A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Animation

Archive Index


: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #129 - #138 of 188 records. : 10 » : Last » :


Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :


Bookmark Link

Sapphire writes...

Wouldn't it be cool if gargoyles was done in amine?

Greg responds...

Do you mean "anime" or maybe "mime"?

And what exactly do you mean by that? Do you want bigger eyes?

Response recorded on March 13, 2001

Bookmark Link

Entity writes...

Hi Greg,

Thanks for giving my comments about AWAKENING (the portrayel of the Trio and the cut prologue) a fair explanation. (I'm glad to hear that you would've preferred the prologue, too -- maybe I just wanted to know it wasn't cut for quality reasons.)

I understand the usage of the Next Time and Last Time segments better now, too. Though I have to ask: Is the quantity of bad animation you got back on GARGOYLES typical of an animated show?

Greg responds...

No. Actually, on the whole, I'd say Gargoyles got much BETTER animation than the average tv show. For starters, many of our episodes were done by Walt Disney TV Animation Japan. Those guys kicked ass.

And we also did very well by our Korean sub-contractors. Not every time. But often enough that I don't want to complain. Well, to be honest, there were always things to complain about. From every studio. That's the nature of tv production. But we got pretty lucky over all.

Response recorded on March 08, 2001

Bookmark Link

Jim R. writes...

I am curious. You were an "executive producer" for Gargoyles, right? What does an executive producer do for an animated series? Did you work on any of the artwork? Any of the storyline? The voice actors?

What is it that an executive producer does? In a nutshell, of course, I know you're busy...

Greg responds...

Haven't I answered this a hundred times?

No. In those days, Disney TV Animation did not give out "Executive Producer" credits. I started as a "Co-Producer". Then became a "Producer". Then "Supervising Producer". Through all these title changes, my duties never changed. [Which is to say, that a title doesn't necessarily give a consistent read on an individuals responsibilities or efforts. So I can't speak for all Executive or even Supervising Producers. I can just tell you what I did.]

I came up with all 66 story springboards and supervised the writing staff. Though I didn't have the title, since my producer credit rendered it redundant, I was the Supervising Story Editor for the series. I personally wrote and story edited "The Journey". Though I did not produce the Goliath Chronicles episodes, including Journey.

I also supervised all recording sessions with the actors. I voice directed one episode (VENDETTAS).

I don't draw, but I did give notes and approvals on all designs and storyboards. I also supervised post-production. Called retakes, supervised final edits, mixes, on-lines, etc.

I didn't do any of this stuff alone. But along with Frank Paur, I was the final word on everything.

Response recorded on March 02, 2001

Bookmark Link

Pyro X writes...

Hello;

Generally, what does an Executive producer do, as in preparing a show like Gargoyles?

Greg responds...

Well, I wasn't an Executive Producer. Gargoyles didn't have any executive producers.

I was a Supervising Producer. I came up with all the springboards, reviewed all premises, outlines, scripts. Supervised Voice Recordings, edit sessions, sound mixes and on-line sessions. Gave notes on all designs, storyboards and animation. I was a busy boy.

Response recorded on February 15, 2001

Bookmark Link

melcelestial@hotmail.com writes...

Seriously, how'd you get noticed by the world of your high-qualitied animations, A-Z starting from college? What inspired you to start the career as a cartoon animator? Do prefer 2D or 3D? What gave you the inspirations to start a cartoon????????

Greg responds...

O.K. First off, I'm NOT an animator. I'm a writer. And largely, at the time, I followed the work and the opportunities. I got a job in animation and followed that course until it eventually led me to create Gargoyles. But it was in that order, not the other way around.

As for 2D and 3D, I have no absolute preference. I like good animation, no matter the format. I like well-told stories. Some subject matter works better in 2D, some in 3D. And I like doing shows where the content and the format are working together as opposed to at odds.

Response recorded on February 07, 2001

Bookmark Link

SEM writes...

Given what you learned from STARSHIP TROOPERS and MAX STEEL -- if you were told that you could do GARGOYLES again but only if it could be done in 3D Animation would you? Do you think GARGOYLES could even work in 3D?

(I know it's a hypothetical, but this was the main selling point that got VOLTRON back on the air after 10 years as VOLTRON: THE THIRD DIMENSION for 26 episodes.)

BTW for the person who asked what program MAX STEEL is rendered in -- I know Netter Digital (now defunct) used Lightwave, and that Foundation Imaging used Lightwave for season one (as well as for the work they did on STARSHIP TROOPERS). I presume its still being used for the current season but not sure. Lightwave's major competitor is a program called Maya.

Sorry if I wandered too far off topic, Greg, but since I knew this came up thought I'd answer it for the archives.

Greg responds...

Yes, I think Gargoyles could work in 3-D. And if that was my only option for bringing it back, I'd jump at the chance.

If I had multiple options, however, I'd use the animation style that best suited the subject matter of the series.

Response recorded on February 07, 2001

Bookmark Link

Entity writes...

Hi Greg,

In your latest beat sheet for the series opener, I see that the idea of the Trio being young and inexperienced was still prominant. I understand where you came from in eventually changing that, but when I first watched AWAKENING I was distraught by the Trio. Every gargoyle we saw was a full-fledged warrior. Where _were_ the inexperienced kids? The elderly? It seemed slightly out-of-sync that the Trio were such able-bodied fighters. Was the Viking attack a real threat or wasn't it?

That is just my original impression of the events of the initial Viking attack. Later on, when the gang counterattacks the camp, I can understand their participation.

I guess the battle just came off too light-heartedly when we glimped the Trio, starkly contrasting with characters like Goliath's and Demona's scenes. A real sense of danger is added by Hakon drawing Goliath's blood, boulders crashing into stone, refugees huddling about, the Captain barking orders, etc. But then we have the Trio gallavanting through the battle like it's, as Brooklyn puts it, just "fun."

I think their innocense could have been portrayed in a way that didn't detract from the realism that was so effectively installed earlier on.

This isn't intended to come off as pure criticism. AWAKENINGS was brilliant, especially Part 1. But I thought I'd mention my first impressions.

Another little thing I noticed from the beat sheet is that the flashback originally began showing the refugees entering the castle, with the Marauders/Vikings on their tail, and then both parties camp for the day till dusk. This struck me in two ways: First, it gave me a better grip of realism. Enemy attackers camping right outside the castle, both sides waiting for the battle to begin... that could've added a cool flavor to things, and immerse us more into the medieval setting. Secondly, showing the refugees herded into the castle beforehand would've better clarified the events surrounding the battle. In the final product, we jump straight into the fight and, as a result, a reason is not even necessarily needed. The Captain's off-hand comment about refugees comes off as superfluous. I remember shrugging. 'That's nice' I thought. We were in the battle. Who needed backstory? Of course, the refugees were an important component, for the sake of Tom and his mother, and to better portray the environment of 10th century Scotland. If we'd seen the prologue to the battle, that's included in the beat sheet, I think it would've been much more effective.

I guess what this comes down to in the end is my earlier message I sent to you, in which I asked about trimming episodes with Last Time and Next Time segments. You defended, saying they were useful for tightening the episodes, but I put forth, as shown here, that some valuable stuff can be lost. Of course, it's doubtful you would've wanted or could've gotten a 6th Part to AWAKENINGS, but don't you think you could use ANY extra time you have to better flesh things out?

Greg responds...

The trio are new to this warrior thing at the time of the Viking attack. Brooklyn takes it more seriously, and unfortunately we don't see much with Lex (not enough time in the episode). Broadway enjoys the battle and doesn't take it as seriously as he should. We did this on purpose in order to contrast his response in the second battle at the Viking encampment.

I don't think the realism was damaged (though, of course, you're entitled to your opinion). I just think we were showing a variety of responses to the stimuli at hand.

And we did show the elderly -- in the person of Hudson. We couldn't show everyone, so he stood in for all of his generation that still survived. The only group we didn't show at all were kids (Bronx's age). It was felt that it would just be too brutal to establish and show these kids -- only to have them smashed later.

As for the prologue, well, I liked it too. But talk about superfluous...

I mean, what would you have been willing to cut from the episode in exchange for adding that prologue. It's not like I can say, "Hey, we want this prologue. Let's animate an additional three minutes here." Ultimately we have an absolute time limit to every episode. A footage limit (based on budget concerns) that we are allowed to send overseas to be animated. Something had to go. And I think the Captain's line covers the necessary info. It might not be elegant. But it's servicable.

But don't start on the Previously and Next Time segments. They don't count. What I'm talking about is how much we were allowed to ANIMATE at our budget. That was limited to about twenty-two minutes and thirty seconds. Putting entire new sequences in would require us to speed up the pacing of everything else. Using thirty seconds for a PREVIOUSLY segment allows us to tighten pacing and cut out bad frames of animation once something is animated. Because, the truth is, nothing ever came back to us PERFECT. NOTHING.

So AGAIN, had I cut all those previously and next time segments you would not have gotten any extra scenes. You just would have had the scenes you saw with some bad animation and pacing left in. And if there's still bad animation and pacing in there -- well, trust me, we used those thirty seconds to cut out the worst of it.

We clear now?

Response recorded on February 07, 2001

Bookmark Link

Baal writes...

Had to ask this and I didn't see it in the archives, so here goes:

1.What companies did the the animations for the two episodes, Temptation and Future Tense? I was wondering because they did an awful good job considering some of the animation I've seen on some other nameless television shows.

2.(This may have been asked already but I don't think so.)If you had a chance to get the series going again, would you use CGI or the old animation style if you could. I guess it kinda depends on what is actually more expensive. I was always a little partial to the regular animation myself.

Greg responds...

1. This is from memory, but I'm fairly certain both of those were done by Walt Disney TV Animation Japan. It says on the episode credits, though.

2. Largely it would depend on what I could sell the higher-ups on. I'd do either if either were the only option. If given my choice (which rarely happens in this business), said choice would be based on issues of content.

Response recorded on February 01, 2001

Bookmark Link

Jim R. writes...

Did you ever work with computer animation when developing the Gargoyles series? I know you did some stuff for Toy Story, right? Toy Story was made by Pixar which is operated under Steve Jobs, who is also CEO of Apple. Being how I am a die-hard Macintosh person, (but do own some PCs too), do you use Macs if you've done any computer animation for anything? Mac is the best for that sort of thing.

Greg responds...

Uh, I never worked on Toy Story. I worked on Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, but that was animated traditionally with cels.

I use Macs myself. I have iMacs here and at home and some other kind of Apple something or other at my Disney office.

I have worked on some computer animated shows. Not Gargoyles, that was strictly cell. But Max Steel and Starship Troopers. But I don't personally animate anything. And I have no idea what kind of machines the animators of those series were using.

Response recorded on January 31, 2001

Bookmark Link

LSZ writes...

In general and on average, how long does it take to complete a whole season of say, 13 episodes of a half-hour animated show?

Greg responds...

A year.

We wrote the first season of Gargoyles (13 episodes) in ten months. Every other step in production had more or less that same ten months on a cascading schedule.

We wrote the second season of Gargoyles (52 episodes) in ten months. Every other step in production had more or less that same ten months on a cascading schedule. Obviously we had a MUCH bigger staff the second year. But we still had a harder time keeping up.

Response recorded on January 17, 2001


: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #129 - #138 of 188 records. : 10 » : Last » :