A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Behind the Scenes

Archive Index


: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #114 - #123 of 536 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :


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


Bookmark Link

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.

Response recorded on June 29, 2010

Bookmark Link

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.

Response recorded on May 13, 2010

Bookmark Link

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.

Response recorded on February 23, 2010

Bookmark Link

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.

Response recorded on January 22, 2010

Bookmark Link

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.

Response recorded on November 02, 2009

Bookmark Link

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.

Response recorded on October 28, 2009

Bookmark Link

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.

Response recorded on October 27, 2009

Bookmark Link

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.

Response recorded on September 25, 2009

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

who paid for gargoyles

Greg responds...

Originally? Disney.

Response recorded on September 17, 2009

Bookmark Link

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.

Response recorded on August 03, 2009


: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #114 - #123 of 536 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :