Allen writes...

So...time travel.

It appeared that time travel on Earth-16 operated on the ability to change the past and create a new timeline. We've seen that with Bart, where the timeline changed as a result.

However, with Klarion, we see that his shenanigans throughout the timeline have always been a part of it. The bus was always seen throughout the years and didn't change anything (we know this because we saw the bus all the way in season 1).

This seems to create two types of time travel that cannot co-exist: a) you can change the past and create a whole new timeline and b) you can't change the past and any time travel you do is already part of the timeline.

So my question is, which is it? Can you change the past with time travel or not?

walkie writes...

I have a couple of YJ time travel related questions that may or may not run afoul of being spoilers.

1. When Neutron changed to being healthy and not having a collar at the end of 2x06, did he get the memories that he would have had in the new reality Bart created when he asked why it didn't all change? Or will he get those memories over time?

2. Why was he there in that moment? What reason would he have for being there if him sending Bart back was no longer necessary? Or does time travel work in the sense that it only takes hold from the moment someone travelled back from?

3. Was that new future itself transitive, ie did it result from only what Bart changed so far (as of the end of 2x06) and not take in what Bart would change later in the season? Or was the destroyed Mount Justice a direct sign that it didn't, as that happened later in 2x09?

4. This will probably get no spoilers, but if its the latter from Q3 and the destroyed Mount Justice is from 2x09, then does that mean that Neutron's judgement that nothing else changed could be (not is) wrong?

5. Once again, this will likely get no spoilers, but in the future that Bart is from can we assume the Light lost somehow against the Reach?

Thanks so much

3.

Graham T. writes...

Topic: Phoenix Gate and time travel to the future

In regards to Gargoyles 2198, we know the Phoenix Gate cannot allow someone to change the past as it is part of the history, but how would the Phoenix Gate and time travel work if someone from the present were to go to the future?

During planning, were there problems with figuring out how Brooklyn's presence in 2198 would relate to his "historical self" (either "disappeared" when the Gate took him; the "historical Brooklyn" never time-travelled), or did you always have it in mind that time-travel to the future from the present was also immutable - Brooklyn factus erit iam illud (Brooklyn already shall have done that)?

P.S. I apologize in advance if my Latin is off.

Mr. Green writes...

Hello! I am a huge fan of your work. I was wondering, what would have happened if someone were to travel back in time, and keep Macbeth from saving Duncan from falling off the cliff in City of Stone Part Three?

Titus writes...

I found this on the GargsWiki http://gargwiki.net/File:Archmage%27s_time_loop.png

Did you do that? I still don't fully understand it. How did the loop start? Did the future mage pop out of thin air?

Entropy writes...

Hey Greg, I thought I'd bring up a paradox I thought of regarding YJ, not to criticize the show (I loved the show) but just for fun:

Okay so let's suppose for the sake of discussion that Impulse went back into the past solely to prevent Blue Beetle from going rogue (whether or not this was his only reason remains to be seen). So the reach fails their plan and everything is good. But, we know impulse went back into the past from a dystopic future to prevent said future from ever happening. Now let's say Impulse is able to stop the future from happening. Regardless of whether he can go back to the future or not, the timeline is altered so that the future was never dystopic to begin with, not giving Impulse any reason to go into the past in the first place. What happens to the Impulse already in the past, does he "cease?" The rabbit hole goes deeper. With the future altered, Impulse doesn't go into the past to begin with. So there's no Impulse in the past to fix the dystopic future. So the future becomes dystopic again. So the universe is indetermined. It's in a superposition of states: Dystopic future or happy future. Impulse having to go into the past or not. This is simply a rewording of the grandfather paradox by the way. Let's suppose time travel is possible in the first place (it's not, it's forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics), the ramifications on the universe could be immense, or there could be none at all depending on how the The Young Justice universe works. Just wanted your thoughts on this. Thanks!

Corey writes...

Hello Greg,

My question deals with the mutability of time in the Gargoyles universe. The archives and TV series indictate that time loops are part of the timestream, there are no alternate timelines, and history cannot be changed (If I am missing anything or am being inaccurate, feel free to chastise me accordingly). However, I also remember you saying that the younger Demona could have acted differently then her future self, as could the non-Enhanced Archmage.

So then my question is if history is immutable due to the free actions of the characters or the mechanics of the universe (for want of a better term)? As you said in a previous post, freewill does not give you the ability to do whatever you want in any situation but that a character can strive for greater goals and independence (Please forgive my paraphrasing and or if I misunderstood). Characters like Demona, Xanatos, and the Archmage, knew (to varying extents) their future and (directly or indirectly) chose to act in such a way as to bring these outcomes about. If that is the case then, in theory, history could have been changed but, as it never was, it never can be. However, if reality is such that certain things must always happen as they are crucial to the integrity of the timestream, then freewill is illusory. Every action one takes will always lead them to an outcome they only believed they chose as they could not chose any other option. However, the former interpretation makes it so that, ironically, predestination is the product of life choices of living beings. If I am misunderstanding or letting my own opinions skew facts I apologize and thank you for your time.

Max writes...

Hey Greg! My question is in regards to the letters sent by Xanatos in Vows:
1. What details were included in the first letter? Did he just say "here is a coin" or were stock tips or other future knowledge included?
2. Who did young David think sent the letter? Could someone as intelligent as X really leave that alone for 20 years?
3. Are the letters constructs of the time stream or out of David's head? Did he read (or copy) the originals before traveling back in time?

NoOneSpecial writes...

Okay so I have to be REALLY careful about how I ask this question. If you cant understand my meaning then its probably my own fault and for that I'm sorry, but I thought this was a very interesting concept. It's about xanatos's letter to himself.
Here we go. So in Vows, Xanatos travels back in time and sends himself the coin that he will eventually use to amass his fortune. He also sends a letter that is to be delivered to himself twenty years after the coin which explains how he has to get the coin, which as he said in the episode he received that very letter a week before the wedding. So I guess the best way I can phrase this is, is that the EXACT same letter and by same I mean the same piece of paper. The way I see it that letter is over a thousand years old and must be pretty worn(unless of course it was carefully preserved). So when xanatos gets the letter, does he just send back the same one he got or copy the information on a new piece of paper and send that back instead? If its the first one then that piece of paper must keep accumulating age to it. He sends it once, its over a thousand years old. He sends it a second time, its another thousand years old, and so on. So the piece of paper could eventually become so worn that it would be either unreadable or destroyed. So does xanatos just make a new letter every time he gets it or send back the one he received? PS loved rain of ghosts, hope you get to make all nine books.

Because im Batman writes...

How is it possible that Impulse is still present in the 2016 timeline? he time-travelled to achieve an objective (i.e. stop the reach apocalypse) and with that objective achieved there wouldn't have been a reason for him to time-travel in the first place, thereby creating a paradox which would have erased impulse from the 2016 time line and placed him back in his own 'altered' timeline (where the reach apocalypse was prevented). Time travelling gives me a headache :(

Anonymous writes...

Since the concept of time travel has been introduced I was wondered if you view time travel as more of a circular thing (events that repeat themselves and are unchangeable) or more like J.J. Abrams Star Trek where time travel creates an alternate reality?

Rob In Chicago writes...

Hey Greg,

Once again, you and your team are incredible. Each new episode of YJ is better than the last. I'm sure that you are bummed about the unscheduled hiatus, but I (and I'm sure everybody else who has followed you since Gargoyles) will be there Jan 5th, feeling like it is Christmas morning. Perhaps absence will make the heart grow fonder. But enough of the propers, as I've had a question that I've been wanting to ask you for months.

1) Have you seen Looper? If not I STRONGLY suggest that you do. I would imagine it is right up your ally.

2) If so, I wanted to hear your take on the time travel aspects. How does its interpretation of multi-verse/multiple timelines mesh with your working theory on Gargoyles. You have talked at length about working vs non-working paradoxes. As the movie suggests, "I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws." So, let's face it, it isn't an exact science.

2)Obviously, it doesn't hold true to your interpretation, based on the ending (I'm not going to spoil it for anyone here), but do you think that it implies a working or non working paradox? If you see it and are like "WTF?", there is a great piece online, where they actually lay it out with straws that I would suggest.

Just wanted to see if you had checked it out and get your spin.

Thanks once more to you and your team (and The Team) for Young Justice. I have a feeling that it is going to come back to serious fanfare and you'll be answering questions about Bibbo's blood type for years to come. At least I hope so.

Happy New Year! I know this next one will be a big one for you!

P.S. You teased something about Gargoyles a few weeks ago... anything? Just a tiny taste? A morsal for a long time fan?

JAC writes...

To elaborate on my last post...if you go back & change something, then there would be no reason to go back, therefore you never did, and nothing changes...ie. Bart would have to have been from a future in which Impulse had already arrived from the future 40 years ago, and the changes he made would be a part of his own.
history.
I swear, its not as complicated as it sounds.

MacLeod writes...

Hey Greg,

Ok so in Gargoyles the Archmage fell into that chasm in 984 and was supposed to die, but didn't. How was it possible for him to save himself? I understand the "future Archmage" came and saved himself in 984, but the Archmage from 984 must have conjured his future incarnation to begin with while he was falling down that chasm, I'm I close? Thanks!!!

Anonymous writes...

Greg: "The Archmage's ENTIRE LOOP was part of the timestream. [..]

The Archmage NEVER died in that cavern. In ANY incarnation.

[...] it's a WORKING paradox. It does have logic. I did a panel on this at a Gathering once, and it's easier to explain with a chalkboard. But it works. Trust me."

If he never died in the cavern then how did the time loop begin? Just out of the blue future archmage shows up to save his past self? Isn't that Deus Ex Machina?

I'm not trying to provoke you or anything, I just really wish to understand this paradox, especially the part that makes it work. Would it be too much to ask you to doodle that panel and upload it to GargWiki or something? I CAN'T be the only one not understanding this...

Jurgan writes...

"Xander writes...

Can you tell us who was the first (a) person, (b) being and (c) entity to figure out how to work the Phoenix Gate?
Greg responds...

Yes, I can."

Really, you can? I wouldn't think the term "first" could apply to the Phoenix Gate. And I'm not even being sarcastic (well, maybe just a little), but how can something in an infinite loop ever be said to have a beginning or end? Perhaps there's an earliest time it appeared, but odds are it was taken there by someone else, who may have taught this "earliest" person how to use it- in which case, could (s)he really be said to be the first person to have used it? I'm interested in this- do you think of there being a beginning to something like the Phoenix Gate? Or am I just reading way too much into an off-the-cuff smartass remark?

Anonymous writes...

I’d like a clarification on the only thing I don’t understand about Gargoyles: Archmage’s time loop.

So, the Archmage didn’t die when he plunged down the chasm because he was saved by his future self, thus changing his inevitable outcome: death. But, the future Archmage could not have travelled back in time to save his past-self in the first place unless the latter had survived naturally, only to age and get the talismans and then travel back and begin the loop. The future Archmage saving his past-self from certain death doesn’t go against the show’s premise of time being immutable? The future Archmage could not have saved his past-self without changing history...

Is this confusing? So is this paradox, but even paradoxes make sense when they adhere to an internal logic, but I can’t find this one. A clarification would make wonders for the throbbing headaches this time loop gives me.

Thanks.

Vaevictis Asmadi writes...

Greg:
In response to Matthew and also to your answer earlier concerning "All You Zombies," doesn't changing what he did (let alone preventing his own birth) also change history? It is part of the past that the character said certain words in a certain order, and not other words. If he chooses to change the words, he must change history also. Isn't this true of Demona in Vows as well? But in Gargoyles, history cannot be changed.

The reason I focused on whether or not the character remembers the words spoken to their past selves is this: when Demona shows up with the Phoenix Gate, the events of her encounter with herself have not actually happened yet. So they appear not to be predetermined. But she remembers what she her future self said to her when she was on the receiving end, and she remembers watching her future self kick Goliath. The events are already in her memory, and therefore part of the history she has already participated in. If she remembers the events, then either her memories are wrong (and were wrong all along) or else the events were part of history. The other possibility I can think of is that when she went back in time, she temporarily forgot her previous encounter with her future self and was free to make it up from scratch.

What I don't follow is how she (or Heinlein's protagonist) can choose not to play along without altering history.

Matthew writes...

In an earlier post the discussion was about Robert Heinlein's "All You Zombies..." and whether the protagonist had free will or was predestined to carry out his actions in the story. You said he could have chosen to do otherwise. I agree, but I'd like to point out that it wasn't much of choice. If he did not he would not have been born. So whether not he had free will, he had to do what he did to ensure his own existence.

Vaevictis Asmadi writes...

I read "All You Zombies" by Heinlein a while ago, based on your recommendation that it demonstrated working paradoxes in time travel, and although it was not recent I decided to finally type up and share what I thought from reading it. First of all, the story creeped me out!

But what I'm writing to you about is free will. Did the main character of that story have free will? On the surface at least, it appears to me that he did not for much of the story. He clearly remembered everything that had happened to him, yet he did not have to option not to seduce himself, or not to catch take past self back in the time machine, nor could he choose to change what he said and did in that bar when he was the bartender. When interacting with his past self, I think he had no choice but to say and do exactly what he remembered seeing his future self doing and hearing his future self saying.

He did have options regarding abducting the baby, mainly because he didn't remember being abducted, but one way or another he had to abduct that baby or get someone else to abduct her: he only had options in how he did it. This is comparable to Goliath time-travelling with Griff in M.I.A. Goliath could not possibly get Griff back to his clan in the 1940s, but he had plenty of options of what he could do instead. In that situation Goliath had far more options than the character in "All You Zombies" had when abducting the baby, but still this is a situation with free will.

But what options does a character really have when meeting their past self, if they DO remember the entire encounter? This is apparently what happened to Demona in Vows. She remembered Goliath's "little speech" (or maybe she was lying to him or to herself, but let's assume she was telling the truth this time) and so she must have remembered what her future self said and did. Does that mean she had no free will to change the encounter with her past self when she went back in time? For example, did she really have free will to change what words she said, or not to kick Goliath? It appears to me that this is a situation where she didn't have free will. When the Archmage(+) told his past self that the future is a place of science, not superstition, and that Demona and Macbeth were only "cannon fodder" he couldn't even have understood what he was saying, let alone invented it himself. In fact his entire bizarre mini-timedance seems to abrogate his free will, because as he said "I should (know what to do), I watched you do it."

Demona's PAST self certainly had free will in Vows, since she did not yet remember the encounter. Likewise, the Archmage clearly had free will during his first pass through his time loop. I would think that any time a character is in a stable time loop, they have free will as long as they are unaware of what "already happened." But when they do remember what happened because their past self is there at the scene, they don't have the option to change what already happened. They already KNOW what happened. If they already know what words they spoke to their past self, then those words are something they remember, not something they are thinking up freely, and they don’t have the option of saying anything different from what they remember.

Am I missing something?

Brian Bartoccini writes...

Hello Mr. Weisman it is me again; 3 days ago I saw Avalon, they are very exiting and interesting episodes but I don't understand how the Archmage survived after the battle in "Long away to morning", can you explain that to me in detail?
Well, I hope again my english it is understandable.
Goodbye Mr. Weisman

Dan writes...

Hi Greg. Wanna thank you for doing Ask Greg, so few people are willing to take time to discuss their series like this (and I enjoy reading the Gathering write-ups you do). If only Invasion America got that treatment... Books never finished the series. I digress. I have two questions I was hoping you could answer.

1. Since the phoenix gate has a cyclical existence throughout history, it only goes so far back in time and only up to a certain date in the future (which would be whenever Brooklyn was leaving the latest date he traveled to I suppose). Is there a reason that the gate is constricted to a specific time range?

2. While Brooklyn traveled to times in his future did he try to avoid learning about events that affected his clan? After returning home it might be kind of awkward to know exactly how your friends will die and what events will claim them...

Thanks.

Loralee Dawson writes...

OK In the episode Vows, Xanatos says he is a 'self made man' and shows how he sent himself the money. Then how he got a letter 20 years later on how he did it and to re-do it ect. But how did it happen ORIGINALLY. Like the 1st time wouldn't he of been poor. And never of been able to awake the Gargoyles in the 1st place?

Danny Dyche writes...

My view about time travel isn't the same as what "Gargoyles" uses. I think it's more likely that going back in time creates a new universe independent from the original, with no need to account for causality paradoxes. Still, despite this and a mild annoyance at the "jalapena" thing, I rather like the series and hope you get to tell all of your remaining stories.

Jen writes...

In the episode Vows, why does Demona bother trying to change what her younger self did to prevent the massacre? You cannot change history, so I don't understand her motivation. You could say she didn't know that rule but I would expect that a soceress that has lived for over a thousand years would know that.

Also she would have remembered everything that happened to her when she was younger (though maybe her memory would be rusty after a 1000 years but she does tell Goliath that she remembers her speech) so what would be the logic and motivation for her to go into the past if she knows she failed and act exactly how she remembered and FAIL like she remembered. Did she only go because she had to go because she remembered it happening? The whole time being fixed says she had to go to remember failing, but that still doesn't explain her motivation for doing something she knew wouldn't work out. Or perhaps her motivation was to see herself as innocent again? To remember why she did what she did at the last wedding she attended with Goliath? Agh...this turns into a big wouldn't one cancel out the other and get all confusing thing...

Also considering that Demona is a thousand years old, what did she do for all that time? The some of it is shown in the episodes, but nothing really after the whole hunter thing and macbeth, and that was a long time ago. Wouldn't a thousand years be enough time for her to travel around the world and find other clans so she would not have ended up so alone?

Also really old characters always bother me. I know you cannot assume that wisdom comes with great age, but I wonder how someone could live that long and not really mature at all? I guess that adds to the insanity, that everything else changes and you don't so that would add to her whole "alone" complex and anger.

Heh sorry for the long question/ramble...

Lisa writes...

First of all, I love Gargoyles, and still watch them to this day. I've been watching since it was aired, and I'll be watching my tapes until the day I die. Anyways, I've never really understood the episode M.I.A. Una and Leo recognize Goliath when he arrives, but Goliath has no idea who they are. Goliath then uses the Phoenix Gate to travel back in time to try and save Griff, and figure out what is going on. Goliath saves Griff, brings him back to the 1990's, and all is well. Goliath then tells Elisa that he 'first had to travel back in time to meet them' (Una and Leo). But I don't understand. Supposedly, he was frozen in stone when he met Griff, Una and Leo. So how would they (Una and leo) have known him? It doesn't make sense. If you could explain, it would be much appreciated. Thanks!

David Olsen writes...

I'm pleased to see that you would take time, out of what must assuredly be a busy schedule of yours, to answer fans questions via the internet. I don't know of any other creators of television shows who do that.

I've checked the archives (though not absolutely thoroughly; so much information is rather intimidating to sort through) and I believe I might have a question no one has asked yet. In regards to the mechanics of the Phoenix gate, a ball of flame usually engulfs the user and those with him. However, in "Past Tense" Goliath creates the flame away from him to send the Phoenix Gate through without going through time and space himself. So, can the user of the Phoenix Gate always cause time/space vortices (for lack of a better term) external to himself? Or must the Phoenix Gate always go through the flaming sphere if travelers are to be transported elsewhere?

I realize you won't get to this question for about 2 more years. Maybe a DVD will be out by then.

Fan o' Gargoyles writes...

Hey Greg, its me again, I got a question for you I keep forgeting to ask. (Hope you can answer it)

the Gargoyles were completly devistaded by the loss of there clan in 994, so why didnt they try to go back in time and try to erase that event once they obtained the phenox gate?

I know the past is hard to change but it is possible (they did it with Griff)

Well, i was just courious thanx for trying to answer

Joshua P. Christie writes...

Hi Greg- first time posting but a well educated fan of the show. I am now in the process of showing the series to my girlfriend and she recently posed a question following 'M.I.A.' that even I cannot justify or find an answer for. Question being, if Goliath is able to utilize the Phoenix Gate to return to the past and save Griff by bringing him to the present day, then why is it he cannot use the Gate to return to Scotland prior to the slaughter of the clan and bring them into the present where they may be alive with the remaining gargoyles?

Now I have exhausted the archives and I realize that this question has been asked before although not in this exact scenario. Problem is that people are writing essays on the subject in rough draft form and thus their respective points, along with your answers/explanations, are lost to me.

Now, knowing full well that history cannot be altered, the closest thing to an answer I found was you citing that Goliath did not in fact change the past but rather fulfilled it. To the effect of Leo and Una having recognized Goliath from 1940 demonstrates it was not anybody elses history being altered but rather Goliath playing out his role in something that already had happened TO HIM.

Armed with that, it still makes no logical sense to me. First off, if Goliath had in fact saved Griff once before, why did he have no recollection of him, the war, Una, or Leo? Also, in 1940, wasn't Goliath still in stone sleep as
Xanatos had not yet found them and broke the spell? If that is the case, how could have Goliath ever been there to fight alongside Griff in the first place?

Perhaps the answer is that the line between altering the past and fulfilling it is a fine one given all of the intricacies of time travel. Anything you might wish to
expound on this matter would be of great appreciation Greg.

RAMpage writes...

In Avalon Part 3(I think) after the, shall we say, "newer" Archmage uses the Phoenix Gate to travel back in time to get... well, himself, the "older" Archmage says something along the lines of " I thought he would never leave" then promptly goes off to face Goliath and the others alone only to fail. If the whole point of getting his doppelganger was to attack en force to take over Avalon, why did he do the final battle alone? Also, when the Archmage returned with himself, did he ever wonder where his older self had gone to?

Cha-Cha writes...

Seline: "Are you mad? The Eye and the Gate were forged on the island..."
--Avalon: Part Two

Who forged the Gate? Were they human or one of the children?

Vanity writes...

Time Travel Question/Fate vs. Free will

1. Time flows in one direction. To travel back is merely to go on the bank run up stream and jump in up there. No matter what you do though, you will flow down stream back to the point where you were when you got out. You will see the same trees and scenery as you did previously. The river will not change that. I think that is a fitting anology, after all historical events are just scenery. They only act as landmarkers.

1-B: That being said I see that where ever you decided to get out of the river on to the bank. (Which as far as I am concerned is mostly impossible do to the force of the water and steepness of the bank. Not that somebody will not be able or has not been able to do it). But once you jump back in you will have in effect stopped the river. It can no longer push beyond the point of where you got out. Because the bank is where the scenery is and once you jump out you become the scenery for however long you wait or far as you run upstream. So every time you flow back to that point where you had gotten out you will have to get out again, as that was the scenery and now will always be the scenery for that duration of the river bank. Others may or may not know you got out and their lives would go on only untill you jumped in because the river never revealed anything up to the point past the duration of however long you had remained on the bank. The longer you stayed on the bank the longer everyone else lives thier future. And vice versa. (Do you accept my assertions so far)?

2- Free will, I will continue to use the above anology; is in action up to the time that you get out of the stream and then jump back in upstream. You decided when to do it. But once you have you kill free will. No longer do you decide to do it. You have to because you did. Everybody in the river looses thier free will, they can no longer choose to do or not do anything, they have to do it, or not because they did or didn't.

2-B Fate-Pre-destination or fore ordainment of events. Is not a polar opposite to free will. (Would you agree so far)? If God, a god, gods, or Gods decided to plant a shrub or build a structure a set of scenery 300 miles upstream. It does not affect your free will. You will see it once you get there, because it is there. You didn't put it there but not because you were destined not to do it but because the Gods put it there. You had nothing to do with that. The scenery's free will is in question. If Gods put it there before the river flowed down to that point we would say that that scenery was destined to be seen. But in effect even out own scenery will be destined to be seen by any who look at it. Because it will be there because we will place it there because we put it there. The question of free will is not at issue, it is a prophesy "This is what you will do", choose to do whatever you want but you will still do this becuase you will because eventually you did. You didn't know you did but the Gods knew you did they divert the rivers they watch them, they do because the did and alway have. After the river runs its course it starts again, and the Gods watched and they saw and still see because the river of time flowed and will continue to flow because it did and will always do.

3- Can multiple persons travel back in time at different times in the river? Of course but only depending on the duration of the time that the first person who jumped out stayed out. And if you were able to get out of the river whilst the person before you was able to jump back in. Ultimatley the first one to jump back in destroyed free will. But the latter has a chance to make the former(s) mysteriously vanish.
---If you get out of the river on to the bank before I do but I jump in before you do, not as far upstream as you, then you will forever be gone to the people after you climbed on the bank. YOU NEVER GOT IN THE RIVER, AND YOU WON'T EVER GET IN BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T.--"unless by the grace of thier tender mercies the Gods are with you"

- Just remember that, if you ever go time traveling -;)

I want to say that I very much love the way time travel worked on Gargoyles. It was definatley very unique and I absolutely love that. You have said you wanted strict rules for time travel. And as far as I can remember Gargoyles never betrayed the basic guidlines for time travel that were made evident in earlier episodes.

There are however things that bug me about M.I.A. Goliath was there in WWII Britain before he was awaken from stone hybernation. Goliath says something to the affect that their (Una and Leo's) memories of him where accurate he just hadn't lived them yet. And he saved Griff, who wasn't saved, because he hadn't been, because he died and will have died because he is dead, yet will have been saved because he had will be, by Goliath. (whew). Is this like the Gods just planting some scenery on the bank, regardless of what else was going to happen on the banks of the river? (I hope you understood my anology enough to answer this). If the answer is yes then that would mean that as I suspect Goliath's free will was not tampered with, even though he was lead to believe, by Leo and Una; that it might well have been. Is this also a correct assumption?

Vanity writes...

Besides watching "City of Stone" all of it I also watched "The Mirror" and "Vows". Hey it's Saturday.

I want to talk/ask about Vows.

I have read the archives about Time Travel and you said about the Archmage saving himself, that even then how did he know Macbeth? His older self told him. How did HE know? HIS older self told HIM. and so on. I however am still troubled with this. Here is my thougts.

Demona said that she had clear recollection of Goliath's inspirational speech. But shouldn't she have already had them, after all, in 975 she had gotten a visit from her future self and Goliath, we saw him tell her. Why did it take her the going back to remeber it. It already happened in 975, she was there. And the events in 994 may not have happened at all if she hadn't of gotten the visit from herself in 975. Her trying to rid Wyvern of humans was an attempt to avoid the prophesy she had gotten in 975. But for her to go back to 975 would most likely not have been possible if the events in 994 didn't unfold as they had.
**note and don't tell me that she didn't remember because it was the first cycle** (see below) I know she wouldn't remember it on the first cycle but...I'll explain it below

Hudson visisted with the future Goliath in 975 so he knew what would happen that would put him back in 975. He should have had memories of Goliath holding his mouth shut when Hudson was at the clocktower with the Trio, bronx, and Elisa.

And the First time it ever happened it would be brand new memories. He would have been telling the trio and Elisa "Wait I see him, he says he's from the future. I don't remeber this before". Because the first time it happened he wasn't visited from the future because Goliath wasn't there yet, and Xanatos hadn't got his coin yet because the very first time it happened he wasn't around to go back in to 975 to get the coin. Without Xanatos' money Goliath would be a statue. Thus never being able to give Demona his half of the gate, thus she could never have went back to set the stage for it all to happen again, by creating not only another gate but the motivation for it to be split and shared between herself and her lover, Goliath.

So I guess there could have never been a first time. The closest we can get to is the second or third time. I would have to think about it the second time may not be possible either because it would have required Demona to travel back to 975 AD and to do that she would have needed the Phoenix Gate which was broken in half and forever intombed with Goliath as stone. I summize the earliest one we can get to is the third cycle of course the old 'ad infintum' principle could be applied. I won't apply it because it would make the whole garg universe stall. Time would go on nations would rise and fall, but Goliath would not be ressurected by the same guy, in the same manner, with same manipulative reasons, and probably not on the same day, year, month, so on and so forth. And whoever that lifted the spell would most likely not be Xanatos and may not wish to go back into time anyway. And even if he had would Demona want to, she's the only one who know's the incantation.

So the third cycle of time minus 'ad infinitum' is the closest thing we can get to the very first time.

What do you think? Do you follow me? Do you want to?

My thought on the episode though:

Animation was probably the worst up to this point.

Check out the Gate in grows and shrinks unrestrainably,

Demona dissapears magically at the end of the episode when Goliath glides away. One second she's bitching him out next second she's gone, solid gone.

Also Demona's eyes are open on second and close the next (as if blinking, or awake) when Goliath is carrying her after the climax of the fight scene.

One thing to help redeem it, is that the ending of the show was the same as the begining where Demona calls "My love, you're here", and embraces him, it is different. When she sees him as stone in 994 and comes to him in 975; as opposed to the preceding cycle (the flashback) when she hadn't yet visisted herself in 975 to show her 994 to return to 975. She hugs him a little more vigorously, passionately, and I think that was too cool. It would have been easy just to re-shoot the first flashback. Great work!!

That will end this post I am getting sleepy.
Again Greg thanks for listening, I appreciate it.

Vanit~~

gargoyle fan writes...

hey greg i have been wondering about demona lately so here are my questions

1.In the episode city of stone why did't demona stay in wyvern was in it much safer then in a cave or it it would bring to much painful memories

2.I notice that in city of stone in the cave where demona and her clan lived there was a beach behide it so i am wondering since castle wyvern was next to a beach was the cave near wyvern

3.does demona approve of angla's relationship with broadway

4. in vows why did't demona use the phenoix gate to stop
the death of her clan

Cha-Cha writes...

Can the Phenix Gate be used to go foward in time into the future??

matt writes...

in "Vows" Xanatos says a line and i'm not sure how/what he means with it?

does he say "Time travels funny that way." meaning that time is traveling funny or does he say "Time travel's funny that way." meaning that time travel itself is funny that way? does that make sense? i keep reading over it and i think it makes sense...

anyway, kinda a pointless question, but one i've been wanting to ask for a while now...

but on a related note, right before Xanatos says that, Goliath says he wishes he could leave Xanatos in that time and Xanatos says "You won't, because you didn't..." how did Xanatos know that? Goliath could've very well left Xanatos there and that may have been what always happened! you could say, Xanatos would've sent a letter to the Illuminati warning himself of his fate or some excuse like that, but as we've seen in "MIA" that letter would've been lost or something and all his ways of warning himself would've fallen through cuz the point is he did end up in Goliaths time and if he warned himself it would have created a paradox! so, there is no way Xanatos would have known for sure that Goliath wouldn't leave him there. was he saying that to Goliath to kinda trick Goliath into thinking that he had to bring him home or something, or was Xanatos just being confident and egotistical of his abilities to have a plan all worked out?

i hope all parts of this post make sense to you. if they don't, i apologize, its late...

matt writes...

does the Phoinex Gate have limits on how far in time and space it can take you? i'm pretty sure you've said its limited to Earth, but how far back and forward can it go? can it take me to the time of the Dinosaurs or before that or to the time when the Earth is swallowed by our aging and expanding Sun? what are its limits if any?

zakhur writes...

Was the archemage influenced by someone, apart from his future self, to take the three talismans and his plans to take over avalon and the world? sorry if this is a weird question, but I was wondering about that for a long time

Kelly L Creighton/Kya White Sapphire writes...

Just got done reading the Greg Weisman section of the archives. Time for a LONG rant.

I wanted to tell you at the gathering, but I forgot. which angers me to no end, because i went on and on about this at work for months before i left for LA. in awakenings, elisa makes the number three on her hand. you said how odd it was that the japanese animation studio had her make three in that particular way, with the thumb, index and middle fingers. the reality is that thats the PROPER way in AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE to make the number three. they must have looked it up to see "how americans do it." what people usually do as three, with the thumb holding down the pinky, is actually "six" in sign language. and the thumb holding down the index finger is "nine" (with the middle being eight and the ring finger being seven.) a 'hitchikers thumb' is ten. :)

speaking of awakenings, the "nice mask" comment isnt in the "movie". i was mad. i pouted all night last night.

re: goliath and elisa needing help to have a child
technically, theyre closely related enough that they prolly could have a child. that child would not be fertile tho. a Stallion and a female donky can have a hinny, a Mare and a male donky can have a mule, but neither a mule nor a hinny can have offspring. though, in your book, a garg and a human may be way farther from eachother than a donkey and a horse. despite the fact that donkeys and horses arent nearly as related as they look.

I know you dont think this way, but humor me for a second. if you were an animal, what would you be? Tore (my fiancee) would be a polarbear. he likes red meat. he likes the cold. he LOOKS like a polarbear, even when hes not overweight. he acts like one. people give him the respect of one. and he's all white collar(fur) on the surface, and blends in with the crowd(snow) but underneath hes jet black(covered in tattoos, a closet freak ;P) it took a long LONG time to find an animal for me. im nocturnal. im cute. im mostly herbiverous, but not completely. i like florida's hot and muggy weather. i sleep a lot. we went through many rodent and lemur species before settling on flying squirrel.

on the topic of what names mean (oh wise one :) my full name is Kelly Leigh Creighton. Kelly started as a gaelic name, i think spelled calleach, pronounced ka-LEE-ack(phlem sound here). Then the irish clan the O'Kellys took the name. and they were a big factor in the liberation of ireland. so it became fashionable to name boys Kelly. then in 1958 i believe, there was an actress named Kelly. so it became okay to name girls kelly. which is more the case now. anyway, Kelly means "warrior of the king" or "female warrior" Leigh is an english word still used today (in britan) which means "meadow". my last name, Creighton, started as a scottish name, and then spread to england and ireland, where it took many diversion such as Crichton, etc. my family roots have been traced to scotland. it means "near the creek." so fully, my name means "Female warrior of the King, in the meadow near the creek." i always wonder if i will find a meadow near a creek with some unmarked grave in it or something.

along the same track, have you seen the gargoyles code? its a long string of letters and symbols that, if you know how to read them, describes one's character. part of the code is for real life, and asks how obsessed you are. the maximum obsession is defined by one who would be willing to be a test subject for a mutagen that might make them a gargoyle. im one of those silly people. are you? doubt it... (thats not meant to be offensive, i just doubt youre that kind of person :)

at the gathering, while talking about all the spinoffs, specifically i think you were talking about 2198, you said "and its really sad that im still working on this." actually, i dont think its sad at all. im pretty happy about it. because it really is something special. and we all believe in you. its pretty cool that youre as obsessed with your own shows as your fans.

i also recently learned that you dont drink, and think smoking is pretty haneous (sp?). that rules. its nice to see other people out there like that, not just in the fandom too. its really rare these days. not that i didnt respect you before, but i really respect that, and in a way, appreciate it.

i read about how you fell out of the bunkbed when you were little. that reminded me of my bunkbet gymnastics. i hate using the ladder, since i can never find it when im sleep walking. (i sleepwalk a LOT). so ive trained myself to grab the bar on the side of the bunk, or if there isnt one, the lip underneat the bunk, and flip over the side to land on the floor. thing is, if i lose my balance i land on the edge of the bunk below, instead of the floor, and wake whoever is sleeping there. usually, though, since im sleepwalking, i wont remember that i did it unless they confront me about it in the morning. so no guilt ;P

on sleepwaling: i have recently discovered that any time someone tells me im dreaming, i get very angry at them and insist im not, even if i am. i have instructed my parents (specifically my mom, my dad did it anyway because he thought it was funny) to just agree with me, pretend i make sense, and send be back off to bed. o_O

ive wanted to tell you about my religion for some time, but ive been a little nervous to, because its a touchy subject with some people. but after reading your views, i feel like i can at least give you a short version, and it shouldnt be too bad. basically i believe that there are an infinite number of universes, all connected by a void. everything is true, in some universe or another. and some things can travel thru the void into other universes. so basically all religions are true, because there are an infinite number of universes. i simply choose to pray to an alternate set of dieties than the normally accepted ones. which isnt to say i put any less faith in God or Budda (sp?), etc. I just choose not to pray to him/them. which i think this kind of falls into your beliefs anyway, since you belive in alternate universes, and that all things are true. which is basically what my religion preaches. so youre Raptorian and didnt even know it ;P

theres actually scientific evidence coming to light to support the "theory" of alternate universes. cold dark matter, morphic fields, time as a fourth dimension, the possible non-existance of time... its fascinating. this thing that i knew all along is now getting proved by science. basically, the theory of cold dark matter states that there is a force in the universe that is more powerful than gravity. but it only partially exists in this universe, so it is hard to see and study. and most of the force it exerts is exerted in another universe, so were not even getting the full effect. morphic feilds is the theory that everything in the universe is connected by lines of force. this explains why when an atom is split, and two electrons go zinging away from eachother at high speed, one can look at the north/south orientation of one electron and know that the other electron is the exact same. because they are connected. which is why dogs know when their owner is comming home, even if the spouse does not. which is why people can sometimes instinctively know that something is wrong with a loved one, even if miles away. why twins, if separated, can still sense what the other is doing, even if they dont have a twin. why sometimes we can predict the future, or get flashes from the past. morphic fields trancend even time. there is also a theory that states that time is the fourth dimension. basically, since were three dimensional creatures, we can see the EDGE of things in TWO dimensions (meaning you can see the edge of a planar surface), and we can COMPREHEND things in the THIRD dimension (you cant see the edge of a 3D object, a coke can for example, the edge curves away from you and you cant see it. technically, it has no edge). fourth dimensional beings could see our EDGE, and comprehend the fourth dimension. we, as 3d creatures, can only measure what we think is the passing of time. a two dimensional creature could only measure the third dimension. of course there is another theory, who's own creator admits that its just a neat theory he came up with and doenst actually believe in. he said that maybe time doesnt exist at all. maybe we think time passes, just like when we watch a movie we think the pictures are going by, but its just many still frames. as in there is an alternate universe for each second in time. and we only think there is motion because at each second, we have the memories of all the things that have passed before. its an interesting theory, but im more inclined to think of time as the fourth dimension.

anyway, im done rambling for the night. please feel free to comment as you see fit, or not at all :)

hbkholic writes...

What is the famous words used to activate the Phoenix Gate?

JEB writes...

If the past is fixed in the Gargoyles universe, how does that affect those that can see the future? Can they change something that has yet to happen or are any efforts they make futile?

Lexy writes...

Hey Greg!:)

Brooklyn TD's to 2198 so he knows some things that are going to occur. But by him being in that time line, and not gone TDing doesn't that change things? I guess with Goliath and Griff the events that had to occur did, they just came about in different ways, because Goliath was there to change things. Is this correct?

By the time Brooklyn returns from TDing would he be resigned to letting things happen as they would?
Just keep his mouth shut, and let things occur?
Or at least warn ppl if he felt it necessary?
(IE: They can't stop a bomb from dropping, but they can at least be prepared to deal with it, in the very least, emotionally?)

I hope this wasn't too messy..