A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Behind the Scenes

Archive Index


: « First : « 50 : Displaying #142 - #191 of 536 records. : 50 » : Last » :


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


Bookmark Link

Don't Want to Give My Name writes...

What happened to the helicopter Lexington modified from the episode "Her Brother's Keeper"? It wasn't destroyed at the end of the episode so why don't the gargoyles continue to use it? Did they dismantle it off camera. If not, what did they do with it?

Greg responds...

They hid it. They generally don't have much use for it.

And personally, it's a source of frustration for me. We were ... shall we say... "encouraged" to put the helicopter in for Kenner. We jumped through hoops in that story to make it believable (to the extent that it is) and then Kenner never made that toy. I'm not saying it never existed, but I can't forsee bringing it back. Though that's not etched in stone.

Response recorded on October 26, 2007

Bookmark Link

Algernon writes...

Hey Greg, long time reader, first time asker. I just had a few "behind the scenes questions about the new Gargoyles comic.

1) Have you ever considered inviting back writers from the TV series, such as Cary Bates or Michael Reeves to do guest writer shots on the comic?

2) Beyond drawing the covers, how much involvement does Greg Gruler have with the comic? For example, does he have any input on the design of new characters?

Greg responds...

1. There really isn't enough money to afford to pay me to edit and anyone else to write. So as cool as it would be to have Cary or Michael, you guys are stuck with me.

2. It's inconsistent. Greg is a busy, busy guy. Mostly, David's been designing his own new characters, including Shari. Nir designed Quincy.

Response recorded on October 25, 2007

Bookmark Link

Landon "Lumpmoose" Thomas writes...

Hello, long-time reader, first time asker. I just caught "Ken 10" and loved it. I think it's one of the best Ben 10 episodes yet, and that's saying a lot. I love seeing the shades of Gargoyles in there with your fearlessness in shaking things up, adding drama, introducing new characters, and playing with the time line. It makes me all the more excited for Spectacular Spider-man (congrats on the 26-episode pick-up, by the way).

I'm currently pondering a career in sound design/editing/engineering. Animation is my passion and that's what I'd like to work with, at least partially (i.e. I can't draw). You've mentioned Advantage Audio in the past as the Gargoyles post-production house. Advantage Audio looks like a great place to work, but it surprises me that Disney television animation would contract out for audio work on one of their flagship products.

1) I know smaller animation studios usually contract out for audio post-production, but how often do the big studios, like WDTVA, WB, Cartoon Network, and Nickelodeon, use external post-production houses?

b) Do they even have in-house audio teams? If so, how often do they use them?

c) Just out of curiosity, what does Culver Entertainment do?

2) The thing I'm worried about most is being 'merely' a tech grunt in the audio production field. In your opinion, how much creativity is there in the audio post-production field?

b) How closely do you, as a writer/producer/director, work with audio teams? Do you just pass the work on and expect an end-product?

3) This is a personal, limited-in-scope question of which you may have no opinion. I'm currently in Minneapolis with a BA in theatre, minor in computer science, and very little audio experience. I'm pondering going to Full Sail for a trained-by-the-best kind of thing. Does that school stick out for you or would a local tech school and/or experience be good enough to break into the big time?

Thanks for any help! I know questions weren't strictly Gargoyles-related, but Gargoyles was what inspired me to steer into the entertainment industry in the first place!

Greg responds...

Thanks for the congrats.

1. None of the studios I've ever worked with in Television Animation have their own post houses.

b. Never.

c. Each show is different, but as far as Spidey's concerned, we'll probably make a decision in the next couple weeks as to which audio post house we'll be using.

2. Tons. But it depends on what you mean by creativity. Obviously, you're coming at the piece near the end of the process. You're not writing the story or animating the picture, but you are breathing life into it with sound, and there are a tons of choices to be made. The producers (if not the executives) have final say of course, but a great engineer or sound fx designer makes all the difference in the world.

b. I discuss things with the team, they go to town and then I'm present for the mix (at the very least). I don't just hand it off and cross my fingers that I'll like what comes back, but I also don't stand over their shoulders while the sound is being designed.

3. I've never heard of "Full Sail", but frankly I don't know this arena very well, so don't judge by me.

Good luck!

Response recorded on October 12, 2007

Bookmark Link

Michael writes...

Hi Greg. First, I just wanted to say thanks for everything. For shaping Gargoyles the way it is. For being so open and accessible and involved with the fans.

In "Silver Falcon" Mace pretends to be this G. F. Benton character. I was wondering if there was anything behind the name G. F. Benton? Is it just something Cary Bates pulled out of thin air or was there a deeper meaning (as it seems is the case for a lot of what's put into an episode of Gargoyles).

Thanks again.

Greg responds...

No, not Mace. Dominic pretends to be G.F. Benton. I'm not aware of any significance to the Benton name, but you'd have to "Ask Cary" to be sure.

Response recorded on July 13, 2007

Bookmark Link

jordan writes...

Were the major thems created in the series intended to have real world meaning, or were they merely for plot motion?

Greg responds...

Both, if I'm understanding you correctly.

Response recorded on June 25, 2007

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

I noticed that in #3 and #4, we got to see a lot of familiar faces from the "minor characters", more than we usually saw in the average episode of "Gargoyles" in its first two seasons. These two issues, put together, included the following cast members (all ones from the first two seasons) besides the clan, Elisa, and the Xanatoses (including Owen): Matt Bluestone, Officer Morgan, Phil Travanti (in the sense that he showed up as Morgan's partner in a couple of episodes such as "Temptation", though unnamed), Margot and Brendan, Agent Hacker, Jason Canmore, Demona, Al, the Mutates (except for Fang), the Clones, Castaway, Thailog, Billy and Susan and their mother, Jeffrey Robbins, Gilgamesh, and Judge Roebling. Perhaps it's only my imagination, but this seems like a larger cross-section of the characters than I remember seeing in the televised episodes.

Does this have anything to do with the fact that you're now telling the story in the medium of a comic book, which means that you don't have to worry about paying voice actors and can thus freely bring more people into each episode? Or is this merely the result of the accumulation of characters in the original 65 episodes? ("The Journey", even in its televised form, itself had a substantial cast, including, alongside the clan, Elisa, the Xanatoses and Castaway, the following figures: Travis Marshall, the Jogger, Vinnie, Sarah Greene, Matt Bluestone, Banquo and Fleance, Margot, and Macbeth.)

Greg responds...

It's really a combination of both. As I work on Spider-Man now, I have an on-going fight budgetarily as to how many characters I can put in any given episode... or rather how many actors I can hire. (It helps some when actors double up. For example, if I've got Brooklyn in an episode, I can get Owen for free. But if I also need the Magus, then Jeff Bennett get's a small additional payment. But if I ALSO need Bruno, then Jeff gets a FULL SECOND payment, as if I had hired a second actor to play Bruno. If I also want Matrix, I can get him for free with Bruno. If I also want young Macbeth, though, I need to make a second small additional payment. But if I ALSO need Vinnie, then I'm paying Jeff the same as three full other actors. And so on, heck with folks like Jeff or, say, Kath Soucie, this thing could go on ad infinitum.)

So, yeah, there is a certain liberation that comes with all the voices being in our heads and not behind actual microphones.

Beyond that, there's the scope thing. Look at Joss Whedon's new "Hey, no limits on my special effects or cast of thousands" Buffy comic. Same thing to some extent. I want the scope of the comic to be larger, because that's one of the strengths of that particular medium.

And still, part of it is VERY organic to the universe that we so carefully built through 65 television episodes. Nothing is wasted, and even the smallest character often inspired story ideas for me. (And I've had a decade to muse on all their stories, so frankly things are way MORE planned out now than they were back in the day, when we did plan ahead, but when our deadline pressure on the writing side was so incredibly crushing that often we were lucky as much as we were smart.) So it's natural that more and more of them will begin to have larger and larger roles. Some will whisp away for many issues and reappear when you least expect them. Others will be a constant presense. Others may not survive. Such is life...

Response recorded on June 08, 2007

Bookmark Link

Gerin writes...

Hi Greg,

thanks again for taking the time to communicate with the community. Today, I have a few questions about the gargoyle designs:

1) On the show, the further the show progresses, the more varied the gargoyle design becomes. Originally, the gargoyles have a rather human look, but with time some of them cross the border to animalic. I'm thinking about the London Gargoyles in particular. How did these character design decisions, for example for lion-, eagle- and horse-heads and the bird wings, come about? Did you, the production crew, argue about such designs among each other? Or was it something that everybody accepted immediately?

2) I believe I remember a piece of promotional art that features Bronx with very small wings on the back. Why was it decided to remove those wings?

3) For the show, when you came upon a story that involved new gargoyles, what was the design process? Was there a lot of moving-sketches-back-and-forth, approving and rejecting designs, or were you usually contend with the first design you got?

4) Unfortunately, so far I have only seen the covers of the comic. But I wonder: why has the change to a bare-midriff look for Angela been made? Was it just a hunch of the artists, or were there more serious thoughts behind this?

Thanks in advance for answering and all your work.

Greg responds...

1. I don't remember any fighting over the London designs. MANY, many "gargoyles" in England are based on heraldic forms, and that's what we followed. It all fits into our backward extrapolation for why humans started sculpting faux gargoyles to safeguard their buildings.

2. Bronx never had wings. Bronx did have ears that acted as tiny wings and allowed him to hover a few inches off the ground. It was a comedy-development holdover, and Frank Paur jetissoned it when he came aboard.

3. Some of each.

4. It was a discussion between Greg Guler and myself to consciously make her look a bit sexier and more grown up, as she embarked on a more adult relationship with Broadway. And if her new look called up memories of Demona... well, so much the better.

Response recorded on June 01, 2007

Bookmark Link

Jonny Modlin writes...

Hi Greg,
Where is Buena Vista Home Entertainment located in? Thank you.

Greg responds...

Burbank.

Response recorded on May 11, 2007

Bookmark Link

Gerin writes...

Hey Greg,

thank you very much for communicating with fans for all these years. Really cool!

Was so glad to read you liked "Firefly" and "Serenity". So, my questions:

1) Did you ever meet Joss Whedon? If yes, do you know if saw "Gargoyles"? Did he like it? I'd ask him myself, but there is no "Ask Joss", and it would be interesting to know if you two ever talked about your shows.

2) I realize "Gargoyles" and "Firefly" differ in almost every regard, but I'm still aching to understand why my favourite shows always get axed prematurely. So, do you see any similarities between the two shows? Any common ground regarding their discontinuation other than their ratings not living up to expectations? Why is it that these shows did not catch on more? Is there something you and Joss maybe learned from it?

3) How would you explain that "Firefly" got a movie, whereas the "Gargoyles"-movie hasn't been made (yet)? Was it luck, was it that Disney would never let go of a property the way Fox has for "Serenity"?

Thanks for your time, all the best, can't wait for the comics to appear in Europe.

Greg responds...

1. I've never met Joss Whedon. But I'm a huge fan of his. I doubt I'm on his radar though. Though it's nice to IMAGINE he's a fan.

2. Um, Gargoyles did NOT get axed prematurely. Elsewhere on this site, probably in the FAQ, you can read about all the reasons why the series was not renewed for a fourth season (or rather a second season of Goliath Chronicles). But we did 65 episodes of Gargoyles (not counting TGC). That's a FULL order.

3. DVD sales mostly. Joss Whedon being Joss Whedon too. But mostly they had stellar DVD sales, we did not.

Response recorded on May 03, 2007

Bookmark Link

Matt writes...

How does the writing process differ between the comic and the show? Since you guys often butted heads over ideas for the show, and ultimately ended up making good decisions, do you feel that being the sole writer of the comic loses that synergy?

Greg responds...

Probably. That's inevitable. But there's still quite a bit of collaboration with the various artists on the book, and that helps.

And frankly, no one else has been as immersed in this as I have been, so at this stage I might chafe a bit more than I did back then, when we were ALL coming to it fresh.

Response recorded on May 03, 2007

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

You've mentioned before that Vinnie's departure for Japan and his parting words to Goliath in "The Journey" (back when it was a television episode) were in part an allegory for your leaving "Gargoyles" (and Disney). I noticed that his farewell to Goliath was also in #2 of the Gargoyles comic. Did it feel odd to you to write those words again, knowing that this time around, your situation was the opposite of Vinnie's (and of your situation when you were writing them the first time), that instead of leaving the gargoyles, you were returning to them?

Greg responds...

Only if I made the effort to think about it, frankly. The truth is there are little inspirations to all sorts of things throughout Gargoyles. But once it becomes part of the canon, it is what it is. So long ago, I internalized Vinnie's departure as part of the tapestry. And the behind the scenes reason why I did it became less important than the effect it had on his character and the rest of the highly interconnected Gargoyles Universe.

Response recorded on April 20, 2007

Bookmark Link

Vaevictis Asmadi writes...

Hello Greg!
I haven't got the newest issues of the comic yet, I have to wait until they are available on Amazon. But in the meantime I wanted to write while the queue is open.
I watched Gargoyles when I was a kid and I really liked it, especially the mythology and medieval history episodes such as City of Stone. At the time, although I enjoyed City of Stone (and it is still my favorite episode) I thought it was peculiar to depict Macbeth as the hero. Of course, now I know that City of Stone is actually more historically accurate than Shakespeare's play.
Unfortunately I only saw a few episodes before it was cancelled/moved, and I didn't remember much of it. I'd pretty much forgotten about the show years ago, until I went to the Gargoyles panel at Convergence last year and was reminded about it. That panel was a good idea to tell people about the DVDs and comic, and to encourage old fans to get back into the show. But unfortunately for me, I hadn't known yet about things like Owen/Puck which you revealed at the panel.
I've gotten the two DVD sets so far (with some help from my parents) and having watched all the episodes so far, plus the rest on Toon Disney, I have to say how great a show Gargoyles is/was. It's like the old Batman and X-Men shows in being much more than just a cartoon. Of course the major draw for me is the gargoyles themselves which are a very interesting and appealing race, and visually pretty awesome. I've always loved the way gargoyles look, physically. I especially like their feet and talons, for some reason. Wings are also good. I also remember how I was very happy when Goliath came to Avalon and discovered that the species was not extinct after all. I love that the gargoyles from different parts of the world are the sources of various mythical creatures, and I'm very curious what the Chinese, Korean, New Olympian, and Loch Ness gargoyles look like.
I'm looking forward to getting a hold of issues 2 and 3 so I can get up to date but I also have some questions about the Gargoyles universe that are not answered in the archives. The setting is a pretty interesting one and I'm curious about some things. I don't want to flood the queue all of a sudden so I'm only starting with a single question:

Why did you choose to make the gargoyles an entirely "natural" species instead of being inherently magical like the Third Race? (natural is in quotes because, I suppose magic is a natural part of the Garg universe) What I mean is, why did you choose to have biological explanations for their evolution, wings, stone sleep, and great strength, instead of using magical explanations? Was it just more to your taste or was there a more specific reason, thematically or within-the-setting, that you didn't want them to be a magical species?
(I'm not trying to say your biological explanations don't work, I'm just curious about your choice from a thematic point of view)

Greg responds...

We didn't want to make them inherently magical for a number of reasons. We didn't want them to be a "created" race. Creatures that could be woven and unwoven by magic. Or brought to life from stone and returned to unlife from stone. You get the idea. We wanted, in essence, to put them on equal footing with humans in terms of inheriting the Earth, so to speak. Creationists or Evolutionists or IntelligentDesignists or whateverelseists should see Gargoyles and Humans as equivalent. Whatever method was used to create humans (choose your poison) is the same method that was used to create Gargoyles.

There's an essay by Stephen J. Gould called something like "Equality is a contingent fact of human history". It's just worked out biologically that all sentient creatures are the same species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. But how would we deal if there were another species...? Gould probably influenced me more than I realized, come to think of it.

Response recorded on March 30, 2007

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

I know you've stated multiple times that in the original sort of series outline, Broadway was going to be a female named Coco, but that got changed due to several different factors (fear of showing an overweight female, target demogaphic, action figures, etc). After you decided to change Broadway's gender, was there ever any move/idea to make any of the other Manhattan gargs (Brooklyn, Lex, Bronx, or Hudson) female? If so, why didn't it happen?

Greg responds...

There was no thought to do that.

Response recorded on March 13, 2007

Bookmark Link

Dr.No writes...

Hi Greg, I just bought the season 1 DVD because I had found a new interest in the show after reading some stuff on the internet. I was a fan of the show when I was younger and like some other animated series now on DVD that I have, I appreciate the show more now then I did back in 94. Ramblings aside, My question is if by some miracle you got the chance to do a continuation to the series, would you approve if someone changed the designs of the characters to be more streamlined so the animators overseas could stay on model more consistantly. I hope to hear back and I'll get season 2 soon(Y).

Greg responds...

Not if I could help it. I think our designs were fairly streamlined. Frank Paur saw to that. We did get off model sometimes, but no more than any show. Generally, I think we rocked. If it ain't broke, etc.

Response recorded on January 03, 2007

Bookmark Link

Osman Rashid writes...

I notice that in many, many tv shows--when you consider their history --as in, all that has happened to the characters/all the adventures had--the totality is simply ridiculous. Even that show on FOX called "24"--which prides itself on being highly serialized--suffers from this problem. One of the reason's I loved Gargoyles was that the show's sense of history never seemed ridiculous. How did you and your writers manage to avoid this problem?

Greg responds...

Have we?

Well... I guess part of the plan was to present the show in real time. It may feel more believable because we're not forcing a lifetime of events into an artificial time frame. Maybe.

Or maybe it helps that we have such a large ensemble cast. Because events aren't all heaped onto a single character, but spread out among the cast, it helps. Maybe.

Response recorded on December 01, 2006

Bookmark Link

Krista writes...

How do Goliath and Angela and Elisa communicate with the Guatamalen clan and the Japanese clan? Are they all speaking English? It would make sense (sort of) if all gargoyles understood each other... but then Elisa talks with them also... could you help me here?

Greg responds...

The short answer is that they're all speaking English. This was a production choice made at the beginning of the World Tour by Frank Paur. Later, Frank changed his mind, and we tried to convince our bosses to let us redo some stuff -- especially in "Bushido". But our bosses vetoed the idea of us going OVERbudget for the sake of putting some dialogue in subtitles, which at least a percentage of our audience couldn't read.

Since then, other ideas have occured to me...

Response recorded on November 09, 2006

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

Thanks for the "Cloud Fathers" ramble, Greg!

I will confess that I can't remember from my first-time viewing whether I was surprised or not by the revelation at the end that Carlos Maza had passed on. However, I do find myself wondering, whenever I watch it on tape now, whenever either Elisa or Beth asks Peter if he wants to "go visit grandfather" while he's in town, how many first-time viewers did suspect that Carlos was dead, and how many were surprised.

Arizona, incidentally, now has a little more personal significance to me than it did when the episode first aired; my mother and stepfather moved there a few years ago (they live in the Phoenix area). They've sometimes mentioned Flagstaff in conversations with me, but haven't as yet mentioned anything about sand-carvings of Coyote or Kachina dancers. :)

Xanatos's "cliched villainy" line is a particular favorite of mine; only Xanatos would make such a remark! Though the bit where he admits that he has no desire to kill Goliath or any of the other gargoyles - this is just a necessary part of his coyote-trap - definitely stands out to me as well. You don't see the main antagonist saying that to the hero too often in an animated adventure series!

I liked the touch of the Cauldron of Life being incorporated into Coyote 4.0. (As I mentioned once in chat, it reminds me a bit of the scene in "Camelot 3000" where Mordred incorporates the Holy Grail into his armor.) The mention of the iron obviously was a foreshadowing of what was coming in the very next episode. (Was Xanatos's follow-up remark of "Ironic" intended as a pun, by the way?)

I also got a kick out of the mild confusion over "Which Coyote are we talking about here?" - the best part of all being when Coyote the Trickster threatens to sue Xanatos for trademark infringement. (And Xanatos's response that he's a "trickster at heart" rings true to me - the man's living proof that you don't have to be a Child of Oberon to be a trickster. He fulfills the archetype just as surely as Puck, Raven, and the rest do.)

I hadn't noticed the similarity of the Coyote robot to Wile E. Coyote until you mentioned it here at "Ask Greg" (not in this ramble, but in earlier answers to questions), but I certainly see it now. (Though, judging from the name of a certain merchant in "Vendettas", Coyote the robot isn't the only "Gargoyles" character to be influenced by Wile E. Coyote!)

So the multiple trickster story was what you'd originally planned for the Puck-and-Alex story before you decided to merge it with the Cold Trio for "Possession"?

Thanks for another enjoyable ramble, Greg.

Greg responds...

I'm not sure the iron/ironic thing was an intentional pun. But it was so long ago, I may have forgotten.

The Multi-Trickster story was indeed slotted for our 64th episode... with Reckoning planned as our 65th. Then at some point, we learned that Hunter's Moon would not be a direct to video, but would instead have to be folded into our regular series. So HM1-3 became episodes 63-65. Reckoning was moved back to 61, so that we'd have at least a little Demona distance between Reckoning and HM. And then we had to combine a few springboards to make room for Hunters Moon. (For example, Vendettas was a combo of two springboards: (1) Vinnie's Vendetta and (2) Hakon & Wolf's Vendetta.)

So another couple of springboards we combined were the Multi-Trickster story and the Coldtrio story. Cary Bates and I worked the combo for some time, but we finally RAN OUT OF TIME. We were on deadline, and we just couldn't crack a story with so much going on. So we simplified back down to one Trickster, i.e. Puck.

Response recorded on October 26, 2006

Bookmark Link

Chris Roman writes...

Greg, as a fellow Disney-ite (well, currently on 'hiatus' as Disney waits to see if American Dragon does well), I was disturbed by your recent complaint about heading up the writing staff of WITCH, but it being 'non-union'. How does that work? Didn't Disney hire you to write for the series, or did the French animation company officially hire you? Isn't this something you could bring up with Steve Heulett and the Union?

Just concerned about Disney's apparent disdain for following Union protocols of late...
-Chris Roman

Greg responds...

Hey, Chris.

I was hired by SIP Animation in Paris. They are my bosses. Thus the show is non-union... and there's nothing TAG can do about it.

Disney subcontracted production of the series to SIP (which they partially own). This, I'm sure, was done for financial reasons, in particular the subsidies that the French government provides for "European content". (WITCH was originally created as a comic book in Italy by Disney Publishing Italy.) The fact that the series would then be non-union was, I believe, a financial bonus for Disney.

Response recorded on October 25, 2006

Bookmark Link

Joey Conaway writes...

Hey Greg I bought the GARGOYLES DVD today and I have enjoyed it already here is my question
to ya

How long did it take yall to do the animation and get the voice overs
for Disney at that time please let me know thanks

Greg responds...

It took ten months for every step. (It's called a ten-month sliding schedule.)

That is we had ten months to write the scripts. Ten months to record the voices. Ten months to storyboard. Ten months to animate. Etc. But all of those various "ten months" overlapped. The whole process was probably more like 14 months.

Response recorded on September 21, 2006

Bookmark Link

Entity writes...

Mr. Weisman, I watched "The Edge" today and found myself amazed by how well you and the writers (in this case, Michael Reeves) pulled off your surprise endings. They were always shocking without feeling 'cheap.' This is because they always make perfect sense in the context of the episode, once you know what's really up. I think the way you accomplished this, without resorting to manipulative or dishonest tactics, was to make the viewer feel like he was in control. For instance, in "The Edge," the viewer is happy to believe Xanatos has created a new, more advanced Steel Clan robot. That would have been a cool plot development in and of itself, and something the viewer felt he grasped better than the gargoyles did. In "The Price," the viewer knows that Macbeth is immortal, while the gargoyles do not, so he feels more in control than the gargoyles. Perhaps this even results in a sort of gracious laze-of-mind in the viewer, by which you and the writers used the gargoyles' naivete, both of the modern world and of the show's arching plot, as a way of lulling us into a false sense of security. Was this a conscious tactic? Is it something you and the show's writers saw yourselves pulling off or was it business-as-usual? Is such stuff taught in television writing classrooms? I've never seen another show pull off its surprise endings quite as remarkably as Gargoyles. The very first time you pull one off is "The Thrill of the Hunt," an episode that could well have ended, just as "The Edge," after the gargoyles turned to stone. But like "The Sixth Sense," you kept going, and in the process, turned what would have been merely "good" stories into great ones. These episodes and the others like them were not created for the sole purpose of their surprise endings. They were flesh-and-blood stories that you and the writers ended with surprises nonetheless. Most of the praise for Gargoyles goes to its multiethnicity, its voice cast, its music, its gothic atmosphere, the dialogue (which you claim was sixth-grade level, but I've never read a newspaper article as verbose as Goliath), and all deservedly so, but one of the most enduring aspects of all were the shock endings.

Greg responds...

I'm glad that stuff works for you. It worked for us.

The main drive behind endings like that was a desire not to undercut our lead villains. Villains get tiresome when they lose all the time. And heroes are pointless if they lose all the time. (It's fun and dramatic and right to have both sides lose occasionally. But if either side loses ALL the time... well then where's the drama?)

But if a hero wins the battle and then we secretly reveal (in our patented Xanatos tags) that he may still be losing the war, then that keeps both sides interesting.

So it's not shock value for shock value's sake. But it lead us down a path that gave you the surprises you enjoyed. It forced us to always look BEHIND the obvious. Forced us to work harder. Then, I think the trick is to play fair. We may not reveal all, and -- your right -- our characters (human and gargoyle alike) may make incorrect assumptions about the situation, but all the clues are there from the moment the "PREVIOUSLY ON GARGOYLES..." starts to roll. (In fact, sometimes I feared that too many clues were planted.) By playing fair you get that double whammy at the end... both the surprise but also the "Of course..." That feeling that it's right. That it's not cheating. That in fact nothing else could possibly make sense.

Perhaps the ultimate example of that was the Owen/Puck revelation.

As for whether that's taught in writing classes? None specifically that I've taken. I've touched on it, here and there, in a couple of the classes that I've taught over the years. But I don't think I've ever focused a lesson plan on this point either. It's very much at the fine tuning end of the spectrum. Not something you'd get into in a survey course.

Response recorded on September 13, 2006

Bookmark Link

snoop g'rgg writes...

Subject:controversial scenes
Greg did you ever recieve a lashback from some of the episodes Disney aired during its run ala Eye of the Beholder Fox's brief nude scene, Elisa removing her bottom gown (On this note some perves were ready to see Elisa in her panties, Which thank God you guys place a mini skirt instead also I bet you'll anticipated parent viewers on the The Mirror episode where Goliath falls showing under his loincloth and finally were you taking a risk on the Hunter's Moon episode where Elisa gives Goliath a kiss?

Greg responds...

I think the Fox thing was a bit of a risk, though none of the other things you mentioned. (You're exagerating the loincloth bit where we had full wrap-around, so to speak.) But no, there was no "lashback" at all about these scenes or episodes.

The only thing that comes close to what you are describing is the episode "Deadly Force". We had no outcry over it at the time, quite the reverse, we received a lot of praise for it. But later, Toon Disney refused to air it for years because of the realistic depiction of violence (the exact thing we were praised for). I'm told they do air it now though.

Response recorded on August 30, 2006

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

Just so that I've gotten this straight - so in the very first outline for "Mark of the Panther", it was were-jaguars rather than were-panthers? I'm glad that that was changed; since jaguars live in South America rather than Africa, it'd be pretty strange seeing one (ordinary or were) showing up in Nigeria.

Greg responds...

Yep, and that's why the change was made of course. We got the beast wrong. So we fixed it.

Response recorded on August 23, 2006

Bookmark Link

Joey writes...

If Gargoyles hadn't (temporarily) ended when it did, would it still be going or would you have run out of material by now? 10 years is a lot of episodes. How many eps per season would there have been anyways? 13, 52, or somewhere in between.

Greg responds...

Well, there are SO many "ifs" in your hypothetical question, I don't know how to evalute the specifics. But I am QUITE confident that I would not have run out of material by now. The new comic book can easily go twice that long assuming sales support us.

As for how many episodes per season, that's a financial question, not a creative one. We didn't do 13 in season one and 52 in season two for creative reasons, but for financial ones. Likewise the decision to make 13 in Season 3 (Goliath Chronicles) was again financial. So in the intervening seasons, the answer is zero per season, for what Disney perceived as financial reasons. So how to evaluate financials for a hypothetical non-existent season is impossible.

Response recorded on August 22, 2006

Bookmark Link

DPH writes...

How exactly did you come to realize that Puck and Owen were the same person?

Was it because you looking at who Puck had served and needed somebody?

Greg responds...

I can't believe I haven't answered this before here. But since Todd didn't field this one, I guess I haven't... or at least not here at ASK GREG.

Anyway... No.

We always knew there was something special about Owen, but didn't know what it was at first. Then when we first started working on "The Mirror" and created Puck, it suddenly occured to me that Puck was Owen. An epiphany. I immediately called Brynne Chandler Reaves and Lydia Marano. The conversation went something like this...

Greg: "I just realized: Owen is Puck!"

Brynne & Lydia: "We know!"

It was just so right. The references in "The Mirror" to Puck "serving the human" and in "City of Stone, Part One" to Owen being "the tricky one" were put in post-epiphany.

Response recorded on August 21, 2006

Bookmark Link

Rhonda writes...

Hi Greg,

I have been a huge fan of Gargoyles for years. It still remains my favorite TV series of all time. One of the reasons I was so pulled in was the intricate storyline. I love the way we were clued in, little by little, to what happened in the past, real identities, and real motives of the characters. My favorite moment was when Owen was revealed to be Puck. I literally fell off my chair!

I've always wondered how far in advance you would plan out the episodes. It seems like you must have had the entire storyline in your head before you sat down to write a single one. Or were these things thought up as you went? (Maybe one day you just thought, "Wouldn't it be cool if it turned out that Owen was really Puck?"). Did you come up with Demona and MacBeth's entire storyline in the very beginning?

Thanks in advance. I truly hope that I can have the pleasure of enjoying new Gargoyles episodes some day in the future.

Greg responds...

Not everything was figured out from day one, no.

For example, while working on "The Mirror" it suddenly occured to me that Owen was Puck. Note the phraising. It wasn't: "Wouldn't it be cool if it turned out that Owen was really Puck?" It was more like: "Oh my God, Owen IS Puck."

I immediately called writer Lydia Marano and Story Editor Brynne Chandler to tell them. They're response: "We KNOW!!"

That's when you know a show is working... when the characters tell you there truths. When it all just feels right.

Much of course, was planned out in advance. I didn't have all the details down, but in "Awakening" we knew that Demona was lying about sleeping for a thousand years. Certainly by "Enter Macbeth", I knew the broad strokes of Macbeth and Demona's relationship.

We did have a plan.

I still do for that matter.

Response recorded on June 13, 2006

Bookmark Link

GargFan1995-present writes...

Hi, Greg!

I was wondering if there were any plans to release the Mighty Ducks series (which you worked on), the Aladdin series (which you worked on), or the Tail Spin series (which you worked on) onto DVD. What's the latest word at Disney about that?

Greg responds...

I have no idea about the if or whens of these series being released on DVD. Keep in mind, I don't actually work at Disney anymore. Haven't since 1996.

For the record, none of these three series were shows I had that much to do with.

I led the original development team on Mighty Ducks, but then I moved over to do Gargoyles, and I had nothing to do with the production of the series and its simultaneous redevelopment.

On TaleSpin, I was a junior creative exec giving notes on stories, trying to be helpful. I also did the voice of one of the Pandas of Panda-La: "Father, the rockets aren't working!"

On Aladdin, I was involved with the development of the series, particularly with "The Return of Jafar". I had little to do with the production on this one either. (Although a bit more than Mighty Ducks.)

Response recorded on February 16, 2006

Bookmark Link

French Kitty writes...

First of all, I just want to say that Gargoyles is the BEST cartoon series ever made! You and your working crew did an amazing job at bringing it to life.

So, yeah. My question:
Why doesn't Elisa ever change her clothes? I know she changes clothes and her closet is probably filled with a lot of black T-shirts and a lot of blue jeans, but she would have looked great in the outfits from the comics. Or at least something similar.

But nonetheless, I LOVE the show and I am crossing my fingers for more episodes!
I also can't wait for the DVD to come out! I am SOO buying it! Thanx for your time. >^-^<

Greg responds...

Well, she did change her clothes occasionally. La Belle Elisa dress that she wore on Halloween and "Eye of the Beholder". The tough girl outfits she put together for "Protection" and "Turf". The clothes she wore briefly in episodes like "Hunter's Moon, Part One" and "Eye of the Storm". The dress she wore in "The Journey". There may be a couple of more examples that I can't think of at the moment.

The short REALITY answer is that redesigning new clothes for her every episode would have been prohibitively expensive and cause multiple animation errors overseas. So we limited her wardrobe changes to situations where story called for it.

Think of her standard outfit as a dramatic conceit.

Within the show, I just think that's a look she's comfortable with. I pretty much where the same outfit everyday myself. Tennis shoes, jeans and a t-shirt. Of course I don't wear the same t-shirt everyday. I have black t-shirts, white t-shirts, red t-shirts. And most of them have some kind of decal or design on them. But...

Anyway, the plan for the comic book is to start giving her a wider variety of costumes. But we still love that red jacket, blue jeans and black t-shirt. So that won't go away.

Response recorded on February 15, 2006

Bookmark Link

Z writes...

Greg,
You have said that you thought of the Timedancer spinoff too late in the game to consider producing it, which brought this to my mind.
I'm trying to get a feel for how much of the Gargoyles storyline you already had thought out when you began producing the show vs. how much was you came up with as the series progressed.
When you producing the first episodes, did you have a lot of the specific details of the storyline, villains, or episodes already prepared in your mind (i.e. the World Tour, the existence of the Third Race, Angela choosing Broadway, Elisa and Goliath becoming romantically close, Demona's 1000 year history, etc.)?
Or was it more like you had some vague ideas for villains, and some general episode premises, but left the door open for creativity down the road?
Or did you just have a general idea of a groups of protagonist gargoyles who wake up 1000 years later in Manhattan, fight bad guys, and alter to the new world?
I'm just trying to get a feel for how much was thought out from the beginning and how much was created as the story developed. Thanks for your time.

Peace

Greg responds...

Really, I'm not trying to dodge the question, but the answer is "ALL OF THE ABOVE."

There were certain things I had a clear vision of in my head from day one. Other things came to us as we went, but we still had planned out way in advance of when we sat down to write the specific episodes. And still, we left ourselves open to new ideas and serendipity, etc.

Response recorded on November 28, 2005

Bookmark Link

Tami writes...

About the episode, "Deadly Force"...if I remember correctly, there was actually two verisons to it. The first time I saw the episode, it was a lot more intense with surprising amount of blood. But the next time I saw it again I was startled to see the subtle but noticeable changes in it....the blood are mostly removed, some animation (like Goliath's eyes...he blinked once in the first verison, but not the second verison) and even the positions Goliath and Brooklyn took up guarding outside Elisa's hospital room were changed (in the first verison, they took on more menacing poses as they turned into stone, but in second verison they merely crouched looking dull and unexciting.)

Sooooo....I'm really curious, what prompted the sudden changes, and why? I've been wondering about it ever since. (Personally, I thought the first verison was the best I ever seen.)

Thanks for your taking time to read this...

Greg responds...

The blood was not "mostly removed"... but the puddle of blood was changed after the first airing so that it didn't look (incorrectly) as if Elisa had bled out in the first few seconds after being shot.

There were, as you noted, other retakes (corrections) which were not ready in time for the first airing, but which were inserted before the second airing. Note: THIS is not the stuff of censorship AT ALL. This was the producers (Frank and myself) correcting errors. And stuff like this happened in nearly every episode, not just "Deadly Force".

Response recorded on November 17, 2005

Bookmark Link

Drew Lung writes...

Hello, I'm a long time fan of the show, 'Gargoyles', and have a few questions.

What inspired 'Gargoyles' in the first place?
How did you get such a unusual idea for a tv series noticed by producers?
Were any of the characters replacements for original concepts you may have had early on?
Do you remember any ideas that didn't soar? (no pun)
And what other tv shows have you taken part in?

Sorry to ask so many questions, but I'm curious.

Greg responds...

1. Actual Gargoyles. Also Hill Street Blues. Gummi Bears. Etc. Check out the Archives here at ASK GREG.

2. You've got it backwards. I was an executive at the time. I hire the producers. This time I hired myself. As for how I sold the idea, that took some effort, three pitches, two years and a lot of help from my development team, my colleagues and my bosses, Bruce Cranston, Gary Krisel and Jeffrey Katzenberg. Michael Eisner finally approved us to series.

3. I'm not sure what you mean. As many fans know, the show was originally pitched as a comedy, and every major character except Goliath and Angela (and maybe Bronx), had an antecedent in the comedy development. Demona was Dakota. Xanatos was Xavier. Brooklyn was Amp. Broadway was Coco. Lexington was Lassie. Owen was Mr. Owen. Hudson was Ralph, etc. In later pitches, we did add addtional characters that went through a few changes before they actually hit the screen. Catscan became Talon. C.Y.O.T.E. (or some such acronym) became Coyote, etc. The New Olympians were added in from their own development. And so on...

4. Yes.

5. Lots. Some much more than others, but an incomplete off-the-top-of-my-head list would include: Gummi Bears, Winnie the Pooh, DuckTales the Movie, DuckTales, Talespin, Rescue Rangers, Marsupilami, Bonkers, Goof Troop, Raw Toonage, Aladdin, Little Mermaid, Return of Jafar, A Goofy Movie, Bionicle Mask of Light, Atlantis: Milo's Return, Men in Black, The Batman, Hercules, Buzz Lightyear, Max Steel, Gargoyles, Alien Racers, W.I.T.C.H., Invasion America, A.T.O.M., Mighty Ducks, Kim Possible, Quack Pack, Goliath Chronicles, Roughnecks: Starship Troopers, 3X3 Eyes, Ikkei Tossen, Jem and the Holograms, etc.

Response recorded on October 21, 2005

Bookmark Link

Alan writes...

I'm not too sure how much of a hand you had in scripting, but is there one line from the entire series that stands out in your mind as THE WORST? If you could rephrase/reword/delete one line, what would it be?
(I know mine: Eye of the Beholder - "Hey dude! Be cool!" -Guy in the Werewolf costume. <shudder>)

Greg responds...

I don't mind that line at all. It serves its purpose.

There are a few lines that make me cringe a bit when I hear them again. Some of which, I'm sure I was responsible for. But there isn't one that specifically drives me nuts that comes to mind now.

Response recorded on October 12, 2005

Bookmark Link

Jade Griffin writes...

I would like an answer but am not certain if this falls under an Ask Greg-approved category. So I will Ask Greg and see what comes of it:): Knowing what you know about Disney and those currently manning the biz, what would be the likelihood of an earlier show, say 15 years old, being given a chance at the big screen, given a stellar script. And character concepts provided as well. Waste of time? They'd likely rip me off? Or proceed with caution? You can be as vague or tight-lipped as you like in replying, if you choose to do so. Dunno how you'd feel about THIS type of question:) Thanks, both of you.

Greg responds...

I'm not sure I'm clear. You want to write a spec script based on a Disney Property and your worried that THEY'd rip you off?

Odds are against anything, ANYTHING, ever getting made. Always. Personally, I wouldn't spend too much time working up spec stuff that you don't own. But in any case, I've learned you can't proceed in this business at all if you're paranoid about getting ripped off. It's not that it can't happen, but it's just as likely that someone will independently come up with a similar idea and then where would you be?

Response recorded on September 27, 2005

Bookmark Link

Caze writes...

HOW (or better) WHY in "BUSHIDO" the japaneses Gargoyles speak in ENGLISH?????They should speak in JAPANESE, NOT ENGLISH!!!!! And the HUMANS TOO!!! A BIG MISTAKE, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?????
Anyone who read what i write and wanna speak with me , well, here is my email: cazedamtv@ig.com.br

Greg responds...

When we started the World Tour, I raised the point with Frank Paur that in some of the episodes we might want to do a bit with subtitles and foreign languages. The notion was rejected.

LATER -- after we recorded "Bushido", Frank came to me, having changed his mind. He wanted the Japanese (gargoyles and humans) to be bilingual. So that we'd open the episode with them talking in Japanese, until they meet the English speaking Gargoyles, at which point they'd switch to English out of politeness.

But the problem was we had already recorded Bushido, and so we needed authorization to pay for a re-recording. Our bosses wouldn't spring for the cash, basically. I thought it was too bad, but I can't say that I blame them. We had spent our money already. It's not like they cheaped out on us. They just refused to overspend because I hadn't pushed for something in the beginning and/or because Frank changed his mind too late.

Response recorded on August 30, 2005

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

hi Greg,

i was wondering, from your experience, how do the higher ups at Disney view the Gargoyles property? do they see it as something they could use someday or something they just want to sit on? do they feel it was a series that stood above most of their other animated series' or do they believe its just another old cartoon they made in the 90's?

similiarly, how do they view the fans of Gargoyles? do they even know we exist in the numbers we do? do they care about what we want for Gargoyles? do you think they even bother listening?

i don't know if you'll be able to answer these questions since i doubt you have the honest opinions of Disney higher ups, but i was curious.

thanks Greg.

Greg responds...

Corporations "listen" with dollars.

I think, clearly, the fandom spoke to them with the DVD sales. And now we're getting another DVD and... hopefully... the comic book too.

But a caution: the First Season DVD sales weren't SO great that putting the 2nd Season on DVD was a slam dunk. We did well enough, but it was clearly still a decision that they needed to make.

So if sales on the next DVD fall off at all, don't expect a third one completing Season 2.

Otherwise, Matt, you're just overthinking it. Gargoyles is old news at Disney. Most of the execs there now, weren't there when Gargoyles was originally on. If they see profit potential, they might go for it. If not, they won't.

Response recorded on July 15, 2005

Bookmark Link

Vic writes...

Were you or the other creators and writers of the series of frustrated with what I term "cartoon cliches"? For example knock-out gas, lasers or having to replace profanity with the word jalapenia.

A specific example: the beginning of deadly force. Does the mafia in all animated shows have stock in chloroform or something? If the Supranos or police reports have taught us anything it's that organized crime tends to be accomplished with a lot of people being shot.
There are others things certainly, so i ask simply, do tell us what you found frustrating, stupid or just plain wrong in creating stories for Gargoyles, the constraints and cliches you hated.

Greg responds...

I didn't hate much, frankly. At least we got to use real guns within reason. Today, not even a cop can pull a real gun. You'd never see a "Deadly Force" on broadcast today.

I don't mind being either more creative or slightly more fanciful in a world and in a universe where that is appropriate. I'll reserve my "hate" for more serious concerns.'

Do I wish sometimes we could swear? Maybe. Occasionally. But not often. And I LIKED "Jalapeña" even if my art staff hated it.

Sorry if that's not strident enough for you.

Response recorded on July 06, 2005

Bookmark Link

Aves writes...

I'm not sure if you're the one to ask about this, but they've yet to make an "Ask Jamie" segment, so here goes:

It's a pretty frivolous question, anyway.
The Hound of Ulster was one of the better World Tour tales, if you ask me, but I found the character design and direction of the Banshee was superb, both in terms of looking like the Banshee of myth and just as a cool design in and of itself.
My question is: How much of that is Sheena Easton? I know she's a singer, but, wow! That was crazy! Was it enhanced at all, or was that all her? If it was, I'm very impressed.
Even if it's not, I'm still moderately impressed :)

Greg responds...

A lot of it was Sheena, but credit should be stretched around. To voice director Jamie Thomason too. But mostly to the wonderful people at Advantage Audio, our post-production sound house.

Marc Perlman and Paca Thomas combined to create sound and music effects to play alongside Sheena's voice. And then Advantage did a great job mixing that voice. (I'm afraid I can't remember who specifically did the mix but choose two from the following list: Jim, Bill, Ray and Melissa.) It was stunning stuff -- I remember thinking that at the time. Should have won a Golden Reel in my opinion.

Response recorded on June 27, 2005

Bookmark Link

Corrine Blaquen writes...

