Dexter writes...

Why is Angela so DAMN sexy? Oh I love her SO much! Dude, do you think she'd go for a blonde-haired punk? I mean, her own dad even went for a human, so maybe there's hope for me yet. Hmm...I bet you're gonna give me a smart-ass remark like "she's taken" or something cuz "gargoyles mate for life" BUT Demona proved that it is not true! Go me! Long live the beautiful Angela!

WereFox writes...

Greg

Just read your rambling about COS part 2 and I must confess I didn't ever pick up on Goliaths intention on killing Demona. It makes sense even though it would have been futile. Still, say he did try it (Big IF I know), I wonder what her reaction would be. As often as she's thrown his feelings for her back in his face, she'd view his attempt to kill her as a sign that his sentimental weakness regarding her was over. On the other hand, would it be so shocking that Demona would express sorrow that Goliath's feeling for her had so diminshed that he was capable of killing her?

Anonymous writes...

Addressed to "matt":
About Goliath "abandoning" the eggs: There IS no justification for him leaving the responsibility of taking care of the eggs to Princess Katherine and the Magus. BUT I do "understand" why. Perhaps it was because he was so depressed and traumatized he couldn't think things all the way through. Perhaps because he didn't feel himself "suitable" or "worthy" of taking care of the eggs and that even the humans would do a better job than he would; he must have blamed himself and not just the captain of the guard and Hakon for what happened at Wyvern. He must have felt he deserved the fate of the surviving members of the clan. And it seems that you have forgotten how sincerely remourseful the Princess and Magus were toward Goliath and how they offered to do anything they could for him. It wasn't as if they grudgingly offered to help him; so they were not very likely to go back on their promise. Also he is mortal and imperfect, and as an imperfect being he made a bad decision. Everyone makes a bad decision, and no one is codoning it, I just want to make sure you understand that.

Anonymous writes...

Hi! I'm Mel from Malaysia and I just wan't to tell you that how much that I'm REALLY hooked and into your original and unique cartoon and it's colourful characters I adore. Well, actually, I do have a vast of shooting questions that might just nip your time away....But you know how Daddies monitor their 17 year old daughters, so I'll just ask a few.
1.I'm so head over heels giddy about the 'steam' between the romantic Duo(G&E), but it also kinda surprises me that the other clan member didn't mind the sparks, I mean, being two different species(I don't mind,REALLY!=]); How come? What did they see within that?
2.Should ever IF THEY have a kid, how'd Demona react to the hybrid

matt writes...

hey, Jim R., thanks again for the kind words but stop putting quotations around my name. Matt is my real name and i'm fortunate enough that one of my favirote characters in the series shares my name! HEY, no one has emailed me!! whoops! i forgot i wasn't going to talk about non-garg stuff!!

matt writes...

i figured since i was singled out to everyone by "Jim R." earlier i'd write something about me... also cuz i like to talk about myself.:)
i don't know Greg personally but i wish i did. i ask Greg so many questions because i'm a big fan and i want to know everything about "Gargoyles" that Greg is willing (or able) to share with us. i've watched garg. since it first came on and i've come up with a lot of questions and when i came across this website i started asking them. i just really love this show! if i had one wish i'd wish for world peace, but if i had two wishes i'd wish that "Gargoyles" had its own television station and played nonstop!! to show how much a fan i am, those last two sentences instantly reminded me of Puck's "does this look like Alladin's lamp" line!!!!
anyway, so as not to clutter up this page with anymore non-garg stuff if you want to email me you can at ewoks11@hotmail.com. i'd love hearing from other fans esspecially since none of my friends were ever really into gargoyles.
and as for all my really great questions: "I can't help it if you can't keep up with Greg and me!". joke. see "Turf".
oh, and thanks for comparing me to Mr. Spock!

demona writes...

gerg in the chat room who is hudson?

WereFox writes...

Greg

My aplogies for all of the typos in my previous post. Thats what I get for posting this at 2:45 in the morning.

Joxter writes...

How much fuu could a fuu dog fuu if a fuu dog could fuu fuu?

Yes, that was a variation on the How much wood could a woodchuck chuck bit... And yes, it made no sense at all. But, Timedancer Brooklyn has a fuu dog... And if you say it all really fast then add a "HEY!" to the end it's pretty fun actually. Just a fun little thing, since I can't think of any questions for you to give a smart-ass answer to at the moment...

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...

Entity writes...

Vows -

Melissa wrote about how she thought Elisa overreacted to Xanatos' invitation to Goliath and came off too jealous in her attempts to dissuade Goliath from attending the wedding. I'd just like to say that I was satisfied by Elisa's reaction. I mean, look at the setup: The main villain invites the main hero to his wedding. If this were any other show, it would be pure corn. Elisa was the voice of reason, the voice that reassured me that this episode was not going to degenerate into an episode of G.I. Joe or Ninja Turtles. So, thank you for giving Elisa's role in the episode its due, considering how densely-packed it was. It made the difference between sophistication and corn for me.

Todd Jensen writes...

One thought of my own about the "fate/free will" argument. Somebody cited Demona in "Vows" as an example of this, arguing that because her future self who visits her in 975 is evil, Demona's doomed to become evil herself regardless of what she does.

Actually, my own thoughts on this was that the seeds of Demona's future character are already present even before Demona-1995 meets her. After all, she's already working for the Archmage, and stealing for him, suggesting that she'd started down that path already.

Aris Katsaris writes...

Time travel yet again!

Vashkoda> Ah, I think I get better now what you are talking about... I think I had a couple similar ideas when (pre-Gargoyles) I was trying to explain to myself the "working-paradox" of the Star Trek episode Time's Arrow. It's the episode where Data's head is discovered (among other things) in an archaeological dig, which leads Enterprise back in time to discover what happened, which causes Data to lose his head, etc, etc. I had then thought that perhaps once upon a meta-time (or "cycle" of time) , the Enterprise went for a different reasons in the past, there Data lost his head, etc. That's similar to your "missing origin" scenario, I think, right?

But the thing is that the butterfly effect still tears this down. In a sense there can be *no* small adjustments in the timestream, because there's no scientific distinction between "small" or "great" - the tiniest change in the combination of my parent's genes (a literally microscopical change) creates a individual which looks more like my brother, rather than like me. I really feel that a universe which has Xanatos in poor clothing go back in 975 couldn't possibly create a Napoleon (or Xanatos himself) the same way that a universe with Xanatos going back with rich clothing would... *Any* change means *huge* change...

(The Earth without Data's head buried in it couldn't have realistically spawned the same Picard/Riker/Data/Enterprise as the Earth *with* Data's head... Therefore the former idea of a "missing origin" must be disproven...)

Tim writes...

Vows-Loved this episode, it had Demona, Xanatos, characterization galore, intricate plot, everything that makes Gargoyles above and beyond other animated series. Favorite lines was Xanatos's "But you won't. Because you didn't. Time travel's funny that way." That is SO Xanatos! And Young Demona and Goliath's conversation gives me a lump in my throat, just because it is so tragic what ultimately happens. As to what was going on in her head when she flew down to the beach before the Massacre, I would say Panic. Full-fledged Panic. Heh, that's another beautiful scene. And the last scene in Vows when Goliath and Demona float off into the distance with those heart-strumming music chords playing is just wonderful and sad at the same time. A nail in the coffin, as you said.

Phil writes...

Continuing the recent discussion on the immutability of time and Mighty Thor's question about fate/predestination vs free will.

As an amateur writer I can relate to being the creator of a universe. When your characters are well developed, they do seem to have minds of their own. There are things they'll do and things they won't do. As "god," you can force them to do what you want, but then they're not the same person. You have to manipulate events so that choices they make are logical and in-character.

As I'm sure you've said, Greg, time is only immutable if you know about it. You can't change things that have happened, you can only work around them. And you can only fulfill things you didn't know about before.

The way I see it, our challenge as writers/creators is to arrange time/fate so that "independent" characters are "free" to make the choices we want them to make. It's often very difficult, but the result is so fulfilling when everything seems to work out naturally.

Thanks for reading my ramble, Greg. This is just my point of view. I'm interested to learn if and how yours differs.

SEM writes...

This is just a little follow-up to Faieq's question about Katherine and Tom not having children. Faieq assumed a fertility issue which Greg admitted not knowing for sure of either did or not.

There are methods of birth control that date back to the ancient Egyptians that involve acorns (given the variance of fan age involvement on the boards I won't go into much detail unless asked). Anyway, assuming acorns were accessible to Katherine that kind option would have been there.

But as Greg pointed out, Katherine and Tom probably wouldn't lean toward using any methods. And he's the expert.

Just got Toon Disney last night and am so thrilled to finally be able to catch up on ALL the GARGOYLES episodes I've missed!
Just putting the information out there for consideration.

Knoxville writes...

Hi Mr. Weisman,
This is only my second time posting here but I was wondering (you will probalby think I'm nutso or something)if you have ever found yourself saying that it would be wonderful to be a actual gargoyle like Goliath and the clan. I know I have, alot recently actually.
Thanks,
Knoxville

Jon writes...

Greg,

Like a lot of people, I'm sure, I haven't posted much to this forum, but have followed it avidly for as long as it's been running. I first wanted to thank Gorebash, Todd, and, most of all, yourself, for taking the time to keep this Ask Greg site up and going. It is just awesome that the fans that have received so much pleasure from Gargoyles (including myself) can communicate and share ideas with the creator of the show. It's particularly refreshing to see how much thought, effort, and soul (for lack of a better word) you have commited to Gargoyles; it's obviously not simply a product that you created for your job, you really believe in it and love it, which somehow affirms our own strong feelings for the show.

I started watching Gargoyles about mid-way through its first run. I was a graduate student (I guess you were WAY off your target demographic with me! :) ) at the time, and was hooked from the first time I saw it. I believe Long Way to Morning was the first episode I watched, and I taped every episode from then on until I had them all and could re-watch (and re-watch…) them in order. I loved the show for all the reasons that others have mentioned here; the complex characters, the mix of history, legend, and "realism", the continuity, the intelligent dialogue, and the magic that the story wove from episode to episode. But there was an aspect to Gargoyles that appealed to me on a much more personal level. I guess the best way to describe it is that the main characters in the show (specifically, the Manhattan clan and Elisa) exhibited a code of honor/respect/intelligence that I really appreciated, and often find to be lacking in today's world. The interactions of the Gargoyles sort of provided a model, or a reminder of a way of life that is often lost in the cynicism of the modern world. The meaning of Home. The importance of Accountability. The responsibility of Power. Trust. Friendship. Kindness. Loyalty. Humility. And perhaps most of all, Courage.

Somewhere along the lines, the Gargoyles became role models for me, in a strange sort of way. They embodied heroic characteristics, many of which I have listed above, that I guess I continue to try to live up to. As ridiculous as it might sound, I think Gargoyles has helped make me a better person.

Anyway, in closing, it seems like the world is short of great stories, and short on role models, but there are more of both since the airing of Gargoyles. Thank you, Greg.

Vashkoda writes...

Hey Aris. Well, the argument about missing loop origins is moot since Greg says there are none. Now I'm more interested in -why- these loops even exist. But I guess I'll explain more what I was thinking when I brought up the "missing origins".

What I reasoned was that for a certain period of time (lets say the first few hundred cycles of time), time was new and malleable and could be "experimented" with. So if Xanatos got his hands on the Gate in the 1990's and then decided he wanted to go to the 900's, he -could-, and yes, it -would- mess with the timestream, but that obviously would have been his intent if he wanted to send himself the coin so that he could be rich. And yes, that would mean that the Xanatos he once was would never have existed because his actions would change his own history (hence the "non-working paradox"). But lets imagine that this situation happened to hundreds of individuals who tried to alter the timestream, and lets say that for the most part, they cancelled themselves out so that they never happened. But for a -few- individuals, maybe their altered history does -not- prevent their getting the Gate and going back in time as they had originally done (even in real life, some people do get their cake and eat it too). Except of course now, the Xanatos who travels back in time is not the same as the Xanatos who originally went back (this one's richer, for example). So small adjustments are made in the timestream, but nothing as drastic as when Xanatos first appeared in the 900's (now the Prince might notice that Xanatos is dressed nicer than before, but at least Xanatos's appearance itself doesn't trigger anything new). So as time as a whole repeats itself, adjustments are made and wrinkles are ironed out until finally everything -works- and makes sense. Sure, it might take hundreds of cycles, but at some point every predicted event will be accounted for and the timestream, at last, becomes "immutable".

And as for the butterfly-effect, who's to say that there originally was a Macbeth, Napoleon, or Kennedy? Maybe they're all the result of Xanatos or some other traveler going back in time? The way I see it, the present as it is now could just be the final result of all the alterations made in time. So it's not a coincidence at all that Goliath still exists when Xanatos comes back from his trip (for all we know, Goliath still exists only -because- of X's trip).

Aris Katsaris writes...

Vashkoda, you said: <<I had hoped that there indeed was a "missing origin" to the time loops, as the presence of such loops would have made a lot more sense to me. >>

This discussion interests me, so I hope nobody minds if I take part in it:

I've read and seen a *lot* of time-travel stories, and I have to say that the "missing origin" concept of time-loops, the idea that there can be time-travel which *does* change history, seems much more filled with plot-holes than the kind of time-travel we saw in Gargoyles.

For example consider your own scenario: That there was once a 975 which *didn't* contain Xanatos as time-traveller. Let's assume that history otherwise goes on as normal and creates a Xanatos which for some reason wants to go back to 975 and change history. Let's assume that he can.

The problem is that if he goes back to 975 he will change history *entirely*. By simply being there for a single second, he will displace certain molecules of air, which (the butterfly-effect) will displace more molecules. After ten years a couple storms will occur which wouldn't have occured, other storms which occur won't. More importantly among the millions of possible gene-combinations for every single child, surely a different one will be made at every conception. *No* individual conceived after Xanatos' arrival in the past will be the same as before his time-travel. By going to the past, Xanatos won't have just erased his own birth from history, he will have erased the births of Macbeth, Napoleon, Lincoln, Kennedy, etc...

The only way to have Xanatos go back to the past, *and* be able to return to an even remotely recognizable world, would be if all the trillions of changes that will take due to his being there are already part of his world's history - aka if there's no "first loop" aka if history is unchangeable... But having someone *both* to be able to change history *and* at the same time change it in such a limited way as to influence only a limited amount of events, is wanting to have your cake and eat it also... Atleast the "unchangeable history" is just illogical for our sequential minds - one could even go metaphysical and say that it's God who put the loops there... The "changeable history" version may be logical, but it's also impossible... :-)

Vashkoda writes...

I had hoped that there indeed was a "missing origin" to the time loops, as the presence of such loops would have made a lot more sense to me. My problem is not with grasping the concept of pardoxes, but with understanding the reasoning behind them. When I thought that there had been an actual origin to the loops, the loops made sense because they were initiated by individuals who had access to the Gate and the desire to alter time. But by telling me that these loops have always existed, I begin to wonder why they exist in the first place. Were they made intentionally, meant to serve a particular purpose, or is the timestream just "flawed" (well, maybe flawed isn't the best word, but the presence of random paradoxes certainly make me question the efficiency of who/whatever created the timestream). If the loops are intentional, it begs the question of who arranged for them to happen, and why. Because of its nature, one can't help but think of a time loop as a means to rectify a mistake or improve one's situation (saving yourself from a fatal fall, making yourself rich, etc). But if you're saying that the characters themselves aren't responsible and that loops were always present in the timestream, then one has to look at it from the timesteam's point of view, and what it has to gain from them. Some characters have greatly benefited from the loops (Griff and Xanatos, for example), so does that mean that the timestream is somehow biased to favor certain individuals? (but you'd still have to wonder why the stream went to the trouble of creating a *paradox* to make Xanatos rich or save Griff's life). Or was the timeline "drafted" with errors, which were then fixed via paradoxes when the timestream was finally created? For example, although Xanatos is a New Yorker from the 20th-21st century, the timestream may have goofed and placed him briefly at a Scottish castle in the late 900's. Then, to explain his presence, the stream sent in the Phoenix Gate and placed him in a situation where he would have access to it (this use for the Gate does in fact fit with your description of it as a kind of "pressure valve" for the Timestream--here, acting to fulfill events that were fated but can't otherwise happen within the normal constraints of time and space).

So is the presence of these time-loops intentional (and if so, who is responsible and why?), or is the timestream just "flawed" (for lack of a better word)?

Donald writes...

You know, of all the types of Time Travel stories there are, the "working paradox", as you put it, is my favorite. However, it does seem that many people, like Vashkoda, have fundamental difficulties grasping the one defining aspect of the concept.

Time is not linear. All of time exists as one unit...there is no beginning and no end. Think of it as a multi-faceted jewel, of which we can only see one facet at a time. The whole jewel is already there, but it is a limit of our perception that makes us think time is linear.

I suppose your love of the working paradox is why you like the first Terminator but not the sequel. I feel the same way. It is probably one of the more famous of the working paradox stories. Another good example is The Philadelphia Experiment, which was more purely focused on the concept.

In case you're wondering, the multi-faceted jewel explanation comes from Alan Moore's Watchmen, which did not really have a time travel element to it, but the roots of the concept were there with the Dr. Manhattan character's ability to perceive all of time within his existence.

Of course, that idea harkens back to poor old Billy Pilgrim in Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five. Of course, that's not really a time travel story either, but it does help explain the concept a bit.

Hope I haven't bored everyone ;-)

Melissa writes...

Hey Greg,

Just a few small comments on your ramble on "Vows".

Although I think this was a great episode and it had amazing dialogue moments, I thought that after seeing it a few times it became boring and I was less interested in it. I was definitely more "into" the second half of the episode when it got to conversations held by the old and young Goliath and Demona. The dialogue between all of them just seemed to fit so well and flowed beautifully.

I did notice the change in size of the Gate but I just thought of it as being bigger in human hands and smaller in the gargoyle's hands because of size difference between gargoyles and humans.

I also thought that Elisa (my favorite character) was acting way out of hand. I thought it was out of character for her to act so jealous. It wasn't even that, it just looked like she had PMS. I kept yelling at the tv (to Elisa) to back off his case!

Alright...I'm done.

Aris Katsaris writes...

You said: <<O.K. Thanks. So death was NEVER personified?
Certainly Uranos was personified in the mythology, right? And Eros, of course. >>

Umm, I'm not certain what exactly it is you mean by "personification", so let me be a bit more elaborate.

Pretty much *everything* was personified as a deity, including abstractions like "Victory"-Nike, "Peace"-Eirene, "Justice"-Dike, "Violence"-Bia, "Night"-Nyx, "Sleep"-Hypnos, etc. The name is the concept is the deity...

However most of these deities never seemed to have a solid existence in stories besides their very function - unlike gods and goddesses like Athena, Hades, Hermes, Thetis, Callisto, etc, who very clearly were "persons" with a history and personalities that was separate from their specific roles...

Uranus was ofcourse personified - he was a person who was defeated and castrated by Cronos, etc, etc. And in fact he was probably personified so much that the meaning of his name being "sky" was probably almost forgotten, and Zeus was considered the god whose province was the sky, etc.

Eros is a weird case: The story which "personified" him as the son of Aphrodite and the lover of Psyche, was written very late, 2nd century AD I think, by a Roman writer. In that one he was obviously a seperate person, "personified" with any definition one can come up with.

But before that, Eros seems to have been much more of an abstraction, one of the very first gods who was birthed by Chaos: For if there had been no Eros (no love) later gods (like Gaia and Uranus, or Cronos and Rhea, or Zeus and Hera) could not have loved each other. More of a force, less of a person.

Now Death-"Thanatos" was ofcourse personified like anything else: he's supposed to be the son of Night, and the older brother of Sleep (Hypnos). But besides that, he seems to me to be much more of an abstraction like Nike, and less of a person like Athena. He's referred to as a person occasionally (Zeus sends Hypnos and Thanatos to carry the body of Sarpedon with honour away from Troy, I think that Hercules is supposed to have wrestled with Thanatos in one case) but those two are pretty much the only occasions I remember him be a person...

I don't know if the above helped clarify or confuse...

Kalafarski writes...

A couple comments on your Vows ramble....

As I've said in a couple of posts about the Phoenix Gate before, I love the way you handle time travel. It just works so perfectly.

But here's what I found interesting. Demona has brought her past self nineteen years into the future. She shows her that her home has been invaded, her clan has been betrayed, her brothers and sisters are dead. And her true love has been turned to stone.

I thought it was interesting that Demona doesn't try to convince her younger self that Goliath is naive, too trusting of humans, or foolish. She doesn't even try to tell her that all this destruction will be Goliath's fault. Instead, she plays off of young Demona's love for Goliath, blaming the humans for what has happened to him. But it's not like the humans are the only ones old Demona blames in her own head right now. Goliath is clearly there. "Do not share it with....do not share it!"

So my question is, why does Demona do this? Is she certain that, knowing how she herself thought 1000 years ago, her younger self would never turn away from Goliath? Or is it that Demona's plan is to use her past self's own "foolish trust" in Goliath to serve her own ends?

Jon writes...

Well, now that I've posted once... :)

After reading your ramble on Vows, I wanted to comment a bit about it. It is an excellent episode, and one of the things I noticed is that Goliath sure gets the crud beat out of him in this one, first by Xanatos at the Golden Cup, and then by Demona after he barges in on her reunion with her younger self. Both animation sequences showed Goliath bleeding from the mouth after various blows. For some reason, that just awed me (and still does). This is a cartoon where the "hero" gets hurt!! I was always ridiulously amazed and pleased by this, maybe because it is so unusual to have that level of maturity and realism incorporated into a cartoon.

The animation sequence where Goliath and Demona are flying down to the watch the wedding is just terrific, really gives a sense of the power of movement of the gargoyles.

I never thought about Demona's overly excited greeting to Goliath that we see at the beginning and end of the episode was because she was just shook up about the encounter with the future Goliath. Very sophisticated.

I was always very amused at the concept of Goliath as Best Man for Xanatos. Not only is it ironic given their history, it's just funny to see Goliath in a role that is so "human".

I had a few questions, too:
1) The older Demona tells her younger self "Do not share it [the Gate] with... Do not share it!" Who did she mean her younger self shouldn't share it with? You may have said this before, sorry if I missed it.

2) Was the scene where Owen offers Goliath a bow tie cut during production (you mentioned it in the memo, but, unfortunately, it's not in the show)?

3) Did the younger Demona have any reservations about stealing the Gate? I'm still a bit shocked that the she stole it so willingly. While I know that this sort of foreshadows her personality to come, I'm still surprised she didn't have a bit more moral fiber at the time. Maybe she was living in fear of what the arch mage would do to her if she failed? Or perhaps she just didn't place any value in the trinkets or possessions of the worthless humans?

4) Was Demona's abuse by the Arch-mage intended to be a primary motivation for her general hatred towards humans? Early in her life she was mistreated by a cruel human that was more powerful than herself, and her self-loathing at carrying out his evil little errands could very easily have created a guilt cycle that resulted in a desire to kill ALL humans, as sort of a payback for what the Arch-mage did. All of which was compounded multifold by the events of the massacre, but still, her early suspicion/dislike of humans could have stemmed solely or at least primarily from the abuse of the Arch-mage. Ok, I'll stop trying to psychoanalyze Demona. But she's so FASCINATING....

Thanks!