A Station Eight Fan Web Site
: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #347 - #356 of 536 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :
Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :
I always thought it was interesting we could see the targeting lasers of Xanatos' particle weapons actually
moving through space.
So I'm wondering, is the speed of light in the "Gargoyles" universe different than "our" universe?
artistic license.
Hi Greg,
Before I say anything, I'd like to apologize for the impersonalness of my last two guesses for the Clans Contest (about a dozen posts previous). I just figured a preamble was unnecessary, but looking back, it feels cold.
Anyway, I wanted to ask about the unrealized Tibetan adventure. Did it have to do with:
1) Religion
2) Politics/Current Events
3) One of Oberon's Children
Also, how far did it get in development before it was canned?
The revelation that this story was cut for episode volume is disheartening, especially since we won't get another World Tour, even if the show returns.
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
At Disney it was just a springboard. It never went any further than that. But it wasn't canned. We just decided that we had other stronger stories to tell.
I later wrote it as a comic book story for Marvel's GARGOYLES comic book. But the book got cancelled before the story was published.
Don't be disheartened, it'll see the light of day sometime. It was already a flashback story when I wrote it for Marvel.
One other tidbit on that description of Morgan (the prototype for Elisa) that occurred to me. Her bio mentions that she dressed up as Guinevere for Halloween. And you mentioned that in the early stages of development for "A Lighthouse in the Sea of Time", other members of the production team had suggested having Elisa dress up as Guinevere, although you nixed that one. I wonder if that notion might have been another carryover from the original comedy development now. (One reason why these behind-the-scenes looks are so fascinating).
I don't think so. Because Brynne, Michael and Lydia weren't involved in the show back in those days. And I'm quite sure they never read those old memos.
So I think they must have come up with that (nixed) idea independently.
I read _Viewing Violence_ which came to me attention from your comments. First off I would like to [publicly] compliment you on your modesty. You said she described Gargoyles (specifically Deadly Force) as an example of violence portrayed responsibly. That is an understatement- it was the ONLY such example she gave in cartoondom, and, at least for the first half of the book, non-educational children's program in general. That far I had seen her recommend just three television shows highly and without reservation, and those were Sesame St, Mr. Rogers and Gargoyles. Next up was Barney; its banality outweighed by its gentleness. Then Star Trek for its optimism; but only for children old enough to have truly begun to differentiate between fantasy and reality. Later she praised a host of the less pointlessly caustic family sit-coms ranging from Full House, to the Cosby Show to Roseanne that she felt dealt with the smaller day to day issues young children have to learn. Gargoyles got as much positive attention as ET and Stand By Me.
She did seem to put Gargoyles in the wrong chapter, although she probably did so to deal with cartoons as one unit. At that point she was dealing with shows appropriate for the very young before they have a sense of either fantasy versus reality or long-term perspective. Gargoyles fits into the next age group in which she felt it worthwhile to demand exactly what episodes like Deadly Force gave: real consequences.
Another thing the book had pointed out to me was the prevailing pessimism of today. I knew that crime has been dropping to all time lows and yet people are not feeling safe, but I had never connected it to entertainment so directly. [I had thought of violent media as symptomatic not causal, now I think it is both.] It made me stop and realize (among other things) that Gargoyles, despite its wonderful moodiness and difficult issues managed to be an optimistic series. Considering it is a series that starts with a massacre and has several powerful episodes that end on very low notes (ex. Metamorphosis, Sanctuary, etc) it is quite an accomplishment.
The author did not seem a fan of animation. In fact she seemed to think that little had changed since back when cartoons were more blatantly just merchandising and 'moral messages' were simplistic and tacked on. She did not seem to think about adult audiences being a big issue with cartoons, and didn't deal with other cartoons that might have strong adult fan followings. [Well..., she did say she didn't like X-Men.] Considering all that, I find it more impressive that she dedicated so much time to Gargoyles. It is impressive to have won her praise despite her bias, and given her focus on only young audiences, a good sign that the official target audience was well served.
While I did not agree with some of what she said, the book did make me think a bit more carefully about what I choose to watch.
Here is where I get totally subjective:
I really wish that Disney paid more intention to such things. I had enjoyed the Disney Afternoon increasingly leading up to Gargoyles, but less so after. In my opinion the following shows slid from respectable to hit or miss and finally to disappointing. Ultimately they ceased to be the most impressive force in Tv cartoons. [Now WB has taken over despite its over reliance on Pokemon. Fox is pushing hard, and the Cartoon Network grows stronger and stronger.]
I know that Disney is a business first and foremost, and I do not begrudge them being profitable- in fact I wish them great prosperity, but they do market themselves as Americana and a responsible influence on the country and world youth. I think they succeed most when they stay true to that vision. When they place profitability before vision instead of second or at most equal to it, the results are often formulaic and forgettable. I would have liked Disney to nurture and give time to Gargoyles above and beyond other offerings precisely because it was of such a high quality. It was a departure and radical in some ways, but in others, specifically the ways that _Viewing Violence_ spoke about, a logical extension of what Disney is all about. Still, I do realize that other times Disney has taken the high road profitability took years to become evident. The initial Fantasia was considered a flop, and I am very curious how well Fantasia 2000 did financially. Television is not a forgiving medium, and cartoons are very expensive.
In hindsight I can say Disney chose the wrong approach because it meant backing away from animation just before so many other studios were getting interested and anime influenced offerings were becoming mainstream. I realize some of it had to do with major broadcasting changes- namely acquiring ABC and the rise the WB as a network with its own competing programming, but I wonder, especially now that Disney tries to market Toon Disney, if there aren't execs slapping their foreheads and shaking their heads over some of the decisions made over the last few years. And if those execs exist, are they thinking, "How did we lose that advantage?" without a real sense of what they did to lose it, or are they looking at specific shows and saying, "that was real quality, why did we let that go?" Truth be told, the failure to are Deadly Force makes the second seem unlikely.
By now I have turned my praise relating to the book to a ramble, so I will stop.
I like Madeline Levine's book too. In fact, I like Madeline. Certain things were a revelation to me. Others, I believe, she got dead wrong. I've since talked to her about many of those things, and the funny thing is I think I changed her mind about a few of them.
But she was good to Gargoyles. And that came from the show itself. I didn't meet her until after she had made her decision about it. I seem to recall she's a big LAW AND ORDER fan too.
Anyway, about current Disney Execs... well, for starters, there has been so much turnover at Disney that I don't think they have any sense or knowledge of the company's own history... at least with regards to TV Animation. So that precludes a lot of "historical insight". But I see a pendulum starting to swing back, and I'm hoping we'll be there to capitalize on it and get our show back in business.
on 08-19-00, you said, "But FYI, we didn't have lackluster ratings our first two years. They were solid, strong ratings. They just didn't beat Power Ranger's ratings."
Uhh.... Gargoyles was lost to us, due to POWER RANGERS?!?!?! I Think I'll go throw up now.
Join the club.
In your first season Gargoyles Bible, you raised the question of whether gargoyles fought in the Battle of Britain, a notion that eventually became "M.I.A." in the second season. This indicates that the notion of gargoyles protecting London from the Germans in 1940 was one that you'd had quite early on in the history of making the series.
Is there any particular reason why you had thought of gargoyles as participants in the Battle of Britain?
It was cool.
(I know that's not too deep, but that's the truth.)
I am a huge fan, and because of my work schedule, I rarely get to watch the show. I met Keith David on the street, and his brother is a neighbor mine, and I think he is cast well for the voice of Goliath. I no longer have cable and was wondering when does the show (if at all) on regular television. I know UPN here in NEw York plays many of the Disney cartoons, in the AM. I am in New York City, when and where does the show air here?
Thanks for your help!
Marjorie
Well, to be honest, I have no idea. But I think the answer is, it doesn't. As far as I know, it's only playing on ToonDisney right now in the U.S.
Anyone know different?
Why did you stop the show anyway? What's up with that? Did you have a buget problem?
Jenn...
I didn't stop the show. Disney did. Check the archives for a more detailed answer.
A few days ago I took out my store-bought copy of "Gargoyles, The Movie," which is the first five episodes without commercials. I was trying to remember why I hadn't watched it in a while. That question was immediately answered once I started watching it.
There are certain details in the movie--background music, sound effects, scene editing--that are either off or just plain wrong. The sound of Goliath crushing Elisa's gun, the arrows flying through the air during the Viking battle, the metallic sounds of the Steel Clan opening their wings and firing their cannons--they are all different, and they drive me crazy!! Then there's the background music, which either starts too late or is completely wrong for that particular scene. But the most excrutiatingly obnoxious error of all is the sound of the gargoyles gliding--it's this high-pitched swooping noise, like a mechanical glider, or something, I don't know what exactly, but it's NOT RIGHT!! {Loud scream of frustration!!!!!!!}
I know, I know, these are fussy nitpicks, but the little details really do effect the quality of the program. I'm a diehard Gargoyles fan who's seen these episodes dozens of times, so hearing a difference makes me cringe. So yeah, what's the point of this post? To ramble, to complain, and to ask if anyone else (yourself included) had noticed and were annoyed by the changes made in "Gargoyles, The Movie."
Thanks for letting me rant. And vent. I feel better now.
Sigh. I'm glad you feel better, but I'm annoyed.
They are NEITHER OFF NOR WRONG, they are simply DIFFERENT from what you've grown used to. They were mixed simultaneously with the five pilot episodes. NOT AFTER. And the people who mixed those pilot episodes went on to mix the rest of the series' episodes, so the style they used became ingrained.
And again, if you heard the movie version played the way it was designed to be played -- that is with giant SPEAKERS and on a big screen theater, you'd see that the effects work quite well. Still different, but well. They weren't designed for home video.
NOW CAN WE PUT THIS QUESTION TO BED. CHECK THE ARCHIVES PLEASE.
Why did Gargoyles go off the air?
Sorry, anonymous, but the answer to that is long, complicated and involved. And I've answered it SO many times before. I'm gonna have to ask you to check the archives first. Then if you still have a specific thing you don't understand, come back here and ask me.
(I once answered this in INCREDIBLE DETAIL, and I have a vague memory that someone has it posted on their site. Does anyone remember. I wouldn't mind reposting that long explanation here.)
: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #347 - #356 of 536 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :