B. Humans and Gargoyles alike will sometimes cast logic aside when their own wants/desires/emotions are on the line.

I'd say that given her lapses of judgement, that B. is a the most probable reason.
Antiyonder
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:59:19 pm EDT from 72.87.7.89

I'd also like to point out one detail.

This comment room =/= The Gathering.

If you were mistreated in here, you have to keep in mind that an online forum like this one is limited to text-only communication (smilies notwithstanding) which means that things like sarcasm and humour are more difficult to convey without the help of voice inflection and body language. So, while you may have received bad treatment from people, chances are this stemmed from a bad intro on your part as well. Not intentionally, no. Just that sometimes, people come off as insulting/arrogant/flaming/mean/idiots when their text mode is not truly communicating their intent. You may also have misread/misunderstood some of the previous commentary and found yourself rebutting a point erroneously.

There's also the fact that a lot of people who've been here for a long time forget that they were once newbies, and that they had to learn the local etiquette as well, and as an old group of 15 years, there's a lot of etiquette that has been established, like it or not. So the newbies can't be expected to know all about how to talk in this room, and the oldies should remember to use patience when dealing with them.

So if you've been treated badly in here, think about it. It's not just the fault of the group that ganged up on you, it's also your fault for not coming across as someone who brought something positive to the forum. By this I don't mean you can't disagree with anyone... I just mean to think about what your post is actually saying before you post it. And that's not always easy to do. If you get attacked, go read your post again. Figure out what you wrote that was misconstrued or was hurtful to the people here.

Now that I've commented on the online part, onto the live meet part.

If you've been treated badly at the Gathering, I will put forward this theory. Not all of us are social butterflies who get along with everyone. Not all of us are always happy and nice and welcoming and smiley and extroverted. Some people are awkward, some are shy, some just don't know how to interact with people. Some just don't know about the "bubble" that is personal space, and some people put up walls so tall and hard you almost physically feel them. Yes, I've been a bitch to some people at the con, but the bitchiness was more often than not provoked. Yes, I've made mistakes in dealing with certain people. Some people have made mistakes in dealing with me. I've made friends, lost friends, dumped friends throughout the years. THIS IS NORMAL. When there is a huge assembly of people, do you really think everyone will get along with everyone? No one likes everybody, why expect everybody to like you?

If you're focusing on one or two issues of having been mistreated, underappreciated, or other such negative experience, and are generalizing this as your entire Gargoyles experience, you are missing out. There are so many aspects to this fandom, so many issues, so many different kinds of people... it would be sad to not get to know a few of them at least.

Anyways... I'm sure I didn't say anything new. Just... had to say it.
Karine "Kanthara" Charlebois - [kanthara at gmail dot com]
I kick ass and take names.
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:30:28 pm EDT from 208.84.104.226

Demonskrye> I don't think Demona really understood that time cannot be changed until she woke up back in the future. To me, it seemed as though the one thing she really tried to do differently was to get her younger self through the Phoenix flame before Goliath interrupted, but she failed to do that.

Her fight with Goliath may have made her forget any planned script she may have had, forcing her to speak directly from the heart, which clearly didn't work as intended.

Admittedly, I haven't seen the episode in awhile, so I could be wildly off base.
Supermorff
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:08:33 pm EDT from 81.155.46.2

Nothing in the Diamond lists this week. If SLG is still on schedule for a pre-Comic-Con release, we should see volume 2 shipment plans next Monday or the week after. Feels good to be anticipating a release again; it's been a while.
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter Feed]
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 3:08:31 pm EDT from 128.101.32.234

@ Demonskrye: From most, the issue was with the behaviour of certain individual people.

I mean - you'll find 20 people who've had a good time with Frank Miller, but also the same number of people who've found him to be a total dick.

See - there'll always be many who have a good time at whatever they do with who they do it. Some people were treated well, others weren't, and I think anger and frustration about the news just really took over for a moment. Todd pretty much summed it up in his last message (and so did I, I think...) - in the end, it's important to be as open and well mannered as can be, when things have sort of a public forum.
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:35:34 pm EDT from 84.191.180.241

Gore> How long are you going to keep the poll up? Not that I think it needs to come down yet; I'm just curious what the time frame will be.

Last Week Postmortem> I can only ever speak for myself, but it seems to me that the conversation about some people feeling that the Gathering became to insular and not as welcoming as it could have been may need to happen, IF it can be done in a calm and civil manner. I do think that if people have concerns about the convention, they should be able to express them, if only so they can be taken into consideration by anyone who might decide to try to run a new "Gargoyles" convention. But if all we're going to get is "I know why the Gathering failed; it's the fault of these people who I will now call out and criticize for things generally unrelated to the running of the Gathering," it's not worth it. The Gathering staff members are not going to admit that they did anything wrong - whether they did or not - if the complaints are made in such a way as to immediately put them on the defensive. I'm not saying that justifies anyone making personal attacks against anyone else on either side of the debate. I believe that we are each responsible for our own conduct no matter what the other person says. But I do think there is a way this discussion can procede without turning into a bunch of finger pointing.

What I would prefer to see is people who think this issue is important describing specific events they experienced or observed without naming names. Many of the accusations I saw being thrown around last week were aimed at particular people, but either so vague or so tangentally - if at all - related to the Gathering itself that I couldn't figure out what the actual problem was. I want to hear the specific issues, but not in a way that makes it an attack on one particular person. For example, "When I was at the Gathering, I had a question for a staff member but he just ignored me." Or "At one Gathering, I saw the same five people getting to talk with Keith David all the time and no one else got to spend any time with him." Then we (which probably means people more knowledgeable about the Gathering than me) can try to sort out what happened without turning the accusation back on the person who brought up the problem. What was the staff member doing when he didn't answer your question? Were people being blocked from approaching Keith David, or were they just unwilling to approach him? Hopefully, through this kind of discussion we can sort out what are issues that a future "Gargoyles" convention could seek to improve on and what were more misunderstandings.

If anyone feels up to doing that, I will gladly listen, even if I can't provide much information. If it's just going to be more attacks and defensiveness and counterattacks and chaos, then I think we should leave this issue alone until we have enough distance from it to discuss it rationally.

Actual "Gargoyles" Question> At what point do you think that Demona came to a realization that the past cannot be altered, assuming she ever did? She would have remembered her conversations with her older self and the older Goliath before she traveled back to 10th century Scotland in "Vows." So she must have believed that she would be able to do a better job of convincing her younger self to do what she believed was necessary to prevent the Wyvern Massacre. So why does she say and do the exact same things that failed to convince her previously? (Aside from "Time is fixed and that's the way it always happens," which seems to rob Demona of her free will.) Does she just not remember exactly what she said? Did she somehow convince herself that it would work this time, even if nothing had changed? When she returns to the present day, does she realize that changing the past is impossible? Or would she try to do so again if the opportunity came up?
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Mon, Jun 29, 2009 1:01:50 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

Comment Room

This Week's Comments

Post A Comment : Hide Images