A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

RESPONSES 2001-9 (Sept)

Archive Index


: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #126 - #135 of 292 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :


Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :


Bookmark Link

matt writes...

what does Demona's forehead look like behind that tiara thing she wears? are her brow ridges the same shape as the jewelry or like Angela's brow? Goliath has two small horns over each of his brows and Angela has one, so i'd assume that Demona also has one, am i wrong?

Greg responds...

Take a look at "Sanctuary" and then ask me again, if you need to.

Response recorded on September 09, 2001

Bookmark Link

Airportman writes...

Hey, Greg

This is my first post here, and it's quite lengthy. I've been looking through the archives, and I'm pretty sure this question has never been asked before. But if it has, I honestly don't know what category it would be filed under. It's mainly about who knows what throughout the course of the Gargoyles story.

Nobody in the audience knew anything about Demona and Macbeth's relationship and former lives prior to "City of Stone," but who in the Gargoyles universe, if anyone, knew anything? I've been watching my taped episodes recently and this really stood out at me this time. It's always been the one thing about the show that bothers me.

It really sticks out in "The Price," when Hudson says, "Believe it lads, Macbeth's dead." Later in the episode, Lexington seems genuinely convinced that Macbeth actually is dead, which leads me to believe that he doesn't know about Macbeth's background by that point. However, later in the same episode, Hudson explains to Xanatos, "Demona and Macbeth are immortal. Has it brought them happiness?" Was Hudson simply feeding a line to Lexington? Was Lex not supposed to know about the whole Demona/Macbeth thing? It's wierd, because Elisa also knows about it by the time of "Sanctuary."

That leads me to another question: how does Hudson know? And Goliath for that matter? Who was it that told them about Demona's history? It couldn't have been Xanatos, because he didn't know either until "City of Stone," or he wouldn't have been fooled by Demona's excuse for living so long. I'm actually not too sure Xanatos ever finds out.

I could only think of one way that it could work. Here goes:

In "Temptation," Demona says to Brooklyn, "It's a long story, centuries long." I was thinking that Demona may have told her story to Brooklyn at that point, and that he later told Goliath, who told Hudson and Elisa. In that case, was this privelidged information that Goliath only trusted Elisa, Hudson, and Brooklyn with? This would explain Hudson's behavior in "The Edge," and give Brooklyn a shoe-in for Second in command, but it would not explain Brooklyn's puzzlement about Macbeth's identity in "Enter Macbeth," unless Goliath had told him not to tell Lex and Broadway. However, Goliath clearly has no clue who Macbeth is at that point. Could Brooklyn have told him later? Lex clearly knows about Demona's immortality by the time "Hunter's Moon" rolls around, so I was thinking that Brooklyn may have decided that it was necessary to tell Broadway and Lex everything when he was leader.

I don't think Macbeth would have told Broadway his story in "A Lighthouse in the Sea of Time," when Broadway was tied up in his jet or at his mansion; the timing seemed all wrong.

So I guess what my question boils down to is this:

When did the clan first learn about Demona's past, and her relationship with Macbeth, and am I on the right track with the whole Brooklyn idea?

By the way, Gargoyles is my favorite show. It still amazes me how you were able to weave such an intricate story about such real characters, and teach real life lessons about vengeance, tolerance, family, reconciliation, and so much more, all within the confines of a childrens' cartoon. This was truly a story that made full use of its own medium, and made strong points about life. I believe that Gargoyles is probably the most beneficial and educational childrens' programming I have ever seen, in terms of teaching life lessons, and I too am completely disgusted that Toon Disney won't air "Deadly Force." Thank you for reading this long ramble of mine, and also for providing the best television program to date.

Greg responds...

Thank you.

I definitely have gone through this before. So it's somewhere in the archives. Like in the Macbeth archive or Demona most likely. I'm afraid you're on the wrong track, mostly because you are taking the word "Immortality" too literally. It's used in different ways in different places.

1. In "The Price", Hudson does know that Macbeth and Demona have been alive a LONG time. That makes them Immortal on at least one level. When he says immortal in this one, he's only referring to their obviously long life spans. But at this time, he doesn't know about their link, their inability to die unless one kills the other. The fact that they've lived that long might only mean that they've never been killed and have some kind of eternal youth spell or something. So Hudson can believe that Macbeth has FINALLY died when the first robot bites the dust.

2. After the Weird Sisters are captured in "Avalon, Part Three", they are (off-screen) forced to reveal the link between Demona and Macbeth, i.e the terms of their immortality. So at that point, a bunch of people know the truth, particularly Goliath, Elisa and Angela.

3. So by "Sanctuary", Elisa knows. And clearly, Demona has also told Thailog.

4. When Goliath, Elisa, Bronx and Angela return to NYC in "The Gathering, Part One" and after they have time to sit down and relate their adventures (between "The Gathering, Part Two" and "Vendettas"), they relate the Demona/Macbeth story to Hudson and the Trio. So now most of the cast is up to speed.

Mystery solved?

Response recorded on September 09, 2001

Bookmark Link

Paranoia... possibly.

So maybe it's me...

But lately I've been feeling like people are popping in to ASK GREG with the deliberate intent of catching me in a mistake or inconsistency. Like they are trying to trip me up.

If not, my apologies.

But if so... CUT IT OUT, OKAY!!!!

It's just not much fun for me.

And before anyone else gets personally paranoid, this isn't directed at any one person. I've just had this general sense that somehow this is the new contest here. Who can make Greg look stupid. Believe me guys, I don't need much help in that department.

If you have a legitimate question you're curious about, then ask away. But if you're just posting to make me look foolish and/or to prove that the show wasn't perfect... well, how 'bout I just acknowledge both things here and now, and we let that drop.

Okay?


Bookmark Link

matt writes...

both Proto-Mammals and Dinosaurs evolved from Reptiles. Proto-Mammals were very reptilian, but with some very Mammalian characteristics. they laid eggs, but probably nursed their young sometimes too. they lived at the beginning of the age of dinosaurs and most are considered "dinosaurs' in a very broad way, though scientifically they are not. Proto-Mammals would go on to evolve into mammals and what i'm wondering is if they also went to evolve into Gargates. from everything i know and you've told us, they fit the profile. some, like Dimetrodon, even had primative solar radiaters which could have evolved into the ability to store solar energy. in fact, Dimetrodon looks very similar to a garg beast to me, with a sail. i once asked you if gargs were related to Platypus cause of the varied similarities they have, and if Gargates did evolve from Proto-mammals than they were related since platypus is one of the few remaining Proto-Mammals not extinct. are proto-mammals the ancestors of gargates?

Greg responds...

matt, how many ways can I say I DON'T KNOW enough about biology to answer this question?

You're theory (assuming the facts are accurate) is interesting. So... MAYBE!

Before I say yes, I'd have to do a lot of research that I haven't yet done.

Response recorded on September 08, 2001

Bookmark Link

Denis writes...

Hello, Greg!
First thing first, thank you for your explanation about OTS.

Now to the "main course", I'm wondering, since Team Atlantis got axed, can you answer question related to the series?

Greg responds...

Some.

Response recorded on September 08, 2001

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

Did Mab have any children besides Oberon? If so are they more or less powerful than Oberon?

Greg responds...

Not answering this now.

Response recorded on September 08, 2001

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

Was it intentional to make Nick Maza similar to Captain of the Guard since both are described by you in the Garg bible and the 2198 contest as much like a gargoyle as a human can be?

Greg responds...

You're taking that too literally.

I was actually trying to connect Nick up to Tom, thematically.

Response recorded on September 08, 2001

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

since Fox has twice as much Children of Oberon blood in her as Alex and Alex has managed to live til 2198 would Fox herself still be alive in 2198?

Greg responds...

Not revealing one way or another.

Response recorded on September 08, 2001

Bookmark Link

Punchinello writes...

Mr. Weisman,

I'm sorry I did not acknowledge your response before now. I only realized that you had addressed my post on sentience a moment ago.

