Jim R. writes...

Suggestion: give "matt" his own category whenever in the "Greg Archives 3.0". I mean that as a compliment. I know, I know, what can I say...I'm done for tonight.

Jim R. writes...

Greg, who is "matt"? Do you know him personally? "matt", if you're reading this, why do ask Greg so many questions? I hate to be the backseat driver here, but must you require a logical explanation for everything? Mr. Spock would think so, but geez man...

Oh, yes, and Gorebash, I know you will read this...I might be the only person just to ask how do you handle all these questions? You must be damn good at your job! Keep up the good work. I hope this gets posted. (Elvis has left the building...)

Aaron writes...

Hmmmm, a couple of random replies that probably won't make any sense due to the lag. But what the hey.

On the G99 radio play:

<<I had some specific kind of space iron that they were vulnerable to. (I had a name for it. I can't remember it now.)>> If nobody's reminded you by now, it was Dark Iron.

From the comedy development documents:

<<Pat Riley would have had a hard time with this group.>> Hee hee, being nearly as big an NBA fan as I am a gargs fan, you have no idea how funny I find that. Now I'm trying to picture Demona in a dark suit with her hair slicked back, stalking the sidelines like a caged lion.

Oh, and Xavier promised to make Demona the head of security for Glint Enterprises? I know it's a comedy, and so perhaps not such a big deal, but I still get a grin over the idea of his security corps being introduced to their new boss.

"I guess when they said Glint Enterprises was an equal opportunity employer, they weren't kidding."

I do find it kind of ironic though, since being head of security, while primarily about power and control, does sort of fall under the "gargoyles protect" heading.

DCB writes...

More of a general comment than a question, Greg. You don't have to say anything :)

I watch Demona's twice-daily transformation, and it suddenly dawns on me how excruciatingly painful that must be. Which is strange and probably silly, considering her tortured howling and screeching through it all, but I still have to wonder. As much as I hate to admit it, I myself never truly respect physical pain until I actually feel it, and afterwards I'll ''forget'' what it was like until I feel it again. Or I'll recall a time I was in ''unspeakable'' pain, and the feeling itself will be remembered vaguely at best. Pain demands respect, but it isn't as deserving or demanding as . . . oh, say, love and emotion . . . or even mental anguish, which can be far worse than its cousin physical pain.

But the point is, since Demona's situation . . . her lot of pain, both physical and mental, is unique in all the world (save for MacBeth, perhaps), I have to wonder what it's like to go through all that, to live the life of the tortured soul who won't (openly or willingly) admit she's a tortured soul to anyone but no one, even though I'd be insane to jump at the chance to experience that tapestry of pain. A small part of me, the part that wonders, wants to feel it just for the sake of knowing, and the rest of me keeps that one part small.

And when that part grows some, I imagine what it'd be like to have my feet grow several sizes and explode from my shoes like that and come to my senses :)

I guess what I'm actually saying is that "Gargoyles" really makes me think about a lot of things, perhaps even things you never intended your audience to think about or realize.

Happy Holidays, Greg. And thanks.

WereFox writes...

Hi Greg. Just a few thought about the Post Hunter's Moon Demona. My sense from reading the archives is that even though her ultimate plan, representing 500 years of work, has been foiled, her resolve to destroy humanity has not weakened. I can buy this argument, but I'll admit my bias now. Another plan, even one with your usually creative flare, to destroy humanity would still seem anticlimactic to me. Plus any actions by Demona to just pick up where she left off would seem unnatural.

Hi, I've just built a nuclear in my basement and the other day I came within an inch of pushing the button. Does my life continue on as it did before? I'd hope not. There would be consequences, grave ones.

To me, Hunters Moon should be a similar watershed in Demona's plot development. I'm sure she has plenty of other ideas, but would she be allowed to act on them? Even if the Robin Canmore and her brothers keep quiet, Xanatos knows what she almost pulled off. Here is a man with the resources, the motivation, and determination to move mountains to protect his son. I'd be disappointed if he didn't react. If he knows then presumably Fox knows. I can imagine the conversation now. "Mom, you'll won't believe what that nut job Demona almost did." I'm sure Titania would have plenty to say to Demona on this matter. And then there is always the possibility of the Illuminati learning about it. I'm not advocating retribution here, but the bottom line is consequences. You play with a big fire, you get badly burned. Would Demona be allowed to continue scheming while carrying on as president of Nightstone Unlimited? I'd think her first instinct should be to go into hinding for a long while, or something... It just wouldn't feel honest if she just went back to going about her daily life as if nothing had happened.

I once saw a 60 Minutes interview with the surviving families of Herman Goering and Martin Boreman. What I chiefly took away from that show was the sence of overwhelming shame that these people lived with on a daily basis, due to the actions of their genocidal relatives. How does Angela absorb the impact of knowing just how close her mother came on Hunters Moon and not be completely devastated? What kind of a relationship would she want with her mother now that she know just how far she is willing to go?

I can go on but I think you see my point. In the Goliath Chronicles episode, Generations, no mention was made of Hunters Moon. I see that it is also played down somewhat in The Gargoyles Saga. I hope that in any of your future plans for Gargoyles, the consequences for Demonas actions are appropriately profound. Thanks for putting up with the rant.

Todd Jensen writes...

This is a comment on your answer to Jason Barnett's question about Rogue. I'd read your ramble on the "X-Files" movie where you explained why you weren't too keen on Rogue as portrayed in the comics, particularly because of what you viewed as a clumsy introduction (her story being mostly crammed-in backstory rather than happening on-stage).

WB's currently doing an X-Men cartoon in which Rogue's a major character, in which they handle her introduction differently. They introduce her in the "now" of the series at the point where her "draining" ability first manifests itself, whereupon Mystique finds out and recruits her for her followers; in the "now" of the series thereafter, Rogue is thus portrayed as a "villainess" of sorts in that she's one of a group of mutants whom Mystique's recruiting in opposition to Xavier and the X-Men - but also portrayed as not feeling quite at home with them (she even reluctantly helps out the X-Men in one episode, though she doesn't feel quite ready to join them even then and heads back to Mystique immediately afterwards).

Actually, I've found it a rather good series (I've been able to quite enjoy it and follow it, even though I've next to no knowledge of the X-Men; they went for a "start continuity over from scratch" approach of the sort that you praised in both the movie and "Batman:TAS"); incidentally, Frank Paur is one of the directors.

Todd Jensen writes...

This is a sort of early ramble for "City of Stone" in general; I know that you haven't started any rambles on it yet, but this was a thought that I'd had for some time on the four-parter in general that I thought I'd share with you now, since it is next in line on the Episode Ramblings list.

One thing that has surprised me for some time is that "City of Stone" is one of my favorite "Gargoyles" stories. Surprised me because, as you once said (although I honestly didn't realize that this was the case until after you pointed it out) that the episode focused more on the villains (Demona and Macbeth) than on Goliath and his clan. And when I thought over that, it surprised me. Because I've found that I generally don't like episodes in a series which focus on the antagonists and leave the protagonists off to one side. But I very much enjoyed "City of Stone".

Once I realized that, I began wondering over why "City of Stone" was an exception to the rule. And I did provide myself with two possible answers for why that was the case:

1. The focus of the Demona/Macbeth backstory was on something that genuinely interested me very much, long before "Gargoyles" came out. For one thing, it was set in the medieval period, which is my favorite part of history (and indeed, the "medieval Scotland" flashbacks were always one of my favorite parts of "Gargoyles"). But, even more significantly, the backstory in the flashbacks was all about Macbeth. "Macbeth" is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays, and I was genuinely delighted and thrilled to see Macbeth turn out to be *the* Macbeth in it, and to see his story unfold in the course of the flashbacks. And all the more so when I saw that you were basing it on the historical Macbeth (whom I was already fairly familiar with), even if with some elements from the play (such as the Weird Sisters). So the story there was very much my cup of tea.

And second, Demona was, to me at least, never just another villain in "Gargoyles". She was a very crucial figure in the series. After all, she's a survivor of the original gargoyle clan, and thus as legitimately one of the title characters as Goliath, Brooklyn, Hudson, etc. Not only that, but she's also Goliath's former mate, and thus very much part of his story. So the strong flashback element around her worked for me.

At least, that's the explanation that I've worked out for why my response was and is different to "City of Stone" than to other episodes in other series of that nature (i.e., episodes where the protagonists are given a relatively smaller role). I just thought that I'd share it with you.

AbVibiA writes...

Since you always ask for feedback, Greg, Here I am!!!!!
Thanks to you and many others for:

1. Your old notes from the earliest days and silly thoughts. Some of them make me laugh, and some of them make me wish you had used them. (Ala the Elisa- Goliath scene when she mimics Goliath's poses. CUTE!)
2. Gotta love those smart-ass responses!
3. The enduring mystery that you keep about the rest of your plot. I wish you, or some other heavenly creature, could find a way to get that show back on the air!
4. The priceless scenes that endure in the minds of children and obscessive adults alike that I know you had a hand in creating.

Okay, It's short, but what can I say? I just wish the Gatherings weren't so far away, especially for those of us who live in the NorthEast US! Maybe I'll actually get to meet you someday!
-AbVibiA, 13

Mel writes...

Hello, I'm doing an assignment at school for art on Gargoyles, & I thought I'd take a look here to see if I could find some info on them.

I'm LOVE watching the show on Thursdays. I favour Bronsen the best, he's so cute.

Please send a reply to this message to: missee83@yahoo.com.au
because I don't think I'll be able to find this site again.
Thankyou.

matt writes...

i was just looking through the archives and i noticed that everyone always uses the term "the humans" just as we would say "the gargoyles" or "the new olypians". that really struck me as odd because i assume everyone submiting questions is human, as well as you, Greg. we probably say "the humans" for clarification in a universe of diverse peoples, but i wonder if we sometimes say it to distance ourselves from "the humans" in the series who besides Elisa and other friends of the clans (who we are not) usually are the ones to cause trouble for the gargs (which we would not do). well, just another pointless ramble from matt, although i hope its food for thought...

Kathy Lowe writes...

I just want to tell you how much I have enjoyed reading both your rambles on the episodes as well as all the development memo's. I never realized how much effort went into a production or how long in advance people start working on an idea. Your memos certainly show that a lot of team work was involved with the advanced details.
Thank you for sharing this priceless information.
See you at the gathering.

matt writes...

i know you get this alot, but i'd like to say thank you from all the fans, not just for the series itself, but for answering all of our questions and pushing to get episodes (new and old) back on tv. i've loved gargoyles from the beginning and even if there are no new spinoffs or movies i know "gargoyles" will still live on in our imaginations due to your commitment to the series. i love reading an answer to a question and going back to watch the episode talked about and seeing or realizing something i didn't before. thanks again.

JESS writes...

This is a general comment not a question, sorry.
matt writes about bronx not being able to feel pride ...
if he's comparing bronx to a dog, i know for a fact some dogs have a sense of humour, and can get jelous - so why not pride ??
also bronx seems to show considerable intelligence in the series, and to understand, pretty much, what is being said.
( cue "why not pride" question again!)
OK here's one for you, greg - does he?

matt writes...

at the end of "hound of Ulster" Goliath says that Bronx has a right to be proud of himself. now, i like Bronx and i think he is smarter and at times more emotional than your average dog but he is still an animal and i don't quite see how he can feel pride. maybe love, and fear, and loyalty, but pride???

matt writes...

in your analysis of "the mirror" (or somewhere) you mentioned that you wondered what the humans of New York thought when they suddenly relized they were not wearing shoes. last night, as i watched the episode i noticed that only one human was shown without shoes at the end of the episode. i don't think he was wearing shoes to begin with, here's why: the animators would probably pay closest attention to Elisa's changes back and forth cuz she was the main human character. when she became a gargoyle she no longer had shoes (or a jacket for that matter) and when she changed back she did. i think therefore that when Puck changed everyone back they would be as they were before, as Elisa was. that one guy probably was at home or something without shoes on when he was changed to a gargoyle than left his house and happened to be in the street when changed back. i realize i just rambled on about something completely pointless, but it was an observation that i had to share with everyone at "ask Greg".

Aris Katsaris writes...

Random thoughts about Vows:

I think it was around this episode that I decided I really loved the series. Or perhaps it was "The Mirror". One way or another this ep solidified the feeling...

There's an interesting thing about the greek dubbing. When the series was first shown in all the episodes the word "Illuminati" was spoken translated with the (archaic) Greek "Pefotismenoi"-"Enlightened Ones".

This created a very nice subtlety when the Norman ambassador greets Xanatos. He didn't say the obvious "a fellow Illuminatus" (in fact I was quite surprised -and disappointed- when I learned that's what was spoken in the original ep). He said "an Enlightened comrade." I really, *really* loved that line. Both the viewers and Xanatos knew what he was referring to. But the bystanders would get no special meaning by this, other than that the ambassador was praising Xanatos...

Something more about the translation was that it was strangely constructed in the speeches of the 10th century humans- adjectives after the nouns, a rhythm in their speech: Almost as if they were speaking poetry. Probably meant to make a distinction between their speech and the modern-day one... Was there anything analogous in the original?

<<Was anyone expecting Fox and X to really get married? And once they were, did you think you'd see them have a kid by season's end?>>

Once they'd gotten engaged, I did expect them to get married - but the child certainly stunned me. I think my mouth was hanging open at the end of "Outfoxed".

And I certainly didn't expect how that arc would go - that it'd cause Xanatos's redemption. What I had thought immediately after Outfoxed was "Poor kid! He's going to be experimented upon.". I knew that Xanatos had feelings for Fox, but I didn't know that he'd also have feelings for his son...

VF writes...

I've not read anything here before about this theory, so I hope I don't shock anybody. But have you ever thought about the evidence in the series that - gulp - there is a bit of a subconscious attraction between Elisa and Xanatos? Were you deliberate in creating this underlying current? Again, the intricacies of the characters and the stories are why this show appeals to me so much. Not that either Elisa or Xanatos would ever admit to such a thing, let alone act upon it. In fact, if I read Elisa's characterization right, she'd probably kill me for even suggesting such a thing.

But consider that Xanatos - although looking at Elisa as an adversary - will say things like "the charming Detective Maza" and "I love a woman with delicate wrists," etc. And, really, isn't he just a little too interested in her life? I have no doubt of his love and attraction for Fox, but Elisa is very similar to Fox - only working on the side of selflessness vs. selfishness. Xanatos seems to like strong women who can hold their own. And when he claims the feud against the gargoyles is over in "Hunter's Moon," his voice is almost - gulp again - tender when he says to Elisa, "He's waiting for you."

For Elisa's part in this - well, sure it's absurd to be attracted to a man who's turned your brother into a mutate. So I'll again caution that I'm meaning this on a very, very subconscious level. But you can't convince me there isn't some very passionate love/hate heat passing between these two in "Eye of the Beholder" when Xanatos prepares to take off in pursuit of Fox-as-werefox and Goliath, and Elisa jumps up and grabs her arms around him, looks him in the eye and very emphatically says, "I trust you about as far as I can throw you, Xanatos." And then he puts his arm around her waist and they're off because he doesn't have time to argue with her. It's almost as if you don't know if she wants to strangle him or kiss him. Similarly, look at the intensity of love/hate Demona has for Goliath. I also think you could argue that another reason why Fox attacks Elisa (who, to the werefox, appears to transform into Fox) is out of a tinge of jealousy. (You did say that episode was very romantically charged.) Also, Xanatos is a strong, attractive, intelligent ... human male (!) who, like Elisa, seems to have a bit of a nocturnal nature and has a seemingly predestined interest in and connection to the gargoyles. If he weren't so self-serving and nasty and wouldn't alter the physical chemistries of her relatives ... and if she hadn't met Goliath ... , heck, she could really go for a guy like him.

So, enough sacrilege out of me. I'd love to get your take on this. And thanks.

DrFaust writes...

Re: Working time paradoxes.

I must confess, I've always liked "changing the past" time travel stories. I was indoctrinated by "Back to the Future" at a young age. <shrug>

Unfortunately, I have yet to find a book with Heinlein's "All You Zombies." All the libraries around seem to focus on his monumental novels that hammer home the same points over and over. (Annoying nit I feel obligated to mention: all his characters have the same vocabulary and speech mannerisms. Drives me nuts.)

So, er, about the paradox thingy. Wish I had more to comment on it. There is a certain sense of balance and rightness to a self-fulfilling paradox. Makes for a neater and cleaner story. The first time I came across it was a short story by someone I can't remember called "Up By His Bootstraps" (or something similar). The idea blew me away.

It's almost a kind of aethestic, I think. While there is the appeal of a neat paradox, some people like the messy timeloops. Take Lawrence Miles' Faction Paradox ("Alien Bodies" and "Interference"). One of their forms of punishment is for a member to kill his or her's younger self.

Of course, Simon Bucher-Jones suggested in "Ghost Devices" that a self-cancelling paradox would loop over and over, variating slightly each time until some sequence of events occurred that allowed the universe to go on. Sort of like that mythical first time around that Vashkoda suggested.

Aesthetically pleasing as it may be, I always thought this kind of history was somewhat depressing. How do you *know* it was free will? If there never was a first time, and you've always been doing a particular action, then there's nothing to you say you could change. Which you can't.

Anyhoo, just a thought or two buried in all that.

"...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..."

Jason Barnett writes...

I just read your thoughts on the X-men movie and the books' continuity. About Rogue, she actually first appeared in Avengers Annual 10 and apparently had several appearences in Dazzler, so she was with the Brotherhood for a little while at least. And as for the Ms. Marvel powers, they weren't that vague, super strength, invulnerability, flight. I always felt they were necessary to make a potentially interesting character viable. Half the time when she absorbed somebody their mind took her over so she was against the X-men, so she had to have something she could do to benefit the team.

demona writes...

greg could u give me some sits where i might find other gargoyle fans?

kevy writes...

Criky! I've just been looking at the archives and all I can say is thank you Greg! We fans are ruthless and relentless.

Blaise writes...

VOWS

First off, I hope you had a happy Thanksgiving!

Now, on to the episode.
The Pheonix Gate--I never dreamt of its power until Demona put it to use. I never even knew GARGOYLES would deal with time travel, but I was quite pleasantly surprised when it did.
On the subject of time travel, I really do prefer the way you guys used it. The "what's-happened-already-happened-time-is-immutable" method. You are right, it is far more satisfying for me (and in some cases, more fun as well).

Petros Xanatos is quite a guy. Usually, in animated shows with villains, they make the parents of said villain just as bad as their offspring, or turn them into comedy relief. It's refreashing that in this series, the parents don't approve of the more shady activities pursued by their children. Also, I think the way Morgan Shepherd (I know I misspelled that) reads each line is wonderful. And, like you, I think the "Mr. Big-Shot Time-Traveler" line and "American Penny" tag are wonderful moments.

In the initial airings, I did like seeing that Goliath bled from the mouth at the beginning. He wasn't quite so invulnerable after all. Unfortunately, they don't seem to show him bleeding in that opening fight anymore.
They also toned down Young Demona's over-enthusiastic greeting of Young Goliath the first time around. The second showing of the scene is exaclty as it should be, but the first time (when it's Goliath's flashback/dream) she no longer flies into his arms like before. I don't really understand why either of these alterations were made (or maybe I don't want to understand).

However, I MUCH prefer the REAL ending of VOWS (the flashback to the castle). When I first saw it, I felt "Okay, NOW this makes a lot more sense." So there is one person right here who likes the real ending.

In later viewings of this episode, I did pick up on Hudson's rather cryptic way of saying things, and liked it.
I'm also one of those people who think that Young Demona's visit to 994 may have played a part in her later machinations against the humans of Wyvern. She never knew WHICH humans were involved in the massacre, nor WHEN the massacre took place. Who knows how that may have eaten away at her?
And she could have avoided it if she had followed Goliath's advice. But she never did.

I was surprised that the Illuminati actually turned out to be real. And it made me happy.

The Archmage--well, I like the guy. And his revelation of the three talismans that would grant "the ultimate magical power" whetted my appetite for the day when we would see someone make that combination.

I wasn't surprised that Xanatos got married (I mean, he got engaged in the last episode, what's the next step?), but I was glad to see it happen. As for having a kid...best wait until we get to OUTFOXED.

Okay, this baby's getting a little thick, but that's only because you really did cram so much stuff into this episode.

Todd Jensen writes...

I was just looking over the two recently reprinted memos on all the variant names for the gargoyles. The part that really astonishes me the most about it is how many names were being suggested for the cast aside from the ones that they eventually wound up with. It seems so obvious to me now (although, of course, this is from the perspective of hindsight) that "Goliath" is the appropriate name for the "Gargoyle-Master" that I honestly can't imagine him being called anything else at all. (Ditto with the rest of the cast).

(Of course, I've come across this phenomenon in other "behind-the-scenes" cases; Tolkien, for example, originally considered naming the protagonist of "The Lord of the Rings" Bingo, but fortunately later on realized how inappropriately silly it would be and changed the character's name to Frodo).

Elisa Ann Goliath writes...

Hi! It's me again! Just wanted to ramble a little bit about E&G's relationship. (And a comment or two would be nice:)
Lately I've been thinking a lot about marital relationships. (You know, what makes a good one. My parents recently had their 41st anniversary, I guess that's why I'm thinking about it.) Now, I'm only 16, and I don't presume to know everything about marriage, but I think I can safely say I have a more realistic view of marriage than most of my peers.
In the series, as a HUGE fan of the E&G relationship, of course my main concern is for E&G to get "married", but really if you think about it, they already have a relationship that is.... I don't know, kind of marriage-like. In the Bible, men are commanded by God to love their wives as Christ loved the church (be willing to die for) and women are to submit to their husbands (like it are not, feminist ladies, it works best this way). With Elisa and Goliath, Goliath loves Elisa with all the tenderness of his heart, is willing to die for her, and he values her and her opinions, and is therefore always asking for her input and for her help. Also, since he loves her, he is not demanding or arbitrary, making it easy for her to submit. She, of course, loves him as much if not more than he loves her, is willing to die for him, and is usually ready to submit when he makes a final decision on something, whether or not it is what she suggested. As a proud, independent woman this cannot always be easy, but she makes the sacrifice because she loves him and because she knows that he is only doing what he thinks is best.
Well, I've just been wanting to get that down on record.
Thanks! TTFN!

Aris Katsaris writes...

More on fate and time-travel... :-)

I don't know if The Mighty Thor is Christian or not but if he is, then the following example from the bible may help explain the way that *I* view the whole fate/choice thing... Jesus several times reveals knowledge of the future. He says that St.Peter's going to deny him three times before dawn, that Judas is going to betray him, that the people are going to crucify him.

At the same time each of these choices belong to the people who made them: Free will is an important part of most Christian denominations. Peter *chose* to deny him, Judas *chose* to betray him, and the people *chose* to crucify him. Sure, God knew as he's supposed to know everything. But that He knew which choices they were going to make, doesn't mean that it wasn't *their* choices.

Personally, I don't believe in Christianity, nor do I believe that time-travel (either working-paradox or non-working paradox) will ever become possible... But I generally find it strange if one can accept the former's and isn't able to conceive the latter's strange blend of free-will and foreknowledge...