Comment Room Archive : Gargoyles : Station Eight

Comment Room Archive

Comments for the week ending February 28, 2005

Index : Hide Images

greg: i challange you to a pie making contest at the gathering if i ever make it....shoot i shouldn't have said that. Hmmm can greg cook?
dan
Sunday, February 27, 2005 11:11:35 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

leva: given that disney is still very much a child friendly station still. And gargoyles was aimed at a 9-13 give or take age group. It might still be focused on that age group if they ever bring it back. Given that, i highly doubt they'll 100 percent let on that he's gay. They might play it on the fact that there *best friends* *never parting* i doubt they'll ever actually come out and say it. They'll hint at it, but not enough to actually give it the idea of *wow he's really gay*.
dan
Sunday, February 27, 2005 11:09:51 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

The fundies would give birth to flaming cows if Disney ever actually did an episdoe with Lex gay. I doubt Disney has the balls to touch on the topic, given that what they've censored and what they've refused to air in recent years.

That said -- I can indeed see an episode that dealt with the subject in a reasonable and serious manner. I can see several plots that would work -- maybe have Lexington befriend a gay teenager, then reveal at the end of the episode that he, to, is gay.

But that's a topic I doubt we'll ever see touched on TV even if the series is revived and might have to remain in the realm of fanfic. The only way I can see that it might possibly pass muster is if Gargs is reborn as a show aimed at teens and adults. (i.e., something along the feel and tone of Angel/Buffy.)

Leva
Leva
Sunday, February 27, 2005 07:23:45 PM
IP: 162.42.85.174

I don't know about directly e-mailing Greg about the issue - at least, not on my part. I'd feel more comfortable if he discovered it on his own rather than my urging him to say something.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Sunday, February 27, 2005 06:50:00 PM
IP: 4.245.23.222

You mean these things are in production and exist already?
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USASunday, February 27, 2005 06:40:34 PM
IP: 205.238.195.77

An anthology book would be awesome. We've already had the Phoenix Gate Anthology and G2005 will be bringing us the Eye of Odin Anthology... so go buy one when it's available ;)

But an anthology book with Greg in charge would be awesome. The other writers being Michael Reaves, Brynne Chandler, Lydia Marano, Cary Bates. Among others.
Greg Bishansky
Sunday, February 27, 2005 06:28:11 PM
IP: 141.155.108.154

To change the subject:

Gargoyles and the Written Word>> Hey! It's nice to see people coming over to my way of thinking.

I have a question for you all: how would you like a series of short stories by professional writers, with the guidance of Weisman, set in the Gargoyles universe?
JJ Gregarius
Tampa, FL
Sunday, February 27, 2005 06:06:35 PM
IP: 4.247.164.36

I guess I'm ok with that. Then again I don't think he'll consider the "not funny gargoyle" imagery I gave earlier as through the roof material (pun intended) nor will he think very highly of this TTWND but then again I'm not Greg so I don't know.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USASunday, February 27, 2005 06:06:29 PM
IP: 205.238.195.77

....and it would be nice if I could spell. I 'll blame it on stress.
Wingless
Sunday, February 27, 2005 05:49:47 PM
IP: 69.196.243.7

Brian - actually, Greg W. does peek in here and through in his comments from time to time. If he's not busy on a project, He'll likely leave his 2 cents before too long. He's not usually one to back down from a challange. ^_^

Over to you Greg...
Wingless
Sunday, February 27, 2005 05:48:37 PM
IP: 69.196.243.7

Is my face turning blue?
It seems I have to keep saying this over and over again because it is not sinking in.
I am not against gay people.
Hope I have made that clear.
And just for the record, I am not the one who brought it up this time. It's down there somewhere, you'll find it prior to my first comment to it this week.:\
Lurker-chamelionsomething-what's your name there?> Pipe down will ya? You have no idea what the hell I was talking about. But I shall try to clear it up for you.
There is no sick joke about gay people. The use of someone being gay in any media type like that is.:\
You're bi? That's fine. If you find something wrong with that yourself, then I'm afraid I cannot help you there.

Programming: Yes, I am aware of that in TV programming today and have noticed it has been quite prevalent within the past twelve years. The part about Greg following suit with the networks is partially a sarcasm. Since programming today seemingly needs to call for it to be successful, *shrugs* sure, why shouldn't he follow suit with this? (What can I say? In this day of age, sexuality sells.)

Inviting Greg in here may not be a bad idea, but I doubt he will show. Since this is a public forum containing other's original ideas, just as fanfics do, he may not even touch it. Because fanfics contain such elements, he says he never looks at them in order to protect himself legally, and will most likely not look in here either.:\
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USASunday, February 27, 2005 04:43:12 PM
IP: 205.238.195.77

Online poker blah blah blah...
Click here for more input...

I have performed an illegal operation and must be shut down.
If the problem persists, contact my program vendor.
Online poker - [I'mStillADickhead@blowme.org]
USASunday, February 27, 2005 04:15:43 PM
IP: 205.238.195.77

Gotcha Patrick. I've only recently discovered the fandom, so I'm not in the know on this stuff.
Caleb
Sunday, February 27, 2005 10:15:42 AM
IP: 81.154.219.82

Caleb > Greg has said that gargoyles are not magical beings. Therefore, the same rules of the physical universe that apply the rest of the natural living world must also apply to them. Of the "three races" that Hudson named in "The Mirror", only Oberon's Children are able to use magic to bend the laws of physics.

151 days left until The Gathering 2005 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Patrick
Sunday, February 27, 2005 09:52:48 AM
IP: 68.170.199.45

Todd> an excellant suggestion. i'd rather Greg come in here and post a comment about this then for him to get a few more questions ahead. is there a way you can contact him and let him know whats going on.

test of my willpower not to get invlved in this one...
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Sunday, February 27, 2005 08:47:13 AM
IP: 67.65.131.68

Probably the best way of resolving this dispute would be for Greg Weisman to become aware of it and post something (either here or at "Ask Greg") about the general direction that he was going in when he made that decision about Lexington. Well, it might not entirely resolve the dispute, but it could at least make it clearer what he was planning and not planning to do about it.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Sunday, February 27, 2005 08:11:19 AM
IP: 4.244.12.236

I don't think Brian's comments came off as necessarily homophobic (not this time. I realize the last time this topic came up a couple weeks ago, when I avoided getting into it, many of his posts sounded and may've been intended that way, but I'm pretty sure I remember him clearing that up). I'm trying to decipher exactly what he meant in his last post, but I'm not certain about any of it, so help me out here Brian...

"Of course Greg would plan that. Why wouldn't he? Ever since the networks were all like, oh, let's have this in more and more programming from this day forth, it will be so great, blah blah blah, why shouldn't he follow suit?"

Okay, so here you're worried that Greg would just be following a trend and it'd cheapen the Gargoyles franchise? Why would you think he'd do that? Where in the entire series did he ever sell out or go with what was popular ? (I can't even remember what common TV gimmicks there were from 1994 to 1996, if any) As others have pointed out in the posts below, you would see respectful attention paid to that one aspect of Lexington's character, it wouldn't be a ratings-grab...or you wouldn't see it at all. It'd be implied and not at all important to the overall storyline except to add that much more color to the already diverse cast of characters.

Second of all, networks never got together and said "let's have more gay programming or shows with a token gay character on television". It was, just like race, sex, religion, and grisly crime scenes, a topic that was eventually allowed to be tackled after so many years of not being allowed. Writers obviously have something to say about it, or they wouldn't have pushed to be allowed to tell stories about it on screen. Sometimes they want to have gay characters on their shows because there're gay people in real life (perhaps their friends, family, or themselves) and they want to convince viewers that their world is realistic, fully realized. When they have short one or two episode gimmicks like two regular female cast members kissing on a show for attention (Ally McBeal, Party of Five, and Fastlane all pulled this stunt, there've probably been more), THEN I agree, we could stand to see less of those kinds of throwaway storylines.

"I never said anywhere the fanbase put the whole idea together. (Don't remember who had that idea but it's down there somewhere)"

That'd be me, I asked if you thought it was just a rumor instead of stated fact by Greg. Only because you called it a "sick joke", so I wondered if you thought the Lexington deal was a prank. No problem though, you've cleared it up fine.

"I still say it is a bad idea and Gargoyles should stay off that bandwagon."

It wouldn't be jumping on the bandwagon if the series came back and Greg eventually worked it into the show. Gay characters have been on TV for years now, so it'd just be storytelling. Not to make fun of gays, not to push an agenda (I know you didn't say that one Brian, but it's common and I always find it ridiculous) and certainly not to stereotype (HOW could a stereotype be developed with Lex? We KNOW the character, he's the SAME guy. Greg revealing that he's gay doesn't change Lexington's personality one bit, nor anyone's perceptions of him).
Kris - [plekopleko@hotmail.com]
Ontario, Canada
Sunday, February 27, 2005 08:03:25 AM
IP: 69.17.169.178

brian: um gay ment happy back in the 50's and before, and now it just means to love the same gender. Don't ask me were homosexual and faggot come from. Eh, kinda like athiesm i guess. The word was used differently 2000 years ago, and now i means someone who doesn't believe in god or religion. I think certain words fit the socitial thought system anyway.
dan
Sunday, February 27, 2005 06:18:52 AM
IP: 68.42.18.157

"i agree with Patrick, the eggs cannot grow just like the gargoyles can not get heavier when they turn to stone. its not possible."

Is a simple appeal to magic not allowed to violate the odd inconvenient physical law? It seems weird talking about physical possibility in a universe where magic is real.
Caleb
Sunday, February 27, 2005 04:53:48 AM
IP: 81.154.219.82

Kyt> Nah, he would have opened his gob anyway. I've said my piece, I'll just go back to lurker mode now :)

Vertigo> I didn't have any trouble with s8, but Gargoyles-fans was giving me trouble. Thanks for the info though.
I am very computer illiterate, so it's nice that people who know how to do stuff let noobs like me know :D
Chameleongirl
Sunday, February 27, 2005 04:20:42 AM
IP: 202.87.162.31

Kath Soucie, Cree Summer, and Michael Dorn sighting! All on one series. (click on link for details)
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Sunday, February 27, 2005 03:35:14 AM
IP: 64.112.202.209

Chameleongirl-- I hate to say it, but I think Brian's latest verbal seizure is partly my fault... after all, I challenged him to dump out the can of worms he keeps threatening to open instead of continuing to prance in circles around it. >.< Perhaps wisdom would have been to tell him to quit mentioning it altogether. :B
Kythera of Anevern - [kythera@nospam.gmail.com]
Sunday, February 27, 2005 02:56:11 AM
IP: 68.232.227.135

I try to avoid the fights that have been cropping up in here lately, but this one ...

::hauls out her fish and whacks Brian::
Quit causing trouble! You *knew* what the reaction would be when you decided to post that drivel.

I have gay friends - so they're all sick jokes?
I'm bisexual - so half of me is sick? Which half? Inside or out? Back or front?

You don't like homosexuality? Fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Just keep your nasty comments to yourself.
Chameleongirl
Sunday, February 27, 2005 02:51:30 AM
IP: 202.87.162.31

Now to start a completely different topic....

If you know anyone having problems reaching s8.org (like I did for the last few days), tell them to start using a proxy server. (I couldn't access this site because theres a router outage between me and s8.org.)

This is the one I'm using now:

proxy.ia2.marketscore.com port 80

If you're using FireFox, you just do the following:

Click Tools and select Options. Under "Connection", click the "Connection Settings" button and enter in the above information under "HTTP Proxy". Then just click OK and you're done.

For Mozilla Suite, all you do is click the Edit menu and select Preferences. Click the + sign next to "Advanced" and select Proxies. Enter in the above info and click OK. You're done.

If you use Internet Explorer then just do the following:

Click Tools and select Internet Options. Click the Connections tab. Under where it says "Proxy", check the box that says "Use a proxy server for this connection" and enter in the above information. Click the OK buttons for both windows and you're done.
Vertigo1
TN, USA
Sunday, February 27, 2005 02:49:28 AM
IP: 66.119.34.53

Wow, I definitely missed alot....

At any rate, I seriously doubt Greg would even make a big deal about it. Its not his style to introduce something in a sudden manner. Just look how the relationship between Elisa and Goliath took to flesh out. You were given subtle hints here and there until part three of "Hunter's Moon" when they finally locked lips. I seriously doubt that Greg would do something other than a similar manner with Lexington. Those that already know about it will pick up on the hints right off the bat. Those that don't already know won't really know what's going on until the "big revelation" is "finally revealed". Furthermore, I seriously doubt there would be ANYTHING sexually explicit shown on Gargoyles at all, so I don't think we have anything to worry about. The worst we ever saw was the trio fighting over Angela, or Goliath and Elisa locking lips for one quick kiss.

Now are there going to be people offended by the very concept of a homosexual character? Of course. Hell, there were people offended that the gargoyles looked demonic. (Those same type of people had a cow when the original Star Trek came out and they showed Spock with pointy ears.) You can't please everyone, nor should you try. I don't think Greg would allow Gargoyles to go down the tubes like Xena did. Greg did a wonderful job with the series, and I think we should trust him to do a good job SHOULD Gargoyles be resurrected in an fashion.
Vertigo1
TN, USA
Sunday, February 27, 2005 02:23:14 AM
IP: 66.119.34.53

Kythera of Anevern>look I apologized for my post. I did'nt mean to offend or make any of you angry. And Yes I was a loyal viewer since the show started Have all the episodes on vhs tapes. You never know it might come back. ;-) Hopefully. I even have a gargoyles throw rug that I got way back when the show was on the disney afternoon. I remember racing home to watch it. No one could stop me hehe. In the future I will not post anything controversial or anything that might offend anyone. Maybe talking about my pet cat is safer ;-)
Shara - [Jeanie54_2000@yahoo.com]
Sunday, February 27, 2005 01:49:11 AM
IP: 209.179.201.47

I suddenly feel like Guy in "Galaxy Quest"

"Did you guys ever WATCH the show??"

Anyone who watched Gargoyles should know better. Anyone who was remotely paying attention and vaguely understands the point of the entire show.

Wow... just... wow.

Jennifer "CrzyDemona" Anderson
Sunday, February 27, 2005 01:41:24 AM
IP: 68.65.20.116

Shara-- ...Let's put things into perspective. Gargoyles hasn't seen a new episode in well over seven years.... I REALLY don't think you need to worry about it being "ruined" any time soon.
Kythera of Anevern - [kythera@nospam.gmail.com]
Sunday, February 27, 2005 01:41:07 AM
IP: 68.232.227.135

Crazy Demona>Like I said That is how some of my fav tv shows went when they changed a character. *shrug* Maybe it would'nt happen but that is what I was concerned about. I'm sorry I uspet you or anyone.
Shara
Sunday, February 27, 2005 01:36:00 AM
IP: 209.179.201.47

Shana - why would Lex being gay mean that every show would be about Lex being gay? It took Elisa and Goliath over 50 episodes to simply KISS! Why in the WORLD would the show suddenly revolve around ONE gargoyles sexuality??

Excuse me for saying so but, this is just going beyond ridiculous.
Jennifer "CrzyDemona" Anderson
Sunday, February 27, 2005 01:30:57 AM
IP: 68.65.20.116

Guys.... I just don't want every episode to revolve around thoughs issues like what happens to some major tv shows when they do that. Does not mean I love lucy. Does not mean brady bunch. Just means lets not go overboard with the idea. Is that a fair responce? I am trying to take into be considerate toward everyone here. Not to mention...Some gay people find the sterotypes in tv offensive as well. I think I will stop there. I don't want to uspet anyone.
Shara
Sunday, February 27, 2005 01:15:01 AM
IP: 209.179.201.47

Or better yet, let's remove gender entirely. Cast the gender ambigious people in every show we can find. Drop words like 'he' and 'she' replace with it or they. No mention of gender at all.
Greg Bishansky
Sunday, February 27, 2005 01:03:15 AM
IP: 141.155.108.154

Good idea, Kythera. I'm sick of seeing all those bedroom scenes in "King of the Hill" and "Everybody Loves Raymond." Let's go back to the way things were on TV in the 1950s. Seperate beds worked for Lucy and Ricky! :P
Patrick
Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:55:40 AM
IP: 68.170.199.45

*snickers*

Why not just go back to the days of I Love Lucy? When we saw their bedrooms back then, they always slept in twin beds seperatly. And the thought of mentioning someone being pregnant, even if they were married, it was just not accepted or liked at all! Cause if she was pregnant...that means the married couple...had....s....sss....sex GASP!

*runs to the bathroom to wash her mouth out with soap and bleach*

It's 2005 people! Get with the program! So what if they have a lot of gay characters! Once blacks were only in tv shows if they were the janitors or butlers.
Siren
Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:54:09 AM
IP: 65.33.112.240

Siren>Sorry me and my big mouth. I never ment it that way. Usually in tv shows when someone is gay they take it a bit further Kind of like how they ruined one of my fav shows xena. I mean they say the person is gay. Ok they are gay. But then the writters go crazy and keep the story revolved around that or have special episodes that hint more about it. I just ment if gargoyles turned into something like that I would'nt watch it. But if there was an episode where lex said I'm gay or it was brushed upon I would still watch but if the episodes where mostly revolved around that I would'nt watch. Anyways I don't want to upset anymore people So I am going to hush.
Shara
Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:53:25 AM
IP: 209.179.201.47

Hey, I've got an idea... if everyone is so worried about the sex aspect of the relationship between two people, let's just petition all TV shows everywhere to never write any of the characters as dating or married. Let's make everyone on TV--gay, straight, bisexual, transexual, anykindofsexual--single. That way nobody will be offended over the **implications** of what goes on off-screen in the privacy of **fictional characters'** bedrooms. I mean, we all know that TV shows never represent real pepole and relationships between them accurately, anyway, so let's just go all the way. ;P

Brian-- Uhmm... Dude... I still don't see how or why it would be a "sick joke." Are real people who are gay "sick jokes?" I really think you're painting yourself the picture of your own conspiracy there, buddy.
Kythera of Anevern - [kythera@nospam.gmail.com]
Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:49:29 AM
IP: 68.232.227.135

BRIAN> Dude, Greg Weisman created this series and it's characters. They are *his* characters. Not mine, not yours. HIS. If Greg says Lexington is gay, then, Lex is gay. Period. Get over it.

Not saying you have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. But calling it a sick joke is crossing the line. Who the hell are you to call it a sick joke? We all have our own little or big disagreements with Greg's Master Plan. But he created this damn series and takes time off his busy schedual to hang out with us, and talk to us about the show and the characters, and some of us have become good friends with him.

You don't have to like it or agree with it, but show Greg more respect than to just throw out the words "sick joke" like that.
Greg Bishansky
Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:48:51 AM
IP: 141.155.108.154

:: tries to make sense of that ::

Bandwagon? Sick joke? Lamenting the fact that it's no longer socially acceptable riducule African-Americans?

Remember, kids. Just say NO to drugs.
Patrick
Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:47:37 AM
IP: 68.170.199.45

Actually looks somewhat like
<

Now that it's open...
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/images/wormcan.gif ***Man I wish I could put pics in here.***
Of course Greg would plan that. Why wouldn't he? Ever since the networks were all like, oh, let's have this in more and more programming from this day forth, it will be so great, blah blah blah, why shouldn't he follow suit?:rolleyes *Pictures himself as a gargoyle crashing thru Greg's ceiling, pointing a talon at him, saying "NOT-FUNNY!!!" On the other hand, this thought is...:lol* Yep. A sick joke. It's been one since "gay" became a friggin word. Black people and all that... It's ancient history. It's no longer fun to poke ridicule at them anymore. There's a new target now and we are going to use anything we can and for the love of Pete we're including GARGOYLES in our arsenal to continue this sick joke and since that can't be enough let's just make it more and more annoying with each passing day.:rolleyes It's bad enough people have been all over this type of folks since day one, using television or any other media type does not make it better. Not to mention it also adds to stereotyping.:|
I never said anywhere the fanbase put the whole idea together. (Don't remember who had that idea but it's down there somewhere) I've known that for about a month now. Don't know what that has to do with this, but it changes nothing. I still say it is a bad idea and Gargoyles should stay off that bandwagon.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USASunday, February 27, 2005 12:32:00 AM
IP: 209.74.24.232

Shara>But saying your gay doesn't automatically mean sex. If I say I am straight, does that make you automatically think of me having sex with a man? Being gay just means you are attracted to the same sex just like being heterosexual means you are attracted to the opposite sex, but it doesn't mean that gay people are by anyway MORE sexual or have more sex then straight people. It's not the sex they love, it is the gender.
Siren
Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:15:07 AM
IP: 65.33.112.240

I did'nt mean to upset anyone sorry. I grew up in the 80's and the cartoons of my generation did not touch the sex subject at all. Maybe that is why I feel the way I do. I just well don't really watch much tv. I feel sex is a really private topic to talk about with family or a friend.
Shara
Saturday, February 26, 2005 11:47:16 PM
IP: 209.179.201.47

Kythera of Anevern and others> one of my best friends is gay. It's just I do not watch cartoons to see who is sleeping with who or the sex topic. I watch adult swim on cartoon network for that or primetime tv sitcoms. I just really like watching cartoons for what they are not who is sleeping with who. *shrug*
Shara
Saturday, February 26, 2005 11:44:21 PM
IP: 209.179.201.47

Lex being gay: Although I believe homosexual behavior to be wrong, I am tolerant of everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. And I tolerate TV shows that have gay characters. My all-time fave show (besides Gargoyles) is Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and one of the main characters realized after a few seasons that she was a lesbian. Heck, I admit I loved the Willow/Tara relationship. They were so cute together :)

Now, Lex? I could deal with him finding out he's gay. It would just have to be written well in the show, if they ever get it back on :) I definitely wouldn't boycott the show because of it.
Kristen - [zzilly14@yahoo.com]
Virginia, USA
Saturday, February 26, 2005 11:38:01 PM
IP: 199.249.157.129

I won't be attending the Mega-Con tomorrow. I came down with a bad case of the flu. My daughter too. All these months of preparing a kick ass gargoyle costume was for nothing :(
Siren
Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:26:35 PM
IP: 65.33.112.240

Riverdale-- AMEN!
Kythera of Anevern - [kythera@nospam.gmail.com]
Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:04:22 PM
IP: 68.232.227.135

"I won't watch that show. It has a character who is (fill in the blank)." - IMO, that's an awfully small-minded statement, whatever the qualifier is.

Siren - You're egg ideas make perfect sense to me. :)
Patrick
Saturday, February 26, 2005 09:58:15 PM
IP: 68.170.199.45

Speaking as someone who plays a gay gargoyle, I'm all for Lex being gay. Why? Because it just would (if it ever aired) go to show that things can be on TV and DISCUSSED in a MATURE manner. Lex doesn't need to have SEX on SCREEN for god's sake. Remember when Mr. Hooper died on Sesame Street? They didn't skirt the issue, they dealt with it. In my opinion, anyone who wants to "not watch" something because they don't agree with it is someone who cannot handle rational discussion or a viewpoint differing from theirs.
Riverdale - [michael@twogargs.com]
Calgary, AB, Canada
Saturday, February 26, 2005 09:56:01 PM
IP: 68.147.209.172

Just noticed the egg discussion.

My theory. The eggs are like those of reptiles such as sea turtles and gators, they are rubbery. Also, people are assuming that when the egg is laid, that must be the size of the hatchling inside. It's not a hatchling till it hatches. It is an embryo. An embryo could be fit on a pinhead or it could be the size of your fist. Being the eggs take so long to hatch, it is likely the embryo is very small. Thus taking longer to fill into the egg. The largest part inside the egg when it is laid is the yolk. The yolk is suppost to feed the embryo till hatching and even a little beyond then sometimes. So due to the long time incubating, then the yolk HAS to be big enough to feed a growing gargoyle for years before hatching. Likely the embryo is very small, doubt it would fit on a pin, but it is small. And then it can feed on the large a hello all yolk. Also, soon after hatching, the egg shell hardens to protect the embryo inside.

That's my theory anyways.

*goes off to feed her hatchling turtle* :)
Siren
Saturday, February 26, 2005 09:34:12 PM
IP: 65.33.112.240

Too much gay on TV? What a poor reason to turn off a good program just because a character is gay.

Okayfine...Too many kids are on tv, shut it off. Too many dogs. Too many blacks. Too many Christians. Too many women. Too many straight people. Too many obese people. Too many Italians. Let's shut off tv for those reasons too.

I think it's a real piss-poor reason to be turned off of Gargoyle because Greg said he PLANNED for Lexington to be gay. The whole point about Gargoyles was to be a DIFFERENT animated drama. To deal with REAL issues. And to do it in a respectful way. I doubt Lexington was going to run around in a Speedo and tell Goliath how "FAB-TAB-U-LOUS", he looks. I don't care if they said Lexington was going to have a sex change, I would still watch the show if it came back because I love it.
Siren
Saturday, February 26, 2005 09:28:15 PM
IP: 65.33.112.240

If the sexual orientation--real or imagined--of one of the characters (I stress *character*... a work of *fiction*) would be reason enough for you to stop watching the show--in the event that the show actually comes back, and *if* the issue is even broached on the air--well... I can't help thinking that's awfully petty. Okay, so Lex is gay. Big deal! It's not like the show would suddenly turn to focus on "OMG he's GAY and we need to point it out at every opportunity!1!1!1111!1one!" More likely, it would be one of those things that just "is." The story would keep moving, the characters would keep developing, the sun will continue to rise in the morning and set in the evening, and the world will not end.

Maybe it's just me, but if you step back from all this, all of this hair-pulling over hypothetical "what ifs" about something that may or may not happen on a show that may or may not ever see new episodes is kinda silly.
Kythera of Anevern - [kythera@nospam.gmail.com]
Saturday, February 26, 2005 08:37:07 PM
IP: 68.232.227.135

Patrick>RE:Lex coming out. I would'nt watch the show if that happend. THere is too much of that and violence already on tv. I watch gargoyles for the stories and things it also taught children. If I want to see gay stuff I will turn on will and grace.
Shara
Saturday, February 26, 2005 07:49:17 PM
IP: 209.179.193.127

Todd> Lex's wings may be attached to his arms and legs, but he still has a fifth and sixth apendage that hold out his wings.
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Saturday, February 26, 2005 07:04:34 PM
IP: 67.65.131.68

Another possible topic for a Gargoyles Biology discussion or debate is this: gargoyles are clearly vertebrates, and yet they have six limbs (two arms, two legs, and two wings) rather than four. (With the exception of Lexington, whose wings are connected directly to his arms - and, of course, the gargoyle beasts, who don't have wings at all.) Of course, I'm not enough of a biology expert to suggest a solution for that question (which is also why I can't bring anything to the eggs discussion, I'm afraid).

Side-note: The episode of "W.I.T.C.H." that they showed on ABC Kids this morning (the same series whose second season Greg Weisman is now working on) got in a couple of mentions of one of Greg's famous myths, the story of Theseus and the Minotaur. Although, since this was a Season One episode, Greg couldn't have had anything to do with that.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Saturday, February 26, 2005 06:44:57 PM
IP: 4.244.18.136

i agree with Patrick, the eggs cannot grow just like the gargoyles can not get heavier when they turn to stone. its not possible. i think Greg once said that gargoyle eggs come out kinda like a reptile egg, with a non-rigid shell, and at the next dawn they harden into a substance to gargoyle stone skin in a process very much like gargoyles turning to stone. makes a lot of sense to me. if the egg shell at birth is rubbery it can easily pass through a female gargs reproductive tract, and female gargs might have a larger or more stretchable tract then humans anyway. if you think about how big a human baby's head and shoulders are its not hard to imagine a female garg birthing a flexible egg thats only a little bigger.
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Saturday, February 26, 2005 06:10:03 PM
IP: 67.65.131.68

The theory "the eggs are smaller when they're laid" has never held water with me. That's not how eggs work when they have shells. Everything the embryo needs to grow to hatchling size has to be inside that egg when it's laid. In birds and reptiles, the minerals that form the shell are deposited as the egg is laid, so as it passes out it is flexible. Bird eggshells contain lots of calcium and harden fully. Most reptile eggshells toughen up but stay kind of leathery. The egg itself, though, never gets any bigger than the size it was when it was laid. Conservation of mass: the mass of a system of substances will always remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. It's one of the fundamental laws of physics.
Patrick
Saturday, February 26, 2005 05:32:10 PM
IP: 68.170.199.45

Brian-- Forgive me for being blunt, but... it seems to me that you create more controversy and open more "cans of womrs" in your own head than you actually do by saying something you percieve as risque' or controvercial. This fandom has been around for a *long time,* so chances are that whatever you're thinking about that you think is oh-so-scary has *probably* already been discussed before. ;] I don't know if I speak for anyone else here, but I swear, every time you dance around an issue and say "but that would just open another can of worms," I want to reach through the monitor and drag it out of you with wild horses. O_o YMMV, but I'm of the mind that you should spit it out of quit dancing around it like it was a Mexican Hat.

As far as the Lexington thing goes... what Kris said. Greg Weisman declared it was canon, and most (if not nearly all) of the fandom has accepted it. Clearly, some people may not like it, but hey... that's the way the character is. **Shrug** If you don't like it, you don't like it, but it's not a "sick joke."
Kythera of Anevern - [kythera@nospam.gmail.com]
Saturday, February 26, 2005 04:16:52 PM
IP: 68.232.227.135

A simpler explanation is that the eggs are simply smaller when they're laid. If they're about the same size, smaller than, or slightly larger than a human newborn, I don't think garg females would have much trouble passing them. (I had to look up the following info in the Ask Greg FAQ, I don't have the head for these sorts of details). A pregnancy lasts 6 months for them, but a gargoyle gestation period once the egg is outside the womb is 10 years (yikes, not exactly a species that ever had the advantage of outpopulating competitors on the food chain during those crucial evolutionary centuries/millenia). I can't remember if a frame of reference was ever given for when the Wyvern Clan's last batch (including Angela, Gabriel, etc) hatched, but I imagine they were pretty far along. If anyone wants to tackle the math of it, you could use the Scotland 994+ dates, the 1994-1996 present day events, however old Angela is (if Greg's ever provided her age), plus factor in the Avalon passage-of-time issue...and maybe come to a pretty good conclusion of how far along in their 10 year development those eggs are when we first see them in "Awakening".

The whole hips-unhinging idea, while plausible, grosses me out for some reason.

Brian said >>
"The Lexington thing is most likely going to head it in that direction if it goes through since that is nothing more than just some sick joke that is most likely going to pick up where that dumb Spongebob thing left off."

What does SpongeBob Squarepants have to do with Gargoyles? Some nutty reverend or TV evangelist accused one of the characters on that series of being gay, but big deal, that happens practically every year. Anyway, there was no intended depiction of homosexuality in SpongBob as far as I'm aware. I haven't seen enough of the series to know, but don't most of the characters pretty much come off as non-sexual? The series doesn't seem to be about SpongeBob trying to attract a girlfriend...

How is the Lexington thing a sick joke? Greg Weisman himself stated it as canon. It wasn't a rumor started by a fan or anything, if that's what you mean.
Kris - [plekopleko@hotmail.com]
Ontario, Canada
Saturday, February 26, 2005 03:48:06 PM
IP: 69.17.169.178

Siren: When is it that you'll be at MegaCon tomorrow?

Garg eggs: Perhaps the shell comes out soft? If the embryo is small enough at that point, it's possible that it's just pushed out like in humans. The shell hardens later. Maybe first sun up?
CKayote - [CKayote@worldnet.att.net]
orlando, fl
Saturday, February 26, 2005 03:07:56 PM
IP: 64.192.79.127

Jade> Again, while this isn't canon, I like Christine Morgan's explaination of that when the eggs are ready to be laid, female gargoyle's hips unhinge like the jaws of a snake to allow them to pass through the birth canal. Of course, in CM's universe, the gargs laid multiple eggs each (Delilah laid four) rather than Greg's one egg each.
Gantros
Saturday, February 26, 2005 01:06:03 PM
IP: 24.20.243.55

Greetings all...

Just wanted to stop in to wish our resident DJ, Wingless, a very well-wished Happy Birthday, and hope that it is a good day for him!

Take care, Wingless! ^_^

Maintain and Check Six!

Stephen Sobotka Jr.
Tampa, FL, USA
Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:43:15 AM
IP: 68.207.180.103

Marge's sister Patty "came out" on "The Simpsons" last week and the world didn't end. That's an animated series with a following among children and adults alike. So if Lexington was eventually revealed to be gay, I really don't see what the big deal would be. :: shrug ::

152 days left until The Gathering 2005 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Patrick
Saturday, February 26, 2005 08:43:58 AM
IP: 68.170.199.45

Yggdrasil> Actually, for Garg Biology 101, or 102 as the case may be, I'd like to see a discussion on gargoyle gestation and/or time in the egg. How long, as far as Greg has said, coupled with the unborn hatchling's development inside the egg. Does it get bigger? How did such a huge egg come out of a garg female anyway? I saw only one fanfic tackle that question so far. Has anyone else? Just a thought. Maybe too personal or touchy to some people, or even 'gross' or whatnot. But developmental biology is just as important to understanding evolutionary biology as studies of physiology and general biology in comparison with other organisms, which I find fun, too. Or you could throw all that out and just do a similarity between animals of today to try and reconstruct a real live garg version, and how it would actually survive realistically in today's age. Um... Or some junk. Hope that helps!
Jade Griffin
Saturday, February 26, 2005 08:10:32 AM
IP: 24.205.210.8

The novels may be a good idea, since the chances of ruining it may be that much lower but is still not impossible. If anything happens to it believe me no one will hear the end of it from me for a very long time. The Lexington thing is most likely going to head it in that direction if it goes through since that is nothing more than just some sick joke that is most likely going to pick up where that dumb Spongebob thing left off. I'm still on the defensive of Lexington and gargoyles as a whole so this will most likely open another can of worms...
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USASaturday, February 26, 2005 12:49:11 AM
IP: 216.37.154.69

If there are concerns with bringing back Gargoyles on TV, why not make episodes direct to DVD (like how there are movies made direct to video, only example offhand I can think of is the 2nd Alladin movie...)? Then Disney wouldn't have to worry about finding a time slot to stick Gargoyles in and Greg should have more leeway with what he can do that he might not be able to do on the air(maybe even get 1 hour episodes?). If Disney is still being cautious, they could just make enough DVDs based on how many have been bought of the first season DVDs(and hopefully from the 2nd season DVDs as well)to get a profit without having leftover DVDs, see if they can make money off it, and go on from there. Of course, I have no idea what the costs are involved and if this is even feasible or not...
Rac
Troy, NY, USA
Friday, February 25, 2005 10:55:30 PM
IP: 24.194.38.227

ED - Yes, I'd definitely enjoy reading the Gargoyles Encyclopedia.
Todd
St. Louis, MO
Friday, February 25, 2005 09:32:18 PM
IP: 4.244.12.25

I'm not that concerned about it 'coming back with problems' if it comes back. Since Greg is so instrumental in the push to get the thing produced, it seems unlikely he'd throw out his master plan. There are ways of being accessible to new viewers without harming the continuity: doing a spin-off like 2198 being the obvious way.

But I tend to agree with Todd about the novels, actually. I think it's likely not only more viable financially but there'd be greater freedom with the stories as well. And I think it would be a better way of building an audience in many ways. Of course, in the medium-term, it would be fun if the DVD sales made Disney consider trying a cash-in like Greg's Gargoyles Encyclopaedia.
Ed
Cambridge, England
Friday, February 25, 2005 08:40:37 PM
IP: 131.111.236.130

Toon disney has improved a bit . The jetix Time slot has gargoyles in it along with the old Spiderman cartoon and xmen cartoon from the 90's.
Shara
Friday, February 25, 2005 03:29:24 PM
IP: 209.179.211.118

I still say cartoon network has gone down the hole as far as decent programing. Family guy and Futrama and static shock are the only things that I watch on that channel. I liked the stuff they showed way back when sailor moon was one of there main shows. The wierd anime shows and there cut and paste sea lab and aqua teen hunger force I find a waist of my intellect watching. Although I did laugh at that robot chicken show the other night.
Shara
Friday, February 25, 2005 12:31:26 PM
IP: 209.179.210.91

I still think the best option would be for Toon Disney to really continue growing like Cartoon Network has. It took years for CN to become what it is, TD is a much younger network.

If they decided to bring back Gargoyles during an evening time-slot... like say Justice League as opposed to Adult Swim, I think Gargoyles could be done and done very, very well.
Greg Bishansky
Friday, February 25, 2005 12:24:16 PM
IP: 141.155.108.154

Todd>>I've said this many times before. I think that Gargoyles would NEVER fly as a Saturday Morning cartoon or even daytime cartoon. I think that it should be brought back as a prime time animated drama. Attempt to overcome the stigma of being animated. Bill it as a "family show" or even to the audience of "The Simpsons" as a drama. That would bypass the MAJOR S&P challenges and Greg can make the series as he wants to...for the most part.

But even with that, he has to know what flies and what doesn't. Even on a network show, how would they handle Lex's "preferences"? Would they downplay it or not? And there could be more freedom to the G&E relationship, not to mention a tad bit more "extremism" (lost for a better word).

For the animators, I think that, if they know they're going to make money, knowing Disney *cough*eisner*cough*, they'll hire animators who could make it work. Or try to get the current animators to emulate it in the best way possible. And if certain agendas are not present in the company, that's even better. Eisner would make any reincarnation crap, just in his childish ways.
Lord GargFan
Friday, February 25, 2005 08:41:20 AM
IP: 67.185.229.228

I think that Brian has a good point about bringing "Gargoyles" back, and truth to tell, I've been increasingly having my doubts over whether reviving the series is something that *should* be done (as opposed to merely *could* be done). I'm not wholly decided as yet on the issue; sometimes I lean one way and sometimes the other. But I'm leaning more to the opinion that it'd be better to simply create a whole new series and fictional universe (not a reboot of the "Gargoyles" continuity, but something entirely new) than revive the old one.

I still think that a series of "Gargoyles" novels written by Greg Weisman might be a better way of reviving the series than making more animated episodes. On the one hand, I think that the ship has sailed on the "making more animated episodes" business, in light of the studios used to create "Gargoyles" having been closed down by Disney and almost all of Disney's television animation now being drawn with a "comedy cartoon" style. On the other hand, a novel would allow more room to explore some of the issues that there might not be time to address in a half-hour episode, especially with the gargoyles revealed to the world. Take the trial of Goliath story that Greg wanted to tell, for example. The big point of that, in his plans, was that the major obstacle was giving Goliath a trial to begin with, since almost all of the humans in New York believe gargoyles to be wild animals. I'm not certain how much time there would have been to explore that in a half-hour animated episode, between the time constraints and the need for an action plot to satisfy the 6-11-year-old-boys in the audience (and the debate over whether gargoyles are intelligent enough to be placed on trial certainly wouldn't be it), but the format of the printed page would be another matter.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Friday, February 25, 2005 07:43:21 AM
IP: 4.244.12.199

Well. In that case...

Cloning would probably be a good one. I know it sounds too general, but it's kinda hard to pull out a single specific. Other than that, I haven't any ideas.:\

On to the return of Gargoyles: Any new spin-offs could result in throwing Gargoyles as a whole totally out of proportion, should even the most minute change is made to any part of it, including the characters, character relations, their history, any place in time, the list can go on. For how long it's been down resuscitating it is going to be no easy task. It may have been a good idea five years ago but now after all this time after being cancelled something is bound to get changed, whether anyone wants it to or not. Crap like that happens all the time. The rotten cabbages might start flying after this. But as much as I would like for it to make a big comeback, I think instead of rising from the ashes it should remain under them so that absolutely nothing can happen to it.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAThursday, February 24, 2005 11:40:02 PM
IP: 199.224.75.239

Greetings;

Brian: "I'm not touching that with a 30-foot pole. I need to open another can of rotting worms as much as I need a hole in the head.:\"

I was being serious. What would you like to hear about in the talk? Biology 102 is not the Blue Mug a Guest, it's a fun discussion. We could talk for hours on Biology, Genetics, Molecular Biology, and Physiology, but we only have one hour so we need to limit the topics covered. Last year in Montreal my portion of the talk was on Genetic Engineering as it was utilized in Gargoyles, and how it actually works in real-world research. This year I was thinking about working on heredity (the genetics, not the physical act of procreation!).

Yggdrasil - [eng050599@hotmail.com]
Ontario, Canada
Thursday, February 24, 2005 09:56:15 PM
IP: 24.114.11.28

While, as I said last night, I haven't seen very much of the new TMNT cartoon, I did catch some glimpses of the first episodes, and one bit in them struck me as slightly reminiscent of "Gargoyles". It was a scene where Shredder was angrily telling Baxter Stockman that he doesn't tolerate failure; to this, Stockman replies, "That is why you would make a poor scientist", and goes on to explain that he views failure as an opportunity, in a sense, since he then studies what went wrong so that he can improve on his inventions' weak points and make them better for next time. That reminded me a bit of Xanatos's remarks during his "tag-lines".
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Thursday, February 24, 2005 07:31:42 AM
IP: 4.244.12.162

Star Trek>> Sorry. Haven't watched seriously since midway through "Voyager." I'm starting to feel pressure to watch, with the upcoming cancellation! At least "Enterprise" will get a series finale of sorts.

The TMNT new continuity>> Actually, the new continuity is very much like the original Mirage series. I think the new TMNT cartoons are what creator Peter Laird wanted back in the late '80s. (I can't say anything about Keven Eastman as I don't think he has anything to do with the new 'toon.) The first 'toon represented a total franchise reboot of the sort Todd mentions. The current 'toon is a Good Thing.

Mind you, once I learned to view the first TMNT 'toon as a parody of action cartoons, I loved it. I had absolutely no exposure to the original comics at the time, of course! Still have only a little exposure now, acually.

Speaking of rebooting continutities>> Anyone hear that Disney is planning on making a new TRON movie? The original reports suggested that the film would be a remake, but none other than Steven Lisberger -- TRON's papa -- has revealed that this is incorrect -- the new film will instead bring the TRON universe into the contemporary era. (Kinda like what Greg may end up doing with Gargoyles ;-). ) See www.tron-sector.com
JJ Gregarius
Tampa, FL
Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:52:22 AM
IP: 4.247.182.143

gargfan: It might not, i mean family sitcoms only ran for one decade, then when the 70's hit, it was cop shows, comedies, hippie tv shows in the early 70's etc. In the 80's they reverted back to family sitcoms, but focusing more on the family life troubles and tv shows like 21 jump street. The 90's came and more teenage tv shows broke through, there not showing now. I'm sure by 2010, the reality show will be dead, it's called mainstream media. Gargoyles, wasn't mainstream at all.

Todd: I have a feeling that greg will definately stay true to the story if he does come back on, and the other writers for it. He showed disney 10 years ago that he could pull off a great tv show. Besides tmnt was just an experiment, all the former tmnt fans are now grown up, and most of them couldn't care less for tmnt anymore. They might watch it for the flashback to there childhood though.
dan
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:25:38 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

One point about the revival of "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" vis-a-vis a possible revival of "Gargoyles": I hope that "Gargoyles" will not be revived in quite the same manner that TMNT was. By that, I mean that TMNT's new series had an entirely new continuity from the old cartoon (what little that I've seen of the new series to date indicates a more serious show, though with still some humor to it such as the Turtles suggesting various names for their new home, all parodies of the best-known super-hero bases such as the Fortress of Solitude). While I'd like to see "Gargoyles" return, I definitely would not want it to be done in an entirely new continuity in which, say, Goliath and his clan were ordinary gargoyle statues inadvertently brought to life by a freak electric storm, or modern-day humans mutated into gargoyles by Xanatos and Sevarius, or even ordinary humans who don gargoyle costumes in order to strike fear into the hearts of cowardly, superstitious criminals. (Of course, I don't think that "Gargoyles" has the option for an entirely new continuity as such regular super-hero series as Batman or X-Men or TMNT do, but this is still not something that I want to see happen.)

I don't know if "Biker Mice from Mars"'s revival will reboot the continuity from scratch; maybe somebody else here does. (As an interesting side-note, I remember watching a few "Biker Mice" episodes some years ago - although I never got into the series - and noticed that they, like the gargoyles, had encounters with both King Arthur and Shakespeare's plays, though with the details being dramatically different.)
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 07:02:09 PM
IP: 4.245.17.22

Does Disney even have the financial resources available to even make such a venture? Weren't they starting to get into financial trouble back close to when the Enron debacle started?
Vertigo1
TN, USA
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 05:50:36 PM
IP: 207.65.59.177

I think the best option is for Toon Disney to grow and become what Cartoon Network is now. CN started small too.

Given time, Gargoyles or a spin-off could be TD's "Justice League"
Greg Bishansky
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 04:23:14 PM
IP: 141.155.108.154

Lord Gargfan:

I believe that if Gargoyles came back, the only place it would be succesful would be Saturday mornings. Don't compare it to all those dramas that got cancelled last season, compare it to something that is similar to it, such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. That show has made a strong comeback, thanks to cross marketing with video games and action figures. Right now the third season is airing, but production is half-way through season 5 already.

Gargoyles was marketed as a cartoon, a children's show, and Disney should not deviate from that formula. Yes, all of us here know it is not just for children, deep plots and characters, etc. etc, but you would have a near impossible time convincing adult viewers in prime-time of that, when you have "adult" shows like 24, Lost, Desperate Housewives, etc.

As for the "violence" in Gargoyle's, TMNT recently had an episode where Master Splinter gets a Katana run through him by Leonardo, and in the first season a scene of Shredder getting is head cut off. I think Saturday morning cartoon regulations have softened up enough to support Gargoyle's once again.

I really believe a comeback could work if the cards were played right, the problem is that Gargoyle's wasn't a smash success when it aired like the original TMNT was. Also, another show that didn't fare too well is also coming back in Spring 2006. Yep, a new version of Biker Mice from Mars. If Disney releases the second season of Gargs on DVD and it does well, and if TMNT continues to do well, and if Biker Mice does well... maybe Gargoyles has a shot. Too many "if"s and "maybe"s though.

I know this dicussion started because of Star Trek Enterprise. I stopped watching the show after the decontamination rub-down scene, which was, what, the second episode?
TigerShard
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 02:50:33 PM
IP: 69.212.54.79

TV has different "periods". In the '60s, it was the age of the family sitcoms. Now, it's the age of reality. Now, sci-fi shows are being cancelled for other (probably reality) shows. It happens all the time.

The top five shows may reflect the sign of the times. This is the age of reality and crime. The sitcom is dying. The sci-fi genre is dying. I wonder how Gargoyles would do if it was a network primetime show right now. Would people consider it an animated drama, or pass it off as a cartoon show that obsessed fans brought back, a la Star Trek and Family Guy?

Shows that last past two to three years now are considered "successes". Look at the remnants of the fall season now. No LAX. No Hawaii. No Wonderfalls. No Century City. The traditional shelf life for a cult hit may be 7 years, but for a regular show is probably less than one to 3 or 4.
Lord GargFan
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 02:25:23 PM
IP: 67.185.229.228

Kris> Some series do last for more than the usual 7 year shelf life, while still remaining popular. The most obvious is "The Simpsons", another is "Stargate: SG-1", which is scheduled to run into a 9th season.
Gantros
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 01:21:52 PM
IP: 24.20.243.55

Thanks, Guandalug.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:19:00 AM
IP: 198.209.226.130

Todd> About Wyvernweb: Power Problems with the main switch that connects the whole bunch of servers to the outer world. Nothing serious, and not even directly involving WyvernWeb servers (at least that's what I heard)
Guandalug la'Fay
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 07:51:40 AM
IP: 134.147.82.247

DPH >> "it's the age of making a tv show as cheaply as possibly to get the max profits possible."

TV's ALWAYS been about that. It's always been about making profits, getting those commercials seen. It's just now they've realized they can make things that much cheaper with the success of reality TV. For scripted dramas and comedies, but especially genre shows, the creators basically say to the network execs, "this is how much we need to make our show's sets and effects look good enough that people won't laugh at them and will come back for more". Then the execs will always say, "No, you'll go way over budget, you can have a tenth of the budget you're asking for", and then they get by on what they can. In genre TV they seem to be able to get around it by having effects-heavy big event episodes and then sometimes they'll just do something like a holodeck ep on the "later" Treks where the setting is a forest and the only effect is a single phaser blast. J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5 (I've just gotten into that series this year, about to start Season 3 soon), explained that he wrote things this way out of necessity. They couldn't afford big CGI-effects for every episode.

This whole reality TV thing will probably mostly be a phase though. Things'll swing back the other way, they've already begun to. Scripted dramas are hugely popular again if Lost and Desperate Housewives are any indication. Love 'em both personally. I'm worried that Lost'll become another X-Files and drag out the stories and some of the mysteries for 9 seasons (sorry, but nine years is too long for any TV series to last, the quality is NEVER kept up that long), but hopefully the writers for Lost learned from Chris Carter's mistakes. But Lost is going pretty well so far. Desperate Housewives makes me laugh, sometimes very hard, and is well-writen and has a talented cast of actors for the most part. It's society/suburbia-under-the-microscope wit is often effective. Sometimes I wish it were on HBO or something, it'd fit better there aired beside Six Feet Under.

The CSIs have also been doing really well while reality TV is having its day, but I can't stand the CSI shows. Procedural dramas where the characters never grow (and you probably don't come to care for any of them) and the plot is basically a news headline that's been re-enacted and filmed, just not for me.

And as for reality TV, I have one guilty pleasure--Survivor. I can't help it, I tried to give it up this season but then my sister showed me the tape of it, knowing I was out that Thursday and had forgotten. I watched it and, as usual, the beautiful filming (the islands are just frickin awesome looking this year) and beautiful half-naked peoples, not to mention some fun twists on the usual gameplay, made it irresistable. Stupid stupid addiction to stupid stupid show, but I love it. Otherwise I hate reality TV.
Kris - [plekopleko@hotmail.com]
Ontario, Canada
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 04:45:44 AM
IP: 69.17.169.178

Brian: If you use Mozilla or FireFox, then you can just download the bugmenot extention and get around crap like that.

http://bugmenot.mozdev.org/

I also recommend the Adblock extention. (extends the built-in image blocking functionality by quite a bit!)

http://adblock.mozdev.org/

These two browser extentions will make your net experience alot more palatable. :)
Vertigo1
TN, USA
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:31:23 PM
IP: 207.65.59.175

No need to sign up Brian. Got the site where you can see it right here.

www.angelfire.com/magic2/pucksfunhouse (or clicky my name)

Hopefully she won't kill me for doing this.
BrooksBabe
T.O., Canada
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 09:10:47 PM
IP: 64.228.119.164

Brian> Then if you want to see it, you'll have to sign up. Sorry :(
Siren
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 09:03:43 PM
IP: 65.33.112.240

Still no good Siren. It still asks me to sign up for something and I cannot find any way around it.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USATuesday, February 22, 2005 08:40:39 PM
IP: 216.37.226.39

Brian>When you click on that link you'll get the page ABOUT the video. Then click LOCAL, it is in green and near the bottom of the page. You should then get a pledge page. It appears to have worked for others and to my knowledge, they do not have accounts there.
Siren
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 08:24:20 PM
IP: 65.33.112.240

Star Trek >> I would like to see a movie/spin-off about the early lives/beginnings enemies, starting with the Borg, then the Q. Those would probably harbor the best potential. If anyone knows how to pitch a series like this to Paramount, say so! (But I'll keep crusading for a Gargoyles resurrection before Star Trek: Yet Another Series.) Perhaps I should take this to TrekBBS...

I have not a clue on how that Riker/Troi thing would work out, unless they were playing ancestors of them or something.
Lord Gargfan
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 05:14:34 PM
IP: 67.185.229.228

umm this might have been answered somewhere, and I just can't find it, but was Disney Pleased with the sales of Gargoyles, and has there even been a roumor that they might do another season? It looked like it sold pretty good, but a lot depends on what Disney was expecting out of it. Anyway I am sure we are all hoping we get a season 2, I just haven't heard any numbers or if Disney was happy with the response.

Thanks,
Electronic Scavenger
Electronic Scavenger - [e_scavenger@hotmail.com]
Newton, NC, USA
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 03:44:15 PM
IP: 207.4.128.189

Honestly, I want a break from any Star Trek series on tv and a long one. At least 2 years. Instead of making a tv show, concentrate on making some good star trek movies, especially if you can manage to do a good round-up of the DS9 crew. (I don't want to see a movie involving Voyager at all)

I don't think the original series was all that great - a few episodes come to mind: like the one where they figured how to give ordinary people the power to move objects with their own mind or the one where they ran across a former god. Especially the one where time travel became extremely cheap. Actions/discoveries have consequences. If you want to create interest in new Star Trek series, start by waiting at least 2 years before launching a new series. Then fire your existing writers so they can't make plans for another stupid series.

Honestly, if I was in charge of the SciFi channel, I would probably put a great big "Welcome Sign" out to any upcoming writers who can come up with a tv series that will last 5-7 years, has good plot (season specific story arcs as well as story arcs over the entire series), and good characterization (believable characters, a few bad boys, and sympathetic characters - overall evolving over time). None of this reality tv; it's the age of making a tv show as cheaply as possibly to get the max profits possible.

Haven't the ratings for the reality tv shows dropped each season? (the Apprentice might actually be an exception because business educators actually encourage students to watch it to learn).
DPH
AR, USA
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 01:38:18 PM
IP: 67.14.195.36

What pledge page? I wound up with something totally different. Appears to be something exclusive available only to those that sign up for their newsletters or something.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USATuesday, February 22, 2005 01:10:12 PM
IP: 216.37.226.39

On Star Trek:

I never got into Enterprise. I've seen a couple of eps, and it just didn't feel like Star Trek to me. I think TNG was the best. DS9 was okay, and I stopped watching Voyager after the first two or so seasons. And of course, the original is classic :)

I wish they'd make the movies again. But I doubt they could use the TNG crew (Data's not supposed to age, hehe). Maybe they could get the DS9 crew, plus Worf???
Kristen - [zzilly14@yahoo.com]
Virginia, USA
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 12:51:24 PM
IP: 199.249.157.129

Hey! That's Saria's music video! I know her! hehe...
She's got a website too... can't really remember the url for it though...
BrooksBabe
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 12:51:22 PM
IP: 130.63.176.188

There is just something terribly wrong with this...Looking through other fan music videos I found an interesting Puck video. Click my name. Hopefully it works :)

After you click my name, click the link LOCAL and then click Proceed at the pledge page, it should load then.
Siren
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 11:18:37 AM
IP: 65.33.112.240

i agree with Phil. this season of Enterprise has been much better. i think its great how they have begun the groundwork for the founding of the Federation. furthermore, this season is developing all the founding member species more, the Humans, Vulcans, Andorians and Tellarites, and you are even seeing the background for the Romulan-Earth war and the later conflict with the Klingons.
i think its sad that Enterprise is being cancelled just when it reaches such an interesting period in the Star Trek universe history.
my favorite Star Trek series was DS9, and IMHO, it didn't start getting really cool until the Dominion War arc started.
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:04:08 AM
IP: 67.65.131.68

What's Wyvern Web?
Anonymous
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 09:17:17 AM
IP: 67.185.229.228

Continuing the off-topic discussion of Star Trek, I'll agree that the franchise has been wandering somewhat aimlessly the last few years. But I've enjoyed recent episodes of Enterprise a lot. Since they got past the Xindi war and the alien Nazis I think they've been heading in the right direction. They're setting the groundwork for the beginning of the Federation and developing the Andorians more, and Friday's episode started a storyline that looks like it's going to explain why Klingons in the original series didn't have head ridges. Too bad they've made this turnaround too late.
Phil - [p1anderson@go.com]
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 08:40:02 AM
IP: 134.215.241.133

So does anybody here know why WyvernWeb went down last night?
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 07:39:27 AM
IP: 4.244.12.34

In my opinion, the "Trek" TV franchise began its slow downhill descent when the Dominion arc began on "DS9". "Voyager" continued the slide, then Gene died, and "Enterprise" never stood a chance. That first episode, when I saw Capt. Archer was taking his doggie into space, I knew it was going to suck.

156 days left until The Gathering 2005 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Patrick
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 07:38:06 AM
IP: 66.93.14.153

I agree with DPH. Enterprise was nothing more than a sack of garbage from the start. I'm amazed its lasted this long given its lackluster ratings, and the fact that B&B pissed off the core audience (just like Kevin Sorbo did when he had Robert Wolfe fired from the Andromeda writing staff) by totally urinating all over the original series and pretty much everything Gene had done in the past. Good riddance to bad garbage I say. If anything, they need to make a DS9 film with a storyline based off of the 8th season novels. That would wrap things up alot better than the finale episode that was clearly a rush job. Not right away mind you. Wait a few years so the hype can build up again just like it did for the first movie.
Vertigo1
TN, USA
Monday, February 21, 2005 11:57:20 PM
IP: 207.65.59.157

Aghhk! Kris and mascubanana, thanks for you comments last week. ^_^;

Kris-- That's why I chose the wording I did. I'm all for being supportive of the artists who are still developing their skills and their style, but even among the "skilled" or "professional"-grade artists, there's some work that I can only think less-than-flattering things of (ergo, don't say anything about it at all), but to somebody else, it's pure gold, and that's fine. Yanno?

...
I have no opinions on the current "Enterprise" speculations. I haven't watched a 'Trek series since Next Gen. O_o;
Kythera of Anevern - [kythera@[nospam]gmail.com]
Monday, February 21, 2005 11:09:39 PM
IP: 68.232.227.135

wow, i can honestly say i'm humbly confused:(
dan
Monday, February 21, 2005 11:07:17 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

I don't follow either.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAMonday, February 21, 2005 05:17:56 PM
IP: 216.37.226.43

...
Anonymous
Monday, February 21, 2005 04:34:39 PM
IP: 135.214.150.125

Maybe Riker and Troi will be completing some forgotten mission of Archer's day. Technically, they could be working on the same problem in their own time. It wouldn't require time travel just flashbacks.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Monday, February 21, 2005 02:02:20 PM
IP: 64.112.203.240

Without using time travel, I can't see any way for Riker and Troi to interact with the "Enterprise" crew unless it's on a holodeck in the 24th century. Meaning the ten people who still regulary watch the show are going to learn they've been watching a holo-simulation for the past four years. So it's either that, or it'll be just a brief flash-forward to the future, with Riker and Troi making a cameo as they review historical records.

It's very hard to imagine, though... a Trek spinoff finale that doesn't involve time travel. :P

157 days left until The Gathering 2005 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Patrick
Monday, February 21, 2005 08:30:02 AM
IP: 66.93.14.153

.....And now on with the show!
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Monday, February 21, 2005 04:54:41 AM
IP: 64.112.203.135

aw crap, 10th!
dan
Monday, February 21, 2005 04:03:50 AM
IP: 68.42.18.157

Personally, I like the idea of shutting down on making any new Star Trek series for a few years. Basically, I want it shut down until the current set of bad writers takes a very long hike. If anything, I would like them to bring back another series similiar to DS9. Plan out story arcs well in advance and stop relying on sex to sell the show.
DPH
AR, USA
Monday, February 21, 2005 01:39:45 AM
IP: 67.14.195.40

9th!
Leo
Monday, February 21, 2005 01:36:40 AM
IP: 68.231.241.236

8th :D
Mooncat
Monday, February 21, 2005 01:16:14 AM
IP: 68.102.17.133

7th, maybe 8th by the time I finish writing this.

Patrick >> I guess I eat my words then. They'd gone so long without a ratings stunt (aside from having Brent Spiner play an "ancestor" of Data's) I honestly didn't think they'd bother using any of the characters from the rest of the franchise on Enterprise. But then writer Manny Coto goes on to say, "...it does not involve time travel." So I kinda wonder how they're gonna show Riker and Troi without using time travel. They HAVE apparently filmed a 2-episode "mirror universe" arc, but I don't see how that could involve Riker and Troi without time travel. Just gonna have to wait and see I guess.

They never did completely tie up the Temporal Cold War storyline--never told us who that shadowy figure that Silik (the Suliban leader) was taking orders from.
Kris - [plekopleko@hotmail.com]
Ontario, Canada
Monday, February 21, 2005 01:12:10 AM
IP: 69.17.169.178

6th!!
DPH
AR, USA
Monday, February 21, 2005 12:37:46 AM
IP: 67.14.195.40

"Did you pick your feet for the FIFTH TIME in Poughkeepsie, Willy?"

That is all I will say.
Battle Beast
CanadaMonday, February 21, 2005 12:27:00 AM
IP: 198.53.28.99

Er, 4th...damn typos...:P
Siren
Monday, February 21, 2005 12:15:48 AM
IP: 65.33.112.240

Officially, 5th!
Siren
Monday, February 21, 2005 12:15:32 AM
IP: 65.33.112.240

Is it safe to say booyah here? Can't believe if it's posted @ 00:00:01 it still counts as last week.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAMonday, February 21, 2005 12:09:03 AM
IP: 205.238.242.87

am i first? oh... 3RD!!!!!!
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Monday, February 21, 2005 12:06:40 AM
IP: 67.65.131.68

ok so second
mascubanana
Monday, February 21, 2005 12:06:17 AM
IP: 160.39.105.72

Am I first? hehehe
mascubanana
Monday, February 21, 2005 12:05:52 AM
IP: 160.39.105.72

i said first
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAMonday, February 21, 2005 12:02:02 AM
IP: 205.238.242.87