A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

RESPONSES 2001-3 (March)

Archive Index


: « First : « 10 : Displaying #101 - #110 of 268 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :


Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :


Bookmark Link

LSZ writes...

Do gargoyles need to bathe, or are body odours etc disposed of via stone sleep?

Greg responds...

Bathing helps periodically.

Response recorded on March 13, 2001

Bookmark Link

Jim R. writes...

I'm still a little baffled about Timedancing Brooklyn and the story behind him. You state that when Goliath threw the Phoenix gate into itself without a mind to guide it, it would be forever lost in the time stream. Then you went on to say that it lands in front of Brooklyn.
1. Why did you choose Brooklyn?
2. When does it land in front of him, in what time?
I was reading through the archived responses about this, and you say that he never lays a finger on the gate.
3. But how is it possible for him to travel forty years leaping in and out of random time shifts the gate creates? The gate is just a talisman, without a mind or the incantation it really can't go anywhere, which leads me to my next question.
4. If Brooklyn is susceptable to random time shifts, how long does he or can he stay, in one time?
5. Why couldn't he lay a finger on the gate? I mean surely he would eventually find out how the gate works in some time, grab it, speak the incantation, and boom! he's back home again in his own time exactly when he left. Brooklyn isn't that stupid, he surely would have had some pre-existing knowledge from Goliath about the dangers of the gate.

Please. Maybe you could explain this whole Timedancer mess in better detail or in a nutshell, or at least point me out someplace online I could go to read more about it in further detail.

Greg responds...

No, I stated that Goliath threw the Phoenix Gate into the Timestream -- not itself.

1. He chose me largely. He was ready for the next step in his character's evolution. And I felt he could carry a series.

2. In "the present". Originally, that meant 1996. I'm not sure now. I'm leaning toward '97 though. Not 2001.

3. No, it goes everywhere and everywhen. It seems to be random. But the timestream itself may have currents and eddies guiding it.

4. There's no consistent rule.

5. He can never get to it in time.

The only place I can point you for more detailed info is the TimeDancer archive here at ASK GREG. (This doesn't seem that complicated to me, however. I certainly wouldn't call it a 'mess'.)

Response recorded on March 13, 2001

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

you've said before that unless their bodies are destroyed that the Coldtrio will live forever, so will any or all of them be around in 2198?

Greg responds...

Not saying.

Response recorded on March 13, 2001

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

i just want you to confirm that Gabriel is definetly Othello and Desdemona's biological child, cuz lately there has been talk of Iago having a child on Avalon and Gabriel has some features, the large brow ridges and the small horns on his chin, that we've only see in one other gargoyle, Iago. so, if Iago has a biological child on Avalon, its not Gabriel, right?

Greg responds...

Gabriel is Othello and Desdemona's biological child.

You heard it here first.

About four years ago.

Response recorded on March 13, 2001

Bookmark Link

Slow writes...

Re: High Noon

I have to say that I was very confused about the three Desdemonas. Until someone mentioned it in Ask Greg I just figured it was the writer wanting to do strange and surreal stuff inside Coldstone's head. The animation was so good I never would've noticed the colour mistake. If it wasn't for this venue, I'd never have known.

"This is diverting." "You don't know the half of it."

Sure, I laughed when I first heard the line accompanied by the expression on Coldstone's face. But when I watched the episode again a few years later, I thought that Macbeth's response may have been a hint (subconsciously, maybe) that the entire situation was a diversion (staged to get the talismans). Am I wrong to think that Mac may not have been as interested in the girl-fight as it sounded?

Greg responds...

Nah. It works both ways.

Response recorded on March 13, 2001

Bookmark Link

Erin Peretti writes...

I am absolutely fascinated with your comment that Gargoyle's MacBeth was more historically accurate than Shakespeare's (obviously ommitting Demona and immortality).

What parts were more accurate?

I know this is a pain, but would you happen to know where I could find some historically accurate accounts of Macbeth? His home, his full name, whether Duncan was the perfect king potrayed in the play, etc....

What research materials did you use when writing Mac for Gargoyles?

Is Glamis castle in Scotland really Mac's castle, as I have been told?

Thanks so much!!!

Greg responds...

Most of the research on Macbeth was done by Monique Beatty and Tuppence Macintyre. I did little or none myself. (I didn't have time.) Monique was my assistant (and is now a producer in her own right). Tup is a close friend and a Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney.

I know Holinshed was of some use. But I don't know what other books they used specifically.

Almost everything we did -- minus the gargs and Weird Sisters and the Mask of the Hunter -- was more accurate historically than Shaekespeare. (Not better, just more accurate.) Duncan and his father hired Gillecomgain to assassinate Mac's father. They rewarded him with Mac's title and with Gruouch. Mac eventually killed Gille and married Gruoch, adopting her boy Lulach as his own. There were some rumours that Lulach WAS his child.

Mac killed Duncan in battle, not while Duncan was a guest in his house. Mac ruled wisely for seventeen years and was overthrown by Malcolm Canmore, who was backed by the English. Etc.

I'm not 100% sure about Glamis, but I believe Macbeth's historical home was Castle Moray (also called Murray).

Response recorded on March 13, 2001

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

A question about Xanatos as portrayed in "Future Tense". This was the last episode in the series where Xanatos was the antagonist (even though it may not count as such, given that it turned out that it wasn't really Xanatos). And what recently struck me about it was that here Xanatos, for once, was acting in a manner more like a conventional cliched cartoon villain than he did anywhere else in the series. He took over Manhattan by force, enslaved the population and plunged them into poverty and misery, had the city patrolled by Mutate soldiers on the ground and Steel Clan robots in the air, murdered his own son without even an ounce of pity or remorse, and was plotting to seize control over the entire planet. All very evocative of the stereotypical super-villain that one would expect to find in a more conventional animated series.

Also, in this episode, Goliath did (momentarily) "destroy" Xanatos (or the Xanatos Program masquerading as him) in the cyberspace battle (just before it turned out that it was really Lexington operating the Xanatos Program behind the scenes), in what could count as their final battle.

So, was "Future Tense" designed, in part, to trick the audience into thinking that "Gargoyles" was going to end with a more conventional showdown between Goliath and Xanatos, a more stereotypical "final battle", before going on to reveal, almost immediately afterwards (given that "The Gathering" was the story that came immediately after "Future Tense"), the real manner in which the Goliath/Xanatos conflict came to an end (through the two making peace after the gargs helped Xanatos against Oberon)? A kind of "tricking the audience raised on more conventional adventure cartoon series" method similar to that used in "Leader of the Pack" (where it initially seems as if Xanatos is out for revenge, but it turns out that it wasn't the real Xanatos and that the real one had very different and much more practical goals)?

Greg responds...

Yep. I mean that wasn't the only thing going on, but we did so love to play with and against expectations.

But it's also fun, even if it's a fantasy within our fantasy, to see such opposites go at it to the death. I knew that wasn't they're true destiny, so it was nice to slip a version of it in.

Response recorded on March 13, 2001

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

In "Monsters", was Sevarius working for Xanatos or himself when he was at Loch Ness? He had the Xanatos Goon Squad along with him to help him out, but nothing that he said really confirmed that he was working for Xanatos; he appeared to be after the Loch Ness Monsters more to satisfy his own personal interest in genetic tinkering than from any interests that Xanatos had.

Greg responds...

For Xanatos, though X gave him fairly free reign to keep him happily employed.

Response recorded on March 13, 2001

Bookmark Link

Yadira writes...

"Outfoxed"

In this episode, one of the key things we learned is that Fox is pregnant and she breaks the news to her father, Renard. What we don't see is how she breaks the news to her husband. If you had time to explore this, how did Fox tell Xanatos about her delicate condition and what did she feel might be Xanatos' reaction. How did Xanatos truly react at first upon hearing her news.

Greg responds...

He was thrilled. I believe she told him as soon as she got off the phone.

Response recorded on March 13, 2001

Bookmark Link

LSZ writes...

Did Mab have parents?

Greg responds...

One way or another.

Response recorded on March 13, 2001


: « First : « 10 : Displaying #101 - #110 of 268 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :