Comment Room Archive : Gargoyles : Station Eight

Dingo> I agree that Dingo in the past has been a truely villainous person, namely his willingness to hunt the clan. I chalk part of it up to his soldier/mercenary background, and he definitely had the first few encounters with the gargoyles for a challenge and because he was hired to do so. When it comes to the job for Fox in Australia, I think he was already starting to get uncomfortable with what he's been doing, which is why he's with the shaman(?) to begin with. The job itself seems more like he was a guard, and probably didn't have a full idea of what the project was only to keep people out. Now, I'm not saying he was reformed, just starting to reconsider his life. Which is something I look forward to seeing him try to resolve as the series goes on. He'll probably back slide a number of times, a number of ways. The guy was a soldier/mercenary, you don't lose that experience and attitude like flipping a switch. He probably still has a very cutthroat approach to things.

As for the superhero aspect, I think he was, in part, putting on a show. He was trying to present a certain image to the public of being a hero. And as Hunter points out, he's still a wanted criminal in America. So, depending POV, he's a hero or a villain. Join the Redemption Squad is a dangerous way -- there's a threat over his head, and the missions are dangerous -- of potentially getting closer to more genuine redemption than what he was doing solo.
Asatira
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 8:57:55 pm EST from 97.82.58.208

Chris >> I know what HOX genes, are but the HOX complex still doesn't determine every single aspect of an organism's appearance.

About Dingo >> You have a good insight, Purplegoldfish. He has demonstrated more humanity and decency than Jackal and Hyena, at least, but now that you ask about it, I wonder if, being a mercenary, he's just doing whatever seems a fun and challenging fight. A sport, kind of. He likes the adulation of being a hero, and you may well be right that that's the main reason he wants to be a hero... not actually because he enjoys doing good deeds.

Now thylacines are an animal which, I think, many Australians consider a tragic case. Whereas to the thoughtless or just less conscientious, the gargoyles are just these things. Creatures. Obviously, his happily hunting them was inexcusable and wrong. I think Greg W.'s observation is an apt one -- that even knowing they can talk, most humans will still not accept that gargoyles are sentient, let alone be considerate of them.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 8:20:05 pm EST from 209.162.56.40

Well, there's really not much to Dingo. He's basically a one-note character-a "hired thug" as he said.
And he probably just followed orders to get paid, but if he really felt in his heart that it would be wrong to try to eradicate sentient beings who never did anything to him, he wouldn't have. Though he did show distaste with the pack for changing their bodies and robbing banks, he never showed any remorse for going after the gargoyles. (Why is he okay with hurting the gargoyles, but not with hurting the thylacines? and they actually attacked him first.) And while Robyn did have a reason to hunt gargoyles-a family agenda that was beaten into her head during her whole life- what was Dingo's reason? Because he was bored and it gave him something to do.

I always felt that when Dingo said that whole spiel about law and order to Matrix, it was just something he said so that matrix wouldn't kill him and destroy the world. But all of a sudden he's this beloved superhero within a matter of months. Is it because it gives him something to do other than going around robbing banks?-that would certainly fit with his character more than he just suddenly had a change of heart.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 7:49:13 pm EST from 69.183.162.111

Purplegoldfish: On Dingo -- that's a pretty decent portrayal of Dingo under how we've seen him so far, but then again, that's why he's in the Redemption Squad . . . he's either going to finally learn what it really takes to redeem his past actions (which were malicious, at the least) or he can simply be canon fodder for the Director. Either way, he's a perfect candidate for the Redemption Squad.

Then again, I still find areas to like the guy, even before "Walkabout." For one, he at least has something of a good head on his shoulders -- he wasn't totally into being "upgraded" as his teammates were ("I still can't beleive what you guys did to yourselves").

But yes, he'll have plenty to answer for -- he may be hoping to be a REAL hero this time around, he's about to see it isn't as easy as what he was doing Down Under.
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy Wonka
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 7:34:43 pm EST from 70.162.221.121

Goldfish: I got the sense that Dingo was something of a mercenary before joining the Pack. Unless he was just being colorful with his remark about not lasting five minutes in a Central American war. But if he wasn't, mercenaries follow the money.

According to your theory, his unrest in "Upgrade" might have been that he considered bank-robbing a waste of his talents. So he might like the attention. He did mention the Pack television show to Matrix at the end of "Walkabout."

But then, Dingo's not a character I've read up on as much as others.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Bow down! Bow down! Before the power of Santa, or be crushed! Be crushed! By his jolly boots of DOOM!" -Invader Zim
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 3:55:59 pm EST from 71.62.198.251

Since I'm an idiot when it comes to these biology discussions, I'm going to talk about something which has been rummaging around in my head. Back to "Bad guys" (cause I really want to like it and I don't, so I'm trying to figure it out). I was thinking about Dingo and why I don't like him and why I think he's out of character in the comic.

When you think about it, Dingo is a JERK! At least with his teamates, the bad things they had done were for a reason. Dingo went out to hurt others for no reason, under the orders of others.

In "Thrill of the Hunt" Dingo willingly and happily engages in hunting and attempting to kill Goliath and Lexington when he was perfectly aware that they were sentient beings who wanted to make a friendly connection.

In "Leader of the Pack" Dingo and Coyote release three psychotic killers from prison, probably killing and maiming several guards in the process.

In "Upgrade," Dingo has no problem working with his packmates in again luring the gargoyles, knocking out Goliath, Hudson, Bronx, and Elisa(a cop!), locking Goliath, Hudson, and Elisa in gas chambers, and planning to smash the gargoyles when they're in stone sleep. (And what were they plannig to do with Elisa? Kill her? So Dingo would have been a party to killing an innocent and helpless woman.) Also in this episode, Dingo throws an electric grenade at Goliath while his back was turned-pretty low.

He's not as bad in "Walkabout", but he was there helping Fox while she was trying to create something that could possibly be deadly to the entire planet.

So basically, I'm having a hard time buying Dingo's turn around, and I couldn't care less. Even Xanatos and Fox who have seemed to "change their ways" are pretty much the same schemeing people they've always been-and neither have become super heroes. Plus we don't really know enough about Dingo to understand his motivations. So I have to wonder, is Dingo really repentant, or is he doing the whole "Superman" act because he likes the positive attention? From what we've seen from him, I"m going with the latter.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 3:39:50 pm EST from 69.183.162.111

Not that we have a choice - but between the show and the comic, it's a hard choice, I like being able to see and hear the characters, but I also like the freedom the comic format has. If we could have the show back and away from the grip of Disney, I'd love that. A cutting edge gargoyles that's a little more adult(I don't mean graphically adult - but Simply I don't think we would have seen "Bash" ever in animated form under disney.
Wingless
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 3:17:29 pm EST from 99.245.254.123

Well, if I had the choice between tv show and comics, I would choose tv show. If Gargoyles was a comic at first, I probably wouldn't have ever known about it since I"m not normally a comic reader.

However, I'm very happy that we're getting Gargoyles in ANY form. And I really like how Greg is taking full advantage of the comic format the way he did with the tv show.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 2:58:36 pm EST from 69.183.162.111

Have you ever heard of homeobox (or HOX) genes? They are master control genes that *do* link thousands of genes together. They are and ancient set of genes that are found in every animal that dictates body plan. The slightest change in the gene can have drastic repercussions. One gene being turned on that sets off a chain reaction during development that dictates entire body parts. Such as hooves, or the layout of a head.
chris
~R
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 2:35:10 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

Yeah, but "has the head of a deer" isn't one gene. It's hundreds of genes. You just can't have that many genes linked together, unless this is a species in which only one parent provides any genes at all to the offspring. Let alone linking that many genes to the dozen or so that are responsible for cloven hooves. It just does not work to say that the entirety of a gargoyle's physical appearance is a single gigantic package.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 2:27:27 pm EST from 209.162.56.40

To consider the idea of 'blending,' traits would most likely be dominant/recessive for a variety of aspects, with certain traits sex-linked. Few traits in any species are co-dominant, resulting in a blending of the phenotype.
chris
~R
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 12:58:45 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

Matt: I agree. A good example is the way the narration seems to be flowing in this three-parter. Definitely harder to pull off in a medium like film or television (or it's more confusing).
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Bow down! Bow down! Before the power of Santa, or be crushed! Be crushed! By his jolly boots of DOOM!" -Invader Zim
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 12:25:17 pm EST from 71.62.198.251

Though this IS gargoyles we are talking about, I'm not sure how common mixtures are, or to what extent. A mixture of a gargoyle like Goliath and one like Lexington (one being female of course) would probably not result in a true blending. Almost certainly either the larger build and wings or the smaller build and wings would be favored. Maybe there would be a medium size form with some mixture of wings, but even Greg has said that it is common for gargoyles to look more like their same gender parent with coloring and small modifications from their opposite gender parent. So Broadway has the general build and wings as Hudson and his coloring and ears and hairlessness from his mother (presumably). His horns appear to be a mixture of his parents' forms.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 12:16:09 pm EST from 24.207.163.239

Siren >> It would never work if each member of a population mimics a different species. As soon as anyone mated, their offspring would be a mixture.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 11:49:21 am EST from 209.162.56.40

As much as I love Gargoyles on tv, I have seen a lot of advantages to being in comic form and I'm beginning to think this particular series could be more well suited to this medium. I like it a lot.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 11:38:54 am EST from 24.207.163.239

I agree. I want all the story I can get in the max number of pages used and wouldn't trade it for an intro/opening. I thought maybe in the TPB as an extra, but of course I can't ask Greg that way without it sounding like an idea, ya know?
Octavio Valentine
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 10:34:17 am EST from 70.15.84.29

Octavio> My personal feeling is that we're not going to see a comics version of an opening title animation for either the regular series or the spin-offs. With issue #7 in particular, we've really started to see the strengths of comics storytelling being utilized. For the time being at least, "Gargoyles" is a comic and comics don't have opening titles like TV shows. Neat as it would be to see what the openings of season three or any of the spin-offs might have looked like, to me it would be too much like saying "we'd really rather be telling this story as a TV show, but we can only do it as a comic, so we're going t try to put in everything that you'd see in a TV show". I'm actually really glad that the comic is really starting to feel more like a satisfying comic and less like TV scripts fit into the comic format.

What would be neat along similar lines would be to have a one page comic done for each series that serves a similar purpose to the season two intro: explaining the basic premise of the series in a fun and exciting way. Rather than put this at the start of ever issue, this could be used to advertise the comic. The one problem is that I don't know where it could be printed.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 10:23:15 am EST from 209.6.248.33

Greg B> Great job on the video.

All> Speaking of openings, before I ask Greg W, I was wondering if you think he'll every have one of this comic book artist draw a "Season 3" beginning for his comic or even for his spin offs?

Wingless> Thanks for the MCoG DVD info. I might have to buy it just for nostalgic reasons.

Todd> Sounds very logical to see St. Columba in #8 (or #9.)
Octavio Valentine
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 9:57:24 am EST from 70.15.84.29

I think the term you are looking for instead of convergent evolution is mimicry. Convergent evolution evolution is when animals from different taxa develop similar structures (shark pectoral fins are very similar to dolphin pectoral fins). Mimicry is when an entire animal looks like another for survival reasons. Pretty drastic mutations would have to occur, and *then* be *selected* for to create such morphological changes.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about hyenas;). Are you trying to say the London Clan is a different species? There are tons of animals most people refer to as relating to one taxa, but are actually part of another.

Enjoying the debate :)
chris
~R
posted @ Sun, Dec 23, 2007 9:38:55 am EST from 66.211.201.24

Not sure if this was mentioned, but...

On how we have gargoyles that look like lions, deer, boar, etc...convergent evolution. It is when two animals of seperate species evolve to look similar. Look up the hummingbird moth for instance. Or Mantis Flies. Thylacine was a marsupial that looks like a canine. Hyenas are more closely related to meerkats.

So it is perfectly plausible that a gargoyle can resemble a griffon and not be blood related.
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Sat, Dec 22, 2007 9:21:19 pm EST from 68.202.76.113

Vaevictis, that's exactly what I meant. If we want to get into the fossil record debate on the age of races, we could, but I don't think anyone wants to get that in depth. And everything gets confusing when you try to mix fact with fantasy. I was just proposing that *somewhere* along the line, the races may have intermingled~ how are we accounting for the mortal race of the New Olympians- they have plenty of crazy anatomy and physiology going on.

As for the debate on Oberon's race possessing DNA in their immortal vs. mortal, I'm really not going to jump into that one. I am a biologist by trade and my thoughts would probably just annoy people;)

Merry Yule and Happy Solstice ~ I see others are celebrating it as well. Dancing around candles until sunrise!
chris
~R
posted @ Sat, Dec 22, 2007 8:31:43 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

Happy Solstice!

188 days left until The Gathering 2008 in Chicago, Illinois!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2008]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Sat, Dec 22, 2007 7:43:43 pm EST from 99.161.91.215

I was looking at this site and was wondering if this possible dates for Gargs #8 and Bad Guys #2 might fall on these dates .. obviously the cover art is way off.. but I wonder..
http://www.tfaw.com/Search?quick_sstring=gargoyles&_results_sstype_search=comics
Starlioness
posted @ Sat, Dec 22, 2007 6:56:36 pm EST from 206.188.56.114

I don't think Chris meant that the original ancestors of all the gargoyle race are Third Race. Only that at some point (before 500 AD?), an ancestor of the London Clan might have mated with a Child of Mab who took gargoyle form.

In their "true" forms, I doubt they have tissues or cells, much less DNA. According to Greg (when asked if they have blood, or example) they're made of pure magic.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Sat, Dec 22, 2007 6:42:57 pm EST from 209.162.56.40

chris - one problem with your theory: gargoyles were the 1st race (aside from the Lost Race). humans were the 2nd race. Oberon's children are the 3rd race. When I refer to them as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, I am literally referring to when they developed. Gargoyles pre-date humanity which predates Oberon's children.

But you do bring up a hypothetical question: do Oberon's children have dna? Just because they can reproduce does not mean they have dna in their 'magical' form.

**Theory**
I've often wondered if the difference between members of the 3rd race using magic and humans using magic is akin to a musical prodigy vs a person well learned in music or a chess prodigy vs a person who has studied the game for years.
**End Theory**
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Sat, Dec 22, 2007 5:39:03 pm EST from 98.20.175.10

I actually haven't posted in a long time. Primarily because our fence is chain-link.

WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS

Vicky: <I hope Brooklyn gets over Angela Choosing Broadway because I got this feeling he could get himself into trouble by doing something stupid before he goes on his Timedancing Journey.>

I don't know. Since he will be gone for forty years (forty years for him), I think it would be cool to see him do something stupid before he leaves. It would make for a more interesting reunion.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Praise be to the distant sister sun! Joyful as the silver planets run!" -Ian Anderson ("Ring Out, Solstice Bells")
posted @ Sat, Dec 22, 2007 4:42:01 pm EST from 71.62.198.251

That's a thought, Chris. Though it wouldn't be fae genes (since they have to take fully mortal forms to mate with mortals) but, um, ambient magical radiation. Or something.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Sat, Dec 22, 2007 2:57:38 pm EST from 209.162.56.40

on the physiology debate. We know that the fey (Oberon's Children and such) can interbreed with humans, what to say some of them didn't with gargoyles some far time back. maybe after generations of fey DNA in the clans, that produced the interesting variety of physical features (found primarily in Britain). the fey genes would be so dissipated you wouldn't be able to discern them from gargoyle. just one of many thoughts
chris
~R
posted @ Sat, Dec 22, 2007 2:10:59 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

Wow! When this CR puts on the breaks it really puts on the brakes. Is everyone trying to find out how long they can go without posting or what.....?
Vinnie - [tpeano29 at hotmail dot com]
It's silly. It's a silly movie. There just isn't much there. Once you take it all apart, there's not much story, is there?- George Lucas on Spider-Man 3
posted @ Sat, Dec 22, 2007 1:54:54 pm EST from 69.54.209.37

Todd: Awesome find about Columba . . . makes me itch for #8 all the more.

Solstice Celebrations: This makes me wonder if gargoyles in the past even kept a consistent measurement of time. I'd think so, given that their Biological Clocks are perhaps the strickest of any species on the planet. But I reckon it wasn't anything more specific than night and day, and the changing of one season to the next. (anything more detailed seems to run risk of being to defined, "giving it limits" -- to quote Hudson.) At least that's my thoughts . . . .
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy WOnka
posted @ Sat, Dec 22, 2007 12:01:14 am EST from 70.162.221.121

HAPPY SOLSTICE EVERYONE!

Now is the time we (humans) live through the darkest time of year, but also celebrate the return of the light and the coming of longer days.

It has already been asked, how do gargoyles celebrate the solstices? I think for them that the Summer Solstice must be their equivalent to how humans experience the Winter Solstice. The longest day is when they are most vulnerable, but they can also celebrate the coming of longer nights.

The Winter Solstice is the time of longest nights, but also the time that presages to longer days and less night-time. So maybe for them, the Summer Solstice is the time of greatest celebration.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 10:26:55 pm EST from 209.162.56.40

I was looking up information about the Stone of Destiny in my copy of "Folklore, Myths and Legends of Britain" and discovered that, according to one story about it, St. Columba lay his head upon it when he was dying.

I'd assumed up until now that the reason why Columba got into Greg Weisman's "Today in the Gargoyles Universe" snippets was because of his encounter with the Loch Ness Monster. Now I'm wondering if there was another reason for his presence....
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 7:26:38 pm EST from 4.244.215.40

May contain Spoilers

I thought I mention this

Seeing the White Stag Gargoyle made me think of a Cartoon and Books called The Animals of Farthing Wood which included White Deer and their leader The Great White Stag
Gargoylesvicky82 - [vickyfanofwwe at aol dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 7:14:28 pm EST from 195.93.21.4

http://www.rarebreeds.co.nz/whitedeer.html
better picture...
Starlioness
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 6:46:25 pm EST from 206.188.56.70

Matt: here's a pic of a white stag (o.k it's a variant of a red deer, but still..)

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_041/stag2710_468x332.jpg
Starlioness
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 6:37:04 pm EST from 206.188.56.70

<<Since so many other mythological beings and characters turned out to be "real" in the Gargoyles universe, it didn't seem like much of a stretch at all that griffins and unicorns could be.>>

But if they are gargoyles, they ~are~ completely real in the Gargoyles Universe.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 5:59:52 pm EST from 209.162.56.40

"Griffins do not exist in the real world. They are not real."

True, but the Gargoyles universe isn't the real world. Since so many other mythological beings and characters turned out to be "real" in the Gargoyles universe, it didn't seem like much of a stretch at all that griffins and unicorns could be. Plus it does seem a little inconsistent to me that the other clan members (so far) all resemble real animals, but Griff doesn't.

"Greg was already asked if unicorns and griffins exist in the Gargoyles universe, and he already said that Griff and Una are them."

Ah...I wasn't aware that Greg said this. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed in this decision. It seems like quite a copout. Oh well.

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing too. My main reason for bringing all this up was merely my excitement at discovering the London clan would have more variety than originally thought.
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 5:32:07 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Got Gargoyles 7 from Midtowncomics.com (2 copies) on Wednesday and I love it,

*********************SPOILERS******************************

Wow can't beleive it Maggie's pregnant, I'm guessing that Maggie due sometime in July 1997.

Goliath chooses Brooklyn, Broadway, Angela and Lex to go to England with Macbeth but Brooklyn chooses to stay behind I guess to avoid Angela and Broadway but after Angela whisper something to Broadway (I love to know what she said) they stay behind too which Brooklyn doesn't seem happy about it.

I hope Brooklyn gets over Angela Choosing Broadway because I got this feeling he could get himself into trouble by doing something stupid before he goes on his Timedancing Journey.

Anyway Hudson goes with Lexington to Englan to help Macbeth

Elisa and Goliath kiss again (squeals)

As I live not far from London (30 miles north of London)It's great to see the Gargoyles in England

I wonder which Airport Macbeth uses, could it be Gatwick or Heathrow, I wonder if they going to glide up the M1 next (thats one of our main Motorways)

Funny that I live in England but don't really know that much about the Stone of Destiny or the transporting it from London to Scotland in 1996 (14 years old at the time)Have to ask my parents if they remember it.

Interesting story about Gathelus and Scota that Shari is telling Thailog.

I like the 2 new Gargoyles.

Can't wait till issue 8 but first Bad Guys 2
Gargoylesvicky82 - [vickyfanofwwe at aol dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 5:31:27 pm EST from 195.93.21.4

>
"I'm sorry, it just seems to me like if you try to explain how every little thing works, you end up with midichlorians."

Midichlorians themselves are mystical.

After all, there is no detailed explanation as to their properties.

And Gargoyles did lay down some of the mechanics for how things works (Energy is energy, so the amount of energy needed to cast a spell to knock down a stone wall is at least the amount of energy that a battering ram uses to knock down a stone wall of similar composition.)
Michael Ejercito - [mejercit at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 5:11:13 pm EST from 75.142.107.43

<<Griff is an unsatisfactory griffin because he ISN'T a griffin...any more than Leo is a lion. He just looks like a Griffin.>>

This statement makes no sense to me.
Lions exist in the real world. We know that Leo isn't a lion because we can compare the real, actual animal to Leo and see that they are different.
Griffins do not exist in the real world. They are not real.
We have NO idea how Greg interprets them in the Gargoyles Universe... so you CANNOT assume that Griff isn't a griffin. You certainly have no real world griffin, that you can compare to Griff. Because griffins don't exist.
I mean... this is like saying that Goliath isn't a gargoyle, because real world gargoyles are just stone statues that never come to life.
Greg was already asked if unicorns and griffins exist in the Gargoyles universe, and he already said that Griff and Una are them.

As for griffins with hooves... why would that be a problem? Hippogriffs are a European heraldic animal, just like griffins. Horned griffins are also a mythological animal, simply a variety of griffin.

Anyway... I really don't want to argue anymore. We clearly have utterly different points of view and will never convince each other.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 5:01:14 pm EST from 209.162.56.40

Congrats, Jurgan and Yami Raven!
Asatira
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 4:56:51 pm EST from 97.82.58.208

Mysterious Cities of Gold on DVD: Having mentioned about the upcoming release of this on DVD a few months back, For those interested, here are the details on the release, including tons of extras:
http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Mysterious-Cities-Gold-Update/8660
Wingless
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 4:07:43 pm EST from 99.245.254.123

Griff is an unsatisfactory griffin because he ISN'T a griffin...any more than Leo is a lion. He just looks like a Griffin.

While we may not yet see a reason why the London gargoyles would resemble existing animals or mythological animals of heraldry, clearly there is a reason, since they do (assuming the other members of the clan follow the example of the first five we've seen so far, which they may not).
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 3:49:50 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Greg: Thanks for linking your short film. I enjoyed it. I can see how some people would do it as one of these kind of po-faced dramatic pieces, but I think focusing on the comedy gave it warmth and relatability. Running the 'dramatic conclusion' through the credits was a nifty touch. Nice S3 credit arrangement too; loved the glimpse of Shari.

"It's just a cartoon": I'm not really into the whole world-building aspect either. Tolkien loses me when he starts wading too deep into the language and family trees. My brain just doesn't work that way. But while I think everyone understands that drama comes first, the show is, in no small part, a science fiction show. Cloning, mutation, the biology of the gargoyles; all this is important to the plot. The sense that you can kick the tires adds credibility to the storylines. And the fact that smart fans have Greg's back on the small stuff gives me faith that when Greg wants to take us on a more fantastical twist, we're all not going to be going, "wait -- the alien spaceship runs Windows?"

Purplegoldfish: I think we're going to have to take a leap of faith with this one. My interest is in how this guy got his suit and creatures. He doesn't seem like much of a blue sky thinker, and we know that there are a lot of shadowy manipulative people working behind the scenes.

Gore: Yeah, the cream pie gun was what sprung to mind as the precedent here. But that was a contained story about an eccentric guy. This suggests something more about the nature of life in the universe for ordinary Australians.

***GARGOYLES #7***

I love how jam-packed each of these comics are. Some comics you've got all there is to get first read-through; this gets better and better with each successive reading. The non-linear structure flummoxed me first off, but now I'm completely in love. It's got a rhythm completely of its own. (Piecing together the Ask Greg clues to work out where the missing parts of the story are made it doubly fun -- lovely 'Easter Egg'!). I'm really curious about the inspiration for this. Obviously in literature there are plenty of books which disassemble time but usually to mirror consciousness. 'Memento' is the only film I can recall which is this fragmented, but again there's a strict order.

Here, we're really dotting around but it gives the impression of a patchwork of themes: sibling rivalries (Jacob/Esau, Brooklyn/Broadway, Othello/Iago) particularly stand out. Perhaps also lineage -- never has the interconnectedness of man been so apparent than seeing the links from Egypt to Portugal to Ireland; and in modern times, we have the Maza family expanding into new boundaries, with Elisa & Goliath and Talon & Maggie's child. And of course, we have all these dark mirrors to our leads: Xanatos and Coyote, the ColdTrio and the Angela triangle, Lex/Brentwood, and as has been mentioned, Thailog/Shari who look very Goliath/Elisa in some panels.

I love the scene of Thailog & Shari playing chess though -- more Fox & David. I wonder if the bathtub scene is meant to suggest how Sevarius would like to spend his nights. Shari is by far my favourite new character so far. She's utterly fascinating. And while we have no evidence there's anything between them, they certainly seem pretty intimate. And whatever their relationship is, it fits that while Goliath & Elisa's life is based on protecting and serving, Thailog & Shari's seems to be about knowledge and power.

Although this is another story on a huge scale, I'm really glad the clan is proactive at the centre this time. I love, adore, the big, eclectic 'Gargoyles' cast, but more than that, I love our core guys. And Macbeth. Broadway and Angela seemed kind of mean to Brooklyn -- I hope this is in aid of them intervening to resolve their issues. Lex and Hudson taking centre stage fills me with joy.

(Oddly, I was in central London in November 1996. My brother was in Great Ormond Street getting his cochlear implant and it was around this time that we'd recently discovered 'Gargoyles'. I know he watched 'A Lighthouse in the Sea of Time' on television with his ward; and also I remember looking for 'Gargoyles' figurines in a London toy shop and coming out with a Lexington one for his Christmas. It's one of my most vivid memories, but it gives me a real kick to think that the 'real' Macbeth and Lexington would have been running around about the same time only a few miles away.)

The cover -- bit of a quiet one. I don't mind covers that don't reflect the inside too well (#1 and #3 are probably my favourites to date and have no real relevance to the interior), but this one attempts to find a hook from inside and comes up with something pretty mild. I still love Greg Guler's covers though. Will be very interested to see David Hedgecock on #8 but I hope Greg sticks around.

The art -- Really gorgeous. David Hedgecock has received some flak for his model work, but I have to say... I grew up on licensed books, and I know being 'off-model' is considered a pretty heinous crime. But my favourite artists, and often the most popular artists, were never the most on-model. Often the artists who tacked closest to the models produced characters who looked just a little plastic, a little too perfect, a little dead behind the eyes. David's model work is decent given the scores of characters he has to master each issue, but more than that, we really get a sense of the characters' intelligence and purpose, of momentum and fluidity. It's good, compelling art and I'm so glad he's having a good run at it. (My only hope is that if it is necessary to switch artists for a future issue that we can have the same person working on a sequence of stories -- this was what felt a little jarring about #3-5, though it was for entirely understandable reasons).

The colours -- Rich, atmospheric, true to the original, but really dramatic and bold as well. I particularly appreciate London on the last page looking like the late 20th century and not the late 19th -- alive with light. Often I'll see American presentations of London -- including in 'M.I.A.' where admittedly there was probably pressure to reuse the same backdrops for the 1940s and 1990s sections -- where it feels somehow dated. And of course, parts of it are historic. But growing up in London, all this seemed normal to me and so presentations which really honed in on the ancient aspects always startled me a bit. The Shari/Thailog colours are especially splendid. (Although -- being ultra-pernickety -- stars can't turn up in front of the shadowy portion on a crescent moon!).

I'm thrilled King Arthur is turning up, the London clan look amazing, and the details about the history of the stone and the naming of Portugal really stand out for me. I'm completely psyched to see where this goes next.

Big thanks to Greg, David, Robby, Greg G and the guys at SLG!

***GARGOYLES #7 TALK ABOVE***
Ed Reynolds
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 3:06:21 pm EST from 213.187.39.204

Thanks, guys! *hugs all*
Yami Raven - [raven_mccloud2002 at yahoo dot com]
Zim: "You're nothing Earth boy! Go home and shave your giant head of smell with your bad self! Dib: Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said."
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 2:52:26 pm EST from 68.58.182.37

Greg B> And by the way, kickass video man.
Algernon
The pen is mightier than the sword if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp.- Terry Pratchett
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 2:40:11 pm EST from 83.71.24.52

Greg B> I didn't mean to say that I think the Director would be portrayed anything like Starscream in terms of personality or motives. what I meant was that just because Starscream may have been a through and through Decepticon still didn't stop him from trying to kill Megatron every chance he got. By the same token just because the Director has it in for Duval doesnt mean he can't be part of the Illuminati. I figure any organisation that counts Thailog and John Castaway among it's members has to have it's share of conflicting agendas.
Algernon
The pen is mightier than the sword if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp.- Terry Pratchett
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 2:37:44 pm EST from 83.71.24.52

But griffins do exist. Griff is a griffin. Why is he an unsatisfactory griffin to you?

There is just no biological reason why every London gargoyle should be "based on" another animal, instead of simply looking like a ~gargoyle~. Biology does not work that way at all. That is something you would expect from magical creatures. I wonder if you are still thinking of gargoyles in magical terms, Rebel? Not meant as a criticism, but you have said you wish they were magical instead of biological in nature.

PHIL >> I know that gargoyles is fictional, and I don't expect everything to be real. But I always enjoy ~anything~ more if it is plausible. That's why I like gargyoles much more than superhero comics. Plus, Greg makes a point of saying that everything in the show is or should be plausible, except the magic.

I watched Greg and DTaina's video again, and I really like the choices of images. There's a smattering of antagonists, two shots of the Phoenix Gate (foreshadowing Timedancer) and two of the Clock Tower blowing up or blown up. And the bits with the Illumiati, and Goliath and Elisa kissing. Good choices.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 2:32:33 pm EST from 209.162.56.40

I don't see why griffins wouldn't be a separate entity from gargoyles...even if they WERE gargoyles, that still means that lion feet, lion-like hands, a lion tail, and a bird head frequently comes as a "set"...and why would that be the case? If most of the London gargoyles are based on something real that is actually out there, why would there be a griffin package unless there were actual griffins out in the world? If we embrace the idea that griffins are actually gargoyles, that would mean that a relatively large number of gargoyles throughout the clan's history would have had to have the griffin "set", and if we assume that they don't necessarily come in sets, I don't think this is all that plausible. After all, what would stop them from having hooves, or bird-like feet, or a wolf's tail, or antlers? I dunno, I just don't want to see EVERY mythological winged creature turn out to have really been gargoyles, and that said creatures never really existed. I'd prefer the gargoyles universe had actually contained griffins and unicorns at one time, rather than those legends being inspired by gargoyles.
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 2:20:41 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Vaevictis> True, most of the ones I mentioned have no wings, but neither do most of the boars, stags, unicorns, etc. Your point about the beasts is well-taken, though. I hadn't thought about the London clan's possible beast contingent. That would be fun to see. ^..^
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 2:09:25 pm EST from 199.38.51.134

GREG B >> That's awesome! And Dtaina did an amazing job making Shari look like an animation cell. I also like the choice of which version of the music to use. Great job, you two.

JURGAN >> Congratulations! May your union be a happy and fulfilled one.

And I forgot to congratulate Matt on becoming an Uncle.

<<Griff isn't necessarily a mix. A griffon may very well have been a real animal in the gargoyle universe, maybe that's since gone extinct.>>

I don't think so. I think that griffins simply ARE gargoyles, and griffin legends are and always have been based on gargoyles. Just like tengu legends are all based on the gargoyles. It's way simpler and makes way more sense to me.

<<...so maybe we'll see things like the yale (tusked goat, sometimes with a lion's tail), enfield (fox/wolf with eagle forelimbs), heraldic antelope (unstriped tiger with deer feet and goat horns), heraldic tiger (wolf with a lion's mane), opinicus (gryphon with bear or camel tail), bagwyn (horse-tailed goat), theow (cloven-hooved wolf), etc.>>

Most of those are not winged animals in heraldry, that I'm aware of. I hope they are beasts instead (along with keythongs, a kind of wingless griffin with spikes on its back). But there are winged animals like hippogriffs and opinicus (which you mentioned) and also a winged lion with goat horns and hooved hind feet (a winged heraldic antelope). None of which are any weirder or more mythical than griffins. Surely a hooved, lion-headed gargoyle would be no weirder than Brooklyn, or Ophelia.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 1:46:05 pm EST from 209.162.56.40

Biology> As much as I enjoy thought-provoking biological discussions, I think Greg Bishansky has hit the nail on the head with his "cartoon" comment: gargoyles were created by Intelligent Design. (No flames, please. Of course I'm being facetious. But whatever you believe about the real world, Greg Weisman is the omnipotent, omniscient God of the gargoyles universe.)

And congratulations to Jurgan and Yami Raven!
Phil - [p1anderson at go dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 1:43:46 pm EST from 134.215.196.82

JURGAN> Congratulations, both of you!
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 1:26:13 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

Algernon> Greg has described the Director as a mixed force for good. I'm not about to label him a Starscream since there is nothing at all complex about that. A very ruthless good guy. Besides, Duval is not the head. He and Quincy are only the two #2s.
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 1:25:45 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

Jurgan> Congratulations!! *throws birdseed* May you have many years of happiness together. ^..^
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 1:20:09 pm EST from 199.38.51.134

Jurgan> *emails his congrats*

Greg B.> I already left a positive review, but I'll say it again. I really liked the video and, if season 3 had been on TV, could easily see it having this opening.

Top notch, that was.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra_582 at hotmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 1:10:47 pm EST from 76.222.101.161

Greg B> The Director could still be an enemy of Duval and in theory a member of the Illuminati. perhaps he has his eye on leadership of the society. Think Megatron and Starscream if either of them had an i.q. in excess of five.
Algernon
The pen is mightier than the sword if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp.- Terry Pratchett
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 1:09:10 pm EST from 83.71.24.52

And I just read Jurgan's comment: CONGRADULATIONS :D

(Flips the switch for balloons to fall in the CR -- eh, I'm a sap.)
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy WOnka
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 12:53:58 pm EST from 70.162.221.121

Man, you not visit for two days, and the place is flooded with comments. Boy that was hard to catch-up.

Response #1: I've seen Godfathers 1 & 2, first in my Junior year of high school (about three years ago). I've since seen them about 8-10 times each. (I've refused to watch #3 based on general consent.)

Biology: I enjoy reading the discussions, but as others have said, if you don't fully understand biology and other sciences, then you get left in the dust and/or just confused.

On that said note, I'd say that we still have only seen five gargoyles of the London Clan. Who really knows what this hidden, thriving clan (well, more thriving than others) looks like in the full? (Hence, one of the MANY reasons I look forward to #8 & #9)

Director: I like the idea that he may be an Illuminatus trying to expose the Society, ala Matt Bluestone? Only the Director simply has benefited from being a member for a few years.

Greg's vid: Just saw it -- Well done indeed. I already commented on its page at YouTube, but I am curious, if you had the right commentary (and Keith David's voice) would you add one?
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy WOnka
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 12:52:22 pm EST from 70.162.221.121

Just married:

It's official now. Yami Raven and I are joined as one! Yatta! You may give your good wishes as you like, but we'll be out of touch for the next couple weeks, so don't expect a response for a while. Thanks!
Jurgan - [jurgan6 at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 12:51:57 pm EST from 68.59.10.242

If the Director is indeed a nemesis of Duval, then I can't see him being a member of the Illuminati. He could be, but I wouldn't bet money on it. But, I like this. The Illuminati is powerful, they manipulate a lot. But, they don't control everything. The only thing we know about the Director is that he is a civil servant based in Washington DC. But, he must have some power if he's able to get Robyn out of prison and press her into his service.

Asatira> The background behind Shari actually moves a little. We wanted to create an illusion of at least some animation. Thank D. Taina for that. But, damn, it was a bitch getting even that movement.

Todd> Glad you liked it?
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 10:54:09 am EST from 75.56.245.4

I rather like the biology conversations. Now, if only I said more during them.

Anywho, Gorebash> It's possible, the Director could be connected to the Illuminati, they are big. But that sounds like something an earlier Matt Bluestone would say, and while they are probably bigger than we could imagine, I don't think they have their hands in everything. I'm with Todd that he could be someone, at least, who is outside of their control. If he is in opposition to them, in some way or another, I don't know and wait to learn more.

Grag B.> nice intro. I like how you managed to slip Shari in (the only way she stood out is she didn't move :p )
Asatira
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 10:39:57 am EST from 97.82.58.208

Kerry - A cockatrice gargoyle might look even cooler if it had its wings attached to its arms, similar to (but a little more "flared out") Lexington's.
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 10:26:12 am EST from 24.227.200.138

Oh, and sorry for the double post, but I just saw your "comic book introduction", Bishansky, and it was great. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Todd Jensen
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 10:14:01 am EST from 198.209.226.130

I think that the artists for "Gargoyles" might indeed be thinking, when they design gargoyles, more in terms of fantasy art than plausible biology. (Of course, from the biological perspective, there's also the issue of most gargoyles - with a few exceptions, such as Lexington - being six-limbed vertebrates.)

Greg Weisman once described the Director as a nemesis to Duval, so maybe he's trying to stamp out the Illuminati (like Matt, only with more resources and less scruples).
Todd Jensen
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 10:11:42 am EST from 198.209.226.130

London clan> I don't mind having at least some of them being "matched," but I'd like to see combinations in the rest of the clan, especially since heraldry allows so many. All that's needed for the list below is some sort of goat and canid to be represented in the clan, neither of which is a real stretch from what we've already seen.

So far, hippogriffs and pegasi are already possible, so maybe we'll see things like the yale (tusked goat, sometimes with a lion's tail), enfield (fox/wolf with eagle forelimbs), heraldic antelope (unstriped tiger with deer feet and goat horns), heraldic tiger (wolf with a lion's mane), opinicus (gryphon with bear or camel tail), bagwyn (horse-tailed goat), theow (cloven-hooved wolf), etc. With some Scottish blood (unless leathery wings and "normal" thick gargoyle tails exist naturally in the English breed), there could even be a cockatrice somewhere in there.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 9:51:59 am EST from 199.38.51.134

Kerry > I'm not sure, I just always liked it that way. I liked the idea of gargoyles being both magical and biological beings.

Incidentally, I just had a thought about the London clan, and how we haven't seen any mixtures. When living amongst humans, it would be advantageous for them to look like a complete animal instead of a mixture. Maybe there is magic involved. Maybe their appearances are the result of a powerful spell cast on their clan long ago. I doubt it, but it does seem plausible within the gargoyles universe.
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 9:50:55 am EST from 24.227.200.138

Since you don't see many mixed breeds in the London clan (all FIVE that we've seen so far) it stands to reason that there must be something going on that must allow only one set of animal traits to define the look of a gargoyle. We don't know WHY or HOW, but simple observation seems to show that something is going on. We can argue the whys and hows of it, there's about a million of them, but we can certainly agree that there is something that's specifically keeping gargoyles to a single animal.

Griff isn't necessarily a mix. A griffon may very well have been a real animal in the gargoyle universe, maybe that's since gone extinct. In which case Griff isn't a mix at all, but based on a real animal. Or maybe that first griffon gargoyle was a very very rare mixed breed (a mutation) that survived and continued as an entirely new set of animal traits.

Or perhaps, in proper royal tradition, there's just a lot of inbreeding.

--

I think the whole Tasmanian Tiger bit was a purposeful parody of the DC/Marvel superhero comic and Dingo takes on the role as a sort of "Captian Australia". I think it's safe to say that Dingo's life in Bad Guys will be nothing like that idealized superhero life we'd see in DC or Marvel. Maybe it's Greg's way of saying "this is not a DC/Marvel superhero book".

As for the thought that the Tasmanian Tiger doesn't fit, I'd argue he does fit, in about as much as a bazooka that shoots banana cream pies.

I wonder about the true intentions of The Director. I think he'll turn out to be another Xanatos. I mean, Dingo was already doing good and trying to attone for his past and doing it on his own. He didn't need to be coerced into joining the Bad Guys to do good. So I'm thinking that while the Bad Guys may wind up doing good in their work together, the results of their work may provide certain benefits to The Director (and whoever may be behind The Director).

And how much do you want to wager that The Director will be an Illuminati?
Gorebash
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 9:14:31 am EST from 207.206.239.1

Sorry for the double.

Rebel> I'm curious. Why would you prefer gargoyles to have magical origins?

For me, it's the blending of science and magic that is supremely interesting about the series. Everything isn't explained/accomplished by science, but not everything is magical, and the two aren't mutually exclusive (and it's that last that's my favorite of the three).
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 9:04:04 am EST from 199.38.51.134

Greg B> Yes, it's a cartoon. It isn't real. But Gargoyles tries so hard to be plausible, to be real (given some suspended disbelief, of course), that we like being able to put it in realistic terms.

That said, there are some things that can't translate, that remain mysterious, or at least fantastical. Not saying that everything should be laid out neatly on a dissecting table, just that it's fun to figure out the mechanics of some of it. Once you try to explain *everything* it takes some of the wonder away (midichlorians, ARGH).

And the "biology department" doesn't rain on your parade when the CR is discussing things you like. Please let us have our fun too. ;P
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 8:43:31 am EST from 199.38.51.134

Why am I still up?

Because I was bored, and sort of had this idea floating around in my head for a while. So, having nothing better to do besides pack, and being a terrible procrastinator, I decided to do this instead of something practical. I'll pack tomorrow... er, today. Yeah.

Anyway, this here is sort of my version of what an introduction to the third season of "Gargoyles" would have been, now that we have the comic out, I figured, why not? It was fun. Old favorites appear in this video, along with a new face. Special thanks to D.Taina for a very cool contribution, what is it? I won't spoil, take a look for yourselves to see what she brought to the table.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EMQNxqvTg98

Hope you all like it. It was fun.
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 7:49:37 am EST from 75.56.245.4

We're coming up on the Winter solstice - the longest night of the year and thus the longest waking night for the Gargoyles. The night I like to consider the Gargoyles Holiday season - so happy Winter Solstice everyone. *hugs and handshakes all around*
Wingless
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 7:29:41 am EST from 99.245.254.123

I think the biology discussions are cool. It's fun to wonder about how things work. But Greg does have a point. Sometimes, you just have to accept that it IS fiction and some things don't really make sense. For me, gargoyle physiology and appearance is a big part of what I enjoy about this series. If the characters didn't look so darn cool, I don't know if I'd still be a fan.
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 1:24:57 am EST from 24.227.200.138

Greg B>"Sorry, it's just that, I'll admit, the biology discussions never interest me. I prefer discussing the things like characterization and story."

- Great. Me too. And how would you feel if we were discussing characterization and plotlines and someone came in here and said "Hey, it's just a cartoon."? I think I have a pretty good idea how you'd react to that.

"I'm sorry, it just seems to me like if you try to explain how every little thing works, you end up with midichlorians."

- No, that is what happens when you DON'T think.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 1:17:29 am EST from 24.207.163.239

Greg > As I see it, just because a species might have magical origins doesn't necessarily mean that it's "fake" or that its insides would be composed of fairy dust and sunshine instead of blood and organs, etc. I think gargoyles could still be a species with genes, evolution, and all that, but yet have magical origins. So, that's why it never bothered me when DNA and things like that were brought up in the series. Anyway, if they had been "created" in one place, their creator wouldn't have to travel around making new clans, they would just breed and spread out over the world. You wouldn't *necessarily* have to create new life either...just transform some willing individuals (thought, I admit this was not what I had in mind). Anyway that was pretty much my logic. I guess I just really liked the idea of them having magical origins. I never really thought it all out completely in any kind of detail.
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 12:54:31 am EST from 24.227.200.138

Bad Guys Spoilers

Ed: I'm glad someone agrees with me that Tazmanian tiger feels out of place. And you put it a lot more eloquently than me hehe. That whole TT scene kind of feels like a parody from another universe, and not really "Gargoyles." Now, if TT and the thylacines were actually robots in disguise planted there by the Director for some reason...that would fit, lol.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 12:42:42 am EST from 69.183.162.111

Sorry, it's just that, I'll admit, the biology discussions never interest me. I prefer discussing the things like characterization and story. Of course, I'll admit I don't know a nucleus from an atom, I was never a science minded kind of guy. English and History were my best classes in High School.

I'm sorry, it just seems to me like if you try to explain how every little thing works, you end up with midichlorians. Some things are best left a bit of a mystery, it adds to the overall mystique of them.

Rebel> I am curious where you got the impression they were artificial magical beings. The show made it quite clear several times that they were a natural species from cloning Thailog to the presence of clans all over the world to them predating humans (they are the First Race after all). The thought of a single sorcerer creating them is just, well, quite unbelievable unless he really got around in ancient times. Plus, them being a fake species would take away from the series, and their plight. Plus, we've never even seen magic on that scale, the kind that can literally create life, and it would be way too cheap for the series if that kind of power existed. Even Oberon hasn't displayed the power to create life. Nor has the enhanced Archmage.
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 12:42:42 am EST from 75.56.245.4

Hey Greg, chill dude. We all know it's fictional, alright?
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 12:27:39 am EST from 24.207.163.239

Once again... cartoon.
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Fri, Dec 21, 2007 12:11:50 am EST from 75.56.245.4

VA--I understand what you are saying. Why would they all just "happen" to have parts that went with their other parts? To be honest I don't think any of us really have a good answer, just speculation.

For now I think we just have to accept that, for some reason that we do not currently know and may never know, these genes for their body parts usually come linked or in "packages". This may turn out not to be true--for all we know, the members we've seen so far could be in the minority, compared to the whole clan.

(I actually do wish that gargoyles were magical beings instead of just regular ones that evolved. Before I found this place I always had this idea in my head that, in the early days of human civilization, some sorcerer created them to protect his people at night when things were most dangerous. Alas.)
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 11:05:17 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

No, Una and the white male have different kinds of hooves. Hooves that just by "chance" happen to match their individual heads.

I'm going to stop arguing about it, because I don't think I'm expressing myself properly. You guys are responding to things that I never meant to say at all, and I'm probably misinterpreting your posts as well. We just disagree.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:56:45 pm EST from 209.162.56.40

Vaevictis> All I can say is that I see it being a mixture of the "gargate package" theory and the selective pressures exerted by nature and man.
Keep in mind that we've only seen two basic foot types in the London Clan. The Leo/Griff type and the hoof type shown by Una and the stag dude. The boar girl's feet are hoof-like also, but they might be a mixture of both feet types (she has three seperate toes, but each our somewhat hoofed).
And the stag-goyle might look like a perfect stag, but no living stag is white. Frankly, he could EASILY be a the offspring of Leo and Una. Only the antlers are unusual, and Una had a horn, and we've seen how things like that could be recessive.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:50:38 pm EST from 24.207.163.239

As I see it, there are practical reasons for these traits to come in packages. A gargoyle with a lion face and a set of hooves would look, well, kinda weird (at least, from the point of view of most people). And natural selection (at least, in humans) causes the weird looking to be less likely to be selected as mates and therefore less likely to pass on their genes. Perhaps amongst the London clanners throughout history, individuals whose appearance looked like a complete animal instead of a mixture were considered more aesthetically appealing and thus they were more likely to reproduce. I don't know how important physical appearance is to Gargoyles, but if they are anything like humans, it's probably at least somewhat important. The fact that they are monogamous and that there is an approximately equal number of males and females in each rookery does kind of throw a wrench in this idea however--it seems as though most would have chosen to be with a mate they didn't prefer rather than be alone, so only a few at most would have been "left out" in each generation, meaning natural selection wouldn't play THAT big of a role. I really think we need to know more about Gargoyle mating behavior and the history of the London clan before we can make any conclusions. Gargoyles aren't above being stubborn and close-minded (i.e. Demona). Perhaps in the early days of the London gargoyles, "mismatched" children were frowned upon, and, God-forbid, culled. This kind of thing has happened amongst human history a lot. Amongst the Igbo people in Africa, twins were considered and evil omen and were left to die. In some parts of Europe long ago, people with red hair or who were left-handed (or worse, both) were considered evil. I REALLY DOUBT gargoyles would engage in this kind of behavior, I'm just throwing this out there as an example of something that MIGHT have happened. We really don't know much about this clan's history.

Matt's suggestion is another good reason--if the London gargs' resemblance to heraldry animals was an important part of their survival throughout their history, then being a mixture of two animals wouldn't do them much good. If the gargoyle chameleon gene gave them the ability to resemble animals in the first place, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch for it to give them the ability to "match". I'm beginning to think this chameleon evolution ability of theirs is almost conscious. In humans, there is scientific evidence to suggest that the mind has a great deal of power over the condition of the body. Maybe in gargoyles this is so to an even greater extent, even on a genetic level. I doubt it, but hey, who knows? If a clan is under a great deal of stress and is having trouble surviving, maybe the males' sperm alters itself in such a way as to give the next generation a helpful trait.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble. We really can't know much about the London gargs' appearances until we learn more about gargoyle genetics or about the London clan's history and circumstances.

Also, I still don't really consider Griff a mixture. He's a griffin gargoyle, not a lion/bird gargoyle. Lots of other mythological beings exist in the gargoyles universe, so I don't see why griffins would not have.
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:39:36 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

<<As for the question of why their appearences are the way they are, I'd say it has to do with either Greg's chameleon mutation gene (which has never been well explained)>>

Sigh. Vashkoda and Matt, I don't think I'm expressing myself clearly at all. Because we are talking about two totally different things.

I'm not saying anything about gargoyles simply having traits that resemble other animals. I'm not saying anything about chameleon genes. I'm talking about the COMBINATIONS of traits WITHIN each individual gargoyle. The way they MATCH each other, for no reason.

<<or simply the fact that when the English were running around slaughtering gargoyles, they were much less likely to smash a gargoyle resembling an English heraldic noble beast.>>

But they aren't a clan of all horses or all stags. They're all mating with each other. Why don't the offspring inherit a mix of traits from both parents? That's the entire problem.

I know there are only five so far. I really hope the rest are conglomerates. But the trend right now is to make them anthro animals instead of gargoyles, and I hate it.

Like I said, if Greg simply said "gargoyles are magical" or "gargoyles were created by XYZ god" I wouldn't care. But they are supposed to be a naturally occurring biological species.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:34:06 pm EST from 209.162.56.40

Considering the talk of faithfulness to the source material, I'd say The Incredible Hulk TV Series did well for the character despite connections to the comic. While I've played it only one/twice, Sonic The Hedgehog was also well done.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:27:05 pm EST from 71.115.192.199

Damn, I don't think I've spammed the CR so much in one night in all my years of posting.

It's too bad I'm supposed to be studying and so can't take the time to find out where my old stuff was uploaded to, but I did have a Gargoyles Biology site up once upon-a-time with tons of theories. I think one possible explanation I mentioned for odd "animal-like" physical characteristics in gargates was insertion of foreign DNA by viruses. They've shown (though I can't cite references just now) that we all have junk DNA from creatures we aren't even related to in our genomes (and I don't mean common ancestor DNA), and the predominant theory is that it comes from viruses that accidentally package one host's DNA with its own viral DNA when it's still inside a cell, and this DNA then runs the risk of getting inserted into the virus's next host when it's being replicated. This is actually one way that the flu virus can mutate itself (by incorporating host DNA), and why we humans still have to worry about bird-flu and pig-flu epidemics. The only problem I see with that idea, similar to what was brought up with the mutate discussion, is that sex cells shouldn't really be targeted in these viral infections, and so the mutations shouldn't be passed on to offspring. But hey, obviously it happened IRL somehow, if the theory is correct. Now why aren't we all sporting hoofs or antlers if this is the case? Maybe our cells self-destruct or go into "cancer-mode" when anyone fiddles too much with our DNA (alas, a big issue with gene therapy). Maybe gargate DNA is more flexible than other species (and I can see that being of some evolutionary advantage). It would also explain how offspring can even be born of two such differing gargoyles as--say--Zafiro and Turquesa.
Vashkoda - [mynamegoeshere at gmail dot com]
D2 <You can have this>
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:18:33 pm EST from 71.106.238.12

Vaevictis> None of the other Clans show heraldic beasts, sure, not yet anyway. But so what? Only the Mayan Clan shows snake-like lower body, only the Manhattan/Wyvern Clan has shown Lex's wing type. This is a regional thing, all garg clans show regional differences. And I've given many examples of packages in other clans.
Again, we've only seen FIVE members of the London Clan. There is probably horses without Una's horn, boar-like goyles with feathered wings, etc. And it seems likely that mixtures exist as well. We have to wait and see. Until we've seen at least a good portion of the Clan, we can't jump to conclusions about ALL of their appearences. Griff is a conglomerate, others will likely be as well.

And how many white stags do you see running around anyway? How many unicorn herds are there in the world? These gargoyles don't look "exactly" like existing animals, some merely resemble animals. So what?
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:07:33 pm EST from 24.207.163.239

No one is saying Una is any more related to a horse than Goliath is.

As for the question of why their appearences are the way they are, I'd say it has to do with either Greg's chameleon mutation gene (which has never been well explained) or simply the fact that when the English were running around slaughtering gargoyles, they were much less likely to smash a gargoyle resembling an English heraldic noble beast. Think about it, there are all these clans in the British isles, there is a whole lot of diversity among these clans. But certain clans start to favor certain forms due to environmental features. The Loch Ness Clan favors manta-like wings and dolphin-esque lower bodies because these are better suited for their watery home, the main Scottish Clans tend to remain more demon-esque, probably more similiar to their evolutionary forms, and in London a Clan survives because they are not likely to get killed by humans.

Gargoyles are capable of huge variety. Astounding. All sorts of weird new traits pop up. Because gargs raise their young communally, weird traits live on and evolution works differently than it would on a gazelle or something. It is kinda like ants. They live in these colonies and all have different abilities and functions. They all work together to raise the next generation. And they couldn't survive long without each other. That is why banishment is such a serious threat for a gargoyle.
Getting back to my point, since all the clan's children are raised together and the Clan works together for the common good, only outside forces can really push evolution. Nature, like the waters of Loch Ness, or man, selectively killing certain gargoyles.

I know I'm rambling, so I'll wrap this up. Una's face isn't all that different from Brooklyn's beak, really. More streamlined, more skin along the sides creating a smaller mouth, and a different color, but basically the same. Isn't it possible that if Una and Brooklyn were stone and sitting on a ledge and some gargoyle-hating Englishman came along, he'd be likely to smash Brook and leave Una alone due to these minor differences? Could that at least partially explain their appearence?
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:00:48 pm EST from 24.207.163.239

Sorry, double post, responding to Matt who posted at the same time.

MATT >> I'm not disappointed that different gargoyles look dissimilar to each other or similar to each other. Clearly, what I'm typing bears no resemblance whatsoever to what's in my head if my words conveyed that.

I am talking about the matching WITHIN individuals. Why does Una have a horse head AND a horse tail AND horse hooves?

Why does Leo have a lion head AND lion feet?

Why does the white male have a stag face AND stag antlers AND stag hooves (not some other sort of hooves)?

Why does the brown female have a boar's head AND boar's feet (and not some other kind of feet)?

There's no reason for these to be packages because there's no cosmic reason why having antlers should be genetically linked to having cloven hooves, instead of claws or single hooves or boar-like hooves. And it isn't just a linkage, it is a linkage that is specifically designed to make the gargoyle look like ~exactly~ a completely species. None of the other gargoyle clans have anything at all approaching this. None of the others, including Zafiro, looks like a perfect copy of a mammal with hands and wings tacked on.

Also, I specifically mentioned that Griff is the only mixture. It says that in my posts.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 9:49:10 pm EST from 209.162.56.40

This is the where I just say, it's a cartoon.
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 9:47:28 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

But why should those traits go together and match? They go together in a horse. Those traits don't "go together" because a law of nature declared that all animals with horse-like heads should have horse-like hooves and tails. It was the way that horses happened to evolve, just once. Other animals in Earth's past had other mixes of traits. But Una is ~not~ a horse. She did ~not~ evolve from a horse. She was ~not~ genetically engineered with horse DNA. Why should those traits go together in her? Did she evolve to eat grass, run on all fours to escape predators? No, so why is she just a horse on her hind legs, with wings added? When London gargoyles mate, the offspring should be a mix of their parents' traits. No biological chance would result in every single one of them being identical to a specific unrelated animal down to every single detail, except for having hands and wings. No biological adaptation would require that any trait that happens, by chance, to resemble the body part of a totally unrelated species, should always be paired with other traits that also happen, by complete chance, to resemble body parts of that same species. Gargoyles did not evolve from boars and stags and lions. They are gargates. A separate species unrelated to those mammals.

There is absolutely no reason why cloven hooves should always go with antlers. No reason at all. No aesthetic reason, no evolutionary reason. None. There's a beaked, yellow, clawed Avalon gargoyle with antlers. And there's a beaked Manhattan gargoyle with claws, and horns, and a long tail.

If Greg had said that gargoyles are magical beings, or that there is no evolution in the Gargoyles universe, there'd be no problem. But he says that if you believe in evolution, then you can believe that gargoyles evolved. Except they were ~clearly~ designed to look ~purely~ like specific mammals.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 9:43:22 pm EST from 209.162.56.40

London Clan, etc> I've always suspected something like a gargate package gene is at work, not jst because of the London Clan, but every clan we've seen shows interesting links in their morphologies. For instance, you'll notice that the more "wing fingers" a gargoyle has, the larger the body it has. So something like Lexington or the little green gargoyle from Demona's Clan, who only have one wing finger, are quite small, whereas gargoyles like Goliath and Kai are quite large. Another package is "joint spikes" You'll notice that if a gargoyle has spikes on his/her knees, they almost always have spikes on their elbows and wing elbows as well. Turquesa is a very good example of this. A similiar package can be seen on a member of the Avalon Clan who has small spikes on his finger and toe knuckles. So when it comes to the appearences of the London Clan, it seems clear to me that a boar's head with boar's feet or whatever is simply another package, one of many that has evolved. I think it is likely that there will still be much variety in this clan in terms of wing design, coloring, general body shape, etc.
Once we start seeing gargoyles with parents in different clans, I think these packages will become more obvious.

Three other things to keep in mind about the London Clan. First, we've seen, what, five members of the Clan? That is a small amount of a much larger clan. And already we've seen some surprises. The wings of the female boar-like goyle are more similiar to Scottish gargs, showing that not all London Gargs have feathery wings (though perhaps she somehow has some Scottish blood in her or something). Secondly, one of those five members is a conglomeration. Griff has features from both lion-like gargoyles and bird-like gargoyles. Vaevictis, you don't seem to care that Griff's head doesn't match his tail. Finally, the stag-like gargoyle and Una seem as similiar to my eyes as Broadway and Hudson do, and they are closely related. I even wondered if the stag-goyle could be Una and Leo's biological son! There are so many things about gargoyle genetics that are a mystery. Look how recessive genes can pop up. Gabriel has chin horns, spikes on his tail and weird brow ridges that neither of his parents have. His horns and wings are a amalgam of his parents'. Gargoyle genetics are still being worked out.

Don't worry so much about the London Clan. They are no more bizarre then the other clans. Lexington and Brooklyn come from the same clan and they are even more disimiliar than any two of the London Clanners, afterall.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 9:37:00 pm EST from 24.207.163.239

Ed> Yeah, I was thinking of you when I referenced people who didn't like LOTR, but rated it as a movie by itself, nothing to do with how they adapted it.

And what you say about how different teams could come up with a different adaptation. It's true. In film school, I produced a three minute short from a script that was given to us. We were divided into three groups and told to film that script, and each group did it differently. Mine interpreted it as a comedy, the other two as a drama, and honestly, I didn't think it worked as a drama. I may be biased, but I prefer the way mine came out.

Anyway, it's up on YouTube, here it is for anyone interested. And yes, that is our fandom's own Jennifer "CrzyDemona" Anderson playing the stepmother.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzZJxnTVlGg

Great review for "Bad Guys". I enjoyed reading it and can't wait to read your review for #7. I figured you'd like that one.
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 8:35:39 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

Eddddd! *glomps*

ahem. sorry. Dude, send me an email! I lost all my AIM addresses too. ;; I think mine is the same?
Vashkoda - [mynamegoeshere at gmail dot com]
D2 <Can I have it?>
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 8:30:01 pm EST from 71.106.238.12

Finally got a hold of BG #1 and G #7. So awesome. More at the bottom.

*waves to Vash*

Chronological #7-9: They actually did this with the film 'Memento' I believe; rearranged the thing in chronological order. Apparently it's still quite compelling. I'd like to see it, myself, but perhaps it would be good to wait until #9 is no longer on sale.

'The Hobbit': Disappointed. Don't rate Jackson, and one article I've read links Raimi to it. After the reprehensible Spider-Man 3, my faith in him is shot.

Greg Bishansky: Good post on adaptations. I think with a lot of these recent adaptations there's too much focus on being faithful to the specific material and less on either (a) being faithful to the spirit of the original (since most of these films trade on being 'definitive', faithful adaptations); or (b) finding a unique directorial vision. LOTR did everything okay but I didn't like it because I found a turgid, shouty, muddy mess; I didn't find the charm and optimism and nuance, dare I say even the Englishness, of the original. And a hundred different directors could do the same films a hundred different ways and still be faithful to the original in the letter of what they do and yet come up with completely different versions.

Orlando Bloom: I never rated him as an actor, but his role in 'Extras' as a spiteful womaniser obsessively jealous about Johnny Depp really redeemed him for me. ("With this face? I wouldn't get ignored. Tell you who does get ignored: Johnny Depp. On the set of 'Pirates of the Caribbean', the birds just walked straight past him. 'Get out the bloody way whoever you are, we want to get into Orlando'. They're round me like flies round ****. They're going, 'Oh, Orlando, who's the freak over there that we didn't notice?' I'm going, 'it's Johnny Depp', y'know, they're going, 'who cares? You were Legolas in 'Lord of the Rings'!'... Oooh, look at me! I make art house movies! Oooh, I've got scissors for hands! Willy Wonka? Johnny W****r!") I can't recommend 'Extras' highly enough as a meditation on the nature of fame -- and as probably the best show on television right now.

Okay, reviews. I'll probably post some form of these to Greg, but for the delectation of the room, here are my thoughts.

*** BAD GUYS #1 ***

'Bad Guys' doesn't instantly grab me. I care about Hudson and Demona and Macbeth because we've been through so much with them, and with these guys we've known them for a long time but relatively shallowly. I'm really excited for the comic to peel back the layers on the characters in the same way the original series has done with the 'Gargoyles' leads. Glad to see Dingo used as a starting point for this reason; he's already the most familiar, and the most intriguing (though my favourite is Fang!). The Harry Monmouth tease is lovely. I got into 'Gargoyles' first off because of the 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' characters so I can't wait to see this angle developed.

I'd be lying if I said it didn't take a while to adjust to the lack of colour. Nothing against B&W as a form, I'm all for it; but colour, to me, is in the DNA of this universe. But the art's really great. The beautiful Sydney panorama, the exquisite fight scenes and the lovely stuff of Dingo in flight. Oh, love the logo too. The paper actually feels a bit more solid than the parent title, if less glossy. There seems to be an errant red dot in the middle of the cover but perhaps that's just my copy.

So the story. I love the structure here. The opening section reminded me of 'Awakening', although it's a standard thing with television pilots (and a few comic #1s) to start in the middle and flash back. Often, I don't like the effect. Occasionally it works really well, but sometimes it feels like an in-story trailer. But that final panel of the flash-forward -- "redemption" metaphorically and literally dead in the water -- is fantastic. Same with the "redemption taking off" image at the end. And then there's the music. Threw me at first, but it actually gives the thing a real linking thread and a sense of pace. I've found a clip of part of it on youtube but by now I prefer to run my own music to it in my head -- truth be told I always like to score things I read (and write) in my head anyway as I go. The explosion panel is particularly powerful contrasting with the music. It's an interesting experiment. Not sure it would work too often, but I think it sets the tone quite effectively. And I just like innovation with the narrative.

There are plenty of great moments as always. The helicopter gag was the funniest; Matrix's spine-insertation the creepiest.

One thing nags me though. The masked supervillain -- concept and execution. Concept-wise, it interests me how this guy was in a position to do something like this, and I love the idea of Dingo living this weird idealised hero v villain world. But in a period fast developing DNA testing and biometrics and CCTV, would anyone really go blowing up downtown Sydney and then walking around in a highly recognisable suit? In the Marvel universe, I wouldn't blink twice, but in 'Gargoyles' it seems startling. Not what I'd have expected.

One of the things I often have trouble tracking with the universe is what the perception of the man on the street is to everything that goes on in the stories. Yeah, the Vinnies and the Brendans are people who have had exceptional encounters. What about people who live in California or Melborne or Cardiff -- nowhere that's a hotbed of activity in the universe (yet, anyway). How is their experience of the world different from ours? What's known about advances in technology on robots and cloning and artificial intelligence? And how astonished should they be at a guy in a mask blowing up a bank only to be accosted by an ex-con TV superstar in a metal suit which allows him to fly? Not very, is the impression I get from this comic. And that surprises me a little.

Overall, it's an enjoyable read, but hasn't yet got under my skin quite like the parent comic. And that's fine -- I'm not going anywhere and I have nothing but faith it's going somewhere amazing. I do suspect it's one of those I'll enjoy best in trade since we're only yet dipping a toe into the waters of 'Bad Guys'. Thanks to everyone who worked on it -- Greg, Karine and David, as well as Greg & Stephanie and the SLG editorial people!

Thanks to everyone who worked on it -- Greg, Karine and David, as well as Greg & Stephanie and the SLG editorial people.

*** BAD GUYS #1 talk above***

Actually, it's already really late so I'll have to get to 'Gargoyles' another time. But it's AMAZING.
Ed Reynolds
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 8:25:04 pm EST from 213.187.39.204

Vashkoda worded it better than I did:

"#2 is possible if all the genes for physical features like head/tail/foot shapes were "linked" and present on the same chromosome arm, so that they tended to get inherited all together. Some rare translocations might then account for the chimeras."

That's about what I was thinking. It's been a long time since I've taken any bio classes, so I've forgotten all the terms.
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 8:10:38 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Todd> True, but my point is that any number of animal combinations are possible. And for all we know, most of the other European clans looked like the London clan (heraldry was hardly limited to England). As you pointed out, a sphinx-goyle would not be unusual for Greece. For all we know, the New Olympus clan is also heraldlry-based.

I see two arguments about this topic: 1) that there gargs' physical characteristics resemble animals, which are completely unrelated to gargates or for the most part, to each other, and 2) all these traits are inherited together instead of mixing (except in the case of griffins and other chimeras). I Agree that #1 doesn't make much sense, even taking convergent evolution into account. #2 is possible if all the genes for physical features like head/tail/foot shapes were "linked" and present on the same chromosome arm, so that they tended to get inherited all together. Some rare translocations might then account for the chimeras. Maybe nearby genes encode vital gene functions that can't be interupted, making the product of such translocations nonviable.
Vashkoda - [mynamegoeshere at gmail dot com]
D2 <Can I have it?>
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 8:03:10 pm EST from 71.106.238.12

VASHKODA - I think that the sphinx look would be more appropriate for gargoyles from Greece or Egypt.
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 7:50:28 pm EST from 4.244.209.60

As I see it, there's nothing at all wrong with the feet/tails/whatevers matching the heads. In fact, I think that's much better. I don't see the problem with it. There are certain traits that "go" with certain other traits. For example, would a gargoyle with Broadway's or Goliath's build and wings like Lexington's be a good idea at all? No, he/she wouldn't even be able to fly. In my mind, gargoyle genes come in "packages" to ensure that the resulting gargoyle is functional and aesthetically sound.

You see this in humans too, though not to such an extent. For example, with coloring. It is very unusual for someone to have naturally olive/tan skin and bright red hair. Our hair/eyes/skin often come in "packages", and all these things are influenced by the amount of pigment we have. True, sometimes you will get someone with dark hair and light skin and/or light eyes, but most of the time light skin goes along with light(ish) hair goes along with light eyes, and darker skin goes along with dark hair goes along with darker eyes. Also, whenever you see someone who is tall and skinny, it would be unusual for them to have short, stubby hands or feet. All their parts "go together".

As for me, I wouldn't be averse to seeing some members of the London clan with feet/hands/tails that don't match their heads. In fact I think that would be really cool. But, these members would not be the norm, just like such individuals are not the norm in humans. Also, I don't think Griff necessarily mismatches, since he's supposed to be a griffin anyway, like Matt said.

Mostly, I'm just so excited to see that there will be more variety in this clan than I initially thought. I thought that the idea that they would look like varying combinations of lions, griffins, and unicorns to be really hokey. After all, if that were the case, it just seems way too convenient that Una, Leo, and Griff all conveniently represent a "complete" unicorn, lion, and griffin, respectively.
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 7:45:51 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

yeah they do just look like anthro animals with wings. Who actually designed these two new gargoyles? Did Greg just say something like,"I want a female boar-like gargoyle and a male stag-like gargoyle," and just let Hedgecock come up with the designs? Or was he more specific..."boar feet on the boar gargoyle ect.."?
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 7:45:02 pm EST from 69.183.162.111

But horses are real animals. If Una did have cloven hooves she'd make more sense. Right now her head, tail, and hooves are all identical to horse head, tail, and hooves, with the exception of her horn.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 7:44:28 pm EST from 63.224.7.164

Hobbit movie> I wonder if the studios would agree to paying the extraordinary (by now, I'm sure) cost of having Bloom appear just for a few minutes of cameo footage. It would be awesome (tho very non-canon) if he and Gloin got a scene together, especially if JRD got to play Gloin. Somehow, I don't see that happening though.

London clan> Technically, unicorns should have cloven hooves, so Una didn't match up completely with her heraldic counterpart. =p Anyways, I'm sure there are other animals mixes like hippogriffs and sphinxes represented in the clan (manticores are the coolest of course, but then I'm biased).

Damn, I should be studying.
Vashkoda - [mynamegoeshere at gmail dot com]
D2 <Can I have it?>
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 7:39:21 pm EST from 71.106.238.12

The specific body parts chosen don't bother me remotely as much as the fact that each gargoyle just happens to have the head, feet, and tail chosen from the SAME animal. They look like mutates, not gargoyles.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 7:35:04 pm EST from 63.224.7.164

VA: I kind of agree with you. I always kind of felt that the London garg's designs didn't make any sense according to Greg's idea of gargoyle biology. And I noticed the lack of tails on the gargoyles in #7. I didn't even think they could have short stubby tails. I thought the purpose for gargoyles' tails is balance, and they could use them to knock their enemies down. So why would these gargoyles evolve without long tails or seemingly useless ones like Una's?

Meh, it's just best not to think about it too much.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 7:30:09 pm EST from 69.183.162.111

TODD >> Griffins aren't real mammals that evolved independently from gargoyles. They're imaginary beings of mythology. And the stories of griffins apparently were based on gargoyles to begin with.

My point is that it isn't appropriate for each gargoyle to look ~entirely~ like a ~perfect~ anthro version of a mammal... cause they aren't mammals. They're gargates. They're supposed to be more closely related to each other than to random mammals. Why doesn't Leo have a tail like Goliath's? Why should the white male have stag antlers AND a stag's face AND stag's feet? Why not lion-like face, stag-like antlers, and horse-like hooves? Why not some body parts that don't just happen to match some totally unrelated mammal perfectly, down to the last tiny detail?

Why should their feet always match their heads?

I mean, look at the Ishimura gargoyles. Not one of them looks like a perfect drawing of the Japanese tengu images. None of them has the head and wings and tail of a raven, because they aren't ravens, they're gargates.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 7:28:56 pm EST from 63.224.7.164

And I just wanted to add: that Jackson addresses a lot of the changes he made in the commentary for LotR. And from a film standpoint, a lot of them made sense. For example, having seventeen years pass between Bilbo's birthday party and when the Nazgul first arrive at the Shire is too slow. So he condensed it, which was a logical choice. That's just one example.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Oh, please, there's only one fat guy who brings us presents, and his name ain't Santa." -Bart Simpson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 7:19:29 pm EST from 71.62.198.251

Octavio: I'll grant you this: Episode III did connect the prequel trilogy to the original trilogy, in that it's the story of Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader. But it bridged the gap poorly. I mean, we know why the second Death Star took only a fraction of the time to build (the answer of course is independent contractors), but George Lucas's explanations for almost everything sucked ass.

But it's good to hear you've got the Godfather movies on Netflix. ( ;
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Oh, please, there's only one fat guy who brings us presents, and his name ain't Santa." -Bart Simpson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 7:16:19 pm EST from 71.62.198.251

Well, it's appropriate that Griff be a mixture, since griffons are a mixture of eagle and lion.
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 7:07:58 pm EST from 4.244.209.60

I also find Orlando Bloom's fangirlcraze quite irritating.

<<For example, for the fun of it, I've often thought about how I would approach "Gargoyles", if I wanted to do a trilogy, and, well...>>

Certainly there would be changes. Greg's own scripts for the movie had lots of changes. It most likely would not fit into the established canon continuity. I know that as I'm no film student, I don't fully understand what would be necessary.

But would you change any core ideas of the story? Would you turn Xanatos into a helpful friend to the clan, or Goliath into a bitter, jaded pessimist? Would you reduce Broadway to nothing but comic relief? Would you repeat changes from past adaptations that Greg W. had specifically disagreed with? There's good adaptation, and there's bad adaptation.

<<I think Hugo Weaving did a great job with the material he had>>

I disagree. His face and voice seemed frozen in angry/annoyed mode, even when speaking to Arwen. Even with the lines he was given ("Men are weak" *yuck*) he could have voiced them sadly, instead of bitterly, and been truer to his role.

MATT >> Because with the sole exception of Griff, each gargoyle's specific feet and tail are cherry-picked to specifically match his/her specific head. They don't look like gargates who happen to have evolved appearances that remind humans of animals. They look like deliberately created anthro/mutate versions of specific mammals. Why would Una just happen to have a horse's tail and horse hooves in addition to a horse's head, while the white male just happens to have cloven (deer) hooves and the brown female just happens to have boar's hooves? Their tails both happen to be quite short, and probably will be drawn exactly like the tails of those animals. Why should their feet and heads always match perfectly? It isn't like the evolutionary pressures that caused the evolution of horses or boars or deer are acting in concert on specific gargoyle individuals. Why is Griff the only member of the clan with any mixture at all?
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 6:48:50 pm EST from 63.224.7.164

Vaevictis> Why are you dissapointed? If you can accept griffon, lion and unicron-like gargoyles, why not stag and boar-like gargoyles? The whole point of the London Clan is English heraldic basis. It isn't like they were giraffe-goyles and ostrich-goyles.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 6:38:51 pm EST from 24.207.163.239

Interesting thing since you bring up Orlando Bloom. I don't hate him per say but his fangirls make me mad. Especially since a girl I liked is a big fan of him. Well... said girl told me I'm too old, yet Orlando Bloom is older then me and you know she'd date him without a second thought.

I just don't understand the power celebrities have over some people, or maybe I'm just bitter...
Ozzie Arcane - [ozziearcane at yahoo dot com]
"Hello Booby! This is a trap!" - Eggplant Wizard
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 6:29:38 pm EST from 69.14.122.91

BISHANSKY - I had to smile at your remark about Orlando Bloom and his fangirls. It reminds me of a thought that I'd had about a remark of Tolkien's, that Legolas probably achieved the least of all the members of the Fellowship of the Ring: "You'd better not tell the Orlando Bloom fangirls about it, or else there's going to be trouble." "What sort of trouble?" "Do you remember those stories in Greek mythology about those crazed female worshippers of Dionysus who went about tearing people to pieces and eating their remains raw?" "Yes." "The fangirls won't be that merciful."
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 6:07:26 pm EST from 4.244.209.60

REBEL >> I'm not ecstatic, I'm disappointed. But that's just me.

GREG >> "but you have to streamline and get to the core of the story that you're trying to tell"

Yes of course, the LotR would never have fit even into three movies without cutting out a lot of stuff. I don't disagree with every single change that Jackson made and I don't disagree with change in principle. But Jackson didn't pare down to the core of the story, he took that core and changed some fundamental parts of it. And that's just not the same as streamlining at all. The point is to show that core, not to eliminate it.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 5:51:08 pm EST from 63.224.7.164

So who else is ecstatic that the London gargoyles resemble more animals than just lions, griffins, and unicorns? I know I am!

/wishes she had gotten #7 last week...\
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 5:36:32 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

I've seen part of the first "Godfather" film, but not all of it nor the rest. There are a lot of films I haven't seen. :p
Asatira
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 5:11:08 pm EST from 97.82.58.208

Vaevictis> Fair enough. Thing is, as I said, I go to film school, I'm a producing major, and a screenwriting minor, so I tend to look at things from a different angle when I think of what books or TV shows would make good movies, and how to approach them.

For example, for the fun of it, I've often thought about how I would approach "Gargoyles", if I wanted to do a trilogy, and, well... some of what I'd have to toss out I know would horrify some fans, and it kills me to know I would do that if hypothetically I ever got the chance, but you have to streamline and get to the core of the story that you're trying to tell. It's a little dream project of mine, which I no there's probably a snow ball's chance in Hell of ever happening, but I'd still like to, so I'm not going to post what I came up with.

That being said, yeah, Elrond was very different, but I think Hugo Weaving did a great job with the material he had, and I think he could have been book Elrond as well. The cast was well chosen, the only one who I had a problem with is Orlando Bloom, but I can't stand to watch him in anything... he's got all the range of a block of wood...

... god, I'm going to get killed by his legions of fangirls... my cousin included.
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 4:52:26 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

AM: Yeah, it's not really my cup of tea-but maybe it will get better (I just hope there's no more song lyrics.)

VA: True, I doubt Dingo could've handled the thylacines without Matrix. I was thinking more along the lines of how cliche a villain he is (At least they don't talk!) Why am I getting the image of Dr. Evil in my mind when I think of this guy? "All I want is frick'n sharks with frick'n laser beams on their heads!"

"All I want is a couple of frick'n extinct Tazmanian Tigers who will attack on command!"
maybe I'll be proven wrong and this guy is more than he appears-I hope so.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 4:48:57 pm EST from 69.183.162.111

Greg B> You are probably gonna kill me for this, but I've never seen any of the Gofather movies. Never had any interest.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 4:43:46 pm EST from 24.207.163.239

Haven't seen "The Godfather" either, but they are on my NetFlix queue. :P
Octavio Valentine
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 4:37:19 pm EST from 159.240.11.254

Sorry for the double post, Greg posted at the same time.

GREG >> Sorry I mistook your post to be angry.

I would hold any movie to the same standard if I had read the book. Same with book adaptations of movies. Though since Middle-Earth is my favorite fictional setting, I'd naturally notice more details in the LotR movies than in some other movie. But whatever changes I did notice, I would hold to that standard.

To give you an idea, if you find the Goliath Chronicles version of Xanatos unpleasant to watch or contemplate, then you can understand precicely how I feel about Peter Jackson's version of Elrond. He's my favorite character in the book, but the movie version just creeps me out (though the actor didn't help either).

I'm not saying the movies are bad in themselves, just that they are not a very good adaptations.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 4:32:48 pm EST from 63.224.7.164

Arkansas >> It's the spin-off I'm least interested in as well, but I still enjoyed it. Though I agree that the villain is corny.

I do disagree with Purplegoldfish about the thylacines being easy to beat. It is still very bizarre to use animals in bank robbing (while wearing ugly spandex) but remember that they were defeated by Matrix. One-on-one with police dogs, the thylacines would have won, if old hunting stories are anything to go by.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 4:27:44 pm EST from 63.224.7.164

Vaevictis> There was nothing angry about my post. I was just wondering if you held other movies to the same standards. It's too bad you haven't seen most of what I've listed. Most of them truly are magnificent pieces of cinema.

"The Godfather" is one of those movies I just figure everyone has seen.
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 4:26:10 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

Purplegoldfish> I'm still working on getting my copy of Bad Guys, but I'm not expecting to like it very much, either. Out of all the spin-offs, it's the one in which I'm the least interested... I'm hoping to be proven wrong - I really am! - but I have to say my hopes are not high.
Arkansas Mezzo
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 4:07:18 pm EST from 206.255.79.132

Greg >> I've never seen any of those movies, so I can't comment on them.

But there is a difference between changing things for the medium, and changing things for no reason whatsoever. The unnecessary changes Peter Jackson made changed the spirit of the book from a story about spiritual struggle and hope and poetry into a violent action flick. The movies were still enjoyable and plenty of viewers find no problem with them, but it isn't fair to angrily dismiss everyone who dislikes them.

You can go on about adaptation, but good adaptation requires respect for the underlying work and an attempt to preserve as much as possible. There is no reason at all why Peter Jackson couldn't have made those movies with far fewer changes, or with changes that did no violence to the characters and the spirit of the story. You can't justify any and all change, no matter what it is, by calling it adaptation.

Many character's personalities were extremely altered: for example Elrond, Merry, Faramir, and Gimli, for no reason. As someone (I think Todd) pointed out a while ago, perfectly sensible battle plans were replaced with plans that made no tactical sense. The poignancy of Denethor's death in the book was replaced with a dramatic fall-to-the-death. So many changes were unnecessary, and changed not only the details but the spirit of the story.

Again, I have nothing against you for enjoying the movies, but don't get angry at those of us who don't. We have a right to disagree with the director's choices.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 4:07:01 pm EST from 63.224.7.164

I hope I don't get totally flamed for this, but I have to get it out of my system...I got Bad Guys #1 quite a while ago, and the reason I haven't mentioned it was well...because I don't like it. Before you start throwing rotten tomatoes at me, I'll explain why (though there were some things I did like in the issue).

First, I'll admit some of it may be personal bias. I'm just not that interested in Dingo and Matrix, and Dingo seems to be the main character. But it started out pretty good-the spat between Dingo and Robyn got my interest (these two obviously belong together), and I liked Fang's snide remarks. I wondered what happened when the helicopter thing seemed to blow up.

And then, I turned the page...No, just no...The TAZMANIAN TIGER??!!?
I mean, I'de expect this sort of thing on Justic League or any of the other countless superhero shows/comics, but he just doesn't fit in this universe. Yeah you could argue all the bizarre things in the show...magic, cloning, the gargoyles themselves-but for some reason, some random idiot in a ridiculous spandex costume with easily beaten animal cohorts who goes around robbing banks...it just DOESNT FIT! And from the looks of it, this sort of thing happens a lot here since Dingo has already made himself a superhero in the people's eyes. So...Australia is Gargoyles' version of Gotham City or Metropolis? 0_o
The fight scene goes on way too long IMO. It's a short comic-and it took seven pages to depict the fight-too long.

And here's the one line that I'm voting for the dumbest line in Gargoyles history EVER: "Mama, do all dingoes fly?" UGGHHH, my teeth hurt.

The song- like TT, it doesn't fit IMHO. It just makes no sense. It has nothing to do with the song being from W.I.T.C.H. The lyrics are pretty-but I found it to be very distracting from the story and I had to keep looking back and forth between song lyrics and character speech. I tried to make a connection, but I couldn't. I mean, the song's going on about "she's just the will to love..." while Dingo is beating the tar out of TT...HUH?? Is the song supposed to be about Dingo and Robyn? I don't feel it fits Dingo AT ALL. "Runt"? And Robyn doesn't fit the description of a "winged angel from above." When I read the issue now, I cover up the song lyrics-they really take away from the action.

It finally gets a little better at the campfire scene. I like Dingo and Matrix's banter and the strange chemistry they have-and the spine thing "We'll have no more inserting!" *Snicker*(Ok, I'm immature ;P) But, Dingo and Matrix have been doing this for two months now. Wouldn't Dingo already have noticed this? The shaman's cool (Does he live right around that rock or something?)
I liked the little nod to The Pack. I like that we get the Harry Monmouth name in canon.

We have a much better fight scene here between Dingo and Robyn. That girl's pretty limber. Actually, it would have made a little more sense to put the song lyrics here..it would have been ironically funny.

Dingo doesn't put up much a fight after Matrix agrees to join Robyn. Of course he has no choice, but he should have made a comment about abandoning his protectorate...some hero. Well the evil Australian division of spandexed idiots will be happy I suppose.

I do like the art-especially during the campfire scene. Nice shadows and tones.

Anyway, that's my take on Badguys. This is the first issue so I will still give it a chance. I think the next one will be a lot more interesting-I'de like to see the Ishimuran gargs again. And I like Fang and I'm looking forward to see how his relationship with Yama goes, and maybe we'll get to see Fang's real name eventually.

The issue just felt like a totally different world for me. I'm actually glad that most people here don't seem to share my opinions-I want the book to be successful-I really do.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 3:24:06 pm EST from 69.183.162.111

Todd> "...but since the movie version of LOTR skipped the seventeen years between the Farewell Party and Frodo leaving the Shire, he'd have to be a grown man in the movie adaptation, if he appears.)"

- Just because it was never explicitly stated that seventeen years passed doesn't mean it didn't happen. It was clear that a good amount of time did pass, and there is nothing to say it wasn't seventeen years.
Also keep in mind that as a dunedain, Aragorn has a much longer lifespan than normal men. Maybe we will see him as a ten year old in "The Hobbit".
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 1:48:18 pm EST from 24.207.163.239

* SPOILERS *

BRIGADOON TRAVELER - That depends on what time of day is being depicted in the picture (it looks daytime to me). If it's during the day rather than the night, they'd have to be seagulls.

* SPOILERS END *

I think that the protests about the changes is less the changes themselves, and more the spirit behind the changes. (I've mentioned here before that the battle scenes in the movie version of LOTR are often less well-thought out than in the book, though what we see on the screen looks impressive.)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they don't try giving Aragorn and Legolas cameos in the movie version of "The Hobbit". (In the book, the dwarves are imprisoned by the Elven-king of Mirkwood, Legolas's father, which would provide an opportunity for a Legolas cameo. On Tolkien's timeline, Aragorn was living in Rivendell as a ten-year-old boy when Bilbo and the dwarves passed through - but since the movie version of LOTR skipped the seventeen years between the Farewell Party and Frodo leaving the Shire, he'd have to be a grown man in the movie adaptation, if he appears.)
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 12:49:12 pm EST from 4.245.17.231

"Who am I to kill hope? Hope lives eternal. The Magus, on the other hand, is dead."
http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10146

There's a monty python bit in coming.

Poor Magus. A very tragic character it seems. Problem is he has to stay dead to stay tragic. And the more you want him to live the more he has to stay dead.
Gorebash
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 12:04:49 pm EST from 207.206.239.1

Matt> I didn't agree with some of his choices (changing Elrond and Faramir's personalities, expanding Aragorn & Arwen's relationship but downplaying Faramir and Eowyn's), but they're definitely not bad movies by any means.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 11:57:43 am EST from 199.38.51.134

Ack! sorry about the typos, in a rush
Brigadoon Traveller
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 11:47:55 am EST from 78.144.210.203

Got my copy of issue 7 today; Loved it and have to sya its one of the better issues. The harrative was abit off putting at first but on second reading its quite interesting.

Artwork by Hedgecock has improved by far. I've always been a fan of his work on the book, but now he just keeps getting better and better. Apparently he's making the cover for #8, can't wait to see what he comes up with.

What do you think those flying creatures on pg 15 are? Huge seagulls or gargoyles? I'm thinking the latter possibly; a gargoyle clan on the Iberian Peninsula?
Brigadoon Traveller
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 11:46:39 am EST from 78.144.210.203

If there is anyone I trust to make a proper adaptation from book to movie (and yes, Greg B is correct, it must be an adaptation), it is Peter Jackson. Were there changes in the LOTR movies? Sure, but Jackson made all changes for very good reasons and remained very respectful to the fans and to Tolkien's work, in my opinion. The result is probably the best movie trilogy I have ever seen.
Now, I'm not gonna judge a movie before I see it, but I anticipate a great adaptation of "The Hobbit".

As for two movies, I'm not sure yet what that means. I don't know where they'd split the story or even if they are going to. There are some very notable events that took place between "The Hobbit" and LOTR, but I'm not sure that is the route Jackson and crew will take. I guess we'll have to see.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 11:42:17 am EST from 24.207.163.239

I really wish we could edit posts, because I am finding all sorts of typos in there. Sigh.
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 11:40:37 am EST from 75.56.245.4

Vaevictis> Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the changes and re-writes from the book: "The Silence Of the Lambs" to the movie? How about the changes and re-writes for "Hannibal" (boy were there a lot there)? Hannibal the book: Dr. Lecter brainwashes Clarice Starling and they both chow down on her former boss, and go off together living as husband and wife eating people. Movie: Clarice does not become a cannibal, despite being treated like garbage by her superiors, still tries to bring Lecter to justice, and he cuts off his own hand to escape (it was either his hand or her's at that point).

Or, "The Godfather"? That had a lot of changes and re-writes too. The ending of the book differs from the end of the movie: whereas in the film Kay suddenly realizes that Michael has become "like his family", the drama is toned down in the book, where Tom Hagen lets her in on secrets for which, according to him, he would be killed should Michael find out. During the film's baptism scene, all the heads of the Five Families were killed. In the novel, only Barzini and Tattaglia, previously at war with the Corleones, are killed.

Scorsese's "Casino" had a lot of differences between fact and fiction? The Tangiers Casino, based on the Stardust Resort & Casino, is shown to be demolished at the end of the movie, whereas in real life, the Stardust Casino was not demolished until March 2007.

"The Deer Hunter" was based on the German novel "Three Comrades", and they changes there were of such a high magnitude, it went from World War I to the Vietnam War.

"Amadeus" is considered a great classic, but in real life, as powerful and dramatic as it was in the film, Antonio Salieri was not present when Mozard died.

Or, and here comes my favorite example. "The Last Temptation of Christ" drew anger and protests before the movie came out and before people saw it, because it depicted Jesus Christ as a human being, a flawed one with weaknesses being tempted by Satan. Something that never, ever happened in the Bible. Funny thing is, after it came out, many of those who condemned it, embraced it. There are some people still out there, but for the most part, it's critics did a complete 180.

So, what it comes down to is that I think it is pointless, and a little bit petty to complain about changes and re-writes when you are adapting a story to a different medium. I'm taking screen writing classes, we've talked about adaptation, it is pretty much required.

You can argue what Peter Jackson did was just a bad movie altogether, and list why, that's fine. I've seen it, and that's cool. But the people who get upset because, "NOT LIKE THE BOOK" I find a little annoying. Different medium, different requirements.

Personally, if making changes when making a film is such a sin, I think Salieri being present at Mozart's death, and the destruction of the casino in "Casino" rate much higher if we're going to condemn movies, because LOTR just changes events from a fictional book. Those changed events from real life. I'm sure "Schindler's List" changed details for the point of drama as well.

"The Godfather" is argued by many to be the greatest film ever made, and I don't disagree with that. I loved the book too. But, no one was annoyed that things were changed. No one I ever encountered anyway, and that's a very popular book.

So, why does "Lord of the Rings" get this treatment?
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 11:29:08 am EST from 75.56.245.4

Oops. Sorry for the triple.

Octavio> This is not to say there aren't bright points in I-III. I don't hate them, really, I just wish they'd been done differently.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:59:19 am EST from 199.38.51.134

Octavio> I love the original SW trilogy, but the prequel trilogy wasn't done as well in my opinion. The pacing was all wrong, there was no real chemistry between the people who were supposed to be so totally in love, and most of the villains were kind of like straw men, held up just to be knocked down a little later.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:51:34 am EST from 199.38.51.134

Is there actually stuff written about what happened in the intervening years between The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring? I didn't think much of anything happened in between, or at least not enough to make a movie about.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:48:07 am EST from 199.38.51.134

If they do it right, Hobbit II can be like Star Wars Episode III: the link that connects the prequels to the originals. I know I won't find anyone in here that is a big of a Star Wars fan as I, but again, if done right, Hobbit II could be pretty cool.

I'm definitely looking forward to Hobbit I. It's one of the books that I'm happy to say that I've read in my life time, and it was excellent.
Octavio Valentine
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:41:20 am EST from 159.240.11.254

Eh, probably. Oh well... I hope they at least don't change people's personalities this time. >..<
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:22:55 am EST from 199.38.51.134

I was told that the second movie is going to be a "sequel", set between the Hobbit and the LotR. Basically a fanfic invented by Peter Jackson, which sounds very bad to me.

I think probably that the Hobbit movie will have just as many changes and rewrites from the book as the LotR movies did.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 10:18:04 am EST from 63.224.7.164

Hm. I wonder where they're going to divide the story if there are going to be two movies.

Personally, I think this should have been done with all the Rings trilogy movies so they could have put more in (though it would've been okay as it was without some of the unecessary story meddling). However, taken together, that does make it a bit much.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 8:48:42 am EST from 199.38.51.134

Since scanning the comic was mentioned, is it okay for me to scan Bad Guys (not the entire issue...just a couple of pages or panels) and have some fun coloring it using Photoshop? I wouldn't mind brushing up (no pun intended) on my coloring/painting skills... Maybe I'll put my color theory knowledge to work...

As for posting it...I'll need clarification on that one...
The One Known As Mochi - [shogi dot keima dot 08 at gmail dot com]
Current Mood: (>^^)> Preparing to read Gargoyles #6, #7 and Bad Guys #1
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 5:34:13 am EST from 72.199.225.9

Sorry for the double post.

Patrick> On December 19th, 2002 we were all discussing the Ask Greg queue backup and other Ask Greg problems, and you wrote:

"As for the "Ask Greg" backlog... :: peers into his magic crystal ball and sees this same debate still going on five years from now :: Okay... prove me wrong, then. :P"

Guess you are wrong. The queue is mostly kept short and we don't debate it anymore.
I just happened to look back in the archives and laughed when I saw that.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 4:32:59 am EST from 24.207.163.239

That is SOOOO cool!!!!

I'm actually in the middle of reading "The Hobbit" now. What a coincidence!
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 2:04:52 am EST from 24.207.163.239

Here's your answer Matt

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_en_mo/film_the_hobbit
Ozzie Arcane - [ozziearcane at yahoo dot com]
"Hello Booby! This is a trap!" - Eggplant Wizard
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 12:23:17 am EST from 69.14.122.91

Has anyone else heard the rumor I've heard that "The Hobbit" is going to be made into a movie by New Line with Peter Jackson at the helm? Actually, from what I heard it is going to be TWO movies! Any truth to this rumor?

*HOPES SO*
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Thu, Dec 20, 2007 12:15:58 am EST from 24.207.163.239

Todd> Hen Wen> The Chronicles of Prydain were my absolute favorite books when I was younger - and they're still at the top of my list of all-time favorites. I try to reread them at least once every 6 or 7 years... Lloyd Alexander is a fantastic writer - a "head-blowing-off-ingly" fantastic writer, as my Byron professor says.

I think it's interesting how fiction based on mythology/history affects our perception of history and our curiosity to know more. If I hadn't been drawn to The Chronicles of Prydain as a young person, I wouldn't know *anything* about Welsh mythology. As it stands now, I still don't know very much about Welsh mythology, but at least I have a small idea of what's out there. (Hen Wen's three children sound VERY interesting - how cool if the sow-goyle shows similarities ....) In the same way, I wouldn't have started reading Shakespeare as a young person if it weren't for Gargoyles...

I had a point there somewhere ... oh yeah. Hooray for the educational value of Gargoyles.
Arkansas Mezzo
"'Tis an old lesson; Time approves it true, / And those who know it best, deplore it most; / When all is won that all desire to woo, / The paltry prize is hardly worth the cost." -- Lord Byron, Childe harold's Pilgrimage, Canto II
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 10:09:57 pm EST from 206.255.79.132

Oh crap, double post. Forgot to put spoiler tags on my post below.

Just so you know, this applies to the my post beneath this.

____SPOILER____
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 6:52:52 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Well, I've been awfully busy lately so I haven't been by the comment room in some time, and I wasn't able to pick up #7 until today. But anyway...

WOW!!!

I know I'm a week behind everyone else, but I just wanted to add my praise for this issue. Overall, it's absolutely wonderful. The non-linear format is kickass (and even though I miss the cartoon, I have to admit that there are things you can do in a comic that you can't do with a show...this episode would probably not have worked at all as a TV episode). Also, it's cool to see that Hudson and Lex (arguably the two most ignored members of the Manhattan Clan, in my opinion) have their own cover and an issue with their own "quest".

I love, LOVE, the fact that Maggie is pregnant! Awesome! Somehow I'm thinking the baby will just be an adorable baby mutate, not some human, or half-human baby. Scientifically that might not be the most likely, but then again when you're talking about a fictional universe where so much of what happens is totally impossible in the real world, I think you can safely assume that the action is more likely to follow whichever path is most appropriate for the story, rather than strictly adhering to realism. If you want to get realistic, neither Maggie or Talon should even be alive right now...they would have died already from complications from the mutation...and even if they survived, they wouldn't be able-bodied or capable of reproducing. Anyway sorry for the digression but my point is that this whole thing is fiction, not realism at all, so why expect the baby to "realistically" be human or half-human? Just my opinion.

The two new gargoyle designs. WOW!! THANK YOU GREG AND DAVID!! For years, I naturally assumed that other members of the London Clan would resemble other heraldic beasts (stags, wolves, boars, badgers, etc.) and then a few months ago I read in the gargwiki that Greg had said that they would all resemble unicorns, griffins, and lions. Boy was I disappointed when I read that! That would have been sooo boring. I am so glad to see that Greg has nixed that idea. It's so much cooler this way, having the members of the London clan resemble other things besides those "Big Three". THANK YOU GREG!!! This is way better. That stag gargoyle looks so awesomely cool, and the boar gargoyle is also really cool and refreshing.

Whew. Sorry. Just had to get that out of my system. Anyway, like everyone else I am happy to see a female gargoyle who is not conventionally beautiful. I'm a girl who certainly doesn't conform to society's standards of beauty, so it's nice to see the existence of people like me acknowledged and valued (not that I look like a boar, but you get the idea). I agree with everyone else...I hope that in the upcoming issues it will be revealed that this female has a mate. It would be a little disappointing to finally have a character like her around, only to find out that no male wanted her...

Anyway I'm looking forward to meeting Amp and learning what the big deal with Fox buying shoes was. And I can't wait to see what Coldsteel and Coyote are up to.

The art's good in this issue. Hedgecock is definitely getting better. He's still off in some places. For one thing I think he often makes the characters' heads too big which makes them look out of proportion, and they are sometimes very angular instead of being soft and organic. But overall his art is good and getting better. He does a great job with facial expressions. I absolutely loved that look on Lex's face when they first woke up with jet lag! That was awesome. He does a better job with some characters than others. For example, throughout this whole issue, he was spot on with Brooklyn, but with Broadway he was generally off. Also, it seems like he's got the mutate's proportions a little off as well. But anyway, like I said overall he has done a great job and I am looking forward to seeing his art in future issues! Great work David! The panels where Shari was telling her stories were really nice!

I could keep making comments for days but I'm gonna let off there.
Rebel - [rebel2004nay at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 6:48:16 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

One possible inconsistency in "Protection", incidentally; Broadway uses "jalapena!" as a pseudo-oath before Goliath's own encounter with jalapenas - the very event that prompts the gargoyles to use the word that way.
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 6:38:46 pm EST from 4.245.19.179

Well, my bad then.
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 5:06:15 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

*SPOILISH*

Sevarius used a mutagen to turn the mutates. If that compound somehow has remained active in the bodies of the mutates then it's possible that any child conceived by a mutate might be exposed to the (mother's) mutagen (because each one was customized with a different animal) while in the womb. Which could then cause the child to transform beyond whatever its initial DNA makeup was (1/2 human, 1/2 mutate (from father)). Perhaps producing the (relatively) 1/2 mother, 1/2 father species mutate you'd expect when drawing a parallel to human birth.
Gorebash
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 5:04:09 pm EST from 70.22.232.91

Octavio Valentine - Actually, I was thinking it might be cool if somebody scanned issues 7-9 in their entirety and cut up the panels and put them in chronological order on a website -- something you could scroll down panel after panel. If no money is charged, I don't see any legal issues with showing it this way. My guess is it will read pretty boring this way, but I'd be interested in seeing it.
Greg Weisman
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 5:00:01 pm EST from 64.14.248.62

And there might even be a dominance hierarchy and/or multiple genes responsible for it.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 4:58:34 pm EST from 199.38.51.134

OCTAVIO >> The Timeline at GargWiki has the events listed in chronological order (towards the bottom, at the end of 1996), and will be updated when #8 and #9 are released.

http://gargoyles.dracandros.com/Timeline#1996
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 4:35:35 pm EST from 63.224.7.164

And assuming color can be a dominant or recessive, then you can get any combination depending on the type of gene that it is.

http://www.teachnet.ie/lmclafferty/2004/Images/codom.jpg
Octavio Valentine
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 4:31:34 pm EST from 159.240.11.254

Bob> The altered colors were brought about by the stuff used to accelerate their growth; thus, they're not genetic. The clones would pass on the same kind of genes the originals would, including those for color.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 4:29:02 pm EST from 199.38.51.134

If and when the clone gargoyles breed what traits will they pass down, their colors or their "parent's" colors.
bob
bob
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 4:02:51 pm EST from 66.202.98.32

Greg> Thank you for the prompt response.
Octavio Valentine
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 3:36:02 pm EST from 159.240.11.254

Octavio: Yes, it would be copyright infringement. The story and comic is fine as is.
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 3:19:42 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

Question: If I took scans of Gargoyles #7 (and eventually #8, and #9) and made it into one big PowerPoint presentation and organized it chronologically from beginning to end, would it be illegal of me to share it with the other fans in this Comment Room? Would it be copyright infringement to do such a thing with no intention of financial gain?

Right now, the format I currently have is multiple pages on one slide and it's difficult to read the words, thus I'm feel I'm not giving anything away, and those interested in the story will still need to purchase the actual comic to enjoy it. Let me know what you guys think before I put any more work into it. Thanks.
Octavio Valentine
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 3:16:02 pm EST from 159.240.11.254

It isn't like Ranma 1/2 is supposed to be realistic. Why should the creator feel bad if the magic makes no sense!
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 3:08:19 pm EST from 63.224.7.164

Ozzie> Nah, it's not perverted.... but it's kind of like asking what would have happened if someone had smashed Demona while she was sleeping, since only Macbeth is able to kill her. It didn't happen within the scope of the series, and it's the kind of question that can get creators into trouble, or make them feel like the fans are trying to trap them.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 2:04:27 pm EST from 199.38.51.134

Vaevictis > In the conversations I've read, alot of fans theorized that if she did get pregnant, that the curse would prevent her from changing back till after it was over. Course when the Ranma 1/2 series creator was asked about the subject she said "I don't think about things like that and neither should you.". Kind of a stupid answer, because I don't think there is really anything particularly perverted about the question.
Ozzie Arcane - [ozziearcane at yahoo dot com]
"Hello Booby! This is a trap!" - Eggplant Wizard
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 1:41:56 pm EST from 69.14.122.91

Hey folkage, the most recent news from MISFITS confirms that Greg Weisman is still scheduled to appear at CONvergence 2008!

OZZIE >> If she did, I'm sure there's be problems when she turned back into a guy and her uterus vanished!
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 1:30:17 pm EST from 63.224.7.164

Some reason all this talking about the effects mutation and magic have on pregnancy is reminding me of Ranma 1/2 related conversations I've read about whether or not Ranma can become pregnant when in female form.
Ozzie Arcane - [ozziearcane at yahoo dot com]
"Hello Booby! This is a trap!" - Eggplant Wizard
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 1:06:57 pm EST from 69.14.122.91

I suppose it would be difficult to determine the side effects of "The Mark of the Panther" without understanding the mechanics behind it.
Michael Ejercito - [mejercit at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 12:59:06 pm EST from 75.142.107.43

I don't have an opinion whether human, mutant, or half-mutant offspring are more likely for Maggie and Derek. If it is a mutant child, I hope it is spotted like a leopon (lion-leopard hybrid). But I don't think Maggie has contacted her folks in Ohio yet, and she should eventually. I wonder what they will say or think! Maybe she'll tell them she's settled in New York and pregnant but leave out the mutation and homelessness. Though then they'd want to come visit and meet Derek and the child, and then they'd be in for a surprise!

<<Now, a sow giving birth to a wolf, an eagle, and a wild-cat is obviously impossible - but could a female gargoyle who looked like a sow have given birth to gargoyles that resembled a wolf, an eagle, and a wild-cat? (Though obviously they would have been born twenty years apart from each other, rather than all in a single foray.)>>

Hey cool! Score another one for Celtic legends that could be gargoyles.
There's mention of a winged sow in Greek mythology, but it was only described as a monster who ravaged the town of Klazomenai in Turkey. Mostly, the Greek gargroyles seem to have been gryphons (like Griff) since gryphons are considered winged, protective beings in Greek mythology.

There are lots of legends all over sub-Saharan Africa about creatures that seem an awful lot like gargoyles in appearance, and the legends indicate that they still existed fairly recently. I greatly wish that Greg hadn't decided there are no living clans in Africa, because it would have worked out beautifully.

<<As I wrote this, I remembered my amazement that the London clan (who live on the same island as the Scottish gargoyles) physically resemble their neighbors to the north far less than the gargoyles in Guatemala and Japan, both of whom live much further away from Scotland. I don't have an explanation for that; maybe the people here who know far more about evolutionary biology than I do - enough so to engage in rich speculation about what Talon and Maggie's offspring will be like - might be able to suggest an answer.>>

Probably, gargoyles migrated around, just like humans do. The ancestors of the two "races" must have come from different mainland groups. In any case I think both sorts were living on the British Isles at least as early as the sixth century (Arthurian times).

OCTAVIO >> The London Clan has an estate in the suburbs or rural area just outside London. The two who run the shop spend some time in the city, and some time with the rest of the clan on their estate.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 12:05:35 pm EST from 63.224.7.164

Demonskyre -- Oh, I would definitely mark it as both! Long live the Jalapena joke!
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy WOnka
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 11:24:08 am EST from 70.162.221.121

TDiGUH> On this date, in 1995, Goliath tasted jalapenas for the first time. Whether this is a famous or infamous event is up to individual interpretation.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 9:30:52 am EST from 209.6.248.33

HoE> Agreed.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 9:21:15 am EST from 199.38.51.134

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

Kth: My own theory is that the English just weren't as thorough as they thought they were. There were scraps left over from massacred Scottish clans, as we saw. I just think that unlike Demona, the leader of the English gargoyles simply kept a lower profile.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Oh, please, there's only one fat guy who brings us presents, and his name ain't Santa." -Bart Simpson
posted @ Wed, Dec 19, 2007 6:33:36 am EST from 71.62.198.251

So... I finally bought Bad Guys #1, Gargoyles #6 (hopefully the corrected version, I haven't checked yet...) and #7...

I can finally catch up and read all the spoilers most of you have been posting...

I have to admit I had a hell of a time finding a comic shop that sold Gargoyles...
The One Known As Mochi - [shogi dot keima dot 08 at gmail dot com]
Current Mood: (>^^)> Gargoyles...
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 11:16:16 pm EST from 72.199.225.9

Todd> True. Decline is a relative term, though, so I guess it depends. I'd say the population of gargoyles on the islands was going downhill at least for the last milennium prior to the Manhattan clan's forced sleep, so it could be that the more mammalian and avian types came from the mainland at or before the line between BC and AD. That would allow them to be well enough established to substantiate the link with Arthur, but have them be "new" enough not to have spread all over the British Isles.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth-dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 10:49:18 pm EST from 24.98.74.35

L.T. Williams> Thanks, but what about the fans that don't know about this site?
Octavio Valentine
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 10:21:07 pm EST from 70.15.84.29

Since "Pendragon" hinted that there were links between the London gargoyles' ancestors and King Arthur (the clan had preserved a riddle about Excalibur that helped Arthur on his quest for his sword), the London gargs had probably been in Britain at least since Arthur's time (and likely long before), rather than coming along later.

The English probably believed they'd wiped out all the gargoyles - though the "finishing the job" that Bodhe assumed was their motivation was apparently just an excuse anyway. Their real goal seems to have been to help Canmore (who was related to some of the English nobility) recover his throne from Macbeth. But claiming that they were doing it for the purposes of wiping out Demona's clan obviously helped them, since it led to Bodhe urging Macbeth to appease the English by breaking his alliance with Demona, which led in turn to Demona angrily deserting Macbeth, ensuring Canmore's victory in his attack on Castle Moray.
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 10:00:43 pm EST from 4.244.214.10

Octavio> No, there's just one clan in London. I'm saying that Griff, Leo, and Una do not comprise the entire London clan. The exact location of their "base" isn't known yet, though it's theoretically a rural estate not far from the city. It's possible that the current story arc will further our knowledge.

Phoenician> It could be that the English thought they'd exterminated their gargoyles, only they'd gone into hiding to survive. Or that only certain communities had worked to kill them. Or that most were dead, but their numbers were augmented by immigrants from the mainland at some point. Or that they only considered the ones that didn't resemble other beasts dangerous and revered the more mammalian/avian looking ones (perhaps influenced by Catholic depictions of angelic and demonic beings). Or that somebody fed Bodhe a load of bull.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth-dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 9:03:36 pm EST from 24.98.74.35

***Possible Spoilers***

Octavio: As far as we know there is only one London Clan, of which Leo, Una, and Griff are a part of. We just haven't seen the rest of them.

Kyth: That seems plausible, though I guess we won't know until the right story comes up. Only problem I can see is that Bodhe claims that the English rid their lands of gargoyles years ago. Now, maybe these were clans that looked more similar to the Scottish (with the modern English Clans coming after the massacres).

But then again, Bodhe was probably just wrong, and the English gargoyles he thought were wiped out were never really so.

(Oy, did the above even make sense?)

Talon & Maggie: I have no idea what their kid will look like, but I am curious to see Peter & Diane's reactions. Maggie's family in Ohio?? I'd like to see her for a visit, but if she hasn't been home yet she'll have a LOT of explaining to do (the pregnancy will be merely the last of the big revelations for Maggie's family). Does make you wonder what her family must think of what happened to their child . . . .

END POSSIBLE SPOILERS
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy WOnka
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 8:37:47 pm EST from 70.162.221.121

Octavio - Check out http://gargoyles.dracandros.com/London_Clan
L.T. Williams
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 8:35:01 pm EST from 71.93.81.240

Kerry (Kth) Boyd> Well of course they came from eggs, but what I meant is that they didn't come eggs in the 1990s. I guess they could have come from eggs in 1940 or sooner I suppose, but if they didn't run the shop, then where do they live?

What you're saying is that there is more than one England Clan? Is that canon or canon in training? Will it be explained in the comics? I guess I can believe your statement since there was more than one Scotland Clan a thousand years ago.
Octavio Valentine
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 8:20:52 pm EST from 70.15.84.29

Perhaps the ancestors of today's London clan migrated from mainland Europe during the decline or after the effective extinction of the Scottish gargoyles.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth-dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 6:17:59 pm EST from 24.98.74.35

* SPOILERS *

I've been thinking more about the two new London gargoyles whom we met at the end of #7, and especially how both of them are modelled on animals with major roles in Arthurian legend and British folklore (wild boar and deer). And, in particular, on the female "sow-gargoyle".

Wild boar often appear in the myths, legends, and folklore of the British Isles, but usually they're male (such as the boar Troit). I can remember one sow, however, to fit in with the new gargoyle's gender. In one of the Welsh Triads, there is a mention of a sow named Hen Wen who was looked after by a certain Coll, one of the Three Great Swineherds of Britain. (Tristram was another one of these; according to the same Triad, he looked after King Mark's pigs while the regular swineherd delivered a message to Iseult for him, and stopped King Arthur and his knights from stealing the pigs - though why Arthur had gone in for pig-stealing, the story doesn't say.) One day, Hen Wen got loose and went running across Wales; in the process, she gave birth to three beasts: a wolf, an eagle, and a wildcat, all three of whom grew up to cause a lot of damage. Fortunately, Coll overtook her and brought her back home before she could do any more littering - she was on her way to becoming the Welsh equivalent of Echidna as "Mother of Monsters".

Now, a sow giving birth to a wolf, an eagle, and a wild-cat is obviously impossible - but could a female gargoyle who looked like a sow have given birth to gargoyles that resembled a wolf, an eagle, and a wild-cat? (Though obviously they would have been born twenty years apart from each other, rather than all in a single foray.)

Incidentally, the names of Hen Wen and Coll will probably seem familiar to anyone here who's read Lloyd Alexander's "Chronicles of Prydain".

As I wrote this, I remembered my amazement that the London clan (who live on the same island as the Scottish gargoyles) physically resemble their neighbors to the north far less than the gargoyles in Guatemala and Japan, both of whom live much further away from Scotland. I don't have an explanation for that; maybe the people here who know far more about evolutionary biology than I do - enough so to engage in rich speculation about what Talon and Maggie's offspring will be like - might be able to suggest an answer.

* SPOILERS END *
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 5:51:16 pm EST from 4.244.212.123

Sorry about the double post put there appears to be a movie coming out in 2008 called "Stone of Destiny"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Destiny_%28film%29

Maybe Greg can contact the director and have them throw Lenux McDuff in the cast.
Octavio Valentine
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 4:40:32 pm EST from 159.240.11.254

Anyone think Maggie will some day visit Ohio to visit her parents?
Octavio Valentine
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 4:34:34 pm EST from 159.240.11.254

Matt- Thanks! Congrats on your new nephew!

SPOILERS:

mutate baby-well, whatever it is, I feel bad for that kid growing up if it is a mutate. It will be the only one of its kind. Maybe it will get to play with the gargoyle kids. Actually, the thought briefly came into my head that this kid might be the one taken in by Goliath and Elisa. Though I don't want to think of the circumstances that would force Maggie and Talon to give up their child.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 3:44:19 pm EST from 69.183.162.111

*SPOILERS*

I think Patrick has it right. Maggie and Talon are still humans, they've just been given traits of other animals. I think panther/lion biology plays little to no role here.

Maggie's eggs are probably 100% human since they were all there before she became a mutate. Talon, however, may very well have a kind of hybrid sperm which would probably work with 100% human eggs (the work Sevarius did would have had to of made changes in the mutates' bodies that would work with human biology). So we're probably looking at a kid who is, at most, one-quarter mutate. How does that one quarter manifest itself? I think the kid, if Maggie is able to carry it to term (which I think she will), will be very human in appearance. Maybe small, non-functional wings and a tail which could be removed after birth to keep the kid "more human" in appearance. Any mutate traits he does inherit will come from Talon so, if anything, he'd have panther traits in his (or her!) appearance.

This, of course, assumes there weren't other circumstances around Maggie's conception, like maybe Sevarius has kept in touch with his "creations" and helped out in this process. Or some magic.

Imagine how this storyline would have played out on television. I wonder if there would have been any shouting from parents groups about a child being born out of wedlock.

*END SPOILERS*
Gorebash
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 3:28:51 pm EST from 207.206.239.1

Totally off the current topic but would anyone here mind if I put up the info for Vox Mortuum's dolls? We're needing to start spreading the word in an attempt to fill up some commission spaces so that we'll have enough cash to go to the con next year. I've got all the details done up as a page on her site. I'd just be putting up a link is all. Also are there any actual gargoyles forums anywhere? I mean aside from the gathering one. Or some LJ groups that see more traffic than the ones I've found? Any place that might be good to plug but where I can do so without being a bother.
Ethan Gilchrist - [ethangilchrist at gmail dot com]
"I wouldn't wanna live in a world without grudges." --Jack Terricloth of the World Inferno Friendship Society
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 3:25:51 pm EST from 66.56.6.148

I don't know very much about human female pregnancy and am not a doctor, but if the panther female was impregnated by a panther male, there is no way the human uterus would be able to support that. So if she transformed back to a human while being a few months pregnant, I'm lead to believe that the human female uterus would reject what it's carrying, and vice versa. Maybe life would find a way, but I don't think anything that changes on a whim like a full moon, or mark of a panther has the capacity to carry a child for 9 months or any amount of time.

The unique situation with the "Mutates" is that they are a product of a genetic mutation. Mutations are changes to the DNA sequence that occur during DNA replication and repair. Some would argue that mutation is the closely related to evolution of mankind.

I'm also not a scientist, so I really don't know what the best explanation is, but I'm lead to believe that the "Mutates'" human cellular structures were used as a base to build off from beginning to end of their mutation. They walk like humans, most of them still speak like humans, and most of them still act like humans and continue to use the higher brain function that they were born with. Their new traits are flight from bats, and the ability to use electricity to power their wings and as a form of defense from eels. I don't know why the feline DNA is used, maybe for agility, speed, or the ability to see better in the dark, but with all these things, they still remain very close to humans, just that they look different and have different abilities. …very X-men like if you ask me, except their mutation was forced more than it was explained as a natural process of evolution in the series.

So where am I going with this? I don't know, but it is a complicated subject and I don't know if Greg has any or all the answers and I wouldn't even begin to know how to ask.
Octavio Valentine
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 2:14:40 pm EST from 159.240.11.254

In "Mark of the Panther", Goliath, Elisa, and Angela come across a woman who turns into a panther.

I wonder how her condition affect her reproductive system?
Michael Ejercito - [mejercit at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 1:04:21 pm EST from 75.142.107.43

SPOILERS

Talon and Maggie are humans with feline characteristics, not felines with human characteristics. There's a difference.

Sevarius also threw bats and electric eels into the mix. Bats ussually only have one offspring at a time. Eels, like other fish, lay hundreds of eggs at a time. Traits from either of those animals could just as likely come into play.

END SPOILERS
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2008]
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 12:45:34 pm EST from 24.106.128.24

Well, all the ones born naturally, that is.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 12:28:39 pm EST from 199.38.51.134

Octavio> <It couldn't have been eggs. And they were nowhere around in 1940 either...>

Uh, all gargoyles come from eggs, so these two hatched just like all the rest did. Also, MIA only showed you three members of a clan, not the entire clan itself. There are plenty more, they just don't run the shop in town.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 10:49:03 am EST from 199.38.51.134

*** Spoilers ***

We should all keep in mind that even though the Mutates non human halves may have changed their appearance by mutating their genetic structure; I'm guessing that their inner workings are still very much human. And since they remain to be half human, there is a possibly they might only have one child like in a standard child birth. They could have two because twins are slightly more common with humans, while a human mother giving birth to three or more children becomes pretty rare.

So in other words, I would be surprised if Maggie has more than one child at this time. I hope she will continue to have more in the future, but I think she'll get one now. I am anxious to see what it will look like.

*

The question that is on my mind is, after recently watching M.I.A. on Toon Disney, I wonder where in the world did the Stag-gargoyle and the Boar-gargoyle come from? It couldn't have been eggs. And they were no where to be found in 1940 either…

*** End Spoilers ***
Octavio Valentine
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 10:41:11 am EST from 159.240.11.254

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

Siren> From the research I did, lions generally have 1-4 cubs and Talon is made from a black leopard, not a jaguar. Both species when in black are called Black Panthers. Anyway, leopards have litters of 2-3 but black leopards, due to some genetic oddity, seem to have slightly smaller litters of 1-2.
Given all this, it wouldn't be outside the range of possibility for them to have a multiple birth, though it would probably only be one or two.
And I agree, the black lion would be cool.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 10:02:56 am EST from 24.207.163.239

* SPOILER *

I wonder if, in #8 or #9, there'll be any scenes of Peter and Diane Maza learning they're going to be grandparents.

* SPOILER ENDS *
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 7:42:14 am EST from 4.244.214.109

SPOILERS

Maggie is part lion. Lionesses have litters of 2-8 cubs. Talon is a black jaguar, they have 1-3 cubs. So really, its a high possibility she could have a litter.

I hope she has a male and it has Maggie's lion look, but Talons color. A black lion...gorgeous.
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 7:24:24 am EST from 68.202.76.113

There was a post from Kathy a few days ago saying that the trade paperback is available for pre-order through Amazon. They have no cover photo for it and they don't list a date other than "December 2007" (which is now more than half over).

192 days left until The Gathering 2008 in Chicago, Illinois!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2008]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 7:03:13 am EST from 76.241.137.12

KingCobra_582 - <Speaking of books, any developments yet on the Gargoyles graphic novel?> I'm more interesting in seeing Bad Guys #2 showing up on slg's future releases page under January releases as well as them correcting the release date for Gargoyles issue #7.

Btw, when I look at diamond's new releases page, what does the information in the 1st column supposed to mean?
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 5:02:49 am EST from 98.20.179.147

Matt : Congatulations to your sister! Welcome to the uncle club.
Spen
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 3:41:47 am EST from 66.43.205.110

SPOILERS

Maggie and Talon;s kid(s)> I have no real reason to think this, but I get the feeling it'll be a girl. Although Starlioness makes a good point that there could be more than one child in the "litter", though come to think of it, that is more a domestic cat trait. Most of the Big Cats have single or double births.

PurpleGoldFish> Great review!

END SPOILERS

I had a fun night, my sister gave birth to my new nephew, Joshua, tonight. Always fun doing the whole hospital waiting room thing when you are waiting for a birth. Everyone is healthy and well. Josh is cute as hell too. Off to bed now.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 2:58:37 am EST from 24.207.163.239

Dan> 'Bad Guys' is a spin-off series, and while it takes place in the same universe, it is its' own separate book.

Speaking of books, any developments yet on the Gargoyles graphic novel?
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra_582 at hotmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 2:05:07 am EST from 76.222.101.161

I'm confused mainly about what everyone is talking about. I know there's two versions of the comics out, and I wanted to know which one everyone's chatting about. Alot of the fans talk about the bad guy version, but I wanted to make sure if it was that version or not. I'm thinking of getting a few of the issues of bad guys next month so I know what everything is talking about. Sorry about the kind of stupid question....
dan
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 1:57:06 am EST from 64.12.117.134

Dan> What are you confused about?

And the 'other new one' is Gargoyles.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra_582 at hotmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 1:12:07 am EST from 76.222.101.161

I'm confused, which comic is it? Bad guys, or the other one? The other new one?
dan
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 12:14:34 am EST from 64.12.117.134

SPOILERS

Gargoyle Fan> Macbeth stole the Stone in 1950 with a group of Scottish students. The event was real, Greg just added Macbeth to it. If you want to know more, check out the entry on the Stone of Destiny over at Wikipedia.

END SPOILERS
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 12:08:11 am EST from 75.56.245.4

*** Spoilers ***

1950. December 25th. Macbeth and others prepare to break into Westminster Abbey to steal the Stone of Destiny.

Anyone know who he's stealing the stone with in 1950? You think we'll find out in #8 or #9.

*** End Spoilers ***
Gargoyle Fan
posted @ Tue, Dec 18, 2007 12:01:16 am EST from 70.15.84.29

*presents a hand-made card to Gorebash*

Thanks for keeping this place running, man. I know it's impossible to please everybody - but I for one was thrilled when I returned after a ten-year hiatus and the place still felt the same. That meant a lot to me.

*signs the card and makes herself some coffee*
Arkansas Mezzo
"'Tis pity though in this sublime world that / Pleasure's a sin, and sometimes sin's a pleasure." -- Lord Byron, Don Juan, Canto I
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 9:25:00 pm EST from 206.255.79.132

SPOILERS

I noticed the scrolls too, but are they just a creative why to present the story in the comic, or do they actually exist in the Gargoyles Universe?
Ntripy
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 9:14:59 pm EST from 72.232.196.138

Todd: No problem. Like I said, it took me looking the book over very carefully three times until I noticed. That's one thing I love about this comic, you can find something new each time you read it.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 7:45:07 pm EST from 69.183.34.195

* SPOILERS *

PURPLEGOLDFISH - Thanks for pointing out the part about the pages with Shari's tales on them being shaped like scrolls. I hadn't noticed that, but I checked my copy of #7, and saw that it was true.

* SPOILERS END *
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 7:37:21 pm EST from 4.244.212.225

On to more important things-my review for #7

******************SPOILERS***********************

I really like the non-linear format. I think it's really creative. It's like a puzzle with missing pieces that makes me ache for more. The first time I read it, it appeared to be totally random-but the more I read it, the more I realized that it's not random at all-the panels all seem to be very deliberately placed the way they are for a reason. This leads me to think that those three enigmatic panels on page two,(Bomb unit, "Amp", and Fox's shoes), are tied together somehow.

I like the little snippets of Shari's stories to Thailog, and the muted sepia tones used to convey the stories. It took my third reading to realize that the story pages are shaped like scrolls. I just love those little glimpses we get of Shari and Thailog (and sometimes Brentwood). For some reason I find it humorous to see Thailog performing mundane tasks like bathing, being on the computer, and playing chess while Shari drones on to him. I wonder what their relationship is exactly-probably more of a power struggle than anything, but in a bizarre way, they are kind of a match for each other.

It's nice to see Macbeth working with the gargoyles and becoming the clan's ally. I trust him, but I'm mildly surprised that Goilath is so quick to send his clanmates out to help him-seeing as he wasn't always their friend. I guess all one needs to do to convince Goliath is to pull the "Xanatos card." And it turns out they're right-Xanatos is working behind their back.

Goliath's line is interesting-"healed but not whole" I was under the impression that gargoyles fully heal at sunrise. So I take it to mean that he's emotionally drained.

Personally, I don't feel sorry for Brooklyn. He had the chance to go to London and potentially meet unattached female gargoyles...but he passed on it. Angela didn't choose him, he needs to get over it. Though I am very curious as to Angela's and Broadway's intent-they were so happy at the prospect of going to Scotland-but then easily changed their minds. Angela's got some sort of plan brewing-to try to cheer Brooklyn up maybe?

The clans seem to have found another ally in Dr. Sato-that's very good-especially since he can be a very helpful ally in troubling times.

Hehe, I loved the panels of Macbeth waiting for Lex and Hudson to wake up-nice subtle humour there. And gargoyle jetlag, lol. I once lost a whole day thanks to jetlag. I'm kind of curious as to what Lex and Hudson did in that ten day interim.

I found that panel that shows Macbeth trying to take back the stone in 1950 hilarious. "Scotland Forever!" LOL. "You'de be surprised" indeed.

Telling panel placement here-the scheming Xanatos scene taking place directly after the panel in which Hudson asks "Who exactly are we expecting?"
The Coyote Diamond...Nothing ever wasted in Gargoyles. Xanatos, Cyote, and Coldsteel...not a good combination. Part of the Illuminati's plan? Or something else?

I love the Othello/Desdemona/Iago story page. The way they're turning to stone, and the iconic Hakon mace image. That must've been their last sunrise as flesh beings. And I love how the "Timeless love story" caption integrates into the Goliath and Elisa scene.

Speaking of the G/E scene, love it. The way it parallels the breakup scene in issue #3. Goliath and Elisa are careful not to mention the children issue, a discussion for another night. But the not-so-subtle placement of the panel where Maggie is revealed to be pregnant is brilliant. It's nice to see Goliath so happy-he's been having a tough week. And I love how passionate that kiss looked. Did Goliath initiate it?

I wasn't all that surprised at Maggie's pregnancy for some reason. Though if I were her, I would be terrified. What is their kid going to be? Mutate? Human? A mixture of both? I have kind of a bad feeling that things are going to be rough for them.

And the exciting cliffhanger-King Arthur and the London Gargoyles are up to something as well. Are they on the same side? Nice designs for the new London gargs, and as others have mentioned, it's nice to see a full figured female gargoyle.

The art: There's a few minor problems-like that closeup of Elisa's face-kind of reminds me of Ariel from the Little Mermaid-but Hedgecock's art has vastly improved, I think. Characters are much more on-model. I'm impressed. And kudos to Robby Bevard and his terrific coloring. The best coloring work on the book, in my opinion. He really payed attention to giving the correct lighting to the diffrent settings, and like I mentioned earlier, I love the effect of the scroll scenes.

Terrific start to an intrigueing new story arc, and I can't wait to see what happens next.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 7:19:58 pm EST from 69.183.34.195

* SPOILERS *

Yes, I'd forgotten (or failed to take into account) that Arthur and the London gargoyles wouldn't suspect Macbeth and the Manhattan clan of skullduggery for long. Thanks for pointing that out.

There've been many remarks here about the differences between the comic book and the Goliath Chronicles in terms of characterization (in the comic, Xanatos is still scheming, and Castaway is far more rational than his Goliath Chronicles counterpart). But another difference that I've noticed is that the comic book hasn't made the mistake that the Goliath Chronicles made in having everything revolve around the gargoyles being feared and hated by humanity. There's far more variety here: Goliath and Elisa breaking up and getting back together, Thailog wanting the Clones back and getting a new assistant who might be even more cunning than himself, Brentwood deciding he wants a piece of the action, Maggie pregnant, Dr. Sato meeting the gargoyles and Mutates, and everyone getting involved with the Stone of Destiny. We get much more variety - and I like it.

* SPOILERS END *
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 6:49:22 pm EST from 4.244.212.225

*SPOILERS**

Maggie's kids... it's possible she could have more than one.. maybe two or three.. that might be a combo of Maggie and Talon's features.. IMO..

*end spoilers*
Starlioness
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 6:30:45 pm EST from 206.188.56.70

Yeah, we have to keep remembering that everyone who acts like a moron is really a victim, don't we? I don't think anyone in here owes Tony an apology. If they made an inference, it was an inference they had every right to make because the boar-goyle is the first full-figured gargoyle we've seen in the Gargs universe. And Tony's comment seemed to imply that Brooklyn would have to be desperate to date her. Sorry, that's shallowness, pure and simple. None of the women here need to apologize for being offended by what he said. So don't wuss out, ladies. ( ;

And that's all I plan to say on the matter.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"We're in a situation where everyone involved knows the risks, and if you're gonna assume those ricks, you've gotta do certain things. It's business." -Tony Soprano
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 6:13:07 pm EST from 71.62.198.251

I don't really want to get involved in this argument. But seriously. Brooklyn bothered by facial features? Look at Brooklyn, he's not exactly normal looking himself. He's the least human looking member of his clan.
Ozzie Arcane - [ozziearcane at yahoo dot com]
"Hello Booby! This is a trap!" - Eggplant Wizard
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 5:46:20 pm EST from 69.14.122.91

TTT>"Translation: A lonely person is happy that a lonely gargoyle didn't travel to England to be disappointed"
"Sentence: He would have finally got to meet a female gargoyles and it would have turned out that she's a pig."

Implication/assumption: Brooklyn will be disappointed because he'll automatically find the female unappealing because of her looks.

"Sentence: But then we could have seen how desperate Brooklyn really is.
Translation: As a lonely person, I would not date a girl that was unattractive to me. Being a big guy, I've been with big girls, but none of them have looked like a pig with a short stubby nose. If I was a "desperate" lonely man, and Brooklyn was a "desperate" lonely gargoyle, maybe he would mate the unattractive gargoyle, but that's what I'm questioning, how desperate he really is to mate."

Implication: "I find 'pig goyles' and humans with piggish features unnatractive, so of COURSE Brooklyn (and every other male)would feel the same way"

hmmm... nope, nothing offensive or tactless there. >.>
Leo
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 5:29:38 pm EST from 68.107.157.17

Tony: You really don't get it, do you? Well thank you for the apology, even though it wasn't all that sincere, it's the most we'll probably get.

I don't feel like discussing it anymore, so moving on...
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 5:13:53 pm EST from 69.183.34.195

I think tony's sorry so lets just drop it.
SPOLIERS

Lets talk(or read) about something i'v been thinking about. What do You guys(and girls) think maggie's baby(kitten) is going to be? I think It will be a Girl b/c at the begining of the show all the characters were prety much guys and as it went along we started seeing more and more females, so it seems like Greg is trying to include more Girls.

SPOLIERS
Also i was wondering do female gargoyles ever get raped or beat by their mates?
bob
bob
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 5:11:33 pm EST from 66.202.98.41

Last Weeks comment in question:
"I'm glad Brooklyn didn't go to London. He would have finally got to meet a female gargoyles and it would have turned out that she's a pig. But then we could have seen how desperate Brooklyn really is."

Sentence: I'm glad Brooklyn didn't go to London.
Translation: A lonely person is happy that a lonely gargoyle didn't travel to England to be disappointed.

I see no harm in that sentence toward women.

Sentence: He would have finally got to meet a female gargoyles and it would have turned out that she's a pig.
Translation: The lonely gargoyle wants a mate. The Manhattan clan has 1 female gargoyle. That female is spoken for.
Did anyone see the new gargoyle in #7? It's a pig with wings. The female gargoyle looks like a pig. She's a pig. She is a pig. I don't know how else to say that the female Gargoyle is a pig, by saying, "Hey, she's a pig," just like I would say, "Hey, he's a stag." About the Stag gargoyle, or "Hey look, it's King Arthur, he's a king," about King Arthur. Or "Hey look, the movie Babe is on. The main character is a pig."

I see no harm in that sentence toward women.

Sentence: But then we could have seen how desperate Brooklyn really is.
Translation: As a lonely person, I would not date a girl that was unattractive to me. Being a big guy, I've been with big girls, but none of them have looked like a pig with a short stubby nose. If I was a "desperate" lonely man, and Brooklyn was a "desperate" lonely gargoyle, maybe he would mate the unattractive gargoyle, but that's what I'm questioning, how desperate he really is to mate.

I see no harm in that sentence toward women.

Unfortunately, it appears that some of the woman saw the words FEMALE and PIG and DESPERATE and thought I called girls pigs, and that only a desperate man would be with a girl that looked like a pig, but that is obviously not the case, hence why I didn't think there was an issue.

Obviously, as it's been stated, I can't make a good joke, so if you were offend by my dumb joke, then I am sorry. But I'm not going to be someone I'm not. So if a joke I make offends you, please contact me via my contact information on my website, which can be navigated to via the Pulse that I create.

I try to bring the same things to the CR that everyone else brings: humor, intelligence, and love for Gargoyles. Try to leave your insecurities at the door, because no one here, including me, means to pray on them.
Tony <The Gargoyles Pulse>
<The Gargoyles Pulse> - updated Mondays
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 4:57:10 pm EST from 159.240.11.254

Yeah, I don't hate Tony or want to make him leave. I agree with Purplegoldfish -- I don't want to see namecalling by anyone, but I was only pointing out why the post was offensive and why it isn't a good idea to talk like that.

People misinterpret each other, and people accidentally offend each other, all the time. Constantly. And it's unpleasant to make such a mistake, but all it takes is "I didn't mean it that way, sorry it sounded insulting." Your intent may be entirely benign, but that does not erase hurt.

And no Gorebash, we aren't going to not care. Hurt is hurt is hurt.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 4:48:46 pm EST from 63.225.151.133

Gorebash: I don't feel I owe Tony an apology for anything. I wasn't rude-just trying to get him to understand why his post was insulting. (And I agree we shouldn't resort to name-calling). Whatever Tony meant by the post doesn't matter. The wording was offensive to several people here. I don't think that Tony realized this and all we were doing was pointing it out so that he wouldn't make a similar mistake in the future and alienate himself.

And D.Taina is absolutely right-all he had to do was to make an apology the moment he realized that his post insulted people-it would have been over. But all his "apology" did was to further insult women and was deliberatly rude.

And here, I think we see the difference between men and women. Gorebash, understand that women are usually more emotional than men and take these things to heart more. And women tend to be very sensitive about weight and beauty. Try to see it from our point of view to see why a comment like that would insult us. Regardless of Tony's intent, the posts were insulting and though we can't force him to apologize, it would behoove him to do so, so that we may put this matter behind us.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 4:39:25 pm EST from 69.183.34.195

Oh geeez... is this what we are gonna talk about this week? Swell.

Look, Tony obviously doesn't understand that what he said bothered people. Other people can't understand why he isn't apologetic about that.

Heres the facts. What Tony said wasn't offensive, degrading or anything else, it was just stupid. It was a sort of failed dumb joke. The kind of joke a 9-year old would say. And that is the thing. The rest of you are trying to get an adult reaction out of a 9-year old. Tony isn't a "nasty fool", he is a child. I think he has got the point here. Continueing to complain about the whole situation won't help anything and it'll just annoy your fellow CR goers.

Tony, I don't mean to be insulting to you, I think most people grow up saying things and seeing how others react to those things. I certainly have hurt a lot of people with stupid jokes in my life. I know how tempting it is to say, "It was just a joke" because I believe you when you say that is all it was. But obviously the world is full of all sorts of people and to live in our society peacefully, you've gotta watch what you say. Some people might laugh, some people will shrug, and some people will get angry and hurt. Hopefully, you can learn from this fiasco. Leave the CR if you want, but don't think we are driving you out. You are still welcome here, you just need to be careful with what you say, and it would not hurt at this point to just say, "Look, it really was a joke. Sorry you got upset. I'll try to be more careful with my jokes in the future." Leave it at that. No attacks, no further excuses. Show some maturity in the situation and you'll be fine.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 4:39:14 pm EST from 24.207.163.239

Gorebash: I would be more than happy to offer sincere apologies for my words and consider the matter closed, should Tony choose to do the same.
The Sadistic Cow
Oh, that? Just the fine print -- those boring little details so it'll hold up. Ipso facto, quid pro quo, you know. Congratulations -- you did the right thing.
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 4:26:20 pm EST from 24.150.120.87

I think Tony deserves an apology as much as he should give one.

People are making assumptions about Tony's original post; assumptions about his intent which may very well be wrong (yes, myself included, on assuming he didn't mean it as a fat joke). And out of those possibly wrong assumptions demanding an apology. It's all a bit presumptuous.
Gorebash
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 4:09:40 pm EST from 207.206.239.1

Tony, I wasn't flaming you. I was merely pointing out that your post was offensive to women. It doesn't matter if you meant it as a joke; the point is that you didn't make that clear and people were offended. All you had to do was explain yourself, apologize for the misunderstanding, and move on. That would've been the end of it. But no, you had to make a sarcastic apology, mock the women who were offended, insult the fandom, threaten to leave, and then further insult the women. You're only making things worse.

You don't have to leave; all we ask for is a sincere apology and then we can put this behind us. Really, we've all made mistakes. It's how we deal with them that matters. Personally, I have great respect for people who can admit they were wrong and are willing to learn from their mistakes. So, what are you going to do?
D. Taina - [dtaina (at) aol (dot) com]
"The story is told -- though who can say if it be true..." - Shari
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 4:02:48 pm EST from 172.132.41.239

Tony:

We don't hate you, and I know that you don't intentinally try to insult anyone-but you seem to have a problem with the proverbial internet version of foot in mouth.

It may have been a joke, but the message behind it was cruel. You didn't mention "snout and tusks" in your original post. In the real world, the word "pig" often refers to overweight women or women who aren't considered pretty by society standards. We're not taking issue with you because you don't find the boar gargoyle attractive, we're taking issue that the message behind your "joke" insinuates that males have to be desperate to be with females who aren't beautiful by society standards. Imagine if the gargoyles were humans with wings or something, and you made a comment like that-still don't think it's insulting?

And women with self esteem issues are usually NOT shallow- those are complete opposites.

I don't want you to leave the comment room-many times your contributions help the conversations along, but try to think more about what you type. And there's no need to be so dramatic-you're not the only one that people have called on for insulting posts.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 3:53:40 pm EST from 69.183.34.195

Gorebash: There are a plethora of words I could have chosen to address Tony with. "Nasty fool" is the least offensive of them, which is why I chose it.

Tony has made himself terribly clear, both in his initial post and in recent ones. If he had shown an ounce of honest humility and apologized to the offended indivduals (without crying discrimination and insinuating that everyone here "sucks", making assumptions as to people's self esteem, as well as further offending people) when they had made *themselves* clear instead of ignoring them, I would have accepted that.

While I fully agree with you on most of your points, I have to disagree with your question as to "who cares?". Several of the women in the CR obviously care. It isn't just me. We recieved no apology from Tony and were ignored; what apology we DID recieve was full of belligerence and attitude. It was the sort of apology that isn't an apology, and therefore unacceptable.

If demanding an apology for an offensive statement after being repeatedly ignored is a flame, then I guess I'm a flamer. *sigh*
The Sadistic Cow
Oh, that? Just the fine print -- those boring little details so it'll hold up. Ipso facto, quid pro quo, you know. Congratulations -- you did the right thing.
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 3:44:07 pm EST from 24.150.120.87

Vaevictis Asmadi> Calm down. A few people misunderstood the intent in his comment and started going after him. That put him on the defensive. If anything he was flamed first. And your comments do nothing but to help fan the flames. So calm down.
Gorebash
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 3:33:59 pm EST from 207.206.239.1

There's nothing wrong with pointing out there was a misunderstanding and trying to clarify what you meant. But instead you deliberately flame people.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 3:23:00 pm EST from 63.225.151.133

Gorebash> Oh, okay. I didn't know about all that. I do like it in here, weekly wipe and all. I wouldn't mind having a forum too, but my opinion isn't that strong for it. Either way, I wouldn't really support abolishing the CR though. The way we bounce around is kind of fun. Sure, I get disappointed if something I'm enjoying discussing gets derailed, but it happens.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 3:18:00 pm EST from 199.38.51.134

Tony: I WAS going to say that all you had to do was apologize to those you offended, but now I won't. You obviously have NO concept of what is funny and what isn't, nor do you display any shred of honest humility when you are called on for being a jerk.

You would do well not to assume anything about ANY of the women attending this CR. And if I were you, I would make a Herculean effort to refrain from attempting comedic commentary due to your continued, COLOSSAL failure at it.

You are not winning friends or influencing people.
The Sadistic Cow
Oh, that? Just the fine print -- those boring little details so it'll hold up. Ipso facto, quid pro quo, you know. Congratulations -- you did the right thing.
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 3:08:23 pm EST from 24.150.120.87

RE: Forum system

This idea has been brought up about... oh... four hundred and seventy-two times in the last ten years. The first three hundred or so were instigated by myself. In fact, for a while, I did have a forum system (phpBB) on s8. The reaction was nearly universal: forget the forum, stick to the old CR.

For everyone 1 that's for it, I get about 20 who are against it. What it ultimately will come down to is me creating an entirely new system that's a hybrid of the two; think Slashdot's comment system. Threaded, but all contained in a single page. But in doing that I would have to move to a database-driven system in which case the weekly wiping of the CR would go away as well. Instead there'd just be, say, the last 50 or so active threads with the rest stuck in some archive.

And believe it or not, I've heard from many who actually don't like the idea just because they like the whole weekend wiping of the CR. It's amazing stuff doing web development. Things that you create out of necessity as a hack turn into some of the more loved "features". While the stuff you really worked a lot on become background noise.

So it is.
Gorebash
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 3:02:23 pm EST from 207.206.239.1

"APOLOGIZE, YOU NASTY FOOL."

I'd say name calling does little to help things. Furthermore I think the medium of text, at least in a comment room, does not always convey the true meaning or intention of the speaker (err, writer). I think because of that a little patience is in order, rather than just lashing out. Fact of the matter is this new gargoyle is a pig. A sow. Pork. Bacon. Christmas dinner.

First potentially available gargoyle Brooklyn meets and she's a pig.

What did I mean by pig? Did I mean fat? Did I mean she rolls around in her own filth? Did I mean his kids would turn out to be big-beaked piglets? That he'd have to give up eating bacon? Is it said in seriousness? Is it said in fun? Both? Maybe it's said with the same ironic affection I use when I call a friend of mine a geek or a nerd. Maybe it means I think she's ugly. If so is that because she's fat or because she has tusks or because she has a snout or because she reminds me of a muppet character that gave me nightmares?

Look, there's a ton of different ways to take what Tony said. A few took it in the manner they found most offensive. Others didn't. What was the real meaning? Honestly, who cares? Even if Tony's comment was meant to be as offensive and derogatory as you could possibly imagine, who cares? Do Tony's opinions affect your life in any way?

So calm down. Recognize the meanings you read into text on this comment room do not always match up with the meaning of the person making the post. That's the nature of internet forums.
Gorebash
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 2:56:34 pm EST from 207.206.239.1

So... not only do you feel absolutely no remorse for hurting people's feelings, but if they express that they feel hurt and ask for an apology, you flame them.

Wow.
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 2:56:01 pm EST from 63.225.151.133

Hmm. A forum doesn't sound like a bad idea, with sections for biological, sociological, speculative, etc threads. I haven't been in the chat room yet... does it allow private messages, or is it sort of like a faster version of the CR?
Kerry (Kth) Boyd - [Kth_dragon at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 2:52:20 pm EST from 199.38.51.134

I agree. Fat jokes are not funny because I'm fat.

It was a face characteristic joke. The Boar gargoyle has a pig face. I personally am not attracted to girls with pig faces.

I'm officially sorry to all the women in the CR room who maybe be married or dating a man with a pig for a face and who may or may not have hooves.

I am not apologizing to the shallow women who projected my joke onto themselves because they have low self esteem.
Tony <The Gargoyles Pulse>
<The Gargoyles Pulse> - updated Mondays
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 2:49:21 pm EST from 159.240.11.254

Fat Joke = not funny
Vaevictis Asmadi
"We're not the last. We're not alone." - Hudson
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 2:28:24 pm EST from 63.225.151.133

D. Taina> I didn't know it was an issue and didn't mean to offend anyone. Hello, it was a joke. Someone made a joke about Brooklyn and her hunting for truffles, but nobody seems to be bothering that person. Oh, I forgot about the lack of a sense of humor in this room and how much of a target I am because my ideas don't coincide with the "one mind" of the CR.

As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I was just making a funny observation that it would be another kick in the balls for "desperate" Brooklyn to go to London, meet a single female gargoyle and not be attracted to her because of her physical appearance. And I, for one, am not attracted to women with hooves or snouts.

Like someone said last week, this may be a moot point / joke because the Stag gargoyle could be dating the Boar gargoyle.

Seriously, I'm tired of this. I come here to talk about Gargoyles and make a few jokes all in good fun. I don't come here with a malicious intent, and I don't mean to intentionally upset anyone who shares the same love of Gargoyles as I do.

If I didn't have to come here, I wouldn't because this whole Comment Room idea is flawed. We should have a real chat room, with different threads so we can comment on one specific topic in the thread. Instead we get a room with 4 or 5 different topics at once, and it gets a little hard to keep straight. And also with a real chat room, D.Taina or others could private message me and tell me they were offended by a certain comment. Also, I would not have missed other people's comments about my comment for I didn't see them all.

Well, I guess I'm not welcome here. This will be my last post in the CR. The homosexuals hate me, the women hate me, and everyone else who doesn't hate me isn't going to back me up anymore because even they don't understand when I'm joking or being serious, which is obviously very hard to convey over the internet anyway.

I'll still update my Gargoyles page for those who look at it, but from now I'll post my questions, reviews and thoughts to G.W. and be done with it when the queue is open. Goodbye.

If I had no sense of humour, I would long ago have committed suicide.
~Mahatma Gandhi
Tony <The Gargoyles Pulse>
<The Gargoyles Pulse> - updated Mondays
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 2:05:16 pm EST from 159.240.11.254

I am in agreement with Demona Taina, and I think an apology on Tony's part is in order.

APOLOGIZE, YOU NASTY FOOL.
The Sadistic Cow
Oh, that? Just the fine print -- those boring little details so it'll hold up. Ipso facto, quid pro quo, you know. Congratulations -- you did the right thing.
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 1:49:05 pm EST from 24.150.120.87

Phil> You can tell who Xanatos is speaking to by the text bubbles. There's a slightly different pattern between the two robots.
Greg Bishansky
"Hey, it's that kid who reminds me of my lost youth and innocense. If I kill him I bet I can symbolically kill my own fear and vulnerability. Man, that's deep. Oh, no! It backfired! Now I'm more emo than ever, CRAP!"
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 1:30:22 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

*** SPOILERS ***
What does Coldsteel get from helping Xanatos? It's a little confusing in the comic, because it's not clear which robot Xanatos is talking to, but I think Coldsteel gets his tracking device deactivated. At first I wondered if Xanatos was talking to Coyote, but it doesn't seem likely that Coyote is autonomous enough yet. It'll still have to be rebuilt at least two more times, presumably by Scarab.
As far as I can tell, Coyote only has one line in the comic. Does anyone have a different take on that scene? I'm open to other thoughts.
Phil - [p1anderson at go dot com]
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 1:16:06 pm EST from 69.131.42.43

SPOILERS

Michael> "One might wonder what Coldsteel gets in return."
-Xanatos offered to deactivate Coldsteel's tracking device permenantly. Xanatos also told Coldsteel he wouldn't summon him anymore. So basically, what Coldsteel gets in return is freedom from Xanatos.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 1:03:12 pm EST from 24.207.163.239

SPOILERS (ZOMG!)

<<I'm still curious wtf Fox's shoes have to do with anything.>>

Coincidentally enough, they are the same kind of shoes that the women of "Sex in the City" were always lusting over. I hope the real world designer appreciates all the free publicity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manolo_Blahnik

END SPOILERS (O RLY? YA RLY)
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2008]
"Ho, ho, ho, surprise, surprise! The bearded weirdo's just arrived." - Elton John, "Who'd Be a Turkey at Christmas?"
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 12:57:56 pm EST from 24.106.128.24

Oh, Tony, you offended a lot of women last week with your comment about Brooklyn being desperate enough to go after a "pig." It annoys me when people think that women have to be skinny or else there's something wrong with them. Do you know how many women have been hurt by this pre-conceived notion? I think you owe a lot of us an apology. Ignoring the problem as you have done just isn't working, you know.
D. Taina - [dtaina (at) aol (dot) com]
"The story is told -- though who can say if it be true..." - Shari
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 12:42:59 pm EST from 172.132.41.239

One of the reasons Xanatos worked with Coldsteel was because he had no desire to come with direct conflict with Goliath's clan if they decided to become involved with the Stone of Destiny.

One might wonder what Coldsteel gets in return. (Xanatos would not allow Coldsteel to pay Goliath a visit during the daytime.)
Michael Ejercito - [mejercit at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 12:40:31 pm EST from 75.142.107.43

POSSIBLE SPOILERS***********

I agree that Arthur's involvement is most likely independent, and possibly an unknown variable. I'm not sure how many people outside the Manhattan and London clans know that he's awake and traveling the world, or at least active in it. Neither Xanatos or the Illuminati may have really planned for that; a third party may be involved yes, but not this particular third party.

I think there's definitely going to be some comparing of notes between Macbeth's group and Arthur's group. I think their goals are probably similar, protecting the Stone until it is safely moved and installed. So it's more likely they're going to work together than the London clan ever would work for Xanatos. But, we'll see how it goes.

***************END SPOILERS***********
Asatira
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 10:36:09 am EST from 97.82.58.208

Xanatos and the Clan> He may not be their best friend or anything, but I do think he was somewhat honest about being thankful Goliath saved the world and his son. And I do believe him somewhat when he said to Elisa that "the feud is over, Detective..." Will he stop scheming? Of course not. Will he do everything exactly how Goliath would want it? Nope. I'm sure there are things that'll piss Goliath and Clan off, like being an ally of Coldsteel, but Xanatos has also allowed them to live in the Castle again. He has protected them there so far and even initiated plans to work towards their acceptance by the general public. So I think he means well with them to an extent. Or maybe he was completely pulled the wool over my eyes as well.

SPOILERS MAYBE
Xanatos and the Stone of Destiny> Even if Xanatos knew about Arthur and the London Clan and even if they agreed to help him defeat Macbeth, Lex and Hudson, wouldn't the whole situation be cleared up in five minutes of their encountering each other. Arthur and Griff are certainly friendly with the Manhattan Clan. It's not like they'd attack each other on sight or anything. I'm sure they'd compare notes and figure out a plan together. I think Coldsteel and Coyote are plan A... or maybe Plan B... and there might be a Plan C. We don't know what Xanatos is up to, but I think he is smart enough to not try to count on two strong groups of allies (London and Manhattan Clans) "clashing with each other" and being too busy to bother with his schemes...
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!" -Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 10:09:06 am EST from 24.207.163.239

Spoilers

I'm going out on a limb and saying that Xanatos has nothing to do with Arthur. Xanatos is upgrading Coyote and enlisting ColdSteel to do his dirty work. Arthur and Macbeth are probably going to find themselves on the same side in the end.

End Spoilers
Tony <The Gargoyles Pulse>
<The Gargoyles Pulse> - up to date as of 12/10/07
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 9:49:38 am EST from 159.240.11.254

*SPOILERS*

I thought Coyote and Coldsteel were Xanatos' contingency plan for the Gargoyles showing up in England. Arthur being there is probably completely separate of everything we've seen so far. A third party to the event. I imagine the London clan will make happy with the Manhattan clan after a brief bit of "Who are you?" "NO! Who are YOU?!". King Arthur and MacBeth will probably resolve their situation as well and all will team up to take on Coyote, Coldsteel, and Xanatos (or whatever minions he sends to steal the stone).

I'm still curious wtf Fox's shoes have to do with anything.

*END*
Gorebash
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 8:42:44 am EST from 207.206.239.1

* SPOILER*

I wonder if Xanatos had anything to do with King Arthur and the London gargoyles confronting Macbeth, Hudson, and Lexington at the end of #7 - if they were part of the contingency plan that he mentioned to Owen. He might have duped them into believing that Macbeth was after the Stone (just as he'd been after Excalibur earlier, when he last crossed paths with Arthur), so that the two groups would be too busy clashing with each other to interfere with his plans. It's certainly the kind of thing he'd do - except (as Greg Bishansky pointed out to me when I shared the idea with him a couple of days ago) that raises the question of how Xanatos found out about Arthur being abroad in the outside world again, or about the London clan.

* SPOILERS END *
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 7:04:52 am EST from 4.244.213.84

Go to disney.com, type "piracy" in the search box, and in two seconds you'll find this:

http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/antipiracy.htm

Why are people assuming Brooklyn still has any interest at all in Maggie?

193 days left until The Gathering 2008 in Chicago, Illinois!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2008]
"I want love, but it's impossible." - Elton John, "I Want Love"
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 6:56:03 am EST from 76.241.137.12

(10)Tenth! And away we go on with the show.

I wonder how many people know that Thailog is a member of the Illuminati now?
Vinnie - [tpeano29 at hotmail dot com]
It's silly. It's a silly movie. There just isn't much there. Once you take it all apart, there's not much story, is there?- George Lucas on Spider-Man 3
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 4:36:10 am EST from 69.54.209.32

Remember a couple of weeks ago, when I mentioned emailing boxsweeper.com about the links to full episodes of Gargoyles? Apparantly, www.boxsweeper.com hasn't taken them down. Who would I contact at Disney to alert Disney?
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 2:31:14 am EST from 98.20.179.147

Just covering a comment from last week.

I don't think anyone should be considering Xanatos a "friend" of the Gargoyles. Likewise shouldn't worry that he's reforming too quickly. Xanatos is acting like the same old Xanatos he's always been. I don't think he ever saw (or ever will see) the gargoyles as friend or foe. Simply, they are a tool that could give him a lot of power. If letting them live back at the castle keeps them happy and might earn Xanatos a little bit of trust in their eyes, all the more better. Down the road Xanatos is sure to turn in this earned trust for a favor or two. Sort of like he tried to do in Awakenings, except instead of trying to become their "friend" so quickly, he's being a bit more patient. Likewise I think he'd feel the same about Demona, Thailog, Sevarius, etc.

Although Thailog maybe not. Maybe he'd see Thailog not as a tool but as a rival now that he's part of the Illuminati and has already earned himself quite a bit of money. But he'd still find ways to manipulate the rivalry to his advantage.

That's Xanatos.
Gorebash
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 2:23:00 am EST from 70.22.232.91

Eighth.
Spen
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 2:11:08 am EST from 66.43.205.110

6th or 7th or something by the time I finished writing this post.

Another comic store in town mistakenly received the shipment from Diamond that was meant for the shop that I frequent. They knew it wasn't theirs and my comic shop guy found out they were selling the product anyway. Diamond called them about it and they lied. It was only through a customer who shops at both stores and a bunch of calls to Diamond that the owner at mine found out about the mix-up.

So, Gargoyles #7 is out of reach for the time being (hopefully Diamond replaces my store's misplaced order), along with a couple other comics I was interested in reading, the Regulator TPB and a Wolfmen graphic novel (half-decent werewolf stories are hard to come by, but there seem to be a heck of a lot of comics about them this year, so I'm trying 'em out).

I've skimmed some of the #7 spoilers (normally I'm spoiler-phobic, but Bad Guys #1 had me rabid for more Gargoyles tales in a way I haven't been since the long wait after the Season 2 Part 1 DVDs began), it sounds interesting.

I could go and see if the issue's still there at the thieving store for sale, but why give 'em any money ? Loyalty counts for something when it comes to these sometimes-struggling comic shops, so I'll just stick with my usual.

Someone who responded to my post about Bad Guys #1 last week brought up an obvious point about Dingo's fear of symbiosis--I forgot about him being somewhat technophobic (or at least, cybernetic ENHANCEMENT-phobic) due to what The Pack did to themselves. A pretty important trait of the character's, but somehow the significance of that slipped my mind during the "no more inserting" scene.
Kris - [plekopleko at hotmail dot com]
Did anyone else buy/rent the direct-to-DVD Futurama movie, "Bender's Big Score" ? Anyone else here a big Futurama fan ?
posted @ Mon, Dec 17, 2007 1:20:23 am EST from 24.137.192.172

Comment Room Archive

Comments for the week ending December 24, 2007

Index : Hide Images