matt writes...

ok, i know you've said that the English gargs are pretty much limited to what we saw in "MIA", but are there smaller differences in different English gargs. i mean, no two gargoyles ever look totally alike, right? but in a large English garg clan with only a few limited features, wouldn't they start to look pretty similar? are there different colors these gargs can have besides browns and whites? are there any that have legs more similar to a bird than a horse or a lion? are there any that have different kinds of wings or something?

it doesn't bug me that the English gargs look SO different from the other gargs we've seen around the world, and i know that that bugs some people... but it does bug me that the English gargs seem to be limited to only features we saw in "MIA"...

guess thats all i have to say about that, LOL!

Entity writes...

I have something to add about the definition of "sentience." Hopefully you remember this comment thread by the time you get to this. It involved talk of "The One" vs. "The Other" and the ethics of destroying planets in Star Trek, etc. Here's my take:

"Sentience" is a distinctly different quality from "Intelligence." Sentience is being self-aware. Therefore just about all life with a backbone is sentient. Intelligence is the ambiguous one. But we don't like ambiguity, so that's why sentience has taken the role it has in popular language. I say my dog is sentient, a frog isn't. I say a human is intelligent, so is a gorrilla, but a dog isn't. I guess it's ALL subjective in the end.

It brings me to another distinction: the one between sentience and artificial intelligence. Coyote, for instance, can throw a zinger, but is he self-aware? I don't think he is. Xanatos hasn't achieved (or would wish to achieve) that much, has he?

Shan writes...

More of a comment than a question, actually. I saw the thread about you having considered a GARGOYLES Shangri-La story, but unsure about the legalities since it originates from Hilton's LOST HORIZON. I can tell you one other cartoon series that did go to Shangri-La: JEM in 1986. Richard (Rick) Merwin wrote an episode called "Journey to Shangri-La" where Jem and co. go to Tibet after joining a quest to discover the mythic city; it's a serious episode, not a parody or satire. I'm not going to say much about the episode (both because it's neither the right forum nor my place to rant) but I thought you might find it interesting. Don't know what clearance, if any, they had though. I have heard when a sequel book was developed to LOST HORIZON they had to deal with Hilton's estate. Just stuff to contemplate and share with the group at large, I guess, but if you have any thoughts or commentary...

Denis writes...

hi, Greg!
Not really a question, just a reply to your call about the script of Rosswell Conspiracies.

As you've read from the technic question about script terminology, I'm the one who bough the script.
I had it for 30 dollars, but could have gone up to 80, which was all the money I had left for the weekend.

I loved your version soooo much more than the one that was aired! Darker, more realistic, and the character much deeper than in the actual animated version. I never really cared for Nick Logan, but Tony Markus, ah! that's another story! He has that Anti-Lee Majors quality around him, that humor. I was LOL with his line, responding to his cousin. "In fact, things got downright charred and rare." Oh gosh I just LOVE that line!
It's really too bad that 1. they didn't use your script as it was and 2. that you didn't got to write more. R.C. could have been the sci-fi pendant of Gargoyles.
ten stars out of five! *back to re-read it again*

Lord Sloth writes...

I can tell from what you put on my post(and other posts), that Entity's expasion on the vocabulary thing will make you pretty happy. I wanted to say a lot of that to, but I'm not as good with words. It's hard to believe though, that Power Rangers did better better then Gargs, when it's vocab pretty much limited to "Lets get em you guys" and the like. Here are some other good words from Gargoyles: Mechiabelliant<sp???>, enchilon, odyssey, avatar(did I mention that one already?), popirus, humility and some good latin words as well. A few times it seemed a little unrealistic (his reverse phicoligy was pretty blaitent), but otherwise, it has great sentance structure & dialouge(which is more than I can say for myself). That's all I've gota say, except sorry about my bad spelling.

Entity writes...

Hi again,

This is on Xanatos. Someone asked about the logic of Xanatos going through all of the trouble of bringing the gargs to life, only to have them steal some disks, then to just wastefully try to eradicate them with the Steel Clan. I have been conflicted with this contradiction in Xanatos' character as well, and I think it is a result of so much having to be inferred from the episodes. As viewers we are accustomed to being handed everything on a silver platter. Mainstream America is lazy like that. But in a 22-minute cartoon, you didn't have that kind of time. You couldn't explain everything. So characterization, especially, needed to be shown not told.

In Xanatos' case, he really is more of the trickster than the megalomaniac. In the show we got more of an impression of control and dominance. This is the air that X likes to put off. Cool and collected. With a master plan for everything. This was mostly a FRONT. The REAL Xanatos is, as you've accentuated through your episode reviews, a trickster. He lives by the moment. He's a thrill seeker. He makes up his plans as he goes along. That's why his plan in "Metamorphosis" seemed so flimsy, as so many Ask Gregers have brought up. That's why he seemed to change priorities so much in the first season. He re-evaluated. And if you think about it, this more dynamic approach to his character makes his 'reformation' all the more plausible. X, whether we've realized it or not, was in a constant state of change throughout the entire series.

Entity writes...

Hi Greg,

Wow, you can definitely tell the difference between your pre-LA and post-LA responses. ;)

I just had to join Sloth in complimenting you and the other writers who worked on Gargoyles on the unbridled freedom of vocabulary you embraced. In too many cartoon shows, the dialogue is dumbed down to the point where you get angry that someone's actually getting paid for writing it. Adults tend to not realize that kids appreciate good entertainment. They aren't just mesmorized by pretty flashies. And dialogue is a pivotal part of good entertainment. Now that I think about it, I believe Gargoyles has had an even bigger impact on me than I've previously imagined. Words like "cliche" and "naivete" are ones I got directly from Gargoyles. Sure I've seen them elsewhere, but I GOT them from Gargoyles. I'm about to start my first year at college and I am majoring in Creative/Professional Writing (haven't decided between the two yet). Gargoyles is probably the influence that drove me most toward the decision to take my life in that direction. I realize that Gargoyles really was an educational program, and I'm not speaking of the few token episodes that dealt with gun control or literacy or deforestation. Watching Gargoyles made me smart. It is like the anti-cartoon, because it did precisely the opposite of what most typical children's entertainment does, at least when you or Michael Reeves isn't on deck: vegetabilize.

Mary Mack writes...

I was just skimming through the Garg Science archive, and I ran across a post by Faieq asking about colored irises, and whether or not gargoyles had them. She came to the conclusion that gargs had no irises, since the dim moonlight would be enough for them. I don't think that works, biologically, because sophisticated animals (humans included) have irises-- involuntary sphincters which control how much light enters the eye, constricting to prevent damage from too much light and expanding to let in more light in darkness. Gargoyles, like cats, probably have excellent night vision, being all noctournal and stuff, so they HAVE to have irises.

Maybe their eyes are just predominantly dark, like horses and dogs, with light blue eyes cropping up occaisionally.

Dunno why I went on so long. I was actually just checking for your next Gathering ramble (It's still June at this writing), and for some reason I just had to mention the horse/dog/iris thing.

Thanks for your time.

Blaise writes...

Hi Greg!
This is about two days after the Convention, and I just wanted to say how great it was seeing/meeting you and the rest of the cast and crew of GARGOYLES (or at least a sizable portion of them) in person. I also enjoyed seeing the various pitches you had (I LOVE Sphinx's design--though I doubt that was at all final), and hearing the stories surrounding the various aspects of the show.

Kudos to you, Jennifer, Patrick, Kathy, and the rest of the Con staff, volunteers, and guest for making this an extremely memorable Con.
(Of course, by the time you read this it will have been MONTHS in the past, but the good feelings are still that strong.)

Regina writes...

I have been a gragoyles since the beginning just like the x-files. I just wanted to say that the gragoyles was the best and is stille the best show around. It hasthe x-files appeal to it plus it is just cool liek ed the sock chao

Stacey writes...

Hello Mr Weisman!
First of all, congeratulations on such a great show, it's the best cartoon I've ever seen, I've loved it since I was a kid!
Just a quick question. I asume that Demona eventualy finds out about Goliath and Elisa's relationship. How does she feel? I always thought that she retained feelings for him - despite her best efforts - and there's the fact that she probably hates Elisa more than anyone else alive.
When you outlined the space spawn/Samson/2198 or something storyline, there was no mention of Goliath and Elisa ever having children, grandchildren etc. I know that biologicaly speaking, there was very little chance that it would ever happen (unfortunantly), but I always thought that they would find someway of adopting. You don't have to say if you don't want to, but Goliath and Elisa without kids is heartbreaking. They would make such wonderful parents! I know that they would help raise the clans children, but its not quite the same is it? I mean Goliath has taken up the role as sole parent to angela, and Elisa is human anyway. Please give me hope!
Anyway, sorry. I didn't mean to rant on for so long. I need my gargoyles fix.
Good luck for the future.
XXX

Anonymous writes...

Have you ever seen Babylon 5? It's quite good and could give Gargoyles a run for the money.

matt writes...

grrr, because anonymous had to bring it up again i thought i should once more say that i seriously doubt gargoyles evolved from dinosaurs, maybe they had a common ancestors or something, but it seems really unlikely that gargs are saurian descendants. i mean, look at the English gargs! they don't look anything like dinosaurs or even reptiles. i think its more likely that the English gargs evolved from lions, horses, and birds then other gargs evolving from dinosaurs, and Greg has said that they didn't. i think Gargs are so different from most higher life forms of life that the gargate family seperated from the rest of the animal kingdom far back in history, before dinosaurs, maybe even before reptiles!

sorry, i had to rant about that again...
"Why do the little things always frustrate me!" -Demona
geeeez, Greg, do YOU think gargs evolved from dinosaurs? i know you're not a biologist, but what do you think?

Demoness writes...

Suggestion:

I noticed that Greg has been receiving the same questions over and over again and I'm certain he's getting tired of answering them all the time. So, to save him as well as us time & trouble, why don't who ever manages the archive to create a "FAQ Archive" and put the FAQ with best answers in it.

just a suggestion

WereFox writes...

I know we've spent a lot time talking about Demona's motivations, but what of Thailog's. I'm guessing a desire to prove his own legitamacy in light of his unique origins and the long shadow cast by his fathers, especially Goliath.
One thing that never made complete since to me though was why he turned on Demona. There can't be that many Gargoyles who would ally themselves with his "unique slant on things." Clones are fine but Thailog initially relegated them to the status of servile drones. Was it that Demona was a loose canon. Was he simply bored with her? Finally it occured to me that if he is trying to prove himself to be a better Gargoyle,by his own defintion, tthen Demona might very well seem like a "hand me down." Or perhaps, he realized that Demona saw him not as "Thailog", but as a Goliath substitute. Talk about a blow to your self worth!

WereFox writes...

Does the spell of immortality completely heal Demona and MacBeths injuries. Do bullet or stab wounds heal without a trace or do the leave battle scars. It had occured to me that the spell might not have to heal them to be good as new, just enough to keep them alive. If being "alive" is the minmal requirement. Then the two of the could theoretically go into comas for the rest of eternity and still be considered "alive" for the purposes of the spell. I know, now way you were actually going to do this. Just exorcising a "creativity demon."

Corrine Blaquen writes...

Another interesting thing to think about: For brief periods of time, Angela has had both Macbeth and Thailog as stepfathers. *Grin* Angela's family is somewhat dysfunctional, is it not?

Todd Jensen writes...

Well, it's certainly a relief to have the Gargoyles 2198 contest finally over with; I'm amazed that it took us so long to get the last two answers right. Well, now for a few comments on "Gargoyles 2198"'s overall description.

A number of elements in it certainly surprised me. For example, while I had suspected for a long while that the Space-Spawn would be playing a major role in the spin-off, I hadn't expected that it would open with them actually conquering the planet. Likewise, I was certainly surprised at the reason for Owen being unable to become Puck in the series (Alex being in Space-Spawn captivity), though it did make sense (I'd had my own speculations for the reason for the "block on Puck" before the contest began, though I won't mention them here because of the rules - suffice it to say that none of them involved Alex being held prisoner by anybody).

Another element in the spin-off was one which I'd perhaps "half-anticipated", and which did strike me as logical, but which I hadn't been seriously expecting in "Gargoyles 2198"; the notion of Samson and Delilah working together. Now, before the contest had come out, I'd been speculating for some time over whether Samson would have some connection with Delilah - given their names, it would be almost impossible not to have something like that happening - but never gave it any serious thought since I obviously didn't seriously believe that the original Delilah whom we met in "The Reckoning" would still be around at the time of the spin-off (even when it was "Gargoyles 2158" rather than "Gargoyles 2198"). Of course, I hadn't counted on the possibility of a namesake descendant, but it certainly struck me as a good solution.

And I've got to admit, you found a way to have the Illuminati stoop to a new low in the spin-off; they certainly were shady even in the original series (deals with organized crime, the Hotel Cabal, supporting the Quarrymen), but now they've become out-and-out quislings.

All in all, the spin-off certainly looks promising. I don't know if you'll ever get it made, but it should be interesting.

Questions follow in a separate post.

Jimmy_Q writes...

Now there's a HUGE difference between 994 Scotland and 1994 U.S. Wouldn't the differences in vocabulary, word usage, etc. between these times and places reflect that? If Goliath learned to read and write in 994 Scotland then how was it that he awoke in Manhattan seemingly capable of reading and comprehending modern day American literature? Did he somehow work on his literacy skills outside the series or what? I figured that, as the ultimate all-knowing diety of the gargoyle universe, you would know this.

Jessica Cotten writes...

Hey Greg,

Well, either I can't find my answered questions(there are a lot)or I just asked them in a way that wasn't appropriate. Oh well. Anyway, if you ever get to do gargoyles again would you use Timedancer or would you maybe use a different idea if a better one surfaced? Timedancer is good, but I wouldn't put Brooklyn with someone so different. Maybe, but then again; you are the one writing the shows not me.

Since I can't find my questions. Could you e-mail me at Alexlyons3@hotmail.com

Punchinello writes...

Hello Mr. Weisman.

I don't come here often, but occasionally I'm struck by the urge to quiz you on something. I was browsing the questions you're fielding, and I was struck again by something I notice every time I visit this page. There seems to be some preoccupation here with "the mind of the other." I noticed another poster make reference to your interest in it (although I cannot find any record of your having initiated the discussion).

While the series was still active I saw you invoke this theme frequently whenever you emphasized the cultural shock that the gargoyles experienced in modern America, and I appreciated the fact that you treated our linguistic tendencies to "name everything" as a curious human social construction. It helped to push the idea that these creatures were _not_ human and that we could not understand their natures or their motivations from within the context of human sensibilities. I see there is some similar talk here of the fay, and the notion that their essential nature might be something that is sufficiently far removed from humans so as to be outside our understanding. All of this puts me in mind of the anthropomorphic problem that the SETI administration outlined for dealing with the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence's. Human beings have a tendency to ascribe human values to non human species, and beyond that have considerable difficulty in contextualizing "the mind of the other" without unconsciously resorting to the context of human sensibilities.

Which brings me to the reason for this post; because being a student of the sciences (and probably less attached to my humanity than most people), I have found reason to be extremely critical of some of the aspects of the way the anthropomorphic problem is treated within the natural sciences as it applies to non-human animals. Generally speaking, my problem is that some of the more archaic ethical distinctions that are made between humans and other animals have their foundation in the premise that the ascription of certain mental capacities ( reflection, emotion, etc.) are the ascription of _uniquely human_ qualities. The fact that this premise, itself, is socially constructed rather than informed by data, seems to be lost on at least most _social_ scientists. What is troubling me is that I have begun to observe this kind of thinking migrate into the popular domain through science fiction. I don't really follow sci fi, but I've seen star trek, and I have had occasion to see the half-dozen or so other popular sci fi programs that one can find on television. I see a trend wherein the heroes casual disintegration of a planet is commonly justified with the hazily defined and indistinct ethics of "It did not harbor any sentient life."

This trend is scaring the hell out of me; because the expression "sentient" is not really used within the scientific community, so it does not have any agreed upon definition attached to it and there is no objective data informing the idea of it. The word seems to have infiltrated popular culture, however, where it finds frequent expression. That's what's bothering me. I see a lot of the same hazy ethical reasoning on this board. A number of messages expressing the confusion that humans in your story were subject to when they "mistook the gargoyles for animals rather than sentient beings" and in doing so, justified a campaign to exterminate them.

I would hope that a reasonable group of people would be given pause by the almost casual disregard for life that is being demonstrated with the prioritization of one life over another based upon the presence or non-presence of this seemingly magical endowment. Because if I am reading the intentions of the contributors to this board accurately, then it would appear their position is that if the occupants of that clock tower had been a group of stray dogs or a family of polar bears, then annihilating them with a wire guided missile would have been perfectly reasonable. "It's all right. It didn't harbor any sentient life." I would encourage the fans that come to this site to give some thought to what it is they mean by "sentience." What is the content of this sentience? If it entails that a creature can react to it's environment, anticipate, reflect and emote, then it should be pointed out that what available data exists indicates that this capacity is only about as exclusive a domain as most land based vertebrates.

I guess they shouldn't have disintegrated that planet after all. I hope to encourage others to give this issue the thought that it requires. I am also hoping to elicit some commentary from you, on the matter of how you perceive "the mind of the other." What mental distinctions do you draw between humans and gargates or faeries. I would be interested in hearing you address the notion.

Punchinello

Jim R. writes...

This is something I've been wanting to ask for a while.

A lot of information on the net in relation to Gargoyles is the criticism reports I read. Critics who evaluated Gargoyles say that as for children, it's a good show to teach morals, right-and-wrong differences, and social problems. They especially mention the episode "Deadly Force" in particular as a lesson learning experience about the dangers of weapons.

But, as for those of us adults, we believe Gargoyles was Disney's way of appealing to a more mature audience. Most of us would say its attractive because of the story, characters, episodes, Shakespearian underlyings, or the overall fictional universe idea makes it interesting. These things, I think, are what make adults come to Gatherings or purchuse merchandise, etc.

So, my question is: Who would you agree with more? The people like us fans, who ask you questions, still watch the series on our VCRs, and adore the story. Or, the critics who would say that Gargoyles is a good children's cartoon, suitable for teaching them lessons of behavior, ethics, etc.

Todd Jensen writes...

You mentioned once that you somewhat regretted calling the fay in "Gargoyles" "Oberon's Children", because that led some of the audience to get the wrong impression, and believe that the fay were Oberon's biological offspring. Actually, I was recently watching my tape of "Heritage", and noted a strong piece of evidence for Oberon not being the biological father of them (or at least not all of them). In the episode, Raven describes Grandmother as his cousin. That would certainly indicate that they are not biological siblings and therefore do not share a common father in that sense. So the series does have something to make it clear (for the observant) that the faeries aren't Oberon's children in that sense. I just thought that you'd like to know.

Sloth writes...

Ok, I think i'm outa worthwhile questions for the moment so i'll just make a comment about the show. One thing I really like about gargoyles (besides the great music, animation, story and characters) is it's hudge vocabulary. I remember when I was younger, the show taught me to use some cool words such as: subterfuge, cataclisim, clishe, abomination and many others that I can't think of right now. Just thought I'd mention someting that i thinks gone unmentioned.
Great work yall!

Ricky writes...

Greg,
Thanks for responding to my questions. I've written about four novels, but none of them have been accepted. Maybe it's my style of writting I don't know...but perhaps we can help each other in this matter. Would it be all right if I sent you a story on this web page despite it being against your guidelines...I'd like someone to read it, and since it's about Max Steel I thought you would be the more appropiate person to send it to. Just take a look and if you like it then perhaps we can colabrate on something.
Thanx