Recently I rewatched my tape of one of my favorite World Tour episodes, "Grief". While there are so many things I enjoy in that episode, the thing that never fails to blow me away is when Jackal becomes the avatar for Anubis. Oh, the merging of the Packster and the Death God's voice is just... W-O-W, wow! I absolutely love Tony Jay's voice, it's so powerful and majestic with just the right amount of creepiness, great as Anubis just perfect for any role of quiet menance and dignified sophistication. The technique of mingling the two speakers was brilliant-- it was so powerful, and expertly done. Just wanted to tell you I loved it!

Greg responds...

Thanks! I will take credit for the IDEA of merging the two voices. But of course credit for the execution of that idea goes to actors Tony Jay & Matt Frewer (and later Tony and Tony Shaloub) under the direction of Jamie Thomason. Plus the excellent soundwork of the gangs at the now defunct Screen Music Studios and at Advantage Audio.

Response recorded on November 30, 2004

Bookmark Link

John X. writes...

I noticed that in one episode a writer named Steve Perry is listed. One line makes me think this is the same man who wrote the "Matador" series of books back in the late 80's and early 90's: Hyena finds out that coyote is a robot and responds "Even better" with just a hint of sexual tension.

Is this Steve Perry the same one who wrote "Shadows of the Empire" for George Lucas, or am I seeing something that isn't there?

Greg responds...

I honestly don't know. Steve was hired by Michael Reaves. I've talked to him on the phone a couple of times, but I don't know him or his resumee very well.

Response recorded on November 24, 2004

Bookmark Link

Enigma writes...

I have a language question. The gargoyles (Manhattan Clan)come from medevil Scotland, right? Well, English 1000 years ago wasn't the same as it is now. It actually bears little resemblence to old English, so how could the gargoyles understand our English (Modern English) when they woke up in NY in 1994?
When you really think about it they should be speaking Scottish since they're from a time when people in Scotland spoke Scottish, not English.
So either way you look at it there should have been a lot of communication problems at first. (I can accept we can understand everyone in Scotland 994 since you'd have to use subtitles otherwise. Thanks :)

Greg responds...

You are essentially correct, although I'd use the term Gaelic, I think, rather than Scottish.

The "behind the scenes" answer, as I've mentioned before, was that we chose Scotland in part because it's a place where people CURRENTLY speak English, so we felt we could skate past the language question without too much of a problem.

The "in universe" answer, which I've also mentioned before, came, I believe, from Michael Reaves, who suggested that a spell was cast (perhaps by Demona before Goliath & Company were brought to the top of the Eyrie Building) to bring the Gargoyles up to speed language-wise without any of them realizing that they'd been effected.

Response recorded on October 22, 2004

Bookmark Link

Punchinello writes...

Hi.

I was just taking a look at your last ramble. I never noticed this liberty your background artists had taken which you alluded to. Their inclusion of all of these portraits of Elisa in MacBeth's home. I was wondering if that kind of material (outside where you probably would have intended to take the series) would have emerged as it's own story if it had the chance?

What I mean is, when creative contributors outside the writing team took liberties like that, or even if some kind of happy accident developed, did you ever try to develop them into their own story? I, personally, would have been interested in learning why Mr. MacBeth had those portraits adorning his home.

Greg responds...

Often, story ideas came from sources other than me or my writing team. Sometimes happy accidents definitely contributed.

I don't know whether I would have addressed those portraits because I find them utterly mystifying. I don't know what the bg painters were thinking. The only thought that comes to mind is that Macbeth is obsessed with Elisa -- and he's just not. So sometimes I ignore what I can only categorize as mistakes.

Still if a great idea occured to me, I certainly wouldn't be above using it...

Response recorded on September 14, 2004

Bookmark Link

Siren writes...

I was reading some of your answers and was reminded about how Broadway was originally female. I am an overweight female, and the thought that a overweight female gargoyle wouldn't have bothered me in particular. I think it is all in the way the character is. Broadway knows he is big, and his self esteem is pretty good, considering the jabs his rookery brothers make. He is smarter then he looks too. Naive, but so were the rest of the clan, it's a learning process. New time, new people, new culture, new ideas. I love Broadway, think he is a great character, but I hope one day they can come out with an overweight, young, smart female. Most overweight females are all the Miss Potts type. Mother hens, grandmothers, etc. I like the way Broadway is and acts, and I wouldn't want that to change, but I still want to see a similar female character one day, human, gargoyles, whatever. I know a some people blow things out of proportion when a female actress puts on a fat suit, like Courtney Cox in Friends. If your going to make the character humourous, it should be tasteful, not hurtful. Someone for people to look up to, not a joke, most characters should be. Look what they do to mentally retard people, Adam Sandler still does it, and it's still funny to a large amount of the public. (Not me.) Maybe it's just me about the whole thing, I am overweight, but I am secure in my look. I think the ones who bash the overweight characters are the people are unsecure with themselves. But there's my ramble. What do you think?

Greg responds...

I basically agree with everything you've written here. And, as I think I've admitted before, I'll blame our original decision (to change Coco into Broadway) on a combination of cowardice and commercial interests. We were doing a show that was designed to appeal to a wide audience on many levels. But fundamentally (i.e. economically), we still needed to hit our main target audience of Boys 6-11. We felt -- and I'm not defending our decision, just revealing it -- that that particular audience could enjoy and appreciate a tough male warrior garg that was (at least at the beginning) both overweight and fairly obsessed with food. We felt that the same character as a female would come across as (a) less interesting to that target audience and (b) likely to bring negative attention to the series.

The conventional wisdom, for example, at toy companies is that female action figures don't sell as well as male action figures. Kenner would not have been interested in Coco -- as they were not interested in Angela. But they were interested in Broadway.

Another conventional wisdom is that no good deed goes unpunished. We felt that if our one heroic female was overweight, we would not be praised for it, but attacked -- perhaps even called misogynistic, which I hope no one thinks our series is.

We justified all this creatively with the notion that the Gargs situation was more tragic when the only female left alive was the enemy Demona. But adding a female gargoyle to the cast was a huge priority for me for Season Two. Granted, Angela is quite svelte, but that made sense given who her biological parents were.

My hope, over time, was to introduce the audience to a whole bunch of individual gargoyles and gargoyle beasts -- in both genders and of all shapes and sizes.

Response recorded on July 21, 2004

Bookmark Link

Forliya writes...

hello, I want to say that if there is any way that any one cares,that I'm one of the third race(lol) and yes my real name is Forliya. how did you come up with the show GARGOYLES in the first place???????

viva Gargoyles!!!!!!!!

Greg responds...

A team of us worked together to bring it to life.

Personally, I've always been fascinated by Gargoyles. For more info, check the Archives for this site.

Response recorded on July 01, 2004

Bookmark Link

George writes...

Greg, what age group was gargoyles ment for and what age group did it attract?

Greg responds...

It's primary target was Boys 6-11. But the show was created and designed to reach a MUCH larger audience than that. For financing purposes we had to hit our target. (And we did, though not as well as Power Rangers.) But we also sought out and reached an audience that included both males & females and everyone from age six to sixty, as far as I can tell.

Response recorded on June 30, 2004

Bookmark Link

Entity writes...

'Kingdom' ramble:

It's funny how you mention Xanatos finding out that Goliath is missing, then not hatching any kind of a plot as a result, because you honestly couldn't think of something. I strained my brain to try and figure out how X might possibly use such knowledge to his advantage, and came up dry, so when nothing happened, I kind of expected it. In fact, felt validated by it. In my head, knowing that Goliath was missing let him put two and two together in episodes like "Cloud Fathers."

X's new security system DID suck, but it's cool to know why it was installed (as a result of "Double Jeopardy"). Those cannons were out of control. I think the sequence would have worked, thanks to the atmosphere and X's cool lines, if the cannons just would have aimed AWAY from the castle. The redundancy didn't bother me. Sure, Mac's place has these spiffy blaster cannons too, but HE'S not Xanatos.

Where did those Cyberbiotics rifles come from? Why did Cyberbiotics abandon them? Okay, so they pulled out fast, but jeez, talk about corporate neglect, leaving an arsenal of deadly weaponry in a subway. So much for Renard's integrity. (I'm trying to bait you here.)

Oh, the climax with Maggie and the key card? One of my favorites. The build-up is perfect and Carl Johnson composes it well.

Greg responds...

Carl is great, but much credit should go to Marc Perlman, our music editor. We couldn't afford to have Carl score every episode. So Marc had to edit Carl's music to fit any situation. Though they were rarely in the same room together, the two made an amazing team.

Response recorded on June 22, 2004

Bookmark Link

Entity writes...

How you doing, Greg?

Okay, let's take a look at a hypothetical (this is my disclaimer in case you want to just stop reading now). If things had gone differently, and the show had never moved to ABC, meaning you never left, and Disney offered you 13 more episodes, but made it clear that these 13 would be the LAST 13 the show would get... how would you have approached them? Lord knows you had enough material to make another 13 just in picking up loose threads, let alone new ones such as The Quarrymen. Do you think you would have turned the whole third season into a good-bye like with "The Journey"? Would you have been more optimistic than that and ended it just like seasons one or two? Or would you have tried to wrap it up, like The Goliath Chronicles boys did with "Angels in the Night"?

Greg responds...

I don't think life COMES TO AN END. So I would not have attempted a full-on closure tone, as "Angels" did.

I would have, most likely, done the best 13 stories in my arsenal at that time. In continuity, as before, but 13 stand-alone episodes that were the best I could come up with, starting with "The Journey" and ending with an episode (like "Reawakening", "Hunter's Moon, Part Three" and "The Journey") that contained a sense of open-ended closure. A sense that even though we're going away for a time and some amount of loose ends (though surely not all) have been tied up in bows, that life goes on.

In between Journey and that Open-Ended Closure Episode, I would have done 11 other stories that picked up on the loose ends that were screaming the loudest to be addressed. One of which, certainly would have been the Illuminati. One would have been Brooklyn. One would have been the Weird Sisters. &tc.

Response recorded on June 15, 2004

Bookmark Link

babs writes...

I was wondering,theres alot of people and i mean alot of people that love this show, cant we do something to try to get it back into the making, a online petition maybe,we could send it to Disney im sure once they see how many people want the show back on the air they wouldnt pass up the rattings and money that it could bring in.
my question:
this is one of my fav. parts in all of the shows, In the episode Vendettas the guy that creams Goliath in the face with the banana cream pie, I notcied that afterwards when he is walking away he starts to hum the Gargoyles theme song, I was Wondering whos idea was it to put that in there?

Out of all the shows if I were to have a Top 10 list for the funniest parts that would have to be in my Top 5. its good to see that a somewhat of a dark show has its funny, caring parts in it.
Gargoyles Forever !

Greg responds...

The two biggest things that you can do to revive the show are (a) attend the Gathering and (b) buy the DVD when it comes out later this year. Show Disney that you're willing to spend money to get more Gargoyles, and they'll take notice.

As for Vinnie's humming, that was my idea. Glad you liked it.

Response recorded on June 03, 2004

Bookmark Link

Allexander writes...

As the creator of Gargoyles, what exactly did you do, did you write stories? Draw pictures?

Greg responds...

Isn't this old news? Anyway, to toot my own horn yet again:

I headed the development team that created the series and came up with many of the characters and concepts myself.

I came up with all 66 original springboards (i.e. the story ideas for the first two seasons + "The Journey"), though many people contributed nuggets of ideas.

I supervised all the writing. In essence, I story edited the story editors.

I also wrote and story edited one episode myself ("The Journey").

I supervised all the voice recordings. And I voice directed one episode ("Vendettas"), plus a few pick-up and phone patch sessions. I even performed the voice for one of Xanatos' Goon Squad (the guy who says "Nice Mask!").

I had input on all aspects of design and direction

I co-supervised all post-production, except the tele-cine process, which involves aspects of color too subtle for my color-deficient eyes.

I was the one person involved with the show from it's inception through the end of the third season, though my involvement in the third season (after "The Journey" was voice recorded) was limited to consulting work. And much of my consultations were ignored.

I have no credit on the television version of the pilot 5-parter because I was still an executive when those were posted, and at the time executives did not receive credit. I do have a Co-Producer credit on the Movie/VHS version of the pilot, because I supervised the post-production on that.

My official credit on the rest of the first season was "Co-Producer".

My official credit on the second season began as "Producer". Later it became "Supervising Producer" when two of our directors were promoted to Producer.

I'm also the credited "Writer" and "Story Editor" on "The Journey" and the credited "Voice Director" on "Vendettas".

I was supposed to receive a credit on the third season, but I waved it because it seemed dishonest as much of my advice wasn't taken.

Having said ALL THAT, Gargoyles was the work of literally hundreds of talented people, all of whom contributed to making it the success that it was. I think of it as my baby, and I'm often credited as it's creator. But I never lose track of the fact that it was a team effort.

Response recorded on April 29, 2004

Bookmark Link

Congratulations, Monique!

Went to a wedding today.

My good friend Monique Beatty married Tim Eldred.

Monique, as some of you may know, was my assistant and a script coordinator during the Gargoyles years. She was literally invaluable to me then, keeping my schedule (known then as "Greg's Nefarious Plan to Take Over the World") and keeping me on track. Among other things, she offered tremendous moral support. She's now a Line Producer at Nick. Tim is a story board and comic book artist.

They are both, great, great people. And I am so happy for them.

It was also nice to see Deirdra, Shan and Kevin at the wedding.


Bookmark Link

Vic writes...

Hi again.
I was just wondering how much of yourself you tend to put into characters you create, on average. Or how much you tend to empathise with or even envy them in a way.
Eg: I wish i was Brooklyn, sharp, lean, predatory looking bastard who could probably get the females (or males if so inclined) easily.
Hope this question makes sense.

Greg responds...

It makes sense enough.

I put a lot of me into every character from the best to the worst. Sometimes, I get pretty literal, as with Vinnie's last speeches in "The Journey".

Usually, it's not quite so on the nose.

I tend not to envy them much. My life (if not my career) is pretty darn great, so there isn't one of them I'd like to change places with. But I do empathize with them a lot. A lot.

Response recorded on February 25, 2004

Bookmark Link

Entity writes...

Hey, Greg!

In your memo for "Upgrade," you mention the following line:

"MONTAGE vs. NO MONTAGE
Sorry. After cuts were made for both S&P and for things that I did not want to reveal, there wasn't anything left. So out it went."

I thought S&P didn't really play a role in GARGOYLES. Do you remember what the cuts were?

Greg responds...

Nope.

And I never said that S&P didn't play a role. I said we had a common sense S&P person, Adrienne Bello, whom we respected and who respected us and what we were trying to do.

That didn't mean that she'd let us show Sevarius amputating Hyena's arm on camera.

Response recorded on February 02, 2004


: « First : « 50 : Displaying #142 - #191 of 536 records. : 50 » : Last » :