I did not really think that you condoned the obliteration of a family of polar bears (anthropomorphic or otherwise). I was raising the issue because I think I am observing a trend wherein people are only assigning value to a life based upon an inference of anthropomorphism. That is to say, some people are investing their ethical concern in something based upon how much it resembles a human being; and this is hardly an objective premise to begin with. Semblance to human beings, mental or otherwise, can not constitute a requirement for being worthy of consideration or protection. However I do believe that it is reasonable to assign values based upon certain criteria from within our own perspectives (it's the only thing we can assign values from) as long as we make a concerted effort to avoid an obviously centrist sentiment like using ourselves as a template for what is worth consideration.

If someone were to ask me what criteria I thought were appropriate, I would probably return to what has already been implied. Intelligence. Emotional intuition. Volition. And a whole host of perceptual characteristics. Those things from which emerge a picture of mental life. Perhaps an ability to suffer and to anticipate conditions which cause or alleviate suffering, and to desire to distance ones self from a cause of it. However, if we are going to determine the presence of those capacities with nothing but purely verifiable data, then we fall in league with the evolutionary psychologists foundation of mental within the biological. And the biological machinery necessary to mediate these abilities is certainly not the exclusive domain of Homo Sapiens. (I _do_ subscribe to the evolutionary psychologist foundation by the way. I like to have data I can verify beyond "it is true because it is so.")

For a lot of people though, these emergent mental properties are always considered as something transcendent of biology, immeasurable, even inviolate, because I have observed others react with hostility to the reduction of mental qualities to biology. On numerous occasions. Thinking that way leads to all kinds of misunderstandings, however. Another contributor to this board, Entity, had taken the position that humans and gorillas were intelligent but dogs were not. I found this extremely interesting because even outside the realm of biological architectures in the brain I could use as a foundation for taking the evolutionary psychologist position, it needs to be acknowledged that even within social psychology dogs are attributed a measurable intelligence. It's not extraordinary. My dog has an IQ of 12 or so for instance. And of course these kinds of figures are disputable, because it really requires the participation of the test subject past his simple presence to get accurate results. I would submit that the whole concept of IQ as it is accepted within the social sciences borders on being fraudulent anyway. The point is that the ascription of non-intelligence that was made about the dog was arbitrary. It was not informed by the physical _or_ social sciences. It was just an assumption. And that kind of casual valuization can be dangerous when it functions as the basis for how much respect we offer another. This is not a slight against this Entity. I'm just using this as an example to outline the stated purpose of my original post. If people are going to hold these positions they maintain, then they need to ask themselves why they have that particular belief. If they have this mental dialogue with themselves and they cannot answer that first question, then it is time to evaluate how much their beliefs represent reality.

____________________________________________________________________________
I'm probably as guilty as anyone of overusing, or rather overbilling the issue of "sentience". I think the concept has its uses. But it's probably used as a crutch too often.
____________________________________________________________________________

I would agree. I think of it as a crutch of language. Some people subscribe to an ideology that is a holdover from religious impulses. It maintains that the mantle of "human" is sacred and unapproachable. They need to define what the quality of "human" is that makes it thus, without any background knowledge of cognitive science so that it fits their sensibilities. They can adopt the hazily defined expression, "sentience", imported from popular culture, via star trek, to articulate their position. For some others, the mental capacities of non human animals may be very well understood. They may acknowledge capacities for reflection and emotion, but they still need a convenient means of distinguishing various abilities. So an imprecise language becomes common.

Greg responds...

Agreed. And I'll also admit that your thinking on this subject is much more sophisiticated than mine has been.

I think a lot of how we are defining sentience does come down to the "Potential for Direct Communication", which is of course a fairly preposterous criteria.

On the other hand, if it is truly another hand, I don't think these ideas are mutually exclusive with notions of religion. Dog heaven, man. You know?

And don't worry about not getting back to me sooner. As I'm sure you've noticed, there's something of a delay going on in this whole system. I have trouble keeping up with the posts here. So as long as you remind me of what we were talking about, we should be fine.

Response recorded on September 08, 2001

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

in the gargoyles universe, why did the chicken cross the road?

i'm not telling a joke, i'm looking for an answer. i swear theres a good one here somewhere... and this will keep me busy til the next contest!

Greg responds...

To find out how many gargoyles it takes to screw in a lightbulb, I guess.

Response recorded on September 08, 2001


: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #126 - #135 of 292 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :