A Station Eight Fan Web Site
: « First : « 50 : Displaying #120 - #169 of 536 records. : 50 » : Last » :
Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :
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.
Different networks have different rules, I guess.
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.
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.
who paid for gargoyles
Originally? Disney.
How do you come up with your character names? (though the Manhatten's names' origins can be easily deduced)
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.
Generally speaking, about how many pages is the script for an average 30-minute television episode?
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the Vikings may have been Michael Reaves' idea.
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?
It takes eight to ten months - give or take.
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?.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
I don't really write this series that way. Each episode or issue defines its own parameters.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
No. Sounds don't respect spelling conventions. "TH" is a sound. In any case, it sounded like Thailog.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
Were the major thems created in the series intended to have real world meaning, or were they merely for plot motion?
Both, if I'm understanding you correctly.
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.)
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...
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.
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.
Hi Greg,
Where is Buena Vista Home Entertainment located in? Thank you.
Burbank.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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?
There was no thought to do that.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yep, and that's why the change was made of course. We got the beast wrong. So we fixed it.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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. >^-^<
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.
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
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.
: « First : « 50 : Displaying #120 - #169 of 536 records. : 50 » : Last » :