A Station Eight Fan Web Site
This is something of a musing that I've been pondering for some time about your hinted-at plans to bring Prospero (and other characters from "The Tempest") into "Gargoyles" (it's more a ramble than a genuine question, actually). I was not the least bit surprised by your mention, when you first started up "Ask Greg", to include Prospero in "Gargoyles" somewhere; after all, a series that had already made use of "Macbeth" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream" in its framework would obviously have to bring "The Tempest" in somewhere as well. What I do find myself wondering, from time to time, is the role that Prospero (and Ariel and Caliban as well, if they were to show up - and it's obvious that they would also) would have played in the series, in relation to the other characters.
Because I noticed that the other major Shakespearean characters (Macbeth, Puck, the Weird Sisters, Oberon, and Titania) were actually made an important part of the framework of "Gargoyles", linked up strongly to the central and near-central characters. Macbeth and the Weird Sisters were part of Demona's story (explaining, in particular, how she survived from 994 down to the present day). Oberon, Titania, and Puck were part of Xanatos's story (or Titania at least as Fox's mother and Puck as Owen's true identity, not to mention that Oberon and Titania's attempt to kidnap Alex was what led to the end of the feud between Xanatos and the gargoyles). From this, I believe that we can safely presume that, when Prospero, Ariel, and Caliban would have shown up somewhere in the series (if it had only lasted that long), they would have likewise had strong links with the major characters in the series as part of the framework.
I won't ask what those links were, of course (I know that you don't want to reveal that yet, at least, not in this forum), but that's one reason why a part of me still hopes that you can find some way of continuing "Gargoyles" some day; I'd certainly enjoy finding out when/if that happens just where Prospero, Ariel, and Caliban fit into the Gargoyles Universe, and which major figures in the series they are linked to, at least initially (of course, everybody tends to wind up getting linked to everybody else anyway - Puck with Demona in "The Mirror", the Weird Sisters,Oberon and Titania with the Avalon clan, Macbeth with King Arthur, etc.)
There's truly nothing I'd like to do more, professionally, than to find a true forum (in some medium) for bringing the Gargoyles Tapestry back. I have so many stories still to tell, including those involving Prospero, etc.
And just so you know, so you all know, I'm still working on it. I haven't given up.
If this gets through in time, great, if not, Todd can just delete it.
It's Oscar time again, and so it's time to Ask Greg... for his picks.
Russell Crowe in 'A Beautiful Mind'
Will Smith in 'Ali'
Denzel Washington in 'Training Day'
Tom Wilkinson in 'In the Bedroom'
Sean Penn in 'I Am Sam'
Halle Berry in 'Monster's Ball'
Judi Dench in 'Iris'
Nicole Kidman in 'Moulin Rouge'
Sissy Spacek in 'In the Bedroom'
Reneé Zellweger in 'Bridget Jones's Diary'
Best Supporting Actor
Jim Broadbent in 'Moulin Rouge'
Jon Voight in 'Ali'
Ethan Hawke in 'Training Day'
Ian McKellen in 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'
Ben Kingsley in 'Sexy Beast'
Best Supporting Actress
Jennifer Connelly in 'A Beautiful Mind'
Hellen Mirren in 'Gosford Park'
Maggie Smith in 'Gosford Park'
Marisa Tomei in 'In the Bedroom'
Kate Winslet in 'Iris'
'A Beautiful Mind'
'In the Bedroom'
'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'
Robert Altman for 'Gosford Park'
Ron Howard for 'A Beautiful Mind'
Baz Luhrmann for 'Moulin Rouge'
David Lynch for 'Mulholland Drive'
Ridley Scott for 'Black Hawk Down'
Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
'A Beautiful Mind'
'In the Bedroom'
'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'
Writing (Original Screenplay)
'The Royal Tennenbaums'
Animated Feature Film
'Jimmy Neutron Boy Genius'
(What do you think of the creation of this awards category? Is animation finally getting the recognition it deserves in America, or is it that now that they've solidified their position as the only game in town, Disney wants some Oscars to bolster box office?)
That's all the major races, so... Pick 'em. Tell us who should and/or will be in those envelopes. :)
Well, stretching my memory (and I don't pretend to remember who won)...
Best Actor: The only performance I saw was Crowe's. I thought he was good in a movie that wasn't.
Best Actress: The only performance I saw was Berry's. I thought she was great.
Supporting Actor: Only performance I saw was McKellan's. He was great.
Supporting Actress: The only performance I saw was Connelly's. And again, I thought she was good in a very flawed film.
Best Picture: Only saw Beautiful Mind and Lord of the Rings. And between those I'd have given it to Rings in a heartbeat. Instantly.
Director: Only saw Beautiful Mind and Mulhulland Drive. Liked Mulhulland Drive a LOT more, but I can't say I'd be eager to give the award to either Howard or Lynch. It wasn't either man's best work by a long shot and both pictures were very flawed in my opinion. For very different reasons.
Adapted Writing: Only saw Beautiful Mind, Rings and Shrek. Once again, Rings takes my vote by a landslide.
Original Writing: Only saw Memento and Monster's Ball. I only saw Memento once, but I still suspect that at a second viewing I'd confirm my suspicion that clever as it was, the plot doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny. So I think I'd go with Monster's Ball.
Animated Feature Film: Saw all three of these. (The dis/advantage of having small kids is that you see all kids movies and very few grown up movies.) I actually liked all three of these but didn't love any of them. I think at the time I'd have gone with Shrek, which had the most sheer enjoyment. But having seen them all again more often than I'd care to, I think Monsters, Inc. is the one that holds up the best.
As to the category itself, I find it a mixed blessing. A guarantee of some recognition for a tremendous art form. And yet a ghettoization of that same art form. Disney may have supported the creation of the category for obvious prestige and monetary reasons, but that has little to do with my mixed feelings about it.
Call me stupid, but I've seen the pilot "Awakening" several times and I still do not follow the plot! I'm such an idiot. Ok, why did Xanatos got through all that trouble to wake up the Gargoyles just to have them steal disks? Then he used to information on them to makes the Steel Clan, what's the point of that? So now instead of real gargoyles, he had robotic ones. Doesn't make sense. Also, when Goliath and Elisa were attacked in central park, Elisa said she traced the logo back to Cyberbiotics, which Mr. X owned. So does that mean his own people stole disks from him and then he went and restole them back from his own people? Ah! It confuses me. Please clear me up, I've been meaning to ask you about this plot, and now I finally had time to. Thanks!
All right, for starters Xanatos made a mistake. He assumed that the Steel Clan would out perform the actual gargoyles, and he was wrong. He was hoping, of course, that he could have both, but Goliath proved less than cooperative. Later, he realized his error and came to value the Gargoyles (even as opponents) much more than he valued his robots.
As to your last bit of confusion, Elisa said she traced the logo back to Xanatos, not Cyberbiotics. You simply misheard.
I'm curious... What possessed you all to do the episode, "Future Sight," where basically, everyone died, the world was taken over, and Xanatos's Tower blew up in a flaming ball of scrap? BTW, I'm fully aware that this was just a dream. ^-^;
That was "Future Tense". But I'm not sure how to answer your question beyond the obvious that we thought it would make a VERY powerful story, while furthering a number of our subplots. We also had some thought of doing the episode in 3D (though I honestly can't tell you if that meant computer animation or the kind of 3D where you put on special glasses and the pictures seem to jump off the screen. At the time, I thought we were talking about the latter, but it now occurs to me that some of the people in the room might have been talking about the former. No wonder, we couldn't pull it off.)
Have you ever seen those posters that read "Everything I Need to Know in Life I Learned from (fill in the blank)?" Well, that saying goes true for Gargoyles. All throughout highshcool, I have been learning about things that I already am familar with from the show, such as the Aboriginal Dream Team, Mythology, and such and Shakespeare, Religious beliefs. King Arthur etc. I think it's incredible how the show evolved such a complex web-work for all these stories to be connected. I'm talking about how Oberon ruled Avalon, and all his children stretched from the Native American Trickers, Raven and Coyote, to the Banshee, the Mythological Proteus, and such. It was an ingenious idea. I wanted to know who came up with the original concept.Was this sub-story line composed from the begining, or did it just happen as the show continued? Was there a seperate research comittee who created this? How thought-out was it to have all these inccorporate into one big picture? Thanks
Not to toot my own horn (or at least not to toot it anymore than I usually do), but the intent to create this tapestry was mine -- and pretty much from the very beginning, though I had no idea whether the opportunity would continue to present itself.
In terms of actually creating the tapestry, I had MUCH help. The obvious culprits include our story editors Michael Reaves, Brynne Chandler Reaves, Gary Sperling and Cary Bates. Many writers obviously contributed as well, especially Lydia Marano.
We had a couple of contributing researchers: Monique Beatty and Tuppence Macintyre.
And lots of other people threw in ideas as well, especially my partner Frank Paur and our co-producer/directors Dennis Woodyard and Bob Kline.
Some of the tapestry was serendipitous. Much was planned WAY in advance. Often both luck and planning came into play.
Mostly, we just wanted to tell good stories and this simply helped.
How come did the Canmores continue to hunt Demona if in "City of Stone" Canmore thought she was dead?
I could understand that if they (the other hunters) were Gillecomgain's descendents. But even then Canmore didn't have any big reasons to hate Demona, he just wanted to kill MacBeth.
Something happened between the end of City of Stone and the Renaissance to get the Canmore's on the hate trail again. I don't feel like going into too many details, but you can rest assured that as usual, Demona is her own worst enemy. (Which is not to say the Canmore's don't share the blame.)
In "A Lighthouse in the Sea of Time", when Macbeth starts reading the Scrolls of Merlin out loud, the part that he's reading is about Merlin's first encounter with the young Arthur and his impressions of the future king. Something that I've occasionally wondered over is that this does seem a bit late in Merlin's life to begin his autobiography, considering how many things had already happened to him (according to traditional legend), prior to his becoming Arthur's tutor (such as his boyhood encounter with Vortigern and the ensuing battle between the dragons, becoming involved with Stonehenge, helping to bring about Uther and Igraine's meeting and Arthur's subsequent conception at Tintagel, etc.). Were the Scrolls really only a partial autobiography, beginning relatively late in Merlin's life and career? (Which, if so, is a bit of a pity, but even an incomplete autobiography's better than nothing).
There are at least two obvious possibilities.
One: That it was not an autobiography (despite what Macbeth may have said at the spur of the moment) but a history of Merlin's time with Arthur.
Two: That it opened with a reference to what even at the time Merlin must have known was the most significant thing to happen in his life. And that after the intro, he would eventually start at the beginning.
I'm not going to make that call at this time. But I'm hoping it's the latter.
Hey, i was wondering if their was a chanece if Gargoyles could come back on..(reboot did it) so why can't gargoyles it is one of the best shows EVER? Email me please firstname.lastname@example.org
Check the FAQ or Archives.
Hey, I have a question about the relationship between Demona and Owen: If she knew he was the Puck all the time, how come did she never confront him after "The Mirror" episode? In "City of Stone, part 1" she said to Owen 'You are the tricky one', I presume she meant as Puck, but at the time we don't know that. Why did she never made a comment about that? or even a glance?
She did. You just mentioned it in City of Stone. And she commented on it to Puck in "The Mirror". What else are you looking for?
hey greg I wanted to know why gargoyles were cancelled. It was such a good show
Is this like a joke?
Like one guy wrote up a bunch of questions in a row that he or she knew had been answered ad nauseum?