A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

REPLIES 2003-09 (Sep)

Archive Index


: « First : Displaying #6 - #15 of 44 records. : 10 » : Last » :


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


Bookmark Link

Gipdac writes...

In the gargoyles universe;
What year did Atlantis sink?
What was the cause of it sinking?

Greg responds...

My timeline says:

"9386 B.C. Atlantis is destroyed. (Date approximate.)"

I think it's interesting how specific that approximate date is.

As for the cause, I'm not ready to reveal that at this time.

Response recorded on September 25, 2003

Bookmark Link

Proofreading/Apologia...

I just received the following e-mail from my brother:

Subject: proofreading
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:56:49 -0700
From: "Weisman, Jon"

Just my two cents, but I do feel you're a little strident about the proofreading. I'm completely sympathetic to the annoyance/frustration, but your discussion of your own errors undermines your argument. You misspelled a word in the very sentence about proofreading being good training. Then you say there's no point in identifying errors that you make, because you're dyslexic and because you make an effort. Who's to say that your reader isn't dyslexic or doesn't make an effort, either? All "Dan" did in his first sentence was leave out the word "have."

Personally, I think it's fine to ask your readers to proofread better, but I simply think you could be nicer about it. Since your replies do contain errors, good intentions or not, it just doesn't make sense to me to cop an attitude.

- Jon

Jon is, of course, correct. And so I apologize for my rant. In particular, I apologize to "dan" for taking my frustrations out on him.

My only defense is that all the lousy proofreading -- and there really is a lot of it -- creates a kind of cumulative frustration. I really do ignore it most of the time. I make fun of it (I hope in a good-hearted way with a smart-ass response) occassionally, and I only rarely blow a gasket. But that's not much of an excuse.

So let's all try to proofread a bit more, including me -- hell, especially me -- and I'll try to keep my temper.

Again, dan, sorry.


Bookmark Link

Lexie writes...

What is a gargoyle

Greg responds...

Check the FAQ or watch an episode.

Response recorded on September 24, 2003

Bookmark Link

dan writes...

hey greg i was wondering if the gargoyles most of the problems humans have? like eyesight, deafness etc? Is there any gargoyles that actually wear glasses?

Greg responds...

dan, reread your first sentence and tell me if it makes sense. Proofreading is a courtesy and good-training for just about anytyhing in life.

Seriously, why should I bother composing an answer to a question that you couldn't bother to read over yourself, just to make it intelligible.

And there's no point pointing out my own errors, of which I'm sure there are many scattered here and there. I do make mistakes, but I make every effort to proofread. My dyslexia causes me to miss a few things here and there, but nothing like the above.

Rant over.

Now, to answer your question, degenerative problems would be rare, as Gargoyles heal every night. They also are not prone to many diseases that might cause these problems, for the same reason. But it's possible that a gargoyle could become deaf and/or blind in a catastrophic situation that could not be healed in one night. Take Hudson's eye, for example. And gargoyles do get older, making healing more difficult and slower.

Response recorded on September 24, 2003

Bookmark Link

fredmcmanus@hotmail.com writes...

do you know were to get any good pics of gargoyles for tatoos?

Greg responds...

Nope. Ask the fans.

Response recorded on September 24, 2003

Bookmark Link

Samantha writes...

Dexter writes...
Hey Greg,
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!

I can answer part of that! Xanatos did not steal back his own disks. They were from another company, the company that Fox's father owned. Xanatos faked a robbery to make the gargoyles think that when he told them about the disks they were his, when nothing had ever really been stolen from him.
He used the gargoyles to steal these disks to upload his steel clan. By using the Gargoyles, no one would ever suspect him. No one even knew what Gargoyles were I think.
Once he got the stolen disks, he was able to load up his
steel clan, which meant he no longer had a name for the clan.
Since they would be too hard to control, he decided to test his new clan on them. And I'm sure you know the rest. I hope this helps.

Greg responds...

It does. Thank you.

Guys, it just goes to show that the fans are a much better first resource than I am. I just flat out take to long (over a year) to get to your questions.

Response recorded on September 24, 2003

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

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.)

Greg responds...

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.

Response recorded on September 24, 2003

Bookmark Link

Aaron writes...

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.

Best Actor
• 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'

Best Actress
• 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'

Best Picture
• 'A Beautiful Mind'
• 'In the Bedroom'
• 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'
• 'Moulin Rouge'
• 'Gosford Park'

Best Director
• 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'
• 'Ghost World'
• 'In the Bedroom'
• 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'
• 'Shrek'

Writing (Original Screenplay)
• 'Amelié'
• 'Gosford Park'
• 'Memento'
• 'Monster's Ball'
• 'The Royal Tennenbaums'

Animated Feature Film

• 'Jimmy Neutron Boy Genius'
• 'Monsters, Inc.'
• 'Shrek

(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. :)

Greg responds...

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.

Response recorded on September 23, 2003

Bookmark Link

Dexter writes...

Hey Greg,
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!

Greg responds...

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.

Response recorded on September 23, 2003

Bookmark Link

Joseph Tek Fox writes...

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. ^-^;

Greg responds...

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.)

Response recorded on September 23, 2003


: « First : Displaying #6 - #15 of 44 records. : 10 » : Last » :