A Station Eight Fan Web Site
Ask Greg Archives
Behind the Scenes
Archive Index
: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #154 - #163 of 536 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :
Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #154 - #163 of 536 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :