A Station Eight Fan Web Site
Ask Greg Archives
Behind the Scenes
Archive Index
: « First : « 100 : Displaying #104 - #203 of 536 records. : 100 » : Last » :
Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :
Anonymous writes...
I have some questions concerning episodic details
1. I noticed the original documents thread only has your memos on the pilot outline up to when Michael Reeves became the new writer, are we ever going to see rest of those memos(assuming there were more).
2. Concerning your tiers and tentpoles plan that started in season 2 you said awakening retroactively became tentpole 1, rewakening tent pole two, city of stone tent pole three and avolon tent pole four. Im curiouse what episodes made up the next sets of tentpoles after those ones. I figured Future tense or the Gathering was probably one of them with hunters moon obviously being the final ones, but what was the tentpole in the middle of the world tour episodes? I assume there had to be one more otherwise that would have been more episodes than usual in that tier.
3. You mentioned after Hunters Moon changed from direct to video to a three episode finally you had to cut 3 planned episodes. You said one was simply the vinnie episode being merged into vendettas, but what were the other two? Was the Coldston world tour story that made it into clan building one? Was Bronx's side story youve said happened during vendattas/turf one? If not do you remember what they were?
4. Youve said somewhere that the wierd MacBeth story was nixed because your superiours wanted it to be one episode instead of a two parter and you didn't think you could do it justice in two if Im not mistaken. Where would that two parter have taken place if you had been allowed to do it? Ive tried to figure out a spot in season 2 where it could have gone but none really seem to make sense and Id be curiouse to know. Also if you ever get the chnace to write more issues of the comics would you try to do this story now?
Thanks for your answers.
Greg responds...
1. "Ever" is a long time. But the issue is that I don't have those memos electronically archived. So I have to transcribe them. And I've just been (a) too busy and (b) at my Warner Bros office (and before that at my Sony office) most days, and not in my Beverly Hills office, where I have that stuff.
2. "The Gathering" two-parter was the next tentpole. Then "Hunter's Moon". There was no tentpole in the middle of the world tour. There were more episodes than usual, but Season Two was WAY longer than Season One, so we needed that flexibility.
3. I honestly forget now. (Isn't that sad?) I do have that info written down, but again -- it's in Beverly Hills, and I'm in Burbank.
4. It would have gone in the final tier of Season Two around the time of Vendettas.
4a. Yes.
Lost writes...
are you friends with Diane Duane?
Greg responds...
Nope. Never met her.
Blizzard Sprite writes...
Hello, Mr. Weisman.
My next questions are for Brooklyn, who was one of my favorite characters in the franchise. Not only did he come off as cool, but he was a relatable character who came off as a sort of rebellious youth. So, here are the questions.
1. I read in a 2008 interview that Brooklyn was quite popular with the fans of the show. How and when were you able to determine that? Nowadays, I figure it would be pretty easy given the pervasive nature of the internet and how fast information can be circulated. But back in the 1990's, during the show's original run when internet use was not as prevalent, how were you able to obtain feedback about certain aspects of the show, such as character popularity?
2. Brooklyn’s encounters and love interests in the twentieth century always seemed to have an unhappy ending to them (his initial encounter with Demona and his initial interests in Maggie the Cat and Angela come to mind). Because of this, he seemed to come off as the most unfortunate character in the original Manhattan clan, at least to me.
a. Do you think that all of these unfortunate letdowns were necessary in developing his character, and preparing him for what was to come in Timedancer?
b. Do you think that Brooklyn having fewer ties to (new) people in the twentieth century made it easier for him, mentally and emotionally, to jump around different points in time?
3. Were you concerned about the audience perception of Brooklyn when you had him return from the Timedancing adventures not only with a family, but an eye patch? I think one of the qualities that made Brooklyn such a likable character, in addition to his personality and his cool voice, was that he was a physically attractive and handsome gargoyle. One external change might not be all that drastic though.
Thank you for your time.
Greg responds...
1. From the internet. It may not have been AS prevalent back then, but it was prevalent enough. There was like an e-mailing list. Uh... for the Disney Afternoon in general, I think. Then my sister helped me find Station 8.
2a. It just felt organic to us.
2b. No.
3. I don't think he's any more or less handsome now. If you liked him before, I can't imagine the eyepatch would cause you to think he's unattractive now.
Richard Jackson writes...
Todd Jensen and others have commented on the similarities between “Grief†and the Batman episode “Avatar.†Todd’s question being here:
http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=2870
I noticed another pair of episodes of Batman and Gargoyles that really reminded me of the other, because of the same writers. “Legion†and the Batman episode “What is Reality?†Both were written by Robert Skir and Marty Isenberg. Both episodes deal with virtual reality, but the third acts are very similar to me.
Batman/Goliath has to go into a virtual reality world to help his friend, Commissioner Gordon/Coldstone. His VR savvy compatriot Robin/Lexington tells him how it works. Once inside Batman/Goliath battles his enemy, The Riddler/Xanatos. Robin/Lexington tries to help Batman/get Goliath out of the VR world, but is painfully rebuffed. A shrill noise blasted into his ear piece in Robin’s case. An electronic shock emanating from Goliath’s body in Lex’s case. Side note: That was the biggest problem I had with “Legion.†I can buy a cybernetic gargoyle and that Xanatos can design a computer program based on his personality, but I never understood how Goliath’s body became akin to a live wire when hooked up to Coldstone. It must be one of those side effects when science and sorcery are combined.
Of course, “What is Reality?†and “Legion†are two different episodes and the execution of third acts are very different. Dialogue, characters and virtual reality as represented in the respective episodes were all different. Even the resolutions are different. I guess writing the virtual reality Batman episode gave Skir and Isenberg the experience to write the Gargoyles VR episode. Interestingly enough, they did write “Future Tenseâ€, which also had a VR sequence in the Xanatos Pyramid, albeit in a dream. They didn’t write “Walkaboutâ€, which had a metaphysical reality (MR?) scene.
I do think the examples of “Avatar/Grief†and “What is Reality?/Legion†are interesting examples of how writers will take previous ideas they’ve had and use another chance to expand or improve on them. “Avatar†didn’t work for me, but “Grief†is one of my favorite episodes of Gargoyles. And it’s close between “What is Reality?†and “Legionâ€, but I slightly prefer the former.
Greg responds...
Science and sorcery indeed.
Anyway, as always, the springboards for every Gargoyle episode pre-date writer involvement (unless the writer was also a story editor). But it may be very possible that once they got the assignment, they created or emphasized parallels with other work they had done.
Marc G. writes...
Is there a list online somewhere of all the overseas animation studios used for Gargoyles, by episode? It's frustrating because the credits always just listed "Walt Disney Television Animation".
Also, a related question: did you have control over which scripts were sent to which studios? Or was it purely dictated by scheduling and budgetary concerns?
Thanks!
Greg responds...
I don't have a list. Most of the first season was animated at Walt Disney Television Animation Japan, though I seem to recall that a couple were subcontracted out to Korea.
Season Two featured some eps by WDTVAJ, plus more from Korea (such as Hanho). But I can't remember who did what.
Scheduling tended to dictate what studio got what episode, but we did make an effort to make sure that "Bushido" went to Japan.
John Derrick writes...
I hate to say it, but I was extremely disappointed in the Young Justice premiere. Don't get me wrong--the animation was gorgeous, the dialogue entertaining, the story intriguing. But the gender imbalance was a huge turn-off for me.
Why was it that the women of the Justice League were only shown in the last five minutes of a two-part pilot? Why did the male sidekicks get to go on a rebellious adventure and force the League to accept them as a team of their own, while the first girl is only added to "Young Justice" at the very end, introduced by her uncle and guardian like some sort of token?
I expect that the women will have a lot more to do in the episodes to come, but I still find it profoundly problematic to introduce the characters in such an unequal manner. I believe there are too many men in the world as it is who see women as mere supporting players in their stories. Why reinforce this stereotype for a whole new generation of superhero cartoon fans?
Greg responds...
It's a legitimate gripe. And I doubt my answer will satisfy you, but it came down to a couple factors that we at least found important: (1) practicality and to a lesser extent - but intertwined with - (2) tradition.
Let's start with practicality.
You asked why there were no female Leaguers until the end. But where would they have fit? There are no female Leaguers with traditional first generation sidekicks. So Batman, Green Arrow, Aquaman and Flash could not be replaced by Wonder Woman, Black Canary or Hawkwoman. That leaves the four Leaguers introduced at the Hall of Justice. I needed Martian Manhunter to be there to set up Miss Martian. I needed Red Tornado there to set up his interest in the teens. I needed Superman there to set up Superboy. That leaves only Zatara. He was certainly replaceable. But then I would have had to hire another voice actress to read ONE LINE. I couldn't afford to do that. We have budgets. (And you'll notice that Red Tornado never speaks in the episode. Couldn't afford giving him a line either. None of which had anything to do with gender.)
There was NEVER any intent to introduce Artemis this early in the season for story reasons. Wouldn't make sense for her character. And I think the reasons why will become clear as the season progresses.
As for Miss Martian, yes, in theory, we could have introduced her sooner. Manhunter COULD have brought her along at the beginning. But then I'd have had FOUR characters running around the first half hour and FIVE in the second. That steals screen time and characterization from everyone. I think the entire production would have been weaker for adding another character -- ANY other character (gender notwithstanding).
Of course, that begs the obvious question - why not ditch one of the boys in favor of her to create a little balance.
But it seemed to us that would create balance at a cost.
There are FOUR TRADITIONAL sidekicks: Robin, Speedy, Aqualad and Kid Flash. To leave one out seemed wrong to us. Which brings in the Tradition argument, which I'll admit is somewhat feeble, but as an old comic book geek, I'll also admit it matters to me and to everyone else here.
The very first Teen Titans story ever in Brave and the Bold featured only THREE heroes: Robin, Aqualad and Kid Flash. Wonder Girl did not join until their second adventure. So we felt there was a precedent for beginning with Robin, Aqualad and Kid Flash and saving the real introduction of Miss Martian (beyond hellos) for OUR second adventure.
For what it's worth, if you give the series another chance, starting with episode three (i.e. the one immediately following the pilot "movie"), I think you'll see that female characters including Miss Martian, Black Canary, Artemis, Wonder Woman and MANY others will be playing ESSENTIAL roles in the show as we progress. I think the balance - and then some - is absolutely present in the first season when viewed in its entirety.
Yes, the pilot was very boy-centric, but that's not the rubric for the series. Personally, I love writing female characters, and if you're at all familiar with my past work, you'll know I have a history of doing them justice. (At least, I think so.) Gargoyles, for example, is FULL of strong female characters, including Elisa, Demona, Angela, Fox, etc. WITCH was nearly ALL female leads. Even Spider-Man had a strong female supporting cast, in my opinion at least.
If we did "reinforce a stereotype" (which I think is overstating it) then perhaps we've lured in kids that we will reeducate over the course of the season - organically without forcing it.
So I'd beg a little patience, a little indulgence... maybe even a little trust that we'll do right by this issue.
But judge for yourself.
Steven D. writes...
Hello again, Mr. Weisman.
I've had a question in the back of my mind for some time, and now seems like a good time to ask it.
Recently, you released the writer's rotation for the first 24 episodes of YJ.
I've always been fascinated with television writing,as there seems to be no one way to do it, so I wanted to ask a few questions on how you approach it.
1. Back when i first wanted to ask this, I checked the SpecSpiderman archives to see what you mentioned about writing for that show. When going over writing duties, you mentioned that some of the episodes that you "reserved" some of the episodes you wrote. Since Young Justice finds you in a similar position of being both a producer and staff writer, I'm curious to know, what factors do you use when picking episodes to reserve for yourself (and confirming that reserve wasn't just a metaphor you were using)?
2. While I'm here, I was hoping you could also shed some light on how much freedom your freelance writers are given. Do they ever get the chance to write an episode completely from scratch, or because the shows you work on are so arc based, are they always given a firm foundation to start with, and if so, how rigid is this foundation (generally)?
Thanks!
Greg responds...
1. Sometimes I end up writing an episode for pragmatic reasons... or a combination of the creative and the pragmatic. For example, I wrote the two-part pilot of Young Justice (i.e. episodes 1 and 2). Of course, I had a creative desire to write these episodes, but it also would not have been pragmatic for anyone else to write them. I needed to set the tone of the series for the other writers to be able to get it.
Another example: staff writer Kevin Hopps and I were set to write the last two episodes (25 and 26) of the first season. Though we know the basics of what takes place in them, based on meetings that Kevin, producer Brandon Vietti and I had over a year ago, we hadn't broken those episodes yet, and creatively I hadn't decided which of the two I wanted to write. But scheduling realities last week made it apparent that Kevin would HAVE to write 25, meaning I was writing 26. All of which is just as well. I started the season; I might as well finish it. But the decision wasn't creative; it was purely pragmatic. The creative decision might have been no different. But the creative decision became moot for pragmatic reasons.
On the other hand, I've also written three other episodes. In those cases, the pragmatic need was for me to write one episode each between 6-11, between 12-17 and between 18-24. Within those parameters, I chose 11, 15 and 19 for purely creative reasons. Those were the ones I felt a special affinity for (based on reasons I can't reveal now without spoilers). So going into the three writers' meetings for each of those three "sets" of episodes, there was SOME flexibility as to which writer took which episode (keeping scheduling pragmatism in mind), but I had "reserved" for myself the one I wanted to write in each case.
2. My freelancers have, for better or worse, very little freedom when it comes to WHAT stories we are telling. The premises were all approved long before the freelancers came aboard. If a specific writer feels no affinity for a specific story, then he or she doesn't have to take that episode. I always try to give each writer an episode that jazzes him or her. But the basics of the stories are set. Now, the writers are very involved in the execution of those stories. That's where their freedom comes in. But they still have quite a gauntlet to wade through... beat outlines, outlines, scripts (and notes from many sources). Ultimately, I take responsibility for every episode, and I'm the guy doing the final pass on every beat outline, outline and script. But I couldn't do this job without stellar writers providing me with great stuff. And on this series, I couldn't do it without Brandon and Kevin actively participating in the inception and breaking of every single story.
Clark Cradic writes...
Any characters you were surprised to see becoming popular? The ensemble darkhorse in other words.
Greg responds...
What series are we talking about here?
I guess I'll assume we're talking Gargoyles. And, no, not really. Perhaps I underestimated the Trio's popularity a bit, but I never thought they'd be UNpopular. But we can pretty much see who's popping as we're making the series.
Jurgan writes...
Not a question so much as a comment. You've said several times you think you missed a bet in "Grief-" namely, that Coyote should have killed the travelers, to show that death was impossible with Anubis locked up. I may be in the minority on this, but I prefer the story we got to this alternate version.
First of all, it would reopen the Highlander-esque questions that you get regarding Demona and Macbeth. So, Angela's shot through the heart but doesn't die- when Anubis is freed, is the wound still there? If so, would the wound then kill her? If Goliath were decapitated, would the head still talk, or would it sprout spider legs and walk back to him (sorry, I just watched The Thing the other night- incidentally, Keith making a surprise appearance in a movie is something that always makes me smile)? I imagine that, if only for S&P reasons, the death would simply be through bloodless laser beams (sorry, "particle beams") and the issue wouldn't have come up, but it's still confusing.
The bigger point, though, is that it cheapens the characters' abilities. I've read most of the Lee/Ditko and Lee/Romita Spider-Man comics, and while they're great stories, one thing that always bothered me was how supervillains always let Spidey live. Typically, a new villain would dominate the wallcrawler and then arrogantly announce "I don't need to kill Spider-Man- I can beat him any time I want!" I don't have a count, but I really think this happened dozens of times in the Silver Age. I could understand if the villain had a reason to run, like Doc Ock's power running low in your show, but most of the time they just seemed stupid, since of course Spidey trounced them next time. The point is that it seemed like he was surviving more through luck than any particular skill. Likewise, our gargoyles have survived countless battles because of their own abilities. To say that they finally lose- but it doesn't count because, for this one day, they can't die, seems to cheapen their earlier successes. It feels like the only reason they're winning is because the writers want them to win, and if they get in big trouble, a deus ex machina twist will save them. The show starts to feel artificial, and I wonder if these characters are really that special, or if they're just the designated heroes.
Now, of course, this is hypothetical. It's possible that, if I'd seen the episode the way you envision, I would have loved it. As it is, it's kind of hard for me to imagine it working. Just something to chew on.
Greg responds...
I guess I wouldn't agree about one lucky break cheapening earlier victories... I guess I wouldn't agree with that at all.
I'm also not big on deus ex machina saves myself, but when an ENTIRE episode is ABOUT arresting death, having them live because death has been arrested doesn't feel like deus ex machina at all to me, even with a deus (Anubis) present.
And, as you noted, the beheading (et al) issue just wouldn't have come up.
I know you're arguing for the success of what we made, and I'm in the odd (very odd) position of arguing that we could have done better, but I still think a bet was missed...
Laura 'ad astra' Sack writes...
I’ve heard you mention several times that you have had very good luck with S&P over several series, praising people who really understood the series and were more interested in showing consequence than keeping any violence off screen. When they put their foot down it was generally to avoid what a child can copy, even willing to have a different violent action in place they couldn’t. Did you ever have bad experiences? (Either on a series you were running, or one you freelanced on.)
Greg responds...
Yes, I've had many. Some completely inexplicable. Others explicable, but still wrong-headed.
Taranee on W.I.T.C.H. was a constant problem, as her power was fire and the S&P executive was very uncomfortable with... I'm not quite sure... the notion that we were encouraging child pyromania? The possibility that kids would use magic to generate flames?
I can't think of a really funny example just this second, though God knows I have more than a handful.
Trevor Duke writes...
Why does Lexington have different wings from the four other gargoyles of the manhattan clan? The behind the scenes answer please!
Greg responds...
Behind the scenes? We thought they looked cool on him, and we wanted diversity.
TZ writes...
Tana writes...
You Asked:
"Does anyone know if "Maza" means "iron" in any Native American language or dialect?"
According to my book of names (it's got like 20,000 names and their meanings, which is totally cool, especially the Athurian names) Maza blaska, which is a Dakota name means "flat iron." So if it's one of those languages where the adjective comes after the subject, then Maza does infact mean Iron in Dakota. Which interestingly enough adds more irony since Dakota was an early choice for Demona's name. ^_^
And you know that J.R.R. Tolkien claimed that all of his novels were fact...you seen to have the same symptom with the Gargoyles.
Greg responds...
I'm not claiming they're fact so much as acknowledging that sometimes storytelling on this show just seems to click with history, existing legend and with dramatic necessity. It's a rare feeling, and I'm humbled by it. All I'm saying is it sometimes feels like the stories are true somehow somewhere, and all I'm doing is (imperfectly) tapping into them.
But I'm not actually delusional.
Ok, this is TZ now......
I was looking over the archives and was simply amazed by this response of yours, Greg. I have always felt that art (in all forms, from literature to sculptures to music) is discovered, not created. I subscribe to that theory because there are such famous examples of great work that endure for years, sometimes even centuries. Why would something like Michelangelo's David or Beethoven's 9th remain so popular through the ages? I think it's because those pieces already existed and were "discovered" by those artists, because certain works like theirs touch us so deeply. When one of us "finds" that piece of art, and shares it, it seems to strike something in all of us. I think creativity is God's alone, but I think He gives some of us a gift to find or tap into (as you've put it) something He's already created that reveals a great truth or lesson or feeling. Anyway, just a ramble of mine to share based on something I was amazed to see here. I'm not sure if I got my point across to others (I found it really hard to put this into words) but I think you get it. Thanks for "discovering" more great art for us all!
Greg responds...
You're welcome. Glad you get what I'm getting at, more or less.
RandomStan writes...
What animal noises and sound effects were used to make the gargoyle sounds, like when they roar, growl, sigh? Also for Bronx and gargoyle beasts as well? What sound was used for when the gargoyles would dig their claws into stone? That one sounds a bit familar, almost like popping bublbe wrap.
Greg responds...
I don't recall. Sorry. Been too long. And I was never at foley sessions anyway. Just the mixes, when the effects had already been created.
Landon Thomas writes...
Hi, I'm posting on Disney/Marvel Merger Day and I'm looking for some historical perspective. Someone in the comment room says "I recall Greg once saying that back in the 90s Disney was interested in buying Marvel, but instead decided to create their own universe with Gargoyles." I've found this on the New Olympians episode ramble:
"ORIGINS
Well, the Greek Myths of course. But that's not really what I'm talking about. As many of you know, The New Olympians was a concept -- originally created by Bob Kline -- that we began developing at Disney TV Animation even BEFORE Gargoyles. It was definitely a concept that evolved, but it was also a concept that we felt fit nicely into the Gargoyles Universe. So this episode was created as a backdoor pilot. At the time we had big plans for the Gargoyles Universe. Hopes that it would eventually evolve into Disney's equivalent of the Marvel or DC Universe. The World Tour expanded our Universe in many ways -- mostly for the sake of the Gargoyles series itself. But also to demonstrate that our universe had the "chops" to go the distance."
Could you elaborate?
1) Is it true that Disney considered buying Marvel in the 90s?
2) Did the Disney higher-ups want a Gargoyles Universe to rival Marvel/DCU, if briefly, or was that your idea?
3) How heady were the days of season 2? Was Gargoyles being positioned as a significant face of Disney? I remember the Anaheim Gargoyles baseball team memo is from around that time too.
Greg responds...
1. Yes.
2. It was my suggestion, but it was a suggestion that my bosses, including Michael Eisner liked. At least for one meeting.
3. They weren't all that heady. There was a lot of potential in the property, but the schedule was also both long and brutal, and we were still producing episodes into May of 1996, even though the season had premiered in September or October of 1995. By January it was pretty clear that reruns, preemptions, the O.J. Simpson trial and Power Rangers had combined to severely damage our momentum. In addition, the death of Frank Wells and the departures of Jeffrey Katzenberg, Rich Frank, Gary Krisel and Bruce Cranston, i.e. some of the people who had been such great backers of the property, hurt too. As did Eisner's decision to step back from the hands-on decision making he had done vis-a-vis Disney T.V. Animation. It left us quite at sea. New people came in who had no affinity for the property, long before we were even done producing Season Two.
Tonya writes...
Hi Greg! I was reading an earlier post of yours where you mentioned that it's harder to pitch original ideas (I'm guessing to networks, but maybe it's the same with comics, books, etc...?) now than it was when you originally pitched Gargoyles:
1. Why is it more difficult to pitch original ideas now than it was then? (I would think they'd be anxious for new concepts???)
2. What's probably the #1 thing that the people being pitched to are looking for?
3. Is a successful pitch sometimes tied to the person you are pitching to? (I mean, if you're pitching to one guy on Tuesday, but had you gone on say, Thursday and had a different guy, could the outcome of the pitch be different? I guess I mean do you depend on getting lucky with whomever you're scheduled to pitch to? And if not, can you ask to pitch to someone else?)
Thanks! I hope my questions were clear enough to get across what I'm trying to ask. I'm thinking of writing professionally (IF I'm any good) and wondered how hard it would be to "pitch". Thanks again! (Love your work by the way.)
Greg responds...
1. They're not. They're afraid of new concepts and would rather have something that's "proven" in some other medium or era. This, in my opinion, is a direct result of the vertical integration of these companies that makes the decision making process a long uphill struggle.
2. It differs all the time, but marquis value doesn't hurt.
3. Luck-of-the-draw and incidental timing are huge factors.
Geoff writes...
What was with the animation goofs that happened throughout Gargoyles? Did they seriously get by everyone until the episodes were aired? (I'm talking about the character design ones, to be specific.)
Greg responds...
What exactly do you expect me to say here?
Sometimes things were off-model. Sometimes we had the time and money to fix it, other times we didn't.
MARVEL-FAN writes...
Greg, how come in the Spectacular Spider-Man it doesent use realistic gunshot sounds? But, Batman: The Brave and The Bold it uses realistic gunshot sounds, other Batman cartoon shows.
Greg responds...
Different networks have different rules, I guess.
Purplegoldfish writes...
Hi Greg,
erm, I don't know if you noticed, but I created a bit of a stir in the comment room recently about the design of Constance, and I would appreciate if I could have some of your input in the matter. It might put this annoying demon in my mind to rest.
I'm just wondering, if at any time in the design process for Coco you made the connection between her being a heavy set female that resembles an animal that is unfortunately used as a negative metaphor for large women.
I actually like Coco's design, and her personality especially. What I don't like is that she's the only full figured female we've seen and she just happens to resemble a pig.
I admit I'm a bit jaded and cynical when it comes to this stuff. Chalk that up to having to endure a lot of verbal abuse growing up. I'm just really curious if you personally made that connection while designing the character. I'm really interested to see what you have to say about it.
Greg responds...
One of the main reasons that the original Coco became Broadway (i.e. why we took a female heavy-set gargoyle and made her male) was because we were afraid of the politically correct blow-back that we thought would come by depicting her that way. It's a double standard, but it's true. You can do a heavy set guy who likes to eat. But you can't do it with a gal without risking repercussions.. Ultimately though, that's cowardice. And not that I think the series is poorer for it, because I love Broadway, but ANY series is poorer for that kind of cowardice. When you fold to that, you wind up with the same types (not bad types, but the same ones) over and over.
Having gotten over that specific brand of cowardice (though I'm sure I'm still subject to other examples of the same kind of thing), I decided to create this new Constance/Coco. Being part of the London Clan meant she should be based on a heraldic animal. And the boar was one I hadn't used yet. So let's hit it HEAD ON. She's a heavy-set female gargoyle -- and she even has a pig-snout.
So go for it. Tell me she's nothing but a bad and inappropriate joke. I dare you. (I don't mean "you", Purplegoldfish, but a more generic "you" that's out there.) If I do my job well, then there's no concern. She's strong and multi-faceted, and her size is just an aspect of who she is, not the whole story. If all anyone can see is the girth and the snout then either I've failed... or that "anyone" has failed to look beyond the surface, which is one of the MAJOR themes of the entire series.
Generally, the response to Coco has been fairly positive, so I'm feeling pretty good about the job I did. Even you seem to like her, and your reservations are based on surface qualities and old prejudices and memories that I was openly defying on purpose. I can live with that. (Since ultimately I have no choice.)
Plus, I just really like Coco's design. I think David Hedgecock did a GREAT job on her. Instantly, I forgot about any agenda and just thought she was a great looking character. Which is how it should be.
Anonymous writes...
who paid for gargoyles
Greg responds...
Originally? Disney.
Bazell writes...
How do you come up with your character names? (though the Manhatten's names' origins can be easily deduced)
Greg responds...
Different ways. And I didn't come up with all of them. Some came from other writers and story editors, such as Cary Bates and Michael Reaves. Others come from mythology or legend, etc. We try to make the names believable but have resonance.
Anonymous writes...
Generally speaking, about how many pages is the script for an average 30-minute television episode?
Greg responds...
Well, for starters, it's really 22-minutes (once you subtract commercials, credits, etc.) Our scripts for Season One of Spectacular Spider-Man were 36 pages. But we were often long and were often forced to cut material that was scripted and recorded. So for Season Two, we cut back to 34 pages. And still we were often long and forced to cut material that was scripted and recorded.
slayer38 writes...
Iam very interested for the 3rd season as comics. But i want to know, comes this comics also translated into german language in the german book stores? My English is not the best, << you can see that in my text. and another question? in 1996 at the moment disney do not produce season 3 with you as author, why you dont changed to another company at this moment. (btw. The goliath chronicles sucks, the liason between goliath and eliza are also ignored.)
And btw. My favorite Episodes is Hunters moon part 1 - 3. Great story, very dramatical, and the lovely end, << at this moment between goliath and eliza, the fans waited since episode "the mirror" / german titel "Der Spiegel"
And is that true. Episode "the mirror" is cutted in usa (in tv) because the "world trade center"?
Greg responds...
I'm afraid I have no information on German translations.
And I don't own the property. Disney does. It wasn't and ISN'T mine to take anywhere else.
As far as I know, "The Mirror" still airs with all the others.
Nick P. writes...
Hello. Since this is my first question I feel obligated to state that I've been a Gargoyles follower since the show's original airing, and even though I don't live in the US anymore, I still manage to order the comic books. I particularly like how coherent the gargoyles universe it. Too often I'm confused by bizarre universes that fiction creates (specifically comic books), and I'm please to find myself being able to recall what happened to all the characters and what's going on and realize that it makes sense (recall some of the more confusing story-lines in the marvel comics of the 90s that nearly required a long-winded nerd debate just to remind yourself of what's going on). Also, Keith David's voice knocked the show up a few notches on the cool scale.
Anyway, I have a number of questions that I will send from time to time when I find ways to word them so they like real inquiries rather than fan boy rants, so I'll start with something simple:
Did you originally create Gargoyles with the intention of it being a children's show? I felt at times like I was watching a watered down version of what the show was intended to be, which was weird and a little unsatisfying at times.
Greg responds...
Nothing was watered down -- and frankly I can't even think what gave you that impression. The show was developed from day one to appeal to kids. What we did simultaneously was write the show on multiple levels so that in addition to kids, we would also appeal to tweens, teens, college students and adults.
Brenden writes...
A few days ago I realized something about Norse mythology. Most of the time the Honorable Viking Warrior was fighting an Inhuman Monster. Was this theme a factor in choosing vikings to sac castle Wyvern or was just because they were the most prolific badguys of Europe at the time. This realization really added too the anti clich'e of Gargoyles for me, where the "Inhuman Monster" was the victim and the "Honorable Viking Warrior" was a cowardly murderer.
Greg responds...
I think the Vikings may have been Michael Reaves' idea.
Webhead2006 writes...
Hello greg, I just wanted to say season 1 of SSM was very good and i cant wait to see many many more seasons come for the series. I loved it alot besides a few changes here and there i didnt like at first but grew on me over time and it works for the show itself. I just had a question i was wondering on the production side of things for the show. How long does it take to animate a single episode for the series?
Greg responds...
It takes eight to ten months - give or take.
Durkinator writes...
This is question in regards to censorship in Spectacular Spider-Man. Back in the 90s series, there was an obnoxious amount of censorship (Spidey couldn't throw a punch?!) that sometimes hindered the story in obvious ways. Now, Spectacular Spidey is obviously a bit of a lighter tone, so I don't expect to see people dying all over the place or anything, but I am curious about how the censorship from the studios of this series differs from other shows you've worked on, like Gargoyles--which I think was great about being delightfully edgy whilst still obeying the censors. Gargoyles was much darker that Spider-Man currently is, obviously; I'm just curious as to how similar the rules regarding the amount of death and violence and such are and if it has changed a lot since your work in the 90s.
And just to be clear, I'm not complaining or asking for Spider-Man to be darker or more violent or anything, I'm very happy with how everything has been handled and balanced without getting too "gritty" thus far (and I'm usually a sucker for dark stories). I'm just curious, you know?.
Greg responds...
I'm hinky about the way you throw the word "censor" around. The biggest rule is, was and always has been our own personal standards of what's right and wrong, what is and isn't appropriate. After that, both Gargoyles and Spectacular Spider-Man benefited from having smart, intelligent and understanding S&P executives (Adrienne Bello for Gargoyles, Patricia Dennis for Spidey). As I've mentioned before, there wasn't much we wanted to do on Spidey that was disallowed. The realistic sound of gunshots comes to mind... and those are being restored on the DVDs. I think it has less to do with the era, and more to do with the individual looking over your shoulder.
avalon writes...
A spectacular SpiderMan question (one of these days you'll probably need to devote a separate SpiderMan Ask Greg! :))....some of the script and storylines are flat out funny and witty, I love it! Do you come up with these lines in your writing as well or is there a separate staff that does this?
Greg responds...
There isn't a SEPARATE staff. There's just THE staff: myself, Randy Jandt, Kevin Hopps, Matt Wayne and Andrew Robinson on Season One. Nicole Dubuc joined the staff for Season Two. It's a team effort on breaking stories. Dialogue generally comes from the writer credited on the episode with an assist from me.
Simon Elst writes...
M. Weisman,
I'm a student soundengineering (final year) at the IAD (Institut des Arts de Diffusion de Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium ; http://www.iad-arts.be ). I take the liberty of writing you about my thesis. It had to handle on the role of sound in animationfilm. My ambition is to bring out the importance of sound in animation film, my passion in which I want to invest myself in the future. The fact is that the Gargoyles were my heroes wen I was young (thanks to belgian televisions to made it possible !).
I think Gargoyles would be an excellent example to analyse in detail for my thesis. To do so, I'd like of course your permission, but also, if possible, your help by means of a few questions to answer. Would you ? I can understand that answering all the questions may be heavy, so.. use the way you want ! :)
a) In your opinion, are there (or have there to be) differences in the aesthetic and the realism of the sound when handling on "live" film or animated film. If yes, wich ones, and why? If no, why?
b) What do you think about next three hypothesis :
1) "Reality Effect" : traditional animation film is, by essence, soundless : the elements (components) that forms the film (figures, objects, sets, …) are mostly "silent" and even if they could produce sounds, the fact of shooting image by image makes it impossible to record live. The artificiallity or virtuality of the elements on screen creates a lack of credibility : the audience isn't naturally absorbed in the represented world. In movies in general, sound permits to locate elements "off screen", to create a world of which a great deal isn't seen at the screen. It has to be the same in animation film. But, as the characters are artificial here, there presence and activity doesn't exist for the audience unless by a "sound confirmation".
2) "Sound inspires life into the virtuals worlds of animation film" : in the same way as the animator gives live to his figures, the soundengineer gives them a lively dimension (thanks to the voices, the presences and the interactions of the character with his environment).
3) Most of the animationfilms are shot at 12 frames per second. The result is tolerably well for the audience, but nevertheless less fluid than in a "live" film. Sound is a constant component that permits "to link up the frames", to put a smooth coating upon the frames, and so reduce partly the "jerky appearance" of the 12fps format.
Thanking you in advance for your answer, Simon Elst
Greg responds...
To begin with, you don't need my permission to do a thesis on Gargoyles. But if you want my blessing, I say go for it!
a. I've never done live action, so I'm not the guy to ask about comparisons. I know we want what is real to sound real, and what isn't to sound innovative, spectacular and yet still real.
b.
1. I guess I'd buy that.
2. Sure.
3. We shoot at 24 frames per second, although we shoot on twos quite often, which makes it 12 drawings per second. Though I tend to agree with the general premise nevertheless.
She Who Shall Remain Anonymous writes...
Hi, Greg! I was wondering, which character would you say is the one the audience is supposed to identify with? I would guess Brooklyn, or maybe Elisa.
Greg responds...
I don't really write this series that way. Each episode or issue defines its own parameters.
Nelio writes...
In the background while I am playing on my MMORPG, I tend to have my DVDs going, which of course includes Gargoyles. Tonight I was watching Legion when I noticed the Gargoyles heading to an island north of the Statue of Liberty while chasing Coldstone. Out of curiosity, I decided to check google maps and see which island that was since I didn't think it was named in the show. TO my surprise, Ellis Island is not only in the exact location as in the show, but is incredibly accurate to what was show. I even managed to find the exact location in which Coldstone crash to on the fort there.
Likewise, in other episodes I have noticed an astonishing level of detail in Gargoyles, which I find to be very cool since it is placed in a real world location. To name a few, the Brooklyn Bridge (Reawakening), Belvedere Castle (High Noon), Central Park (various episodes), and so forth in the show. While I was a child, I never noticed just how much detail was there, but now that I am an adult, I can see just how much effort went into it.
My question to you: How much research did you put into these real world locations that appear on the show, and did you check to make sure that the art for the locations were accurate?
PS. Thanks for having a great and dedicated site where we the fans can ask you our questions! I only wished my other favorite shows had similar sites.
Greg responds...
I lived in New York for years. So I did very little locational research myself. Mostly relied on my memory. But our artists (both in L.A. and Tokyo) did TREMENDOUS amounts of research. I never had to check to make sure it was accurate. I trusted those guys and gals. And my trust seemed well-placed, don't you think?
Dichellddrwg writes...
Hi Greg,
Of course I have to be a fanboy and say thank you very much for all your work with both the cartoon, comic and everything else you've devoted to this series. And thank you for how accessible you make yourself your fans. I know how easy it could be to just churn this stuff out and let it speak for itself, especially in light of some of the creepy stuff an obviously small minority have been doing. But you do really do go the extra mile, and for that, I think we're all appreciative.
Anyway, onto the question, and please forgive me if it's been asked. How much control does Disney currently hold on the comic. So to flesh it out a bit, when it was the cartoon, I have no doubt they they were quite involved in setting the boundaries of where the series could go thematically, in terms of character development and in overall tone. For example I'm sure they didn't want you going out too far with violence, character relations or anything else that may run counter to its image. So now that they are licensing their IP, do they require approval of scripts, story arcs, art and the such? Are their broad guidelines? Or is it simply yours to run with and develop as you see fit?
Anyway, thanks for time and effort; it's really appreciated by a lot of us.
Greg responds...
Well, back in the day... we were all "Disney". Full time employees. But I set "the boundaries of where the series would go thematically, in terms of character development and in overall tone."
They approve everything now, but I still set "the boundaries of where the series would go thematically, in terms of character development and in overall tone."
Bill Rodebaugh writes...
Hello Greg,
I'm an animation fan....particular from the days when everything was animated in the US....such as the earlier Hanna-Barbara days or Filmation's cartoons. Has "Gargoyles" and the new animated "Spectacular Spiderman" animated overseas? Do you have direct input into all the stories that go or have gone into these series?
Sincerely,
Bill
Greg responds...
All the writing and voice recording for both shows are/were done in the US. On Spider-Man all of the pre-production and post-production as well. On Gargoyles, most of the pre-production was done in the U.S., but a few episodes were pre-produced at Walt Disney TV Japan, but under the supervision of myself and Frank Paur. All the post for Gargoyles was done in L.A.
The actual animation was/is done overseas. Gargoyles was about 1/3 Japan and 2/3 Korea (with a bit of China thrown in). Spidey is all animated in Korea at one of three studios: HanHo, DongWoo and Moi.
Jess writes...
Hey Greg! I'm still keeping up with Spectacular Spider-Man and "Natural Selection" didn't disappoint. I feel like each episode is slightly stronger than the one before it as everyone gets more in-tune with the material and each other.
I think you found just the right note with the Billy subplot, where it was genuinely emotional and not cloying. I liked the "I took a cab" bit with Eddie at the zoo. Just a fun little jab a typical cartoon logic. I was not expecting Peter to be fired, so that was a cool moment for me as well. Somehow I have a feeling we'll be seeing the serum again.
Nice continuity nods with the ring-tone alarm, the mention of Electro, and especially Peter and Eddie calling each other "Bro", then having Spidey try to cover it up when he does the same.
One thing I noticed was that during Peter's voice-over before he plans on taking the serum is that he mentions "a hard 9PM curfew" where before it had always been 10.
The cast continues to be amazing (or rather spectacular). In particular, Kath Soucie and Lacey Chabert just completely nailed their parts this week.
Since this is "Ask Greg", I do have a quick question: For small parts i.e. the people at the coffee shop in "Interactions", or Thug #1 in this past episode do you have certain people in the cast in mind, or do you just ask whoever's in that day if they want to do it?
Thanks for your time!
Greg responds...
We plan ahead, dealing out our bit parts from among the actors who will be present for the session. SAG rules allow us to ask any actor to do one additional character for free.
senthusan writes...
hi Mr. Greg i wanted to tell you that i enjoyed watching gargoyles. One question is when you ended the show, are you going to continue it from the comics in animated version this year because that would be wonderful for all the fans out there. also i wanted to ask you why did you end the show quick before in the 1996? thank ou very much.
Greg responds...
I didn't personally end it. I was released from Disney and they continued without me. Then they ended it, for a variety of reasons I've gone into ad nauseum in the past. Check the archives.
legion writes...
you said before that you came up with the name Thailog from listening to Goliath's name backwards but wouldn't it be spelled/pronounced htailog instead of thailog?
Greg responds...
No. Sounds don't respect spelling conventions. "TH" is a sound. In any case, it sounded like Thailog.
Jordan writes...
Hey Greg,
I caught the spider-man premire and I have to say it was one of the best saturday mornings I've had in years. Congrats to you and your crew.
In the time between Gargoyles and Spider-man, how would say the overall process of creating an animated show has changed, for better or worse?
Greg responds...
Mostly worse for me at least, because in those days I had the occasional ear of Michael Eisner. He was hard to sell, but if he said yes, we got to MAKE OUR SHOW with no more bologna attached. Nowadays getting a "yes" is nearly impossible as it's always a decision by committee. Heck it took them years to decide to make Spider-Man. I mean... Spider-Man?!! If any show is a no-brainer...
Rebel writes...
Hi Greg, this is something I meant to ask in my earlier comment, but I forgot to. For the comic, how much direction do you give to your artists in coming up with the designs for new canon characters?
I am specifically referring to the two new London Gargoyles at the end of #7. I know you had mentioned before that the London gargs would look like unicorns, lions, or griffins. Did you change your mind recently, or had it always been your plan to make them look like other heraldry animals, and you were just teasing us? Did David Hedgecock talk you out of it? Did the two of you decide together what animals they would resemble, or had you already decided? If you chose beforehand, did you give him specific details about their appearance, or relatively vague details and let him come up with them himself? I would be interested to know any information you can tell me about this. I find the process of creating a character's look to be very interesting.
Also, feel free to volunteer information about the development of the designs of other new characters which have appeared in the comic. Shari, the Tasmanian tiger villain in Bad Guys, Coyote's new look, etc. Whatever comes to mind.
Greg responds...
Here's my description in the script of the two characters, minus a couple of personal details that I don't choose to reveal at this time:
• [New Male Gargoyle] - Biologically age 19. [New Male Gargoyle] is a gargoyle of the London Clan. His head is modeled off a large stag (i.e. male deer) with fairly magnificent silver antlers. He should have feathered white wings. And deer-like hooves for feet, but his hands should look like normal gargoyle hands. He should be tall (and feel even taller thanks to the antlers) and slim in build. Not so slim that he looks fragile, but he's definitely not the bulky type. This is a new character, but for inspiration take a look at UNA at http://lynativerse.artchicks.org/Screencaps/GL_Una.htm.
• [New Female Gargoyle] - Biologically age 19. [New Female Gargoyle] is another gargoyle of the London Clan, this one modeled off a wild boar or sow. She has a pig-snout and tusks. She is brown. Her wings are the more traditional bat-like wings we're familiar with. Normal gargoyle hands, more pig-like feet. She's medium-height, muscled and burly - nothing fragile about [New Female Gargoyle].
As you can see, the basic choices were mine, but I give Dave full credit for bringing them to life.
Here's my descriptions of the other characters you asked about (and some you didn't)...
• COYOTE 5.0 - This is only SORT OF a new character. Basically, there have been four Coyote robots that preceded this one. They all have a lot in common thematically, but they're all different too. And lucky you get to design the new one! To see Coyotes 1-4, check out: http://gargoyles.dracandros.com/Coyote_%28robot%29 or the episodes "Leader of the Pack" (for Coyote 1.0) and "Upgrade" (for Coyote 2.0) both on the Season Two, Volume One DVD. (Coyotes 3.0 & 4.0 aren't out on DVD yet.) Note the basic color scheme and the coyote-head motif. And the fact that all the later robots have a circular VID-SCREEN that displays an image of a robotic head. The head appears to be half-Xanatos and half-robot-skull. This version of the robot will have the large Coyote Diamond inside its chest cavity… with lasers shooting into it. We may want a transparent cover for that, so we can see the Diamond even after the cavity is closed. Or not. In either case, Coyote 5.0 should be BIG.
• SHARI - Arabic female, age 18. A pretty, goth-teen runaway type. She wears a lot of chains, necklaces, pendants, etc. around her neck. [Shari was also visually inspired by a real person, and I provided Dave with a photo as reference.]
• DETECTIVE CEDRIC HARRIS - African-American male.
• DETECTIVE TRI CHUNG - Chinese-Vietnamese male.
• TERRY CHUNG - Asian-American boy, age 12. He's wearing a GOLIATH Halloween costume.
• AMBASSADOR CHUNG - Terry's mother, age 42. She's a short Asian-American woman, wearing a white evening gown and carrying a white, feathered mask on a stick.
• QUINCY HEMINGS - He appears to be about 60. African-American. Gray hair, trim build. He's dressed in a white tuxedo jacket with epaulets and gold buttons. White gloves, a red bow tie, black pants. He has for decades been the "Chief Steward" at the White House, a job loosely based on the job of Chief Usher. See http://www.whitehousehistory.org/06/subs/06_a07.html for info on Chief Ushers.
• TASMANIAN TIGER - (Age 24.) The Tasmanian Tiger is a somewhat clichéd costumed super-villain. His garb is inspired by the extinct Tasmanian Tiger (a.k.a. the Thylacine), and he's flanked by two actual (cloned) THYLACINES (Benjamin & Natasha). (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine.) His costume is largely form fitting with black tiger stripes and a cowl with Tiger ears and clawed gauntlets. On his chest is a symbol with two interlocking letter Ts. (Similar to the interlocking Ds on Daredevil's costume: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Daredevil41.jpg.) The Tasmanian Tiger also carries a large blaster weapon.
• BENJAMIN - A male Thylacine, one of Tasmanian Tiger's trained pets. To see how wide a thylacine's jaw can open, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tasmanian_tiger.gif.
• NATASHA - A female Thylacine; the Tiger's other trained pet.
As you can see, sometimes I gave quite a bit of detail, sometime I pretty much left nearly the entire design to Dave or Karine or Nir's imagination. Usually, the artist does a design and sends it to me. We might do a bit of back and forth on it... but honestly, looking at the above list, with the exception of Quincy (who started out looking a bit too old and jowly for my tastes), I feel like the artists hit all of these characters on the first time out.
Antiyonder writes...
With issue six, we finally got to read one of your Untold Tales for Gargoyles. Some others that I've heard about on Ask Greg:
1. You never gave a title, but this was set in New York during The Avalon World Tour. You mentioned that this story had Xanatos taking advantage of Goliath's absence.
2. Hobgoblins Of Little Minds.
3. The Weird Macbeth.
4. Arthur's adventure between Avalon Part Three and Pendragon.
5. The Multitrickster story.
Aside from those five, are there any other stories that you planned for the first two season, but never got to? Not asking for spoilers, just a yes or a no. I'll understand if you don't want to answer though.
Greg responds...
Well, saying I "planned them for the first two seasons" isn't really accurate for ANY of the above, including 3 and 5, which we considered doing in season two. But I have other stories from that era like 1 and 4 that I can/will tell some day. But 2, 3 and 5 haven't happenned yet in the continuity.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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...
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.
Jonny Modlin writes...
Hi Greg,
Where is Buena Vista Home Entertainment located in? Thank you.
Greg responds...
Burbank.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Noorie writes...
Can't you move the show to like...channel 20, in canadian time setting....thing... well, it's just that my family dosnt have "Disney Channel" and i used to watch Gargoyles when i was little, and i remember, me and my little brother used to tape all the shows! i loved the show until it went off, and i never got around to finding out why it got off...well, this is my first time craving to see the show again! it's just that i found out that the shows going to be starting again from the beginning, and i dont have that channel! :( i'm 14 years old right now, and i'm totally getting into mythical creatures and things like that, and i hardly know anything like that...
Cant you just change it into some...common channel? I mean, it could get you more people to watch it, rather then getting better cable JUST to watch the show..(hope i'm not offending you!! i just really loved that show!!) lol, well, i hope my plea's got to you, you're probably like.."R....ight, what a weirdo!" heh, well, im no weirdo..anyways...ya..! k, gotta split! ;)
Greg responds...
You're not a weirdo, you simply don't seem to understand that I have absolutely no control over when and where the reruns air.
Mark: PRJibaroPapi69@aol.com writes...
Hey Greg! Long time fan first time posting! I was wondering, you said that Gargoyles is the total property of Disney. Does that mean that even though you are the creator, you can't do anything with the series unless they give the okay? If so, does that mean your unable to buy ALL the rights to the show? If not, do you ever plan to reair the show with all new episodes in the future? The reason I ask these questions is because Disney was stupid in pulling the plug on the series just because they wanted to move on to something new. But if your able to buy the rights, I'm sure there's more than enough studio's out there who are so eager for ratings that they'll finance the reintergration of the show back to television. The WB would definatly welcome the show to it's programing as it was aired on that station in New York. Is there anyway that, at the very least, you can create a book series of Gargoyle novels that bring a close to the storylines that were never closed while the series was on the air? I just think that if Gargoyles will never make a big TV come back that comic books or novels should be made in it's place that bring a big close to the universe once and for all. Well... an official close because we all know that Gargoyles will always live on in fanfiction. That's all I guess. Thanx for writing such a wonderful series. One more questions, although it's not documented, in your most best thought opinion since the Gargoyles are the guardians of Manhattan, how do you think they reacted when, upon waking up from their stone sleep, they saw a big gapeing hole and a huge smoke screen on what used to be the world trade center on September 11th??? I, and alot of the fans, would really like to know.
Greg responds...
Yes. Again. Disney owns 100% of Gargoyles. They don't sell their properties, and even if they did -- WHICH THEY DON'T -- the cost would be way prohibitive.
I don't know if they were stupid to pull the plug after Goliath Chronicles. I'm not sure they exercised much smarts in pushing me out the door prior to Chronicles, but that's a VERY complicated story and in any case, should be attributed to individuals who no longer even work for the Mouse. Including me.
I also think, unfortunately, that you're wrong about other networks like the WB wanting the show. It's a moot issue, because Disney won't sell, but I see no indication that there is a single network out there looking for something like Gargoyles. No indication at all. Gargoyles has the greatest fans in the world, and I'm hoping that the DVD release will make enough of a splash and attract fans, both old and new, to wake people up to the possibilities that the series represents.
In the meantime, I haven't given up trying to get the property up and running again in some way, shape or form, and publishing (comics or novels) is something I'm extremely interested in.
As for the fans, the best thing they can do -- at least until the DVD's release -- is to come to the Gathering (our annual Gargoyles Fan Convention), this August, 2004 in Montreal.
Check out their website:
http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/
The more fans that show up to the convention, the greater our collective voice, the more likely that Disney takes notice.
Finally, I've answered the 9/11 question many times. Check the archives.
White writes...
Hello again.
It's been a long long time that I've been waiting to post this.. You probably don't remember, but a long time ago, I asked you if you knew why there were sound differences between the reruns and the original episodes.
( by original, I mean the first time they showed an episode )
You were wondering if I was talking about the movie or an other language.. but I'm not.
and now.. I have the proof.
So, I wanted to show it to you, perhaps you could then tell me if you know why they changed what some people said.
I made waves with episodes that I recorded on TV.
Not the movie, I also have the movie and I know there are more differences.
Sooo... if you could just go and listen to those waves.
I posted them on a page that has nothing else, except explanations of what those waves are.
I know I should not post URLs in here.. but It's the only way I can show this to you.. Unless I ask someone to put the sound waves on this website...
Hope you'll give me news about that.. because I find this quite odd :)
( http://gargoyles.topcities.com/odd.html )
Thank you
Greg responds...
Well, I don't usually go to links, but I did this time. But of course two years have passed (or nearly) and the page is no longer there.
So I don't know what to tell you. We made occassional changes, but not many sound changes between first airings and the subsequent reruns in syndication. But maybe you're comparing first airings with cable airings -- all of which aired AFTER I left Disney.
Both USA Network and Toon Disney edited the shows themselves, (the former for length and the latter for S&P). That may have forced them to make some sound changes, though it seems unlikely that they'd spend the money on a new mix.
Shawn Asbury writes...
Mr Weisman,
It is true that Gargoyles was a very innovative and popular animated series. However, I would like to know why you chose for it to be as such. It seems to me that the concept and storyline of Gargoyles was severely restrained by the childishness and politically correctness of the Disney Co. If you really wanted it to be an animated series, why didn't you opt for a network such as HBO? This would have allowed for some more authentic character emotion and less g-rated cuteness due to the allowance of violence, blood, nudity, and swearing (All of which are real believable occurances. At the very least, Gargoyles could have made an epic collection of Novels which would have elaborated on the development of the characters and and would have made for some great dark gothic mental imagery.
Greg responds...
Gargoyles would not exist without Disney. Period.
You speak as if Gargoyles existed in a vacuum -- perhaps in the vacuum of my mind?
In fact, Gargoyles was created by me and by my development team while I was a development executive (Director of Series Development) at Walt Disney Television Animation. Aside from the fact that Disney owns the show, it also was the catalyst for the series' very existence.
After the fact, you could say: "Gee, how much more freedom might you have had on HBO." But that assumes so much. (1) That HBO would have wanted it. (2) That HBO would have actually given me more freedom than Disney did. (3) That I wanted more freedom. I doubt the first two would have been true. I know the last one is not.
With very, VERY few exceptions, I got to do what I wanted on the first 65 episodes of the show. I think we made an epic collection of episodes.
I'd love to write GARGOYLES Novels if I could find an interested publisher. I haven't been able to.
matt writes...
in "The Price" after Hudson's statue was destroyed was the Clan in effect beginning to perform the Wind Ceremony on Hudson when they were standing around talking about him?
also, in the credits of that episode there was a mention of parts of the episode being inspired by material in the comic books (presumably the Gargoyles comic books) any idea what thats about? i have a few of the comic books and i have no idea what the credits are referring to...
Greg responds...
No. They were just trying to get their heads around his death. The Wind Ceremony would have come later.
The story was inspired by an idea by Lee Nordling in a Gargoyles story he did in an issue of Disney Adventures Magazine. It was his idea (though he used Goliath, not Hudson) to have Xanatos replace a sleeping gargoyle with a stone statue to fool the rest of the clan.
That was the only thing from his story that we used, and I've never even met Lee, but it was a great idea.
Todd Jensen writes...
This is something that came to mind after reading your comments about how you and other folks at Disney were worried that "Gargoyles" might be seen as a rip-off of "Batman: TAS", and which I finally remembered to post something about.
I saw an episode of "Batman: TAS" once (after "Gargoyles" went off the air) called "Avatar" which did strike me as having a certain similarity to "Grief", in which Batman went to Egypt to stop Reis al-Ghul from coming into contact with an undead sorceress-queen from ancient Egypt who had "power over life and death". What struck me about it was the points that it had in common with "Grief": the Egyptian setting, the word "avatar" (in the dialogue in "Grief", in the title of the "Batman" episode), and the ancient being with power over life and death (Anubis in "Gargoyles", the Egyptian sorceress-queen in "Batman"). The similarities could have been just a coincidence, but I thought that I'd mention that here.
Greg responds...
The similarities aren't entirely coincidental, in that both were written by Michael Reaves.
As I recall, the springboard for "Grief" was mine, but Michael ran with it -- putting some stuff in "Grief" that he had WANTED to put in "Avatar" but which had NOT made it into the final version of that episode.
Roxz writes...
Where did you come up with such a good idea?
Are you going to start the show up again(If you do will you try toget it put on at a earlier)?
Greg responds...
Check the ASK GREG FAQ and Archives.
Lord Sloth writes...
I have a few questions about the Leica reel for Bad Guy's, as I've never seen it (but really want to).
1. If you can't/don't want to spread the reel all over the net, could/would you write a detailed/some what detailed report on how the story goes. You of course don't have to, but I'm sure it would satisfy a lot of people who have never gathered to a gathering.
2. What IS a Leica reel? Is there anything animated about it, or is it more of a montonage <sp?> of art work with voice-overs from key characters?
3. How much detail is shown in the animation/stills (i.e.: sketches or paintings or stuff the like I see in Gargoyles)?
4. How long dose it run for?
*Note* I could have asked the CR about all this, but I enjoy the way you write, when you do :^B (enough flattery?).
And I hope to see it for myself someday, not in Virginia, but in NY, 2003 if all goes well.
Greg responds...
1. No. Sorry. It's a special treat for Gathering attendees, and I don't want the story in it to become common currency. I still have hopes of selling it someday.
2. A leica reel can be many things. The spelling suggests it has something to do with a Leica camera, but I've been assured that it really is code for IT'S LIKE-A REEL. It's also sometimes called an ANIMATIC or SIZZLE TAPE. There is no true animation, though I've seen some recent stuff using flash. It's basically a filmed storyboard, with a few fancy editing tricks, like panning, scanning, pushing in, pulling out and maybe a few dissolves or wipes. That's put with actual recorded vocals and hopefully some music and sound effects. It's an effective way to tell a story, like a glorified comic book for the screen. But it's supposed to be done for a relatively small amount of money. A few thousand dollars as opposed to tens of thousands of dollars.
3. It depends. Some are very detailed some are very sketchy.
4. Again, it depends. I think BAD GUYS runs about 7 minutes, which is probably too long for anyone but garg fans.
Or maybe you can come see it in Montreal in August of '04.
Joseph Tek Fox writes...
I'm curious... What possessed you all to do the episode, "Future Sight," where basically, everyone died, the world was taken over, and Xanatos's Tower blew up in a flaming ball of scrap? BTW, I'm fully aware that this was just a dream. ^-^;
Greg responds...
That was "Future Tense". But I'm not sure how to answer your question beyond the obvious that we thought it would make a VERY powerful story, while furthering a number of our subplots. We also had some thought of doing the episode in 3D (though I honestly can't tell you if that meant computer animation or the kind of 3D where you put on special glasses and the pictures seem to jump off the screen. At the time, I thought we were talking about the latter, but it now occurs to me that some of the people in the room might have been talking about the former. No wonder, we couldn't pull it off.)
JAXS writes...
Have you ever seen those posters that read "Everything I Need to Know in Life I Learned from (fill in the blank)?" Well, that saying goes true for Gargoyles. All throughout highshcool, I have been learning about things that I already am familar with from the show, such as the Aboriginal Dream Team, Mythology, and such and Shakespeare, Religious beliefs. King Arthur etc. I think it's incredible how the show evolved such a complex web-work for all these stories to be connected. I'm talking about how Oberon ruled Avalon, and all his children stretched from the Native American Trickers, Raven and Coyote, to the Banshee, the Mythological Proteus, and such. It was an ingenious idea. I wanted to know who came up with the original concept.Was this sub-story line composed from the begining, or did it just happen as the show continued? Was there a seperate research comittee who created this? How thought-out was it to have all these inccorporate into one big picture? Thanks
Greg responds...
Not to toot my own horn (or at least not to toot it anymore than I usually do), but the intent to create this tapestry was mine -- and pretty much from the very beginning, though I had no idea whether the opportunity would continue to present itself.
In terms of actually creating the tapestry, I had MUCH help. The obvious culprits include our story editors Michael Reaves, Brynne Chandler Reaves, Gary Sperling and Cary Bates. Many writers obviously contributed as well, especially Lydia Marano.
We had a couple of contributing researchers: Monique Beatty and Tuppence Macintyre.
And lots of other people threw in ideas as well, especially my partner Frank Paur and our co-producer/directors Dennis Woodyard and Bob Kline.
Some of the tapestry was serendipitous. Much was planned WAY in advance. Often both luck and planning came into play.
Mostly, we just wanted to tell good stories and this simply helped.
Anonymous writes...
I know this question has been asked many times, why was the show canceled?.
Its quite simple the 3rd season was terrible. It was like a completely new show with the same characters but now based on morals etc.....
The real question everyone is probably wondering is, was the staff completely changed?. Its nothing like it was before... What happened?
please explain
Greg responds...
I don't think hardly anyone who comes here is still wondering that, since it's been answered over and over. Check out the FAQ. (But, yes, the staff was almost completely different.)
Jimmy writes...
Here's a technical question.
How did you do the sound of the Gargoyles roaring? Was it an animal roar that was altered or did the actors actually scream really wierd?
Greg responds...
Both.
: « First : « 100 : Displaying #104 - #203 of 536 records. : 100 » : Last » :