A Station Eight Fan Web Site
: « First : « 10 : Displaying #37 - #46 of 348 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :
Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :
I have some more questions about the Arthurian characters in the Gargoyles Universe,
1. When was Merlin imprisoned in the Crystal Cave?
2. Who imprisoned Merlin in the Crystal Cave?
3. When did Sir Gawain battle the Green Knight for the first time?
4a. Is Excalibur the Sword from the Stone or are the two separate swords? 4b. When was Excalibur forged? 4c. Where was Excalibur forged? 4d. By whom was Excalibur forged? 4e. How did Excalibur come into the possession of the Lady of the Lake?
5. What year were Sir Percival and Lady Blanchefleur wed?
6. What year were King Arthur and Lady Gwenyvere wed?
7. What year did Lancelot and Gwenyvere run away together?
8. Which spelling do you prefer: Gwenyvere or Guinevere? (I know Angela and Broadway's daughter's name is spelled Gwenyvere, but I wasn't sure if it was the same for the Arthurian queen)
9a. Who are Morgana le Fayâs parents (biological and/or adopted)? 9b. Is Morgana Arthurâs half-sister?
10. When and how did Sir Percival first come in contact with the Holy Grail and Castle Carbonek?
11a. Did Joseph of Arimathea bring the Grail to Britain? 11b. In what year did the Grail first come to Britain?
12. When where the Scroll of Merlin written?
As always, love the show and truly appreciate your dedication to your fans (including me) and their endless borage of questions. Thanks ;-)
1, 3, 4b, 5, 6, 7, 11b, 12. Again, haven't done the research or math on this yet.
2, 10, 11a. The legends make it pretty clear. Otherwise, I don't feel like scooping myself.
4a. In the Gargoyles Universe I'm conflating them into one sword.
4c, 4d, 4e, 9a. I'm not revealing this yet.
8. I haven't decided definitively yet.
9b. I've hinted at the answer to this, if you're in the mood to search the ASK GREG archives.
I have some questions about the birthdays of the Arthurian characters in the Gargoyles Universe,
1a. When was Merlin born? b. What was his mother's name? c. When was she born?
2. When was Nimue born?
3. When was Morgana le Fay born?
4. When was Gwenyvere born?
5. When was Lancelot born?
6. When was Galahad born?
7a. When was Percival born? 7b. What year did he take on the name Duval? 7c. Who are Percivalâs parents?
8. When was Blanchefleur born?
9. When was Gawain born?
10. When were the Lady of the Lake and the Green Knight born?
11a. When was Modred born? 11b. Who are his parents?
12. When were Uther Pendragon and Igraine born?
13. When was Ector born?
14. When was Kay born?
Thanks you for all your patience.
1a, 1c, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7a, 8, 9, 11a, 12, 13 & 14. I haven't yet sat down to do the research and math necessary to answer these questions. I've dated Arthur's birth as 485. You're welcome to sit down with Mallory or Lanclyn Green or whomever you prefer and figure out dates for the rest based on that. I will, eventually, have to figure out most of the above for myself, but I'm not motivated to do it now.
1b. I can't remember off the top of my head, but you're as capable of looking it up as I am. (Or ask Todd Jensen. I'd lay odds that he knows.)
7b. I haven't decided this yet.
10. As Children of Oberon, I'm not too interested in their 'birthdates'.
11b. His bioparents were Arthur and Morgause. He was raised by Morgause and Lot. (And, no, I haven't made a final decision on the spelling of either Modred or Morgause.)
A question about Elisa awakening King Arthur "early". Now, we know that Elisa awakened Arthur ahead of schedule, based on the information given in "Avalon Part Three" and "Pendragon", and that he was apparently originally supposed to be awakened somewhat later and for a different emergency than the Archmage (although we don't know what it was or how far away in time it would be).
What I'm curious about is: has Elisa thereby altered Arthur's destiny? To explain a little more about what I mean, I suppose that I'd better go into a brief "ramble".
We don't know much about the nature of fate or destiny in the Gargoyles Universe (beyond the fact that the Weird Sisters are linked to it, at least when Luna is the dominant one), but we can tell that it exists in some ways (such as Avalon sending people "where they need to be"). I don't know if it's actually supposed to be possible to "alter destiny" in the Gargoyles Universe, beyond the fact that we know that the past can't be altered (as Goliath and Demona have both learned the hard way), but since Elisa came to the Hollow Hill in her own time rather than in the past, her awakening Arthur obviously wouldn't count as changing history in the same way that somebody going back in time to, say, avert the Wyvern Massacre would. However, since the future is part of the time-stream (and I assume that the only 2198 in the Gargoyles Universe is the one where the Space-Spawn show up and take over the planet and there are no alternate 2198s where that event doesn't take place), it doesn't seem so probable that it can be altered.
On the other hand, we do know that carefully-laid plans that were devised, not by God or destiny or something of a transcendent nature, but by humans or gargoyles or the Oberati, can be changed through the actions of others. Demona and the Captain of the Guard's original plans to betray Castle Wyvern, for example, wound up having different results than those that they were expecting, thanks partly to Goliath's decision to only take Hudson with him, partly to Hakon's decision to smash the gargoyles at the castle in spite of the Captain's protests.
So what my real question is, I suppose, is this; was the original "future time" for Arthur's awakening (in which he will not be awakening after all thanks to Elisa) set by God or Fate or something of that nature, or was it set merely by people (as in, the ones who placed him in the Hollow Hill)? Has Elisa genuinely altered Arthur's future, or only altered his future as it was perceived by those who laid him to sleep on Avalon?
It's a very interesting distinction isn't it? Does Destiny = Future?
Well, I'm thinking no. The future, as you stated, is part of the timestream. Actual events that happened in the future (from some kind of external perspective) are immutable.
But Destiny, to me at least, means something different. Destiny is about potential. It's not about a lock or a guarantee.
Individual characters may be loose with language, but I think that in the Gargoyles Universe, when one says a character is "DESTINED" to do X, what one means is that said character is destined to ATTEMPT X. Doesn't guarantee success. Success relies on a combination of indiviual and circumstance.
So, to your original question, has Elisa altered Arthur's destiny? I'd have to say... "MAYBE!!!!"
I mean actually, I know the answer to that question, but I just don't feel like answering it now. What I mean by "maybe" is that she certainly may have. She may have created a new destiny for him. She may have spoiled plans for the old destiny. And yet he may find his way back to that old destiny. Or what he does accomplish may not be exactly the original destiny, but winds up doing the same thing or sowing seeds for others to reep. Any or all of the above.
Hi Greg! I'm posting for the first time and it feels wierd, since I tried to send questions 4 or 5 years ago and they got deleted. Anyway...
First of all, I'd like to thank you for having been (and still being) such an important part of the Gargoyles franchise. You (and others of course) provided me with easily THE single best animated show ever. A well written series great voice acting, continuous plots, characters that are believable, and a complex universe that manages both to include lots of existing legends and myths while still retaining a distinct identity. I truly think that in terms of all-around quality for a dramatic show, Gargoyles was easily Disney's best effort by far. Reboot is the only other animated show that I've seen that seems to exhibit the same qualities, meaning well-written, clever and quite enjoyable for both kids and adults.
Also, I'm happy to learn that Gathering 2004 will take place in Montreal, meaning I might actually be able to attend! I don't know if you're the one who chose the location, but if you are, thanks on behalf of us Canadians!
Finally, I'd just like to thank you for actually answering the flood of questions we fans send your way. And especially your god-like patience towards people who obviously never took the time to read the FAQ OR archive. I can understand asking about a minor detail that could have been missed, but among the questions being submitted, I know there are some LAZY people I wouldn't mind slapping once or twice in the face...
Anyway, I have a number of questions on different subject, so expect a few one-question posts from me.
This one would fit in a "Writing" category if there is such a thing.
1. Regarding your current master plan (i.e. your ideas for the various spin-offs), it's obvious you've given lots of thoughts to the initial setting of each. The main characters and their immediate goals for example, as well as ideas for early stories as well as a few ideas for on-going plots. A lot of course would be dictated by the characters (and your muse I'm sure) as the shows would go along.
a) Now here's my question: Do you have an idea about the possible endings of some of your spin-offs? I don't want you to tell me anything, just if you have some "Ultimate goals" in mind for all your spin-offs.
Gargoyles itself has always been very open-ended. There never was a single overlying theme to the series, it just kept going on on its own, the plots and characters growing in complexity in a very organic and sometimes unpredictable way. It could potentially keep going on for years and years.
But some of your spin-offs have very specific premises. There ARE stories that are better told if planned from beginning to end as a whole. Others however are better if left to evolve on their own. An aimless story could potentially "find its voice" after a while, leading to an ultimate ending of sorts. Or, the initial premise could be transformed over time, leading the story in a quite different direction.
For example, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Initially, the show is about our heroes trying to restore a people (Bajorans) to a stable society following years of occupation by an enemy race (Cardassians). Yet, after two years, the show introduced a much bigger menace, a race who sought to conquer and control all others (the Dominion). From then on, the show eventually lead to a huge war with the ending signaling the end of the hostility.
a) How do you feel about long stories? About those that are open-ended and those that have some finality set for them? (I hope I'm not being to vague here. I'm really interested in how you feel about this)
And about some specifics spin-offs:
b) Bad Guys: The basic idea is about our main characters seeking redemption. Do you know if they ever find it? And would that be the goal of the show?
c) TimeDancer: Ultimately, the very final ending is, in a way, already known. Brooklyn makes it home a lot older with a family. But do you already have some sketchy idea about how he finally makes it there, like some final adventure dealing with the Phoenix Gate itself, or were you planing on dealing with it once you were forced to, like a series' finale?
c) Gargoyles 2198: This one seems to be mostly about the war against the Space-Spawn but as you often say, "Things aren't that simple". Would the liberation of Earth signal the end of the series, or would you keep the series going with the existing setting once the war is over? After all, there might still be other threats like Coyote-X, the Illuminati, etc.
d) Dark Ages: Since this one could theoretically run up to the beginning of "Awakening", I won't ask if you have an ending in mind.
e) Pendragon: It's obvious now that Merlin, Mr. Duval and Holy Grail would be important part of the story. Do you have an ending in mind for this one, or where you again planing on seeing where the story ultimately took you?
f) New Olympians: This one feels pretty generic, and feels like it could run forever like Gargoyles. The ultimate goal I suppose would be the acceptance of New Olympus by humanity, but judging by the response toward gargoyles, wouldn't likely fit within an entire series, no matter how long it might be. Still, got an ending in mind, even if it's pretty open-ended, like "Hunter's Moon pt.3"?
Thanks a lot for answering.
Francois,
Well, time delay means that I believe we met in Montreal (and, no, I didn't choose the location -- I don't make those decisions). You played Lex in the radio play, right?
1a. Some yes, some no. I know where Dark Ages ends -- with "Awakening, Part One". I know where "TimeDancer" ends... right where it began. I have a VERY good idea of how the Space-Spawn thing is resolved, but I don't think that necessarily marks the end of 2198. And likewise, I don't have a firm ending for Pendragon, Bad Guys or the New Olympians... but I have a good idea where I want to go with the first major arcs. As for Gargoyles itself -- that would end in 2198.
1a) [You had two (a)s.] Some stories -- whether long or short -- need closure. They're one-shots... no matter how long they last. Others can be open-ended. I lean toward the latter personally... because life is ongoing -- even after individuals die. But I respect the other form as well.
b) I'm not going to reveal whether or not they find redemption, but yes that's the goal. The thing is... even if I were to redeem all the original cast, the concept can survive them. And new characters may be introduced that give us a reason to continue. I will say, that I wouldn't be shy to bring a series to an end if I had no more stories to tell. That just has never happened to me within the Garg Universe. Not yet anyway.
c) See above for confirmation of your basic thesis. But I have a fairly clear general idea of how the whole dance, including the finale choreographs. But I won't pretend I have all forty years worth of adventures planned out to the last detail. I don't.
c) [You had two (c)s, as well.] See above. The war doesn't end the series.
d) See above.
e) I have endings in mind for some of the arcs that I plan to set in motion. But even the ultimate death of Arthur himself (which I was not planning anytime soon) might not end this series. I have at least one significant idea to go beyond Arthur...
f) Same deal. I have specific arcs in mind, and I have a solid idea of how they end. But I doubt that they wouldn't lead to more stories. If in fact they didn't and I was out of juice there, I'd shut it down.
If he were to see it (provided he hasn't seen it already), what would King Arthur think of the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
I don't know... but I like it.
Griff
1. you've said before that Una, Leo and Griff hatched in 1898. Leo and Una haved aged normally, but Griff was pulled forward in time 55 years or so. so, the closest generation in biological age to Griff is the rookery that hatched in 1958, correct? that would make him just slightly biologically older than Brooklyn, but not as old as Goliath, right?
2. will Griff find a new mate since Una is with Leo now (and WAY too old for him)?
3. you once mentioned that "The Three" taught the London Clan the nursery ryhme about King Arthur that Griff quoted in "Pendragon". who were/are "The Three"?
4. how much time was there between when Goliath brought Griff to the modern age (MIA) and when Arthur showed up in London (Pendragon)?
1. In 1996, Goliath was biologically 29. The Trio were biologically 19. Griff was biologically 22. That would put him closer in biological age to Sora (hatched in 1958) then Yama (hatched in 1938).
2. One would hope.
3. I just tried to search through the archives for "The Three" and couldn't find an appropo reference. But I think I've covered this before... if not, I guess I'm revealing something... the three I assume you're referring to are Morgana le Fey, Nimue and the Lady of the Lake.
4. Griff gated to the present on January 24th, 1996. Arthur arrived in London on May 18th, 1996. (Though he and Griff didn't actually meet until after midnight, i.e. on May 19th.)
When you recently answered one of my questions about "Pendragon", you said in the course of it:
<So elements, like the Illuminati, the Gargoyles and Macbeth would have definitely entered into stories of the Questing Beast and the Holy Grail, and vice versa, etc.>
I was interested in the "Questing Beast" part, because I hadn't seriously thought that the Questing Beast was going to show up in "Pendragon" - for one thing, it hadn't made the "Arthurian survivors" list - but now it appears that the Beast would still be around. Did I read what you said correctly? That the Questing Beast would feature in "Pendragon"? I'm glad to learn that, since I'd always had a certain fondness for the Questing Beast dating back from when I first read about it in T. H. White's "The Sword in the Stone".
As I've said, given enough time and episodes, we'd eventually cover everything in one way or another -- so how could I leave out the Questing Beast?
A couple of questions:
1)What is Arthur Pendragon's legacy in the Gargoyles universe after he was carried away to Avalon?
2)What is Arthur Pendragon's legacy in the Gargoyles universe after he really died?
I don't really understand what either of these questions mean. One life -- any life -- touches untold numbers of others directly and indirectly. A life of historical significance, let alone legendary significance is going to touch an exponential amount of people.
Can you give me a family tree of oberon and titiania's children across the centuries? I can't figure out if Puck is Alexnder Xanatos is pucks nephew or not. I would really like to know about Puck's/owen's secret love that you mentioned earlier too.
I'm not going to reveal anything new at this time, but I will summarize what I've already revealed:
Lord Oberon is the son of Queen Mab.
Lord Oberon married Titania (who became Queen Titania after Mab was overthrown). (Note: Oberon intentionally did not take the title of King. Retaining his "Lord" title is his semi-skewed attempt at being more... egalitarian.)
Oberon and Titania have two children together: one male and one female. I know exactly who they are, but I'm keeping their identities and personas secret for the time being.
Oberon also has at least two sons by mortal women: Merlin and the changeling boy from Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream".
Titania has one child with the mortal Halcyon Renard. This is Janine Renard, a.k.a. Fox.
Fox married David Xanatos. They have one child: Alexander Fox Xanatos.
Puck, a.k.a. Owen Burnett, is not directly related to ANY of these individuals.
Time to ramble...
Chapter XLVIII: "Pendragon"
Story Editor: Brynne Chandler Reaves
Writer: Lydia Marano
Director: Dennis Woodyard
SOMETHING'S COMING
There's a wonderful children's book called "Something's Coming" about three stuffed animals and [SPOILERS] a sneeze. I hadn't read that book when we did this episode, but it was all I could think of reviewing the opening minutes now.
In fact, what's coming, according to Macbeth, is the "Harmonic Convergence". When I heard that, I immediately jumped to the conclusion that this was a Cary Bates episode. (Cary, at least for a time, was very into incorporating all sorts of New Agey schtick into his work [cf. his comic book series SILVERBLADE published in the late 80s by DC Comics].)
Of course, as noted above, this was a Brynne/Lydia/Greg collaboration. No Cary at all.
A BRIEF STOPOVER IN LONDON
Arthur arrives in his "City of Wonders", i.e. modern day London. We throw in some beauty shots of the city from "M.I.A." here. It helped us trim a few bad seconds of animation later in the episode, and helped establish the mood a bit better.
With Arthur arriving at what must have been his final destination from Avalon's point of view (minus a quick Stone of Destiny hop to NYC's Guggenheim Museum), his skiff sinks down into the water. I always imagined that the skiff resurfaced back on Avalon. Having shown this here, I didn't feel bad about NOT showing the sinking skiff in "Gathering, One" when our quartet returned to Manhattan. Allowed us to keep some surprise at their arrival at the Clock Tower.
Arthur makes a point of using a mace, since his quest is to find EXCALIBUR and we didn't want to confuse the issue by having him simply exchange one decent sword for the subtlety of a better sword. Or at least not until the end of the ep.
We also made a point of him missing Merlin, which was a bit of foreshadowing to the proposed Pendragon spin-off, where Arthur and Griff's first order of business would be a Quest for Merlin.
Speaking of Griff, his silhouette is a bit too distinctive here for my tastes. I wish it hadn't quite given away his indentity so soon. His design is somewhat inconsistent in this episode. As I mentioned during my "M.I.A." episode, Frank, Greg Guler and I were never 100% satisfied with the design. In this episode, in particular, he has some real Foghorn Leghorn moments.
The first real stop on Arthur's tour is Westminster Abbey. The door is locked, which makes sense in the Twentieth Century but not to a guy from the Sixth Century. And it perhaps makes even less sense to us in the 21st-Century. Is that all the security that exists there: a locked door? And of course, GARGOYLES continues its traditions of wantonly damaging historical sites, when Arthur uses his mace to enter.
Inside we find the Stone of Destiny in it's 1990s home beneath the throne. Shortly thereafter, the Stone would be moved to Edinburgh Castle. As for the Stone, I perpetrated one of my favorite mythological devices, which is conflating various similar concepts... so the Stone of Destiny (i.e. Jacob's pillow) also becomes the Stone from the Sword in the Stone, i.e. the stone from which Arthur drew Excalibur. And the thing talks!! What's interesting to me now, is that Arthur doesn't seem surprised by the fact that it talks. Legends state that an inscription revealed that "Whosoever pulleth this sword from this stone [and anvil] will become King of Britain." But perhaps there was no inscription, and the stone talked from day one. One question: Is the Stone itself one of Oberon's Children (in stone form) or is it magically enchanted? (I lean toward the latter, but it's interesting to ponder the former.)
Arthur, without Excalibur, had hoped that the sword would have returned to the stone. He's frustrated when he finds it hasn't. But he doesn't doubt his "ownership" of it, until much later in the episode. The Powers That Be are much less sure of Arthur's claim on it. They are constantly reminding him that at best, all he has is a shot at it: "It belongs to the True King. Are you still he?"
I also love how Arthur says that he hates riddles. It just feels so right for my interpretation of Arthur as a man who LEARNED to be a thinker, but to whom it didn't necessarily come naturally. Said interpretation of course heavily influenced by the works of T.H. White. Anyway, that poem/riddle which Griff recites (an unknowing trust past down across generations of the London Clan) was written, as I recall, by Lydia. It was hearing this poem that reminded me that she had written this episode and not Cary.
Note that everytime he sees a gargoyle, Arthur asks if he's "of Goliath's Clan".
BACK AT THE RANCH
Once again, we abandon our travelers to focus on life on the homefront with the Trio & Hudson. We will, once they've met up with Griff & Arthur, get a bit of an update on how updated our left-behinders are. They've heard from Halcyon Renard that he spotted Goliath, Elisa & Bronx in Prague. They've heard from Diane Maza that she spotted them in Nigeria. [I have to assume that all communications were channelled, per Elisa's suggestion, through Matt.] Now they learn about the travelers stop-overs in London (from Griff) and Avalon (from Arthur). [All of this was a bit of a risk, as we couldn't guarantee the airing order of the World Tour episodes. But I guess we felt it was a risk worth taking in order to give us a bit of legitimate continuity. Fortunately, it all worked out.] I'm curious if Angela was mentioned by either Renard or Diane (or Griff or Arthur after the adventure was over), and if so how prominently. Also, Griff demonstrably proves that other Gargoyles still exist in the world. Though the ramifications of that and of Angela clearly don't sink in with Hudson and the others until "The Gathering, Part One".
You'll see flashes of Brooklyn taking charge in this episode. With no one (including him) questioning it or even making an issue of it. I guess the lessons of "Kingdom" stuck.
You'll also see Broadway destroying one of Macbeth's lightning guns. But in contrast, Griff -- a man of HIS era, i.e. the forties -- comandeers the other one and makes it a part of his arsenal. I liked that, even -- or especially -- with the spin-off series in mind.
WILL OF THE WHISP AND OTHER STRANGERS...
I've since revealed here at ASK GREG, that the Will of the Whisp (introduced here by Macbeth, who uses both science and sorcery to control and utilize it) is the primitive magical entity that Oberon's Children evolved from. Sort of the Homo Erectus of the magical set. (Or maybe something even more primitive like a lemur or lungfish.)
The Lady of the Lake surfaces (literally). I like Lexington's "And she was right in our own lake.." for its understated humor. Also, this gives Hudson an excuse to say "Jalapeña", thus fulfilling another of the verbal challenges that Voice Director Jamie Thomason set for me -- and thus further pissing off the contingent of artists who truly HATED that expression. I think this may be one of the last times, until "The Journey", that we used it.
Anyway, we constantly raise the question of why the sword and the Lady associated with it were now in New York and not in Britain. Of course, the short answer was that we wanted to involve Hudson & the Trio without sending them on their own World Tour. But in fact, we did have a larger purpose. We wanted Arthur to become a player on the World Stage. A larger stage, as the Lady says.
I wasn't wild about that Water Djinn sequence. We wanted Arthur to solve the problem through leadership. But having him order Griff to use the Lightning weapon seems a fairly feeble solution to me (even though I endorsed it at the time). Wouldn't Arthur simply be electrocuted?
PEN... DRAGON
It's a goofy joke, but I still chuckle at Lex saying "Brooklyn" and Brooklyn answering.
