Now my own test...

Unfortunately, just about the time the server crashed, I had just finished posting a mega-ramble, now lost, on "Reawakening". (The thought of trying to recreate it is fairly intimidating.) Also lost was the answer to a Todd Jensen question about iron. (Sorry, Todd you'll have to repost.) Since then I haven't been able to post anything. Hopefully, things are working today. (But the queue is empty again.)

Test

Simple test ramble. Appears that things aren't working.

*sigh*

-Eric

Bad news...

Because of the server crash the SUPER-LONG ramble on "Reawakening" which I posted last night was lost. The thought of recreating it is miserable and intimidating. But I'll get to it eventually. Maybe tomorrow.

Also lost was an answer to a Todd Jensen question about iron. Sorry Todd, but you'll have to repost the question.

ANd meanwhile, the queue is once again empty, which may also be a result of the crash or may be because Gore doesn't have time to fill it up right now.

More Max

For some reason the WB chose to air a Max Steel rerun last week instead of the already completed episode 7. This week (i.e. Saturday 4/21) they're skipping 7 again to air episode 10 (I think).

Episode 10 was written by former Garg writer/story editor Gary Sperling. Its title is "Sphinxes".

Max Update...

Queue is still empty...

Meanwhile, Max Steel episode #7 airs this Saturday. It's called "Snow-Blind" and was written by Mike Ryan. This continues Sony/WB's current tradition of airing the durn things in REVERSE order.

For those keeping track, the following episodes have aired in the following bizarre order:

#1 - "Strangers"
#3 - "Shadows"
#2 - "Sacrifices"
#4 - "Sportsmen"
#9 - "Sabres"
#8 - "Sharks"
#7 - "Snow-Blind"

#10 should follow shortly. It features the villain Dragonelle. After that #5 will air, which INTRODUCES Dragonelle.

This is how my life is running these days.

Maybe someday the WB will air them all in order.

But I wouldn't count on it.

3x3 Update

Hello gang,

Well, my queue is still empty and I haven't watched Re-Awakening yet, so I thought I'd give you guys a 3X3 EYES update...

Today, we finished recording all the actors for the first volume. Here's the current cast list (and you can expect more familiar names in Volume Two).

Again, our two leads are...

Brigitte "Angela" Bako as Pai/Sanjiyan &
Christian "Max Steel" Campbell as Yakumo Fujii

Other Volume One cast members include...

Thom Adcox
Earl Boen
Susan Chesler
Mitch Cohen
Keith David
Bill Faggerbakke
Scott Forno
Jean Gilpin
Taliesin Jaffe
Jonathan Klein
Mia Korf
Erin Matthews
Yuji Okumoto
Rick Simone
Keith Szaribajka
Greg Weisman
Kelly Wilson

Of course, I worked with Brigitte, Thom, Keith D. and Bill on GARGOYLES.

And Christian, Thom, Jean, Mia, Yuji and Keith S. on MAX STEEL.

And I worked with Earl way back on BONKERS.

It's really a terrific cast. We've mixed 3/4 of the volume and it should be available from Pioneer this summer. (We'll be previewing it, or so I'm told, at Anime Expo in early July.)

Questions welcome...

Poor Gorebash...

He's working so hard -- probably much harder than me these days -- and I just keep answering ASK GREG questions.

The Queue is empty again...

Thank you Blaise

Blaise wrote:

In the end, two things above all others IMHO should be remembered in ANY debate of Goliath vs. Brooklyn:
1) Brooklyn admires and looks up to Goliath, despite any disagreements.
2) Goliath made Brooklyn Second-in-command because he felt Brooklyn was best suited for the job.
To put down one is actually indirectly putting down the other.

That bears repeating:

TO PUT DOWN ONE IS ACTUALLY INDIRECTLY PUTTING DOWN THE OTHER.

You guys can do what you want, of course.

And I certainly don't mind in depth discussions of either character. I thought Toku Kaioto's essay on Brooklyn was fantastic.

And I don't mind a fun poll like: "Ladies, which garg-hunk do you prefer?"

But I don't really see what you get by putting the characters' natures in opposition debate, as if they were or are in some competition with each other.

Now I promise, that was my last word on the subject.

Pet Peeves

More a rant, than a ramble...

One thing I'm less than fond of is people who seem to think that the only way to praise someone or something is to attack someone or something else in order to make the quote-unquote praiseworthy object more praiseworthy by comparison.

Look, if a thing is worth praising, then praise it. It doesn't matter how good, better or awful something else is.

I hear this all the time with movies and tv shows, music, etc.

Worse, in the business I'm in, I hear it all the time with people.

And I've heard my share of it regarding the characters of Gargoyles.

FOR EXAMPLE:
Someone's a huge Brooklyn fan. Can't figure out why Angela chose Broadway or whey "the clan puts up with Goliath". It's not enough to praise Brooklyn, the Brook-fan feels the need to attack BW or Goliath -- slinging mud on them so that Brooklyn's light shines brighter.

Or the reverse. People determined to defend Goliath or. Outraged by the tactic outlined above, praise Goliath not with actual praise for Goliath, but by attacking Brooklyn, i.e. by utilizing the same tactic. It just makes me nuts.

Now, I'm not saying that you have to like every character equally. (I pretty much do, but I'm daddy.) You're all welcome to have your favorites. And it's even fine with me if there are some characters you just HATE. Either because you think they're ill-conceived, or because you think they're unpleasant or whatever.

But what's the fortune in comparisons? It's all subjective anyway. In High School, in my AP English class (days of yore) I remember a long debate about Othello vs. Iago. Most of the class seemed determined to prove that Iago was a great villain by arguing that Othello was a feeble hero. But I didn't buy it. (Well, I did for about five minutes, but the mind rebelled.) If Othello is feeble, than Iago's villainy achieved nothing. A triumph over a feeble leader. Big Deal.

End of rant.

Theseus Addendum

One more thing, Aris,

About the Helen thing. I'm not trying to defend it, but I think the motivation wasn't any desire to possess a barely-pubescent Helen. I can't believe a guy who loved Antiope, wanting that. I think he was trying to stick it to all those young heroes of the new generation. I don't approve of his methods, and he wasn't able to pull it off even. But it was an act of rebellion. An act of societal perversion (as opposed to sexual perversion).

Anyway, that's my take.