A Station Eight Fan Web Site
: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #145 - #154 of 536 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :
Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :
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.
: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #145 - #154 of 536 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :