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..

Lord Sloth writes...

Future Tense:
1 Why didn't Goliath just let Puck have the Phenix gate?
2 Why didn't Puck just ask for the Phenix gate?
3 What would be so bad about Oberon having time traval acsess?
4 How was Goliath able to create the phenix flame above him instead of around him?

Entity writes...

Hi Greg,

You refer to Demona and Macbeth as "foot-soldiers" in the context that the Weird Sisters used them for (or sought to use them for). Isn't that a bit of an under-title for them? Why go through all the trouble of obtaining Demona and Macbeth if only to use them as "grunts"? First off, isn't the entire purpose of foot-soldiers/grunts to have a lot of them? Merely two suggest specialization, and indeed, they seem to have been chosen because they were special. What was the Archmage's motivation behind obtaining these two in particular, and any two in general? Did he just not want to have to get his hands dirty with "menial" tasks? Did he want the ego boost of having underlings? Were Demona and Macbeth candidates because they were "the best" and therefore more of an go boost?

Jim R. writes...

Just watched "Vows" and I have some questions:
1. Demona breaks the Phoenix Gate in half to share it with Goliath. How is this possible? I would of thought the Gate, being forged on Avalon, would be indestructable since it is of pure magic. But how can a mortal such as Demona simply break it as if it were a cracker?
2. Stupid questions: Can the gate still work being broken in half? How much more can it be broken?
3. Does Goliath explain the whole situation to Hudson about how they turn to stone for a 1000 years, when Hudson first sees him after he has arrived from the future? I wouldn't think so, but I was thinking that Hudson might be a bit curious about Goliath's time-travel story. And Hudson, being a wise garg, would think twice as to whom this future Goliath could possibly be.
4. Why was castle Wyvern still burning when future Demona brought her past self to see what would become of their kind? Goliath and the rest of the gargs were already turned to stone to sleep for a 1000 years, and I would have thought that the castle fires would be out by then.

Justin writes...

Ok forgive me if this is confusing but this is the only way I could figure out how to word this question. You have mentioned that a Time Dancing Brooklyn would be a character in 2198. Now, since Brooklyn come home eventually, wouldn't a ver old Brooklyn also be present? or at least Nashville and Tachi? What I am asking is during his Time Dancing wouldn't Brooklyn encounter older versions of himself, Katana, Nashville and Tachi? Seeing as how they do come home, thus are a part of the timestream from 1996 on?

Thanks again!

Anonymous writes...

I know that you hate most of the time traveling in Star Trek so what did you think of that episode where Kirk goes back to WW2?

Axem Gold writes...

I know where the Phoenix Gate really came from. It came from the writer's of the Gargoyle Animated Series.

Anonymous writes...

Were you inspired in someway by Quantum Leap while making Timedancer?

Bruno writes...

Hi Greg,

There is some kind of 'End of Time' place in the Gargoyles Universe? A place that is out of the timestream.

Bruno writes...

Hi Greg,

Thoughts about time travel:

There is a little controversy about time travel vs. free will. If the past is unchangeable -and also the future, for consequence- then there is _no_ free will?

On the contrary; The events in the past can't be changed, but they WERE and ARE done by us. That's easy to guilt the others or the timestream, but, quoting Rorschach, from Watchmen:

"That's not God who kill the children, nor the chance who shred they, nor the destine who feed the dogs with they. They're us. Only us". (I'm translating to english from a translation to the portuguese. :-)

Plus, on the contrary of the common sense, change the past is not use free will, but kill it: Demona betrayed Wyvern. If she came back and change this, she should be obstructing her OWN free will. And her responsability, to boot. And responsability is one of the series' themes.

This is a paradox, but, with time travel, what else did you want? The unchangeable past universe IS the free will universe. :-)

Oh, well, now back to my time travel questions:

1- Roughly, when was the Phoenix Gate "created"? Meaning when it droped in Avalon, starting the time loop.

2- If the Phoenix Gate is a "steam valve" and it exists among two time points (??? or before and 2198 or after), what was the steam valve before the Gate? And after?

Ps. I just wanted to say that I fully understood the time loops in Vows, Avalon II and M.I.A. and I loved then. Vows and Avalon were amazing and smart, and M.I.A. was just too fun: Goliath couldn't change the history, but he was so smart that he could trick it! Great work.

Jim R. writes...

Greg,
I'm no physicist but your theories of time-travel are different than others that i've heard. I bet you've seen the "Back to the Future" trilogy, so why is it, that things Marty and the Doc did back in the past change the outcome of the future for them, because it was obvious that the past couldn't be altered until the Doc invented the time machine in the present so they could go back to the past. So the future they were familiar with when they were in the past was different when they finally came back into the future (present). (Say that ten times over...)

So, my point is, in Gargoyles, Goliath says "Time is like a river, unchanging in its course." Basically that says anything they did in the past using the Phoenix Gate did not effect the future at all? Which is confusing, because if I were to go back and save JFK, that would certainly alter the future for me and anyone else that came back with me...

On Star Trek they believe in infinite possibilies for every outcome and decision.
I know, I know...Just answer my question about the Gargoyles part. We would need Einstein to explain this quantum stuff. Hey, maybe I'll jump in my time machine and go get him. :)

matt writes...

Jim R., i think that Greg explained time travel pretty well and it makes sense to me. if you were to go back in time to save JFK one way or another you failed cuz JFK was assasinated! its like Xanatos said, "You won't, because you didn't. Time travels funny, that way." you wouldn,t succeed it saving JFK because you obviously didn't save him, he was killed despite what you would do. another example is "M.I.A." Goliath knew from meeting Leo and Una that Griff didn't come home that night so when he went back in time even if he did everything to keep Griff in his time something else would have happened. Griff would have been killed etc. time is like a river and any attempt to change it will end in failure because if history had been changed you would never had wanted to try and change it in the first place! does all this make sense?

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..."

The Mighty Thor writes...

That was an instereting explanition.

But what then is to distinguish between the world of choice and the world of fate

Say I go back in time and tell said driver to turn left instead of right, what then happens to the video of the right turn? Or does he still turn right?

What I really don't get is, Gargoyles "appears" to be a world of free choice. But the whole phinoex gate thing has shown that there is a predetermined way of things.
Call me crazy but doesn't it seem kinda pointless when no matter what you do the outcome will be the same?

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...)

The Mighty Thor writes...

Timeline:

Ok here goes nothing, the gargoyles timeline is uninterupted and no actions made by travelers from the past have and effect on the future because they are already part of the time line. Right? Right

This would then make the gargoyles world a fate based world. Because no decision could change the outcome of the future. Now call me crazy but doesn't that seem very out of place in this universe? I mean most of the characters choices come from another of the characters reminding them of their ability to choose between good and evil.
To say that Demona could not change after "Vows" just because she wasn't fated to.

Also, to have a fate means that there must be some higher power that writes everyone's fate and governs it. But with the introduction of Nokkar and the Space Spawn, the sphere of influence has widended to cover the entire universe!

While this sounds like ramble i actually do have a question.
Was this you intention? To have a world deviod of choice?

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)?

Ed writes...

'VOWS' - what an episode. So many twists, so much drama, and some brilliant comedy from the Xanatos family. The thing that always occurred to me when watching this is: who on earth in Shari Goodharz? She only wrote the one episode that I recall and yet this is one of my favourites, if not my favourite outright. And yet she never did anything else. I guess looking at your outline she had a lot of dialogue to work in but even so, it was pretty damn good.

Actually, it always seemed like quite an intense episode to put before a multi-part story. I didn't watch it in order properly until I knew the whole season ('CITY OF STONE' aired at the beginning of the season here in two back-to-back weekends: accompanied with some stunning preview adverts of Demona blasting the stone humans).

Just one reply:

You said…
"But the gate stays open long enough for him to go with. Did it ever occur to her to go somewhen else other than 994? I guess part of it could be chalked up to dim memory. It was over a thousand years ago. And Demona lived through that 1000 years. Even for a very significant event in her life, it must still be very hazy."

Apart from the shock factor of the castle still burning (in this episode) and Goliath in stone, I think this would have meant most to Demona. But another possible explanation is in your outline:
"But choosing requires incredible concentration. Otherwise, the chooser's emotional or mental whim of the moment may cause the gate to drop everyone off at Burger King instead of Fort Knox."

Seeing as how Demona claims to have a clear memory of Goliath's 'inspirational' presumably this is the thought that would have dragged her to 994.

I really like your explanation of the Gate's changing size as being due to its 'time valve' function. Was this something you ever planned to develop or at least mention out loud in the series? I guess we'd get some hints from what you've told us about 'TIMEDANCER' so far.

Vashkoda writes...

Time is immutable -now-, but there must have been a period when experimentation was possible, or else many of the tricks characters have used to take advantage of timetravel could never have happened (Goliath rescuing Griff after realizing he had already done so, or Xanatos knowing to send himself that coin). This period would include, for instance, the events that allowed the original Archmage to get his hands on the Gate and later go back and rescue himself, or the original Xanatos getting transported back in time with Goliath and Demona and -then- realizing that he could send himself a valuable coin in the future and make himself rich. We've never seen these events happen, and it seems in fact that they have been erased from the timeline and replaced with ever-repeating loops (the Archmage himself admitted that his plan would keep succeeding "as it did, as it must, as it always will"), that seem to have no origin.

So my question is, have you ever sat down and thought about the stories that explain the missing "origins" of these loops? Like how the original Archmage was able to get the Gate to save himself from the fall, or how Xanatos originally got rich without the coin (or how he lived if in fact he wasn't rich before the time-trip), or Goliath's encounter with the London clan before he could rescue Griff? I know that you don't like discussing the alternate universe presented in "Future Tense" because it was never more than an illusion, but the events in this missing period did in fact happen, even if they seem to have been erased from history. So if you have indeed given it any thought, could you tell us about what happened in this missing period in regards to the characters I've mentioned?