A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Fan Comments

Archive Index


: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #419 - #428 of 995 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :


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


Bookmark Link

AngelOfTheNight writes...

Hi Greg,
No question, just comment. I too was a big fan of Batman, untill "Gargoyles" came onto the scene. I was hooked instantly. I feel that "Gargoyles" far surpassed Batman, in animation, characters, storyline, etc. My favorite character is "Demona". I very easily connect with her, (scary as that is..) I understand her. My all time favorite episode is of course, "City of Stone". It is a work of art in every sense of the word. Thank You for the episodes that we all find so entertaining, and may all your future endeavors bring you the success you so richly deserve.

Greg responds...

Thanks for the kind words.

Response recorded on October 23, 2003

Bookmark Link

Laura 'ad astra' Ackerman writes...

Not a question- just a comment:

I saw a notice on SciFi.com that the latest Starship Troopers DVD was coming out (February). I took a look at it and the other three on Amazon.com. They are a fangirl's ideal! Episodes + lots of comentary (from recognizable names :) + behind the scenes. Now if I could only afford them... oh well, next career.

Still, somebody must be in a profitable profession. If "Amazon.com sale rank" means what I think it does two of the DVDs are among the ~50 and ~60 most common ordered things today. (or were in February)

Between that and noticing Disney has put a little link next to some of the Gargoyles tapes to say "I'd love to see this in DVD form" I think things bode well for a DVD release here too.

Greg responds...

Things bode very well, as the DVDs are scheduled to be released in 2004 to coincide with the series tenth anniversary.

And I think those Starship DVDs turned out great. I highly recommend them. (And I get no financial benefit from doing so.)

Response recorded on October 16, 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

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

Jimmy_Q writes...

I recently skimmed through you smart-ass responses and I ran in to this question from matt: ok, a beast generally lays more than three eggs in a lifetime. and you are being difficult (as always) and not being very specific... ok, we know that beast mature and can mate a generation before other gargs, and we know that beast live about the same length of time that other gargs do, but can beast continue having children after other gargs stop? if not then garg beast can have about 4 eggs, if so, they could have alot of eggs, i think.
so, how many eggs can a female garg beast generally lay?
you responded: The world may never know.
(That smart-ass response was a reference to an old tootsie-pop commercial. Anyone old enough to remember it has my sympathy.)
I'm quite familiar with that commercial and I'm only 20, so I guess that makes me old, huh? And to think I used to feel so young and virile, too...

Greg responds...

I think they must repeat it periodically. I'm nearly twice (TWICE) your age, and it first ran when I was a kid.

Response recorded on August 05, 2003

Bookmark Link

Jess writes...

Hey...where did you go???? Holiday?
Have a good time? Happy new year.

Greg responds...

Happy New Year to you too. Twice over.

Response recorded on July 28, 2003

Bookmark Link

Upset fan writes...

Hi Greg,
First of all let me just say, i have been a huge fan of gargoyles since it came out in the UK. I waited all week for it to come on on saturday mornings and collected all the gargoyles toys i could with my pocket money :D Unfortunatley it was taken off air some years ago after "City of Stone part 4". I have now got toon disney and have managed to watch the series as much as possible.But there is a REALLY annoying problem, and im not sure you will be able to answer my question, but if so...here goes!

WHY ON EARTH do they stop gargoyles after the avalon episodes and go right on to the goliath chronicles?! Its maddening!! I have looked all over the web and seen all the episodes i have missed out on :(((
I have also watched clips from some of the episodes and they look soooo cool!!!

Greg responds...

I have no idea. Had no idea that they were doing that. It of course makes no sense and annoys the heck out of me. Sorry, I can't be of any help.

Response recorded on July 28, 2003

Bookmark Link

Diego writes...

Why don't you throw a brick through Eisner's window, then when he looks at the brick, he sees it's not a brick, but a small statue of Goliath. Then he'll have no choice but to bring back the show.

Greg responds...

You must have taken Logic in school.

And I'd love to leave it at that, but I'd like to once again make the point that Eisner is not the bad guy keeping Gargoyles off the air. The decision making is no longer done at his level but at three or four levels down at least.

Response recorded on July 23, 2003

Bookmark Link

Vanity writes...

Punchinello and yourself discussed "sententiousness" in quite lenghty detail. If I remember right the main buckling of the topic of one's being sentient was ultimately his ability to communicate ideas. I don't seem to remember any talk about awareness of thought and decision.
If a Russian speaker was adopted into your household, and could not understand nor speak a single word of English, you cannot communicate with him on any level of aphroristic expression (if you infact cannot speak Russian). In fact the communication would very much be like that between man and an animal. When he wants a drink and says (whatever in Russian means 'I want to drink your water'); you will overtime perhaps reckognize what he wants through mere repitition. Never though be able to ask him if he liked the water, describe the compositional qualities that make up the glass, or how the purification system(s) in your water plant makes that water safe for you and your family to drink. You can say it he won't know it.
Yet he can still make the moral judgement on his own princibles that he understands in his own language as to if he will leave the toilet seat up or not. His sentience is still very much intact as is yours, but in communication most of what we consider humanesque intelligible relay of thought is lost.

He can learn but he may not learn English just as you can but may not learn Russian. Words are words, but diction, structural differences, and phonetic discrepencies between the two languages make changing your thinking process from thinking as an Englishmen(English speaking man not man born on England) to thinking as a Russian quite likely impossible. Even if you learn Russian as to be able to go to Moscow and fool everyone into thinking that you are indeed a native Russian. Your nueral networking will still under most serious probability process thought in English just, as it does; it will translate that process to Russian in a fashion quite like my thoughts now are magically appearing in this post box thingy by mere change of production from thought to text by fingur relay in the procession from mind to hand to finger to keyboard to computer to eventually cyber-wherever. I do not think like a keyboard or a computer yet I can communicate using one but only in the language I am prepared to use it with.

Gargoyles as well can type on keyboards and relay thought. Lexington with very little experience in terms of years and could only practice at night, was able to punch a keyboard judging by the "clicking" sound of the keyboard at nearly 129 words per minute, without looking and locate Coldstone in MacBeth's mansion. Quite impressive really. Yet his thoughts were in English. (note if you were in Madrid when you first seen Gargoyles and they spoke in Spanish and of course you did too you might argue they thought in Spanish and you would most likely be right mi amigo). But not as an English Man but and English Gargoyle again not as a nationality but as a tongue. Still Lex's moral judgements can be made too stand on thier own and can communicate with anything Man or Gargoyle or Oberon's Child that also speaks English, whether they think "English" or not.

Language is not merely a tool for communication it is a way of thinking Eskimos have something like seven words that really just mean "snow". Yet an Eskimo thinks like an Eskimo and can judge the minor differences in the type of snow they see and to them one kind of snow is not "a" snow but a "d" snow and ect..

Luckily for us I suppose that as humans we all relatively think alike even with our differing way of thinking. The means of production are different but the product is still the same. This allows for learning multiple languages each human no matter his language that language has the ability to "learn" or adapt to the use of another language and that is quite a remarkable thing. Almost too remarkable to be chance.

I don't have the full answer, just what I feel like that (and as arrogantly as I can feel it) that I know what perhaps I know or don't know and go with that by fusing it with things that I learn or that are revealed to me by you and others who post and participate. I very much enjoy this site and the people who participate it is so cool, this is the greates fandom in the world.

Greg responds...

You say you don't have the full answer. I'm just not clear what the question was.

I don't disagree with anything you said, except for the notion that Punchinello and I were defining sentience as simply the ability to communicate. I don't think either of us ever did that.

And I agree: Greatest Fandom in the World.

Response recorded on July 18, 2003


: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #419 - #428 of 995 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :