A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Medieval Characters

Archive Index


: « First : « 10 : Displaying #44 - #53 of 98 records. : 10 » : Last » :


Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : All :


Bookmark Link

TakariFreak writes...

Hopefully this has not been asked/answered before..Can't find it in the archives.

Why were the vikings attacking Castle Wyvern? Because they could? Or some other reason?

Just a side comment...until a few days ago, I had never known that Fang actually asks Goliath "How many gargoyles does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"!! Have I missed a lot!

Greg responds...

Plunder.

Response recorded on July 21, 2004

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

Here's my ramble on "Shadows of the Past".

First off, of course, this is where the Avalon World Tour begins (if you don't count the "Avalon" triptych), which makes it a biggie. I agree with you that the reruns in between the three instalments of it (which aired, as I recall, in November-December 1995, February 1996, and May 1996 - more or less) make the World Tour seem longer than it really was. (Incidentally, you're right that you were able to bring out more than 18 episodes of "Gargoyles" in the September-December period; I remembered that the "fall run" ended with "Grief", and so worked out that it was 30 new episodes during that period).

As I mentioned before, I enjoyed the Avalon World Tour, and agree with you that something like that was necessary for the series at some point (especially in bringing in enough other gargoyles to make it feasible for the species to survive and recover - as I've mentioned here before, something along the lines of the World Tour was probably the only realistic way for Goliath to discover that there were gargoyles left in other parts of the world, given that he couldn't simply hop on board the next flight from New York to London or Japan).

Angela's correct (from the original legends perspective) about it always being summer on Avalon; in fact, I remember that the old Welsh legends about Avalon (or, more accurately, its "literary predecessors") called it the Summer Country or the Region of the Summer Stars.

In hindsight from "Vendettas", I picked up on the significance of that axe that Goliath unearths - and agree with you now that Hakon's mace from the Wyvern Massacre would indeed have worked better. Too late for that now, though.

I also liked that line (which I considered very poetic) of Elisa's about "old wounds".

The Captain and Hakon's tormenting of Goliath was very effective - probably the creepiest part, in my opinion, was when Angela and Elisa appear in Goliath's eyes to be the Captain and Hakon - but then we hear Angela and Elisa's voices coming from the Captain and Hakon's mouths.

The Captain of the Guard's change of heart worked for me (again, I especially liked the bit that you mentioned where he's looking troubledly at his hands as he and Hakon solidify). In fact, it made sense in view of his role in "Awakening" - he'd never wanted the clan massacred, and was horrified as to how that had gone wrong. I might add that Hakon showed, again, just how creepy he is when he gets into the fight with Goliath and begins laughing as his fists pass through Goliath - the reason for that being now, not that Hakon's insubstantial and Goliath solid, but the other way around.

Incidentally, the Captain actually appears better-looking in the scene where he's giving Goliath his thanks, just before he ascends.

And I'll confess that I'm one of those who would have preferred Hakon to have remained trapped in the cave for all time - I felt, when "Vendettas" aired, that it destroyed some of the effectiveness, in retrospect, of Hakon's sentence: trapped alone for eternity, with nobody at hand for him to hate. (Also, "Vendettas" felt anticlimactic on the Hakon front; in "Shadows of the Past", he battles Goliath by skillfully undermining him with a lot of psychological subtlety; in "Vendettas", he's reduced to simply fighting him in a slugfest with a big dumb werewolf - though don't tell Wolf that I called him that. :) ). But I do think that you made a good point about how, ultimately, Hakon would have to be given more permanent resolution than just that.

Incidentally, your treatment of the megalith that the Captain and Hakon were using, and your comments on it, make me wonder now how you would have handled Stonehenge if you'd ever gotten to do an episode involving it (especially since you mentioned having had plans to send King Arthur and Griff there during their quest for Merlin) - a pity that we may never know the answer to that now.

Greg responds...

*I think it's appropriate that as the Captain is (in essence) redeemed and "ascends", that he is beatified a bit.

*I get what you're saying about Hakon, certainly. And yet, I really like "Vendettas" and hardly think that Hakon's post-Vendettas fate is likely to be any kinder than his post-Shadows fate. And although Hakon was the series' first big villain, he was hardly the most impressive of our villainous creations.

But, let's be honest, I just couldn't resist giving Clancy Brown the opportunity for a David Warner-esque tour de force performance. I'm sure I'll get into this topic more when (some day) I get around to rambling on Vendettas, but I think Clancy's double duty in Vendettas is perhaps even more impressive than what Warner did -- (a) because Clancy did what he did with a then amateur voice director (i.e. me) and (b) because the two characters he was playing (Wolf & Hakon) allowed for much less subtlty than Warner's two Archmages. (This of course, is not designed to take any credit away from the brilliant David Warner, simply to give Clancy his just desserts as well. And speaking of Clancy, he does a great Mr. Freeze in the new "The Batman" series.)

*The ideas used in Shadows for the Megaliths, were in fact cribbed from ideas I've had for Stonehenge for some time. (Pre-dating the creation of Gargoyles, in fact.) It would be interesting to see (even to me) how I handled Stonehenge now. On the one hand, I wouldn't want to repeat myself, but I'd also want to be consistent and I don't want to betray the notions I've had in my head forever. That's the problem when your brain begins to cannibalize its own ideas. A danger I find myself facing all the time.

Response recorded on April 12, 2004

Bookmark Link

person writes...

Hi Greg. Here's my question.
In Awakening part one, a man covered in white made a bargain with Hakon. Was that The Magus? And what did it have to do with the whole spell thing? Because I know it was Demona and Captain of the Guard's idea to let the Vikings have the castle. I just don't know what the Magus(or whoever it was)had to do with it.
Thanks!

Greg responds...

It was the Captain. We simply tried to fool you into thinking it was the Magus.

Response recorded on January 13, 2004

Bookmark Link

Wolfram Bane (wolfram_bane@hotmail.com) writes...

Macbeth

In the Gargoyles universe, you mention that Luach was the son of Macbeth and Gruoch, and born in 1033. In actual history, Luach was the son of Gillcomgain and Gruoch, and born in 1030. After Gillcomgain's death in 1032, Macbeth married Gruoch and adopted Luach as his own son and heir, and Luach even succeeded Macbeth as King briefly in 1054. I was curious as to the reasons you modified these aspects of history?

Greg responds...

I didn't. Not to my knowledge. My research indicates that Lulach (Luach) was born in early 1033, after Gillecomgain's death, but too soon to be Macbeth's son (at least legally). We glanced over it in the episode, but, yes, Macbeth adopts Gillecomgain after marrying Gruoch in 1032.

Further, my research indicated that rumors were rampant in court that Mac was actually Lulach's biological father, as well.

It's possible the research I received was faulty. (For example, a typo caused us to spell and pronounce Lulach's name incorrectly.) But we made every effort to weave our fiction among the facts -- without changing those facts.

The date of Lulach's birth is approximate anyway. So any time between 1030 and 1033 is probably "legitimate".

Response recorded on October 15, 2003

Bookmark Link

Wolfram Bane (wolfram_bane@hotmail.com) writes...

Hunters

Through which of Malcolm Canmore's children do the Canmore family of Hunters (Charles, Jon, Jason, Robyn, et al) descend from? Is it from one of the children from his first mariage to Ingibiorg Finnsdottir (King Duncan II, Malcolm or Donald), his second marriage to St. Margaret Atheling (King Edmund I, King Edgar, King Alexander I the Fierce, King David I the Saint, Edward, Ethelred, Matilda or Mary), or as yet another child?

Greg responds...

I debated with myself as to whether or not I wanted to reveal this at this time, but what the heck...

The answer is Donald Canmore.

Response recorded on October 09, 2003

Bookmark Link

Gipdac writes...

I could be wrong, but in Vendettas I think Hudson called Hakon "Hakon the destroyer of clans". So, did Hakon have a reputation for smashing gargoyle clan or so it just the one?

Greg responds...

I don't know if that's an exact quotation. I think he called him, "Hakon, Clan-Slaughterer". But I might be mistaken.

In any case, Hudson was referring to the Wyvern Clan.

Response recorded on October 03, 2003

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

When, in "City of Stone Part Two", Duncan manipulated Macbeth into seeking out Gillecomgain to avenge his father, what was he hoping the result would be:

a. That Macbeth would slay Gillecomgain, thus ridding Duncan of an increasingly unreliable and likely rebellious former ally? (The result, of course, that actually happened).

b. That Gillecomgain would slay Macbeth, Duncan's leading rival to the throne?

c. That the two of them would kill each other, thus ridding Duncan of both of them?

Greg responds...

Well, I'm sure his ultimate preference would have been c, of course. But either a or b were good news, so he'd settle happily for the a he got.

Response recorded on August 28, 2003

Bookmark Link

Stephaneus writes...

Hi Greg Happy New Year all

Vanity(don't you mean Gruouch??)

Know this is about Awakenings (which I think is the best episode in the whole series). Goliath caught Hakon's sword. What is the deal. Hudson's little dagger in Long way to morning cut a statue in half. But Hakons double edged long sword could only scratch Goliath. He's tough and rugged but come on now. And I really loved Hakon's reaction "Fight men they're not invincible" If that isn't invincible what the hell is? Why should Goliath even dodge weapons they just bounce off anyway?

Why did you let that happen? Catching a sword without it even hurting him seriously at all!!

Super Stephaneus

Greg responds...

I don't know what you're referring to vis-a-vis Vanity/Gruoch...?

As to your Awakening question, Hakon's sword did hurt Goliath. Cut down to the bone. He just toughed it out. Cuz he's Goliath. That's who he is. You expected him to cry?

And Hakon's sword could certainly cut THROUGH bone. But he would have needed to put more power behind the swing to do that. Given his position on that tower, Hakon did the best he could, but it wasn't good enough, and Goliath's been in enough fights to know what he can and cannot take. He stopped the blow with his hand before it could gain enough momentum to do serious damage.

What Hakon saw, before he spoke his line, was the Goliath's blood. We made a point of that, and even convinced our S&P exec to let us show the blood. Which is very rare for cartoons. If Goliath had been invincible, there would have been no blood. And the sword would have bounced off his hide. Which it didn't. Weapons don't bounce off our gargs.

Hudson doesn't have a dagger, by the way, but a sword. And a lot of Gargoyle muscle behind his swing.

And you, Super, have a lot of attitude, bordering on disrespect. Just so you know, it's really off-putting.

Response recorded on June 17, 2003

Bookmark Link

Fiona Seckari writes...

Dear Mr. Weisman,
I have a questoin for you, and I am fully aware that you will probably exercise you're right to not answer it because it is a question that could possibly involve a lot of writting, that you haven't given any thought to, don't feel like answering, or just be stupid. So, I thank you so much for you're time :) and for such a kick'n show :) and for the super hot character of Puck :D so here's my question:

In "The City of Stone" flashback after Mac Beth successfully wins the battle against Duncan, he exilles Prince Canmore. What happens to him right after the guards take him away? Do they put him on a boat straight to England? Does he get an escort? Does he get to pack? Do they feed him? Does he try to escape again?

2. Is the Prince Canmore in "The City of Stone" full name Malcom Canmore III ?

I realize I am probably just being curious about silly stuff in a really awesome show, but I'm so curious about it I just have to ask! Plus, even if curiousity killed the cat, satisfaction brought her back! LOVE YA!

Greg responds...

1. Well, I doubt he took a boat from Scotland to England. He was probably escorted there, with messengers sent ahead so that the English would expect his arrival. Did they feed him en route? Yes. Did he get to pack? I don't know. Probably not. Does he try to escape? No. I think at this point he goes to England and tries to win the English over to his side.

2. Canmore = Malcolm III = Malcolm Canmore = Maol Chalvim III = Ceann Mor = Big Head

Response recorded on June 09, 2003

Bookmark Link

Alex Katsaros writes...

what is the significance of the bird on top of Hakon's helmet?

Greg responds...

Fresh eggs?

Response recorded on May 15, 2003


: « First : « 10 : Displaying #44 - #53 of 98 records. : 10 » : Last » :