I also am amused by the fact that it's Banquo in his slow pondering way that gives Macbeth the idea -- if not the ambition -- to take Excalibur for his own: "Hey Boss, you're a king. And you've been alive a long time..." Mac, an established Arthurphile, may seem an unlikely person to try to supplant his own hero. But it perfectly suits my interpretation of the character. Our Macbeth may not have the ambition of Shakespeare's Macbeth. But he's always been a man to sieze an appropriate opportunity. And he's always been a man in search of his own purpose. Perhaps this business of being a "Timeless King" and everything else that Excalibur represents in the past and future provides the reason for why he's lived for a largely tormented nine hundred years. Of course, Mac is also a man of honor. He vies for the sword. But when it becomes clear at the VERY end that Arthur is indeed its true master, he swears fealty to the (Whitean) Once and Future King. The thought DID cross my mind to add Macbeth to the cast of regulars in my PENDRAGON development. To give Arthur, in essence, two knights: Griff & Macbeth. But the dilemma comes in the fact that any spin-off has to stand on its own two feet. Characters can have backstories, but you can't assume that the audience has seen x amount of episodes of Gargoyles. I felt that telling Arthur's GARGOYLES-related backstory was going to be difficult enough. Throw in Griff's complicated story and you've set yourself a real challenge. Throw in Macbeth and that boat is just going to sink under two much backstory-weight. Much better to use him as guest star. Then if it seemed to work, over time he might spend MORE time in Pendragon. You never know. [NOTE: I was considerably less worried about adding Blanchfleur, Merlin and Duval to the cast, as we would be introducing them IN Pendragon.] So in the end, Mac accepts a more separate but equal arrangement. This was still cool to me. It reminded me of Arthur's relationship with King Pellinore. King Pellinore was also a King, but he was a wandering King. He didn't always sit at the Round Table, but he always came to Arthur's side, when Arthur needed him. They maintained a certain equality between them, and yet unspoken was the acknowledgement that Arthur was the one true king.
Speaking of Banquo... note his "Popeye" expression throughout most of the episode. This is a result of his model sheet, which showed him squinting through one eye. That was just supposed to be a single expression, but many of the overseas artists naturally assumed that it was a permanent condition -- because of course, we didn't have another model sheet with a different expression. Also, what did you think of Banquo & Fleance's power armor. I'm not sure it really came across as power armor. It was supposed to make them tougher and stronger. But I think it just looked like a flight suit for their sky-cycles. [But I did love those sky-cycles, especially the way Lex used them as a staircase for the Gargoyles to get some air. That was really cool and clever, I think.]
Random fact: My ten-year-old daughter Erin was fascinated with the topiary monkey.
An episode called Pendragon needed... a Dragon. I think this one is positively glorious. I love those steam vents. And the stone flight. And the fire. GREAT FIRE. But before it wakes up, I like how in essence this stone statue becomes the NEW Stone of Destiny. Macbeth draws the (faux) Excalibur from the dragon's stone grip and declares: "Macbeth, son of Findlaech, is the one true king." Arthur for a minute seems a sore loser. But his better nature wins out, after Macbeth points out that he's being a jerk. [Macbeth is great about being right when he's wrong.] When, as a youngster, Arthur drew the sword, many opposed his rule. It's a lesson that he's learned from. Griff resists, but Arthur kneels. He will not be an obstructionist if Macbeth is the new true king. Erin also felt that Arthur was being a sore loser. But Benny, my seven-year-old, disagreed, calling Arthur "the World's best fighter" and therefore the guy who deserved the sword. What's interesting, is that was NEVER my intent. I don't think of Arthur as the world's best FIGHTER. Even in his own legends, there were many knights who could outfight him. Arthur was a decent fighter, but his greatest strength was as a LEADER of men. That's what we tried to get across, both here and in "Avalon, Part Three".
It's also a cool play on words, I think, that this time the phrase "Sword IN the Stone" needs to be taken literally. The dragon statue surrounds the true sword inside it. I love the steps Arthur goes through to figure this out, primarily that moment when he recovers the faux Excalibur and can instantly sense that it isn't the genuine article. That was us trying to DEMONSTRATE with clarity that Excalibur wasn't just any sword, but rather something special. But what exactly was it? That, to be honest, we still needed to figure out. But we were hoping we'd have an entire spin-off to explore that question.
SOME GOOD LINES
Fleance: "No free rides, Bat-boy."
Broadway: "Now you stay put." And Banquo: "No problem."
Lex: "Take the stairs."
Arthur: "Arise... SIR Griff."
Plus a bunch of great British Griffisms:
"In for a penny, in for a pound."
"Well, that just about tears it."
"You are the Once and Future King."
"Right with you, Your Majesty"
"That's the stuff!"
Anyway, that's my ramble. Where's yours?
: « First : « 10 : Displaying #37 - #46 of 348 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :